Investigating Bahaullah's Book of Iqan

[TransmutingSoul]

And since you have raised another objection to the OP argument, perhaps you and IT (and anyone?) might care to reconcile Bhagavad Gita 7:21 which translates "Whatever celestial form a devotee seeks to worship with faith, I steady the faith of such a devotee in that form." with the essential monotheism of the Iqan. There is no teaching in Iqan that corresponds to this condoning of polytheistic idolatry - is there?

That is fair, so lets settle on a translation and we can explore some thoughts.

BHAGAVAD GITA Chapter 7: Knowledge of the Absolute TEXT 21

yo yo yam yam tanum bhaktah
sraddhayarcitum icchati
tasya tasyacalam sraddham
tam eva vidadhamy aham
Other Translations;
1) I am in everyone's heart as the Supersoul. As soon as one desires to worship the demigods, I make his faith steady so that he can devote himself to some particular deity.

2) Whichever devotee desires to faithfully worship a particular form, I fortify his faith in exactly that (form).

3) Whichever devotee wants to worship the form of whichever god with faith, I make the faith of that-that devotee firm in that very god.

4) Whatever form of the demigods a man desires to worship with faith, I make his faith strong in that particular form.

Reagrds Tony

 

[siti]

Those 2 quotes above are compatiable.

Thus what you have read into this following quote, is more than that;



It is not mans ideas of, but the teaching.

Thus I see if we quote a biblical passage and then we can see if there is an answer given in the Kitab-i-iqan.

Regards Tony

Boy! You are a crafty one Tony! You are getting almost as good as IT at wriggling!

IT said "All scriptures of the past, such as Quran, Bible, Buddhism, Hinduism and Zoroasterism Scriptures are included in this Book, in a 'condensed' form."

You said: "The Kitab-i-iqan does not say it condensed form of scriptural traditions, that is your understanding"

I agree that this is not what the Iqan claims - that has been part of my argument - but it certainly IS what your friend IT claimed that the Iqan claims. And it only takes an example or two to prove his claim false...which we have already done.

And that was a pretty swift move as well, making another post so quickly - I guess you were hoping I would miss the first and skip to the second so you could add even more obfuscation by claiming some roundabout Iqan application of polytheism...OK let's see - on that you can choose whichever of the four translations suits your purpose best. They all pretty well add up to the same thing - its OK to worship minor deities - and before you say anything, if we put in context - the message is that its OK to worship minor deities if you must because of your limitations but its much better to worship the supreme deity...however you dress it up, it condones or allows for polytheistic idolatry - albeit acknowledging that this is not the ideal form of worship - right? OK - so where does it say that in the Iqan?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

And it only takes an example or two to prove his claim false...which we have already done.

Thus you have made up your mind already.

Boy! You are a crafty one Tony! You are getting almost as good as IT at wriggling!

IT said "All scriptures of the past, such as Quran, Bible, Buddhism, Hinduism and Zoroasterism Scriptures are included in this Book, in a 'condensed' form."

You said: "The Kitab-i-iqan does not say it condensed form of scriptural traditions, that is your understanding"

I agree that this is not what the Iqan claims - that has been part of my argument - but it certainly IS what your friend IT claimed that the Iqan claims.

And that was a pretty swift move as well, making another post so quickly - I guess you were hoping I would miss the first and skip to the second so you could add even more obfuscation by claiming some roundabout Iqan application of polytheism...OK let's see - on that you can choose whichever of the four translations suits your purpose best. They all pretty well add up to the same thing - its OK to worship minor deities - and before you say anything, if we put in context - the message is that its OK to worship minor deities if you must because of your limitations but its much better to worship the supreme deity...however you dress it up, it condones or allows for polytheistic idolatry - albeit acknowledging that this is not the ideal form of worship - right? OK - so where does it say that in the Iqan?

I would offer that there would be no need to dress it up, as it does require a different way of looking at the same scriptures, in the context of the Kitab-i-iqan. The point is, that all the scriptures of the past can be explained by a Kitab-i-iqan passage, it does not need to confirm the way people currently think about those passages.

Now it all holds up as Truth, if Baha'u'llah is indeed as He claims to be. Since you doubt that strongly, then you would doubt any explanation that contradicts pass traditions. You have already said that is your stance in many many posts.

I am happy with that and need no further argument

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Boy! You are a crafty one Tony! You are getting almost as good as IT at wriggling!

Consistent would be more to the point. I have said from the start that it is "more to the point, if it can be shown they are there, but not the way they are currently considered, then It becomes a choice of seeing it with new eyes and hearing with new ears."

More to the point, if it can be shown they are there, but not the way they are currently considered, then It becomes a choice of seeing it with new eyes and hearing with new ears.

If one has no wish to even consider that there may be alternate meaning to these past held doctrines, then its by far far the best option not to even discuss them. Regards Tony

This is the context of the quote,

"...The one God is My witness! Wert thou to ponder a while, thou wilt recognize that, apart from all these established truths and above-mentioned evidences, the repudiation, cursing, and execration, pronounced by the people of the earth, are in themselves the mightiest proof and the surest testimony of the truth of these heroes of the field of resignation and detachment. Whenever thou dost meditate upon the cavils uttered by all the people, be they divines, learned or ignorant, the firmer and the more steadfast wilt thou grow in the Faith. For whatsoever hath come to pass, hath been prophesied by them who are the Mines of divine knowledge, and Recipients of God’s eternal law. Although We did not intend to make mention of the traditions of a bygone age, yet, because of Our love for thee, We will cite a few which are applicable to Our argument. We do not feel their necessity, however, inasmuch as the things We have already mentioned suffice the world and all that is therein. In fact, all the Scriptures and the mysteries thereof are condensed into this brief account. So much so, that were a person to ponder it a while in his heart, he would discover from all that hath been said the mysteries of the Words of God, and would apprehend the meaning of whatever hath been manifested by that ideal King...."

It does say the Scriptures and Mysteries that comes from the 'Words of God', it does not say peoples popular interpretation of the scriptures, which then can become the teachings of men and not the Messenger.

Personally I think it is much like the 'Hidden Words' where Baha'u'llah has said;

He Is the Glory of Glories "This is that which hath descended from the realm of glory, uttered by the tongue of power and might, and revealed unto the Prophets of old. We have taken the inner essence thereof and clothed it in the garment of brevity, as a token of grace unto the righteous, that they may stand faithful unto the Covenant of God, may fulfill in their lives His trust, and in the realm of spirit obtain the gem of divine virtue" (The Hidden Words) www.bahai.org/r/642922139

Regards Tony

The way I see it, the Katab-i-iqan covers all past religious truths. Is that not the aim of the OP for us to consider and discover?

Thus it is not restricted to one source. The point of this verse is that there are many spiritual and other meanings within each passage of the religuous texts.

Another thing is that I see that they also traverse many worlds, not just this material world.

Regards Tony

I see It just takes more understanding of what Baha'u'ah offered.

The Kitab-i-iqan also explains the twofold aspect of the Message. The potential of all the Messages are for a United humanity under one God. If we read those books, it is obvious it is foretold they will not reach this level of acceptance, as each Faith tells of a Day in the future when a universal Manifestation is to come.

Up to the Bab, the messages was suited to the age and to the people it was to reach, they had a specific purpose, even if the potential was Universal.

Thus in this age the Message is the promised universal Message, the issue being is that people expect that Message to vindicate only their Faith to an exclusion of all other Faiths.

The best explanation is simply, that there is only One God and all God given Messengers are from that One source. That is to me, the Essence of the Kitab-i-iqan.

Regards Tony

Siti I think it is important to note that I see we are not offering that what we will find is the 'Same' understanding that people are used to.

I see what is being offered in the Kitabi-iqan, is the correct understanding of what was given in past scriptures.

Thus as per your example of Atonement and all the passages in the Bible on this subject that were used to formed a doctrine of thought on this subject, they now have the correct meaning explained in the Kitab-i-iqan.

One does not have to agree, but the new explanation, on the same passages is available.

Regards Tony

The Kitab-i-iqan does not say it condensed form of scriptural traditions, that is your understanding, this was what the OP was based upon.

"In fact, all the Scriptures and the mysteries thereof are condensed into this brief account. "

That means the Word as recorded, not as interpreted by man. Baha'u'llah has given us the key to understanding.

Again, you do not have to see that is so, but it is good if you ackowledge the difference of thought that we are basing or argument upon.

Less confusion.

Regards Tony

Those 2 quotes above are compatiable.

Thus what you have read into this following quote, is more than that;

It is not mans ideas of, but the teaching.

Thus I see if we quote a biblical passage and then we can see if there is an answer given in the Kitab-i-iqan.

Regards Tony

Those quotes show I have not changed my position since the thread started.

Personally I see @InvestigateTruth has also been offering His ideas from the same point of view.

Regards Tony

 

[Aupmanyav]

And since you have raised another objection to the OP argument, perhaps you and IT (and anyone?) might care to reconcile Bhagavad Gita 7:21 which translates "Whatever celestial form a devotee seeks to worship with faith, I steady the faith of such a devotee in that form." with the essential monotheism of the Iqan. There is no teaching in Iqan that corresponds to this condoning of polytheistic idolatry - is there?

BhagawadGita is a "Vaishnava" (worshipers of Lord Vishnu and his avataras) scripture. We do seek wisdom from Gita and respect it but no Hindu is obligated to consider as the God's word. The "Shaivas" (worshipers of Lord Shiva), the "Shakta" (worshipers of Mother Goddess) and the "Smartas" (who think the mantras and rituals mentioned in Vedas have the sole authority) will differ with it. And a person does not belong to any of these sects may have his own views. I am an atheist Hindu and I take the reference to Krishna in BhagawadGita as allegorical. Krishna should be taken as the "universe itself" speaking to the humans. It was written after grammarian Panini had modernized Sanskrit (Panini is dated between 800 BCE to 400 BCE).

"According to Alexus McLeod, a scholar of Philosophy and Asian Studies, it is "impossible to link the Bhagavad Gita to a single author", and it may be the work of many authors. This view is shared by the Indologist Arthur Basham, who states that there were three or more authors or compilers of Bhagavad Gita. This is evidenced by the discontinuous intermixing of philosophical verses with theistic or passionately theistic verses, according to Basham."
Bhagavad Gita - Wikipedia

"Theories on the date of the composition of the Gita vary considerably. Scholars accept dates from the fifth century to the second century BCE as the probable range, the latter likely. The Hinduism scholar Jeaneane Fowler, in her commentary on the Gita, considers second century BCE to be the probable date of composition. J. A. B. van Buitenen too states that the Gita was likely composed about 200 BCE. According to the Indologist Arvind Sharma, the Gita is generally accepted to be a 2nd-century BCE text. Kashi Nath Upadhyaya, in contrast, dates it a bit earlier. He states that the Gita was always a part of the Mahabharata, and dating the latter suffices in dating the Gita."
Bhagavad Gita - Wikipedia

The problem is that when Gita says 'it', it is taken to mean the soul or the 'Supreme God' Krishna himself.

"Aavināśi tu tad viddhi, yena sarvam idaṁ tatam;
vināśam avyayasyāsya, na kaścit kartum arhati.' BG 2.17

avināśi - imperishable; tu - but; tat - that; viddhi - know it; yena - by whom; sarvam - all of the body; idam - this; tatam - pervaded; vināśam - destruction; avyayasya - of the imperishable; asya - of it; na kaścit - no one; kartum - to do; arhati - is able.

Translation by Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada: That which pervades the entire body you should know to be indestructible. No one is able to destroy that imperishable soul.
Aupmanyav's translation: Know it as imperishable which is here and spread all around, no one is able to destroy the imperishable.

In the above translation Prabhupada has unnecessarily added soul (Atma), which is mentioned nowhere in the verse. The 'imperishable' does not need to be a 'Supreme God', it could simply mean 'the stuff of the universe'.

 

[siti]

Those quotes show I have not changed my position since the thread started.

Personally I see @InvestigateTruth has also been offering His ideas from the same point of view.

Egg zackly Tony! You - or rather IT in this case - offer a bizarre claim as a topic for discussion and no matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary, you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge any of it. In my mind's eye, you guys are sitting with your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears and repeating "not listening, not listening..." over and over as you compose each response in these threads. Its a fascinating insight into the world of religious blind credulity - I feel privileged to witness this at first hand - albeit online. Not sure how much more time I bring myself to waste on it though. As far as this thread is concerned, I will make only one further post in response to an intelligent and informative reply - I think the first in this thread - needless to say it was not from a Baha'i member. After that, I think even I have no more stamina for repeating "tisn't" to an endless sequence of entirely unfounded "tis" claims.

 

[siti]

BhagawadGita is a "Vaishnava" (worshipers of Lord Vishnu and his avataras) scripture. We do seek wisdom from Gita and respect it but no Hindu is obligated to consider as the God's word. The "Shaivas" (worshipers of Lord Shiva), the "Shakta" (worshipers of Mother Goddess) and the "Smartas" (who think the mantras and rituals mentioned in Vedas have the sole authority) will differ with it. And a person does not belong to any of these sects may have his own views. I am an atheist Hindu and I take the reference to Krishna in BhagawadGita as allegorical. Krishna should be taken as the "universe itself" speaking to the humans. It was written after grammarian Panini had modernized Sanskrit (Panini is dated between 800 BCE to 400 BCE).

"According to Alexus McLeod, a scholar of Philosophy and Asian Studies, it is "impossible to link the Bhagavad Gita to a single author", and it may be the work of many authors. This view is shared by the Indologist Arthur Basham, who states that there were three or more authors or compilers of Bhagavad Gita. This is evidenced by the discontinuous intermixing of philosophical verses with theistic or passionately theistic verses, according to Basham."
Bhagavad Gita - Wikipedia

"Theories on the date of the composition of the Gita vary considerably. Scholars accept dates from the fifth century to the second century BCE as the probable range, the latter likely. The Hinduism scholar Jeaneane Fowler, in her commentary on the Gita, considers second century BCE to be the probable date of composition. J. A. B. van Buitenen too states that the Gita was likely composed about 200 BCE. According to the Indologist Arvind Sharma, the Gita is generally accepted to be a 2nd-century BCE text. Kashi Nath Upadhyaya, in contrast, dates it a bit earlier. He states that the Gita was always a part of the Mahabharata, and dating the latter suffices in dating the Gita."
Bhagavad Gita - Wikipedia

The problem is that when Gita says 'it', it is taken to mean the soul or the 'Supreme God' Krishna himself.

"Aavināśi tu tad viddhi, yena sarvam idaṁ tatam;
vināśam avyayasyāsya, na kaścit kartum arhati.' BG 2.17

avināśi - imperishable; tu - but; tat - that; viddhi - know it; yena - by whom; sarvam - all of the body; idam - this; tatam - pervaded; vināśam - destruction; avyayasya - of the imperishable; asya - of it; na kaścit - no one; kartum - to do; arhati - is able.

Translation by Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada: That which pervades the entire body you should know to be indestructible. No one is able to destroy that imperishable soul.
Aupmanyav's translation: Know it as imperishable which is here and spread all around, no one is able to destroy the imperishable.

In the above translation Prabhupada has unnecessarily added soul (Atma), which is mentioned nowhere in the verse. The 'imperishable' does not need to be a 'Supreme God', it could simply mean 'the stuff of the universe'.

Thanks for the informative response...I am only too well aware of my limitations in understanding the language or theology/philosophy of "Hindu" "scriptures" - I presented the example from the Gita only because I am aware that some religious traditions (including I believe some Hindu traditions) do believe that worship of "demigods" or minor deities - or even devotion to sacred objects (which is often derided as 'idolatry' by others) - is a valid way to approach the "supreme reality" (whatever that may be thought of as being i n the various traditions). I was challenging the Baha'is to come up with anything remotely akin to that idea in their strictly mono- strictly theistic Kitab i Iqan - which of course they cannot. I am completely bemused by their ability to keep on claiming sameness with other religious traditions whilst at the same time denying any place for any doctrines other than their own - its really bizarre. I find these kind of threads a bit like one of those museums of oddities where they have weird stuff like cows with two heads and that kind of thing.

Anyway, thanks for the informative reply.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Egg zackly Tony! You - or rather IT in this case - offer a bizarre claim as a topic for discussion and no matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary, you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge any of it

The way I see it, is that the topic wants to discuss all there is about the origin of apples and their variety and one brings an orange into the discussion. If not an orange, it is a wooden carving of an apple.

Regards Tony

 

[siti]

The way I see it, is that the topic wants to discuss all there is about the origin of apples and their variety and one brings an orange into the discussion. If not an orange, it is a wooden carving of an apple.

Or maybe "apples of gold"? Proverbs 25:11

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Well frankly IT that just doesn't work does it?

OK from Noah (if he existed at all) to Abraham (if he existed at all)...but once you go past Moses, you have the Zoroaster, Buddha and then Jesus (chronologically) - although it is possible that Zoroaster even predated Moses (assuming that either of them actually existed)...but "Moses" never mentions anything about Zoroaster and neither Jesus nor any of his disciples seems to have had any inkling of either Buddhism or Zoroastrianism even though - according to your interpretation - these dispensations intervened between those of Abraham and Moses. If you're right, the Jews should have abandoned the Mosaic Law almost as soon as it was handed down because Zoroaster and then Buddha had effectively annulled it long before Jesus appeared - and yet Jesus says absolutely nothing about this? And neither does Baha'u'llah as far as I am aware.

The more you try to explain it, the more bizarre these Baha'i notions of Manifestations and dispensations appears.

.

I would think, The older Religions were confined to specific areas, Religions of Noah, Abraham, Moses were specific to their own locations, and for specific locations. Other Religions, such as Zoroastriasm were for other locations. In older times, the world was not as connected. God had given to each people their own Rites.

Anyway, to your first paragraph, you are just rolling out the same claim again regarding the equivalence of the glibly generalized idea of sacrifice with the universally unique atonement based on the once for all sacrifice of Christ - they are just not the same thing at all...and your claim does not become truer by repetition

The idea of Sacrifice of Jesus as a one time event forever, was shown to be a misinterpretation... 'Forever', as we discussed is only an expression to show burn offering was no longer required as it was replaced by Jesus. The expression 'once for all', was shown to mean only for the People of Jesus. So, nothing whatsoever proven here that, atonement as a one time event for all genrations of humanity, forever is a correct interpretation.
Moreover, it was shown that according to historical evidences, Bahaullah had no substential education, specially in Religions. The letter of His sister, was shown to have nothing to disprove Bahaullah's claim. You can believe whatever you want my friend.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Egg zackly Tony! You - or rather IT in this case - offer a bizarre claim as a topic for discussion and no matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary, you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge any of it. In my mind's eye, you guys are sitting with your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears and repeating "not listening, not listening..." over and over as you compose each response in these threads. Its a fascinating insight into the world of religious blind credulity - I feel privileged to witness this at first hand - albeit online. Not sure how much more time I bring myself to waste on it though. As far as this thread is concerned, I will make only one further post in response to an intelligent and informative reply - I think the first in this thread - needless to say it was not from a Baha'i member. After that, I think even I have no more stamina for repeating "tisn't" to an endless sequence of entirely unfounded "tis" claims.

Bahaullah in Iqan clearly says Scriptures are condensed in Iqan.... And so far whatever you brought up from previous scriptures was found in Iqan in condensed form.... The keywords 'sacrifice', and 'eternal salvation' was shown to be evidence of concept of atonement... as well as its correct understanding (not just whatever the literalists Christian leaders have interpreted for people)...
All of it shows, Bahaullah were aware of all these details, without possessing any such books to study from! Bahais recognize this as a proof of divinity. And according to history, Bahaullah wrote Iqan only in 2 days! Can we find greater miracle than this? A fair judgement is required!

 

[InvestigateTruth]

:
you and IT (and anyone?) might care to reconcile Bhagavad Gita 7:21 which translates "Whatever celestial form a devotee seeks to worship with faith, I steady the faith of such a devotee in that form." with the essential monotheism of the Iqan. There is no teaching in Iqan that corresponds to this condoning of polytheistic idolatry - is there?

I would suggest the following passage of Iqan in reality points to the same concept:

"Conceive accordingly the distinction, variation, and unity characteristic of the various Manifestations of holiness, that thou mayest comprehend the allusions made by the Creator of all names and attributes to the mysteries of distinction and unity, and discover the answer to thy question as to why that everlasting Beauty should have, at sundry times, called Himself by different names and titles."



Here Bahaullah is stating the reason why would God, appear with different names and titles among different people, which essentially is related to the relative truth, which Bahai Scriptures teach and that is this: God reveals Himself according to the understandings of the people of the time and place...

 

[siti]

@InvestigateTruth - this really is my last contribution to this thread unless you can provide any actual evidence to support what you are again claiming in your last three posts...

IT - you have not "shown" any of the things you claim to have shown at all...you have merely stated them - you have "proven" the baseless claim of the OP by repeating the baseless claim that the Bible does not really mean what it actually says - for example about atonement. I'm not sure at this stage whether you are actually capable of distinguishing between a baseless claim and actual evidence...it really seems that you cannot sometimes... and that you are unable to accept that there may be contrary evidence or different ways of viewing things...especially the writings of Baha'u'llah...than what you have already conditioned your mind to accept. If that is not the case, you really ought to concede that your OP claim was wrong and that there really are some principal teachings of other valid scriptural traditions that are not in the Iqan. If it is the case, then I suggest you restrict such topics - by which you seem to be inviting only positive responses that agree with your extolling the words of your prophet - to a Baha'i DIR forum. Then we (non-Baha'is) need only read them - if we feel inclined - and not respond to the obvious flaws and misinformation they contain.

Over and out!

 

[InvestigateTruth]

@InvestigateTruth - this really is my last contribution to this thread unless you can provide any actual evidence to support what you are again claiming in your last three posts...

IT - you have not "shown" any of the things you claim to have shown at all...you have merely stated them - you have "proven" the baseless claim of the OP by repeating the baseless claim that the Bible does not really mean what it actually says - for example about atonement. I'm not sure at this stage whether you are actually capable of distinguishing between a baseless claim and actual evidence...it really seems that you cannot sometimes... and that you are unable to accept that there may be contrary evidence or different ways of viewing things...especially the writings of Baha'u'llah...than what you have already conditioned your mind to accept. If that is not the case, you really ought to concede that your OP claim was wrong and that there really are some principal teachings of other valid scriptural traditions that are not in the Iqan. If it is the case, then I suggest you restrict such topics - by which you seem to be inviting only positive responses that agree with your extolling the words of your prophet - to a Baha'i DIR forum. Then we (non-Baha'is) need only read them - if we feel inclined - and not respond to the obvious flaws and misinformation they contain.

Over and out!

Bible does mean what it says, but you have to agree that it can be interpreted in different ways, and the interpretations that is common among mainstream Christians can possibly be incorrect. After all even Christians in many cases disagreed about interpretations. Moreover, regardless of interpretations, certainly at least the subject of atonement is in Iqan as we have shown the keywords are there, and that is sufficient enough that these concepts are in the Iqan, and if you claim that the interpretations of the mainstream Christians is correct, and the interpretation in Iqan in incorrect, it is your job to prove it. I did show how the concepts of Bible are reconcilable with how they are explained in Iqan. But, even you do agree that, the atonement as understood by mainstream Christians make no logical sense to you, since you do not even believe it, yet, you seem to insist that is what the Bible means. Why?!

 

[siti]

But, even you do agree that, the atonement as understood by mainstream Christians make no logical sense to you, since you do not even believe it, yet, you seem to insist that is what the Bible means. Why?!

OK - since you have asked me a further question I will respond once more...

IT - you have to understand that from my point of view the Bible is a work composed by humans - and the last bit of it was composed by humans of a Christian bent. They wrote that Jesus' sacrifice was a once for all propitiatory sacrifice - this is they key doctrine of atonement - never to be repeated and absolutely vital to their faith and religion. This has to be one of the most glaringly clear and obvious doctrines in the entire Bible - there is no question that that is what it says. The Iqan simply does not say the same thing at all. Whether I believe what either of them say is irrelevant. Your position is equivalent to taking two different works of literature - say Sir Thomas Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur and Shakespeare's Hamlet and claiming that the death of Mordred in one is the same as the passing of Hamlet in the other. Of course I don't believe either of these really happened - but I can compare the stories and see clearly that they are very, very different.

 

[KWED]

Bahaullah wrote more than 17000 works. One of these works, which also is the second important Book in Bahai Scriptures Ranking, is the Book of Iqan. The English Translation of the Book of Iqan, is only about 60 pages! According to some historical accounts, He wrote it in 2 days.

This is what Bahaullah wrote in this Book, about Iqan:

"In fact, all the Scriptures and the mysteries thereof are condensed into this brief account. "

Here, 'this brief account', is the Book of Iqan. This means, that All scriptures of the past, such as Quran, Bible, Buddhism, Hinduism and Zoroasterism Scriptures are included in this Book, in a 'condensed' form.
If you add all those scriptures, you end up with probably several tens of thousands of pages or more. Condensing them in 60 pages, would mean that, in principle, all scriptures are briefly available in the Book, albeit, mostly in the form of mentioning or allusions.

To investigate this, I suggest, all those who believe or are familiar with the Scriptures, quote a principle teaching. Then we will see if from this Book, we can bring the same teaching in the 'condensed' form or not, thereby we investigated the claim of Bahaullah about this Book.

Here is an example:
Those who are familiar with Buddhism, know Buddha taught that 'idle talking' must be prevented. This is also found in the Book of Iqan:

"The seeker of truth ....must never seek to exalt himself above anyone, must wash away from the tablet of his heart every trace of pride and vainglory, must cling unto patience and resignation, observe silence, and refrain from idle talk."

Most religious scriptures are highly repetitive. Their key elements can probably be summed up in a few pages.

However, I'll have a try.
The Quran repeatedly permits a man to use his female slaves or captives for sex. There are also several sahih hadith that confirm this principle and illustrate it in practice.
So, is the principle of using female captives and slaves for sex mentioned in the Book of Iqan?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Most religious scriptures are highly repetitive. Their key elements can probably be summed up in a few pages.

However, I'll have a try.
The Quran repeatedly permits a man to use his female slaves or captives for sex. There are also several sahih hadith that confirm this principle and illustrate it in practice.
So, is the principle of using female captives and slaves for sex mentioned in the Book of Iqan?

Having slaves predates Islam. Quran contains verses about treating people including slaves fairly. It is not like Quran promoted slavery, but rather, it imposed some rules on it, so they are treated fairly. It was not possible to stop wrong ways of people all at once.

So, yes, this is also in Iqan:


"He should show kindness to animals,
how much more unto his fellowman..."

Iqan, page 46