Muhammad spread his religion and peace with the minimum human loss

[Shad]

Way to miss the point.

No I am saying the point is irrelevant as it only applies to a group within other nations with other systems not their own. Application in a religious context is not application on a government, national nor global scale. It would be like saying I proved Communism worked without demonstrating outside the hypothetical. That is merely saying in an idealist world which does not actually exist Communism work great. Once anyone points out this fantasy the model has no support as a foundation premise is fictional. That is sophistry that is emotionally appealing, nothing more.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Way to miss the point.

We are an emerging civilisation. All civilisations began in their infancy with just a few ideals and a small number of people.

It's easy to be fooled by looking at the seed thinking it is only a seed but a seed will become a tree. And we are all the leaves of the tree of humanity and all the Faiths are its branches.

We live in one world, get our light and life from the same sun and rain from the same sky. Who would have ever thought that from the American Civil War would have emerged the United States?

Today's contests are just a prelude of the emerging of the United States or commonwealth of the world. But it will not be a Bahá'í entity. Later, much later on people will see that being separated has no use anymore and will unite. The religions will become one.

 

[Vinayaka]

Individual communities with similar concepts of life often do get along. The Amish, Mormon Church, many enclaves in large cities, etc. Getting along in a much broader community or the world as a whole is much tougher.

Mauritius comes really close to being a place where several distinct religious and ethnic groups get along. But 2 million people is still a far cry from 7 billion.

Lots of religions promote non-violence, like Bahais, Hindus, Ammadiya Muslims, Buddhists, and many Christian groups. Generally most get along, enough to leave each other alone at least, still the hands wringing and hearts pumping at potential conversions to 'my way of peace' is far too prevalent.

 

[Shad]

Blimey, this is hubris. The LARPers at Nova Roma have a better track record on this than you do.

Lightning bolt?

 

[Vinayaka]

The religions will become one.

Under the rightful leadership of Bahais, right?

 

[loverofhumanity]

And what do you make of the anthropocentrism challenges?

We are confronted today by many challenges and they just have to all play out. Do we want an American dominated world or a Russian or Chinese one or one run by indigenous races?

This is the struggle, but eventually these conflicting groups will realise that uniting is in their best interests and a world civilisation will emerge.

 

[Kirran]

We are confronted today by many challenges and they just have to all play out. Do we want an American dominated world or a Russian or Chinese one or one run by indigenous races?

This is the struggle, but eventually these conflicting groups will realise that uniting is in their best interests and a world civilisation will emerge.

No, I mean what do you make of the challenges to your ideal of pan-human solidarity based on accusations of its anthropocentrism?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Individual communities with similar concepts of life often do get along. The Amish, Mormon Church, many enclaves in large cities, etc. Getting along in a much broader community or the world as a whole is much tougher.

Mauritius comes really close to being a place where several distinct religious and ethnic groups get along. But 2 million people is still a far cry from 7 billion.

Lots of religions promote non-violence, like Bahais, Hindus, Ammadiya Muslims, Buddhists, and many Christian groups. Generally most get along, enough to leave each other alone at least, still the hands wringing and hearts pumping at potential conversions to 'my way of peace' is far too prevalent.

Yes but that's the problem. We need to all accept reach others religion. It's not that hard. All these religions teach truth. The problem is really who will lead them if they unite.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

If the Quran were truly practised in the Muslim world there would be peace and prosperity in the Middle East.

Except for non-Muslims who would be poor, subjugated and extorted in order to enjoy only some of the rights Muslims enjoy.

Muhammad's Teachings fostered the national state. Nationalism and nation building came as a result of Muhammad's Teachings.

Assuming this is true then Muhammad deserves the credit for nationalism. But then he also deserves all the blame for the bad things about nationalism too.

The fact is this is not true at all. National entities developed completely isolated from Muhammad's teachings; China & Japan are probably the best examples. England is another good one.

The first constitution in the world was the Medina constitution

Not true at all. There existed several law codices which can be deemed constitutions which predate the Medina constitution. There is the code of justice set down by Urukagina of Lagash, a king in Sumeria circa 2300 BC. There's the Solonian Constitution of Athens in the 6th Century BC. I could go on but I've made my point.

and the very first universities with degrees were Muslim.

But they were not the first places of learning in the world. If you're willing to give credit to Muslims for inventing the university is it not just as vital, arguably more so, for you to give credit to the Pagan civilisations who accumulated knowledge for millennia that people could learn from and improve upon? All learning is derivative.

 

[loverofhumanity]

No, I mean what do you make of the challenges to your ideal of pan-human solidarity based on accusations of its anthropocentrism?

Every effort will be made to destroy us.

"How great, how very great is the Cause! How very fierce the onslaught of all the peoples and kindreds of the earth. Ere long shall the clamor of the multitude throughout Africa, throughout America, the cry of the European and of the Turk, the groaning of India and China, be heard from far and near. One and all, they shall arise with all their power to resist His Cause. Then shall the knights of the Lord, assisted by His grace from on high, strengthened by faith, aided by the power of understanding, and reinforced by the legions of the Covenant, arise and make manifest the truth of the verse: ‘Behold the confusion that hath befallen the tribes of the defeated!’- Abdul-Bahá


In the end, humanity will make the choice.

 

[Kirran]

Every effort will be made to destroy us.

"How great, how very great is the Cause! How very fierce the onslaught of all the peoples and kindreds of the earth. Ere long shall the clamor of the multitude throughout Africa, throughout America, the cry of the European and of the Turk, the groaning of India and China, be heard from far and near. One and all, they shall arise with all their power to resist His Cause. Then shall the knights of the Lord, assisted by His grace from on high, strengthened by faith, aided by the power of understanding, and reinforced by the legions of the Covenant, arise and make manifest the truth of the verse: ‘Behold the confusion that hath befallen the tribes of the defeated!’- Abdul-Bahá


In the end, humanity will make the choice.

Look, if you don't know what anthropocentrism means, it's OK to ask.

"Anthropocentrism refers to a human-centered, or “anthropocentric,” point of view. In philosophy, anthropocentrism can refer to the point of view that humans are the only, or primary, holders of moral standing."

To be compared to ecocentrism.

"Ecocentrism (/ˌɛkoʊˈsɛntrɪzəm/; from Greek: οἶκος oikos, "house" and κέντρον kentron, "center") is a term used in ecological political philosophy to denote a nature-centered, as opposed to human-centered, system of values."

 

[loverofhumanity]

Except for non-Muslims who would be poor, subjugated and extorted in order to enjoy only some of the rights Muslims enjoy.

Have you read the Covenants of Muhammad with the Christians. Non Muslims are to be treated very fairly.



Assuming this is true then Muhammad deserves the credit for nationalism. But then he also deserves all the blame for the bad things about nationalism too.

It was a step forward in our social development. He initiated the process. It was not a perfect system just an evolving one.

The fact is this is not true at all. National entities developed completely isolated from Muhammad's teachings; China & Japan are probably the best examples. England is another good one.

The concept of nationalism spread far and wide after the Muhammadsn Revelation and we can't just say it had no influence on the creation of nation states as countries like America and Australia were not yet discovered. It did have a great imfluence on the world and the west.



Not true at all. There existed several law codices which can be deemed constitutions which predate the Medina constitution. There is the code of justice set down by Urukagina of Lagash, a king in Sumeria circa 2300 BC. There's the Solonian Constitution of Athens in the 6th Century BC. I could go on but I've made my point.

I think it was the first constitution that incorporated different religions and gave religions endowed rights to its citizens.



But they were not the first places of learning in the world. If you're willing to give credit to Muslims for inventing the university is it not just as vital, arguably more so, for you to give credit to the Pagan civilisations who accumulated knowledge for millennia that people could learn from and improve upon? All learning is derivative.

Of course. Knowledge is progressive. Each civilisation has made varying contributions to society whether pagan or otherwise.

 

[LuisDantas]

No I am saying the point is irrelevant as it only applies to a group within other nations with other systems not their own. Application in a religious context is not application on a government, national nor global scale. It would be like saying I proved Communism worked without demonstrating outside the hypothetical. That is merely saying in an idealist world which does not actually exist Communism work great. Once anyone points out this fantasy the model has no support as a foundation premise is fictional. That is sophistry that is emotionally appealing, nothing more.

As I said, you missed the point quite decisively.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Look, if you don't know what anthropocentrism means, it's OK to ask.

"Anthropocentrism refers to a human-centered, or “anthropocentric,” point of view. In philosophy, anthropocentrism can refer to the point of view that humans are the only, or primary, holders of moral standing."

To be compared to ecocentrism.

"Ecocentrism (/ˌɛkoʊˈsɛntrɪzəm/; from Greek: οἶκος oikos, "house" and κέντρον kentron, "center") is a term used in ecological political philosophy to denote a nature-centered, as opposed to human-centered, system of values."

What's wrong with its being centred on humanity and what accusations? The Bahá'í teachings also focus on treatment of animals and the environment not just humans.

 

[Shad]

As I said, you missed the point quite decisively.

Then explain it.

All I see is an observation of world affairs and a utopian fantasy of "what if"

 

[Kirran]

What's wrong with its being centred on humanity and what accusations? The Bahá'í teachings also focus on treatment of animals and the environment not just humans.

People in this thread have been saying that by talking about 'the unity of humanity' etc you're rather adhering to the anthropocentric view, which is essentially dominionist and has been shown to have wrought a lot of havoc on the planet. The ecocentric view is surely the one to be sought after.

As for the Baha'i's focus on the treatment of animals - they'd be vegetarian then, wouldn't they.

EDIT: This is spinning off the discussion in your loyalty to humanity thread.

 

[Vinayaka]

Yes but that's the problem. We need to all accept reach others religion. It's not that hard. All these religions teach truth. The problem is really who will lead them if they unite.

I totally 'accept' yours, although we may have differing opinions of 'accept'. I certainly don't accept that Bahalullah was the last and final prophet, as I don't believe in prophets. Nor do I wish that you 'accept' that Murugan is the God of yoga, and that we'll reincarnate until all karmas are resolved. What I mean by accept is more 'to tolerate peacefully without interference'. What do you mean by 'accept'?

Not all these religions teach the same 'truth' either. My 'truth' is substantially different from your 'truth'. Doesn't mean we can't get along on the physical plane.

 

[Shad]

the very first universities with degrees were Muslim.

These were Madrassas thus religion. Which Christians and other civilization did centuries before.

 

[Vinayaka]

Knowledge is progressive.

Is it really? The native people's of North America, due to the European Invasions, had much of theur knowledge erased by the gun. Knowledge of herbs, of nature, of cultivars, of a loving God and gods, and more. Isn't that a great loss to humanity? In some aspects we've been losing ground, not gaining ground. All because of aggressive egocentric points of view wiping out knowledge.

 

[Vinayaka]

Instead of looking for a common truth, I think we should be looking for a common TRUCE.