Baha'i and Islamic concepts of Prophets - Similar or irreconcilably different?

[Niblo]

At last!..................You write:

‘I think it is important to note that when Baha'u'llah says "We" He is referring to Himself and God and all the other Messengers of God in the Supreme Concourse. Since "We" includes God, it means that God sends the Messengers and the Messengers reveal the heavenly Books; at least that is how I interpret what Baha'u'llah said.’

Darrick Evenson and the Unitarian Baha'is) would disagree with you. They write:

‘Linguist and historian Denis McEoin, a former Baha'i (never a Covenant-Breaker but a Baha'i who simply became a Disbeliever) wrote that Baha'u'llah never claimed to be a Manifestation of God, but rather GOD: Allah in His Essence in the flesh.

‘McEoin is quoted as saying:

‘The precise nature of Bahāʾ Allāh's claims is difficult to establish. The official modern Bahāʾī doctrine rejects any notion of incarnationism and stresses instead his status as a locus of divine manifestation (maẓhar ilāhī), comparable to a mirror with respect to the sun (see Shoghi Effendi The World Order of Baha'u'llah, rev. ed. [Wilmette, 1969], pp. 112–114).

‘Nevertheless, it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that he himself made much more radical claims than this in parts of his later writings. The following statements are, I think, explicit enough to serve as examples:

‘“he who speaks in the most great prison (i.e. Acre) is the Creator of all things and the one who brought all names into being” (letter in Bahāʾ Allāh Āthār-i qalam-i aʿlā, vol. 2).

‘“verily, I am God” (letter in Ishrāq Khāvarī Māʾida, vol. 7, p. 208).

‘“the essence of the pre-existent (dhāt al-qidām) has appeared” (letter to Ḥājī Muḥammad Ibrāhīm Khalīl Qazvīnī in ibid., vol. 8, p. 113).

‘“he has been born who begets not nor is begotten” ('Lawḥ-i mīlād-i ism-i aʿẓam' in ibid., vol. 4, p. 344, referring to Qurʾān sūra 112).

‘“the educator of all beings and their creator has appeared in the garment of humanity, but you were not pleased with that until he was imprisoned in this prison” ('Sūrat al-ḥajj' in Bahāʾ Allāh Āthār-i qalam-i aʿlā, vol. 4 [Tehran, 133 badīʿ/1976–77], p. 203).’

Taken from ‘The Truth About the Baha'i Faith: A Shocking Expose.’

My one caveat is that I have not been able to access Denis McEoin’s work, or verify the accuracy of his quotes.

If they are indeed true, then what are we to make of Baha'u'llah?

Have a great week, and very best regards.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

@Niblo

The Hadith I was referring as an example, is Bukhari 5048.

If you have access to its Arabic, prophet uses the name Mazaameer. But in the Hadith you quoted is Zabour. Two different words. The Arab Christians or Jews always called Book of King David, Mazaameer. Zabour, is just another Book, revealed by another David. Notice that, even in hadithes, there is no mention, Zabour was the Book of King David, rather just another David who was not a King.





The other point you mentioned was, I distorted a verse of Bible. I was not distorting, rather just referring to the verse in my own words. The literal translation from Youngs literal translation is:


"And Jehovah saith unto Moses, 'See, I have given thee a god to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother is thy prophet;" exodus 7:1


there is no "stead" in the verse.

The average Muslim does not say, Muhammad was given as a God. They say, Muhammad was given a revelation, and He just gave the message to people.
But as I quoted Quran says, there is no distinction between God and Messengers. So, all of this is in line with Bahai Scriptures.

 

[Trailblazer]

Darrick Evenson and the Unitarian Baha'is) would disagree with you. They write:

‘Linguist and historian Denis McEoin, a former Baha'i (never a Covenant-Breaker but a Baha'i who simply became a Disbeliever) wrote that Baha'u'llah never claimed to be a Manifestation of God, but rather GOD: Allah in His Essence in the flesh.

‘McEoin is quoted as saying:

‘The precise nature of Bahāʾ Allāh's claims is difficult to establish. The official modern Bahāʾī doctrine rejects any notion of incarnationism and stresses instead his status as a locus of divine manifestation (maẓhar ilāhī), comparable to a mirror with respect to the sun (see Shoghi Effendi The World Order of Baha'u'llah, rev. ed. [Wilmette, 1969], pp. 112–114).

‘Nevertheless, it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that he himself made much more radical claims than this in parts of his later writings. The following statements are, I think, explicit enough to serve as examples:

‘“he who speaks in the most great prison (i.e. Acre) is the Creator of all things and the one who brought all names into being” (letter in Bahāʾ Allāh Āthār-i qalam-i aʿlā, vol. 2).

‘“verily, I am God” (letter in Ishrāq Khāvarī Māʾida, vol. 7, p. 208).

‘“the essence of the pre-existent (dhāt al-qidām) has appeared” (letter to Ḥājī Muḥammad Ibrāhīm Khalīl Qazvīnī in ibid., vol. 8, p. 113).

‘“he has been born who begets not nor is begotten” ('Lawḥ-i mīlād-i ism-i aʿẓam' in ibid., vol. 4, p. 344, referring to Qurʾān sūra 112).

‘“the educator of all beings and their creator has appeared in the garment of humanity, but you were not pleased with that until he was imprisoned in this prison” ('Sūrat al-ḥajj' in Bahāʾ Allāh Āthār-i qalam-i aʿlā, vol. 4 [Tehran, 133 badīʿ/1976–77], p. 203).’

Taken from ‘The Truth About the Baha'i Faith: A Shocking Expose.’

My one caveat is that I have not been able to access Denis McEoin’s work, or verify the accuracy of his quotes.

That is a pretty big caveat. There is no way for anyone to crosscheck these alleged quotes of Baha’u’llah which are ripped out of context to make it appear as if Baha’u’llah claimed to be God. I cannot comment upon these quotes unless I can read the source document.

If they are indeed true, then what are we to make of Baha'u'llah?

There is no way these are true, as we have the original writings of Baha’u’llah that refute this calumny. People believe what they want to believe and they will try to prorogate it to people who don’t know anything about the Baha’i Faith. Unfortunately the internet has made that fairly easy to do. All you have to do is read the Description of what this book claims to know how utterly absurd it is.

The Truth About the Baha'i Faith: A Shocking Expose'

Quoted out of context, look at how Baha’u’llah’s Writings appear:

“Verily, I am God; there is none other God besides Me, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise. I have manifested Myself unto men, and have sent down Him Who is the Day Spring of the signs of My Revelation. Through Him I have caused all creation to testify that there is none other God except Him, the Incomparable, the All-Informed, the All-Wise.”

It makes it look as if Baha’u’llah is claiming to be God, but you need to read the entire passage in context (see below). Him does not refer to Baha’u’llah; it refers to God. “Through Him (the Manifestation of God, Baha’u’llah) I have caused all creation to testify that there is none other God except Him (God), the Incomparable, the All-Informed, the All-Wise."

Below is the entire passage with my additions (in parenthesis).

“Know thou of a certainty that the Unseen can in no wise incarnate His Essence and reveal it unto men. He is, and hath ever been, immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived. From His retreat of glory His voice (God’s Voice) is ever proclaiming: “Verily, I am God; there is none other God besides Me, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise. I have manifested Myself unto men (in a Manifestation of God) , and have sent down Him Who is the Day Spring of the signs of My Revelation (the Manifestation of God). Through Him (the Manifestation of God) I have caused all creation to testify that there is none other God except Him (God), the Incomparable, the All-Informed, the All-Wise.” He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men (God) can never be known except through His Manifestation (the Manifestation of God), and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person (the Person of the Manifestation of God).”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 49

Baha’u’llah never claimed to be God, Baha’u’llah disclaimed being God.

“Certain ones among you have said: “He it is Who hath laid claim to be God.” By God! This is a gross calumny. I am but a servant of God Who hath believed in Him and in His signs, and in His Prophets and in His angels. My tongue, and My heart, and My inner and My outer being testify that there is no God but Him, that all others have been created by His behest, and been fashioned through the operation of His Will. There is none other God but Him, the Creator, the Raiser from the dead, the Quickener, the Slayer. I am He that telleth abroad the favors with which God hath, through His bounty, favored Me. If this be My transgression, then I am truly the first of the transgressors. I and My kindred are at your mercy. Do ye as ye please, and be not of them that hesitate, that I might return to God My Lord, and reach the place where I can no longer behold your faces. This, indeed, is My dearest wish, My most ardent desire. Of My state God is, verily, sufficiently informed, observant.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 228

 

[Niblo]

Hi,

You write:

‘There is no way for anyone to crosscheck these alleged quotes of Baha’u’llah which are ripped out of context to make it appear as if Baha’u’llah claimed to be God. I cannot comment upon these quotes unless I can read the source document.

If there is ‘no way for anyone to crosscheck’ these quotes, then how can we say that they have been ‘ripped out of context’?

You quote from ‘Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh’. It would be interesting to know which came first: the ‘Gleanings’, or the works quoted by Denis McEoin; none of which are taken from the ‘Gleanings.’

Peace.

 

[Niblo]

@InvestigateTruth

You write that the ‘zabūr’ is: ‘…just another Book revealed by another David’.

You are avoiding – in utter desperation – the fact that the Bible and Qur’an know only one David (this truth is demonstrated simply by reading the Books). The same is true of the ʼaḥādīth. Why would it be otherwise?

Aisha Stacey writes:

‘Prophet David is well known in all three Abrahamic faiths, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. He is a central figure in Jewish history, reigning in United Kingdom of Israel and Judah, from c. 1010–970 BCE.

‘In Islam, David is recognized as a Prophet, a messenger, and a king. His story differs slightly from the Biblical traditions and has at times been a cause of disagreement.

‘David is known to have used his beautiful voice to praise God. And scholars of Islam interpret this as reciting the psalms in the same way that the Quran is recited.

‘God made the mountains and the birds sing with David in the afternoons and in the mornings. David was grateful and humble and God granted him this miracle. He could not only sing with the birds and mountains, but he could also understand the languages of the birds and beasts.

‘David was very pious. He divided his day into four parts, in one he earned his own living and rested, in another he listened to the complains of his people, in the third he preached sermons and the final part he spent time praising God and praying.

‘Prophet Muhammad used David’s story and lifestyle to help the believers understand the nature of piety, repentance, and submission to the will of God.

‘“The prayer which God loves the most is the prayer of David. The fast which God loves the most is that of David. He would sleep for half of the night, stand up in prayer for a third and then sleep for a sixth. He would fast every other day…” (Al-Bukhari).

‘Prophet David was a fair and honorable ruler who brought peace and prosperity to the land. God makes David vicegerent of the earth to judge between men in truth.

‘He centralized power developed a significant military organization and made his capital at Jerusalem. David also delivered God’s message and used his melodious voice to delight people and remind them of God. When he recited the Psalms the people, animals, birds and everything in nature listened and glorified God.’ (‘The Story of Prophet David in the Quran’).

Rabbi Allen S Maller writes:

’Muslims understand David as one of the major prophets sent by God – while Jews have emphasized David as the great foundational King of historical Israel. Why the difference in Islamic and Jewish orientations?

David was only a teenager (13 years old, according to Suddi’s tafsîr as quoted by Brannon Wheeler) when he killed the Philistine giant Goliath.

‘“So they (the Jews) defeated them (the Philistines, who invaded the country’s coastland from the west about the same time as the Jews invaded the country’s hills from the east) by permission of Allah. And David killed Goliath, and Allah gave him kingship and prophethood and taught him from that which He willed. And if it were not for Allah checking (some) people by means of others, the earth would have been corrupted, but Allah is full of bounty to the worlds.” (Sûrah Al-Baqarah, 2:251).

‘David descended from Judah, the son of Prophet Jacob, who in turn descended from Prophet Abraham. David is among the few prophets that were given texts, equating to a ‘book’ (the Zabûr/Psalms) revealed by God. The term Zabûr is related to the Hebrew word mizmôr and is translated as ‘song, music, or singing.’ David is known to have used his beautiful voice to praise God. And scholars of Islam interpret this chanting as reciting the psalms in the same way that the Quran is recited.

‘God made David – whose name appears in the Quran sixteen times, in nine sûrahs – a “vicegerent” (khalîfa in Q 38:26), a title that the Quran otherwise gives only to Adam (Q 2:30):

‘“O David! We did indeed make you a vicegerent (khalifah) on earth: so judge between men in truth (and justice)…” (Sûrah Ṣâd, 38:26).

‘“Behold, your Lord said to the angels: ‘I will create a vicegerent (khalifah) on earth.’ … And He taught Adam…” (Sûrah Al-Baqarah, 2:30-31).

‘This title suggests that David was not only a messenger; he was also a divinely guided leader who established God’s rule on earth.

‘God frequently mentions David’s high rank as a prophet and messenger in the Quran:

‘“And We gave him (Abraham) Isaac and Jacob and guided them, as We had guided Noah before them, and of his descendants (were) David and Solomon and Job and Joseph and Moses and Aaron. Thus We reward those who are upright and do good.” (Sûrah Al-Ancâm, 6:84)

‘David was the youngest son of Jesse, a small boy compared to his tall, oldest brother, when Prophet Samuel chose David as the next leader (Bible, 1 Samuel 16:6–12); Prophet Solomon was the son of the woman with whom David committed adultery; he was not David’s oldest son, who traditionally should be his father’s successor as a birthright.

‘Again and again, God chooses unlikely human instruments, flipping systems of social power and making it supremely clear that true power belongs to God alone.’ (Article entitled ‘King David, the Prophet’; published July 16, 2020).-

The claim that the ‘zabūr’ is: ‘…just another Book revealed by another David’ is bereft of scriptural evidence.

The claim is unfounded nonsense; and nonsense remains nonsense, even when promulgated by Abdu’l-Baha; even when it is believed with utter sincerity.

Continued:

 

[Niblo]

Concerning the ḥādīth you refer to in post 102 (but neglect to quote):

‘Narrated Abu Musa: That the Prophet (ﷺ) said to him' "O Abu Musa! You have been given one of the mazamir (sweet melodious voices) of the family of David.' (Sahil Bukhari: Ḥādīth 5048 – Darussalam reference system)

In my own collection of Sahil Bukhari this ḥādīth reads:

‘Narrated Abu Musa: That the Prophet said to him' "O Abu Musa! You have been given one of the musical wind instruments of the family of David.’ (Volume 6: ‘The Virtues of the Qur’an’; Book 61; Ḥādīth 568)

In the works of Jami` at-Tirmidhi we read:

‘Narrated Abu Musa: that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: "O Abu Musa! You have been given a Mizmar among the Mazamir of the family of Dawud."’ (Book 49: Ḥādīth 4228).

In Sunan an-Nasa'I we find:

‘Abu Hurairah narrated that: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) heard the recitation of Abu Musa and said: He has been given a Mizmar among the Mazamir of the family of Dawud, peace be upon him."’ (Book 11; Ḥādīth 144).

And again: ‘It was narrated that 'Aishah said: "The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) heard the recitation of Abu Musa and said: 'This man has been given a Mizmar among the Mazamir of the family of Dawud, peace be upon him.'" (Book 11; Ḥādīth 145).

Riyad as-Salihin writes: ‘Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said to him, "You have been given a Mizmar (sweet melodious voice) out of the Mazamir of Prophet Dawud (David)." (‘The Gardens of the Righteous’; Chapter 182: ‘The Merit of Recitation of the Noble Qur’an in a Pleasant Voice: Book 9; Ḥādīth 1005).

John Ederer writes:

‘To refer to the scripture revealed to the Prophet Dāwūd (David) the Qur’ān uses the word zabūr (زبور) – plural zubur (زبر) – usually rendered into English as “psalm(s)”.

‘Now, the word mizmār (مزمار) – from the root z-m-r (زمر) – basically means “to blow” or “to play a reed instrument (e.g. a flute)”.

‘The word ‘mazamir’ primarily refers to wind instruments. However, it has come in several different usages in the Hadith.’ (‘Regarding the Permissibility of Music’).

The ‘different usages’ that Ederer refers to arise from the fact that an Arabic word can have several meanings, depending on its context. A fact that you have overlooked.

He writes (of Riyad as-Salihin’s translation):

The commentators explain that ‘mizmar’ in this Hadith means ‘A good voice’. ‘Allamah Nawawi (rahimahullah) further states, the root letters of this word i.e. زمر, means music. Hafiz Ibn Hajar Al ‘Asqalani (rahimahullah) writes, that ‘mizmar’ here refers to a ‘beautiful voice’ and originally it refers to an instrument. (i.e. any musical instrument).’ (‘Regarding the Permissibility of Music’).

Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari was noted for his prowess as a military commander; and for the sweetness of his singing voice.

Mohammed Ali (not the boxer!) writes:

‘In spite of the fact that Abu Musa was a strong and powerful warrior, he often left the battlefield transformed into a penitent, weeping person. At such times, he would read the Qur’an in a voice that profoundly stirred the souls of all who listened to him. Concerning his moving and melodious recitation of the Qur’an the Prophet, peace be on him, had said: "Abu Musa has indeed been given one of the flutes of the people of David."" (‘Twenty Companions of the Prophet: Prime Examples for Future Generations’).

Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari has been called ‘The Nightingale of the Qur’an’. He mirrors David; ‘the sweet singer of Israel’ (‘2 Samuel 23:1’ - JPS Tanakh).

The context in which this ḥādīth is set makes it perfectly clear that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Psalms, and everything to do with the beauty of Al-Ash’ari’s recitation of the Qur’an.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Concerning the ḥādīth you refer to in post 102 (but neglect to quote):

‘Narrated Abu Musa: That the Prophet (ﷺ) said to him' "O Abu Musa! You have been given one of the mazamir (sweet melodious voices) of the family of David.' (Sahil Bukhari: Ḥādīth 5048 – Darussalam reference system)

In my own collection of Sahil Bukhari this ḥādīth reads:

‘Narrated Abu Musa: That the Prophet said to him' "O Abu Musa! You have been given one of the musical wind instruments of the family of David.’ (Volume 6: ‘The Virtues of the Qur’an’; Book 61; Ḥādīth 568)

In the works of Jami` at-Tirmidhi we read:

‘Narrated Abu Musa: that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: "O Abu Musa! You have been given a Mizmar among the Mazamir of the family of Dawud."’ (Book 49: Ḥādīth 4228).

In Sunan an-Nasa'I we find:

‘Abu Hurairah narrated that: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) heard the recitation of Abu Musa and said: He has been given a Mizmar among the Mazamir of the family of Dawud, peace be upon him."’ (Book 11; Ḥādīth 144).

And again: ‘It was narrated that 'Aishah said: "The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) heard the recitation of Abu Musa and said: 'This man has been given a Mizmar among the Mazamir of the family of Dawud, peace be upon him.'" (Book 11; Ḥādīth 145).

Riyad as-Salihin writes: ‘Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said to him, "You have been given a Mizmar (sweet melodious voice) out of the Mazamir of Prophet Dawud (David)." (‘The Gardens of the Righteous’; Chapter 182: ‘The Merit of Recitation of the Noble Qur’an in a Pleasant Voice: Book 9; Ḥādīth 1005).
”.
.

The context in which this ḥādīth is set makes it perfectly clear that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Psalms, and everything to do with the beauty of Al-Ash’ari’s recitation of the Qur’an.

The Hadith I was referring has to do with Pslams for it says Mazameer of the Family of David. It is about similarities of the Quran and Mazaameer of Family of David, in the sense that both are musical.

What do Arab Christians and Jews call the Book of King David? Can you find out?
I believe they call it Mazaameer of David and that dates back to before Muhammad. This is why Muhammad also referred to it as Mazaameer of the family of David.


As regards to the Zabour, it is obviously another name than Mazaameer.
If you see the translators have translated Zabour as Psalms, it is because they made a mistake.

You are yet to find a verse or hadith that says, King David, revealed Zaboor.

 

[Niblo]

The Hadith I was referring has to do with Pslams for it says Mazameer of the Family of David. It is about similarities of the Quran and Mazaameer of Family of David, in the sense that both are musical.

What do Arab Christians and Jews call the Book of King David? Can you find out?

Read again what I have to say about Arabic words having a range of meanings according to context.

Read also what the translators have to say.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Read again what I have to say about Arabic words having a range of meanings according to context.

Read also what the translators have to say.

Exactly. Within the context. Why does the context of the Hadith, mentions family of David if has nothing to do with the Book of King David? I suggest you find out what Arab Christians and Jews call King David's book. They call it Mazaameer. As regards to the word Musical there are other words beside Mazaameer in Arabic that the Prophet could have used. But He used specifically Mazaameer!

 

[Niblo]

What is your proof that there were two David's?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

What is your proof that there were two David's?

Historically speaking, there is no proof that there was even one David, let alone two Davids. Just as there is no historical proofs that there was Abraham, or Noah.

These prophets according to Religious Texts, lived long before Jesus.
But, if we just go by Religious Texts, King David, had a Book which was called Mazaameer by the Arabs. When Muhammad refers to a David whose Book was Zaboor, in my view this is an evidence that Muhamamd seems to be talking about another David. Unless, there are Hadithese or verses of Quran, that tells us, Zaboor and Mazaameer are interchangeable.
For example, did Arabs call King David's Book, Zaboor? I don't think so.
The Bab said, the other David lived 500 years before Moses.

 

[Trailblazer]

Hi,

You write:

‘There is no way for anyone to crosscheck these alleged quotes of Baha’u’llah which are ripped out of context to make it appear as if Baha’u’llah claimed to be God. I cannot comment upon these quotes unless I can read the source document.

If there is ‘no way for anyone to crosscheck’ these quotes, then how can we say that they have been ‘ripped out of context’?

We know they were ripped out of context because they have no context.

You quote from ‘Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh’. It would be interesting to know which came first: the ‘Gleanings’, or the works quoted by Denis McEoin; none of which are taken from the ‘Gleanings.’

Below is an excerpt from the Introduction to Gleanings (which is not in the online version, only in the book).

“Gleanings is excerpts from various Tablets. In the introduction to Gleanings it explains how it is organized into five parts. Part one, pages 1-46, proclaims this as the “Day of God.” Part two, pages 46-136, concerns the Manifestation of God and His significance. Part three, pages 136-200, deals with basic questions concerning the soul and its immortality. Part four, pages 200-259, concerns the spiritual aspects of the World Order and the Most Great Peace. Part five, pages 259-346, deals with the duties of the individual and the spiritual meaning of life.” Gleanings

There would be no way to know which came first unless we know what works were quoted by Denis McEoin, but I do not know why it would matter if they are all the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

 

[Niblo]

Historically speaking, there is no proof that there was even one David, let alone two Davids. Just as there is no historical proofs that there was Abraham, or Noah.

These prophets according to Religious Texts, lived long before Jesus.
But, if we just go by Religious Texts, King David, had a Book which was called Mazaameer by the Arabs. When Muhammad refers to a David whose Book was Zaboor, in my view this is an evidence that Muhamamd seems to be talking about another David. Unless, there are Hadithese or verses of Quran, that tells us, Zaboor and Mazaameer are interchangeable.
For example, did Arabs call King David's Book, Zaboor? I don't think so.
The Bab said, the other David lived 500 years before Moses.

Jolly good. If this works for you, then run with it. I wish you all the very best, and thanks for your input.

Peace.

 

[Niblo]

We know they were ripped out of context because they have no context.

Below is an excerpt from the Introduction to Gleanings (which is not in the online version, only in the book).

“Gleanings is excerpts from various Tablets. In the introduction to Gleanings it explains how it is organized into five parts. Part one, pages 1-46, proclaims this as the “Day of God.” Part two, pages 46-136, concerns the Manifestation of God and His significance. Part three, pages 136-200, deals with basic questions concerning the soul and its immortality. Part four, pages 200-259, concerns the spiritual aspects of the World Order and the Most Great Peace. Part five, pages 259-346, deals with the duties of the individual and the spiritual meaning of life.” Gleanings

There would be no way to know which came first unless we know what works were quoted by Denis McEoin, but I do not know why it would matter if they are all the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

Hi.

Thank you. That's very helpful.

I cite the works (allegedly) quoted by McEoin.

You will agree that truth matters.

The question I was hoping to have answered is how close are these quotes to what McEoin actually wrote; have they been distorted, and to what extent?

Peace.

 

[Trailblazer]

The question I was hoping to have answered is how close are these quotes to what McEoin actually wrote; have they been distorted, and to what extent?

I do not think we can know unless McEoin cited the source of his quotes, but even if he did that, it he cited Tablets that are not official translations that are in the Baha'i Reference Library online, how can we know if what he cited is actually what Baha'u'llah wrote or if it has been translated correctly?

 

[firedragon]

I do not think we can know unless McEoin cited the source of his quotes, but even if he did that, it he cited Tablets that are not official translations that are in the Baha'i Reference Library online, how can we know if what he cited is actually what Baha'u'llah wrote or if it has been translated correctly?

Which tablet did this person cite?

 

[Trailblazer]

Which tablet did this person cite?

What he cited is in this post: #101 Niblo, May 9, 2021

 

[firedragon]

What he cited is in this post: #101 Niblo, May 9, 2021

Are you saying that the few writings mentioned in that post are not acceptable to Bahai's?

 

[Trailblazer]

Are you saying that the few writings mentioned in that post are not acceptable to Bahai's?

Yes, I am saying they are misrepresentations of what Baha'u'llah wrote. Baha'u'llah never claimed to God or the Creator of all things. This is sheer calumny and an attempt to discredit Baha'u'llah and thus the Baha'i Faith.

‘“he who speaks in the most great prison (i.e. Acre) is the Creator of all things and the one who brought all names into being” (letter in Bahāʾ Allāh Āthār-i qalam-i aʿlā, vol. 2).

‘“verily, I am God” (letter in Ishrāq Khāvarī Māʾida, vol. 7, p. 208).

‘“the essence of the pre-existent (dhāt al-qidām) has appeared” (letter to Ḥājī Muḥammad Ibrāhīm Khalīl Qazvīnī in ibid., vol. 8, p. 113).

‘“he has been born who begets not nor is begotten” ('Lawḥ-i mīlād-i ism-i aʿẓam' in ibid., vol. 4, p. 344, referring to Qurʾān sūra 112).

‘“the educator of all beings and their creator has appeared in the garment of humanity, but you were not pleased with that until he was imprisoned in this prison” ('Sūrat al-ḥajj' in Bahāʾ Allāh Āthār-i qalam-i aʿlā, vol. 4 [Tehran, 133 badīʿ/1976–77], p. 203).’

Taken from ‘The Truth About the Baha'i Faith: A Shocking Expose.’

 

[firedragon]

Yes, I am saying they are misrepresentations of what Baha'u'llah wrote. Baha'u'llah never claimed to God or the Creator of all things. This is sheer calumny and an attempt to discredit Baha'u'llah and thus the Baha'i Faith.

‘“he who speaks in the most great prison (i.e. Acre) is the Creator of all things and the one who brought all names into being” (letter in Bahāʾ Allāh Āthār-i qalam-i aʿlā, vol. 2).

‘“verily, I am God” (letter in Ishrāq Khāvarī Māʾida, vol. 7, p. 208).

‘“the essence of the pre-existent (dhāt al-qidām) has appeared” (letter to Ḥājī Muḥammad Ibrāhīm Khalīl Qazvīnī in ibid., vol. 8, p. 113).

‘“he has been born who begets not nor is begotten” ('Lawḥ-i mīlād-i ism-i aʿẓam' in ibid., vol. 4, p. 344, referring to Qurʾān sūra 112).

‘“the educator of all beings and their creator has appeared in the garment of humanity, but you were not pleased with that until he was imprisoned in this prison” ('Sūrat al-ḥajj' in Bahāʾ Allāh Āthār-i qalam-i aʿlā, vol. 4 [Tehran, 133 badīʿ/1976–77], p. 203).’

Taken from ‘The Truth About the Baha'i Faith: A Shocking Expose.’

Okay. If I am to paraphrase, you don’t claim those writings are not acceptable but the guy is misrepresenting them. Please correct me.