help me!
-
Peace nabi,ab and all. Nabi;you can create a flaw in any axiom if you want to,one method is by being pedantic.(like the people of moses when asked to sacrifice a cow.)The principle is assuming you love yourself,just like the qurans belief in one god,assumes god is not jesus.( Otherwise apple-pies commentary on quranic verses is valid too. ))Its a principle to be aspired to,if a person falls short doesnt nullify its truth. Its the spirit and meaning of the laws,not the letter.It also has a context. Did moses part the sea?did his staff turn into a snake?should we chop the hands of the thief off and whip adulterers?is god light? All these verses are in the reading,it depends how you interpret them,and the context. So do you allow the same latitude you give the quran to other truths? Also i would appreciate the explicit verse stating you must learn to do good to yourself before you do good to others. Its my opinion that most religions are trying to create universal respect/love in dealing with others.
Ab;what about the laws in the quran which are interpreted to mean taking slaves,polygamy,hand chopping etc..What about lot offering his daughters to the gay men,is that not illegal love if taken literally?(and did the daughters consent?)Again its how you interpret them and the context,not just the literal translation. Some verses in the quran also mention that turning the other cheek(or forgiving.) with regards to a retaliatory punishment is an option and even praised..Look at the law of qisas in baqarah.(2;178.)
Peace all. -
Peace
Enquirer, you're again assuming and are wrong in your assumptions. Nice to see that you had no counter argument to what I said regarding this passage of scripture. Just to point out your conjecture, I know of the temple and priests, the Sons of God, in the OT to be a referrence not only to the Messiah, but also to the different gradations of people who are put into types. I'm not sure if you understand this, but please look to the make up of the temple and the gear of the High priest.
Also to understand my other idea which you have doubt of you must have a comprehension of the concept of zakaat. The axiom you're trying to defend by assuming what I believe concerning context cannot be found in the reading.
Joe
-
peace nabi. 436=golden rule.
-
Peace nabi. Also 2125,52,58,1690,1723-39,3113-19,831-6 and the whole of 107. All dealing with behaviour with others with should be with ihsan and adl.(beautiful and just,which is the same as love/respect.) There are probably more verses. Surah 107 in particularthose who make a show of salat but are not decent/loving/respectful to their neigbours.
Peace all. -
Peace
Enquirer, I NEVER said the reading did not say to be good to other people. I said the reading does not follow the axiom which you coin as the "Golden Rule". There is a clear difference between being good to someone and loving others as you love yourself. You're pretty good at dragging on a conversation which has come at a dead end for yourself. It seems it is you who cannot grasp the underlying message in things.
Joe
-
Peace nabi. We will agree to disagree. Take it easy.
-
peace nabi. Im not pushing,its my opinion. Peace.
-
Peace nabi. Ok,educate me and the forum as to what this golden rule means and how its not present in islam. But i would say be careful,i think your doing a disservice to the reading,and you are disparaging someones opinion while elevating your own to the realm of 'fact' with no evidence of your own.
Peace. -
Peace
Educate yourself. I'm no teacher. The axiom you presented is not the same as do good to others. It's a nice thought, but in real life it is not reliable just as Gandhi's ideas on ahimsa were not practical. It is not practical because according to it you can only love another so much as you love yourself. It's not the same as being good to your neighbor by spending for their good, or by watching over the property and well-being of an orphan or your children or keeping one's parents under one's wing.
Joe
P.S. In my opinion you're doing a disservice to yourself by lying to yourself.
-
peace nabi. In my opinion it is love that causes me to look after my neigbour,children,parents,orphans etc.. Anyway we will agree to disagree.
I think this is just a difference of semantics. And the general rule works for me in practical life. D Take it easy. -
peace nabi. You are misunderstanding my opinion of the golden rule. I stated earlier that it assumes you love yourself(as least to some extent.)and you love other persons to the maximum extent that you can,and its a continous learning process.(including loving oneself.) If someone has no love or respect for himself, its our job to help them with love and wisdom to learn to love himself and others.(as much as they can.)
If you want substitute love for respect/justice,/helping others if it is more comfortable to you to that way.
Peace. -
Dear Edip,
When is the Reformist Translation going to be available?
Thanks!
Abe
-
peace
enquirer, i understand where you're coming from, but i agree with Joe on this one. Even if I do love myself more than anything else, that means i can only 'love' my neighbor as much as myself, and nothing more. And how am i supposed to love my neighbor if i don't even know him/her? is loving the same as doing good?
But i don't think this is really something to argue over. I think everyone get's the point. -
Peace phoenix and all. Sometimes we use different terms or words to explain a similiar reality. If i use love and someone else uses respect/helping people/doing good,thats totally fine by me. I was under the impression that we are supposed to love(or respect or help.) the believers and the prophet...Arent the prophet and some of the believers in the umma(community.) strangers to us? So you are saying we cannot love strangers?(some of my nephews and nieces born in pakistan i have never seen,they are strangers,but i still love/respect/try to help them.) Like i said change the word love to respect if you wish.Im not talking about romantic,conditional,excessively emotional love. All this taking of the words of the golden rule to pieces is very strange,its the spirit of the law not the literal words. Some people express it differently eg; 'do unto others as you would do unto yourself'. or 'do not do unto others as you would not want done to yourself.' Etc.. If somebody loves to abuse their body with drugs(a misuse of love,illusionary love,misplaced love.) then common sense would dictate that they should not love other people by supplying them with drugs. And when it says 'as you love yourself',this is a relative term. (just as the quran says 'if they believe similiaraily as you believe then they are guided',2;127,Note the word mithl used in arabic,meaning-similiarly.) So 'as you love yourself' is a relative and similiar term,it may not demand absolute literal exactness.(the point is you should love/respect yourself and others unconditionally and decently,not in a mathematical,empty,tit for tat kind of way.) We all have limitations,can you and nabi do more than you are capable off when helping people? If not,does that mean helping people has a flaw in it? Of course not! I would try to help people the best i can,given my limitations.(same with love.) This discussion really highlights the problem with some peoples attitudes to anything that impinges or challenges their beliefs..They seemingly get defensive,impolite and biased.(im not referring to you phoenix ) .) Take a leaf from idol-frees book,try to be objective and not let emotions cloud our judgements.
The discussion got prolonged.. i said 'lets agree to disagree' but nabis insistence seemed to be to carry on,i tried to be polite by replying and trying to explain my opinion. Anyway peace to all and may we all be humble,receptive,understanding,tolerant,respectful and open-minded in our discussions. ) -
Peace all. Maybe i can make myself clearer by saying that i think that love=;'a yearning to do the right thing'.(to self and others.)
-
Maybe, only maybe, this will help
The Bible defines love this way...1 Corinthians 134-8a (New American Standard Version)
"Love is patient, love is kind, and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into acccount a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails."
But may I start with the first verse in the chapter...."If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but do not have love, if profits me nothing."
-
Maybe, only maybe, this will help
The Bible defines love this way...1 Corinthians 134-8a (New American Standard Version)
"Love is patient, love is kind, and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into acccount a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails."
But may I start with the first verse in the chapter...."If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but do not have love, if profits me nothing."
The Quran, bible, talmud, zabur, dalai lama, gita and zillion other books (both spiritual and non-spiritual including magazines, story books, movies, etc.) by various authors/directors professes the same, perhaps not exactly in ditto. That does not by any means make bible superior to other books and/or movies. Bible (comprised of various versions of testaments into one, to say the least) by Paul, Mathew, John and Luke are rather degraded and debunked versions of the original true Gospel (Injeel), also written by men and not by Jesus himself. All religious books are manifestations written by men and come to think of it, the bible being the worst of all religious books in composure, literacy, consistency and above all spirituality/guidance (perhaps due to its English translation of Aramaic and as well as mutiple authors), very similar to ahadiths.
New American Standard Version is just a Christian knack, a "chilli-fest" of belief.. Universal love existed long before even Amercia existed. I'll bet down to my last $ to prove that the "New American Standard Version" is any better than that of the "orthodox one".