Does the Bible mention Islam?

[PruePhillip]

Umm i believe in both the Gospel, Tora and the Quran.

So who did Abraham offer on the altar, Isaac or Ishmael?

 

[PruePhillip]

Ok talk to @PruePhillip

Sorry, what does this mean?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Umm i believe in both the Gospel, Tora and the Quran.

.

I don't think you really answered the question. If Jesus had said that after Him, Ahmad comes, why there is no verse in the Gospel which indicates Jesus said such a thing?
Bahai Faith answers this. Prophets of God spoke two kinds of words: clear and figurative. The prophecy of coming Ahmad after Jesus is in the Gospel, however it is expressed figuratively, not clearly. But if you think everything is literal in holy Books, there is no way you can show a verse in Bible, that Jesus promised about Muhammad.

 

[W3bcrowf3r]

So who did Abraham offer on the altar, Isaac or Ishmael?

Isaac, the Quran doesn't mention the name of the nearly sacrificed one. I checked in Arabic. And the Tora and Gospel say it's Isaac, by name. I checked in Hebrew and Greek. Case closed. It's Isaac.

 

[W3bcrowf3r]

I don't think you really answered the question. If Jesus had said that after Him, Ahmad comes, why there is no verse in the Gospel which indicates Jesus said such a thing?
Bahai Faith answers this. Prophets of God spoke two kinds of words: clear and figurative. The prophecy of coming Ahmad after Jesus is in the Gospel, however it is expressed figuratively, not clearly. But if you think everything is literal in holy Books, there is no way you can show a verse in Bible, that Jesus promised about Muhammad.

First of all, the name of the Messenger of the Quran is Muhammad. Ahmad in Arabic means most praised. The thing is, Ahmad/most praised in this context is either Jesus or Muhammad, and the Gospel says that there will come an Comforter after him, so you can look at this from different angles. And if we do not know Arabic, Greek and Hebrew, it's not worth it to speculate about details while using translations as 'evidence'.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

First of all, the name of the Messenger of the Quran is Muhammad. Ahmad in Arabic means most praised. The thing is, Ahmad is either Jesus or Muhammad, and the Gospel says that there will come an Comforter after him, so you can look at this from different angles. And if we do not know Arabic, Greek and Hebrew, it's not worth it to speculate about details while using translations as 'evidence'.

Right. So, then why Jesus did not say, after Him a Prophet comes whose name is Muhammad from Arabia, and He will reveal a Book called Quran?
This way, nobody among Christians could deny anymore. So, there is no clear verse about Muhammad in Bible. Comforter is not any specific reference to Muhammad otherwise Christians would not reject Muhammad. Ahmad or comforter is an 'allusion' to Muhammad. Likewise there are allusions in Quran about 12 Imams, and the Qaim. But if one denys Qaim or 12 Imams on the basis that there is no clear mention of them in Quran, what is the difference between him, and those who have been denying Muhammad in the Bible?

 

[W3bcrowf3r]

Right. So, then why Jesus did not say, after Him a Prophet comes whose name is Muhammad from Arabia, and He will reveal a Book called Quran?
This way, nobody among Christians could deny anymore. So, there is no clear verse about Muhammad in Bible. Comforter is not any specific reference to Muhammad otherwise Christians would not reject Muhammad. Ahmad or comforter is an 'allusion' to Muhammad. Likewise there are allusions in Quran about 12 Imams, and the Qaim. But if one dents that, what is the difference between him, and denying Muhammad in the Bible?

I see what your point is. Can you share the verses of the Quran which you believe mention the 'Mahdi' or the '12 Imams' or 'Ali'?

The Quran doesn't mention the words '12 imams', 'mahdi', nor does it mention the name 'Ali'.
You are going to give your own understanding. Don't google for Shia articles or something like that.

And a question to you, how many times have you read the Quran from cover to cover? And do you know Arabic?

 

[CG Didymus]

You will need to provide references to scripture to make your point.

The exegesis provided in regards the identity of 666 is based entirely on Baha'i writings....

the "beast" mentioned in Revelations 13:18, saying that the numerical value given to the beast in that passage referred to the date of the year, i.e. 666 A.D., when the Umayyad ruler arose. This is obviously a reference to Mu'áwíyih, the Umayyad Caliph who opposed the Imamate.

Biblical Verses, Interpretation of

Abdul-Baha the authorised leader and interpreter of the Baha'i writings has provided commentary on the 11th and 12th Chapters of the book of Revelation.

Major problems. I'm sure you can clear them up, though. Rev 13:1 has a beast coming out of the sea with 10 horns, 7 heads and 10 diadems on the horns. So who was this the Abbasids or the Umayyads? Then, in verse 2 it says that there was a red dragon from Rev 12:3 with 7 heads, 10 horns, and on his heads was 10 diadems that gives the beast its power and throne. So, since this beast comes after the dragon, the dragon must be the Umayyads and the beast the Abbasids?

But wait, there's more... back in Rev 11:7 there is a beast that comes out of the abyss that kills the Two Witnesses. So is this beast the Umayyads? That would make the dragon the Abbasids wouldn't it? But, anyway, it's the dragon that waits to devour the woman that is clothed with the sun and the moon and has a crown of 12 stars. I think you said this woman is the Ottoman Empire or was it the Persian Empire or both? Is that true? Because, this woman gives birth to a son in Rev 12:5 who is to rule all nations? Who is this again? The Bab? Did he ever rule all the nations? No. So is it Baha'u'llah? When did he rule all the nations? So who is this kid?

Now one problem is that the dragon gives power to the beast. But, the Umayyads and Abbasids were enemies weren't they? And, we have a beast in chapter 11, a dragon in chapter 12 and another beast in chapter 13. But wait, there's still more. This second beast has a wound on one of its heads as if it had been slain. So this beast must be the Umayyads, right? 'Cause didn't you say that this wounded head goes to Andalucía to set up its rule there?

So this beast, it says in Rev 13:5, has authority to act for 42 months. How long is 42 months? It's one of your 1260 year things again. Which doesn't fit the context, so you make it to mean the time that Islam started to the time The Bab declared. But what does this beast do? In verse 7 it says that he had authority over every tribe and people? Really? This Umayyad ruler in Andalucía had that kind of power?

But, of course, there's more... in verse 8, every one will worship this beast, except those that have their name written in the Lamb's book of life. Who is this Lamb? It says that it is the Lamb that was slain. One Baha'i made the claim that The Bab was the "Lamb" that was slain, but this if before The Bab ever existed. I get the feeling that Jesus was the one meant by this. But that's not the major problem. That is still coming up.

Another beast in verse 11, this one comes out of the Earth and has 2 horns like a lamb and speaks like a dragon. So now who is this? Umayyad, Abbasids or what? This beast makes all the people worship the beast that had the wound. So the wounded beast is this last Umayyad leader that went to Andalucía, right? So now this beast makes people worship that beast, but is a different beast? Who is this?

Well, guess what, this is the beast that makes everyone get a mark on their hand or forehead. And, no one can buy or sell unless they have this mark... or the number of his name. And that number is... 666. So this is from Rev 13:18. And what needs explaining is that after all these beasts and dragons, we get to the last one, and its number, 666, and this number is made to be a year? And this year goes all the way back to the first Umayyad leader who took control in 661AD? And, not only that, but then Baha'is have to add 5 years to that to get it to "fulfill" the "prophecy"? I hope you can understand my reluctance to accept this as the true interpretation of the Book of Revelation.

 

[W3bcrowf3r]

Major problems. I'm sure you can clear them up, though. Rev 13:1 has a beast coming out of the sea with 10 horns, 7 heads and 10 diadems on the horns. So who was this the Abbasids or the Umayyads? Then, in verse 2 it says that there was a red dragon from Rev 12:3 with 7 heads, 10 horns, and on his heads was 10 diadems that gives the beast its power and throne. So, since this beast comes after the dragon, the dragon must be the Umayyads and the beast the Abbasids?

But wait, there's more... back in Rev 11:7 there is a beast that comes out of the abyss that kills the Two Witnesses. So is this beast the Umayyads? That would make the dragon the Abbasids wouldn't it? But, anyway, it's the dragon that waits to devour the woman that is clothed with the sun and the moon and has a crown of 12 stars. I think you said this woman is the Ottoman Empire or was it the Persian Empire or both? Is that true? Because, this woman gives birth to a son in Rev 12:5 who is to rule all nations? Who is this again? The Bab? Did he ever rule all the nations? No. So is it Baha'u'llah? When did he rule all the nations? So who is this kid?

Now one problem is that the dragon gives power to the beast. But, the Umayyads and Abbasids were enemies weren't they? And, we have a beast in chapter 11, a dragon in chapter 12 and another beast in chapter 13. But wait, there's still more. This second beast has a wound on one of its heads as if it had been slain. So this beast must be the Umayyads, right? 'Cause didn't you say that this wounded head goes to Andalucía to set up its rule there?

So this beast, it says in Rev 13:5, has authority to act for 42 months. How long is 42 months? It's one of your 1260 year things again. Which doesn't fit the context, so you make it to mean the time that Islam started to the time The Bab declared. But what does this beast do? In verse 7 it says that he had authority over every tribe and people? Really? This Umayyad ruler in Andalucía had that kind of power?

But, of course, there's more... in verse 8, every one will worship this beast, except those that have their name written in the Lamb's book of life. Who is this Lamb? It says that it is the Lamb that was slain. One Baha'i made the claim that The Bab was the "Lamb" that was slain, but this if before The Bab ever existed. I get the feeling that Jesus was the one meant by this. But that's not the major problem. That is still coming up.

Another beast in verse 11, this one comes out of the Earth and has 2 horns like a lamb and speaks like a dragon. So now who is this? Umayyad, Abbasids or what? This beast makes all the people worship the beast that had the wound. So the wounded beast is this last Umayyad leader that went to Andalucía, right? So now this beast makes people worship that beast, but is a different beast? Who is this?

Well, guess what, this is the beast that makes everyone get a mark on their hand or forehead. And, no one can buy or sell unless they have this mark... or the number of his name. And that number is... 666. So this is from Rev 13:18. And what needs explaining is that after all these beasts and dragons, we get to the last one, and its number, 666, and this number is made to be a year? And this year goes all the way back to the first Umayyad leader who took control in 661AD? And, not only that, but then Baha'is have to add 5 years to that to get it to "fulfill" the "prophecy"? I hope you can understand my reluctance to accept this as the true interpretation of the Book of Revelation.

Best reply that makes sense against those who claim that the Beast and the Dragon are the early Khalifates..

 

[W3bcrowf3r]

Major problems. I'm sure you can clear them up, though. Rev 13:1 has a beast coming out of the sea with 10 horns, 7 heads and 10 diadems on the horns. So who was this the Abbasids or the Umayyads? Then, in verse 2 it says that there was a red dragon from Rev 12:3 with 7 heads, 10 horns, and on his heads was 10 diadems that gives the beast its power and throne. So, since this beast comes after the dragon, the dragon must be the Umayyads and the beast the Abbasids?

But wait, there's more... back in Rev 11:7 there is a beast that comes out of the abyss that kills the Two Witnesses. So is this beast the Umayyads? That would make the dragon the Abbasids wouldn't it? But, anyway, it's the dragon that waits to devour the woman that is clothed with the sun and the moon and has a crown of 12 stars. I think you said this woman is the Ottoman Empire or was it the Persian Empire or both? Is that true? Because, this woman gives birth to a son in Rev 12:5 who is to rule all nations? Who is this again? The Bab? Did he ever rule all the nations? No. So is it Baha'u'llah? When did he rule all the nations? So who is this kid?

Now one problem is that the dragon gives power to the beast. But, the Umayyads and Abbasids were enemies weren't they? And, we have a beast in chapter 11, a dragon in chapter 12 and another beast in chapter 13. But wait, there's still more. This second beast has a wound on one of its heads as if it had been slain. So this beast must be the Umayyads, right? 'Cause didn't you say that this wounded head goes to Andalucía to set up its rule there?

So this beast, it says in Rev 13:5, has authority to act for 42 months. How long is 42 months? It's one of your 1260 year things again. Which doesn't fit the context, so you make it to mean the time that Islam started to the time The Bab declared. But what does this beast do? In verse 7 it says that he had authority over every tribe and people? Really? This Umayyad ruler in Andalucía had that kind of power?

But, of course, there's more... in verse 8, every one will worship this beast, except those that have their name written in the Lamb's book of life. Who is this Lamb? It says that it is the Lamb that was slain. One Baha'i made the claim that The Bab was the "Lamb" that was slain, but this if before The Bab ever existed. I get the feeling that Jesus was the one meant by this. But that's not the major problem. That is still coming up.

Another beast in verse 11, this one comes out of the Earth and has 2 horns like a lamb and speaks like a dragon. So now who is this? Umayyad, Abbasids or what? This beast makes all the people worship the beast that had the wound. So the wounded beast is this last Umayyad leader that went to Andalucía, right? So now this beast makes people worship that beast, but is a different beast? Who is this?

Well, guess what, this is the beast that makes everyone get a mark on their hand or forehead. And, no one can buy or sell unless they have this mark... or the number of his name. And that number is... 666. So this is from Rev 13:18. And what needs explaining is that after all these beasts and dragons, we get to the last one, and its number, 666, and this number is made to be a year? And this year goes all the way back to the first Umayyad leader who took control in 661AD? And, not only that, but then Baha'is have to add 5 years to that to get it to "fulfill" the "prophecy"? I hope you can understand my reluctance to accept this as the true interpretation of the Book of Revelation.

I made a profile post on your profile. I have a question and im curious .

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I see what your point is. Can you share the verses of the Quran which you believe mention the 'Mahdi' or the '12 Imams' or 'Ali'?

The Quran doesn't mention the words '12 imams', 'mahdi', nor does it mention the name 'Ali'.
You are going to give your own understanding. Don't google for Shia articles or something like that.

And a question to you, how many times have you read the Quran from cover to cover? And do you know Arabic?

It does not matter if it is in the Shia sources or Sunni. We need to accept whatever is true, regardless of which sect the knowledge comes from. For you information, I as a Bahai do not believe that the true Shia exists today, and also not everything is in Shia sources is true. For example I do not believe in the existence of the 12 imam which shias believe even after 1400 years. I have read most of Quran, and I know enough Arabic to recognize a correct translation.

But, I agree, the initial point is Quran. There is nothing that is not mentioned in the Quran. Everything that a Muslim needs as a guidance is already mentioned in Quran. But, since according to Quran 3:7, some of its verses are figurative and unspecified, no one knows it's interpretation except God, and whoever God has given the knowledge of the Book. now, look at verse 13:43. It makes an allusion to a witness who has knowledge of the Book. Who is this person? According to traditions, it is Ali. Look at verse 33:33. It says, God only keeps the household of the prophet clean. According to the traditions, these are Muhammad, Ali, Hussein, Fatima, and hassan. Also Quran names a specific people, as well-grounded in knowledge. Who are these specific people? According to traditions these are Muhammad and His successors, Ali, hassan, Hussein.. .
What I mean, is, how can Allah in Quran talks about well-grounded in knowledge, yet, He did not manifest anyone who is well-grounded in knowledge? Can you call yourself well-grounded in knowledge of the Book, or any ordinary believer? Of course not! All Muslims agree, no ordinary believer can claim to know the Quran fully. Look up the term al-mutaharoun. The Quran says, al-mutaharoun have the knowledge of the Book. This term is the same term as in verse 33:33. From all above, im saying, since there are unspecified and figurative verses in Quran whose interpretation is unknown to ordinary believer, we must learn their interpretations from those who God had given them it's knowledge. Thus, we must learn interpretation o f Quran from Muhammad and imam Ali, hassan , Hussein, and the rest of those imams, who had proclaimed they know its interpretation.
Regarding the Qaim in Quran, I had already opened a thread for it:

Does Original Islam teach Mahdi and return of Christ?

 

[W3bcrowf3r]

It does not matter if it is in the Shia sources or Sunni. We need to accept whatever is true, regardless of which sect the knowledge comes from. For you information, I as a Bahai do not believe that the true Shia exists today, and also not everything is in Shia sources is true. For example I do not believe in the existence of the 12 imam which shias believe even after 1400 years. I have read most of Quran, and I know enough Arabic to recognize a correct translation.

But, I agree, the initial point is Quran. There is nothing that is not mentioned in the Quran. Everything that a Muslim needs as a guidance is already mentioned in Quran. But, since according to Quran 3:7, some of its verses are figurative and unspecified, no one knows it's interpretation except God, and whoever God has given the knowledge of the Book. now, look at verse 13:43. It makes an allusion to a witness who has knowledge of the Book. Who is this person? According to traditions, it is Ali. Look at verse 33:33. It says, God only keeps the household of the prophet clean. According to the traditions, these are Muhammad, Ali, Hussein, Fatima, and hassan. Also Quran names a specific people, as well-grounded in knowledge. Who are these specific people? According to traditions these are Muhammad and His successors, Ali, hassan, Hussein.. .
What I mean, is, how can Allah in Quran talks about well-grounded in knowledge, yet, He did not manifest anyone who is well-grounded in knowledge? Can you call yourself well-grounded in knowledge of the Book, or any ordinary believer? Of course not! All Muslims agree, no ordinary believer can claim to know the Quran fully. Look up the term al-mutaharoun. The Quran says, al-mutaharoun have the knowledge of the Book. This term is the same term as in verse 33:33. From all above, im saying, since there are unspecified and figurative verses in Quran whose interpretation is unknown to ordinary believer, we must learn their interpretations from those who God had given them it's knowledge. Thus, we must learn interpretation o f Quran from Muhammad and imam Ali, hassan , Hussein, and the rest of those imams, who had proclaimed they know its interpretation.

Im neither a Sunni nor a Shia. They are both just sects, one abuses politics, one abuses the family line. They are both just invented by their Arabic and Persian governments.

13:43 is talking about God being a witness that Muhammad is the Messenger....

An English translation of the Quran - 13:43 And those who reject say: "You are not a messenger." Say: "God is enough as a witness between me and you; the One who has the knowledge of the Book."

Yes 33:33 is about the family,

33:33 You shall be content in your homes, and do not show off like in the old days of ignorance. You shall hold the contact prayer, and contribute towards purification, and obey God and His messenger. God wishes to remove any taint from you, O people of the Sanctuary, and to purify you completely.

But it doesn't matter because the Quran is our only source. That's why the names etc. of the family of Muhammad are not mentioned. It doesn't matter.

The problem is that we do not life in the time of Muhammad. So i have to figure out myself what the Quran says. I am not going to blindly follow someone who knows to be the family of Muhammad or claims to be a scholar. I already see the fruits of the Shia, they are just another sect, just like the Sunnis, Catholics and Rabbis. God made the Quran easy for us, so i do not have any questions to you. I am not waiting on some narrations/ahadith that you want to throw at me to use as another source of divine authority besides the Quran.

I do not follow ahadith. I read Quran, Gospel, Tora etc. that's enough for me as a Guidance. The Message of God is simple, Love God and Love your neighbor. It's not rocket science....

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Im neither a Sunni nor a Shia. They are both just sects, one abuses politics, one abuses the family line. They are both just invented by their Arabic and Persian governments.

13:43 is talking about God being a witness that Muhammad is the Messenger....

An English translation of the Quran - 13:43 And those who reject say: "You are not a messenger." Say: "God is enough as a witness between me and you; the One who has the knowledge of the Book."

Yes 33:33 is about the family,

33:33 You shall be content in your homes, and do not show off like in the old days of ignorance. You shall hold the contact prayer, and contribute towards purification, and obey God and His messenger. God wishes to remove any taint from you, O people of the Sanctuary, and to purify you completely.

But it doesn't matter because the Quran is our only source. That's why the names etc. of the family of Muhammad are not mentioned. It doesn't matter.

The problem is that we do not life in the time of Muhammad. So i have to figure out myself what the Quran says. I am not going to blindly follow someone who knows to be the family of Muhammad or claims to be a scholar. I already see the fruits of the Shia, they are just another sect, just like the Sunnis, Catholics and Rabbis. God made the Quran easy for us, so i do not have any questions to you. I am not waiting on some narrations/ahadith that you want to throw at me to use as another source of divine authority besides the Quran.

I do not follow ahadith. I read Quran, Gospel, Tora etc. that's enough for me as a Guidance. The Message of God is simple, Love God and Love your neighbor. It's not rocket science....

Your translation of 13:43 misses the word 'and'.

"You are not a messenger." Say: "God is enough as a witness between me and you; 'AND' the One who has the knowledge of the Book."
Look at the Arabic verse.

 

[1213]

Thus my search to date found no bad things taught by Muhammad and yes many muslims have made stuff up just as the christains also have done. When and where Muhammad gave his Message from God, required stronger laws based in Justice. This is the meaning of Revelation when the Two Witnesses (Muhammad and Ali) are clothed in sackcloth, which is old cloths. It means the Faith of Muhammad would be more like the Jewish Faith, based in strong and just Laws, just as the age required. This as predicted was to last 1260 years and did.

I disagree with that sackcloth idea, I think it doesn’t fit to the Biblical story, but… …if Muhammad had good message, where does the jihad come that we see all over the Middle east? Why Muslims are against Jews and Christians? If it is not from Muhammed, shouldn’t someone tell to Muslims that “hey, there is no reason for this massacre madness”?

 

[Dawnofhope]

There is nothing allegorical about the word Isaac. It's the name of the son of Abraham who was nearly sacrificed. According to the Hebrew Tora and the Greek Gospel. Seriously, i am doubting your reading skills now, and your intention. How can you say such a thing like 'the word Isaac is allegorical for Ishmael'...

The Arabic Quran doesn't mention the name of the son who was nearly sacrificed.
Only sectarians who haven't read the Tora and Gospel or do not believe in them, twist the Arabic word 'Ghulaam' into 'Ishmael'. And ignore the word 'Isaac' in Hebrew and Greek.

I base my understanding on the Tora, Gospel and Quran. And i double checked it in Hebrew, Greek and Arabic.

I wonder if we've stopped communicating.

The book of Genesis was thought to be written around the Babylonian exile period and is considered by some to be based on oral traditions that lead back to Moses who lived 3 1/2 thousand years ago. He spoke of events that go back to the creation of the universe and earth in Genesis 1. Clearly Moses did not witness these events or in fact anything written in Genesis.

Genesis is a theological narrative rather than a history book. Some of the events written about can not possibly be literally true. The flood is an example as it would be logistically impossible to place all the world's animals in Noah's ark as recorded. We also know the earth to be approximately 4.2 million years old that contradicts the a young earth belief as some Christians believe .

Faith for some people means believing that everything that's written in ancient texts is literally true. Perhaps that's what you believe and if that's the case just say so and we can finish our conversation because we are unlikely to make progress.

The purpose of the Noah's ark story is to help us understand the nature of our relationship with God and the Covenant. If we obey God we are protected and blessed. If we disobey God, then we are lost in a sea of tribulation.

The purpose of Genesis is not to provide an historical account of the 3 thousand years prior to Moses life, although there may well be some details that are historically true.

I have two teenage sons. Their names are not Isaac nor Ishmael. However if I believed that God was telling me to sacrifice one of my sons at an alter for God's sake, then I would have to question my grasp on reality. Maybe God really did ask Abraham to sacrifice His son. We have no evidence other than an ancient text to verify the story, but it seems implausible.

The most important aspect about the story of Abraham is it tells us about the nature of sacrifice and the importance of obeying God no matter what. Whether it actually happened literally as recorded is irrelevant.

The part of the story that is much more plausible concerns how Abraham's wife Sarah felt about having Abraham's Egyptian wife Hagar and their son Ishmael on the scene. Clearly she was uncomfortable with the arrangement and Abraham felt pressured to have Hagar and Ishmael relocated. That sounds like a much more plausible story and a much greater sacrifice than anything Sarah and Isaac endured.

As for your claim that the Quran mentions Isaac because that is what you have discovered from your knowledge of languages, I have never heard such a preposterous claim. The Holy Quran has now been translated into English by many reputable scholars. Not one to my knowledge would support your claim.

 

[Dawnofhope]

You said---> ( Isn't that what every Christians says?)
Not this Christian, so maybe you need to rethink that one.

God is only the God of those who accepts his Son Christ Jesus as their Lord and Savior.
Christ Jesus himself made that clear, that no one comes to God the Father only thru him.
If people can not accept Christ Jesus as the Son of God, then God made that clear that he doesn't accept them either.

Notice what Jesus said here in
John 3:16--"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"

How does Islam fit into that, seeing Islam does not believe that Christ Jesus being the Son of God.
That whosoever believes in Christ Jesus should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Seeing Islam does not believe, that Christ Jesus is not the Son of God.
That leaves Islam without everlasting life.

The Quran does not deny Jesus was the 'Son of God' only that He can not possibly have been God's son physically.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Major problems. I'm sure you can clear them up, though. Rev 13:1 has a beast coming out of the sea with 10 horns, 7 heads and 10 diadems on the horns. So who was this the Abbasids or the Umayyads? Then, in verse 2 it says that there was a red dragon from Rev 12:3 with 7 heads, 10 horns, and on his heads was 10 diadems that gives the beast its power and throne. So, since this beast comes after the dragon, the dragon must be the Umayyads and the beast the Abbasids?

The Beast in Revelations 3:1-3 is both the Umayyad Caliphate and what it represents for the Islamic dispensation or example corrupted theology.

The terms leopard, bear and lion refer to a prophecy in Daniel 2. In Daniel's prophecy, the leopard represents the empire of Alexander the Great; the bear represents the empire of Media-Persia; the lion represents the empire of Chaldea (neo-Babylonia.)

The Umayyad empire resembled Alexander's in its extent, prosperity, and the leopard-like agility of its conquests. However, its true strength lay in its control of Media-Persia, the reticent bear. In its roaring boasts, it resembled a lion, and had its capital within the confines of old Chaldea.

The Umayyad dynasty were overthrown by the Abbasids in 749 AD. Their destruction seemed total, but one of the Umayyad, 'Abd Al-Rahman, known as the 'Falcon of the Quraysh,' managed to escape to Andalusia (Spain), where he set up a neo-Umayyad dynasty, the Cordoban Caliphate, that lasted for another three centuries. Thus Andalusia was the wounded head that healed.

The ten horns were also healed. The Cordoban Caliphate came to an end in 1031 after it had spawned neo-Umayyad Caliphs. Yet, again, it had only 10 un-repeated names: 1. Abd Al-Rahman, 2. Hisham, 3. Hakam, 4. Muhammad, 5. Munzir, 6. Abdullah, 7. Hijib Al-Mansur, 8. 'Abdu'l-Malik, 9. Al-Mahdi, and 10. Sulayman.

 

[Dawnofhope]

But wait, there's more... back in Rev 11:7 there is a beast that comes out of the abyss that kills the Two Witnesses. So is this beast the Umayyads? That would make the dragon the Abbasids wouldn't it? But, anyway, it's the dragon that waits to devour the woman that is clothed with the sun and the moon and has a crown of 12 stars. I think you said this woman is the Ottoman Empire or was it the Persian Empire or both? Is that true? Because, this woman gives birth to a son in Rev 12:5 who is to rule all nations? Who is this again? The Bab? Did he ever rule all the nations? No. So is it Baha'u'llah? When did he rule all the nations? So who is this kid?

In regards Revelation 11:7 according to Abdu'l-Baha;

“And when they shall have finished their testimony”

... means when they should have performed that which they are commanded, and should have delivered the divine message, promoting the Law of God and propagating the heavenly teachings, to the intent that the signs of spiritual life might be manifest in souls, and the light of the virtues of the world of humanity might shine forth, until complete development should be brought about among the nomad tribes.

This beast means the Umayyads who attacked them from the pit of error, and who rose against the religion of Muḥammad and against the reality of ‘Alí—in other words, the love of God. —that is to say, a spiritual war, meaning that the beast would act in entire opposition to the teachings, customs and institutions of these two witnesses, to such an extent that the virtues and perfections which were diffused by the power of those two witnesses among the peoples and tribes would be entirely dispelled, and the animal nature and carnal desires would conquer. Therefore, this beast making war against them would gain the victory—meaning that the darkness of error coming from this beast was to have ascendency over the horizons of the world, and kill those two witnesses—in other words, that it would destroy the spiritual life which they spread abroad in the midst of the nation, and entirely remove the divine laws and teachings, treading under foot the Religion of God. Nothing would thereafter remain but a lifeless body without spirit.

So once again the beast symbolises corrupted Islam through the duration of its dispensation. The final Caliphate was the Ottomans. It was from the Ottoman and Persian Empires the Baha'i Faith emerged or was born from. This is made clear in Revelation 12:1-5. The crown of twelve stars represents the 12 Imams of Shi'a Islam. The child is the Bab who represents the Baha'i Faith. Time will tell if the prophecy about bringing God's just rule to the earth will come to pass.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Now one problem is that the dragon gives power to the beast. But, the Umayyads and Abbasids were enemies weren't they? And, we have a beast in chapter 11, a dragon in chapter 12 and another beast in chapter 13. But wait, there's still more. This second beast has a wound on one of its heads as if it had been slain. So this beast must be the Umayyads, right? 'Cause didn't you say that this wounded head goes to Andalucía to set up its rule there?

I wonder if you are making this more complicated than it needs to be? The are four major Caliphates that spanned the 1260 year Islamic dispensation, The Rushidun, Ummayads, Abbasids, and Ottomans. The Abbasids continued on from the Umayyads after deposing their power.

In regards Andalusia and the healed head, this is the conclusion of a Baha'i scholar I have been reading and appears a good fit.

There is also a case to be made for it being the resurgence of Shi'a Islam and one of its dynasties.

The first Shia state was the Idrisid dynasty (780–974) in Maghreb. Next was the Alavid dynasty (864–928) established in Mazandaran (Tabaristan), north of Iran. These dynasties were local, but they were followed by two great and powerful dynasties. The Fatimid Caliphate formed in Ifriqiya in 909, and ruled over varying areas of the Maghreb, Egypt and the Levant until 1171. The Buyid dynasty emerged in Daylaman, north of Iran, about 930 and then ruled over central and western parts of Iran and Iraq until 1048. In Yemen, Imams of various dynasties usually of the Zaidi sect established a theocratic political structure that survived from 897 until 1962.

History of Shia Islam - Wikipedia

Regardless, its a great opportunity to explore the history of Islam, and to gain an appreciation as to why the dragon would apply to an Islamic dynasty rather than a Christian one or some other religion or empire.

 

[Dawnofhope]

So this beast, it says in Rev 13:5, has authority to act for 42 months. How long is 42 months? It's one of your 1260 year things again. Which doesn't fit the context, so you make it to mean the time that Islam started to the time The Bab declared. But what does this beast do? In verse 7 it says that he had authority over every tribe and people? Really? This Umayyad ruler in Andalucía had that kind of power?

The Umayyad's epitomised a perverse reality within Islam that had been present throughout the very start. Islam begins with the Hegira or flight from Medina. Why was Muhammad and His followers fleeing Medina? To escape the Quraysh tribe that wanted to destroy the Muslims. Muhammad is from this tribe. Its always been trouble. Muhammad eventually defeated the Quraysh and united the tribes under Islam including the Quraysh.

Quraysh - Wikipedia

But then Abu Bakr the first Caliph is from the Quraysh. How has he managed to install himself as leader? By usurping the authority of Ali.

Abu Bakr - Wikipedia

So while you can say the Umayyad Caliphate wasn't there for 1260 years, and that is true, what this Caliphate represented has always been part of Islam from the very beginning to the present day.