Baha'i Apologetics Anyone?

[Fazl Ahmad]

Please, Mr. Adib, I would greatly appreciate if you can reproduce the long drawn out arguments presented in the website article in your own words. After all this is a forum, not merely an URL sharing service.

Anyways, I quickly skimmed through the website article, and basically its argument is that a Rasool (messenger) is not the same thing as a Nabi (prophet), and nowhere in the Quran does it say Muhammad (alaihi salatu wa salam) is the final messenger to mankind. However, the author of this website article is unfortunately unaware of an authentic hadith narrated on the authority of Anas b. Malik (radhi Allahu anhu) which says:

إِنَّ الرِّسَالَةَ وَالنُّبُوَّةَ قَدِ انْقَطَعَتْ فَلَا رَسُولَ بَعْدِي وَلَا نَبِي
"Verily Messengership and prophethood have been terminated, so there will be no messenger or prophet after me." (Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal)

The hadith is clear that not only Muhammad (alaihi salatu wa salam) is the final prophet, but he is also the final rasool (messenger).

 

[Adib]

Please, Mr. Adib, I would greatly appreciate if you can reproduce the long drawn out arguments presented in the website article in your own words. After all this is a forum, not merely an URL sharing service.

Anyways, I quickly skimmed through the website article, and basically its argument is that a Rasool (messenger) is not the same thing as a Nabi (prophet), and nowhere in the Quran does it say Muhammad (alaihi salatu wa salam) is the final messenger to mankind. However, the author of this website article is unfortunately unaware of an authentic hadith narrated on the authority of Anas b. Malik (radhi Allahu anhu) which says:

إِنَّ الرِّسَالَةَ وَالنُّبُوَّةَ قَدِ انْقَطَعَتْ فَلَا رَسُولَ بَعْدِي وَلَا نَبِي
"Verily Messengership and prophethood have been terminated, so there will be no messenger or prophet after me." (Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal)

The hadith is clear that not only Muhammad (alaihi salatu wa salam) is the final prophet, but he is also the final rasool (messenger).

Indeed, we do believe that Muhammad was the last nabi and rasool. We believe that the time for someone to be classed as either station came to an end with the advent of Muhammad. The Adamic cycle also came to an end with Muhammad's dispensation. That is why we believe that Baha'u'llah, who from our point of view fits the criteria as the One promised by religions of the past, checks out: because he is of a station that transcends just prophethood or messengerhood, given the expectations of him by other religions. To elaborate, he can be classed as neither a nabi or a rasool as the time for that ended with Muhammad. We believe that He is of the station that the other religions have been anticipating: the Second Coming of Christ, the Mahdi, the 10th Avatar of Lord Vishnu, the Buddha Maitreya, Shah Bahram, etc. which is a station disparate from those held by the messengers of the past. This, of course, is a matter of belief.

Yet, it has and will forever be called a weak attempt at reconciliation or a cop-out and I expect nothing more as it's a matter of belief. It is a conclusion that others including myself have reached from reading the main scripture of the Faith. I am not sure whether or not you have done that so I can't and won't say the same for you.

However, if you want to see past arguments on this subject, you'd only have to browse the Baha'i Faith forum a bit. But I still encourage you to read the rest of the article I provided earlier in your free time and then share your discrepansies with it - if not in this post then in a separate one that I encourage you to make on the Baha'i Faith forum.

 

[Fazl Ahmad]

If anyone desires a religion other than Islam never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good) (Quran 3:85)

Islam is the final complete total divine guidance for humanity.

Since I am not a bahai, and reject the bahai religion, according to you, will I go to hell?

 

[Watchmen]

If anyone desires a religion other than Islam never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good) (Quran 3:85)

Islam is the final complete total divine guidance for humanity.

Since I am not a bahai, and reject the bahai religion, according to you, will I go to hell?

Just because your religion teaches others are going to "hell" does not mean others think you are going to "hell."

 

[Adib]

Just because your religion teaches others are going to "hell" does not mean others think you are going to "hell."

Well said!

If anyone desires a religion other than Islam never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good) (Quran 3:85)

Islam is the final complete total divine guidance for humanity.

Since I am not a bahai, and reject the bahai religion, according to you, will I go to hell?

That is your opinion; I for one feel that the Qur'an is referring to "the religion of Islam" as submission to the Will of God, which is what ALL of the world's religions teach. That is why Abraham and Moses are also called Muslims (correct me if I'm wrong). All religions, from our standpoint, are the "religion of Islam" because they are all chapters of the same book. I realize we cannot agree on that point so there is no point in discussing it further now that both of us have given our two cents on it.

And no, you will not "go to hell" for rejecting the Baha'i Faith because we believe hell is not a physical place, rather a condition - that is, remoteness from God. Not literal fire and brimstone with Satan constantly harassing you. But nobody is "fixed" in that spot, wherever they end up. In the hereafter, we believe that anybody's soul has the ability to progress.

Pleasure debating with you.

 

[Fazl Ahmad]

And no, you will not "go to hell" for rejecting the Baha'i Faith because we believe hell is not a physical place, rather a condition - that is, remoteness from God. Not literal fire and brimstone with Satan constantly harassing you. But nobody is "fixed" in that spot, wherever they end up. In the hereafter, we believe that anybody's soul has the ability to progress.

So if I will not go to hell for rejecting the Bahai faith, than what is the necessity of the Bahai faith. According to bahai faith everyone should just follow their own religion, there is no need to change anything? I hope you realize how absurd that is. If you believe Bahai faith is the true faith, than at least believe that it alone is the path to salvation. There cannot be two or more paths to salvation, especially when they have radically different and opposing beliefs.

 

[Adib]

So if I will not go to hell for rejecting the Bahai faith, than what is the necessity of the Bahai faith. According to bahai faith everyone should just follow their own religion, there is no need to change anything? I hope you realize how absurd that is. If you believe Bahai faith is the true faith, than at least believe that it alone is the path to salvation. There cannot be two or more paths to salvation, especially when they have radically different and opposing beliefs.

The necessity of the Baha'i Faith is the implementation of is core principles in this day and age. We believe that the other religions were right for their own time and place, and now is the time for ours. In 1,000 years, the time for ours will fade as well and it will be time for a new one. What, then, is the goal of religion? To create an ever-advancing civilization carried out by those who are following God's eternal Word, progressively revealed over several millenia. By doing so, we can most efficiently form - and forever maintain - world peace, essentially the Kingdom of God on Earth. To be more specific: Abraham brought about unity of the family, with Moses it was the unity of tribes, Jesus brought the unity of city states, Muhammad brought the unity of nations (the first nation, the nation of Islam/Arabia), and we believe that world peace can be ushered in during this dispensation. With further religions, we can maintain that world peace and perhaps expand even to interplanetary peace, if and when we find extraterrestrial life. Who knows?

You won't "go to hell", you'll just be at a lower standing than those who accepted it - that is, you will be more remote from God. But you don't have to stay remote; through prayer from yourself and those in the hereafter and from loved ones in this world along with other nourishment for your soul, you can spiritually progress, as I said earlier. Again, we feel that the paths of the religions of the past are obsolete ones - and no divine religion is exempt from eventually becoming obsolete - but there is no "eternal damnation to hell" for following one of those obsolete paths. That is an age-old notion that people in the past ages needed to hear so as to rightfully strike the fear of God in their hearts and for them to maintain a high level of moral conduct. We are simply saying that, for the time being, the Baha'i Faith is the right path. But it will not always be the right path.

To elaborate: social laws will not always be compatible or make sense forever - prohibition of work on the Sabbath in Judaism or of consumption of pork in Islam, for example - so that is why God sends humanity Divine Educators approximately every millenia: to abrogate the laws that no longer make sense and usher in a more compatible religion. This is why we reject the finality of any religion.

The dogma and social principles are the only contradictory elements in religion (rituals, dietary/marriage laws, etc); the spiritual principles - love, generosity, and the practice of other virtues - are an eternal message that will never change and is common in all of the world's religions. Look up Progressive Revelation on Wikipedia, skim it, and you'll understand what I mean by our belief in the Oneness of Religion.

 

[Popeyesays]

So if I will not go to hell for rejecting the Bahai faith, than what is the necessity of the Bahai faith. According to bahai faith everyone should just follow their own religion, there is no need to change anything? I hope you realize how absurd that is. If you believe Bahai faith is the true faith, than at least believe that it alone is the path to salvation. There cannot be two or more paths to salvation, especially when they have radically different and opposing beliefs.

The question makes no sense.

There is no claim to finality in Baha`u'llah's revelation. To make such a claim would would be contrary to His teachings and the will of God.

Shighi Effendi, summarizes it well:
"THE Revelation proclaimed by Baha'u'llah, His followers believe, is divine in origin, all-embracing in scope, broad in its outlook, scientific in its method, humanitarian in its principles and dynamic in the influence it exerts on the hearts and minds of men. The mission of the Founder of their Faith, they conceive it to be to proclaim that religious truth is not absolute but relative, that Divine Revelation is continuous and progressive, that the Founders of all past religions, though different in the non-essential aspects of their teachings, "abide in the same Tabernacle, soar in the same heaven, are seated upon the same throne, utter the same speech and proclaim the same Faith." His Cause, they have already demonstrated, stands identified with, and revolves around, the principle of the organic unity of mankind as representing the consummation of the whole process of human evolution. This final stage in this stupendous evolution, they assert, is not only necessary but inevitable, that it is gradually approaching, and that nothing short of the celestial potency with which a divinely ordained Message can claim to be endowed can succeed in establishing it. "

Regards,
Scott

 

[Popeyesays]

There is a difference between re-educating non-believers who have heard false information, and creating imaginative inventions in an attempt to assimilate disparate beliefs/teachings or gloss over inconsistencies - apologetics is the latter.

Let's stick to denotation, not connotation.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This ap·o·lo·gi·a Audio Help (āp'ə-lō'jē-ə, -j&#601 Pronunciation Key
n. A formal defense or justification. See Synonyms at apology.


[Latin, apology; see [FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]apology[/SIZE][/FONT].]

 

[Lux rationis]

Apologetics and science are in some sense dialective opposites.

In science, the method of arriving at conclusions -- rationalism -- is presumptively valid and nonnegotiable, but the conclusions of scientific inquiry are tentative and subject to revision.

In apologetics, the conclusion is presumptively valid and nonnegotiable but the methods of arriving at the conclusion are tentative and subject to revision.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

There is a difference between re-educating non-believers who have heard false information, and creating imaginative inventions in an attempt to assimilate disparate beliefs/teachings or gloss over inconsistencies - apologetics is the latter.

On the contrary, proper apologetics has nothing to do with "creating inventions" or "glossing iconsistencies"--mere slanted terminology on your part!

It is a basic matter of setting the facts straight and pointing out any distortions that may have been made.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[BruceDLimber]

So sorry, FA, but you couldn't be more wrong about the Baha'i Faith and the appropriateness of its basis!:

Muslims often interpret the Qur'an as stating that Muhammad, being the Seal of the Propets, is the final prophet and that there will be no more Divine Messengers sent by God (or Allah).

In fact, this whole “last prophet” thing is based upon a misunderstanding!

There are several different explanations of the verse in the Qur’an saying Muhammad is the Seal of the Prophets (a statement we Baha’is accept):

- First off, there is a sense in which EVERY Divine Messenger is the First and the Last, the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, and the Seal!

- Next, there are multiple Arabic words that all translate into English as "prophet."

One of these is "nabi," which refers to a minor prophet such as Jeremiah or Amos.

Another is Ras'ul, which means a major, religion-founding Divine Messenger like Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, or Baha'u'llah (our Founder). (And yes, Muhammad was a major--not a minor--Prophet.)

But the word actually used in the Qur'an is "nabi," meaning Muhammad was the Seal of the minor prophets! This says nothing whatever about the great Divine Messengers.

- Muhammad is also the Seal in the sense that He was the last Messenger during the Prophetic Age, which began with Adam and ended with Him. The Bab then closed out that Age and opened the Age of Fulfillment, of which Baha'u'llah is the first major Messenger.

- Finally, there is a sense in which the word commonly translated as "seal" also means "ornament," so that this verse of the Qur'an may simply be saying that Muhammad is the Ornament of the prophets! (Nothing whatever about any sort of finish.)


Oh--and as to angels, the Baha'i scriptures state that they are in fact people who have become completely spiritual.


Just the facts.


Peace,


Bruce

 

[BruceDLimber]

Sorry, Fazl Ahmad, but we Baha'is recognize only those few Hadith directly quoted in our scriptures.

All other ones are mere hearsay (what we call "pilgrims' notes"), and as such have no authority whatever!

Peace,

Bruce

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

So if I will not go to hell for rejecting the Bahai faith, than what is the necessity of the Bahai faith? According to bahai faith everyone should just follow their own religion, there is no need to change anything? I hope you realize how absurd that is. If you believe Bahai faith is the true faith, than at least believe that it alone is the path to salvation. There cannot be two or more paths to salvation, especially when they have radically different and opposing beliefs.

The point of the Baha'i Faith is to provide humanity with God's latest teachings for us, those for this Age!

Nor is it true that only one religion can be true! Indeed, IOV ALL the great religions are legitimate and God-sent! I quote the Baha'i scriptures:

"There can be no doubt whatever that the peoples of the world, of whatever race or religion, derive their inspiration from one heavenly Source, and are the subjects of one God. The difference between the ordinances under which they abide should be attributed to the varying requirements and exigencies of the age in which they were revealed. All of them, except a few which are the outcome of human perversity, were ordained of God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose. Arise and, armed with the power of faith, shatter to pieces the gods of your vain imaginings, the sowers of dissension amongst you. Cleave unto that which draweth you together and uniteth you."

(The Proclamation of Baha'u'llah, p. 114;
also Gleanings, CXI, pp. 217-8)

Best,

Bruce

 

[Halcyon]

On the contrary, proper apologetics has nothing to do with "creating inventions" or "glossing iconsistencies"--mere slanted terminology on your part!

It is a basic matter of setting the facts straight and pointing out any distortions that may have been made.

No, like I said that's re-education. If all you are doing is pointing out to people where they have it wrong its not defending a position its just, like you say, pointing out distorted information - educating them in what you actually believe, not what they've been told you believe.

Apologetics is when you have to re-interpret scripture, or make links to unrelated scripture, or use creative thinking to get around a problem in your scripture or beliefs.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Apologetics is when you have to re-interpret scripture, or make links to unrelated scripture, or use creative thinking to get around a problem in your scripture or beliefs.

Simply false!

Read any good dictionary: the DEFINITION of "apologetic" is "speaking in defense."

Like it or not, your definition is non-standard.

Simple as that!

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Halcyon]

Simply false!

Read any good dictionary: the DEFINITION of "apologetic" is "speaking in defense."

Like it or not, your definition is non-standard.

Simple as that!

Peace,

Bruce

Exactly!

Re-education isn't defending you position because whoever is attacking you has the wrong information.
Apologetics typically involves justifying your beliefs in the face of attack, or denying facets of scripture or practice that appear clear to the non-believing reader but you re-interpret to better suit your own position.

I challenge you to find an apologist who doesn't do as I describe.

 

[Popeyesays]

Exactly!

Re-education isn't defending you position because whoever is attacking you has the wrong information.
Apologetics typically involves justifying your beliefs in the face of attack, or denying facets of scripture or practice that appear clear to the non-believing reader but you re-interpret to better suit your own position.

I challenge you to find an apologist who doesn't do as I describe.

Apologetics is a school of rhetorical logic, to offer 're-interpretation' is exactly what needs to be done.

Regards,

Scott

 

[Halcyon]

Apologetics is a school of rhetorical logic, to offer 're-interpretation' is exactly what needs to be done.

Regards,

Scott

Uh-huh, not arguing with that. My initial post was that any religion that makes use of such a thing does so because it is inherently flawed and thus requires it. A religion with perfect internal consistency and logic would not require any apologetics.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings.

[A]ny religion that makes use of such [apologetics] does so because it is inherently flawed and thus requires it. A religion with perfect internal consistency and logic would not require any apologetics.

Meaning you no offense, NONSENSE!!

But since you're so insistent that any existence of an apologetic implies a necessarily defective religion, I invite you to demonstrate where such supposed flaws exist in the Baha'i Faith! I am most interested to hear this.

Peace,

Bruce