Universalism and Particularism
Mark A. Foster
paragraphs from various posts I
have made on the subject of realism
and nominalism. Perhaps they may be
of interest to someone.
I am also a realist, a social
realist, as are most sociologists.
Societies and groups are, to me,
not merely abstractions but
emergent realities sui generis. My
reading of Marx is that society and
social structure are the
evolutionary and revolutionary
products of the reflexive relations
between history (challenge) and
social action (response). The
particular species of social
realism to which I subscribe is a
variant of Roy Bhaskar's
dialectical critical realism, a
compromise between realism and
idealism.
On a spiritual level, I consider
the universal (spirit) to be animus
of the particular (individual
souls). I suppose that this
perspective, combined with my
passion for Wilber's approach to
holarchy, makes me a realist, as
well. (Incidentally, his newest
book, _One Taste: The Journals of
Ken Wilber_, provides added
insights into Wilber's thinking
behind holons and other subjects.)
However, in my view, realism cannot
be assumed from what I call
"prophetic ecology," the various
contexts, including linguistic,
which are utilized by the Messenger
in translating Logos into logos.
When you write, "I interpret this
[realism in the Baha'i texts] to
mean that God considers this line
of thought as the preferred avenue
of human evolution for the next
thousand years," I think you
conflate context with meaning.
My reading of the Baha'i teachings
would place them closer to
(Bhaskarian and Wilberian) critical
realism (toward the center on a
realism-idealism scale, i.e.,
rejecting ontological relativism
while affirming epistemic
relativism) and closer to spiritual
realism (on a realism-nominalism
scale).
Although I am a social realist (on
a social realism- social
nominalism/methodological
individualism scale) and a
Bhaskarian "transformationalist"
(on a Durkheimian collectivism-
Weberian voluntarism scale), I
would not want to argue that my
perspective is supported by the
Baha'i texts.
The social nominalist position
argues that society and structure
are simply convenient terms to
describe observed similarities in
behavior patterns of individuals.
Extreme social realism leads to
Durkheimian reification. Extreme
nominalism reduces sociology to
studies of individual actors.
(George Homans is a good example.)
Although I appreciate Durkheim's
perspective, a more workable (and
"middle range," hopefully use
Merton's criteria) theory of social
realism, in my view, is to regard
social structures, groups, and
societies as ongoing emergent
products (syntheses) of a dialectic
between history and social action.
That is, it seems to me, the
essence of Marxian (critical)
realism.
Despite its radicalism, I would
place Marx's sociology or, as he
referred to it, "scientific
socialism" (not to be confused with
an externalized socialism or a
"communism") about midway between
Weberian voluntarism (what Parsons
called Weber's "social action
theory") and Durkheimian
collectivism (reification).
If collectivities meet the criteria
for being societies (and are not
merely aggregates), I would agree
that they are "real." The
difference is that social
structures incorporate a higher
level of awareness than does, say,
the structure of an ant colony or a
bee hive. Societies, IMO, develop
through a process of *conscious*
evolution, which would include an
interaction between false and class
consciousness.
For what's worth, my impression is
that the various statements made by
the Guardian could be read as
assuming either social realism or
social conceptualism. However, I
would rather leave that subject to
the magisterium of (social)
science.
Therefore, my responses to the
realism-nominalism question may, in
this respect and in some others,
not be much different from yours.
However, I would not want to use
the presence of the language of
Neoplatonism, irfaniyyih,
Sadriyyih, Ishraqiyyih, and
Akbariyyih in the Baha'i texts as
evidence.
Generally most forms of realism are
someone else's nominalism.
Conversely, most social nominalists
would balk at the notion of
reducing the individual to a
collection of organs and tissues.
Wilber resolves this problem by
developing a global model of
critical realism. By postulating
that holarchic layers of the same
reality are seen through different
critical perspectives (as he
pointed out in one of his first
books, _Spectrum of
Consciousness_), he avoids
reductionism altogether.
In my view, the ultimate universal
is spirit. The Most Great Spirit
(God) manifests as the Holy Spirit
which, in turn, generates a
succession of lower spiritual
degrees. Consequently, as I see it,
there is no *accomplishment* of
unity between particulars. Rather,
there is an outward realization of
the pre-existing Unity of God
expressed in the diversity of
existence.
In addition, I think you may be
engaging in reification. Although I
believe that social structures are
real and not merely sums of actors,
I regard those structures as the
ongoing products of human action.
In that sense, the substructures of
societies and groups are not
identical to material structures,
like that of biological organisms
or chemical compounds. To say that
societies are potentials
contradicts, IMO, the second part
of your sentence, viz., where you
say that they are the "result[s] of
historical processes." Societies
are emergent realities. They are
not natural phenomena.
I know that the term "challenge and
response" came from _A Study in
History_. However, I *do* believe
that all challenges are material.
(That is to say, they are
manifested spirituality.) The
prophetic challenge, in my view,
comes from the names and attributes
of God revealed in nature. The
human response is witnessed in our
relations to those natural
perfections (not purely the
relations of production, as Marx
argued).
You wrote, "Responses to false
challenges result in false
consciousness according to Marx." I
would rather say that false
consciousness, like Karl Mannheim's
ideology (which he contrasted with
utopia, or class consciousness),
emerges out of a failure to
respond. It is the path of *no*
resistance.
To illustrate the relation between
vehicle and meaning, _The Dawn-
Breakers_ might be regarded as as
Baha'i mythology. That volume,
irrespective of its historical
accuracy, is almost like our
gospel, "The Gospel According to
Nabil." ;-) We can also see within
it certain parallels to the life,
suffering, and Crucifixion of
Christ, correspondences pointed out
by the Guardian.
I have sometimes speculated that
the primary reason Shoghi Effendi
selected that particular book was
because of its numerous
similarities in construction and
content to the Gospels of the New
Testament. It seems to me that if
the Guardian was particularly
concerned about its factual
historical accuracy, he himself
would not have contradicted it in
_God Passes By_ (though it has been
a while since I have looked into
it).
The hermeneutic error of Christian
fundamentalism, IMO, is to reduce
scripture to history and observable
fact. Thus, the Resurrection of
Christ, the edenic account, and the
story of Jonah in the belly of the
whale are interpreted as actual
historical events, as if they had
been reported to us by a
journalist.
While _The Dawn-Breakers_ is not
scripture (though it may be more
authentic than any of the four
Gospels), I think we commit a
comparable error, confusing vehicle
with meaning, if we assume the
reason the Guardian translated the
first part of Nabil's Narrative was
to promote its value as literal
history.
Sociology founder Auguste Comte
resolved the dilemma between
rationalism and empiricism by
attempting to eliminate metaphysics
altogether. A better solution, IMO,
is to recognize the differences
between the "real" and the
"empirical." All to often, their
distinctions are blurred (or even
denied).
The primary distinction between
biological and sociocultural
evolution is that while, in the
former, teleology is not dependent
on human response, the latter is
dialectical. Sociocultural
evolution is dependent on a dynamic
encounter between the continuing
challenges of history, guided by
Theophany, and praxis (response).
IMO, structure itself is, by
definition, emergent. If a
structure (holon or universal)
performs differently than its
particulars would when viewed in
the context of another structure, I
think one may assume that the
difference (alternative hypothesis)
is attributable to the structure,
i.e., the whole and not the parts.
On a micro level, one can observe
this same phenomenon in Erving
Goffman's frame analysis (or his
earlier dramaturgy). Human behavior
changes as it responds to different
roles (structural or expected
behaviors).
Mark A. Foster
ow...@sociologist.com
RBCF Mark (on AOL only)
Mr Mahdi
>a social realism- social
>nominalism/methodological
>individualism scale) and a
>Bhaskarian "transformationalist"
>(on a Durkheimian collectivism-
>Weberian voluntarism scale), I
>would not want to argue that my
>perspective is supported by the
>Baha'i texts.
>
It seems to a naivte (yeah, I said it again) amongst people esp. in the
academic world where they believe fanciful or well constructed theories can
offer hope to man kind. This naivete is due to them believing that
"idealistic" concepts are potentially true and practical. A simple explanation
for the reason why man is not in a harmonious state is because the system of
life is not based on obeying God, and man's actions are not based on obeying
God. So as a result, when there is disobedience to God, there is disorder and
disharmony.
When I first studied Communism, "some" of the principles I heard sounded
"idealistic." But knowning Islam and understanding that the best knower of man
and his nature is the Creator made me understands the falsehood and lack of
solution Communism really was. And as we all know, Communism failed miserably.
Allah said that you see corruption in land and sea because of what the hands of
man has brought forth, and so that you can taste your wrong doing. The best
organizer of man's affairs is the Creator of man, not man himself. He gives us
the best Guidance, because have a just system requires Guidance, not just
"fanciful and promising theories."
Mahdi
ca...@my-deja.com
explanation
> for the reason why man is not in a harmonious state is because the
system of
> life is not based on obeying God, and man's actions are not based on
obeying
> God. So as a result, when there is disobedience to God, there is
disorder and
> disharmony.
As we all know, God commanded us repeatedly to "love the Lord God with
all your heart and do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
>
> When I first studied Communism, "some" of the principles I heard
sounded
> "idealistic." But knowning Islam and understanding that the best
knower of man
> and his nature is the Creator made me understands the falsehood and
lack of
> solution Communism really was. And as we all know, Communism failed
miserably.
Actually, a communistic state never existed. None of the states we
choose to call communistic really practiced full fledged communism, but
rather had a centralized power structure that planned everything, but
not real communism, which is a withering away of the state. The
pseudocommunistic states such as the USSR etc failed miserably, because
of corruption. Many socialistic states are thriving economically,
usually more so than the US. I am not so sure about morally though.
>
> Allah said that you see corruption in land and sea because of what the
hands of
> man has brought forth, and so that you can taste your wrong doing.
The best
> organizer of man's affairs is the Creator of man, not man himself. He
gives us
> the best Guidance, because have a just system requires Guidance, not
just
> "fanciful and promising theories."
Well, we agree that God gives us guidance, we just don't agree that the
last Guide was Mohammed.
Repeatedly,
Carol Ann
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Mark A. Foster
I agree with you that communism, as explained by Marx, is impractical. Most
people don't realize that Marx and Engels proposed the elimination of
government. ("Even the state will wither away and die.") In addition to the
elimination of class differences.
However, neo-Marxism is not communism. It attempts to apply a Marxian dialectic
to forms of oppression, based on conflicting structural interests, Marx did not
consider, i.e., gender oppression, oppression of minorities, oppression of the
disabled, oppression of the elderly, etc.
I primarily use a Marxian approach to oppression, history, and social
structure.
Mark A. Foster
call communistic really practiced full fledged communism, but rather had a
centralized power structure that planned everything, but not real communism,
which is a withering away of the state.<<
Precisely, and that was largely because, in the conflict between Stalin and
Trotsky, Trotsky lost.
Mr Mahdi
>dialectic
>to forms of oppression, based on conflicting structural interests, Marx did
>not
>consider, i.e., gender oppression, oppression of minorities, oppression of
>the
>disabled, oppression of the elderly, etc.
Mark, yes, very "idealistic," but "idealism" doesn't mean "solution." I have
met many communists, anarchists, etc., all explaining their creeds and
ideologies with full-fledge zeal and unfortunately naivete. What these people
keep missing is that man is not able to solve his affairs, plain and simple
because his actions are not in harmony with his natureUNLESS he is obeying his
Creator. Man has a need to make peace, love, war, trade, marry, travel, etc.,
but these needs need more than an "idealistic" and "promising" set of theories
and beliefs. What the needs of man need is a system that is able to organize
and fulfill man's needs in the proper way. And the proper way to fulfill the
needs of man in the proper way is to know the nature of man, and man is clearly
unable to do that.
Man can satisfy his hunger by eating clean and safe food or by eating poison.
Both instances he is satisfying his instinct of hunger, BUT, one is right, the
other is wrong. What determine what is right or wrong is the simple fact that
one food works and the other harms. The same thing applies to ideologies. If
a ideology like communism and socialism that conflicts with man nature
(socialism/communism suppresses man's right to be wealthy), then it will not
cause any harmony at all. Capitalism conflicts human nature on many aspects,
like for example its oppression of the poor. The system of Islam does not
oppress the rich or poor, it has a system that looks after the poor and needy
and allow the rich to be rich, as long as they are within the limits of Islam.
No ideology in the world today has this type of justice. It is to bad that you
never studied in detail the ideology of Islam, but believe you me,
ww.khalifornia.org is a very good start.
Mahdi
Mr Mahdi
Oh I have heard that excuse from commies alot. They will point out that every
communist country incorporated capitialism in their system, and other "foreign"
elements in their communism. They seem to forget that communism is a failure
from the get go. A system that suppresses man's right to ownship and
worshipping the Creator is a inherently false system that will never work. It
is only the naive and gullible who will fall for anything "idealistic" that
still believe communism/socialism will work. The ideology of Islam did not
oppress the rich or poor. Please read my posts in soc.religion.islam about
these issues. Very well written and deep.
Mahdi
Smaneck
>these issues. Very well written and deep.
>
Dear Mahdi,
Your intellectual prowess is exceeded only by your humility.
Susan Stiles Maneck
History, Stetson University
nima_...@my-deja.com
My old friend. My hat goes off. This was great stuff and precisely the
sort of sociology and critical social theory I'm getting into myself
these days. Have you written any of this up for publication at all?
Just one thing: you say that Karl Mannheim engages in a form of
reificatory reasoning. In his _Ideology & Utopia_ one gets the opposite
of that impression. Or, am I reading him wrong?
Tell me more about this Roy Bhaskar. He sounds interesting.
Best regards,
Nima
Mark A. Foster
I agree with much of what you wrote.
Marx, of course, was not the only one to write of the awful exploitation of
workers in the 19th-century "sweat shops" (and quite literally so, since people
would sometimes drop dead from the heat).
His distinction was in providing a thorough analysis of capitalism (a term he
coined, by the way), especially his discussions of Ricardo's "percolate-down"
views in the Grundrisse.
Then, using his knowledge of capitalism, he proceeded to "deconstruct" the
relationship between the bourgeois and proletarian classes - advocating a
dictatorship of the proletariat (as an aspect to revolution) and resulting in a
classless, stateless communist system.
In my view, Marx does a far better job at deconstruction than he does at
reconstruction. Marx, Engels, and Trotsky were, as you say, idealists. (Trotsky
is often called the right wing of Russian communism.).
However, the idea of eliminating the state, not too different from Bukhanin's
anarchism [Of course, Bukhanin was originally a Marxist.], has no modern
historical precedent. In that sense, Marx, in my view, was quite anachronistic
- looking back to the "primitive communism" of ancient hunting-and-gathering
bands.
IMO, the solution is, as Terry Culhane has termed it, a "theophanocracy" (not a
theocracy), i.e., a Prophet-centered system.
Mark A. Foster
Communism, as described by Marx and Engels, has never existed. Politicians like
Stalin and Mao almost completely reversed the the ideals of the First
International.
Now, in writing the above, I am not suggesting that Marx, Engels, and Trotsky
would have been successful. I am merely saying that what they advocated has
never been tried.
Mr Mahdi
>a
>theocracy), i.e., a Prophet-centered system.
>
Since all of this ideas have human being as their creator and of course
proponents, they are doom to failure because the best organizer of man's
affairs is not man himself, because if man have a hard time organizing his
affairs, what makes you think he can organize for others?
I would like for you to read some articles in khalfornia.org that explains in
detail in a concise fashion about the systems of life. Since you are a
socialogist, I would like to hear your take on the systems of life of Islam as
described in the website.
Mahdi
Mark A. Foster
I am still waiting for your phone call. ;-)
Thanks for the kind words about my postings. If you remember when I posted a
portion of my book-in-progress on H-Bahai (the part that dealt with evolution),
I am developing some of the material on realism, nominalism, etc. into a
separate chapter.
A question for you: We have been having a discussion on the Baha'i Studies list
on realism/nominalism. Do you have any thoughts on which of these two
epistemologies is more supported by the Baha'i texts? I would say it is a type
of critical realism (closer to Ibn-Arabi's and Ken Wilber's than Roy Bhaskar's
and most forms of perspectivism).
Regarding Mannheim: My reference to him was in connection with Marxian class
consciousness (utopia) and false consciousness (ideology). When I referred to
reification, I was talking about Durkheim's collectivism.
Mark A. Foster
Regarding Roy Bhaskar: He is extremely difficult to read and has been almost
universally scolded for that. Some of his harshest critics have contended that
he uses his fancy neologisms and sentence constructions as a cover for a lack
of substance.
I agree that Bhaskar's stuff is hard to read, and I wish he would work on that
more. However, I don't agree about the lack of substance.
Bhaskar's starting point is Kant's transcendental realism which he couples with
criticism (in the sense of Marxism). He argues that in order to bring about
social change (such as revolution), you first need to understand its dynamic
properties. To Bhaskar, the dialectic is one of the dynamic properties inherent
in the real world.
Bhaskar also makes a point of clearly distinguishing between the empirical and
the real. In so doing, he frees realism from its empiricist and positivistic
assumptions. In other words, by proposing a compromise between idealism and
realism, he allows for the possibility of different critical perspectives on
the same objective epiphenomena.
There are numerous similarities between Bhaskar and Wilber. Both are critical
realists, though I don't think that Wilber ever calls himself that. IMO, an
integrated critical realist theory, which incorporated aspects of both
perspectives, especially Bhaskar's definition of the social structure, neither
limited by Weberian voluntarism nor reified like Durkheim's collectivism, and
Wilber's view of the four quadrants would be useful. However, given Bhaskar's
materialism and Wilber's "full spectrum" holarchic approach, I doubt that such
collaboration would be possible.
Mark A. Foster
I did once look at the Kalifornia.org site - when you first mentioned it. (And
I once came across it on my own, as well, just by surfing the web). However, I
will go back and look at it again. Any particular sections of the site you
would like me to visit?
Mr Mahdi
>would like me to visit?
In the khalifornia.org website, go to Articles and read anything (I would like
for you to read all of them) that are specifically concerning the systems of
Islam, its structure, Islam Vs Democracy, etc. There are 23 articles in the
Articles section, and most of them are relating to systems and its explanation.
Pick any of the articles, and I would love to hear your comments and/or
questions, especially since you being a sociologist and a person interested in
ideological reformation of the society.
Mahdi
Mark A. Foster
I have just read:
1. "An Overview of the Islamic System"
2. "State Defined; When a State is Islamic?"
3. "The Islamic State"
4. "Islamic System: Social"
5. "Islam vs. Democracy."
6. Excerpts from the Constitution
of the Islamic State
My feeling is that if this system is successful in uniting Muslims, with the
human and religious rights of all non-Muslims (including Baha'is) living within
their borders protected, I wish you success. I was impressed by the following:
"Article 6
"All citizens will be treated equally regardless of their religion, race,
color or any other factor. The
State will not discriminate between
citizens in any matter, such as
ruling, judiciary or welfare."
and
"b. Non-Muslims are permitted to
follow their own beliefs and acts of worships"
Mr Mahdi
>human and religious rights of all non-Muslims (including Baha'is) living
>within
>their borders protected, I wish you success.
Well, if you were to study of the Khilafah, these things actually happened. So
the "idealistic" concepts of Islam are the truth because they have been
implemented, and the system did work. Remember, when Salah ud-deen (Saladin)
liberated Jerusalem he could of easily massacred all the Christians like the
Chrisitians did the Muslim and Jews, but since he was obeying the Laws of
Islam, he didn't. He allowed all the non-muslims to continue worship their
religion in peace. Also, there are so many caliphs who sent armies just to
defend non-muslims in the Islamic state from enemies. In the Ottoman
caliphate, you had many non-muslim who were quite influent in the Islamic
soceity, and they were not oppressed in any way. And there were times where
the Christians of Sham (Levant) begged the Islamic State to protect them from
their CHRISTIAN Roman "brothers."
I would like you take on the article in the website concerning the Islamic
Economic system.
Mahdi
Mark A. Foster
I just read, "Islamic System: Economic," on the Khalifornia.org web site.
I agree with most of it. In fact, many of the same principles are discussed by
both Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha. The establishment of a local storehouse (or
house of finance), to be administered by the "trustees," or trusted ones, of
the community, is intended to guarantee some of the same economic protections
which are outlined in that article.
My main concern these days centers on guarantees of medical care, housing,
utilities, nutrition, and access to legal services. It seems to me that none of
these should be linked to the accumulation of wealth. For instance, the U.S. is
only industrialized nation in the world which does not have either national
health insurance or socialized medicine.
Mr Mahdi
>by
>both Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha.
(I will refer you to a link that answers your concerns at the end of the post
Insha Allah)
But remember Islam came first, and of course these two STOLE these principles
from Islam. Also, these principles were actually implemented in Islam, but the
bahai faith principles of economics has yet to be applied. I cannot see the
"principles" of economics in the bahai faith ever implemented in a ideological
system, because it takes an ideology and its systems to be both based on the
same creed to work. For example, the reason why you do not see the so-called
"Islamic States" of today having a just system is because the mixed-up
different principles from different systems and then fooled the naive people by
calling it Islam. Islamic Laws didn't come here to protect Capitalism,
Communism, theocracy, etc., it came to "protect" and implement Islam and the
Islamic principles and laws will only work in a Islamic system.
>My main concern these days centers on guarantees of medical care, housing,
>utilities, nutrition, and access to legal services. It seems to me that none
>of
>these should be linked to the accumulation of wealth.
In the Islamic State, the caliph is the one responsible for the welfare of the
citizens. This is a big responsiblity of course, but it is an Islamic duty for
the caliph to make sure no citizen is not given his due rights. If someone is
starving, the Islamic System must feed that person. In the Capitalistic
system, if you don't eat, too bad, better hope a generous person will give you
some money or a homeless shelter give you some hotmeals for a couple of days.
Health care in the Islamic State must be for everybody, poor or rich, and you
cannot deny treatment of a person because he cannot afford it.
So many things I am not able to cover about the Islamic economic system here.
Khalifornia.org gave you a general and concise description of the Economic
system. But khilafah.com gives a more detailed explantion and it answers the
concerns you raised. I would highly suggest you check it out and comment on
it. Here is the link for the systems of Islam (Click on Economics, or any
other one that interests you):
http://www.khilafah.com/systems/index.htm
Mahdi
Mark A. Foster
I just read:
http://www.khilafah.com/systems/economic/index.htm
However, when I clicked on the link for "Islam and the Economic Question," I
noticed that the link was either incorrect or had been removed.
I am pleased to see a discussion of any system, religious one's in particular,
which would establish economic and social justice. As I said, I think that the
basic principles are sound and, by modern standards, progressive.
I am not an Islamicist. However, as I see it, all the Prophets engage in a
process of contextualization and recontextualization.
First, They speak in the religious and cultural context of Their listeners,
Islam in this case.
Second, They recontextualize the previous scriptures, sometimes retaining
aspects of the old and, frequently, endowing it with new meaning.
Therefore, it doesn't surprise me to see some of the same terms and concepts in
Islam and in the Baha'i Faith.
Critics of Islam complained that Muhammad had merely repeated things He had
heard from the Bible. Differences between the biblical stories and those in the
Qur'an were, unfortunately, attributed to the Prophet's supposedly "faulty"
memory.
As I see it, a similar relationship exists between Islam and the Babi and
Baha'i Faiths as between the Judaeo-Christian tradition and Islam.
Eddie
in Khalifat system, you can accumulate more wealth( like Bill Gates) , as
you want, in " Bahai new world order", there will not be millionnaires.
In Khalifat system, a Khalifat may keep his post for life , there is no
re-election, in bahai new world order,
Members of UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE are elected in every 5 years.
Khalifat , is the last one to take a decision on any matter for his state
or country, in "Bahai new order", all 9
members of the UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE must consult and take
decision together by majority.
As Khalifat may keep his post for life , it is easy to corrupt those who
monitor him how he works nad finally keep him in post for life.
Khalifat is no clearly mentionned in Quran, but " Bahai new order " or Bahai
administration is mentionned in
Kitab'i aqdas.
In Quran , Muhamad ( may peace be upon him) said that Peace, justice or
God's Kingdom will be established when
chirst comes again. So the Kalifat system can't succeed to establish World
peace, while in Baha'i faith, Baha'u'llah ( may peace be upon him) is the
return of Christ , so his " New world order" will establish Peace.
Adelard R.
world citizen
Mr Mahdi wrote in message <19990911012230...@ng-fk1.aol.com>...
Mr Mahdi
>
>http://www.khilafah.com/systems/economic/index.htm
>
>However, when I clicked on the link for "Islam and the Economic Question," I
>noticed that the link was either incorrect or had been removed.
That is strange, it was up earlier. I just went there and I also noticed that
it wasn't there any longer.
>I am pleased to see a discussion of any system, religious one's in
>particular,
>which would establish economic and social justice. As I said, I think that
>the
>basic principles are sound and, by modern standards, progressive.
>
I always enjoyed discussion that discussed ideological beliefs. Because
ideologies have a greater influence in the lives of men than even religion,
because ideologies have systems and beliefs that deal with all aspects of human
life.
>Critics of Islam complained that Muhammad had merely repeated things He had
>heard from the Bible. Differences between the biblical stories and those in
>the
>Qur'an were, unfortunately, attributed to the Prophet's supposedly "faulty"
>memory.
But the difference between Islam and all the religions that came before and
after it is that Islam has a system of life, it is an ideology, it has its own
methods of implementing the systems, laws and beliefs of Islam. Islam is not a
"hodgepodge" of this or that ideology, this or that method, this or that
system, etc., all the system and beliefs are based SOLELY on the Islamic creed.
Of course you read Marx's "Communist Manifesto," I would like for you to read
the "Muslim version" that explains about the Islamic ideology called
"Milestone" by Sayyid Qutb. This is one of the most famous books about the
Islamic ideology written by a famous Muslim intellectual who was killed for
writing this book by Gamal Abdel Nasser. Since you are into ideological
reformation, I am sure this book will be interesting. This and many other
books help shape my understanding of the Islamic ideology.
Here is a link to Barnes and Noble of the Book "Milestones" by Sayyid Qutb:
http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=22E7K9RIN
J&mscssid=DW9ELH6HDQS12N1W0017QJ1R0RL4ELEC&pcount=0&srefer=&isbn=0939830078
Mahdi
Mark A. Foster
I just ordered _Milestones_ from Amazon.com. Apparently, they don't have any
copies on hand. It says that they will probably ship it to me in 4-6 weeks.
Smaneck
>the "idealistic" concepts of Islam are the truth because they have been
>implemented, and the system did work. Remember, when Salah ud-deen (Saladin)
>liberated Jerusalem he could of easily massacred all the Christians like the
>Chrisitians did the Muslim and Jews, but since he was obeying the Laws of
>Islam, he didn't. He allowed all the non-muslims to continue worship their
>religion in peace.
So Mahdi, in your Khalifa state would Baha'is be allowed to worship according
to their religion? Would their marriages and Institutions be recognized? Would
they be allowed to build their Houses of Worship?
Mark A. Foster
Adelard,
While the elimination of the extremes of poverty and wealth is a Baha'i
principle, I don't know if that means that there will, using American currency
(?), be no millionaires. It could mean that there will be no billionaires, by
contemporary standards, or something entirely different.
Mr Mahdi
>to their religion? Would their marriages and Institutions be recognized?
>Would
>they be allowed to build their Houses of Worship?
The issue of heretics are discussed of course in Islamic jurisprudence. They
see people like bahais as having the same rights as the People of the Book. So
they are allowed to marry, woship, etc., according to the bahai faith, and
their marriages and institutions will be recognized.
Mahdi
Mr Mahdi
>copies on hand. It says that they will probably ship it to me in 4-6 weeks.
That's good to hear. Unfortunately, I forgot to tell you to go to Muslim
booksellers where they have it already in stock.
Mahdi
Eddie
Dear Mark;
Thank you so much for your post,I just used Bill Gates with green papers
$ as an example. in Baha'i new order, a new currency need to be adopted as
Shoghi Effendi said it.
The bottom line is that in Bahai new world order, the wealthy ,for a
Bahai, will be limited , while in Islam, it is not limited for Muslims.
Wealthy Bahais ,I think, will help or contribute a lot of wealth to the
Local House of
Justice which will take care of People in need.
Adelard R
World citizen.
Mark A. Foster wrote in message
<19990911190631...@ng-fi1.aol.com>...
Mark A. Foster
My understanding is that the local house of finance, which will rely on seven
sources of revenue and seven avenues of expenditure, will be contributed to by
all classes of society.
One of those sources of revenue is the tithe (not to be confused with the
Huquq). I believe that, in this case, the Baha'i approach will be precisely the
same as what has been established in Islam.