Dear friends,
My name is Isaac. I have known Ivan for quite some time. Both of us share similar feelings about interfaith dialog.
The subject of interfaith dialog and understanding between the different religious groups has been in my mind for some time.
In order to tackle this subject successfully, it will require from us a great degree of detachment from our religious past, and from our emotional feelings.
I am going to ask you, to give that subject, some very serious thought.
To start, I am going to ask each one of you the following question:
Suppose that you have been charged to form an interfaith discussion group in your own house. Let’s say that you will have people from different religious denomination in your own living room. Before you let them loose and start pointing their finger at each other with recrimination. You, as the host of this meeting, have made a complete list of guidelines, so that this meeting will be a successful one. If that meeting is to be successful, at its end, each person assembled must feel a real sense of friendship towards each other, must feel at ease with their differences, and if invited to attend a religious service at each other’s house of worship, that person will feel completely at ease.
Here is my question or simple assignment to all of you:
“What guidelines will you recommend, and why.”
In your recommendations, please avoid the “don’t” and emphasis the “do”.
I will then compare you list with mine.

Dear Isaac,

Upon thinking of your question, of how to make each person feel comfortable in an Interfaith Dialogue, I would contribute the following:

1. One Token: Have each person who represents a faith, Hindu, Moslem, Christian, Jew, Taoist, Buddhist, Shinto, Zoroaster, Jain, Native American, Baha'i, etc. bring one token to represent their religion. Only one, for more leads to arguments; so let them select the one thing that is the most representative of who they are in their faith. These should be displayed together in a prominent place.

2. I would also display a quote of unity, three words only: "Love to Agree."

3. I would have each represented religion read a short prayer of not more than two minutes in length.

4. In the sharing of food and drink, I would request that each bring what is most germane to their respective culture, but out of respect for those for whom it is offensive, I would eliminate from this: beef, pork, alcohol, and encourage vegetarian dishes.

5. I would lay the ground rule that any resolution to be agreed upon be done unanimously, so 'All are in Agreement' with it, so it may stand the test of time.

I hope these are useful to you. Best wishes in your future dialogues of Interfaith.

All the best,

Ivan

UNITY OF RELIGION: The Three Golden Rules.

The following are quotes found in the Scared Scriptures of the western world's three main religions: Judaism, Christianity, Mohammedanism. Their common thread of belief sharing in Love, Peace, and the Golden Rule, are as follows:

GOLDEN RULE: "Do onto others as you would have them do onto you." Matthew 7:12: "Whatever you would have people do for you, do the same for them." Mohammed, the Hadith, 138: "Do unto all men as you wish to have done unto you; and reject for others what you would reject for yourselves."

PEACE: Mishna 1:18: "The world is preserved by three things: truth, justice, and peace." Isaiah 2:4: "They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." Proverbs 24:17: "Rejoice not when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles." Matthew 5:44: "Love your enemies, bless them who curse you, do good to them who hate you. And pray for them who spitefully use you and persecute you." James 3:18: "The fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by peacemakers." Matthew 5:9: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God." Mohammed, Koran, 5:35: "He who slays one human being, it is as if he had slain all mankind; he who saves one human being, it is as if he had saved all mankind." Mohammed, the Hadith, 340: "Shall I tell you what are better acts than fasting, charity, and prayer? Making peace between enemies are such acts; fir enmity and malice tear up the heavenly rewards by the roots."

LOVE AND COMPASSION: Mohammed, Koran, 2:191: "God loves all those who do good." Mohammed, the Hadith, 198: "God is gentle and loves gentleness." Matthew 19:19: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 1 John 4:16: "God is love; and he who dwells in love dwells in God." Leviticus 19:18: "You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself." Micah 6:8: "O man, what is good, and what does the Lord require of your? Only to do justly; to love mercy; and to walk humbly with your God." Christ, John 13:34: "A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another."

The above are only a few examples, and there are many more not only in the scriptures of the Judeo-Christian-Moslem teachings, but also in the teachings of all the world's great religions.

Copied from "Peoples Book 2000", entry dated 8/22/1999, as compiled by Isaac Cavaliero. -Ivan

In a message dated 7/13/01 4:43:22 PM Pacific
Daylight Time, Humancafe writes:

<< I think this will be an important first step,
to bring the warring religions to the table for
dialogue. Isaac had suggested that one gesture of
goodwill is the willingness to celebrate each
other's holy days, but this may not be in
agreement with all parties, since some may
consider it blasphemy for non-believers to partake
in this. My idea is to find those elements of
each religion's belief system that honors the
outsider, non believer, into their midst. >>

My thoughts ion this are, as usual, altogether
different.

My answer is -- you have to get individuals
speaking to one another, not governments. And
usually, women.

This is what John MacDonald has been doing all
over the world in his Institute for Multitrack
Diplomacy... Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy .
John says women are the peacemakers of the world
-- it is they who show up to start the dialogues
he has participated in. (He also says you can
never take away a people's language and expect
peace -- speaking to governments).

The problem is always with a non human "other" who
is evil, and this "other" exists only in the minds
of the participants in these conflicts. In
reality there is only human beings, sons of
mothers, mothers of sons ... sisters, brothers,
cousins ... Humans.

All the sacred writings ALL say "love one another"
so the basis for dialogue is there and
uncontrovertible. Very few people fail to see
their own humanity reflected in faces they
actually see. Alas, those in power don't show us
faces -- they show us propaganda designed to
obscure these truths. One reason this propgation
of lies can never be done by the Baha'i faith is
there are no people in power!

I was raised Jewish, and I think I understand the
in inebriation with power felt by a people whose
identity has been powerlessness for centuries--but
that does NOT excuse the fact that these same
people now turn their faces away from the truth,
because to look at the truth might make some of
their symbols of power (land, votes, military
strength) likely to fade.

The truth is, force begets force, opposition
begets opposition. The truth is that no amount of
pretending that enormous force can ever produce
peace will ever make it so.

But individual humans talking to other
individual humans is all that will ever work peace
and love, as long as governments exist. My two
cents...


TTFN

C.

In the Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai teachings, Buddha
says:

"A true community has faith and wisdom that
illuminate it. It is a place where the people
know and trust one another and where there is
social harmony." -Ch. 3.1

Then St. Augstine City of God added:

"Plato cannot have been unacquainted with the
sacred books... when the angel gave Moses the
message from God, and Moses asked the name of him
who gave the command to go and free the Hebrew
people from Egypt, he received this reply: 'I am
HE WHO IS.'" -Book VIII, ch. 11

And Christ replied:

"A new commandment I give unto you: That you love
one another." -John 13:34

And Mohammed spoke next:

"Shall I tell you what are better acts than
fasting, charity, and prayer? Making peace between
enemies are such acts; for enmity and malice tear
up the heavenly rewards by the roots." -Hadith 340

And Buddha agreed:

"I have trained myself to avoid abusing others,
and then wished that all might have the serene
mind that would follow by living in peace with
others." -Ch. 1.3

AFRICAN MESSIAH?

http://www.archbishopmilingo.org/statement_milingo_response.htm

Response to the Public Admonition from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo
July 25, 2001 Washington, DC

My Dear Brothers and sisters,

I, Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo, find myself having embarked upon an unexpected journey along an untraveled path. As surprising as the steps that God has led me to take may be, what is even more amazing is the great concern and anguish many have expressed concerning my fate and future. But I ask those who have loved and prayed for me, that your tears of sorrow be turned instead into tears of joy. I am indeed the happiest and most blessed of men, for God has heard my cry, and answered my prayer.

MY STORY

My story is simple. As a boy tending cattle in my native Africa, God called me to His service, and drew me to the bosom of my Mother, the Catholic Church. I served her with sincerity, and sought to love God by loving people. In 1974, God gave me a gift, and commissioned me as the Lord had commissioned His disciples: to heal the sick, cast out devils, and preach the gospel [Luke 9:2]. I offered my gift to my church and her flock. Many people eagerly responded, receiving this spiritual gift from God. But my church rejected it, and tried her best to bind and restrict me.
It was not only me who was impugned. When we Africans expressed our love for Jesus through our own cultural forms, just as Europeans had long done through theirs, the church leaders grew to mistrust me. Rome seemed unable to conceive that these spiritual gifts in its young African church could indeed be from God. They called me a "witch doctor," and branded the people’s response as "voodoo." I was scandalized with false charges and wild rumors, and though each was disproved one-by-one, I was exiled to Rome. They feared I would only be trouble in Africa. They were sure I wanted to be the "African messiah," and projected their own arrogance and lust for power upon me. Then, as now, I have no concern for position or power, but only seek to do the will of God.

....

Let us pray, rather, for the future and fate of the Catholic Church, which God has deeply loved and patiently laboured for through centuries. Its fate will not be determined by its financial or political might, nor even its doctrinal authority, for the law of love encompasses all the law and all the prophets, and is greater than canon law. It is love, humility, faith, and purity that will determine whether the church responds to the voice of tradition and worldly power, or the voice of God. That will determine whether the church will be the moral and spiritual leader in establishing the Kingdom of God, or will cling, like the Pharisees of old, to its laws and traditions, and stand in opposition to the will of God.

LEFT AT THE ALTAR

http://www.ocregister.com/nation_world/15bishop3cci2.shtml

The article says: "A Zambian archbishop (Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo) whose marriage scandalized the Vatican is leaving his wife and returning to the Roman Catholic Church..."

Bishop Milingo did this under duress, he is also breaking his ties with Rev. Sun Myung Moon, who had married him to Maria Sung, who has since begun a fast to protest the forced separation from her husband as ordered by the Catholic Church.

A Moon Church, Federation for World Peace, spokesman then says: The Vatican is "arrogantly trying to steal her husband. This is not the Middle Ages."

Indeed, is this not the Middle Ages for the Church founded on the rock of Peter? I suspect the Vatican has not yet evolved into the modern era, and will not do so until it has forgiven Giordano Bruno, who should have been declared a great man, and not until the Church can drop the antiquated dogma of Augustine and Aristotelian reason. As a world Church, and as a representation of the teachings of Christ, the Catholic Church, though I love her as I love all religions, is indeed still in the Middle Ages. What will it take for her to change, another Messiah?

Post script to: "20 Apr 1999 Ancient Visits?", in Peoples Book 2000:

This entry says: "....Even passages in holy scriptures throughout all the world's religions have fantastic events that are difficult to understand even on pure faith...
The most commonly mentioned is Ezekiel and the Wheel, or Moses and the marching column of smoke..."

This can be found in Exodus 19-24, where the Israelites have had direct encounters with God. Or did they? Were they instead encounters with alien beings who came here and had political reasons for contacting these wandering tribes and make them devoted to themselves only. Was 'God' a jealous god not because he was so great, but because he wanted allegiance only to him, and not to the Caananites?
In Exodus 20.2, God says: "I am the Lord your God, who has brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before My face. You shall make for yourself no idol in the likeness of anything in the heavens above or on the earth below or in the waters under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a God who brooks no rival..."

Why this 'jealous' God? Sounds weak, to be jealous. Why not be able to make images of Him, either from heaven or earth or water? Is it because 'His' flying ships, technology, is too advanced for the Israelites and must be kept a 'secret' for a time longer? Even today, still secret? What kind of game were these aliens playing with the Israeli minds, and with our minds to this day? Okay, so I'm not a true believer... But what was the true story? What really happened with the column of smoke, the throne of sapphire, the 'Lord' of our God? Who were they and what did they want with us? And why did this alien visit get into the Bible? What did the 'My face' of God look like?

STEPPING INTO MINDFULNESS on a Day of Peace.


I want to write something of my experience on a day with the Buddhist Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh, held this past Saturday in San Diego*, something of that day meaningful philosophically, as well as capturing the spirit of being a witness to his teachings. The all day event was sponsored by the local Buddhist Monastery of Deer Park. It started with a Walking Meditation for about an hour, led by "Tie", as Thich Nhat Hanh is know to his friends and disciples. Each step is like a flower, was the message Tie gave before the meditation. The event was well attended by several hundred people of all colors and ages and denominations. The young and old monks and nuns in attendance had a peaceful presence about them. To me, the whole event was a walking meditation, interrupted only by the gongs and bells that made us all stop, as we watched our breath.

Tie talked of the Dharma. In his calm and soft spoken way, he reminded us of a story about Buddha who said that the dharma is like cows, that if they run away, then maybe it is better not to find them, for this is how we learn to let go. Then, if we think of all the unpleasant things that trouble us as 'cows', or those that we strive for but which offer no happiness, then it is better to lose them. This was followed by examples of how we can center ourselves using compassion, concentration, and mindfulness in the present. Tie said that all of the past is in the present, same as is all of the future. In the present, even our cells have registered in them all that had happened. In us are even registered the cells of our parents and grandparents, and that is important to have compassion and forgive them for any wrongs done, even if they are dead, since we carry them inside ourselves in our cells. In the present, we can focus on what is real for us. All of what had happened through all time is here in the present for us; and all that will happen in the future will come from our present. To focus better on this present, Tie recommends a simple practice of watchful breathing. Stop activity and breathe with awareness, mindfully, three times, breathing in and breathing out, and this will center you in the present. This can be done as well while waiting for a red light to change, or before eating a meal, or before speaking. Before we broke for lunch, Thich Nhat Hanh gave us instructions on how to eat together. He said that with each bite of a piece of bread, we must remember that this is a gift from the cosmos, and we should chew it slowly, remembering how much went into the making of this piece of bread, from the energy of the stars to the earth and water that grew the grain, and to the hands of the baker who made it. With each bite we should be mindful of this precious gift we just received.

This was how I felt throughout the day's lectures and meditations. All of it, each thing, was a precious gift given with love and compassion and mindfulness. The elderly nun who with shaved head and brown robes led the deep meditation had a voice like that of a young woman, soft and melodious. The faces of monks and nuns were cheerful in a peaceful way, radiating kindness. Each step they took seemed to be taken with deliberateness and care. It seemed that in spite of all the park's activities, wedding photos taken by newly weds at the handsome pavilion, jets passing overhead on their way to San Diego airport, buses and tram cars, people walking all around; none of it intruded into the peacefulness of Tie's gathering. I felt as if I had stepped into a magic circle of mindfulness and peace. If there was one way to express what I believe all present felt there, as my wife and I and a Sikh friend who attended all agreed, it was compassion and love.

It was a peaceful day.


* "A Day of Peace with Thich Nhat" Hanh held September 8, 2001, at Spreckels Organ Pavilion, Balboa Park, San Diego, California. More information can be found, including tapes of Tie's teachings, at: http://www.plumvillage.org/

Dear Everyone,

This is the day America lost her innocence, and
our freedom came under attack. What reason can
anyone give for carrying out such a vile act
against innocent human beings? Did they do it of
necessity, or because they would reach heaven, or
hell? Or did they attack and kill because they
imagined themselves on a righteous cause, one
which the rest of us will always condemn as evil?
The attacks of today are evil deeds of momentous
proportions which will never be justified by any
philosophical or otherwise thinking. This was the
face of human coercion at its worst, a worst sign
of the unconsciousness of our times. May reason
and clarity and wisdom prevail after such a
terrible and sad day.

Let us pray that peace and love and compassion
will ultimately prevail for us all, and for the
loved ones of future generations.

Ivan A.

ISLAM, do we understand it?

An article from the BBC news quotes:

"Islam is the world's fastest growing faith, a faith that abuts a number of the world's political fault lines and a faith that does not draw a distinction between the religious life and the political life. The combination probably guarantees its fate." *

Can we of the Western tradition understand this statement, that Islamic faith does not draw a distinction between religious life and political life? I am not a formal student of Mohammed's teachings, but I do know from my readings and conversations with Moslems on my world travels in Islamic countries, that the fundamentals of Islam are brotherhood, peacefulness, and the desire or duty to do God's (Allah's) will. In the Hadith, Mohammed is quoted as saying that what God loves more than prayer and fasting and charity is he who can avert enmity and be a peace maker. At the heading of every new passage of the Koran, Allah is the Compassionate, the Merciful. In Al-Furqan, chapter 25, which may also be interpreted as the Light, or distinction between right and wrong, the admonitions of the Prophet are clearly against idolaters: "Then to the idolaters Allah will say: 'Your idols have denied your charges. They cannot avert your doom, nor can they help you. Those of you who have done wrong shall be sternly punished.'" But then at the end, it goes on to say: "The true servants of the Merciful are those who walk humbly on the earth and say: 'Peace!' to the ignorant who accost them." But we of the non-Islamic world are not idolaters, we should not be confused with whom the Koran identified as the wrong doers at the time of its writing. Mohammed fought the idolaters, spoke against their superstitions, not the civilized people of the West. In the previous chapter 24, however, called the Light, we have another warning: "You who are true believers, do not walk in the footsteps of Satan. He that walks in Satan's footsteps is incited to indecency and evil." In the light of the events of the past few days, when 19 or more men had chosen to sacrifice themselves for their cause while at the same time sacrificing hundreds of others aboard the airplanes, and thousands more in the targeted collapsed buildings on the ground, how do we understand such indecency and evil against innocent people? How can these acts of terror and aggression be called justifiable Jihad in the name of Islam? Is this not a terrible lie, more in the footsteps of Satan? I do not believe any of this can be claimed in the name of Islam.

I think that it is imperative for the world of Islam to speak very loudly against what had happened allegedly in the name of their religion. Allah is Merciful, is forgiving and compassionate, and loves the peace maker. How can one understand that such a God, not the gods of the superstitious idolaters, but a God of Peace and Grace and Mercy be held as He who would condone the terrible destruction witnessed? It is difficult to understand this. We must reason with cool heads and strive to understand that the terrorists' claims are false. And in particular, we must find those items in the Prophet's teachings that condemn this cowardly, suicidal, and destructive behavior. I am sure that in the teachings are also the Golden Rule, as well as teachings of compassion and love for our fellow human beings, and all living things, as there is in all religions. If this were not so, it could not pass as a religion, for then it would be only a superstitious belief in fear and evil. But that is not the case since it is a worldwide religion, and since this faith is growing, it is important to understand it. We must find the good, and have Islam announce the good loudly, not only in terms of how it perceives itself, but also in terms of how it is a political force that affects others, one of that is of necessity a force of either agreements, for they are the peace makers, or coercion, for they destroy. To be a true belief in a God of compassion and mercy, to carry out God's will, this behavior of the good must be taught and demanded of all adherents of the faith in their daily contacts with people who are both of the faith, as well as with those who are not. That is the true test of the True Believer.

Respect for human rights, presumed innocence, free speech, democratic process, freedom of thought, freedom of exchange, are all hallmarks of our western civilization, as they are of our philosophical understandings and beliefs, but they are secular and not necessarily of our Judeo-Christian religious persuasions. During the times of the Crusades, where many ills were visited by Christians upon the then glorious civilization of Islam, the thinking of the western world did not yet have a distinction between faith and political power. But we had gone through a Renaissance, and with it were able to separate church and state, at least initially in our minds, and later in fact. I think that this is why we have difficulty understanding the combination of faith and politics in Islam, because there this separation had not taken place. Will it? It has to take place in the minds of the followers of the faith first, and then only later would the other evolve. But that is not for the West to dictate to the believers of Islam. What can and should be dictated is better communications, understanding of how Islam works so that it be true to its Prophet and teachings, and to help it cleanse itself of its evil doers; in effect so that it can also understand itself. That is what we of the West must do to bring Islam into the modern world. And I am certain that as we go forward, with improved communications and education, a growing majority of the followers of Islam will want to do just that and bring their Faith into the modern world.

Terroristic acts are not acts of war; they are acts of cowardice, of raiding the innocent, of damage to destroy what is envied, of making noise in order to attract attention. But it is not constructive, and it cannot be claimed in the name of Islam, or the God of any religion. I think it is so important to understand this, that whatever any terrorist claims he does in the name of the Prophet, or of Islam, is a vile and false claim. It is not God's Will, and instead should be vocally and loudly repulsed. Nowhere in the teachings of Islam is this kind of cowardly, faceless attack on innocent people allowed. We need to understand this, and more importantly the world of Islam must make the whole world understand this, and lift the cloud of confusion that has developed over it. This kind of terrorism can be many things, it may come from deep historical grievances, from territorial disputes, but it is not Islam. The religious and political leaders must not only distance themselves from such on the grounds of their Islamic faith, but also harshly criticize it on the grounds of civilized behavior throughout the planet. We of the West are not the Satanic people the extremists would have their followers believe. The fact that we can respond to such a horrific attack upon our civilization with calm and compassion, even if forcefully, proves just the opposite. Thus, understanding on both sides, both the Eastern world and Western world, should be the new prime imperative. I think that it is this that will guarantee's Islam's fate, to be justified and loved and respected throughout the world, and not terror.

With sincere hope and compassion,

Ivan


* (Mike Wooldridge, former BBC religious affairs correspondent: "Islam: Faith under fire", 14 Sept. 2001.)

JUSTICE and turning the other cheek:

From one of the founders of the Baha'i Faith, called Abdul Baha (Servant of Light or Glory) in explaining Christ's teaching about turning the other cheek:

"The constitution of the committees depends upon justice...Then what Christ means by forgiveness and pardon is not that when nations attack you, burn your homes, plunder your good assault your wives children and relatives and violate your honor yo should be submissive in the presence of these tyrannical foes, and allow them to perfume all their cruelties and oppressions. No, the word of Christ refer to the conduct of two individua toward one another. if one individual person assaults another, the injured one should forgive him. But the communities must protect the rights of man..."

There's a lot more, but you get the idea. But justice is the be all and end all, not vengeance, education the means, unity the ultimate goal.

Where the Violence Comes From


by Rabbi Michael Lerner

Editor, TIKKUN Magazine http://www.tikkun.org/


There is never any justification for acts of terror against innocent civilians -- it is the quintessential act of dehumanization and not recognizing the sanctity of others, and a visible symbol of a world increasingly irrational and out of control.


It's understandable why many of us, after grieving and consoling the mourners, will feel anger--and while some demagogues in Congress have already sought to manipulate that feeling into a growing militarism (more spies, legalize assassinations of foreign leaders, increase the defense budget at the expense of domestic programs), the more "responsible" leaders are seeking to narrow America's response to targeted attacks on countries that allegedly harbor the terrorists.

Of course, the people who did this attack are evil and they are a real threat to the human race. If they could, they would use nuclear weapons or chemical/biological weapons. The perpetrators deserve to be punished, and I personally would be happy if all the people involved in this act were to be imprisoned for the rest of their lives. But that is quite different from talk about "eliminating countries" which we heard from Colin Powell in the days after the attack. Punishing the perpetrators is different from making war against whole populations. ...


We in the spiritual world will see this as a growing global incapacity to recognize the spirit of God in each other--what we call the sanctity of each human being. ...


This is a world out of touch with itself, filled with people who have forgotten how to recognize and respond to the sacred in each other because we are so used to looking at others from the standpoint of what they can do for us, how we can use them toward our own ends. The alternatives are stark:

either start caring about the fate of everyone on this planet, or be prepared for a slippery slope toward violence that will eventually dominate our daily lives.


We should pray for the victims and the families of those who have been hurt or murdered in these crazy acts. We should also pray that America does not return to "business as usual," but rather turns to a period of reflection, coming back into touch with our common humanity, asking ourselves how our institutions can best embody our highest values. We may need a global day of atonement and repentance dedicated to finding a way to turn the direction of our society at every level, a return to the notion that every human life is sacred, that "the bottom line" should be the creation of a world of love and caring, and that the best way to prevent these kinds of acts is not to turn ourselves into a police state, but turn ourselves into a society in which social justice, love, and compassion are so prevalent that violence becomes only a distant memory.


Rabbi Michael Lerner is editor of TIKKUN Magazine and rabbi of Beyt Tikkun Synagogue in San Francisco. He is the author of Spirit Matters: Global Healing and the Wisdom of the Soul and most recently (Sept 2001) editor: Best Contemporary Jewish Writing


RabbiLerner@tikkun.org

As posted in the Examined Life Philosophy Journal (New) Discussion Forum, topic: "Islam": http://examinedlifejournal.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi

Dear G-man,

You write: "There may be ways to create opportunities for Islam's young people, in terms of building roads, etc...instead of having to enlist in local armies to secure a regular meal."

I agree with this in principle, that we of the non-Muslim world should encourage ways to put the energy of the Islamic world to practical use, since this is how much of the world's crushing poverty can be lifted from its present regrettable state. Building infrastructure, encouraging participation in coalition building as it applies to aid and self-help, as well as self-government; that these things will help find agreement between the two worlds to redirect young people's energy away from war.

But I think there is another energy in the world of Islam which may be foreign to us of the more secular world, but which is totally real to them: Prayer. Though there may not be a central authority figure, such as the Pope for Catholicism, there is a primal focus towards the sacred sites of Mecca and Medina; and these are activated five times daily during prayer directed at those sites. Think of what great 'psychic' power is directed there, where at a given hour within each time zone thousands, if not millions, physically stop and kneel deeply to pray. That may be a force for which we of the non-Muslim, even secular, world have little understanding, but we should not discount it as being non-existent. In fact, like a universal meditation, it is a force that activates the 'nervous system' of a whole people, though they may be of different nations and ethnicity, as one religious and psychic body. I find that this potential energy is one that can be harnessed to the good. Imagine prayer five times daily for the Good of the World, rather than, as now being exploited by the radical fundamental elements of Islam, to be pointed with hatred against the West. This would be a phenomenal psychic force for the betterment of not only the world of Islam, but for all members of this planet's society as well. I cannot interpret the sacred writings for the religious clerics of Islam, but I think that if they were to adopt this way of seeing themselves in prayer, that they pray for agreement and love, for their duty to do God's Will in a spirit of helpfulness, rather than confrontation and coercion; that would be a great force for the good of all the people of the world indeed.

Salam (peace), Ivan

http://www
.samaritanspurse.org/

Operation Christmas Child: donate toys and goodies
to children in Afghanistan, and around the world.

Share your love and care with the world, of all faiths.

-------------------------------------------------------+

REBUILD THE TEMPLE ON THE MOUNT -- FOR PEACE.

I believe that one way to insure future peace between the feuding three major world religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as represented by the current conflicts in the Middle East, Israel and Palestine, as well as far off Afghanistan, is to rebuilt the temple site holy to all three religions. This would mean that the Temple on the Mount in Jerusalem should be rebuilt by all three religions, their world wide flung representatives, financed equally, and shared equally in their physical presence. This site is obviously holy from its beginning, as said in Chronicles:

"When Solomon had ended his prayer, fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices, and the glory of the LORD filled the temple." (2 Chronicles 7:1)

Thus to honor the founders of the three religions, the land should remain the property of Israel, since Judaism was the first religion. However, there should be a 1000 year lease, so that negotiations between the three great religions will be forced to resume in the distant future, as the lease is approaching expiration. Let us hope that our future generations, our great great grandchildren, will pursue these negotiations with a greater peace and reason than had been exhibited by their ancient predecessors. This Temple, shared equally by all, open to people of all religions and seculars, should be dedicated to prayer for a perpetual world peace. This would be a great gift by Islam to all the world.

The question is, can the three great religions rebuild the Temple Mount without fighting? Can we find agreement? And can we make it beautiful?

To give, that is the most powerful expression of God's Will. To exchange may be secular, but to Give is Divine. The question is: Is this the time in the history of Islam to Give?

http://www.templemount.org/ (Temple Mount)

(As posted: http://examinedlifejournal.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/forums.cgi?forum=18 )

ISLAM IS BROAD

I see Islam from a distance, but if I were to analyze it, I would think that Islam is so broad that interpretations can range from extreme 'fundamentalism' at one end, to the sublime mysticism of the Sufis at the other. (My mechanic is Muslim, from Bombay, he is now observing Ramadan, so we talked, and he emphatically rejects 911, totally.) Somewhere in the middle is where most adherents find their place within the broad teachings, not unlike the Islam I encountered in my travels through India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Egypt, where the village version, complete with local lore and traditions, is how most people see their faith. They do not hate America, rather are enamored with its pop culture and people, but they are confused as to what we Americans are all about. They would like to share in our good fortune and world power, but then they tend to reject our liberal views, our sense of personal freedom, even our democracy, since most of Islam lives under oppressive regimes that offer them none of this. I think this is the crux of the matter, that they want modernity but are kept away from it by their authorities, both secular and religious, though for Islam the two are often indistinct. But Islam is broad, as any readings of the Qur'an or Hadith would indicate, and it is for the believers and their clerics to find interpretations that blend in better with the values the rest of the world have embraced, a world that has proven to work best economically and culturally, if not as well spiritually. I think this is the blend that we as a planet need to find, a cultural and spiritual blend, of any religion, that nevertheless allows for our more liberal values to exist and continue to empower us as individuals, for that is the only way for us to step beyond the impasse of distrust and misunderstanding of one another. For the world to progress, we need to find the pathways where those who follow Mohammed can also embrace the reasonable and loving values shared by the rest of the civilized world, which will not be found at the level of extreme fundamentalism, but rather towards the more spiritual values of Muslim mysticism, which too is a part of what is written. Can Islam grow beyond its historical boundaries marked by spreading their faith through coercion and forced conversion? I think it can. We now live in a modern age, and the values of freedom, the ethics of respect for human rights, and the democratic process handed down from the ancient Greeks to the American Revolution, cannot be erased from history. We need these to ensure future economic and social progress, for though the market system also exists in the Islamic bazaars, it needs updating to join the agreements that exist in modern society globally. When we look at it this way, then the threats of 'Islamic Fundamentalism' regress into the dark war torn past from which it sprung, and in its place is a warmer, more brotherly, more tolerant teachings of a world envisioned by Mohammed, where we as human beings of this planet do God's will.

WORDS OF WISDOM from the Buddhist religion.

Selected verses from Dhammapada:
The Buddha's Path of Wisdom


5. Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
15. The evil-doer grieves here and hereafter; he grieves in both the worlds. He laments and is afflicted, recollecting his own impure deeds.
16. The doer of good rejoices here and hereafter; he rejoices in both the worlds. He rejoices and exults, recollecting his own pure deeds.
42. Whatever harm an enemy may do to an enemy, or a hater to a hater, an ill-directed mind inflicts on oneself a greater harm.
50. Let none find fault with others; let none see the omissions and commissions of others. But let one see one's own acts, done and undone.
60. Long is the night to the sleepless; long is the league to the weary.
Long is worldly existence to fools who know not the Sublime Truth.
63. A fool who knows his foolishness is wise at least to that extent, but a fool who thinks himself wise is a fool indeed.
82. On hearing the Teachings, the wise become perfectly purified, like a lake deep, clear and still.
96. Calm is his thought, calm his speech, and calm his deed, who, truly knowing, is wholly freed, perfectly tranquil and wise.
101. Better than a thousand useless verses is one useful verse, hearing which one attains peace.
103. Though one may conquer a thousand times a thousand men in battle, yet he indeed is the noblest victor who conquers himself.
110. Better it is to live one day virtuous and meditative than to live a hundred years immoral and uncontrolled.
116. Hasten to do good; restrain your mind from evil. He who is slow in doing good, his mind delights in evil.
130. All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
131. One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness
hereafter.
168. Arise! Do not be heedless! Lead a righteous life. The righteous live happily both in this world and the next.
177. Truly, misers fare not to heavenly realms; nor, indeed, do fools praise generosity. But the wise man rejoices in giving, and by that alone
does he become happy hereafter.
223. Overcome the angry by non-anger; overcome the wicked by goodness; overcome the miser by generosity; overcome the liar by truth.
257. He who does not judge others arbitrarily, but passes judgment impartially according to the truth, that sagacious man is a guardian of law and is called just.
258. One is not wise because one speaks much. He who is peaceable, friendly and fearless is called wise.
282. Wisdom springs from meditation; without meditation wisdom wanes.
Having known these two paths of progress and decline, let a man so conduct himself that his wisdom may increase.
290. If by renouncing a lesser happiness one may realize a greater happiness, let the wise man renounce the lesser, having regard for the
greater.
291. Entangled by the bonds of hate, he who seeks his own happiness by inflicting pain on others, is never delivered from hatred.
333. Good is virtue until life's end, good is faith that is steadfast, good is the acquisition of wisdom, and good is the avoidance of evil.
378. The monk who is calm in body, calm in speech, calm in thought, well-composed and who has spewn out worldliness -- he, truly, is called serene.
396. I do not call him a holy man because of his lineage or high-born mother. If he is full of impeding attachments, he is just a supercilious
man. But who is free from impediments and clinging -- him do I call a holy man.
405. He who has renounced violence towards all living beings, weak or strong, who neither kills nor causes others to kill -- him do I call a holy man.

IS MODERN SUFFERING TRUE TO JUDAISM?

I ask whether modern Israel's suffering is true to Judaism, in a philosophical context, because of something written by Ninian Smart in his excellent compilation on world religions, "The Religious Experience of Mankind" (second edition, Scribners, NY, 1976), on page 301, The Jewish Experience:

"In Deutero-Isaiah's wider and exalted view of God's dealings in history, the Jews must no longer confine their gaze to themselves and their own transgressions, successes, and failures -- and the significance of their present suffering could not be simply explained by their own unfaithfulness. In the famous "Servant Songs," the prophet presented a new picture of Israel's destiny. Israel was destined by God to be a 'light to the Gentiles,' and to lead all nations to the truth. She had faltered in this task, and therefore had to be punished, but this punishment was more than chastisement. It was a purification and a vicarious sacrifice. Through the suffering of the Servant-people, all nations would be caused, through sympathy, compassion, and a perception of the righteousness of God, to turn toward the new Jerusalem. There the restored Israel would enter into a period of fruitfulness and joy. Salvation would spread abroad to all the corners of the world. The evils of present existence would disappear, and good would triumph. ... The condition of being 'chosen' was not a status granting Israel privileges and help in war. It was a role that led through suffering to the enlightenment of the world. The Suffering Servant idea provided a pattern for Jesus and the Christian interpretation of his self-sacrifice. It conferred a new perspective on the Jews' understanding of their own destiny."

So this is the reason for the question: Is modern Israel true to its calling of destiny, to enlighten the world with good and salvation, as seen by their prophets? Suffering has indeed been part of the Jewish historical experience and well recorded both in ancient writings, which themselves may have been based on still earlier oral traditions, possibly even pre-monotheistic traditions of ancient tribes, and in the tragic persecutions of modern times. It would seem that this calling to bring enlightenment to the Gentiles is a process still to be resolved in the present. However, the God of the Jews is also a jealous God, of anger and darkness as much as light. As God cautions in a passage from Amos (ibid., pg. 296):

"Woe unto you that desire the day of the Lord! to what end is it for you? The day of the Lord is darkness, and not light...

I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell (sc. the offerings) in your solemn assemblies. Though ye offer me burnt-offerings and your meat-offerings, I will not accept them; neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts. Take away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thine harps. But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream."
--Amos: 5:18, 21-24.

So what is modern Israel's mission? Will this mission be fulfilled when it can find peace with the Palestinians, and Arab neighbors? As a Middle Eastern ally to the western democracies, is Israel serving the purpose of those democracies, or are the democratic states to join in the suffering of the Servant People as they struggle to survive in an environment of hostile neighbors? What is God's righteousness that is to flow as a mighty stream? It would seem that the new Jerusalem is pivotal to the events of the flow of cultures from pre-biblical times to the present. As a mighty city of pilgrimage to Jews, Christians, and Moslems, She is nevertheless at the center of contention. And yet, is this not the opportunity to transcend conflict into a modern Peace? How can they solve this? Can they, and if so at what sacrifice? And finally, are they true to their historical mission, to bring Good to the world? I would think modern Israel has a monumental task at hand, and with it comes the potential for immeasurable future good, and joy.

(As posted on the Examined Life Journal Interdisciplanry Forum, Judaism)

Dear Ivan,

Lots of people have tried to find reasons why the Jews have suffered so
much throughout history. Of course they go to the sacred writing of the
old and new testament, and try to find some hidden meanings in some
obscure verses of the scriptures and so on...
For me things are much simpler than they seem to be. For one thing, not
only did the Jews suffer, so did the Christians and the Moslems. Although
Jews seem to have suffered the most.

For one thing, every so called religious person wants to follow the
scripture literally instead of following the spirit of the scriptures.
This is where differences and disagreement sprout from everywhere. If on
the other hand they would follow the spirit of the scriptures, there will
be no disagreements at all, because they all teach the same thing, to be
good with each others.(PERIOD).

Jews have suffered the most for two reasons:
For one thing , they cling to the non spiritual laws of Moses, and they
created books on interpreting these non spiritual laws such as the
Halakha and the Talmudic laws, which have absolutely nothing to do with
the divine spiritual laws of God. Unfortunately, they are still clinging
tenaciously to theses non spiritual laws, thinking that by following
them, the entire world will be a better place to live. Superstition!
Superstition! Superstition!
Secondly by clinging to the non spiritual laws of Moses, they missed the
beautiful messages that Jesus brought to this world. The reason is that
they were and are still ferociously clinging to non spiritual laws, many
of them man made. Again, Superstition! Superstition! Superstition!

Christians suffered and are still suffering too. Like the Jews, they also
cling to the literal interpretation of the scriptures and ignore the
beautiful spiritual teachings that were brought to us by Jesus, such as
"..a new commandment I give unto you, that you love one another". A
commandment totally ignored throughout the centuries, bringing wars among
Christians between Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox, plus waring and
hatred towards the Jews and the Moslems.

Moslem suffered and are still suffering more than anyone else. They too
are clinging to the non spiritual laws of Mohammed, they call it the
Chariah. They have totally ignore the spiritual laws that were given to
us by Mohammed. By clinging to these non spiritual laws, they are
suffering from poverty, intellectual and scientific stagnation, plus
horrible atrocities among themselves. Not a single Moslem nation have
really succeeded in achieving true democracy! They are and will continue
to suffer from poverty, intellectual and scientific stagnation and will
be the victim of their own religious fanaticism. Unfortunately, it seems
to me that they will be the one who will suffer the most in the years to
come until the day that they will see the light of the Baha'i Faith. It
is not by accident that Baha'u'llah was born in their midst.

All of the three major religions will continue to suffer until they will
realize the spiritual teachings of Baha'u'llah. You and me know that the
whole world will be a better place to live if we follow the divine
spiritual teachings that were given to us by God through Baha'u'llah. The
entire world will then enter the new era of an advance civilization and
achieve the level of the greatest peace on earth.

This is why my friend, at the age of 58, I decided to accept Baha'u'llah
as the divine messenger of God for our times.

Wishing you the best.

CHRISTIANITY: Faith, Hope and Love.

Dear Wj, Dave, and All,

For this thread of philosophy, we should probably review something of Jesus and the post Judaic movement he founded, now called Christianity.  

Jesus was well founded in the Law of the Hebrews, though I should point out that at the time of his existence, only the Pentateuch, or first five books of the Bible, the Torah or, Books of Moses, along with the Prophets were in book form; the additions of the Writings: Psalms, Job, Song of Songs, etc. were added later, sometime in the second century.  So Jesus was first of all a devout Jew, but he chafed at the Law, because it had become so burdensome and impossible to follow correctly.  He also was reputed to be a party guy, liked wine and good company, women, and spoke his mind freely, or so some scholars think.  When he discovered that along with his natural talent for knowing and interpreting the Scriptures, and his charismatic speaking ability, that he also could heal, combined with his baptism by John the Baptist where God made His presence known to him; then Jesus changed from a regular person to one who had a Messianic mission.  The Messiah was very highly anticipated in those days, in part because it would liberate the Jews from Roman oppression and taxes, and in part because the Prophets had foretold this.  So the historical Jesus did exist, he was a real person, and he had something to say, which later, as he foresaw, would destroy him.  From this remarkable man a whole new interpretation of Judaism sprang forth, and today we know it as a religion open to all people, Jews and Gentiles alike (most of the first Christians were Jews), and we call it after Christ.

The early Christians focussed mainly on Jesus' death and resurrection, and his promised return.  His was the promise that he was Messiah and that his Kingdom of God was at hand.  He also promised to return very shortly....  alas, many still wait.  The belief of the early Christians was that the old world order would soon end, and a new one with the Messiah at its head, was to take over.  Paul, after his spiritual ecstasy, converted from persecuting Christians to becoming their best missionary.  It was he who raised Jesus from a man to the Christ, the one who died for our sins, was sacrificed, and was risen from the dead.  On this simple foundation he, and the other early Christians, immortalized Jesus into a godhead, the Son of God; I should note that Jesus sometimes called himself 'Barabbas', which means 'son of the Father' (abba was the ancient word for father); and Paul centered this new Church around the Eucharist, the reenactment of Christ's last supper.  So the early Christians kept the Jesus memory alive with their simple practices, which were then carried on through the bishopric, who saw themselves as direct descendants of the Apostles, their helpers as deacons, and the priests who were the presbyters (elders).  This Church, though now of many denominations, was originally centered in Rome, which was the seat of power of the time, and has survived worldwide to this day.

Therefore, Jesus as the Messiah did not conquer Rome through force, but rather changed the world, Rome included, through 'Faith, Hope and Love'.  This was a message the early Christians understood intimately in their hearts.  If you visit the early catacombs outside Rome, you will see Jesus portrayed as a young man carrying a lamb on his shoulders.  Such was the portrayal of this man who taught that we should love, even turn the other cheek, and he was loved for it.  This was his extreme simplification of the Law, that God is Love, and in His new Kingdom, which he said was already at hand, this Law would rule.  He was not against slavery, per se, though the early Christians had slaves as members, but they had patrician members as well, all partaking in the Eucharist equally.  The Faith and Hope revolved around his return, to which the early Christians were totally faithful; the Love was to see all human beings as equal in the eyes of God, the Father, in His new Kingdom.  Jesus saw humanity as a great family, with God loving all, and for humanity to then in turn love one another.  In effect, Jesus saw a new world order, but as the Christ, as portrayed by Paul and his church, he became more than that, for he was elevated to an equality with God.  Once he was God, then to join in union with him (Him), was to partake in the redemption of our sins, and thus to be admitted into the Kingdom through this redemption.  (I should note here that this was not how Jesus saw it, but things change, alas.)

These early ideas of Love, of 'agape' were very powerful, and they helped revolutionize ethics.  It was no longer enough to follow all the rigors of Hebrew Law, but it became more important to join with God through love.  They practiced a vigil, for Jesus's return, their faith and hope, but they also joined in a community of love, of unity, of a new community of like minded souls who were now witnesses.  It worked, Paul succeeded in his ultimate mission of spreading the word of Christ, only that the message as given by Jesus may have been retooled for how the Church needed to structure itself.  Beset by persecution in early Rome, neglected by the Jews, and even accused of 'cannibalism' while reenacting the Last Supper Eucharist, the Church had to solidify its presence.  It did so by casting out potential dissenters from the oral traditions that had already formed around the worship of Jesus, excommunicating some or accusing them of heresy, so that what survived was only what the early bishops allowed.  This was done to save the Christian Church from Gnosticism (which was an Essene like mysticism), Marcionism (anti-Judaism), etc., all doubt was jettisoned.  Along with that self purging, I think, was lost Jesus' message that we should do all we can to bring to Earth the Kingdom of the Father, that we love one another first and foremost.  This message did survive the heavy handed bishops, however, in one place: the Love-feast.

This is the symbolism Jesus left behind when he foresaw that he would be killed.  He held his Last Supper as an example of how to perform this Love-feast.  The breaking of bread, the passing of the cup, were probably as valued in the culture of his time as it is today.  It is a sharing, a reminder of what we are supposed to do.  If so, then the Eucharist as it is performed by the priest or bishop is the direct link to Christ's teachings of Love.  I think this is the summa symbolism of his new Law.  In a secular sense, whether we are aware of this or not, we all share in this symbolism whenever we gather for dinner, feasts, or just share with goodwill, though we may not be doing so in Jesus' name.  So the simple faith of early Christians carries over into today, and in that Jesus revolutionized the world.  The faith and hope they carried many Christians still carry today, but this is not as universal.  However, the message of loving one another survived, that we are human beings equal before a Deity, that no man should hold another as slave (though this took centuries, even in America), that God's Love is with us when we do this.  In a way, Jesus' message was merely a restating of the Golden Rule, except that for the early Christians, and Christians to this day, it was taken to heart.  Because they loved their Saviour, they in turn could love one another.  From that followed human rights, freedom to pursue our own destinies, freedom from oppression, equality before the law, tolerance, charity, amnesty, and many of the civil rights and liberties we enjoy today, even if only in a secular sense.  However, alas, Peace is still elusive, not to mention the many wars that were fought in the name of Christ.  So, there is still a long way to go...

I hope my little homily has lent some value to this thread, and I would like to hear comments, or rebuttals, if for no other reason that I do not know everything there is to know about Love, Faith and Hope.  I am only a student.  To make it easier for reference, I pasted below a link to the King James Bible, should anyone need it.

Pax vobiscum,

Ivan

King James Bible, Old and New Testaments:
http://nitpik.com/Bible/index.html

(Also posted on the Examined Life Interdisciplanry Forum)

ISLAM FUNDAMENTALISM VS. THE SECULAR WEST

Kevin: Yes, I agree that Islam and the secularized world have very different agendas, and that the two may be irreconcilable as they are presented now; since Mohammed's people still see themselves as on a path to world dominion, a kind of latter day Jihad, whereas the secularized West does not, though in effect the West has dominated the world with its way of thinking and cultures. It is because of this very success by the West that a counter force becomes expressed, one that is totally different in nature from where things are going. This, to me, is what is happening today, and it was manifest as terrorism on the World Trade Center, the most glamorous structure of the West's success in what may be the most glamorous city (which happens to have a large Jewish population), in the country that represents the most modern achievements, all of which are anathema to those who are irreparably left behind. So the resentments run deep, not only because of the way the United Nations and Britain handled the forced eviction of Palestinians from their land, which was badly done and created wounds which will not heal easily, but also because the Western world, Israel included, has taken a direction which is so far removed from the teachings of Mohammed as they are being interpreted by the extremist fundamentalists of Islam. So the clerics and mullahs see us, the West, as Godless atheists drowning in perverse immorality, which to them is our Evil. That, in a word, is what brought us to questions about how to rebuild Afghanistan, which is where Islam's 'fundamentalists' and the West first met in battle in this new war, and how to confront and resolve the conflicts that have found voice through the use of terrorism and martyrdom.

I do not think the problem is solved by winning the war in Afghanistan. So even if we build an exemplary society in Afghanistan that is accepted by the various warring tribes there, by the western alliances, and by the United Nations, the problems result from this 'secular-vs-religion-vs- fundamentalism' confrontation will not go away. Success in Afghanistan will not resolve the issue at hand, which is most bitterly expressed in the Palestinian-Israeli confrontation. This is why Jerusalem comes up as a 'token' symbol of the conflict between the, in my opinion, evolved religions of the West, and still fundamentalist religions of the East. In effect, we are talking here about 'sacred cows' which may not play prominent in modern minds, but which are still vestigially important in the minds of most of the world. Oddly, the more we lean towards a secular social system, which I think is the right way, the more the fundamentalists, of all persuasions, lean the other way. So this is why I think that the symbolic significance of the Temple Mount is pivotal to a meeting of the minds between East and West, since it is a meeting place of where these religions come together in an emotionally charged location germane to them all. The Temple Mount is the 'sacred cow' location for most of the world's religions (excepting Buddhist-Taoist-atheist China and southeast Asia, Hindu India, Shintoist Japan), which may not appeal as a rallying point to reasoning secular minds, but which has a near mystical appeal, even if only subliminally, to most of the planet's humanity. Of course, this places the world's upcoming 'Drama' right there, smack in the middle of the most contentious geographical crucible on Earth, Palestine, once again; where this is yet to become a major human drama, so the Temple Mount will be at front and center. Reasonable minds can make use of this and bring in resolution sooner rather than later, I think, not to make them happy, nor to throw them a 'bone', but to satisfy their psychic need for 'sacred cows'.

This is why I say, 1000 year lease, because they will not be happy for a very long time, and Israel will be the landlord steward of this unhappiness until they come to terms and find Peace.

God Bless.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(the above was in response to text below by Kevin)

By Kevin on Saturday, December 29, 2001 - 11:02 am:
Ivan: Part of the complexity of the issue with regard to religion as a dividing force between the Christian West, Israel and the Islamic world is that none of these are monolithic religions anymore. Nor is religion given as influential a role in politics in the West, or even in Israel, as it is in certain Muslim countries. No influential groups in Europe or the Americas are currently pushing for the creation of a theocratic Christian state, one that is governed strictly according to Christian religious guidelines for running a state. Part of the reason for that may be the distance we in the West have traveled since the Wars of Religion were fought in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries. Another part of the reason is that, unlike Islam, Christianity was never intended to be an all-encompassing earthly society. Jesus advised to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.

Islam, on the other hand, was intended originally not merely to be a religion that would co-exist with a non-religious or non-Islamic state, but one that would become the state. The society in Islamic states was supposed to be modeled on the Shariah, the Islamic principles of social justice.

Modern-day Israel was founded as a secular state, not a religious one. Indeed, many of its founders were irreligious, if not atheistic. Orthodox Jews and more fundamentalist practitioners of Judaism are certainly present and influential within Israel, but they do not dominate its political thinking nor its society, which is generally as aggressively secular as, say, the present day society of Italy or France.

So I'm not sure that throwing the religious fundamentalists (or radicals) within Islam the bone of joint sharing of the Temple Mount, with a 1000 year lease in which Israel is the Landlord, will make them very happy. Their vision is for an Islamic-dominated society, not a secular one in which non-believing Israeli Jews and non-believing Christians have equal say over everything.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
By GDennis on Saturday, December 29, 2001 - 01:25 pm:
Anon (and all),

I am somewhat confused by the line of argumentation (or lack thereof) that you have proffered. You have suggested that the ignorance and political ineptitude of the west has been a catalyst for radical de-stabilization in the middle-east. The central feature of your argument is the claim that we do not understand the rich complexity of Islamic thought and culture and therefore have, like a hulking bovine lumbering into a tea shop, shattered any hope for order and stability. Your whole argument depends upon another assumption that we need to foreground. You have assumed, it seems, that Islamic culture possesses certain resources that are ready-to-hand and only need to be properly employed by a deft and dexterous hand (following the bovine metaphor, we [the west] have hooves and not hands). Of all of the sources you have quoted, you have failed to quote the most important. I would suggest that Fouad Ajami is the best mediator of these things; he is able to mediate to us the situation in the middle-east with the most sensitivity and nuance. The books that I would recommend are: The Arab Predicament, The Vanishing Imam, and The Dream Palace of the Arabs: A Generation’s Odyssey.

Let’s return to some aspects of your argument. The assumption that I have foregrounded, then, is that Islamic culture has ready-to-hand the resources that would make stabilization (through a transition into the modern world) possible. If this was so, then your “bull in a china shop” argument would have merit. But, if it turns out that Islamic culture does not simply have these resources at-hand, then might it not follow that your argument is fatally flawed? I would suggest that your argument fails to take into account the terribly long and protracted evolution of western political thought. Far from ever having political resources simply lying around, at-hand, western political thought has been a long reflexive conversation in which its own prejudices and founding principles have continually been dialogically examined. The central feature of western political thought, then, is its dialogic character. Modernity is itself the radical scrutinizing of every ground. Of course, this kind of radical scrutiny might from another perspective be seen as heresy, skepticism, and atheism. Should we not recall that Socrates was accused of impiety and corrupting the youth for putting-to-questioning or scrutinizing every ground? Western political thought is precisely the victory of Socratic dialectic. In other words, Western political thought is the victory of the willingness to engage political foundations critically. This implies that the greatest victory in the west is not so much a doctrine, but a posture. The greatest political victory in the west seems to be its willingness to adopt the posture of self-scrutiny. For, it is only from the posture of self-scrutiny that growth becomes possible. Growth implies the ability, nay, willingness and ability, to scrutinize oneself.

I must here agree with Kevin’s suggestion that there may be powerful elements in Islamic culture that make the necessary political self-scrutiny not only difficult, but impossible. We should see in the demonization of the west not truth but a ploy. Indeed, our sins are many. But, the rhetoric of demonization serves to deflect the needed self-scrutiny. Is this not true of all totalitarian regimes? Is it not the case that totalitarianism and fascism are built upon the rhetoric of demonization that serves to deflect self-scrutiny? We must never justify this strategy. Indeed, we must repent for our sins. We must also recognize that our sins will be turned by political opportunists into alibis for demonization that produce strategies of scapegoating that deflect self-scrutiny. Can we be so naïve that we fail to recognize this strategy and thereby enable it?

I think that we need to foreground another presupposition operative in your argument. I would suggest that enabling is often a function of cultural relativism. Indeed, it may not be our primary responsibility to scrutinize other cultures, but can we not hope that they will scrutinize themselves? When they fail to arrive at the proper scrutiny, can we not point out blind-spots and shortcomings without being accused of hypocrisy? It is easy to make the hypocrisy charge stick. It is easiest for demonizers to use this as another ploy to deflect self-criticism. What you seem to be failing to recognize is that not all political postures are equal. Cultural egalitarianism only serves to provide an alibi for the demonizers. Someone needs to ask the hard question, namely, is it not possible that traditional Islamic politics is fatally incompatible with development? The very language of Arabic emancipation has generally (whether donning the garb of the secular or sacred) operated on the principle of demonization, viz., the demonization of the west. What is needed on this demonization model, is a great thawra (revolution) that would lead to great tharwa (fortune). This play on words is not meant to be cute, but to show the intimate relationship between the language of revolution and Arabic fortune. Arabic nationalism, for instance, depended heavily upon the rhetoric of oppression. To throw off the yoke of the west (through the thawra) would lead -- it is assumed -- to a great Arabic tharwa or fortune. Palestine has been, of course, one of the chief political emblems for this thawra. The fate of Palestine represented the central symbol of western oppression. Since we are sensitive to the plight of the marginalized and the oppressed, we have often fallen prey to the complex nature of this political strategy (the strategy of demonization).

With the aftermath of shocking defeat in 1967 came a frenzied attempt to intensify the thawra (revolution) in order to reestablish Arabic dignity. It is not unwise to suggest that ressentiment became a powerful motivational force in the post ’67 period. Since ’67, there has been an inability to achieve any sustained fortune tharwa. This has only served to make many in the Arabic world view the thawra (revolution) incomplete insofar as it has not produced any lasting tharwa (fortune). So-called religion has proved to be a powerful source for encouraging a radicalizing of the thawra. To reestablish the former glory of the fallen Islamic empire depends upon a radicalization of the thawra. And, this radicalization of the thawra depends upon a radicalization of the notion of the western infidel; in other words, a radicalization of the Koranic notion of the enemies of Allah. This implies further a radicalization of the rhetoric of demonization and a radicalization of the scapegoating mechanism. In other words, a decrease in the capacity for healthy self-scrutiny.

What is needed, I would suggest, is the chief of the political virtues: prudence. Prudence depends upon self-scrutiny and practico-rational judgment. Both of these postures (self-scrutiny and pratico-rational judgment) demand a rejection of the scapegoating mechanism. For, scapegoating must always assume that the responsibility for all evils lies on the side of the Other. This implies, necessarily, that all good lies on the side of Us. The ground of scapegoating, then, is the they or the evil other. Revolution, on this model, will necessarily imply the death of the they, the infidel, the Other, because it will give rise (according to this very rigorous logic) to the dominion of goodness (we, us).

Anon, I refuse to be hoodwinked by this kind of political charlatanism. I think it is time that we throw of the iron cage of cultural relativism and return to the sober responsibility of sound judgment, critical care, and political prudence.

Take care,
Graham

http://examinedlifejournal.com/discus/index.html
(as posted under "Politics, Government & Society in Afghanistan")
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ps: In rereading Graham's post above, I must concur with: "What is needed, I would suggest, is the chief of the political virtues: prudence. Prudence depends upon self-scrutiny and practico-rational judgment. Both of these postures (self-scrutiny and pratico-rational judgment) demand a rejection of the scapegoating mechanism."

I believe this will be an ongoing process for a very long time, and a most important one that should be pursued doggedly by the more reasonable minds of all parties involved, if such mediation could be brought to the ultimate illusive goal of Peace.

Ivan

BATTLING 'FUNDAMENTALIST' INTOLERANCE

A recent article in the L.A. Times, Jan. 2, 2002, ( http://www.latimes.com/la-010202scholar.story ) starts with the heading: "Battling Islamic 'Puritans'", with the header reading: "UCLA professor, once a fanatic himself, is now a leading scholarly voice against intolerance among Muslims. Death threats don't deter him."

A second look at the header reveals key words: fanatic, intolerance, death threats. This is how the average reader is lured into reading the article, but it also reinforces the fears and misconceptions attached to Islam, and to its 'fundamentalism' in particular. On another thread, someone said that Islam is of necessity 'fundamental' and that is does not exist in any other way, but that only confuses the issue, that one can be both a believer, and also be tolerant of others in that belief.

The article quotes UCLA professor Khaled Abou El Fadl as saying: "The supremacist creed of the puritan groups is distinctive and uniquely dangerous. They do not merely seek self-empowerment, but aggressively seek to disempower, dominate or destroy others." This is from a Muslim who is of Kuwaiti origin, and represents a moderate voice. However, this is where the battle within Islam rages in modern times, between the moderate voices who are seeking to interpret the sacred writings of the Prophet for modern times, and the 'puritanical' back to basics which tries to recast Islam in the mold of 1,400 years ago. Which will win out? Which is self critical and respectful of reason? Which Islam is tolerant of others beliefs? That is the question.

The article goes on to say: "Many Muslims see an even more pervasive e impact of puritanism -- robbing Islam of its richness and flexibility. Howard University professor Sulayman Nyang calls it 'the mummification, ossification and fossilization of Islam. Most of these groups we call fundamentalists have a rigid idea that everything is sealed in concrete and there is no elasticity in reinterpretation. We need to inject life back into Islam and open it up in light of new realities."

So this is the new battle within Islam, as it appears to outsiders and insiders alike: it is a battle against intolerance, against ossification of ancient ideology, against domination, against a puritanical justification for aggression and terrorism of those who are not members of the Muslim world, as well as those who are, and against the forcible silencing with death threats of anyone who disagrees with them. The opposite is the reclaiming for the modern world of a rich faith of Islam given to a legacy of tolerance and compassion, and of love for a God Who's Will loves all man-woman-kind throughout the world. Primarily, this will be a battle against the puritanism, Wahhabism and its offsprings, and instead for a more gentle and tolerant message of God's Prophet, as it applies to our world today. Or as a quote from an article in the Washington Post, Dec. 30, 2001, ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37263-2001Dec28.html ) mentioned on another post in the Discussion Forums: "Caught in the viselike grip of orthodoxy, Islam choked. No longer would Muslim, Christian and Jewish scholars gather and work together in the royal courts. It was the end of tolerance, intellect and science in the Muslim world. The last great Muslim thinker, Abd-al Rhaman Iban Khaldun, belonged to the 14th century... Muslims must recognize that their societies are far larger, more diverse and complex than the small homogeneous tribal society in Arabia 1,400 years ago." The article prefaces this by explaining that the 12th century orthodox Arab cleric, Imam Al-Ghazali, championed 'revelation' over reason, predestination over free will (if all is Allah's will, then why free will?), and he damned mathematics as being against Islam, an intoxicant of the mind that weakened the faith. So, if reason is rejected offhand, how does one seek a common ground of reason, when this is impossible? How does one battle intolerance? That is the question.

So, my question is: "How, by what common creed, can we reconcile these two opposing forces of 'puritanism' and 'moderate reason' within Islam in the 21st Century? Can it be done?"

All the best, in Peace, Salam,

Ivan

(as posted on the Examined Life Forum: Islam: http://examinedlifejournal.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/topic.cgi?forum=18&topic=2 )

WAS JESUS GOD?

Dear Everyone and All,

There is a paragraph in Richard E. Rubenstein's book "When Jesus Became God" that zeroes in on what may have been for Christianity a never healing wound: Was Jesus God? This was a question of much debate to the early Christians, especially during the time of the battling bishops of Alexandria, Athanasius and Arius, during Constantine's reign in the fourth century. Rubenstein's paragraph reads as follows:

"Can God do anything He chooses to do? Of course -- except those things that are inconsistent with being God. Can He choose to be evil or ignorant? Could He be the devil -- or nothing at all? No, the Christian God is the Eternal God of Israel, Creator of the Universe. Athanasius maintains that this utterly transcendent God transformed Himself into a man, suffered, died, and then resurrected Himself! Doesn't this mixture of Creator and creature sound pagan? The bishop recognizes this, and tries to avoid its implications. For example, he insists that God did not create Jesus, but that he "begot" him out of his own nature. As he says, the idea of God fathering offsprings with human beings by natural means is too disgusting for any Christian to contemplate. He therefore hastens to add that the Father's method of generating the Son is beyond human understanding." (pg. 118: When Jesus Became God, Harcourt Brace, NY, 1999)

So this is the original schism between the Eastern (i.e., Greek) church, centered around Constantinople, and the Western (Latin) church of Rome: Arius and his followers believed Jesus was a human being who had grown so much in virtue as to become like the Father, or as Jesus called himself, the Son of the Father; Athanasius and his followers on the other hand believed Jesus was made perfect in nature and could not change from being who he was, God made manifest on Earth. When this central problem of whether or not Jesus was God was taken up by the 250 bishops at the great council Nicaea (325 AD), the resolution, also prompted by Constantine, was the Nicene Creed. In its original, it read as a proclamation of the speaker's faith, which said in part:

"...one Lord Jesus Christ, the Logos [Word] of God, God from God, light from light, life from life, Son only begotten, first-begotten of all creation, begotten before all ages from the Father, though Whom all things came into being..." (ibid. pg. 78)

However, Constantine then added his own bias, as to whether or not Jesus was God, by requesting the bishops insert the word 'homoousios', which is a philosophical Greek word for 'same in essence', so that the Creed would now read:

"...the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only begotten, that, from the 'ousia' of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, homoousios with the Father (one in Being with the Father), through Whom all things came into being..." (ibid. pg 82)

However, this bias toward the 'sameness' of essence, homoousios, was not shared by all, and the opposing bishops wanted to insert the word 'homoiousios' instead, which means 'similar' rather than the same. So this was the debate that left the two Christian Churches split almost to this day: Was Jesus God, the same as the Father? Or was Jesus similar to God, being the Son, but not the same? So the difference between the two Creeds as they were being presented then was only in one letter "i", which when inserted became 'homoiousios' and thus Jesus was not God, but only the Son of the Father, Son of God, similar but not same. Or as one writer had said, the two Christians Churches split over one 'iota'.

So, which is it? Was God so omniscient and omnipotent that He could manifest Himself into an Earthly Being, whom history knows as Jesus? Or was God more like the gods of the pagans, who could bring forth naturally offsprings who are Sons of God? Nowhere does the biblical texts mention Jesus saying he is God, to my knowledge, though he did say that He is the same as the Father. But then he also said that he is Barabbas, the son of the Father. Or, as Rubenstein asks: "Could Jesus have been God and not known it?.. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus describes himself as being other than the Father and less than Him." Though Jesus did say: "He who has seen me has seen the Father." (pp.117-118)

So what did Jesus mean, was he God, as Athanasius claimed? Or only the Son of God, as Arius claimed? Or did he merely wished to convey the notion that in believing his teachings, we then look directly into the Kingdom of God, of the Father? Or is there even any sense to the question, that the idea of God, Son of God, and Jesus as the son of God, Holy Spirit, the Trinity; that they are all metaphors, only to be understood as myths, necessary myths for an age trying to evolve beyond its pagan beliefs, and into a more modern light of One, a Deity driven Universe, a God? Was Jesus only one more great Prophet-like Teacher helping humankind move up one more rung of the ladder of our planet's evolution? These have been issues of religious and philosophic debate for centuries, I dare say, without resolve. So I pose this question to the readers: Was Jesus God?

And if so, why? If not, why not? Or is this question even relevant? Was this centuries old debate even worth debating, is it still relevant in today's modern times? Or is it all beyond human understanding?

I do not know.

God (and Son) Bless,

Ivan

WHAT IS TOLERANCE? Tolerance is the Freedom to Disagree.

(Or, as I wrote in another post at Examined Life: Philosophy Discussion: Politics, Government & Society in Afghanistan: 1/6/02:)

*Dear Graham, Kevin, G-man, and all,

What is Tolerance, but the freedom to disagree. Take away that freedom, where disagreement becomes punishable, even unto death, then dialogue ceases. To move away from radical fideism, there needs to be a conscious choice to allow for the freedom to disagree. Without dialogue, agreement becomes impossible, and coercion rules. So tolerance, the freedom to disagree, is at the base of East-West ideological dialogue, a very important freedom, I would think. And with that agreement, we can then proceed to once again reopen a high minded sharing of ideas.

BTW, this freedom would also allow internal dialogue within Islam.

All the best, Ivan*

I BELIEVE (a secular belief)

I believe:
I live in a very big, great universe.
That my mind knows more than I can ever know,
and lives it.
In life,
that in freedom all living things
are who they are.
That spirituality helps me be
Who I am.
In love, humor, and beautiful things.

I believe:
In a blueprint for social order built on laws
of agreements, also called Habeas Mentem.
In a secular spirituality which loves all religions,
not constrained by them.
In prayers heard, that my dreams are part
of a greater whole.
I believe that we are as we believe, and that it
becomes so in the world.
In forgiving,
that no living being is a threat
unless I empower it to be so.
I believe in One, God, Who is equal for us all.
I believe in truth.

See Habeas Mentem at:
http://www.humancafe.com
Ivan Demian Alexander

secular: pertaining to the temporal rather than to
the spiritual; the view that consideration of the
present well being of mankind should predominate
over religious considerations. (American Heritage
Dictionary)

Why I am a Gnostic, a dreamer of truth

If I were asked how would I categorize myself, as
the author of Habeas Mentem, it would be this:

There is something written in an introduction to
the Gnostics in "The Great Philosophers, vol. 2",
by Karl Jaspers, which I think catches the spirit
of where I'm coming from. Jaspers writes:

"What gnosis imparts has a dreamlike quality. For
its imagination the inaccessible and supersensible
realm assumes corporeality... Whatever has
attained some reality within human history is
never totally without truth. The meaning
underlying gnosis must be clarified in the
atmosphere of genuine science and critical
philosophy. This meaning can be called a truth.
Hence we call those philosophers who think
intuitively in the form of embodiments 'gnostic
dreamers of truth.'"

I think this catches the spirit of my
philosophical quest, that I am a gnostic, a
'dreamer of truth'. And this is meant both in
the Objective, as I observe the world critically,
study the sciences, and formulate the nature of
what is reality; and in the Subjective, as I
observe my observations, think of my thoughts, and
delve into that part of me accessible only in the
dreams of my imagination, and feel my sould in
relation to the souls around me. Thus from these
observations, I draw my conclusions, or build
philosophical systems, and form my beliefs.

-Ivan

Simon says that reason and faith are parallels
that can never meet. Like the twisting lines of a
double helix, science and religion dance together,
but never really touch, an inevitable paradox...
Simon, a skeptic and seeker.

Faith and reason are parallels that can meet.

When so happens we feel our soul is free and

we begin to really live

DID JESUS 'ASK' TO BECOME GOD?

Dear Ozan, Colleen, Traveller, and All,

Thank you for all your comments.

If I may offer my personal view, based on my readings and understanding of the Jesus phenomenon, and if I can do so in a secular sense to not offend believers who would consider my ideas heretical, I would like to posit the following:

I believe that it was a fairly common tradition in ancient times for great men to assume the role as 'son of god'. All the ancient Egyptian pharaohs thought of themselves as 'sons of god', of Amen-Ra, sometimes even one with God; so did great emperors, Alexander the Great became a 'Son of god', after asking for this of the high priest oracle at Siwa, Egypt; also Julius Caesar was called a 'son of god'. It was believed that when a person was worthy, the Deity's spirit would enter that person and Deify him, though not all human beings were capable of this rise to divinity, and scarce few could even hope to aspire to such. Only those who are pure of spirit, great in some virtuous way yet powerful, could hope to aspire.

Thus, I think the historical Jesus had a similar experience. When he realized that he could heal, that he had oratory gift, and a special acumen for the scriptures, then he asked God, if he was a 'chosen one'. His torment in the desert was against his own lower nature, what he would have considered evil in himself, and thus the 'devil'; and in overcoming the devil, he then was free to ask God for his mission as Messiah. I do not think Jesus consciously asked to be the 'Son of God', nor God as the later Christian dubbed him; rather, I think his was only to fulfill the prophecies of the Messiah. Only later was this interpreted by his followers that he was the Son of God, and later still sometime in the 4th century was he made an equal with God, and the Holy Spirit, in the Trinity of the Christians.

A similar event took place in 19th century Persia, when Baha'u'Allah claimed that he is the manifestation of God in the present era, again in fulfillment of prophecies, though these came through the line of Islam.

The question becomes, however, this: Can it be possible that by 'asking', through a kind of intense prayer as Jesus experienced in the desert; or Baha'u'llah experienced in his imprisonment because he was a Babbi (as a follower of the Bab, a 'heretic' to Islam), can certain pure and great individuals then become Sons of a Deity, of Brahma, of Amen-Ra, of Jehovah, of Allah; in essence, all 'Sons of God'? Would this then contradict the monotheistic notion of only One God? No, not if the divinity is either God, or a Son of God, and if it fits exactly into as the ancient prophecies had foretold. This is a question asked in a secular sense, but can this be possible in a philosophical sense, where the intense 'asking', or praying, by a chosen being delivers what mankind had also prayed for? And when this happens, does a world religion of necessity spring up around this great event? Is such a world religion then the 'test' of whether or not a prophet, or Messiah, is thus Blessed by God? In effect, was Jesus God because he 'asked to be God' and God answered?

So, by this reasoning, blasphemous that it may be for some, does mankind create its own spiritual deliverers in times of intense stress, and some individuals rise to that occasion and take up the mantle of being a Son of God? And if so, then does this resolve the debate of the ages, as to Who is the real Son of God, the greatest true Prophet, the true God?

Interesting ideas, and only my opinions, though I have no real answers for this. I am but one more searching for reality amidst the illusions of the Infinite...

God Bless, Peace, and Namaste (I worship the god in you)!

Ivan

------------------------------------------------------------
This above was in response to my post above "Was Jesus God?" and Ozan's excellent post: http://examinedlifejournal.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/topic.cgi?forum=16&topic=2&start=0 on the Examined Life Forum: Christianity, in response to my post above, Jan. 6, 2002:

Thank you Ivan, for posting this excellent article. Here is what the Quran says about Jesus:

Surah Al-Imran, Ayets 35 thru

35- When the wife of Imran said: `My lord! I dedicate to Your service that which is in my womb. Accept it from me; You are alone the Hearer the Knower.

36- And when she delivered of the child, she said: "My Lord, I have given birth to a female child." Allah knows best of what she was delivered: The male is not like the female; "and I have named her Mary. Protect her and her descendants from Satan, the outcast."

37- And her Lord accepted her with full acceptance, and vouchsafed to her a goodly growth, and entrusted her to the care of Zachariah. Whenever Zachariah went into the chamber where she was, he found that she had food. He said: "O Mary! Where is this food from?" She answered: "It is from Allah. Allah gives without stint to whom He will."

The subsequent ayets explain how Zachariah was delivered John the prophet by his wife, who was Mary's aunt. Afterwards:

42- And when the angels said: "O Mary! Allah has chosen you, and made you pure, and has preferred you above all the women of creation.

43- O Mary! Be obedient to your Lord, prostrate yourself, and bow with those who bow in worship."

44- This is of the tidings hidden, which We reveal to you (O Muhammed and his followers). You were not present with them when they cast lots to see which of them should be the guardian of Mary; nor were you present when they argued.

45- When the angels said: "O Mary! Allah gives the glad tidings of a word from Him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in this world and the Hereafter, and one of those who shall be brought near.

46- He will speak to mankind in his cradle and in his manhood. and he is of the righteous.

47- She said: "My Lord! How can I have a child, when no man has touched me?" He replied: "Such is the will of Allah. He creates what He will. When He decrees a thing He only says: Be! and it is"

48- And He will teach him the Scripture and wisdom, and the Torah and the Gospel.

49- And will make him a Messenger to the Israelites. He will say: "I bring you a sign from your Lord. From clay I will make for you the likeness of a bird; I shall breathe into it and, by Allah's leave, it shall become a bird.
By Allah's leave I shall give sight to the blind, heal the leper, and raise the dead to life. I shall tell you what you eat and what you store up in your houses. Surely that will be a sign for you, if you are believers.

50- To confirm the Torah that has already been revealed, and to make lawful to you some of the things you were forbidden, I bring a sign to you from
your Lord. So fear Him, and obey me.

51- Allah is my Lord and your Lord; so worship Him. That is the straight path.

52- But when Jesus became aware of their disbelief, he said: "Who will be my helpers (disciples) in God?" The disciples said: "We will be Allah's helpers. We believe in Allah; and bear you witness that we have surrendered!

53- Our Lord! We believe in that which You have revealed, and we follow him whom You have sent. Account us among those who witness."

54- And they schemed, and Allah schemed; and Allah is the best of schemers.

55- When Allah said: "O Jesus! I am gathering you and causing you to ascend to Me, and am cleansing you of those who disbelieve, and am setting those who follow you above those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. Then to Me you will all return, and I shall judge between you as to that in which you used to differ.

56- As for those who disbelieve, I shall punish them with a heavy chastisement in the world and the Hereafter; and they will have no helpers.

57- And so for those who believe and do good works, He will pay them their wages in full. And Allah loves not the wrongdoers.

58- This which we recite to you is a revelation and a wise reminder.

59- The likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him out of dust, then He said to him: Be! and he was.

60- This is the truth from your Lord, so do not be of those who waver.

61- And those who dispute with you concerning him (Jesus), after the knowledge which has come to you, say: "Come! Let us summon our sons and your
sons, and our women and your women, and ourselves and yourselves, then we will pray humbly and invoke the curse of Allah upon those who lie.

62- This is the whole truth. There is no deity but Allah, and He is the Mighty, the Wise.

63- And if they turn away, Allah is Aware of the evildoers.

64- Say: "O People of the Scripture! Come to an agreement between us and you, that we shall worship none but Allah, that we shall assign no partner to Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside Allah. And if they turn away, then say: "Bear witness that we are surrenders (to Allah)."

65- O People of the Scripture! Why do you argue about Abraham, when neither Torah nor Gospel were revealed until after him? Have you no sense?

66- Indeed, you are those who argue about that of which you have some  knowledge; why then do you argue concerning that of which you have no
knowledge? Allah knows but you do not.

67- Abraham was neither a Jew, nor a Christian, but was an upright man who had surrendered to Allah; he was not of the polytheists.

68- Surely, those of mankind who have the best claim to Abraham are those who followed him and this Prophet, and those who are with him; and Allah is the Protecting Friend of the believers.

After a lot of explanations about the disagreements between Muslims and non-Muslims, here come the ayets that explain the nature of Jesus and the
fate of Christians and Jews:

79- It is not possible for any human being to whom Allah has given the Scripture and wisdom and prophethood that he should afterwards have said to
mankind: "Be slaves of me instead of Allah!" He would rahter say: "Be worshippers of Allah by virtue of your constant study and teaching of the Scripture."

80- Nor would he command you that you should take the angels and the prophets for Lords. Would he command you to disbelieve after you had surrendered to Allah?

81- When Allah made His covenant with the Prophets, "Here are the Scriptures and the wisdom which I have given you. And afterwards there will come to you a messenger, confirming that which you possess. You shall believe in him, I shall help him." He said: "Will you affirm this, and accept the burden I have laid on you in this matter?" They answered: "We will affirm it" He said: "Then bear witness; I will bear witness with you."

82- Then whosoever after this shall turn away; they will be transgressors."

83- Are they seeking a religion other than the religion of Allah when all that is in the heavens and earth submits to Him, willingly or unwillingly, and they will be returned to Him?

84- Say: "We believe in Allah and that which is revealed to us and that which was revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes; and that which was vouchsafed to Moses and Jesus and the Prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we have surrendered."

85- He who seeks a religion other than Islam, it will not be accepted from him, and he will be a loser in the Hereafter.

86- How shall Allah guide a people who disbelieved after their belief, and after they bore witness that the messenger is true, and after clear proofs had come to them? Allah does not guide a wrongdoing people.

87- As for such, their reward shall be the curse of Allah, the angels, and all mankind combined.

88- They will abide there forever. Their punishment shall not be lightened, nor shall they be reprieved.

89- Except those who afterwards repent and mend their ways, for Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

90- But those who disbelieve after accepting the true faith and afterward grow more intense in disbelief, their repentence will not be accepted, and such are those who are astray.


About the crucifixion of Jesus: Surah An-Nisa (Women), Ayets 156 thru


156- And because of their disbelief (of the scripture of Moses), and of speaking against Mary a tremendous Calumny (they have sinned against Allah).

157- And because of their saying: "We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger." They slew him not, nor crucified him, but it appeared so
to them; and those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof except pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.

(It is doubted in Islamic fiath, that Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus was crucified instead of him, by a miracle of Allah, who caused him to resemble
Jesus.)

158- But Allah raised him up to himself. Allah is Mighty, Wise.

159- There is not one of the People of the Scripture but will believe in him before his death, and on the Day of Resurrection he will be a witness against them.

(Muslims believe that the true teaching of Jesus was violated by heretical churches who introduced bibles that contradicted the nature of Jesus. Some
of the Basilideans and Docetians of the first few centuries AD, before the Greco-Roman churches dominated the scene, renounced any torture-sacrifice
duality concerning Jesus. The heresy of ascribing a human partner to God seems to have occured in league with the Roman tradition of blood-sacrifice, incarnation and redemption. It was, afterall, an Egyptian-Roman way to deify emperors.)

Here comes the most striking Ayet about Jesus, defying the Doctrine of Trinity:

171- O People of the Scripture! Commit no excess in your religion, nor say nothing but the truth about Allah. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed to Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "three" Cease! better for you! Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from His
transcendent majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender.

(As you can see, The Quran points out that the Christians conjured metaphysical confusions about Jesus after him, in the form of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, plus his human and divine stati. The Quran absolutely rejects trinity in the following verse

172- The Messiah will never disdain to be a slave to Allah, nor will the favoured angels. Whoso disdains His service and is proud, all such will He assemble to Him.

Surah Al-Maida (Tablespread), Ayets 14 thru:

14- And with those who say: "Surely, we are Christians," We made a covenant, but they forgot a part of that whereof they were admonished. Therefore We
have stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the day of Resurrection, when Allah will inform them of what they have done.

(The early Christians suffered persecution in the hands of Jews and Romans. It is said that the original covenant of Jesus to his apostles was lost in
the process. Following that confusion, several Gospels were written after a few decades of Jesus's death. A result of this, it seems, was the myth that was created about him, resulting in the trinity heresy. Yet, even the
Gospels [John, xv. 26, and xvi, 7] seem to evoke the coming of another prophet after Jesus, by the name of Ahmad, or the Comforter. Even Jesus is told to declare the coming of this Prophet in the Surah Al-Saff. This person is accepted to be the Prophet Muhammed by Islam. True Christians are ackowledged if they accept all prophets of Allah, and not just Jesus.)

15- O People of the Scripture! Now has Our messenger come, to you, expounding to you much of that which you used to hide in the Scripture, and forgiving much. Now there has come to you light from Allah, and a plain
Scripture.

16- Whereby Allah guides all who seek His good pleasure to ways of place and safety, and leads them out of darkness, by His Will, to light, and guides
them to a straight path.

17- They indeed have disbelieved who say: "Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary." Say: "Who then has the least power against God, if He has willed to destroy the Messiah son of Mary, and his mother and everyone on earth?" Allah's is the Sovereignity of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them. He creates what He will. And He has power over all things.

18- The Jews and the Christians say: "We are the sons of Allah, and His loved ones." Say: "Why then does he chastise you for your sins? Surely you are but mortals of His creating. He forgives whom He will, and chastises
whom He will. Allah's is the Sovereignity of the heavens and the earth and all that is in between them, and to Him is the journeying.

19- O People of the Scripture! Now has Our messenger come to you to make things plain after an interval (between) messengers, lest you should say:
"There come not to us a messenger of glad tidings and warner." Now has a messenger of glad tidings and warner come to you. Allah has Power over all
things.

...

72- They surely disbelieve who say: "God is the Messiah, the son of Mary." The Messiah said: "O children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your
Lord. Whoever ascribes partners to Allah, for him Allah has forbidden paradise: His abode is the Fire. For evildoers there will be no helpers.

73- They surely disbelieve who say: " Allah is the third of three; when there is no God save One God. If they desist not from so saying, a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve.

74- Will they not rather turn to Allah and seek forgiveness of Him? For Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

75- The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both
used to eat food. See how We make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away.

(It is said that Jews have slandered Mary to have born an illegitimate child, the Christians have slandered Jesus to be a son-of-god, when he actually did not claim anything in that direction while he lived. How can
any creature that is made of the same material as God should need food for sustenance?)

109- In the day when Allah will gather the messengers together and ask: "What was the response you recieved?" They will say: "We have no knowledge:
It is You, only You, who knows in full all that is hidden.

110- Then Allah will say: "O Jesus, son of Mary! Remember My favour to you and to your mother; how I strenghtened you with the holy spirit (the archangel Gabriel) so that you spoke to mankind in the cradle as in
maturity; and how I taught you the Scripture and Wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel; and how you did shape of clay as it were the likeness of a bird
by My permission, and did blow upon it, and it was a bird by My permission, and you did heal him who was born blind and the leper by My permission; and
how you did raise the dead, by My permission; and how I restrained the Children of Israel from you when you came to them with clear signs, and those of them who disbelieved exclaimed: "This is nothing but clear magic!"

111- And when I inspired the disciples: "Believe in Me and in My messenger", they said: "We believe. Bear witness that we have surrendered".

(The followers of Jesus are alikened to the followers of Muhammed by Islamic scholars. Here is the last dinner of Jesus in the Quran

112- When the disciples said: "O Jesus, son of Mary! Is your Lord able to send down for us a tablespread with food from heaven?" He said: "Observe your duty to Allah, if you are true believers."

113- They said: "We wish to eat thereof, that we may satisfy our hearts and know that you have spoken truth to us, and that thereof we may be witnesses."

114- Jesus, son of Mary, said: "O Allah, our Lord! Send down for us a tablespread with food from heaven, that it may be a feast for us, for the first of us and for the last of us, and a sign from You. Give us sustenance,
for you are the Best of Sustainers.

115- Allah said: "I will send it down for you. But if any of you disbelieves afterward, him surely will I punish with a punishment wherewith I have not punished any of my peoples."

116- And when Allah said: "O Jesus, son of Mary! Did you say to mankind: "Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah?" He said: "Be glorified! It was not mine to say that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then You knew it. You know what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Your mind. Assuredly, You, only You, are the Knower of things hidden.

117- I spoke to them only that which You commanded me: "Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. I was a witness of them while I dwely among them, and
when You took me You were the Watcher over them. You are Witness over all things.

Further indications regarding that Allah has no equal: Surah Maryam, Ayets 35 thru:

35- It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! When he determines a matter, He only says to it "Be!"
and it is.

36- (And Jesus had declared) "Assuredly Allah is my Lord and your Lord. Therefore serve Him. This is the straight path."

37-  Yet the sects differed among themselves concerning Jesus; and woe to those who disbelieve because of the witnessing of a great Day.

(Even the Pagan arabs considered Jesus a god, or more like an incarnation of their idol gods. Hence they considered him just one of their polytheist
symbols. But Islam considers Jesus as Abdullah, meaning the honored slave of God, implying that he was a proud servant of his Lord who renounced material
wealth and comfort in the pursuit of the true belief. Quran says that Monasticism is invented after Jesus, when such was never revealed unto him.)


-----
Georg Friedrich Händel is the composer of finest operas, oratorios, concerti grossi, instrumental works and orchestral works of the late Baroque Era. He is the contemporary of J.S. Bach, G.P. Telemann and Alessandro Scarlatti. He marks the peak of homophonic music of the Enlightenment Age. His harpsichord and organ improvisations were a legend, his skill and proficiency famous. He had established the tradition of Royal Anglo-German Music whilst having settled in London. His was the time of splendour and refinement... Ludwig von Beethoven, a century after him would say: "Handel is the greatest composer that ever lived. I would uncover my head and kneel down at his tomb!"
---------------------------------------------------------------

Total Posts: 33 | Joined Jan. 2002 | Posted on: 10:18 pm on Jan. 6, 2002

(Post Script to above)

QURAN: Surah Al-Imran, Ayet 73 (?):

"73- They surely disbelieve who say: " Allah is the third of three; when there is no God save One God. If they desist not from so saying, a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve."

This may be a perpetual bone of contention between Christianity and Islam, that Allah/God is only One of the Three: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. However, this is easily resolved by helping those who are troubled to understand that the Trinity is only One, and that each member of the Trinity is equal with the One.

Granted, this does not make a whole lot of sense rationally, but it is logical if the believers accept it as true (that 3 = 1!).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Ozan,

Thank you so much for your great exposition on the Imrans as regarding Jesus. As you said parenthetically in your post:

(Even the Pagan arabs considered Jesus a god, or more like an incarnation of their idol gods. Hence they considered him just one of their polytheist symbols. But Islam considers Jesus as Abdullah, meaning the honored slave of God, implying that he was a proud servant of his Lord who renounced material wealth and comfort in the pursuit of the true belief. Quran says that Monasticism is invented after Jesus, when such was never revealed unto him.)

So the tradition of Godhood is an old tradition; though I believe 'monasticism' goes back to the days of the Essenes, who predate Jesus, and it also existed in various forms in Buddhism and Hinduism hundreds of years before Christ.

Salam, Peace,
Ivan

THE TEMPLE MOUNT in Jerusalem (continued):

I had written in post above, Nov. 4, 2001:

"I believe that one way to insure future peace between the feuding three major world religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as represented by the current conflicts in the Middle East, Israel and Palestine, as well as far off Afghanistan, is to rebuilt the temple site holy to all three religions. This would mean that the Temple on the Mount in Jerusalem should be rebuilt by all three religions, their world wide flung representatives, financed equally, and shared equally in their physical presence."

The BBC News reported on Jan. 23, 2002, the following:

"Israel 'to open up Temple Mount'

Israel is planning to reopen to non-Muslims the most sensitive religious area in Jerusalem, the Temple Mount or Haram al-Sharif, the BBC has been told."

(see full text on: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1778000/1778047.stm )

Does this mean that we are witnessing the first small step? Or are the questions we asked gone into the 'ether', so even Jerusalem answered?

Time will tell...

Ivan

For a description of the Temple Mount, go to:
http://www.templemount.org/

MEDITATION (Buddhist) ON BREATHING

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/leaves/bl115.html

Ven. Mahathera Nauyane Ariyadhamma

Buddhist Publication Society
P.O. Box 61
54, Sangharaja Mawatha
Kandy, Sri Lanka

********************
The Eight Steps

"To help practitioners in developing this meditation, the commentators and meditation masters have indicated eight graduated steps in the practice. These eight steps will first be enumerated, and then they will be explained in relation to the actual meditative process.

"The eight steps are named: counting (ganana); following (anubandhana); contact (phusana); fixing (thapana); observing (sallakkhana); turning away (vivattana), purification (parisuddhi); and retrospection (patipassana). These eight cover the whole course of meditative development up to the attainment of arahatship. "...

http://www.tolueislam.com/drIqbal/AI_Reconstruction.htm

The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam

by Allama Mohammad Iqbal

(Lectures I-VII, delivered at Aristotelian Society, London, 1932-1933)

---

Quote:

What is the character and general structure of the universe in which we live? Is there a permanent element in the constitution of this universe? How are we related to it? What place do we occupy in it, and what is the kind of conduct that befits the place we occupy? These questions are common to religion, philosophy, and higher poetry.

---

Hinduism Resources

Description: hinduism related news, books and web resources

Those who engage in interfaith dialogue must remember that we dialogue not to dilute our faiths but to identify the points of convergence and divergence.Let us start with what we know and build on what we have.I have stated this point over and over again during the last twenty years.Keep the faith and let us continue to dialogue.