Investigating Bahaullah's Book of Iqan

[sayak83]

You answered very quickly. I added more to my post...
It is fine not to believe. Anyone is free to believe or not believe, but if we claim to make a definite conclusion, it must be based on evidences.
Why do you think it is not possible to know if Bahaullah's written history life can be validated or invalidated, though evidences and logical deductions?

No. If and only if we have biographies written by credible scholars of history (like those who write biographies for Gandhi, Lincoln etc.) will I consider it as possibly trustworthy. Is there any?

 

[Vinayaka]

No. If and only if we have biographies written by credible scholars of history (like those who write biographies for Gandhi, Lincoln etc.) will I consider it as possibly trustworthy. Is there any?

'Biographies' are best written many years after.

 

[siti]

@InvestigateTruth - there is so much counterfactual content in your reply to me above, I feel duty bound to correct most of it for the sake of any unsuspecting souls who might otherwise be misled...

I think you are just making your conclusions on conjectures.

All but one of my quotes were from Baha'i library sources including one from the Iqan in which Baha'u'llah himself admitted to having to read a book in order to discover its contents. Are you suggesting that these Baha'i sources are "conjecture"?

There is not even a single evidence that Bahaullah learned anything from Muslim Scholars.

Yes there is - I posted several.

It is true, He sometimes was in gatherings where Religious discussions came up where some Muslim learned were, but, it was always the case that Bahaullah answered the difficult questions, that the Scholars were unable to.

Oh really, doesn't that just mean that he had a different answer - and religion did not just come up in conversation - it was, at least sometimes, the reason for the gathering. In 1848, for example, Baha'u'llah attended a 22 day conference of prominent Babis - obviously the purpose of that was religious discussion - Baha'u'llah was 30 years-old at that point and had not yet written a single word of revelation.

Do you see why I say you are making you conclusions based on conjectures?

No, not yet.

Because, Just because Bahaullah was sometimes in gatherings where scholars were, is not an evidence He learned from them, because when you look at details of such encounters, Bahaullah taught them always, not that He learned from them. Moreover, this is just when Bahaullah was very Yonge, a teenager, and is for a short period of time, which will be impossible to learn so many things by reading.

No IT - wrong again, Baha'u'llah was 27 when he became a follower of the Bab - up to that point he lived the privileged life of the son of a nobleman. Plenty of time to learn about all kinds of things. At 30 he was a respected teacher of Babi religion. 4 years later he was imprisoned for 4 months in the aftermath of the attempt on the Shah's life by some Babis and there, he later claimed, he had a mystical experience, but that was by a very, very long way, by no means his first encounter with mysticism - by then he had been an active Babi for 7 years and almost certainly a student of the Shi'i, Shaykhi and Babi religions for somewhat longer. It was whilst he was in the prison that he wrote his first known work - a poem - he was 35 years old. Between 1854 and 1856, he lived in Kurdistan where he seems to have spent some time with prominent Sufis and from that time - being already in his late thirties, his writing began in earnest. Having returned to Baghdad in 1854, he finally revealed himself as the awaited "Manifestation" promised by the Bab in 1863, he was 45 and had already been the de facto leader of the Babi movement for almost a decade. He wrote the book under investigation in this thread in 1862 at the age of 44 after 17 years as a prominent Babi promoting the idea that "He whom God shall make manifest" would soon appear on the scene...does anyone seriously believe that during all that time, he never studied the Qur'an to find support for that belief before writing the Iqan - which is essentially a Babi-oriented commentary on the Qur'an?

If you look at the knowledge of scholars in His time, they were literalist Muslims, who believed Bible was corrupted who believed Quran is to be interpreted literally, whereas, we see, Bahaullah totally differently teaches, explains, and interprets Religious matters.

Well that's just rubbish. Baha'u'llah cut his religious teeth on the teachings of Shaykhism and Sufism both of which, in different ways, advocate a highly symbolic reading of Qur'anic passages - especially such as relate to the 12th Imam and the appearance of the Mahdi. You really should be ashamed of this misrepresentation of fact IT. The fact that a relatively young Baha'u'llah disagreed so sharply with the orthodox Ulama shows that he had already come down on the side of the Shaykhi/Sufi mystics as opposed to the orthodox literalists. Read the history of 19th century Persia - this was a hot issue - and the subject of a great deal of debate and conflict. But I believe you already know that, don't you? Which makes you disingenuous representation of the religious situation of the time all the more reprehensible IMO.

And your jumping from this conjecture, to another one about knowledge of Bible, Buddhism, etc, is quite without any evidence, because when we look at the history of that time, the Persian Muslims in His time, mostly considered Christianity, Buddhism, and even Zorastrianism corrupted religions, and not worthy of even learning them, thus the scholars of His time almost never bothered to learn any of other Religions, so, your idea that Bahaullah was learing such things from them, is not only without evidence, but also irreasonable and contradicts logic.

Irreasonable IT? Anyway, it is a little bit conjectural to suggest that he learned about non-Islamic religions from books (which is what I suggested) - but no more conjectural than suggesting that he did not learn about them from books. So I guess your guess is as good as mine. A couple of pertinent facts though:

- Persian was the official language of India for 300 years leading up to the early 19th century, so I have no difficulty in imagining that some Persian language books on Hindu, Buddhist and Zoroastrian religion had made it to Tehran from India during that time, or that some of these had landed in the libraries of well-to-do courtiers such as Baha'u'llah's father.

- the Bible (or at least parts of it) are known to have been translated into Persian even as early as pre-Islamic times. Muslim scholars also translated some parts for the express purpose of discrediting them. And a new Persian translation of the New Testament was published with the Shah's approval in 1815. It's not a great stretch of the imagination to conjecture that a copy of this might have found its way into the library of one of the Shah's son's right hand men is it?

All in all, I would say that my "conjecture" is a somewhat more likely explanation than the notion that God personally dictated every word - don't you?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

@siti , i

Except his sister.

His sister did not say He had studied Religions. Just look at what she said carefully. You seem to be reading more than what is said.

Who are "all" - how many - please quote them directly.

All those who were His scribes, or were the witnesses. I had provided evidence for that in the other thread called Great Beings....please refer to that. Even Book of Iqan according to historical accounts was written in two days. How strange, a person writes a book in two days, which contains all scriptures of great religions in it condensed yet, no evidence of learning all those.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

No. If and only if we have biographies written by credible scholars of history (like those who write biographies for Gandhi, Lincoln etc.) will I consider it as possibly trustworthy. Is there any?

There are many historical accounts from the life of Bahaullah, written by Bahais or non-Bahais. Many who were witnesses. I am not sure why you think, learning about historical life of a person and His teachings is dependent on credible scholars who have written biographies about Him. Not sure what you mean by credible scholars either. That would always be debatable. One person might be a trustworthy historian to some, while that same person may not be credible to some others. I would suggest, in these important matters, an independent investigation of Truth to be carried out rather than relying on opinions of others.

 

[Vinayaka]

There are many historical accounts from the life of Bahaullah, written by Bahais or non-Bahais. Many who were witnesses. I am not sure why you think, learning about historical life of a person and His teachings is dependent on credible scholars who have written biographies about Him. Not sure what you mean by credible scholars either. That would always be debatable. One person might be a trustworthy historian to some, while that same person may not be credible to some others. I would suggest, in these important matters, an independent investigation of Truth to be carried out rather than relying on opinions of others.

When a person declares himself infallible, and people believe that wholeheartedly, what exactly is left to debate? What exactly is there left to discuss? You read what he says as fact, and that's where it ends.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

When a person declares himself infallible, and people believe that wholeheartedly, what exactly is left to debate? What exactly is there left to discuss? You read what he says as fact, and that's where it ends.

You assume that Bahaullah is not Manifestation of God. Then you take your assumption as true, and state it as a fact. Why don't you begin by considering the possibility that He may be Manifestation of God? Your only answer has been, 'I do not believe in Avatars'. Thus, you take your own disbelief as a fact. This is why you have problem with claiming infallibility, yet, have you or anybody else with all honesty been able to find and prove a mistake in Bahaullah's Writings?

 

[Vinayaka]

You assume that Bahaullah is not Manifestation of God. Then you take your assumption as true, and state it as a fact. Why don't you begin by considering the possibility that He may be Manifestation of God? Your only answer has been, 'I do not believe in Avatars'. Thus, you take your own disbelief as a fact. This is why you have problem with claiming infallibility, yet, have you or anybody else with all honesty been able to find and prove a mistake in Bahaullah's Writings?

I don't believe in any manifestation of God, so yes I assume that. How exactly does openly stating it as my belief mean I'm stating it as a fact. I suggest you look up 'belief' and 'fact' again.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

@InvestigateTruth - .
.....
- Persian was the official language of India for 300 years leading up to the early 19th century, so I have no difficulty in imagining that some Persian language books on Hindu, Buddhist and Zoroastrian religion had made it to Tehran from India during that time, or that some of these had landed in the libraries of well-to-do courtiers such as Baha'u'llah's father.

See, this what I mean by conjectures. You are here being honest. You are saying that you are 'imagining things'!
As a starting point, it is ok to have some imagination. But to prove it, or to at least show a good likelihood of what you imagine you would need to, have supporting evidences.
You start by taking your disbelief in the possibility that Bahaullah can be manifestation of God, as fact. Then, you say, because Bahaullah knew many things, he must have learned them somehow. Next, you start imaging how and what things He has learned. Next, you take your imagination as a fact. I suggest, this is a kind of circular reasoning you do: how do we know Bahaullah has learned?...because He knew many things, and since it is impossible that He was a manifestation of God, He must have learned from somewhere. Thus what I imagine is true.
Isn't this what you are doing my friend?

But my suggestion to you is this:
Separate things that are fact, from things you imagine or assuming. Put them separately. Then see how much facts are there, and how much things are based on imagination.
I also suggest you make a chart as follows, so, we can discuss more:

Make a table with these titles:
Places where Bahaullah was, year and duration, evidence of learning, the Book or subjects He was learning from, the name of teacher, or scholar He was learning from..
Just for each period of time, enter the facts. If no facts, enter assumptions, but call it assumption!

For example, between age 5-10 Bahaullah was in so and so place, He was studying so and so, etc..etc.

Something that we can draw a more accurate conclusions, rather than keep debating.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I don't believe in any manifestation of God, so yes I assume that. How exactly does openly stating it as my belief mean I'm stating it as a fact. I suggest you look up 'belief' and 'fact' again.

For you, your belief is your fact! When you do not believe in Manifestations of God, for you it is a fact, that Bahaullah is not a manifestation of God.

 

[sayak83]

There are many historical accounts from the life of Bahaullah, written by Bahais or non-Bahais. Many who were witnesses. I am not sure why you think, learning about historical life of a person and His teachings is dependent on credible scholars who have written biographies about Him. Not sure what you mean by credible scholars either. That would always be debatable. One person might be a trustworthy historian to some, while that same person may not be credible to some others. I would suggest, in these important matters, an independent investigation of Truth to be carried out rather than relying on opinions of others.

One who has an equivalent of a PhD in history from among the world's top universities.

No , I have no expertise to assess and construct historical events from primary sources. Takes long years of training. So I will defer to trained experts on this matter.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

One who has an equivalent of a PhD in history from among the world's top universities.

No , I have no expertise to assess and construct historical events from primary sources. Takes long years of training. So I will defer to trained experts on this matter.

Hmmmm, sounds like a fair answer to me.
But let me say this. It may not require many years of training in case of studying history of Bahaullah life to construct historical events specially about any learning or studying Bahaullah may have done to learn religious matters and put things together.
Because! For a fact, Baha'i Faith had an opposition, specially in the place of its birth, Persia. Special groups of Shia Muslim Leads, have been just coming together only for the purpose of destroying Bahais. The opposition, from very beginning had tried to destroy the new Religion. One of the ways, that the opposition of Bahai faith, extensively used to stop Bahai Faith was to refute claims of Bahaullah, so much so that, they have written extensive number of books to disprove claim of Bahaullah. Thus, they certainly have made a good effort, to find any possible evidence to show Bahaullah's knowledge comes from learning, and not from divine knowledge. If such evidence indeed existed to prove Bahaullah had education in Religions, they have certainly put the evidence on the internet! Because even still today, there are vast number of websites from opposition which are created for this purpose. So, all one needs to do, is to investigate their findings! It would not take years. It may take a month or two! Maybe even a week, or less!

 

[Vinayaka]

For you, your belief is your fact!

No. For me, my belief is my belief. Facts have little to do with religion. But you're free to believe differently.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

No. For me, my belief is my belief. Facts have little to do with religion. But you're free to believe differently.

So you agree then, that your disbelief in divinity of Bahaullah is not a fact. It is merely what you cannot believe! Now, that is ok, since all are free to believe what they want.

 

[Vinayaka]

So you agree then, that your disbelief in divinity of Bahaullah is not a fact. It is merely what you cannot believe! Now, that is ok, since all are free to believe what they want.

Yes, that's what I've been saying all along. Belief is not a fact. Your belief isn't fact either. Nobody's belief is fact, it's belief.

 

[siti]

His sister did not say He had studied Religions. Just look at what she said carefully. You seem to be reading more than what is said.

Come on IT - are you serious - what do you suppose she meant when she said that he studied hikmat and irfan? What do you suppose she meant when she said he had "seen most of the words and phrases of the mystics" and that he "understood most of the signs of the appearance" (of the promised Mahdi, of course)?

I will not respond in detail to your other post - there is no substance to it. I'll discuss further (perhaps) when you post actual evidence to refute what I said or otherwise prove that Baha'u'llah could not have got his religious knowledge from mundane sources.

As it stands, there are perfectly rational explanations for how Baha'u'llah could easily have gained an in depth knowledge of the Qur'an, Islam, Shaykhism and Sufism (and of course Babism), a rather less rounded knowledge of the Bible and Christianity and a rather rudimentary and sketchy awareness of Hindu, Buddhist and Zoroastrian scriptural and cultural traditions. That is precisely what would have been available in books in the Persian language in the 19th century and it exactly matches the relative depth of Baha'u'llah's writings in respect of each of these and also explains why he had zero knowledge of other important religious and philosophical traditions from farther afield (again - a rather odd omission if he was really a Manifestation of God sent with the express purpose of establishing global religious unity - maybe God just temporarily forgot about Confucianism, Taoism, Shinto etc. as he miraculously revealed the truth through Baha'u'llah's pen?).

 

[sayak83]

Hmmmm, sounds like a fair answer to me.
But let me say this. It may not require many years of training in case of studying history of Bahaullah life to construct historical events specially about any learning or studying Bahaullah may have done to learn religious matters and put things together.
Because! For a fact, Baha'i Faith had an opposition, specially in the place of its birth, Persia. Special groups of Shia Muslim Leads, have been just coming together only for the purpose of destroying Bahais. The opposition, from very beginning had tried to destroy the new Religion. One of the ways, that the opposition of Bahai faith, extensively used to stop Bahai Faith was to refute claims of Bahaullah, so much so that, they have written extensive number of books to disprove claim of Bahaullah. Thus, they certainly have made a good effort, to find any possible evidence to show Bahaullah's knowledge comes from learning, and not from divine knowledge. If such evidence indeed existed to prove Bahaullah had education in Religions, they have certainly put the evidence on the internet! Because even still today, there are vast number of websites from opposition which are created for this purpose. So, all one needs to do, is to investigate their findings! It would not take years. It may take a month or two! Maybe even a week, or less!

No. You are wrong in this. Understanding the truth about past events amidst all the sound and fury of claims and counterclaims requires a lot of expert training. Anyone who claims otherwise is mistaken.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

No. You are wrong in this. Understanding the truth about past events amidst all the sound and fury of claims and counterclaims requires a lot of expert training. Anyone who claims otherwise is mistaken.

How come it requires training? All it needs is the ability to read, and have a fair judgement! It seems to me, you are making it more complicated than what it is really!

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Come on IT - are you serious - what do you suppose she meant when she said that he studied hikmat and irfan? What do you suppose she meant when she said he had "seen most of the words and phrases of the mystics" and that he "understood most of the signs of the appearance" (of the promised Mahdi, of course)?

I will not respond in detail to your other post - there is no substance to it. I'll discuss further (perhaps) when you post actual evidence to refute what I said or otherwise prove that Baha'u'llah could not have got his religious knowledge from mundane sources.

.

You are referring to this from His sister:


"He [Baha'u'llah] wouldn’t disengage from learning the rudiments for a moment. After studying the rudiments of Arabic and literature he inclined towards the science of philosophy (hikmat) and mysticism (irfan) so that he might benefit from these. It was such that he would spend most of the day and night socializing with high statured philosophers and the gatherings of mystics and Sufis... he (meaning Bahaullah) was a man who had seen most of the words and phrases of the mystics and philosophers and had heard and understood most of the signs of the appearance (of the Mahdi) . . . after returning from Badasht and after the Shaykh Tabarsi Fort war was over, he was engaged day and night in socializing with great Islamic scholars and followers of mysticism..."


First, as you know, Bahaullah's sister had become an opposition to Bahaullah, and was showing some animosity. Why do you think, what she says is true and accurate?
Second, Bahaullah had a brother by the name Kalim, who knew Bahaullah from young age and was with Him. So, according to history, Kalim became a firm and sincere believer in Bahaullah. If Bahaullah's claim with regards to not having training in religions or possessing books was a lie, certainly Kalim would have known, and would not become a believer in Bahaullah. Kalim had to suffer imprisonment for being a Bahai. So, he believed in Him. So, my question is why would we take the words of Bahaullah's sister as true, while ignoring the belief of Kalim in Him?!
So, now lets look at the words of His sister.
First, she is talking about Bahaullah's childhood, and early youth. She says, He had rudimentary trainings. Fine. No child becomes an expert in producing great theology works by basic trainings.
Next, she says,
.."he inclined towards the science of philosophy (hikmat) and mysticism (irfan) so that he might benefit from these. "

Notice, even she is not saying Bahaullah was reading and studying books, such as Bible, Buddhism scriptures or even Islamic theology!
She says He inclined towards the subjects of philosophy and mysticism. It only means Bahaullah appeared to become interested in these subjects, not because she saw Him reading them, but because she saw Him participating in discussing such matters! Now, we need to understand this in the light of of other evidences to give us more details so we do not just assume things. When we read some other histories we see, sometimes certain people had come as guests to the whole family for the purpose of socializing, but sometimes certain religious matters came up, and Bahaullah answered difficult questions. There is no evidence in the words sister suggesting that Bahaullah learned so and so from them. What she is mostly referring are the signs of Mahdi. The question is, people of the time of Bahaullah had a very literal understandings of Mahdi. They understood Mahdi would appear with great literal power to kill anyone who oppose Him. So, obviously Bahaullah had not such view. So, we cannot say, Bahaullah was learning from them. None of the things His sister is saying, can justify a great knowledge of all scriptures of Quran, Bible, Buddhism, Hinduism..etc. No body becomes expert and fluent in producing great theology works by just participating in some discussions with other people in subjects of philosophy, or mysticism who themselves were usually Muslim literalists and were incapable of understanding difficult Religious matters. Now, just assume you participate in discussing philosophy and mysicism here on RF with only Muslims here. Do you think you are able to produce a book containing all othet religions?! What about taking few courses at university on subject of philosophy and mysticism. Would anybody by taking those courses capable of writing a book like Iqan, containing all Scriptures condensed?! I don't see how you can imagine that!

 

[siti]

First, as you know, Bahaullah's sister had become an opposition to Bahaullah, and was showing some animosity. Why do you think, what she says is true and accurate?

Because it is a far more plausible account of how Baha'u'llah came by some (at least) of his religious knowledge. Why would she lie about that in a letter to her nephew?

Second, Bahaullah had a brother by the name Kalim...So, my question is why would we take the words of Bahaullah's sister as true, while ignoring the belief of Kalim in Him?!

Baha'u'llah had 16 siblings - should we ask all of them? OK - we know that at least two died before Baha'u'llah became prominent, at least 5 expressly did not believe in him, and 3 certainly did - at least for a time - possibly 4 but I'm not exactly sure about the Russian ambassador's official's wife (one of his sisters) - maybe she was, or maybe she just took pity on her brother and gave him a home for a while. The rest we don't know. So his siblings were definitely split on the issue, and as far as we can possibly tell, slightly in favour of disbelief.So why would you take the word of the smaller number of his siblings rather than the larger number who disbelieved?

So, now lets look at the words of His sister.

No let's not - we've already done that - it is clear that she meant to indicate that Baha'u'llah had gained a clear understanding of "Mahdi"-related prophecies long before he decided to take on the mantle of a "Manifestation" for himself.

Now, just assume you participate in discussing philosophy and mysicism here on RF with only Muslims here. Do you think you are able to produce a book containing all othet religions?

Yes - a book that contains oblique, incomplete and skewed views of other religions.

What about taking few courses at university on subject of philosophy and mysticism. Would anybody by taking those courses capable of writing a book like Iqan

Yes - a book that has a slanted and somewhat shallow understanding of religions that were not studied in depth.

containing all Scriptures condensed?

We have already shown by this thread that this is not the case. I gave an example that is not there - apart from the very poor example you gave in the OP you have yet to present any positive evidence that the Iqan actually contains any genuine consistency with any substantive scriptural doctrine from any tradition other than the Qur'an - and even that is questionable.

But really, the Iqan is more accurately described as a commentary on the Qur'an. It certainly does not contain "all scriptures" in condensed form - as you have utterly failed to demonstrate.