On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 21:26:44 -0800, Rich Ater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto:
[The doctrine of the finality of prophethood is] not logically
necessary but various Islamic texts inform us that
Muhammad was the final
prophet. If I accept Muhammad and the Quran and
even if I throw out
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
Dear Khazeh,
My original question:
So my question to you is whether you are willing to say:
all that is vouchsafed [to Baháu'lláh] was indeed Mentioned before [to
Muhammad]?
Peace
Gilberto
http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist/m43251.html
Dear Gilberto of course in the spirit of the
Dear Khazeh,
My original question:
So my question to you is whether you are willing to say:
all that is vouchsafed [to Baháu'lláh] was indeed Mentioned before [to
Muhammad]?
Peace
Gilberto
http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist/m43251.html
Dear Gilberto of course in the spirit of the
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
Dear Khazeh,
You cut and pasted the following assertion:
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 19:14:52 -, Khazeh Fananapazir
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nowhere in the Gospels do we find any reference to the
unity of nations or the unification of mankind as a
whole. When Jesus spoke
to those around Him,
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 14:16:50 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/8/2005 1:13:34 PM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Gilberto:
Ok. Then if all that was vouchsafed to Bahaullah was already mentioned
to Muhammad, I just think it makes alot more
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
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 11:49:53 -0800 (PST), John Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto:
Ok. Then if all that was vouchsafed to Bahaullah was already mentioned
to Muhammad, I just think it makes alot more sense for me to look to
those great Muslim interpreters, scholars, and saints to unpack
Gilberto: I would say that in a real way there isa huge amount of content already contained in even just "La ilaha illaAllah" (No god but God) "and the rest is commentary" so even juststicking to the Quran is huge amount of fleshing out and unpacking.Alot more unpacking with details and examples
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 19:24:15 -, Khazeh Fananapazir
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear Khazeh,
My original question:
So my question to you is whether you are willing to say:
all that is vouchsafed [to Baháu'lláh] was indeed Mentioned before [to
Muhammad]?
Peace
Gilberto
In a message dated 1/8/2005 3:41:20 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But Muslims aren't just resting with a part. Remember, we agreed. ALLthat is vouchsafed to Baháu'lláh was indeed Mentioned before toMuhammad. ALL of it. There is nothing missing.And in the Quran it says:We
Sale's translation is the most scholarly we have, but Rodwell's version is
more literary, and hence easier for reading. (From a letter written on
behalf of Shoghi Effendi (23 November 1934).
In comparing what. to me. is a very important set of verses, I find the
differences extraordinary in
In a message dated 1/8/2005 4:26:25 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sale's
translation is the most scholarly we have, but Rodwell's version is more
literary, and hence easier for reading. (From a letter written on
behalf of Shoghi Effendi (23 November
1934).
In a message dated 1/8/2005 2:59:21 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But the Quran says of itself:We did not leave anything out of this Book, then all will be gatheredbefore their Lord [for judgement]. (6:38)
Muhammed did not leave anything out of the Book that He was told to
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 17:43:50 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/8/2005 2:59:21 PM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But the Quran says of itself:
We did not leave anything out of this Book, then all will be gathered
before their Lord [for
In message
http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist/m43290.html
Dear Gilberto you make several points. This servant, again in the spirit of
amity and affectionate dialogue will remember! And number them and make some
replies. Please God you will look at them with a kindly gaze.
Gilberto:
Point 1]
In a message dated 1/8/2005 6:01:22 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Gilberto:Islamically the Quran wasn't written by Muhammad, it comes from God.
Who said different. Muhammed is the Revealor and I refer to that as authorship. Actually, Gabriel revealed the Qur'an to Muhammed
Gilberto: It doesn't seem to make sense to think that Muhammad was omniscient but then held back important spiritual truths from the ummah. The Quran doesn't suggest it.
John: It is explained by the Qur'an as the Qiyamah, Surah 75.
"1. I swear by the Day of Resurrection; 2. And I swear by the
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 17:43:47 -0800 (PST), John Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto: It doesn't seem to make sense to think that Muhammad was
omniscient but then held back important spiritual truths from the ummah. The
Quran doesn't suggest it.
John: It is explained by the Qur'an
John: It is explained by the Qur'an as the Qiyamah, Surah 75. Gilberto: Could you specifically point to which verse you have in mind and howit points to what we are talking about?
John: What I meant wasthat there are things that will take placeduringQiyamah thatare beyond the
Dear Khazeh,
I'll focus on the more essential aspects to hopefully not get caught
up in details and stick to the more central issues.
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 01:06:34 -, Khazeh Fananapazir
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In message
http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist/m43290.html
Dear Gilberto
G: Could you specifically point to which verse you have in mind and howit points to what we are talking about?
J:
(1) On Al-Qiyamatu'l Udhma, the Great Resurrection, God will say things and answer questions that are not in the Qur'an:
[2:210] : Will they wait until Allah comes to them in
Hi Mark!
You wrote: However, Shoghi Effendi appears to have believed
in degrees of authenticity. The Qur'an is more authentic (from
a Baha'i, not necessarily an academic, viewpoint) than the
Bible, just as the actual writings of Shoghi Effendi are more
authentic than letters written on his
Hi, Sandra,
Here are the passages I had in mind:
... the Qur'an ... is more authentic than the Bible including both the New and
the Old Testaments. The Bible is not wholly authentic, and in this respect is
not to be compared with the Qur'an, and should be wholly subordinated to the
authentic
Gilberto: Maybe it's just me, but from my perspective,
humanity's biggest problem isn't ignorance as much as
forgetfulness. As human beings, to a large degree I think we
know what we ought to be doing. We know we shouldn't steal and
murder. We know we shouldn't exploit and take advantage of
30 matches
Mail list logo
