Gilberto,
At 12:49 PM 1/30/2005, you wrote:
Mark?
I think the above is a good example of perennialist triumphalism. The
perenialist decides what the original religion was or wasn't, despite what
that religion may say about itself.
No, Susan wrote that. However, I would agree with it.
I don't believe that the Nicean creed is necessarily authentic
Christianity. The real Christians were probably all eaten by lions or
never left the catecombs. There are some Jewish Christian (like
Ebionites) groups with docetic tendancies which from a Muslim
perspective seem a likelier
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 09:56:36 -0800, Patti Goebel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto:
I don't believe that the Nicean creed is necessarily authentic
Christianity. The real Christians were probably all eaten by lions or
never left the catecombs. There are some Jewish Christian (like
In a message dated 12/28/2004 8:03:13 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't
believe that the Nicean creed is necessarily authenticChristianity. The
real Christians were probably all eaten by lions ornever left the
catecombs. There are some Jewish Christian
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:16:48 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 12/28/2004 8:03:13 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't believe that the Nicean creed is necessarily authentic
Christianity. The real Christians were probably all eaten by
In a message dated 1/23/2005 11:22:28 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's EXACTLY, and I mean EXACTLY, what the Bahais do to Muslims.Despite what Muslims may say, Bahais tell Muslims what "Seal of theProphets" means, what the Apocalypse means, who the Mahdi is, how
In a message dated 1/23/2005 12:18:42 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Who is "they"?
the closest grammatic reference - being from your statement: "Baha`i's".
" Bahais tell Muslims what "Seal of the Prophets" means, what the Apocalypse means, who the Mahdi is, how the second
- Hide quoted text -
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:51:39 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Defending could be nothing more than apologetics.
Gilberto:
I could actually say the same about jihad then. There is a hadith
which states: The best jihad is speaking the truth to an unjust
I thought the laws were in the Aqdas?
Dear Gilberto,
Not all of them.
Jihads are also justified to defend Muslims living in the Daru'l-Harb as
I'm
sure you know, and bring their country into the Daru'l-Islam.
Then that's ultimately a matter of saving lives.
It can be done according to
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:02:48 -0600, Susan Maneck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto:
The whole passage already looked sinister as is. I didn't remove any
mitigating context.
Susan:
Yes, you did. You left out the parts that make that passage make sense.
Gilberto:
Go back and look at the
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 02:18:34 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 12/25/2004 11:13:05 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But when Bahais make a big deal out say that holy war has been
abrogated it gives the impression that somehow they are more
In a message dated 1/21/2005 9:40:33 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What is the distinction you are making between "protecting" and
"defending"?
Dear Gilberto,
"Defending" could be nothing more than apologetics. I'm talking about
what could be life and
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:16:25 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/21/2005 9:40:43 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What practice is a part of proper holy war (not its distortions)
which would be absolutely ruled out by the Bahai concepts of
In a message dated 1/21/2005 11:29:15 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"Defending" could be nothing more than apologetics. I could actually
say the same about jihad then. There is a hadithwhich states: ""The best
jihad is speaking the truth to an
unjustruler."
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:43:07 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/21/2005 11:29:15 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Defending could be nothing more than apologetics.
I could actually say the same about jihad then. There is a hadith
In a message dated 1/21/2005 12:00:39 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You are allowed to apply capital punishment according to yourreligion. You are allowed to engage in "collective security" in yourreligion. You are allowed to engage in "righteous warfare" in yourreligion.
1903, not 1906.
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 12/25/2004 1:20:49 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think I would define H.ikmat a trifle differently in a Bahá'í
reference.
Perhaps Susan or Khazeh could offer a better definition?
In a message dated 1/21/2005 11:40:20 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Where did the word 'righteous' come from? In "Bahaullah
and the New Era" there is an entire chapter called"Righteous
Warfare"
Okay. The term 'righteous warfare' occurs nowhere in the
In a message dated 1/21/2005 12:00:16 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"You are allowed to apply capital punishment according to
yourreligion. You are allowed to engage in "collective security" in
yourreligion. You are allowed to engage in "righteous warfare" in
In a message dated 1/21/2005 12:15:27 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1903,
not 1906.
Oops, sorry. I always associate with the Constitutional Revolution.
__
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:42:57 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/21/2005 11:40:20 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Where did the word 'righteous' come from?
In Bahaullah and the New Era there is an entire chapter called
Righteous
In a message dated 1/21/2005 2:17:16 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Gilberto:Why isn't "Bahaullah and the New Era" "the writings"? That section also quotes a passage from Abdul-Baha which elaborates onthe concept in interesting ways as well.
No, it is not. It is by a Baha`i
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:51:39 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Defending could be nothing more than apologetics.
Gilberto:
I could actually say the same about jihad then. There is a hadith
which states: The best jihad is speaking the truth to an unjust
ruler.
Dear Gilberto,
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:11:11 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/21/2005 12:00:39 PM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You are allowed to apply capital punishment according to your
religion. You are allowed to engage in collective security in
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:25:52 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/21/2005 2:21:10 PM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you are just arguing about the names that seems an odd
distinction to make. Actions are either right or wrong, regardless of
In a message dated 1/21/2005 2:33:49 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So are you saying that Christ already taught non-resistance. But thenunder Muhammad's dispensation the community progressed past it? Thenthe Bahai dispensation went backwards to what Christ taught?
"
In a message dated 1/21/2005 9:40:41 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What practice is a part of proper "holy war" (not its distortions)which would be absolutely ruled out by the Bahai concepts ofcollective security, "righteous" warfare, and hikmat.In particular, why would
In a message dated 1/21/2005 2:17:16 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why isn't "Bahaullah and the New Era" "the writings"?
Dear Gilberto,
By "Writings" I mean our scriptures; what we consider the Word of God.
Baha'u'llah and the New Era is just a piece
In a message dated 1/21/2005 2:20:48 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If
you are just arguing about the "names" that seems an odddistinction to
make.
I am not at all arguing about names and I have a difficult time figuring
out why you find this so hard to grasp.
Gilberto,
At 09:24 AM 1/21/2005, you wrote:
That's really not funny.
By the religion which immediately preceded the Baha'i Faith, I think that Susan
had in mind the Babi Faith, not Islam.
Regards, Mark A. Foster http://markfoster.net [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sacred cows make the tastiest
Did the Bab wage Jihad against all the non-believers or just against Muslims?"Mark A. Foster" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto,At 09:24 AM 1/21/2005, you wrote:That's really not funny.By the religion which immediately preceded the Baha'i Faith, I think that Susan had in mind the Babi Faith, not
Did the Bab wage Jihad against all the non-believers or just against
Muslims?
Well, all of the battles, including the one at Shaykh Tabarsi, were defensive
actions against attacks by Muslims.
Regards, Mark A. Foster http://markfoster.net [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sacred cows make the tastiest
"Mark A. Foster" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did the Bab wage Jihad against all the non-believers or just against Muslims?Well, all of the battles, including the one at Shaykh Tabarsi, were defensive actions against attacks by Muslims. JS:
Now, for clarification, can you tell us, if the Baha'is were
Now, for clarification, can you tell us, if the Baha'is were trapped at
Shaykh Tabarsi today, and Muslims attacked them, would the Baha'is be allowed
to fight back, according to the Law of Baha'u'llah?
I'll answer it myself... No.
I agree.
Regards, Mark A. Foster http://markfoster.net
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 16:17:23 -0600, Mark A. Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto,
At 09:24 AM 1/21/2005, you wrote:
That's really not funny.
By the religion which immediately preceded the Baha'i Faith, I think that
Susan had in mind the Babi Faith, not Islam.
My mistake.
Peace
In a message dated 1/21/2005 5:18:35 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By the religion which immediately preceded the Baha'i Faith, I think
that Susan had in mind the Babi Faith, not Islam.My
mistake.
Actually, I was thinking of both.
In a message dated 1/21/2005 5:09:46 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now, for clarification, can you tell us, if the Baha'is were trapped at
Shaykh Tabarsi today, and Muslims attacked them, would the Baha'is be allowed
to fight back, according to the Law of
In a message dated 1/21/2005 4:26:17 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Did the
Bab wage Jihad against all the non-believers or just against
Muslims?
The Bab never waged jihad. His followers fought in His absence when He was
imprisoned.
warmest, Susan
In a message dated 12/26/2004 1:02:54 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And is that really how
the rule is stated? So you can get an abortion if your doctor says its okay?
Or do they have to be medically necessary?
I"t is left up to the individual to make
Susan,
At 06:55 PM 1/21/2005, you wrote:
A controversial question. Raising a black flag in Khurasan was bound to
provoke violence. That's how the rebellion against the Umayyad Dynasty was
launched, after all.
I guess it would depend on whether one interprets it as a provocation or as
taking a
In a message dated 12/25/2004 1:20:49 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I
think I would define "H.ikmat" a trifle differently in a Bahá'í
reference.Perhaps Susan or Khazeh could offer a better
definition?
Not promote or defend but sometimes to protect. For
In a message dated 12/25/2004 11:13:05 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But when Bahais make a big deal out say that "holy war" has
beenabrogated it gives the impression that somehow they are more
peaceful,or closer to pacifism, etc. than other religions in
In a message dated 12/25/2004 11:46:40 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
it's
true that the early, formative years of the Babí andBahá'í Faith were
characterized by a good deal of violence and bloodshed
Babi, not Baha'i.
In a message dated 12/25/2004 6:02:53 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Although Shoghi Effendi said that abortions should not be permitted
unless authorized by the woman's physician
Dear Mark,
I don't recall the Guardian referring to a woman's physician
Hi, Susan,
At 01:24 AM 1/21/2005, you wrote:
I don't recall the Guardian referring to a woman's physician in this context
though I'm aware the House of Justice has. Do you have a reference?
I looked around for it, but I could not find it. That statement was, I believe,
in a letter written on
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:14:56 -0800, Rich Ater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto:
Shia and Sunni disagree about certain issues but I'm not
persuaded that the issues are fundemnantal or essential.
Well, you may
be in a minority here. Sunni are killing Shi'a in India and they are
persecuted
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
Hi, Gilberto,
At 02:43 AM 1/8/2005, you wrote:
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.
Some
John,
At 09:45 AM 1/8/2005, you wrote:
Isn't it more universal to do the one (Baha'i) than the other (Islam) ?
Islam does not accept all religions as they are as valid expressions from
God. The Baha'i, IMO, does. We accept the validity of the people of the
Planet, it is only that their time
Mark, At any rate, thanks for the correct. In fact, I don't disagree with what you are saying. My statement did make some unjustified leaps and assumptions. Let me restate what I really mean.
Remember, we are not talking about this or thatschool in Islam. Aren't we talking about Gilberto's
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 08:35:12 -0800 (PST), John Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark, At any rate, thanks for the correct. In fact, I don't disagree with
what you are saying. My statement did make some unjustified leaps and
assumptions. Let me restate what I really mean.
Remember, we are
Hi, Gilberto,
At 12:28 PM 1/8/2005, you wrote:
Do you find them less convincing than Bahai attempts to reconcile the Bible
and Quran?
No, that is what I was saying. I think that the various texts incorporated the
Bible can be studied; and the Qur'an can be studied. If there are similarities
Gilberto,
At 02:31 PM 1/8/2005, you wrote:
I'm not sure if I'm always careful to say it this way but I would say
typical Muslims. Historically some past scholars (If I remember correctly
Ibn Taymiyya might even be in this camp) took the position that corruption
was a matter of wrong
Gilberto,
I don't know he seems to be telling us what we believe. Anyway, I'm
refering to my understanding of Sunni beliefs, not which ones I think
Gilberto subscribes to.
Rich
Susan Maneck wrote:
And then on top of that, Sunnis (especially Sufis) still see Ali as a
spiritual successor to
Gilberto:
That is interesting. I've actually heard the opposite view. There is a
saying: "Difference of opinion among the scholars is a mercy". I think
the idea is that the diversity allows for a certain amount of
flexibility. I don't have the exact quote but I think Seyyid
Susan,
That's true. Even Ibn Tamiyyah had no trouble with Sufism in the
since. His objection, I believe; and Ghazali's too, was to the Wahad ul
Wajud type of belifs that had developed in some scools.
Rich
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In
a message dated 1/4/2005 5:35:55 P.M. Central
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 15:06:01 -0800, Rich Ater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto:
And then on top of that, Sunnis (especially Sufis) still see Ali as a
spiritual successor to the prophet.
Rich:
No you don't. The Sunni see Ali as a
temporal successor, one of the four
rightly guided
I've read that Ibn Taymiyyah was a Qadri. At the very least he had a
great deal of respect for Abdul-Qadir al-Jilani and called him my
shaykh and refrained from criticizing him.
Peace
GIlberto
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 15:15:44 -0800, Rich Ater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Susan,
That's true.
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
I've read that Ibn Taymiyyah was a Qadri. At the very least he had a
great deal of respect for Abdul-Qadir al-Jilani and called him my
shaykh and refrained from criticizing him.
Gilberto,
That's true. I just finished his Kitab ul Iman and Introduction to
Tafsir as well his treatises
Rich:
I think you're skirting the issue here. Sunni's do not believe that the
12 Imams were infallible in there interpretation of the Qur'an or that their
rulings are infallible. Sunnis do not believe that the 12 Imams were the
temporal AND spriritual head of the Ummah.
In a message dated 1/4/2005 5:35:55 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But
in general, that books which I've read which come out of the"Deobandi"
circles are actually pretty explicitly and uniformlysupportive of Sufism.
Tablighi Jamaat which is probably the
On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 23:13:06 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 12/27/2004 10:03:55 PM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But the sunni and shiite theology is there.Remember the original
question was your claim that if the majority had accepted Ali
On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 20:21:49 -0800, Rich Ater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto wrote:
It depends on what you mean by recognize. Even from a Sunni
perspective, Sunnis are supposed to have love for ahl al-bayt. (The
family of Muhammad). So Ali, Hassan, and Hussein, are still beloved
G:
And so if you should me a religion which issuitable for the spiritual needs of people from different cultures andcivilizations from 622-or-so to 1844 then it should be universalenough to deal with human beings today.
J:
Unless there is something fundamentally different today (that started in
G:
You said that if Ali had been accepted, Islam might have continued as a valid religion.
J:
I do not agree with this because even though the Baha'i faith is not 'to be followed by night', we are promised another revelation about 1000 years after
[Regarding the Bab's claims that the previous religions were fit to be
universal]
On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 21:17:09 -0600, Mark A. Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto,
At 08:47 PM 12/26/2004, you wrote:
But it does seem to suggest that the previous religions are sufficient
guidance for
Hi, Gilberto,
At 08:01 AM 12/27/2004, you wrote:
I think I understand what you are saying but is Progressive Revelation even
found in the Bab's writings?
Yes:
It is clear and evident that the object of all preceding Dispensations hath
been to pave the way for the advent of Muhammad, the
Ido not believe we shouldfocus on the failures of Islam (see below); instead, it is a simple matter of the fact that the revelation (of Muhammad/Qur'an/Islam proper) has come to an end, even though theeternal in thepast and futureIslam is re-revealed in the form of Baha'u'llah and His various
But what does that mean exactly? What would be missing? Because the
Shia recognize Ali as the imam. They have Nahjul-Balagha the book of
Ali's letters and sermons, the hadith, the other writings of the
imams. And Even most of the sunni Sufi orders trace their lineage
through Ali (rather than Abu
On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 19:48:26 -0800, Rich Ater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But what does that mean exactly? What would be missing? Because the
Shia recognize Ali as the imam. They have Nahjul-Balagha the book of
Ali's letters and sermons, the hadith, the other writings of the
imams. And Even
In a message dated 12/27/2004 10:03:55 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But the sunni and shiite theology is there.Remember the originalquestion was your claim that if the majority had accepted Ali thatIslam might have become universal. EVen from the Bahai perspectivewhere
It depends on what you mean by recognize. Even from a Sunni
perspective, Sunnis are supposed to have love for ahl al-bayt. (The
family of Muhammad). So Ali, Hassan, and Hussein, are still beloved
companions who were close to the prophet. Subsequent imams were either
followers or
In a message dated 12/25/2004 6:53:57 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And is that really how the rule is stated? So you can get an abortion if your doctor says its okay? Or do they have to be medically necessary?
It is left up to the individual to make a moral choice. The
Hi, Scott,
At 01:02 PM 12/26/2004, you wrote:
In a message dated 12/25/2004 6:53:57 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL
PROTECTED] writes:
And is that really how the rule is stated? So you can get an abortion if your
doctor says its okay? Or do they have to be medically necessary?
I did not write
On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 18:37:34 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto wrote:
...it doesn't make sense to compare a pretty statement about
non-violence from the Bahai writings with the recent suicide bombing
in Iraq.
Why not?
Because the ideals should be compared to
In a message dated 12/25/2004 3:53:05 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does this say that Islam is somehow more primitive?/ God forbid. The Revelation of God is the Revelation of God. But the revelation of Muhammed was tailor made for the world of Muhammed. According to the
On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 21:15:59 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 12/25/2004 3:53:05 PM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does this say that Islam is somehow more primitive?/ God forbid. The
Revelation of God is the Revelation of God. But the
Gilberto,
At 08:47 PM 12/26/2004, you wrote:
But it does seem to suggest that the previous religions are sufficient
guidance for later times as well.
That is not my understanding of the concept. Progressive Revelation implies
that each religion was intended to be universal for a particular age
But it does seem to suggest that the previous religions are sufficient
guidance for later times as well.
Except that they were corrupted by the limitations of humanity. As you know,
the Baha'i Faith does tend to side with the Shi'a explanation of things. Since
we are discussing being honest
In a message dated 12/26/2004 8:48:16 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But it does seem to suggest that the previous religions are sufficientguidance for later times as well.
Baha`u'llah is express. The Revelation of God is continuous. It will continue after Hisown
Gilberto wrote:
Because the ideals should be compared to ideals. Not the ideals of one
religion to the realities of the other.
My friend, I agree with you up to a point. But when a religion fails to
live up to its ideals, or when the reality of its practice is plainly
different from the values
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 21:16:45 -0600, Don Calkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 5:09 PM -0600 12/24/04, Gilberto Simpson wrote:
Some relevant passages from Susan's paper below. [deleted]
If they are accurate then it seems likely that even if we ignore the
the statements about collective security
Hi, Gilberto,
At 08:32 AM 12/25/2004, you wrote:
I think part of my misgivings with the Bahai faith have to do with a
different attitude towards time and morality. I mean, if something is
immoral, why wouldn't it always be immoral? (given sufficiently similar
situations) Morality shouldn't
Hi, Gilberto,
At 11:12 AM 12/25/2004, you wrote:
Ok, I will be making a field trip to the encyclopedia now...lol...
The term Wertrationalitäet (substantive rationality) comes from Max Weber. He
distinguished it from Zweckrationalitäet (instrumental or formal
rationality). Wertrationalitäet
Gilberto wrote:
...it gives the impression that somehow they are more peaceful,
or closer to pacifism, etc. than other religions in principle. when
there are significant exceptions which make that untrue.
The exceptions are so closely defined that I can't agree that this is
untrue. We are,
On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 11:44:03 -0600, Mark A. Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, Gilberto,
.But in some occasions you need to deal with violent aggressors with force.
Yes.
Gilberto:
But when Bahais make a big deal out [of saying] that holy war has been
abrogated it gives the impression
On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 09:46:06 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto wrote:
...it gives the impression that somehow they are more peaceful,
or closer to pacifism, etc. than other religions in principle. when
there are significant exceptions which make that untrue.
In a message dated 12/25/2004 11:13:06 AM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And the two
main examples which come to mindare gender equality and the use of
force.
Use of force for states in defense of the nation is permissable, but not
"holy".
Gender equality is
Gilberto wrote:
Ok then. So in your opinion what were the original God-given rules
governing warfare which were followed by Muhammad and Hussein?
[D.A.L.] I cannot claim to have a sufficiently deep understanding of Islam
to give you a good answer to this. I've based my understanding on the
On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 14:00:41 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 12/25/2004 11:13:06 AM Central Standard Time,
Gender equality is progressive from Islamic custom not radically different.
You have forgotten to consider that under Islamic law a woman may not
On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 11:23:31 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto wrote:
Ok then. So in your opinion what were the original God-given rules
governing warfare which were followed by Muhammad and Hussein?
[D.A.L.] I cannot claim to have a sufficiently deep
Gilberto,
At 12:29 PM 12/25/2004, you wrote:
Incidentally, isn't the Bahai faith pro-life? Is abortion the same as murder?
In the Bahai faith would stopping abortions be considered the same as
stopping a murder?
The term pro-life refers to a political and social movement. Although Shoghi
Hi, Gilberto,
At 06:09 PM 12/25/2004, you wrote:
Hmm, the above sounds kind of like a policy. But the basic question I had was
whether abortion would be equivalent to murder.
Abortion merely to prevent the birth of an unwanted child is strictly
forbidden in the Cause. There may, however, be
Gilberto wrote:
...Bahais
making a point of saying holy war has been blotted out the book
especially combined with the idea of progressive revelation, would
give the impression that they are somehow specifically claiming to be
less violent than islam. Is that a fair statement?
I've reached
Scott,
At 11:06 AM 12/24/2004, you wrote:
I think I would define hikmat a trifle differently in a Baha`i reference.
Perhaps Susan or Khazeh could offer a better definition?
Here is Susan's paper on it:
http://hikmat.susanmaneck.com/
With regards, Mark A. Foster * 15 Sites:
Gilberto,
I don't think so. Hikmat, from my understasnding means presenting
the Faith from the point of view of timliness and capacity of the
listener, as well as using tact. You brought this up earlier yourself,
in terms of dialogue with other religions. Holy War is forbidden to
Baha'is
This part two is important:
"
On the issue of women's rights, divine wisdom, in the sense we
have just discussed it, and the injunction upon Bahá'ís to observe "wisdom" in
their action directly converge. While Bahá'u'lláh unequivocally proclaimed the
equality of men and women,(29)
in a
Could I ask you why you chose the passages you and why they are so
important? Would you agree that hikmat could include the possibility
of Bahai holy war? Why or why not?
Peace
Gilberto
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 18:44:19 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This part two is important:
In a message dated 12/24/2004 2:02:52 AM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Others might be able to explain it as well, but basically H.ikmat is
sometimes invoke a sometimes pragmatic suspension of a certain Bahai
principle in order to defend or promote the faith. So that
100 matches
Mail list logo
