susan,
i am familair with the definition of countqerclaim. please note that in the
definitions u google, each makes the same statemt i did. a cunterclaim is part
of reply to a claim. "in essence" a suit within a suit...but not de legis a
seperate suit.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rul
"I have heard that Remey was not all that happy about Shoghi Effendi
insisting on certain changes to his architectural designs for the
Faith, especially the Mt. Carmel temple. However, such reports seem
to have originated after his defection, so . . . . ."
Dear Don,
The quotation I gave was
At 9:09 AM -0500 9/20/05, Susan Maneck wrote:
Remey had to assume them, that "this would not be like under Shoghi
Effendi, who had to control everything in the Baha'i Faith" [which
says volumes about his attitude towards the Guardian.]
I have heard that Remey was not all that happy about Shogh
"A counterclaim is not a separate suit. It is part of the required answer to
the plaintiffs allegations, should there be such to be made."
Dear Gabriel,
Usually it is a countersuit and it was in this case. It gets settled at the
same time as the original case. Here's some definitions of a coun
susan,
we can split the difference.
as i re-read that lovely letter "remey and those who" i see the difference in
our recall.
i have a dim memory of another historical account of this, but since i can't
provenance it ..it's like whatever.
on the other hand,
;"The National Spiritual Assemb
scott,
:"In legal terms it had nothing to do with self-identification. To identify
the ORGANIZATION, the followers of Remey had to switch to "Orthodox Baha`i" to
identify the organization in some manner as separate from the organization
known as "Baha`i"."
sure. that however has nothing to do
But those whose names were removed from the roles were also acting in
violation of the Covenant. In those cases the Universal House of Justice
decided their understanding of the Covenant was not sufficient to warrant
calling them Baha'is period.
warmest, Susan
Susan,
I can appreciate tha
"imho the issue of who took who to court vis a vis remey needs clarified. it
was the remeyites who took nsa/usa to court.
too late to drop the case, remey oerdered them to desist. we don;t know why."
Dear Gabriel,
You've got this a little garbled. It was the Remeyites who filed suit against
t
firestorm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
on the other hand, the Faith firmly and clearly stood Its ground against the remeyite claims of authority, ownership and right of identification.clarifying this method of action is perhaps useful to this discussion.
In legal terms it had nothing to do w
imho the issue of who took who to court vis a vis remey needs clarified. it was
the remeyites who took nsa/usa to court.
too late to drop the case, remey oerdered them to desist. we don;t know why.
one reason might be that the concrete identification information of 64 or so
remeyite households a
Title: Message
"On the appearance of
fearful natural events call ye to mind the might and majesty of your Lord, He
Who heareth and seeth all, and say, 'Dominion is God's, the Lord of the seen and
the unseen, the Lord of creation' ." --
Bahá'u'lláh
The information contained in
>Were that simply the case, then why not just remove them from the roles
>rather than declare them Covenant breakers?
>
>
Principally because of the act of trying to destroy the Covenant.
Rich
Dear Rich,
But those whose names were removed from the roles were also acting in
violation of the Covena
Folks,
The following is taken from chapter 5 of Baha'u'llah and the New Era, which
(along with chapters 1 and 2) was corrected by `Abdu'l-Baha. (Only part of
chapter 3 was corrected by Him.) Note `Abdu'l-Baha's very broad definitions of
being a Baha'i.
---
"When asked on one occasion: 'What
Tim,
Those were wonderful points and I agree with them. It is only when
the claims effect how Baha'is are percieved by others that I have an
issue. I believe that when the Remeyites tried to use the name of the
Baha'i Faith in the early sixties, they were taken to court and told
that they c
Susan Maneck wrote:
"Would it not be the case that
CBs also no longer fot the criteria for being Baha'is?"
Were that simply the case, then why not just remove them from the roles
rather than declare them Covenant breakers?
Principally because of the act of trying to destroy the Covenant.
Ri
Tim,
At 09:41 AM 9/17/2005, you wrote:
>>I assume you restrict this principle to assertions of belief. I think you
>>would not allow someone to perform heart surgery on you, based on nothing
>>more than his assertion that he is a surgeon.<<
I don't see the connection between religious identity
Hi Mark,
>Being a *member* of the Baha'i Faith entails being part of an organization. I, for one, would never judge that someone was not a Baha'i because she or he did not belong to the Baha'i International Community. <
I agree. Only God knows who really is a Baha'i. Even being a member
Tim,
At 07:21 AM 9/17/2005, you wrote:
>>A person can identify himself as anything. That provides insight into how the
>>person sees himself.<<
In the sociology of religion, such identifications are generally regarded as
important for simple categorization, such as in survey research. Whether
Rich,
>It is in this sense that I am saying that they are not Baha'is. As to others identifying themselves as Baha'is, I think they can als identify themselves as flying squirrels, but they don't meet the criteria for that either and I'm not going to tell them that they are either.<
"Would it not be the case that
CBs also no longer fot the criteria for being Baha'is?"
Were that simply the case, then why not just remove them from the roles
rather than declare them Covenant breakers?
>
>
>
>
>
>
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto
("e-mail
To my knowledge this is not the case. I've never seen the House say anything
to the effect that they *never* were really Baha'is only that they did not
meet the qualifications of membership at the time they were disenrolled.
People change.
warmest, Susan
Susan
Excellent point and I stand
As to what I'm going to do, I'm not going to
say they're Baha'i when I don't believe they are.
Fine, don't. What are you going to do about it? Hit them with a
trademark violation?
I ask again because you did not answer.
I left my quote above as to what I do in these
"If
I understand i,t the people that the House disenrolled were considered
to have never been Baha'is in the first place, whereas Covenant Breakers
were Baha'is and ceased to be so after breaking the covenant."
Dear Rich,
To my knowledge this is not the case. I've never seen the House say anythin
My point is that the Universal House of Justice apparently *does* consider
Covenant breakers Baha'is on some level but not those it has removed from
the roles. Otherwise the ones they removed from the roles would have been
declared CBs as well.
warmest, Susan
Susan,
Maybe it's a matter of
Yesterday, Wednesday, was another bad day: a dozen acts of violence in
one day with more than 150 people dead in one single day in Baghdad,
just two weeks after the horrible and tragically devastating stampede of
Wednesday August 31st 2005 when more than 1000 persons perished.
Iskandar
Rich Ater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> So? What are you going to do hit them with a trademark violation> for CLAIMING to be Baha`i?>> Its pointless to try to stop "self-identification" its against> everything western society holds dear.>> >Scott,Who says I care about everything Western So
I think that is also why the Guardian called them *internal* enemies.
Dear Mark,
Yeah, because he uses the term to apply to those who have already been
thrown out of the Faith.
warmest, Susan
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail")
is sent by the J
Susan,
At 10:22 PM 9/14/2005, you wrote:
>>My point is that the Universal House of Justice apparently *does* consider
>>Covenant breakers Baha'is on some level but not those it has removed from the
>>roles. Otherwise the ones they removed from the roles would have been
>>declared CBs as well.<<
>
>Wouldn't that be true of those who were removed from the roles, as well?
>
>There must be some distinction.
Dear Rich,
My point is that the Universal House of Justice apparently *does* consider
Covenant breakers Baha'is on some level but not those it has removed from
the roles. Otherwise the o
So? What are you going to do hit them with a trademark violation
for CLAIMING to be Baha`i?
Its pointless to try to stop "self-identification" its against
everything western society holds dear.
Scott,
Who says I care about everything Western Society holds dear?
Rich Ater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Wouldn't that be true of those who were removed from the roles, as well? >>There must be some distinction. >>warmest, Susan > >Susna,I would agree, but I don't see your point. They're still not Baha'is, right?Rich
So? What are you going to do hit them with
You are taking the passage out of context. It is addressed to religious
leaders, not scientists. The standards and sciences referred to are those of
Islamic theology.
warmest, Susan
No I'm not. I may be interpreting it differently than you, but I am not
taking it out of context. The standard
Wouldn't that be true of those who were removed from the roles, as well?
There must be some distinction.
warmest, Susan
Susna,
I would agree, but I don't see your point. They're still not
Baha'is, right?
Rich
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachm
"Ok, so now that is confusing. What is being attributed to Islamic
sciences which Bahais are saying not to do? Are you saying Bahais
don't do tafsirs? (I thought the Bab and Abdul-Baha specifically wrote
tafsirs, no?"
Dear Gilberto,
The 'ulama are simply being told not to judge Baha'u'llah's reve
> On 9/11/05, Susan Maneck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Revelation also says, "Weigh not the Book of
> God with such standards and sciences as are current
> amongst you, for the Book itself is the unerring
> Balance established amongst men."
>(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 56)
> Dea
The Revelation also says, "Weigh not the Book of
God with such standards and sciences as are current
amongst you, for the Book itself is the unerring
Balance established amongst men."
(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 56)
Dear Rich,
You are taking the passage out of context. It is addresse
"An interesting point, but it could also be interpreted as they had
been Baha'is, but are no longer."
Dear Rich,
Wouldn't that be true of those who were removed from the roles, as well?
There must be some distinction.
warmest, Susan
The information contained in this e-mail and an
Only this Revelation insists that religion becomes superstition when
it discards reason.
Susan,
The Revelation also says, "Weigh not the Book of
God with such standards and sciences as are current
amongst you, for the Book itself is the unerring
Balance established amongst men."
(Baha'u
Dear Rich,
My point is that if they *had* been considered Baha'is they would have
been declared Covenant breakers. That acknowledges that Covenant
breakers are indeed Baha'is in some sense of the word.
warmest, Susan
Susan,
An interesting point, but it could also be interpreted as th
The answer is "yes" and "no". They are not considered Baha`i's
by the administrative order. In that sense the administrative order
does not define them as Baha`i's. This is to their advantage, since if
they were considered and defined as "covenant breakers", this might
caus
Gilberto,
At 08:20 PM 9/9/2005, you wrote:
>>I don't think Mark's comments did that. I don't think there was any
>>difficulty seperating Mark-with-a-Bahai-hat and Mark-with-a-sociologist-hat.
>>He's been fairly clear on the distinction.<<
Thanks. I try anyway. However, Baha'is obviously have d
Rich,
At 08:03 PM 9/9/2005, you wrote:
>>My point was that the Gilberto made a statement about how Baha'is react to or
>>regard covenant breakers. While I can respect your methodology, I think in
>>the case given I think it muddied the picture rather than making it clearer.<<
It is clear that B
" Non Baha'is on the list, at least to me, seem to be asking for Baha'i responses not academic responses. While I believe that scholarship can indeed help the Faith, it's job is to help us understand the teachings, not relace them."
Dear Rich,
There are other lists such as soc.religion.
>I'm not sure that is true. In recent years the Universal House of Justice>has chosen to remove some people from the rolls rather than declare them>Covenant breakers. The rationale was that they had determined they weren't>really Baha'is and thus bound by the Covennat.>>warmest, Susan> >Sus
Rich Ater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Susan Maneck wrote:>"I guess from a Baha'i perspective we wouldn't see this as splinter>Baha'i groups, because from our point of view they stopped being Baha'is>at the moment they broke off from any point of the administrative order.">>Dear Rich,>>I'm not sure
Gilberto Simpson wrote:
On 9/9/05, Rich Ater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My point was that the Gilberto made a statement about how Baha'is react
to or regard covenant breakers. While I can respect your methodology, I
think in the case given I think it muddied the picture rat
On 9/9/05, Rich Ater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My point was that the Gilberto made a statement about how Baha'is react
> to or regard covenant breakers. While I can respect your methodology, I
> think in the case given I think it muddied the picture rather than making it
> clearer.
I don'
Susan Maneck wrote:
"I guess from a Baha'i perspective we wouldn't see this as splinter
Baha'i groups, because from our point of view they stopped being Baha'is
at the moment they broke off from any point of the administrative order."
Dear Rich,
I'm not sure that is true. In recent years the U
Mark A. Foster wrote:
Rich,
At 05:02 PM 9/5/2005, you wrote:
We're not sociologists, we're Baha'is and we go by the Baha'i definitions of Covenent Breakers and their followers.<<
Not everyone on this list is a Baha'i. This is also not a "Baha'i" list. I
On 9/9/05, firestorm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> gilberto,
> i don;t think they are stupid or silly.
> ur point seems to be, if i am getting it, is that religion is somehow
> different from other social sets.
No, the point is that many social sets (including religion) are very
different from mat
gilberto,
i don;t think they are stupid or silly.
ur point seems to be, if i am getting it, is that religion is somehow different
from other social sets.
i have difficulty seeing how.
matters of "beleif" ...sure... verry grey area.
if freind x tells me they have many ideas similar to those
On 9/8/05, firestorm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> gilberto, to the extent that all of us must figure ways to get along with
> others, we are all in fact sociologists.
ok.
> the us senate exists becuae of a consttution, voted upon ratified etc.
> whereby a us governemnt comes into existence.
o
Firestorm,
At 02:12 AM 9/8/2005, you wrote:
>>my above mentioned freind with the issues cannnot figure out why "normed"
>>Baha'is do not think of him as being one, and argues for a definition that
>>says all "liberal" people should vote as to what the Baha'i Faith is and then
>>have It become t
gilberto, to the extent that all of us must figure ways to get along with
others, we are all in fact sociologists.
the us senate exists becuae of a consttution, voted upon ratified etc.
whereby a us governemnt comes into existence.
the Baha'i Faith comes into existence as the execution of the
mark foster,
inpractice, that is what i see happen on the web.
my above mentioned freind with the issues cannnot figure out why "normed"
Baha'is do not think of him as being one, and argues for a definition that says
all "liberal" people should vote as to what the Baha'i Faith is and then have
It's been one week since the tragic event in Baghdad on Wednesday August
31st took the lives of more than 1000 pilgrims.
I'd like for us to continue to offer prayers for the souls of the
departed, for the consolation of their relatives and family members, and
for the overall protection of huma
On 9/7/05, firestorm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> it would be nice to take the sociologic perspective of self-identification,
> except for > the case given above about a senator not being a sociologist, i
> am led to ask,
> then how does one define Baha'i? a us sentaotr meets certain
> qualific
Hi, Susan,
At 03:34 AM 9/7/2005, you wrote:
>>This does not apply to priests or other religious leaders. The separation
>>clause protects them as it does not protect therapists, lawyers, teachers,
>>etc.<<
According to the information I posted, it seems as though one or two states do
not recog
Hi, Firestorm,
At 02:27 AM 9/7/2005, you wrote:
>> so, of what use is a sociologic rule that ends up miming the identity
>> principle of multiplying by one?<<
Utilitarianism depend on the perspective of the observer. My *assumption* would
be that typical members of a majority organization withi
"I guess from a Baha'i perspective we wouldn't see this as splinter
Baha'i groups, because from our point of view they stopped being Baha'is
at the moment they broke off from any point of the administrative order."
Dear Rich,
I'm not sure that is true. In recent years the Universal House of Justi
" However, if someone goes to a priest, a therapist, or an attorney and
admits of child molestation, it is generally not considered as protected by
confidentiality agreements."
Dear Mark,
This does not apply to priests or other religious leaders. The separation
clause protects them as it does not
"One really needs only be a monotheist to embrace Sufi, and which Prophet
one follows is relatively immaterial, since the Sufi would essentially
accept them all."
Dear Scott,
That is only true for what sometimes passes for Sufism in the West. In the
Islamic world to say you are a Sufi without bei
it would be nice to take the sociologic perspective of self-identification,
except for the case given above about a senator.
not being a sociologist, i am led to ask, then how does one define Baha'i? a
us sentaotr meets certain qualifications..set not by the senator, but by the
u.s. senate. so
"You forgot to add : "in my limited understanding of the Baha'i Holy
Writings"."
Max,
Looks like you were the one who forgot to add that. But tell me, what
terrible thing did these women and children do to deserve this?
Susan
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments th
Rich,
At 05:05 PM 9/5/2005, you wrote:
>>It would be irrelevant. The confessional is inviolate. It has been so since
>>the beginning of the church. Every country or society that has tried to
>>change this has failed. My point was that thec hurch has never recognized
>>these types of laws.<<
Th
Rich,
At 05:02 PM 9/5/2005, you wrote:
>>We're not sociologists, we're Baha'is and we go by the Baha'i definitions of
>>Covenent Breakers and their followers.<<
Not everyone on this list is a Baha'i. This is also not a "Baha'i" list. It is
a Baha'i studies list. That would include sociological,
Mark A. Foster wrote:
Rich,
At 09:00 PM 9/3/2005, you wrote:
Actually, that would be true. The sanctity of the confessional is inviolate. A priest
cannot reveal to anyone what he hears in confession, no matter how heinous. Priests
have gone to jail, and in some instances to their deaths f
As a sociologist (and also as an individual), I would consider them to be Baha'is based on
self-definition, and I also would regard their organizations, where they exist, to be branches
of the Baha'i Faith. (The word 'sect" has a precise usage in the sociology of religion,
and none of the organ
Gilberto Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/3/05, Scott Saylors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:> One thing most forget is this: Many times an institution must rule on what> they have found as fact, but because of the nature of PRIVACY and DISCRETION> on the substance of their consultation the
Rich,
At 09:00 PM 9/3/2005, you wrote:
>>Actually, that would be true. The sanctity of the confessional is inviolate.
>>A priest cannot reveal to anyone what he hears in confession, no matter how
>>heinous. Priests have gone to jail, and in some instances to their deaths for
>>this. The US acce
Rich,
At 08:47 PM 9/3/2005, you wrote:
>>For Baha'is, Covenant Breakers are not sects, they stop being Baha'is.<<
As a sociologist (and also as an individual), I would consider them to be
Baha'is based on self-definition, and I also would regard their organizations,
where they exist, to be bran
For example if a child molestor goes to a priest and confesses his sins, the confession would be protected.<<
To my knowledge, in most cases that would *not* be true (at least not in the
U.S.).
Mark,
Actually, that would be true. The sanctity of the confessional is
inviolate. A
Gilberto Simpson wrote:
I've gotten into discussions before with Bahais where they tried to
say that the Bahai faith has never split and that its unity is
promised by the central figures and is proof of its divine origin and
at the same time, these Bahais would make a big deal about divisions
wi
We have but to turn our gaze to humanity's blood-stained history to
realize
that nothing short of intense mental as well as physical agony has been
able
to precipitate those epoch-making changes that constitute the greatest
landmarks in the history of human civilization.
(Shoghi Effendi, T
Gilberto,
At 06:55 PM 9/3/2005, you wrote:
>>really? Do you know what the limits are then?<<
In the U.S., the laws vary from state to state. However, if someone goes to a
priest, a therapist, or an attorney and admits of child molestation, it is
generally not considered as protected by confiden
Gilberto,
At 07:15 PM 9/3/2005, you quoted:
"... recently in the US there have been some child protection laws which
require professionals (teachers, social workers, etc) to report suspected child
abuse. Some laws specifically mention the confessional in this regard. But the
formulation of thos
The Catholic Encyclopedia has an entry on the seal of the confessional
and makes it pretty sweeping
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13649b.htm
Including even capital crimes. So from the Catholic side, the
confessions are definitely protected and most Western and a few
non-Western respect that
really? Do you know what the limits are then?
-Gilberto
On 9/3/05, Mark A. Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gilberto,
>
> At 06:17 PM 9/3/2005, you wrote:
> >>For example if a child molestor goes to a priest and confesses his sins,
> >>the confession would be protected.<<
>
> To my knowledg
Gilberto,
At 06:17 PM 9/3/2005, you wrote:
>>For example if a child molestor goes to a priest and confesses his sins, the
>>confession would be protected.<<
To my knowledge, in most cases that would *not* be true (at least not in the
U.S.).
Via moderna, Mark A. Foster . http://markfoster.net
On 9/3/05, Scott Saylors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One thing most forget is this: Many times an institution must rule on what
> they have found as fact, but because of the nature of PRIVACY and DISCRETION
> on the substance of their consultation they simply are not free to fully
> explain thems
On 9/3/05, Scott Saylors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Gilberto,
>
> I think that could be said, but I cannot be certain he did not withdraw
> rather than face administrative sanctions. I think he later regretted
> withdrawing, but that is surmise on my part, I certainly cannot judge his
At 4:02 AM -0400 9/3/05, Gilberto Simpson wrote:
>
I consider Juan Cole to be a Baha`i, even though he has splintered himself
off of the body of the faith.
Wow. I'm actually impressed. In the past I've found Bahais who would
not say he was one of their number.
He professes the Prophethood
Gilberto Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/2/05, Scott Saylors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:> > I consider Juan Cole to be a Baha`i, even though he has splintered himself> off of the body of the faith. Wow. I'm actually impressed. In the past I've found Bahais who wouldnot say he was one of th
On 9/2/05, Scott Saylors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Gilberto Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Ok, I was sloppy in how I spoke. "Fundamentalist" Bahais and
> non-Fundamentalist Bahais. And some "Fundamentalist" Bahais might have
> PhDs and academic positions.
>
> Pea
On 9/2/05, Scott Saylors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Yes, at each juncture there has been a falling away from the message. This
> > is not unique to the Baha`i Faith either.
> >
Agreed.
Scott:
> > When Shi'ih and Sunni began their tragic split, this was just such a
> > "falling away".
Gilberto Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok, I was sloppy in how I spoke. "Fundamentalist" Bahais andnon-Fundamentalist Bahais. And some "Fundamentalist" Bahais might havePhDs and academic positions.PeaceGilberto
Gilberto,
I have been enjoying this dialogue, by the way, thank you for ex
Gilberto Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/2/05, Scott Saylors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:> Gilberto Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > Dear Scott, I think you may have misunderstood what I meant to say. I> didn't mean that there were different groups disagreed about the> status of th
Ok, I was sloppy in how I spoke. "Fundamentalist" Bahais and
non-Fundamentalist Bahais. And some "Fundamentalist" Bahais might have
PhDs and academic positions.
Peace
Gilberto
On 9/2/05, Scott Saylors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Gilberto Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On
On 9/2/05, Scott Saylors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gilberto Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dear Scott, I think you may have misunderstood what I meant to say. I
> didn't mean that there were different groups disagreed about the
> status of the Bab. I'm saying that among those who be
Yeah, both statements say essentially the same thing. They are pretty
much equally offensive, equally problematic. You are just putting your
foot further in your mouth by making it an ethnic thing (North
Americans?!?!)
-Gilberto
On 9/2/05, Max Jasper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Simply I meant:
On Fri, 2 Sep 2005, Gilberto Simpson wrote:
>
> Every time there was a transition in leadership (Bab, Bahaullah,
> Abdul-Baha, Shoghi Effendi, UHJ) there was a split between those who
> took one fork and those who went some other way.
>
> That's all I'm saying.
>
> Peace
>
> Gilberto
-
"Iskandar Hai, M.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sufis can be Shi`ah or Sunni.
Or Christians or Jews for that matter. The preponderance of Sufi are muslims, but its not really a requirement. One really needs only be a monotheist to embrace Sufi, and which Prophet one follows is relatively
Well, regarding sectarianism in Islam: I guess it's the proverbial
half-empty versus half-full glass. As I see them, the divisions are deep,
significant and at times unbridgeable. You see the differences as
insignificant. For instance, on the issue of succession, you say that
Sunnis have a high reg
Gilberto Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/2/05, Iskandar Hai, M.D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:> I guess I understand now what your question is.More a suggestion than a question.> And let me now try to> share with you my own limited understanding of the issue(s). We believe> that one of
Gilberto Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dear Scott, I think you may have misunderstood what I meant to say. Ididn't mean that there were different groups disagreed about thestatus of the Bab. I'm saying that among those who believe in thestatus of the Bab, there are differences and dis
Simply I meant: the abasement and humiliation descending upon Muslims,
which
of course are getting momentum and escalate as time passes, is a direct
result of their own actions by rejecting the new teachings of God,
insisting
to implement obsolete doctrines, and distancing themselves from the true
On 9/2/05, Iskandar Hai, M.D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess I understand now what your question is.
More a suggestion than a question.
> And let me now try to
> share with you my own limited understanding of the issue(s). We believe
> that one of the things that has done the most damage to
On 9/2/05, Max Jasper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please notice that I never suggested that notion. Someone assumed I had
> meant so and heaped some abusive words on that notion. Very customary in
> discussions among North Americans.
So what did you mean by:
"It appears that such events are part
Dear Scott, I think you may have misunderstood what I meant to say. I
didn't mean that there were different groups disagreed about the
status of the Bab. I'm saying that among those who believe in the
status of the Bab, there are differences and disagreements about other
matters.
I said it that wa
I guess I understand now what your question is. And let me now try to
share with you my own limited understanding of the issue(s). We believe
that one of the things that has done the most damage to any religion is
disunity, divisions, sectarianisms because there was no clearly defined
line of succe
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
