(Arabic: الخضر al-Khiḍr "the Green One", also transcribed as Khidar, Khizr, Khyzer, Khizar) is a revered figure in Islam, whom the Qur'an describes as a righteous servant of God, who possessed great wisdom or mystic knowledge. He is most often said to be a contemporary of Moses, but in other variations of his story, he lived at the same time as Abraham, the mythological Persian king Afridun and Nashiya bin Amus. The 18th sura ("The Cave") presents a narrative where Khidr accompanies Moses and tests him about his oath to not ask any questions.
In medieval Islamic tradition, Khidr is variously described as a messenger or a prophet.
Qur'anic narrative
In chapter 18, verses 65–82, Moses meets the Servant of God, referred in the Quran as "one from among Our friend whom We had granted mercy from Us and whom We had taught knowledge from Ourselves", at the junction of the two seas and asks for permission to accompany him so Moses can learn "right knowledge of what [he has] been taught".
The Servant of God informs him in a stern manner that their knowledge is of different nature and that "Surely you [Moses] cannot have patience with me. And how canst thou have patience about things about which thy understanding is not complete?" Moses promises to be patient and obey him unquestioningly, and they set out together. After they board a ship, the Servant of God damages the vessel. Forgetting his oath, Moses says, "Have you made a hole in it to drown its inmates? Certainly you have done a grievous thing." The Servant of God reminds Moses of his warning, "Did I not say that you will not be able to have patience with me?" and Moses pleads not to be rebuked.
Next, the Servant of God kills a young man. Moses again cries out in astonishment and dismay, and again the Servant of God reminds Moses of his warning, and Moses promises that he will not violate his oath again, and that if he does he will excuse himself from the Servant's presence.
They then proceed to a town where they are denied hospitality. This time, instead of harming anyone or anything, the Servant of God restores a decrepit wall in the village. Yet again Moses is amazed and violates his oath for the third and last time, asking why the Servant of God did not at least exact "some recompense for it!"
The Servant of God replies, "This shall be separation between me and you; now I will inform you of the significance of that with which you could not have patience." Many acts which seem to be evil, malicious or somber, actually are merciful. The boat was damaged to prevent its owners from falling into the hands of "a king who seized every boat by force… And as for the boy, his parents were believers and we feared lest he should make disobedience and ingratitude to come upon them."
God will replace the child with one better in purity, affection and obedience. As for the restored wall, the Servant of God explained that underneath the wall was a treasure belonging to two helpless orphans whose father was a righteous man. As God's envoy, the Servant of God restored the wall, showing God's kindness by rewarding the piety of the orphans' father, and so that when the wall becomes weak again and collapses, the orphans will be older and stronger and will take the treasure that belongs to them.Muslim scholars identify the Servant of God mentioned in these verses as Khiḍr, although he is not explicitly named in the Qur'an and there is no reference to him being immortal or being especially associated with esoteric knowledge or fertility.These associations come in later scholarship on Khiḍr.
Khiḍr in "The History of al-Tabari"
Reports in the HadithIn his chapter 'The Tale of al-Khiḍr and His History; and the History of Moses and His Servant Joshua,' al-Tabari describes several versions of the traditional story surrounding Khiḍr. At the beginning of the chapter, al-Tabari explains that in some variations, Khiḍr is a contemporary of the mythical Persian king Afridun, who was a contemporary of Abraham, and lived before the days of Moses. Khiḍr is also said to have been appointed to be over the vanguard of the king Dhu al-Quarnayn the Elder, who in this version is identified as the king Afridun. In this specific version, Khiḍr comes across the River of Life and, unaware of its properties, drinks from it and becomes immortal. Al-Tabari also recounts that Khiḍr is said to have been the son of a man who believed in Abraham, and who emigrated with Abraham when he left Babylon.Khiḍr is also commonly associated with Elijah, even equated with him, and al-Tabari makes a distinction in the next account in which Khiḍr is Persian and Elijah is Israeli. According to this version of Khiḍr's story, Khiḍr and Elijah meet every year during the annual festival season.Al-Tabari seems more inclined to believe that Khiḍr lived during the time of Afridun before Moses, rather than traveled as Abraham's companion and drank the water of life. He does not state clearly why he has this preference, but rather seems to prefer the chain of sources (the isnad) of the former story rather than the latter.The various versions in al-Tabari's History more or less parallel each other and the account in the Qur'an. However, in the stories al-Tabari recounts, Moses claims to be the most knowledgeable man on earth, and God corrects him by telling him to seek out Khiḍr. Moses is told to bring a salted fish, and once he found the fish to be missing, he would then find Khiḍr.Moses sets out with a travel companion, and once they reach a certain rock, the fish comes to life, jumps into the water, and swims away. It is at this point that Moses and his companion meet Khiḍr.Al-Tabari also adds to lore surrounding the origins of Khiḍr's name. He refers to a saying of Muhammad, that Khiḍr was called green because he sat on a white fur and it shimmered green with him.
Among the strongest transmitted proofs about the life of Khiḍr are two reports, one narrated by Imam Ahmad in Al-Zuhd whereby Muhammad is said to have stated that Elijah and Khidr meet every year and spend the month of Ramadan in Jerusalem and the other narrated by Ya'qub ibn Sufyan from Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz whereby a man he was seen walking with was actually Khiḍr. Ibn Hajar declared the claim of the first fair and that of the second sound in Fath al-Bari (1959 ed. 6:435). He goes on to cite another sound report narrated by Ibn 'Asakir from Abu Zur'a al-Razi whereby the latter met Khiḍr twice, once in his youth, the other in old age, but Khiḍr himself had not changed.Khiḍr is believed to be a man who has the appearance of a young adult but a long, white beard. According to some authors like Abdul Haq Vidhyarthi, al-Khiḍr is Xerxes (not to be confused with Xerxes I), who disappeared after being in the lake regions of Sijistan or Sistanthat comprise the wetlands of the Irano-Afghan border today, and after finding the fountain of life, sought to live his entire remaining life in service of God and to help those in their path/journey to Him.Imam Bukhari reports that Khiḍr got his name after he was present over the surface of some ground that became green as a result of his presence there. There are reports from Al-Bayhaqi that Khiḍr was present at the funeral of Muhammad and was recognized only by Abu Bakr and Ali from amongst the rest of the companions, and where he came to show his grief and sadness at the passing away of Muhammad. Khiḍr's appearance at Muhammad's funeral is related as follows: A powerful-looking, fine-featured, handsome man with a white beard came leaping over the backs of the people till he reached where the sacred body lay. Weeping bitterly, he turned toward the Companions and paid his condolences. Abu Bakr and Ali said that he was Khiḍr.In another narration Khiḍr met with Ali by the Ka'bah and instructed him about a supplication that is very meritorious when recited after the obligatory prayers. It is reported by Imam Muslim that during the time when the false Messiah appears and as he approaches at the outskirts of the city of Medina, a believer would challenge him, whom the false Messiah will slice into two piece and rejoin, making it appear that he caused him to die and be resurrected, to which this man would proclaim the falsehood of the Dajjal who would try again to kill him (or make show of it) but would fail and thus his weakness and inability being made revealed.
According to the commentators and transmitters of this narration the person who will challenge the Antichrist and humiliate him will be Khiḍr.
Comparative mythology
There are several versions of the Novel Alexander Romance in which Khiḍr figures as a servant of Zul-Qarneyn. in one version, Khidr and Zulqarnain cross the Land of Darkness to find the Water of Life. Zulqarnain gets lost looking for the spring, but Khiḍr finds it and gains eternal life. In the Iskandarnamah by an anonymous author, Khiḍr is asked by Zulqarnain to lead him and his armies to the Water of Life. Khidr agrees, and eventually stumbles upon the Water of Life on his own.
Some scholars suggest that Khiḍr is also represented in the Arthurian tale, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, as the Green Knight. In the story, the Green Knight tempts the faith of Sir Gawain three times. The character of Khiḍr may have come into European literature through the mixing of cultures during the Crusades. It is also possible that the story derives from an Irish myth which predates the Crusades in which Cuchulainn and two other heroes compete for the champion's portion at feasts; ultimately, Cuchulainn is the only one willing to let a giant — actually a king who has magically disguised himself — cut off his head, as per their agreement.
The story is also similar to one told by Rabbi Nissim ben Jacob in the eleventh century of a journey made by the prophet Elijah and Rabbi Joshua ben Levi. The first house where they stay the night belongs to a pious old couple who give the prophet and the rabbi the best of their food and beds. However, the couple's cow dies in the night. Elijah later explains that the Angel of Death came and he persuaded the angel to take the cow instead of the wife. The next house, as in the Khiḍr story, is that of a rich miser, and Elijah repairs his wall so that he will not, in having it repaired, find the treasure hidden under it.
A third potential parallel to the legend surrounding Khiḍr is the epic of Gilgamesh. The episode in question takes place after the death of the king Gilgamesh's closest friend Enkidu. Gilgamesh goes on a journey to find his ancestor Utnapishtim, a wise figure who was granted immortal life and who lives at the mouth of two rivers. Ultimately, although Gilgamesh finds Utnapishtim, he is not able to attain immortality. Although the parallel is not exact, the story shares several major themes with both Surah 18 in the Qur'an and the Alexander romance, namely, the presence of a wise figure in all three stories, and the quest and ultimate failure to attain immortality in the epic of Gilgamesh and the Alexander romance.
In certain parts of India, Khiḍr is also known as Khwadja Khidr, a river god or spirit of wells and streams. He is mentioned in the Sikandar-nama as the saint who presides over the well of immortality, and is revered by both Hindus and Muslims. He is sometimes pictured as an old man dressed in green, and is believed to ride upon a fish. His principal shrine is on an island of the Indus by Bakhar.
In The Unreasoning Mask, by famed science fiction writer, Philip José Farmer, Ramstan, captain of the al-Buraq, a rare model spaceship capable of instantaneous travel between two points, attempts to stop an unidentified "creature" that is annihilating intelligent life on planets throughout the universe, he is haunted by repeating vision of meeting al-Khidr.
Good and Evil
In religion, ethics, and philosophy, the dichotomy "good and evil" refers to the location on a linear spectrum of objects, desires, or behaviors, the good direction being morally positive, and the evildirection morally negative. In cultures with Manichaean and Abrahamic religious influence, evil is usually perceived as the dualistic antagonistic opposite of good, in which good should prevail and evil should be defeated. In cultures with Buddhist spiritual influence, both good and evil are perceived as part of an antagonistic duality that itself must be overcome through achieving Śūnyatā meaning emptiness in the sense of recognition of good and evil being two opposing principles but not a reality, emptying the duality of them, and achieving a oneness.
READ MORE : HERE
Good (religion)
In moral aspect is that which is humane, brings goodness, has value for people and sapient beings and leads to proper development and progress. Good deeds are those that are taught and preached by religion and give advice. Sometimes a synonym of this is "beautiful deeds".
Good deeds emanate from true and pure love, compassion and good feelings. The ability to make good is a characteristic for moral excellence. Christians believe that goodness comes from God as he created everything. At the beginning of the creation of the world, God created everything out of nothing, Creation ex nihilism. In Genesis good and evil is first mentioned as ‘God said it was good when creating the earth and all things inhabiting it.' However he does not mention anything about evil until the fall of mankind in Genesis 3. In Exodus 20, God set out laws to try and separate good from evil. These laws are the Ten Commandments which all Christians try to live by. Many Christians (in particular Roman Catholics) believe this to be a good thing as it shows God wants people to follow ethical standards and that abuse, murder, etc. is not ‘good’ or tolerated in his kingdom. This helps to establish a sense of morality.
Evil
Is profound immorality. In certain religious contexts evil has been described as a supernatural force.Definitions of evil vary, as does the analysis of its root motives and causes. However elements that are commonly associated with evil involve unbalancedbehavior involving expediency, selfishness, ignorance, or neglect.
In cultures with Manichaean and Abrahamic religious influence, evil is usually perceived as the dualistic antagonistic opposite of good, in which good should prevail and evil should be defeated. In cultures with Buddhist spiritual influence, both good and evil are perceived as part of an antagonistic duality that itself must be overcome through achieving Śūnyatā meaning emptiness in the sense of recognition of good and evil being two opposing principles but not a reality, emptying the duality of them, and achieving a oneness.
The philosophical question of whether morality is absolute or relative leads to questions about the nature of evil, with views falling into one of four opposed camps: moral absolutism, amoralism, moral relativism, and moral universalism.
While the term is applied to events and conditions without agency, the forms of evil addressed in this article presume an evildoer or doers.
Epictetus
(Ancient Greek: Ἐπίκτητος; AD 55–135) was a Greek sage and Stoicphilosopher. He was born a slave at Hierapolis, Phrygia (present day Pamukkale, Turkey), and lived in Rome until his banishment, when he went to Nicopolis in northwestern Greece for the rest of his life. His teachings were written down and published by his pupil Arrian in his Discourses.
Philosophy, Epictetus taught, is a way of life and not just a theoretical discipline. To Epictetus, all external events are determined by fate, and are thus beyond our control; we should accept whatever happens calmly and dispassionately. However, individuals are responsible for their own actions, which they can examine and control through rigorous self-discipline.
Suffering occurs from trying to control what is uncontrollable, or from neglecting what is within our power. As part of the universal city that is the universe, it is our duty to care for all our fellow men. Those who follow these precepts will achieve happiness and peace of mind. MORE :HERE
“Men can never escape being governed. Either they must govern themselves or they must submit to being governed by others. “ –Theodore RooseveltEmpowerment
MarginalizationRefers to increasing the spiritual, political, social, educational, gender, or economic strength of individuals and communities.The term empowerment covers a vast landscape of meanings, interpretations, definitions and disciplines ranging from psychology and philosophy to the highly commercialized self-help industry and motivational sciences.Sociological empowerment often addresses members of groups that social discrimination processes have excluded from decision-making processes through - for example - discrimination based on disability, race, ethnicity, religion, or gender. Empowerment as a methodology is often associated with feminism: see consciousness-raising.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013"Marginalized" refers to the overt or covert trends within societies whereby those perceived as lacking desirable traits or deviating from the group norms tend to be excluded by wider society and ostracized as undesirables. Sometimes groups are marginalized by society at large, but governments are often unwitting or enthusiastic participants. This Act made it illegal to restrict access to schools and public places based on race. Equal opportunity laws which actively oppose such marginalization, allow increased empowerment to occur. They are also a symptom of minorities' and women's empowerment through lobbying. Marginalized people who lack self-sufficiency become, at a minimum, dependent on charity, or welfare. They lose their self-confidence because they cannot be fully self-supporting. The opportunities denied them also deprive them of the pride of accomplishment which others, who have those opportunities, can develop for themselves. This in turn can lead to psychological, social and even mental health problems. Empowerment is then the process of obtaining these basic opportunities for marginalized people, either directly by those people, or through the help of non-marginalized others who share their own access to these opportunities. It also includes actively thwarting attempts to deny those opportunities. Empowerment also includes encouraging, and developing the skills for, self-sufficiency, with a focus on eliminating the future need for charity or welfare in the individuals of the group. This process can be difficult to start and to implement effectively. One empowerment strategy is to assist marginalized people to create their own nonprofit organization, using the rationale that only the marginalized people, themselves, can know what their own people need most, and that control of the organization by outsiders can actually help to further entrench marginalization. Charitable organizations lead from outside of the community, for example, can disempower the community by entrenching a dependence on charity or welfare. A nonprofit organization can target strategies that cause structural changes, reducing the need for ongoing dependence. Red Cross, for example, can focus on improving the health of indigenous people, but does not have authority in its charter to install water-delivery and purification systems, even though the lack of such a system profoundly, directly and negatively impacts health. A nonprofit composed of the indigenous people, however, could ensure their own organization does have such authority and could set their own agendas, make their own plans, seek the needed resources, do as much of the work as they can, and take responsibility - and credit - for the success of their projects (or the consequences, should they fail).
How to instantly tell who's evil vs. good:
(NaturalNews)The philosophy of 'control' vs. 'empowerment'
I get this question all the time from readers:
- How can we know whom to believe?
- Who's really telling the truth?
- Which person should I support for political office at the next election?
- What if I told you there is an incredibly simple way to tell not only who's good and who's bad, but also how to tell who is pushing absolute evil onto our world?
This method is remarkably accurate, and you can use it right now to assess almost anyone.It all starts with understanding the spectrum of control vs. empowerment.
Imagine a 10-foot string stretched out on the ground. On the far left side of the string, there is a point we'll call "Control." On the far right side of the string, another point is called "Empowerment."
Let's start with the "Empowerment" side first. This point represents people who primarily seek to empower you with knowledge, skills, wisdom and tools. "Empowerment" represents GOOD because it allows wisdom, skills and abundance to multiply from one person to the next. It recognizes the value of the individual and honors consciousness and free will.
On the far left side of the string -- which also represents the political left in America today -- we have "Control." This point represents people who primarily seek to control you: to extract money from you (rob you), to limit your freedoms, to demand your obedience and to use the threat of force to command your compliance. This philosophy dishonors the individual and downplays free will and individual liberty. "Control" is inherently evil because it seeks to diminish the power of a large number of people in order to accumulate power into the hands of a few people.
(The context of this discussion is, of course, entirely in the realm of dealing with adults. Obviously children should be subjected to certain controls for their own development and safety. That's called good parenting. But to treat adults like children and attempt to control them like a parent controlling a child is unjustified and inherently destructive.)Examples of "control" vs "empowerment"
- A person who seeks to teach others how to garden and thereby grow their own food is practicing empowerment and is therefore GOOD. But a person who seeks to place other people on government food stamps and thereby make them dependent on government for their food is practicing control and is inherently EVIL.
- A school that teaches students to think for themselves and engage in critical, skeptical thinking about the world around them is practicing empowerment and is therefore GOOD. But a school that teaches students blind obedience to institutional authority while denying them the liberty to think for themselves is practicing control and is therefore EVIL.
- A person who seeks to help others create their own successful businesses and generate abundant profits for themselves and their employees is practicing empowerment and is therefore GOOD. But a person who seeks to destroy entrepreneurship, suppress innovation, punish small businesses and burden private sector job creation with onerous taxes and regulation is practicing control and is therefore EVIL.
- A person who seeks to teach others how to protect themselves against violent crime through the intelligent, ethical use of weapons for self defense is practicing empowerment and is therefore GOOD. But a person who seeks to strip away from everyone else their right to self defense, placing them in the position of defenseless victimization, is practicing control and is therefore EVIL.
- A city mayor who seeks to teach his constituents the principles of nutrition and food choice so that they might make better decisions about their diet and health is practicing empowerment and is therefore GOOD. But a city mayor who demands blind obedience to his selective agenda of banning large sodas or other junk food items is practicing control and is therefore EVIL. (Bloomberg, anyone?)
So, getting back to the title of this article, the way to instantly tell whether a person is "good" or "evil" is to examine their actions on the control vs. empowerment spectrum. If they predominantly seek to control others, they are mostly evil. If they predominantly seek to empower others, they are mostly good.
The politics of control vs. empowermentBe careful to examine peoples' actions, not merely their words. Anyone can talk a good game of "empowerment," but very few actually seek to educate and uplift others around them.
The political left is deeply invested in a philosophy of control. The left believes in centralized control over the economy, societal control of parenting and children, government control over education, centralized bankster control over money, and government control over health care.
The political right is invested in a philosophy of non-interventionism. They classically believe the government should keeps its hands off education, the economy, businesses operations and private lives. (Of course, today's political right is actually just as much pro-big government as the political left.)
Libertarianism, by the way, is a philosophy of allowing -- allowing people to make their own fortunes, or mistakes, or personal decisions as long as their behaviors do not harm others.
Classic libertarianism means people are free to do what they wish, including marrying someone of the same sex if that's their choice, as long as their actions do not cause direct harm to others around them. Many people mistakenly think they are libertarians but they are actually closet control freaks because they want everyone else to conform to their own ideas of marriage, religion, recreational drug use, prostitution and so on.
A true libertarian must tolerate the free will actions of others even if those actions are obviously self-destructive to the individual.
In terms of ethics, "controlism" is inherently destructive because it denies an individual his or her humanity.
The universe is written in the code of conscious empowerment"Empowerment" is inherently good (or even blessed) because it invests in the individual the power of determining her or her own life outcomes.
From a spiritual perspective, the Creator granted humans free will precisely because free will puts control into the hands of the individual, not a centralized power figure. If we were not meant to be free, we would never have been created with free will.
In this way, "controlism" stands in contradiction to the laws of the universe and the existence of free will and consciousness. Thus, the underlying philosophy of the political left is anti-consciousness, anti-free will and a contradiction of the fundamental laws of the universe.
This is why collectivist mandates feel so alien to a free-thinking human being... because control freakism is a violation of self-evident, universal truth. This is also why the leftist / collectivist political philosophy is doomed to fail: It exists in gross violation of the laws of the universe. No human being inherently wants to live without freedom, functioning merely as an obedient peon under a system of centralized control. It feels wrong because it is universally and spiritually wrong.
That is why it will fail. And that is why all those who defend individual liberty, free will and individual empowerment quite literally have God and the universe on their side.
In summary, then, if you want to determine whether a person is "good" or "evil" -- in effect, whether they are living in congruency with the laws of the universe -- simply place them on the spectrum of "control" versus "empowerment" and your question all but answers itself.
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar