Questions of interest to Bahai's

[firedragon]

You are using the “all” word again. For it “all” to be dogmatic it would have to all of it fail independent analysis. It does not

Oh okay. If that is offensive, I shall take it back if you wish.

The thing is I speak old English. When I say "all dogmatic" it doesn't mean all of it is dogmatic, it means the particular thing is "all dogmatic" or "wholly dogmatic". You are catching one statement and derailing the thread mate. Its useless discourse.

Look at the comments mate. One in particular said that "can we question Bahaullah? Can we question God"?

Go figure. Cheers.

 

[Aupmanyav]

And Guru Nanak started a bonafide new religion - whose following is about 3-4 times the Baha'i faith and he is called a "reformer".

Man, Mahavira, Buddha and Sri Guru Nanak had no intention to start a new religions. They started 'Panth' (road, sect) or 'Mata' (opinion). If that later developed as separate religions, Hindus have no problem with that. Brothers start new house-holds when family grows, that is OK.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Look at the comments mate. One in particular said that "can we question Bahaullah? Can we question God?". Go figure. Cheers.

If Bahaollah cannot be questioned, then how come Joseph Smith or Mirza Ghulam Ahmad can be questioned? That is what Bahaollah was warning against. But Bahais break Allah's dictate and the covenant. They are not true to their own religion. Who has corrupted the words of Allah? Go figure. Cheers.
Allah sees all.

 

[firedragon]

If Bahaollah cannot be questioned, then how come Joseph Smith or Mirza Ghulam Ahmad can be questioned? That is what Bahaollah was warning against. But Bahais break Allah's dictate and the covenant. They are not true to their own religion. Who has corrupted the words of Allah? Go figure. Cheers.
Allah sees all.

Do not understand your point.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Read again.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Hold it right there doctor - what "religion" did Krishna start? Don't tell me the Vaishnavas - they are not considered a separate religion

And Guru Nanak started a bonafide new religion - whose following is about 3-4 times the Baha'i faith and he is called a "reformer"

I back up @Aupmanyav's statements - the inconsistencies are glaring and I wonder if you or any other Baha'i has a reasonable explanation other than the obvious one(s)

Baha’is consider Buddha, Jesus and Muhammad as being manifestations of God. Their widespread influence is undeniable and their respective faiths Buddhism, Christianity and Islam are clearly founded on their Teachings.

Hinduism as we know has no identifiable founder as Buddhism, Christianity and Islam does. The reason is because the roots of Hinduism are obscured by history. Hinduism may be ten thousand years old but its hard to have clarity about too much during this period as with any culture. It is just a product of time. So Moses, Krishna and previous Avatars, Abraham, Noah and Adam are characters that we can not reliably determine if they existed let alone the details of their lives. So while there is no evidence any of them established an independent religion, there’s no evidence they didn’t either. We simply can’t know for certain.

In regards Krishna, His influence on Hinduism is clear given how important He is to so many including the Vaishnavas as you mentioned. It seems plausible that Krishna did form an independent religion that has subsequently been merged into the culture of the peoples of the Indian subcontinent. Hinduism is an umbrella term after all that developed in part to distinguish religions seperate from Islam and Christianity.

I agree Guru Nanak founded an independent movement. That could be seen as an independent religion or a movement within Hinduism influenced to reconcile Islam and Hinduism. I wouldn’t put it in the same category as Buddhism, Christianity or Islam.

The Baha’i Faith is still relatively young (Founded in 1844). In regards its numbers and influence its probably comparable to Christianity in the second century after it was founded by Christ. Whether or not it emerges as Christianity has, remains uncertain.

 

[Dawnofhope]

But why, my dear friend. They did all that Bahaollah did, established religions on the orders of Allah. Then why not?
You should have one rule for all, and not be arbitrary. I do not modify my beliefs in any way.
For example, I consider both of us to be Brahman and even Hitler and Osama and Caliph Ibrahim.
They said they were prophets and Mahdi with message from Allah, so you, a Bahai, need to accept that, without any doubt. That is what Bahaollah said.
Allah is great in his mercy as well as in his punishment. Surely, you do not want to mar your record.

For Baha’is there are at least two clear lineages of Religious Founders, one Abrahamic, the other Dharmic. Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Christ, Muhammad, the Bab and Bahá’u’lláh make up the Abrahamic lineup. Krishna and Buddha the Dharmic one. There are no doubt others who historicity is lost to the mists of time. There are others outside these two lineages of course such as Zoroastrianism. So the Baha’i paradigm makes as much sense to Baha’is as an atheistic paradigm is logical for atheists.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Then what is the Baha'i explanation of why Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses, all part of Judaism, are manifestations?

Remember the Quran elaborates on Adam, Noah and Abraham. Baha’is aren’t limited to the account in Genesis. The other important consideration is how history disappears, becomes distorted or mythologised with the passing of time.

 

[firedragon]

Read again.

No that's fine.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Yep. I did speak to a friend of mine and get the same answer that "the sword is symbolic".

No that's wrong. It is not meant as symbolic because it is written so.

You also missed the whole point. The ahadith is talking about the Mahdi having the same biography of the prophet Muhammed and he would come with the sword. Its very clearly stipulated. Do you understand the combination? This is not reinterpretation, this is change.

Well, in Bahai view, the real character of Muhammad, or, that which makes Him special is not the material sword, but His Book, which according to Bahaullah is a heavenly sword. And the Qaim has similar Characteristics meaning He revealed a Book like Quran. Otherwise Changez Khan had sword too, he probably conquered more than Muhammad! I understand the Muslims are waiting for a blood thirsty Mahdi, or Qaim though.
It is true that, in Hadithes it is said, the sword of Qaim kills, but that killing is spiritual killing in Bahai view, meaning, the word of God, which proceeds from the mouth of Qaim, causes infidles die spiritually. The Shia Imams said, our Hadithes are Mutishabihat too.

Anyway, I would like to ask you based on this "Qayyoom ul asma", I have not read this book but I opened your link. They are a collection of short Sarah's written by Bahaullah called Surathus Mulk, eeman, Ulama etc etc. Can you explain how it is in the "style of the Qur'an"?

The Qayyoom ul asma is written by the Bab, not Bahaullah. The Bab said, here is a Book like Quran, Allah has revealed it. In my perception, it is written in Quranic Arabic style, and The Mode of revelation is same, as if an angel is talking from God to Messenger. It is not something I can prove it to you. Everyone has their own perception. Maybe to many people, it is not like the Quran.

 

[firedragon]

Well, in Bahai view, the real character of Muhammad, or, that which makes Him special is not the material sword, but His Book, which according to Bahaullah is a heavenly sword. And the Qaim has similar Characteristics meaning He revealed a Book like Quran. Otherwise Changez Khan had sword too, he probably conquered more than Muhammad! I understand the Muslims are waiting for a blood thirsty Mahdi, or Qaim though.
It is true that, in Hadithes it is said, the sword of Qaim kills, but that killing is spiritual killing in Bahai view, meaning, the word of God, which proceeds from the mouth of Qaim, causes infidles die spiritually. The Shia Imams said, our Hadithes are Mutishabihat too.


The Qayyoom ul asma is written by the Bab, not Bahaullah. The Bab said, here is a Book like Quran, Allah has revealed it. In my perception, it is written in Quranic Arabic style, and The Mode of revelation is same, as if an angel is talking from God to Messenger. It is not something I can prove it to you. Everyone has their own perception. Maybe to many people, it is not like the Quran.

I am not talking about the Bahai view, I am talking about misquoting a Hadith. You already answered by saying you don't question GOD, so you can leave it at that and I can see there is no answer and are trying your best to provide some answer. Sorry but the answer is not acceptable. And you again ignored the "Seerah" of Muhammed which the mahdi is supposed to be in the same Hadith. Of course. The Hadith clearly does not mean a superficial sword or a substitute to the Quran or anything of the sort and someone has lied to you. Also, there is nothing about killing in the Hadith so you are making something up to suit your wrong answer.

Yes of course, Qayyoom al Asma is written by Shirazi. If I said otherwise I made a mistake. So what you are basically saying in your answer is that since the Bab had a book that was similar to the Quranic style Bahaullah changed the Hadith into "a scripture like the Quran"! Thats post hoc ergo propter hoc. A logical fallacy.

And excuse me? The Shia Imam's said "Your Hadiths" are Muthasabih? What do you mean "Our Hadiths"? Are you calling Shia Hadiths as "our Hadiths" as if you adopt them? No. Sorry to say this but you are opposing them.

And can you tell me which Imam you are quoting? Sorry to tell you but ahadith are called "Qabur al ahad". And the Shia imams are called "ma'soom". So please don't tell me "Ma'soom" ahadith are "Muthasabih". When you go fishing for answers to things you cannot answer this is what happens.

Sorry, but I never expected such coverup type of answers ever. I am even sorry I ever questioned very small portions of the Bahai faith. It was an utter waste of time. What I leaned is that I cannot expect honest answers. Truly taken aback.

 

[firedragon]

Well, in Bahai view, the real character of Muhammad, or, that which makes Him special is not the material sword, but His Book, which according to Bahaullah is a heavenly sword. And the Qaim has similar Characteristics meaning He revealed a Book like Quran. Otherwise Changez Khan had sword too, he probably conquered more than Muhammad! I understand the Muslims are waiting for a blood thirsty Mahdi, or Qaim though.
It is true that, in Hadithes it is said, the sword of Qaim kills, but that killing is spiritual killing in Bahai view, meaning, the word of God, which proceeds from the mouth of Qaim, causes infidles die spiritually. The Shia Imams said, our Hadithes are Mutishabihat too.


The Qayyoom ul asma is written by the Bab, not Bahaullah. The Bab said, here is a Book like Quran, Allah has revealed it. In my perception, it is written in Quranic Arabic style, and The Mode of revelation is same, as if an angel is talking from God to Messenger. It is not something I can prove it to you. Everyone has their own perception. Maybe to many people, it is not like the Quran.

I asked you how Babs book is similar to Quran in writing style! You made the claim. Can you explain? Can you ever in your life quantify what you said or do I only see vague statements like this someone told you which you just gulped down blindly?

 

[firedragon]

The Qayyoom ul asma is written by the Bab, not Bahaullah. The Bab said, here is a Book like Quran, Allah has revealed it. In my perception, it is written in Quranic Arabic style, and The Mode of revelation is same, as if an angel is talking from God to Messenger. It is not something I can prove it to you. Everyone has their own perception. Maybe to many people, it is not like the Quran.

Have you at least read one single chapter in this book? Its so small, I read the whole thing in less than a day.

Without even reading it how could you make claims about the writing style? Please explain who told you this and why you believe it. Blind faith again?

The first chapter is called Surathul Mulk. Shirazi has written this to look like the Quran, but they are polls apart. It is different from the Mail, the turn of the Hamza, and the whole problem lies in the lack of knowledge in 20th century scholarship on the Quran and Quranic manuscripts.

The Bab is coming from primitive scholarship of scripture, including Bahaullah's lack of knowledge in biblical scholarship which you have never answered. No Bahai has attempted. Sorry but this is frustrating. I don't believe in the Christian trinity, but the Christians have some answer. This is completely surprising on your part.

I would suggest that you as an intellectual do good research.

 

[firedragon]

Hinduism as we know has no identifiable founder as Buddhism,

Buddhism is Hinduism. Its just named Buddhism.

What I am interested in understanding is, since you said the lineage of Buddha and Krishna are considered the Dharmic lineage. Can you elaborate what you mean here?

I do have a writing by Moomen (I presume I spelled it right) or is it Moojen? Im not sure. I think it had some explanation on Buddhism and the Bahai connection. Sorry but I reject all of them with valid reasons. Maybe another thread.

Please explain.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

@firedragon
I already gave you my view on that.
Yes, Qayyoom ul asma is a smaller Book, comparing to the Quran, but it was a challenge from the Bab. Remember, Allah in Quran said, try bring 10 Surrah like Quran, or even 1 Surrah. Since the Bab wrote 111 Surrahs like Quran, for those who believe Quran is from Allah, it is seen as a proof that, this Book must also be from same Allah, for no one other than Allah can bring Surrahs like the Quran.
You can explain why the Qayoom ul asma is not like Quran. Maybe you can bring some verses from Quran and some verses from Qayoom ul asma, and describe how they are different? Up to you.

It is good you could read the whole Book in less than a day. That means you can read really fast. No, I haven't read the whole Book, but I read some Surrahs.

 

[firedragon]

@firedragon
I already gave you my view on that.
Yes, Qayyoom ul asma is a smaller Book, comparing to the Quran, but it was a challenge from the Bab. Remember, Allah in Quran said, try bring 10 Surrah like Quran, or even 1 Surrah. Since the Bab wrote 111 Surrahs like Quran, for those who believe Quran is from Allah, it is seen as a proof that, this Book must also be from same Allah, for no one other than Allah can bring Surrahs like the Quran.
You can explain why the Qayoom ul asma is not like Quran. Maybe you can bring some verses from Quran and some verses from Qayoom ul asma, and describe how they are different? Up to you.

It is good you could read the whole Book in less than a day. That means you can read really fast. No, I haven't read the whole Book, but I read some Surrahs.

Of course. But this is nothing like the Quran.

How in the world can you speak about a book you have never read sis? It is your burden of proof because it is you who is proposing this. Do you admit that you have no clue but you blindly believed what you were told?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

@firedragon

I think I want clear enough.
I am saying, let's forget about Bahaullah for the time being. The point of trying to make, is, Allah is not bounded to quote exactly the hadith, or is He? Do you think, if Allah wanted to refer to that Hadith, He would have quoted word for word? In another words, can we conclude that since the hadith was not quoted exactly word for word, it cannot be from Allah?

 

[firedragon]

It is good you could read the whole Book in less than a day. That means you can read really fast. No, I haven't read the whole Book, but I read some Surrahs.

Actually, its not that lengthy.

But I must say that your translation has interpolations. Right from the first verse.

Also, this book is a mix of direct cut and pastes from the Quran. Anyone who has read the Quran would know that it has been requited verbatim.

Also what anyone with any kind of knowledge in Quranic scholarship would know that the writer of this is not trying to write a book similar to the Quran, and is someone else's proclamation. This is a book that has been written as its own revelation that mixes the Qur'an within its text, from the opening chapter.

In between words like Nazzala, your translation has added words like "in truth" which is not in the arabic text. Thats interpolation and the surprising thing is, it is an unnecessary interpolation. Maybe it has some purpose in misrepresenting the text in order to make another case.

I didn't intend to go into your book sis. This is what you brought in. And it is evident you don't know anything about what you are quoting.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Of course. But this is nothing like the Quran.

How in the world can you speak about a book you have never read sis? It is your burden of proof because it is you who is proposing this. Do you admit that you have no clue but you blindly believed what you were told?

It is not me who claim it, it was the Bab who claimed it. Why do you care about me? My belief in the Bab and Bahaullah is not just by recognizing the Qayyoom alasma, being like Quran. It comes from many pieces of evidences. I am not here to prove anything.

Here I quote from the Bab regarding this:


"This Book We have, verily, revealed in the language of Our Remembrance and it is in truth a wondrous language. He is, verily, the eternal Truth come from God, and according to the divine judgement given in the Mother Book, He is the most distinguished among the writers of Arabic and most eloquent in His utterance. He is in truth the Supreme Talisman and is endowed with supernatural powers, as set forth in the Mother Book… 46
O people of the city! Ye have disbelieved your Lord. If ye are truly faithful to Muḥammad, the Apostle of God and the Seal of the Prophets, and if ye follow His Book, the Qur’án, which is free from error, then here is the like of it—this Book, which We have, in truth and by the leave of God, sent down unto Our Servant. If ye fail to believe in Him, then your faith in Muḥammad and His Book which was revealed in the past will indeed be treated as false in the estimation of God. If ye deny Him, the fact of your having denied Muḥammad and His Book will, in very truth and with absolute certainty, become evident unto yourselves. "

Bahá'í Reference Library - Selections From the Writings of the Báb, Pages 45-46

In the above verses, Allah is speaking, and sayin, He has revealed it to the Bab (Our Remembrance). To me it is like Quran. Allah in Quran does not allow a false prophet write anything on behalf of Allah.

 

[firedragon]

@firedragon

I think I want clear enough.
I am saying, let's forget about Bahaullah for the time being. The point of trying to make, is, Allah is not bounded to quote exactly the hadith, or is He? Do you think, if Allah wanted to refer to that Hadith, He would have quoted word for word? In another words, can we conclude that since the hadith was not quoted exactly word for word, it cannot be from Allah?

See, Allah is "The God". He says "The Quran is the ahsanal Hadith" so he will not be quoting anyone's Hadith.

I understand your point quoting the Bab and Bahaullah as God and if they say something its Gods word for you. But that is your faith statement. Its not relevant to anyone else. Its a dogmatic statement. Why do you think even the most conservative Muslims and Christians have had so much scholarship on their respective texts? Why do they criticise their own texts?

Criticise your own text. I can't be blind sis. Impossible.