On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 20:44:11 -0800, Rich Ater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gilberto: > >But it does seem to suggest that the previous religions are sufficient > >guidance for later times as well.
Rich: > >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 with each other, the usual explanation > >is that if thye early Muslims had not turned there backs on Ali and elected > >Abu Bakr, Umar, or Uthman; and if they had stood behind Ali and not > >Mu'awiyya then Islam would have been sufficient. They didn't and so another > >revelation was needed. Gilberto: 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 Bakr) so in a very concrete sense, his spiritual successorship to the prophet is actually recognized even by sunnis in some respects. Isn't the message there? Why would another revelation be needed? 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
