From tariqas-digest-approval@europe.std.com Wed Sep 18 14:18:22 1996 Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 03:03:04 -0400 (EDT) From: tariqas-digest-approval@europe.std.com Reply-To: tariqas-digest@world.std.com To: tariqas-digest@world.std.com Subject: tariqas-digest V1 #123 tariqas-digest Wednesday, 4 September 1996 Volume 01 : Number 123 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fred Rice Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 09:23:55 +1000 (EST) Subject: More on the Paraclete Assalamu alaikum, Already a lot has been said on the "Paraclete," so I will just point out one passage which seems problematic to me if it is to be interpreted as the "Holy Spirit".... the passage is this: And I will pray the Father, and will give you another Counselor [Paraclete], to be with you for ever.... [John 14:16, Revised Standard Version] What I find interesting is the term "_another_ [Paraclete]".... if it is _another_ Paraclete, then there was a Paraclete before. If this is a reference to the Holy Spirit (like John 14:26 says), then how many "Holy Spirits" are there? Saying the Father will send "another Holy Spirit" doesn't seem to me it would make sense in normal Christian theology, since to my understanding in standard Christian theology there is only one unique Holy Spirit..... I also checkd the translation of John in the book "The Complete Gospels," translated by the "Jesus Seminar". Anyhow, as a footnote to John 14:16, they write "yet another advocate": That is, beside Jesus himself. This interpretation seems to me to possibly make sense - Jesus (peace be with him) would say "another paraclete," meaning that he himself was also a "comforter/advocate", i.e. he himself is a "Paraclete," and there would be another one. Anyhow, this could lead to the interpretation favoured by many Muslims that the "Paraclete" mentioned in the Gospel of John is a (probably corrupted) prediction of Muhammad, peace be with him. There's lots more to be said, but that's enough for now.... Comments welcomed. :) Wassalam, Fariduddien P.S. Here are some web sites where you can get some of the Muslim arguments regarding the Paraclete, and also a Christian response. (Addresses were cut and pasted from my bookmarks list.) Muslim arguments: <"http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/isl/paraclete.txt"> BIBLICAL PROPHECIES for the coming of prophet Muhammad <"http://www.ais.org/~maftab/mhdinbible">http://www.ais.org/~maftab/mhdinbible <"http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~islam/bible.html"> Mankind's corruption of the Bible (LONG document - search for "paraclete" with the Search facility on your web browser to get to the right part.) A Christian response to some of these arguments: <"http://www.math.gatech.edu/~jkatz/Islam/Campbell/s6c1.html"> MUHAMMAD'S PROPHETHOOD (a response by Jochen Katz) ------------------------------ From: Gale Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 16:35:59 -0700 Subject: Barnabas Thanks for everyone's posts, and thanks Zainuddin for introducing some = of the Muslim interpretations of paraclete, etc. When i was in Divinity School at the University of Chicago, i had early = Christian history funnelled through my cranium ad naseum. So i = certainly feel like some of the others here that i am relying on old = memory banks, full of cobwebs from dormancy, in order to recall sources = i encountered over the past 20+ years. I think my problem with accepting the Gospel of Barnabas as an original = text is purely academic, and based on the absence of references to it in = early Christian literature. Scholars in almost every religion and = tradition, including Muslim historians, look for the earliest dated = literature to find references to other literature in order to ascertain = the dating of a text. Obviously, the closer one can date a text ot the = original events it is trying to retell, the more credence one gives to = it. This is certainly true for the Gospel of Thomas, for example, which = isn't accepted in the Christian Bible, but Christian scholars = nevertheless are studying it with great enthusiasm and suggesting that = it probably does record Jesus's actual words. Another example is that = it was long thought that there was another Gospel of Mark (or maybe = Peter) due to some small early written fragments that couldn't be = identified. Later Morton Smith, at Union Theological and Columbia, = discovered in a monastery in the Sinai desert a letter written by = Clement of Alexandria to a young Christian who is asking him about = another Gospel of Mark that he saw, more mystical, and which describes a = kind of initiatic instruction Jesus gives to Lazarus after raising him = from death. Clement, who had met some of Jesus's disciples since he = mentions this in his writings, mentions in the letter that the Gospel of = Mark in circulation (and the one in the Bible) was for the masses, and = there is another Gospel of Mark for those more spiritually mature. = Clement goes on to quote some passages from this secret Gospel of Mark. = The point is that because Clement writes this, if this gospel is = actually ever found, we will be able to authenticate it. But i can't = recall ever seeing a reference to the Gospel of Barnabas in early = literature by Christian mystics and historians, and especially not in = the long, boring histories by Christian heresiologists (those writing = about heresies). This for me is important, because these guys loved to = criticize everything they could get their hands on which hinted in the = slightest way a teaching they didn't believe. So even though = heresiological writings are extremely biased, they nevertheless are very = important historical references to at least know names of gnostics, = different sects, the names of the texts they used, etc. But again, i've = never seen a reference to Barnabas's gospel in these. It is even absent = in Harvard's Helmut Koester's multi-volume History and Literature of = Early Christianity which is a very good objective book. It is also = important to remember that for the first couple hundred years after = Jesus, Christianity was not really organized and there wasn't an = established Bible yet. All these gospels and letters floated around, = some being more widely read and influential in some parts of the = Meditteranean world than others. Also, Bible scholars today are very different than those in the early = part of this century and before. In my department was also Fazlur = Rahman who i studied Islam with, and who worked with the Christian = theologians and historians as well. At least as i was trained, every = text is open season for study. So if i remember, it was a book by the Swedish scholar Soderberg called = Strange Tales of Jesus which describes his research into the Gospel of = Barnabas among other texts. And he noted that some of the language in = the gospel could only have been used after the year 900 or thereabouts = because it refers to Church doctrinal issues which hadn't existed before = that time. Of course, most priests and monks in the middle ages had no = sense of history as we do today. For them, the church they lived during = the middle ages was believed to be the same as the Church that Jesus's = disciples founded. Also, there is the problem that all Barnabas = translations which are out there are based on a Latin version/original. = So right there we find a very fundamental problem with giving much = legitimacy to the text. Unlike civil law, in modern literary criticism, = religious literature is guilty of inaccuracy until proven innocent. I have to giggle a bit at stories about texts being discovered in secret = Vatican libraries. There have been many such stories about other books = as well, the claims of the Essene Gospel of Peace and the Gospel of the = Essenes being a great example which turned out completely bogus once = someone traced E. Szekely's footsteps who produced these books. But = that is another story, and yet these books were widely read in the West = in the late 60s and 70s, and i know many people, including myself, who = read them and were ignorantly convinced by them. A company making Essene = Bread even started that used Jesus's bread recipe in Szekely's gospel!! = Looking back, it is quite comic now. I still plan to post on the notion of Hebrew paraqlit (of course this is = a Greek loan word brought into Hebrew) and traditions and teachings of = the Angel of Great Counsel which were shared both by Jewish mystical = groups and some of the early Church fathers, especially Origen. Blessings, Nur ------------------------------ From: Simon Bryquer Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 20:05:39 -0700 Subject: Re: Paraclete #1 (short side bar) Greeting to one and all -- Not only do I agree with Jinavamsa, but the post also reveals either ignorance or naivete in regards to the Old Testament but also not knowing that the OT is not exactly a dutiful translation of the Torah (the Quran also suffers from this) and all the surrounding works such as the Tenach and the Talmud(which is akin in function and more to the Hadiths)not to mention the Kabbalah which contribute to the understanding of what is Faith and Belief and worship and God in Judaism. If the Christians, and I think this is rather a blanket statement, see Moses and the other Hebrew prophets as minor it is their loss -- Coptics certainly don't nor does the vast array of Arcane Christians. I would suggest Michael before making those kind of statements in a public forum one would inform oneself -- at least a little, otherwise one can come very close to not only lose credibility but also make a fool of oneself. Salaams Simon Bryquer Jinavamsa@aol.com wrote: > > to all, > in peace and love of al-Haqq (Allah, Reality, as Truth), > I think we have the potential for distortion whenever we learn about one > tradition through the eyes of another tradition which is trying to prove > itself superior to that first tradition. > The excerpts below might be taken as a reflection of this sort of teaching. > iOPO. > Jinavamsa > > In a message dated 96-09-03 17:47:14 EDT, you write: > > > > >Basicaly Abraham and Moses are minor characters. They are from > >the Old Testament part of the Bible (the old Jewish tradition > >and laws). Jesus brought a new covenant which means that he > >superseded the existing Jewish laws. He does not contradict > >the Jewish laws and indeed he says to follow them; these > >laws being the Ten Commandments. For example snip snip snip > ------------------------------ From: yemimt@singnet.com.sg (Crescent Clinic & Surgery) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 10:46:22 +0800 (SST) Subject: Re: Atonement for sins Assalamu Alaikum >Michael J Moore wrote: >So, they would say in my chatechism classes 'Jesus died >for your sins.' Now as a child, I could never understand >this. It was as though a Judge, holding a man found >guilty of murder desided to accept another man as >a substitute to be executed! Rubbish! I thought. >Only receintly I learned a little about tribal blood >laws and how it was common place to retaliate >against any member of the offending tribe. You didn't >need to get the guy that did it, any member from that >tribe would do. This was the mentality of the people >in that place at that time, and so the sacrifice of >Jesus as a substitue for all of mankind made perfect > sense to them. My question is does it make perfect sense to us now, at this day and age? Are you saying that God sacrificed "His only begotten son" because He is subject to the tribal laws at that time or was it merely to humour the tribal laws? Surely God is able to forgive without having to vent his anger on someone else, or to require a sacrifice. When someone wrongs me and I want to forgive him, I am able to do so without having to give my own innocent son a few slaps each time. And the quality of mercy that I have is infinitely smaller than that of my God. M Tahir > ------------------------------ From: Asim Jalis Date: Tue, 3 Sep 96 22:24:14 CDT Subject: Re: Atonement for sins Michael (J Moore) --> So, they would say in my chatechism classes 'Jesus died for your sins.' Now as a child, I could never understand this. It was as though a Judge, holding a man found guilty of murder desided to accept another man as a substitute to be executed! Rubbish! I thought. Only receintly I learned a little about tribal blood laws and how it was common place to retaliate against any member of the offending tribe. You didn't need to get the guy that did it, any member from that tribe would do. This was the mentality of the people in that place at that time, and so the sacrifice of Jesus as a substitue for all of mankind made perfect sense to them. (M) Tahir --> My question is does it make perfect sense to us now, at this day and age? Are you saying that God sacrificed "His only begotten son" because He is subject to the tribal laws at that time or was it merely to humour the tribal laws? Surely God is able to forgive without having to vent his anger on someone else, or to require a sacrifice. When someone wrongs me and I want to forgive him, I am able to do so without having to give my own innocent son a few slaps each time. And the quality of mercy that I have is infinitely smaller than that of my God. Me --> I think there are some advantage to religion not making sense and seeming irrational. It makes one uncomfortable and makes one think. On the other hand if one's faith makes perfect sense and appears from all respects "logical" and "rational" then there is a risk of becoming complascent and inflexible. ------------------------------ From: BRYAN CONN Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 23:34:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Allah, Rahman, Rahim,Malik Assalaamu Alaikum! On Tue, 3 Sep 1996, Jabriel Hanafi wrote: > If it serves as someone brings up the next name > I will send both the poetry and prose for that name which I will be using in > my new book. Love. Jabriel > Jabriel! This is a wonderful Idea! I'm so glad that we have this opportunity to investigate and discover the truth of the Beautiful Names of Allah. Thank you for your willingness to share your writings, I know it means a lot, to you and to others. Jazak Allah! I will try and send a little excerpt about Al-Qudduus tonight, and As-Salaam in a day or two, insh'allah. I look forward to reading more of your writings and poetry! Salaam, Bryan "Qul huwallahu 'ahad" Say: He is Allah, The One! Surah Iklhas, Purity, 112:1 ------------------------------ From: BRYAN CONN Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 23:51:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: The Most Beautiful Names (5) Al-Qudduus Assalaamu Alaikum Each and All The following is an excerpt from "The Most Beautfiul Names" compiled by Sheikh Tosun Bayrak, Threshold Books - Amana Books _______________________________________________________________________ Bismillah ir-Rahmaan ir-Raheem In the Name of Allah, the Beneficient, the Merciful _______________________________________________________________________ _ Al-Quddus He is the most pure one, devoid of all blemish, shortcoming, weakness, heedlessness and error. _ _ _ Al-Quddus is the equivalent of the attribute mukhalafatun lil-hawadith - He is the Creator "Bearing no resemblance to the created." This is one of the five qualities that indicate the non-resemblance of Allah to anything. _ Al-Quddus is the unique purity that is Allah's, whereby His essence, His attributes, His names, His words, His actions, His justice, are devoid of all blemish. He bears no resemblance, in any of His attributes or actions, to even the most perfect of His creatures. ________________________________________________________________________ Salaam, Bryan "Qul huwallahu 'ahad" Say: He is Allah, The One! Surah Iklhas, Purity, 112:1 ------------------------------ From: pathway@dnet.net (John Womack) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 00:14:17 -0500 Subject: Re: Salat in world religions >Assalamualaikum, > > >The five daily prayer (salat) is obligatory in Islam after >Isra and Miraj of the Prophet. At first Jerusalem was the >prayer direction until God's revealation to change the direction >to Kaaba. This turning point in direction is very significant. >Before Muhammad, the religion of Allah is scattered all over >the world -- each tribe has its prophet/s with its own rituals. >If I can make an analogy a river or rivers, this turning point >is like all the rivers merging and finally flow to its >destiny -- the Ocean. > >salam An old navigator has a question of curiosity (the worst kind of question probably!), but it concerns how one might find the direction of Kaaba if one is thousands of miles away. Is just a general alignment acceptable? If one is thousands of miles away (such as in the United States) would one use rhumb line or great circle directions? If one is, say, 12,000 miles away from Kaaba, why not face west instead of east, or even north for that matter. As I say, this is just a matter of curiosity, but it does seem that each of the questions might have several "correct" answers; typical of many religious questions. John. ------------------------------ From: Michael Moore Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 21:23:41 -0700 Subject: Re: Atonement for sins Crescent Clinic & Surgery wrote: > > Assalamu Alaikum > > >Michael J Moore wrote: > >So, they would say in my chatechism classes 'Jesus died > >for your sins.' Now as a child, I could never understand > >this. It was as though a Judge, holding a man found > >guilty of murder desided to accept another man as > >a substitute to be executed! Rubbish! I thought. > >Only receintly I learned a little about tribal blood > >laws and how it was common place to retaliate > >against any member of the offending tribe. You didn't > >need to get the guy that did it, any member from that > >tribe would do. This was the mentality of the people > >in that place at that time, and so the sacrifice of > >Jesus as a substitue for all of mankind made perfect > > sense to them. > > My question is does it make perfect sense to us now, at this day and age? > Are you saying that God sacrificed "His only begotten son" because He is > subject to the tribal laws at that time or was it merely to humour the > tribal laws? > > Surely God is able to forgive without having to vent his anger on someone > else, or to require a sacrifice. > > When someone wrongs me and I want to forgive him, I am able to do so without > having to give my own innocent son a few slaps each time. And the quality of > mercy that I have is infinitely smaller than that of my God. > > M Tahir > > Well, given that any of my explanation is true ( and I am NOT saying that it is ) I can understand why 1st century people would accept the idea of a substitute sacrifice. But for me, today, the idea that God requires this type of sacrifice would make God seem like a spoiled child. But I am also open to the idea that there is spiritual energy behind the sacrifice that I am not aware of. Just as the law of karma has a non-personal metaphysical element, so might there be a non-personal metaphysical element behind the external form that we call sacrifice. The only thing I know for sure is that there is a heck of a lot that I don't know. So by arguing against the Christian cosmology of sacrifice, I can only argue against what I think it is. I must understand that either sacrifice is rubbish or my ideas about sacrifice are rubbish (or maybe both). Saalams - -Michael- ------------------------------ From: Michael Moore Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 21:03:25 -0700 Subject: Re: Paraclete #1 (short side bar) Simon Bryquer wrote: > > Greeting to one and all -- > Not only do I agree with Jinavamsa, but the post also reveals either > ignorance or naivete in regards to the Old Testament but also not > knowing that the OT is not exactly a dutiful translation of the > Torah (the Quran also suffers from this) and all the surrounding > works such as the Tenach and the Talmud(which is akin in function and > more to the Hadiths)not to mention the Kabbalah which contribute to the > understanding of what is Faith and Belief and worship and God in Judaism. > If the Christians, and I think this is rather a blanket statement, see > Moses and the other Hebrew prophets as minor it is their loss -- Coptics > certainly don't nor does the vast array of Arcane Christians. > > I would suggest Michael before making those kind of statements in a > public forum one would inform oneself -- at least a little, otherwise > one can come very close to not only lose credibility but also make a > fool of oneself. > > Salaams > > Simon Bryquer > I was only giving my personal experience in having been a Christian, raised in a Christian family, gone to Christian Grade School and Christian High School and having discusssed the subject with countless Christian friends from many denominations. To these people Moses and Abraham were of minor importance compared to Jesus. I have never heard of a Christian that prayed to Moses or Abraham but prayers are always to Jesus, God, and for Catholics, Mary. Even the Apostles got more air play than Moses and Abraham. This is only what I have seen. I believe it is a fair representation of middle of the road American Christianity. I am also very open to the idea that my experience may be nonrepresentational of the norm of Christian beliefs. But until somebody tells me that what I am describing is a fringe element and not the norm, I will continue to believe it is the norm. Is it ok to describe my experiences? Sorry to bore people with defensive posture, I'll stop. Salaams - -Michael- > > ------------------------------ From: Michael Moore Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 20:34:44 -0700 Subject: Re: Paraclete #1 (short side bar) Hello, I am at a loss. Why have you chopped off the first paragraph of the post you are quoting where I explain that I am only telling the story of what I was taught as a child? Why did you chop off my last paragraph where I again make a disclaimer? Never once did I say that any of this was true or accurate. You have taken my quote out of context. I was responding to another member who asked me about Moses and Abraham as perceived my the main line run of the mill Christian. I confessed right up front that I was only capable if giving MY experience. Geesh! I can see why some people are afraid to post anything. But I guess part of living is risk, even the risk of being misunderstood by people who are honest and mean well. Jinavamsa@aol.com wrote: > > to all, > in peace and love of al-Haqq (Allah, Reality, as Truth), > I think we have the potential for distortion whenever we learn about one > tradition through the eyes of another tradition which is trying to prove > itself superior to that first tradition. > The excerpts below might be taken as a reflection of this sort of teaching. Maybe you are not saying that this is my teaching but rather the teaching that I was given. This would be correct, but still, by copying this section out of context, it now appears as though I am advocating this rather than telling about what I was taught. I am also guessing that Simon was responding to your quotation of me rather than my original post. This would explain why he thinks I am at risk of loosing my credibility and making a fool of myself. But just to set the record straight, and I want to make this perfectly clear, I am a fool and I have no credibility. I will try to do better in the future and I hope that you can accept a fool for a friend. Salams - -Michael- > iOPO. > Jinavamsa > > In a message dated 96-09-03 17:47:14 EDT, you write: > > > > >Basicaly Abraham and Moses are minor characters. They are from > >the Old Testament part of the Bible (the old Jewish tradition > >and laws). Jesus brought a new covenant which means that he > >superseded the existing Jewish laws. He does not contradict - ---- snipped for your protection ---- > >suitable sacrifice, and without the voluntary sacrifice > >of the 'Son of God', man's sins could not be forgiven and > >men would go to hell forever. > > > > ------------------------------ From: pathway@dnet.net (John Womack) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 00:14:17 -0500 Subject: Re: Salat in world religions >Assalamualaikum, > > >The five daily prayer (salat) is obligatory in Islam after >Isra and Miraj of the Prophet. At first Jerusalem was the >prayer direction until God's revealation to change the direction >to Kaaba. This turning point in direction is very significant. >Before Muhammad, the religion of Allah is scattered all over >the world -- each tribe has its prophet/s with its own rituals. >If I can make an analogy a river or rivers, this turning point >is like all the rivers merging and finally flow to its >destiny -- the Ocean. > >salam An old navigator has a question of curiosity (the worst kind of question probably!), but it concerns how one might find the direction of Kaaba if one is thousands of miles away. Is just a general alignment acceptable? If one is thousands of miles away (such as in the United States) would one use rhumb line or great circle directions? If one is, say, 12,000 miles away from Kaaba, why not face west instead of east, or even north for that matter. As I say, this is just a matter of curiosity, but it does seem that each of the questions might have several "correct" answers; typical of many religious questions. John. ------------------------------ From: Simon Bryquer Date: Wed, 04 Sep 1996 03:04:55 -0700 Subject: Re: Paraclete #1 (short side bar) Michael ---- You're right I was essentially responding to Jinavamsa's post and the partial quote of yours, though I have also read some of this post but lost interest when it became technical in an academic and nitpicking way regarding certain pseudoepigraphic writings and beliefs. I still agree that the viewing of other traditons from the outside or from OTHERNESS never really leads to any truth but to ?Comparative Religions? and that only leads to comparing the outer shells which obscure the real essence that unites all under one God -- whatever people chose to call the Divine. All world religions focused on an central icon as they evolved -- there is a need in humans to do this, a need to give names. In olden times in was known as Nomina Barbara(if you remember your Latin you will realize that the name is very fitting). 'Ibn Arabi speak of this in his _Bezels of Wisdom_,the icons/mandalas, that is. Anyway, as long as you don't subscribe to this kind thinking now -- there's hope all around. Thus overlook certain aspects of my response. Salaams to one and all -- Simon Bryquer ================================================================ Michael Moore wrote: > > Simon Bryquer wrote: > > > > Greeting to one and all -- > > Not only do I agree with Jinavamsa, but the post also reveals either > > ignorance or naivete in regards to the Old Testament but also not > > knowing that the OT is not exactly a dutiful translation of the > > Torah (the Quran also suffers from this) and all the surrounding > > works such as the Tenach and the Talmud(which is akin in function and > > more to the Hadiths)not to mention the Kabbalah which contribute to the > > understanding of what is Faith and Belief and worship and God in Judaism. > > If the Christians, and I think this is rather a blanket statement, see > > Moses and the other Hebrew prophets as minor it is their loss -- Coptics > > certainly don't nor does the vast array of Arcane Christians. > > > > I would suggest Michael before making those kind of statements in a > > public forum one would inform oneself -- at least a little, otherwise > > one can come very close to not only lose credibility but also make a > > fool of oneself. > > > > Salaams > > > > Simon Bryquer > > > I was only giving my personal experience in having been a Christian, > raised in a Christian family, gone to Christian Grade School and > Christian High School and having discusssed the subject with > countless Christian friends from many denominations. To these people > Moses and Abraham were of minor importance compared to Jesus. I have > never heard of a Christian that prayed to Moses or Abraham but > prayers are always to Jesus, God, and for Catholics, Mary. > Even the Apostles got more air play than Moses and Abraham. > > This is only what I have seen. I believe it is a fair > representation of middle of the road American Christianity. > I am also very open to the idea that my experience may be > nonrepresentational of the norm of Christian beliefs. But > until somebody tells me that what I am describing is a fringe > element and not the norm, I will continue to believe it is the > norm. Is it ok to describe my experiences? > > Sorry to bore people with defensive posture, I'll stop. > > Salaams > -Michael- > > > > ------------------------------ End of tariqas-digest V1 #123 *****************************