On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 21:08:11 -0800, Rich Ater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gilberto: > I don't think that among sunnis there is a consensus that ANYONE after the > prophet was infallible. Not even Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman. So I think that > asking about infallibility is the wrong question because that doesn't allow > any difference between Abu Bakr and Ali (from the sunni perspective)
Rich: This is my point about a fundamental diference between Shi'a and Sunni. Gilberto: Shia and Sunni disagree about certain issues but I'm not persuaded that the issues are fundemnantal or essential. If Bahais can try to present the doctrines of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Zorastrianism, etc. in a way which reconciles the apparent differences between them, then narrowing the differences between Sunnis and Shias is a walk in the park. > The Shi'a > do consider Ali infallable. The Sunni don't. There is not a consensus that he was infallible. It is generally thought that he was correct in his disagreement with Muawiya. And its not like there is a sunni list floating around of "Imam Ali's top 10 mistakes". AS I said before, he could be considered a kind of saint and might even be a Perfect Man. In SUNNI hadith collections, Muhammad says: "I am the city of knowledge > and > Ali is the gate". Rich: > Wonderful, this Hadith IMHO points to Ali being Muhammad's true > successor. I don't know why there would need to be one kind of successor. > I think it is totally reasonable to say that after the prophet passed, it > was totally appropriate for Abu Bakr to be in charge of the > secular government but that Ali had a particular spiritual station. I > think even the Zaydi Muslims (Shia) say something like this. > Of course > you do and I respect that, but the Shi'a and I disagree. The twelvers do not > think Abu Bakr had a right to take control, at least not from what I've read > Gilberto: Actually, the Taliban were quite sympathetic to some forms of > Sufism. According to one article Mulla Omar was actually a Naqshbanidi. Rich: > This goes against what I've read, particularly Ahmad Rashid. As was > mentioned in a post fron Susan earlier, though, I may be talking at cross > purposes here. My understanding is that the Deobandi are oppossed to the > Chistiyya movements and to anything that smacks of Wahad ul-Wajud. This was mentioned in the article. I think the resolution is that the Taliban were not opposed to Sufism per se. In fact, they had Sufis among their highest ranks. What they were opposed to were specific doctrines and specific practices. > http://www.rferl.org/features/2002/02/01022002104035.asp Peace Gilberto __________________________________________________ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
