Questions of interest to Bahai's

[firedragon]

It is not me who claim it, it was the Bab who claimed it.

Then the bab was wrong. Again, I can't be worshiping what you say blindly. Its not gonna happen.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

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.

Yes, some parts of the verses are identical to Quran. It can be seen like cut and paste by some. The claim of the Bab is however, no body can do this:


"VERILY We made the revelation of verses to be a testimony for Our message unto you. Can ye produce a single letter to match these verses? Bring forth, then, your proofs, if ye be of those who can discern the one true God. I solemnly affirm before God, should all men and spirits combine to compose the like of one chapter of this Book, they would surely fail, even though they were to assist one another. 1 44
O concourse of divines! Fear God from this day onwards in the views ye advance, for He Who is Our Remembrance in your midst, and Who cometh from Us, is, in very truth, the Judge and Witness. Turn away from that which ye lay hold of, and which the Book of God, the True One, hath not sanctioned, for on the Day of Resurrection ye shall, upon the Bridge, be, in very truth, held answerable for the position ye occupied…. And unto you We have sent down this Book which truly none can mistake…"

Bahá'í Reference Library - Selections From the Writings of the Báb, Pages 43-44

 

[firedragon]

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.

So basically what you say is that Bab said it, and you worship what he said blindly right? No scholarship or analysis intended whatsoever.

If you cannot see that's not relevant to others, there is something seriously wrong.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, some parts of the verses are identical to Quran.

Wrong. Whole verses are verbatim copy pasted.

Also your translators are intentionally misleading you.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

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

.

The Quran quotes many of the sayings of Jesus. Do you know which verses?
Allah can quote the sayings of previous prophets or Imams to remind people who claim they follow them.

.

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.

I had criticised the Bahai Writings many years ago. Sometimes I thought I had found mistakes in them, but, when I investigate more, I realized the Writings were correct, but I my view or understanding was not right. I had done this criticism so much that I concluded there is no errors in them, this is why I feel confident about my belief. It is perfectly fine to criticise Holy Books, but, we need to do this fairly, without bias!

 

[InvestigateTruth]

So basically what you say is that Bab said it, and you worship what he said blindly right? No scholarship or analysis intended whatsoever.

If you cannot see that's not relevant to others, there is something seriously wrong.

No, what I mean, is, here, I can only provide information, if you ask me(as long as I have the info). But the conclusion would be yours! I am not here to prove anything, but provide info, and try to give correct and unbiased view.
The Bab and Bahaullah made that claim, so, everyone has the right to accept or reject Them. There is no harm or benefit for me to try to convince anybody.

 

[firedragon]

The Quran quotes many of the sayings of Jesus. Do you know which verses?

Not cut and paste.

I had criticised the Bahai Writings many years ago. Sometimes I thought I had found mistakes in them, but, when I investigate more, I realized the Writings were correct, but I my view or understanding was not right. I had done this criticism so much that I concluded there is no errors in them, this is why I feel confident about my belief. It is perfectly fine to criticise Holy Books, but, we need to do this fairly, without bias!

Not specific. Belief statement sis. Not valid for me.

 

[ManSinha]

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.

You are resorting to Baha'i symbolism again Doc - look up the world's religious populations and you will see Sikhism listed - it has its own identity, places of worship and scriptural text and does not worship the Hindu gods - it is separate category in the national census in both the US and India - does not make it a non-religion because it needs to retro fit Baha'i beliefs -

Where you deign to "put it" or not has no bearing on the reality outside of your worldview - I could say that the Baha's are an offshoot of Shi'a Islam and not a true independent religion - "pot calling the kettle black much?" You pretend to accept parts of the Bible and yet deny arguably one its most important pillars - the physical resurrection of Jesus - so again watch what you say - it can be thrown back at you magnified

By agreeing with me and trying to obfuscate Krishna - "plausible that he formed an independent religion" you are displaying your ignorance of the known and accepted facts or a plain denial to suit your chosen path - Krishna himself worshipped Shakti and Lord Shiva - so again you and your scriptures are out of sync with what the adherents of another faith believe

It would be better to accept the fallacies in what Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l'baha said about dharmic faiths - IMO they "knew" of Krishna and the Buddha - as I am sure you know the Buddha preached self realization and not the worship of any god IMO - another fact that your faith gets tripped over

I really do not want to get into who has the bigger one here but you need to double check what you put down - you are a respected member on these forums but gaffes like these do not enhance your reputation AFAIAC

I am done with this thread - there have been many recent comments on RF on how the Baha'i 's are slippery to debate / discuss with and will twist anything with "symbolism" to suit their beliefs - just look to see the systemic deconstruction of InvestigateTruth by firedragon in this very thread and the numerous threads where both Tony and Trailblazer have been called out for exactly that - I had hoped you were different - sorry to see that it is not so

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

Thanks Adrian, it just seems odd to have a "cycle" named after Adam, but then the religions are called "Abrahamic". The Hindus, and other religions, have their own cycles. And things that I'd call "mythology". The spiritual truths and lessons in those stories can be very important, but the story and the characters don't necessarily have to be real. That's how I see the more likely story of Adam, Noah and Abraham. They don't have to be real, but they give Jews a history of how they came to be and how their God has dealt with them in the past.

Then the later religions have to make changes, reinterpret, or do whatever they have to do to make their story logically fit into the Jewish or "Abrahamic" story. Like with Ishmael or Isaac. Isaac is important to Jews and the same story is used by Christians. Then, that story, has to be changed to Ishmael to fit into Islam and the Baha'is. In the end, was the story ever real to begin with? If not, it's just doing a rewrite of a fictional story. If it is real, then somebody is lying and changing "God's Word."

Considering the Baha'is believe they have the latest and truest information from God, that hasn't been tampered with by people, then Baha'is are saying the Jews and the Christians are wrong... and that at some point in time, some scribes got together to change their Scriptures? If the real son was Ishmael, why would they change it to Isaac? Why would they do that? Of all the weird stories in the Bible, why that one? Sorry Adrian, but I don't think they did.

And, like I said, to me, it's probably a mythical story anyway. Why would the real God say to anyone, "Go sacrifice your son"? But the spiritual message is tremendous. Abraham trusted God so much, he was going to do it. Whereas, if the event was real, who would carry out such a command? He questioned God about destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, but with this he says, "Right God, I'll get right on that. Come on son... gather some firewood and sharpen my knife. We're going on a little trip."

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

The Baha'i Faith has some very important teachings. They all sound very plausible and true. Their claims of "progressive" revelation makes so much sense... until I looked closer. Does the Baha'i Faith and their prophets The Bab and Baha'u'llah hold up to scrutiny? For me, there are some problems in some of the details of their claims and beliefs. You seem to be finding some of your own. Are they enough to go beyond just questioning, and maybe even, rejecting the Baha'i Faith? Or, is there a way to accept them as a legitimate new religion, but maybe just not for you?

 

[CG Didymus]

You are resorting to Baha'i symbolism again Doc - look up the world's religious populations and you will see Sikhism listed - it is separate category in the national census in both the US and India - does not make it a non-religion because it needs to retro fit Baha'i beliefs -

Where you deign to "put it" or not has no bearing on the reality outside of your worldview - I could say that the Baha's are an offshoot of Shi'a Islam and not a true independent religion - "pot calling the kettle black much?" You pretend to accept parts of the Bible and yet deny arguably one its most important pillars - the physical resurrection of Jesus - so again watch what you say - it can be thrown back at you magnified

By agreeing with me and trying to obfuscate Krishna - "plausible that he formed an independent religion" you are displaying your ignorance of the known and accepted facts or a plain denial to suit your chosen path - Krishna himself worshipped Shakti and Lord Shiva - so again you and your scriptures are out of sync with what the adherents of another faith believe

It would be better to accept the fallacies in what Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l'baha said about dharmic faiths - IMO they "knew" of Krishna and the Buddha - as I am sure you know the Buddha preached self realization and not the worship of any god IMO - another fact that your faith gets tripped over

I really do not want to get into who has the bigger one here but you need to double check what you put down - you are a respected member on these forums but gaffes like these do not enhance your reputation AFAIAC

I am done with this thread - there have been many recent comments on RF on how the Baha'i 's are slippery to argue with and will twist anything with "symbolism" to suit their beliefs - just look to see the systemic deconstruction of InvestigateTruth by firedragon in this very thread and the numerous threads where both Tony and Trailblazer have been called out for exactly that - I had hoped you were different - sorry to see that it is not so

I'd suspect that a "manifestation" of God, since he knows all, would have more clearly made the ties and the continuation between all religions more clear. Things are too vague and too contradictory. Is this really what God wanted? To make things so confusing that people would still argue and debate whether or not his alleged latest messenger really came from him?

 

[H Finn]

I'd suspect that a "manifestation" of God, since he knows all, would have more clearly made the ties and the continuation between all religions more clear. Things are too vague and too contradictory. Is this really what God wanted? To make things so confusing that people would still argue and debate whether or not his alleged latest messenger really came from him?

Is there really any reason to expect a manifestation of God to know everything. I cannot imagine Jesus went about knowing everything. He learned stuff just like any other human being. If the Baha'i founder is to be understood similarly, a special divinely connected being who has been born human he to would have all the natural limitations of knowledge

What appears interesting is the idea that the manifestation of God supplied humans with the key inspirations to move people into a better life. The invitation to respect other religious traditions could be one part of that. It does not need to know all the historical data of the past. The rough outlines found in historical tradition is adequate.

 

[H Finn]

I am puzzled about the above argument over whether a writing of the Bab is like the Koran. It seems to me that like is a very subjective matter unless two things are very different. If one item discusses minor league baseball and the other the chemical composition of gunpowder it is clearer to say they are unalike. Though people enthusiastic for argument may find even there elements of style to combat over.

Just to be clear I am inclined to keep some distance from the Bab's claim, its outside of my very tiny Arabic expertise.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Wrong. Whole verses are verbatim copy pasted.

Also your translators are intentionally misleading you.

Why do you think God cannot repeat exactly what He said before, or partially repeat what He said before?
It seems to me, you start as if, you know certainly the truth is, that the Book of the Bab is not from God, then you say, why He has copied it from the Quran. Eventhough there are just in some cases, the verses have same expressions as the Quran.
Why don't you start from a position that you don't know if His Book is from God or not (neutral position)
I mean, to me, you look so biased. On one hand, if His Book have similar expression and rythm as the Quran, you are saying He has copied it, and if you don't see the similarity, you are saying it is not like the Quran.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I am puzzled about the above argument over whether a writing of the Bab is like the Koran. It seems to me that like is a very subjective matter unless two things are very different. If one item discusses minor league baseball and the other the chemical composition of gunpowder it is clearer to say they are unalike. Though people enthusiastic for argument may find even there elements of style to combat over.

Just to be clear I am inclined to keep some distance from the Bab's claim, its outside of my very tiny Arabic expertise.

The audience that the Bab said to them, Here is a Book like Quran, were the 19th century Muslims in Persia who gave special importance to Arabic. To them it was miracle if someone wrote in the style of the Quran.

 

[CG Didymus]

Is there really any reason to expect a manifestation of God to know everything. I cannot imagine Jesus went about knowing everything. He learned stuff just like any other human being. If the Baha'i founder is to be understood similarly, a special divinely connected being who has been born human he to would have all the natural limitations of knowledge

What appears interesting is the idea that the manifestation of God supplied humans with the key inspirations to move people into a better life. The invitation to respect other religious traditions could be one part of that. It does not need to know all the historical data of the past. The rough outlines found in historical tradition is adequate.

Actually, that's my point, Baha'u'llah doesn't seem to have "all" knowledge. But, Baha'is see him a the divine physician that knows exactly what the world needs. And I think the world needed more information to decide if he is the return of every promised one of every major religion. Like with the Book of Revelation, his son only goes in depth on two chapters. I've asked Baha'is who the "Lamb" is in Revelation and they have to guess. There should be no guessing. The Lamb is the one that returns. The Lamb has to be Jesus... or, if Baha'u'llah is truly the return of Christ, then he has to be the Lamb. Instead, Baha'u'llah is said to be the third Woe. And in context, I don't see how the Three Woes can be thought to be Muhammad, The Bab, and Baha'u'llah.

 

[firedragon]

The Baha'i Faith has some very important teachings. They all sound very plausible and true. Their claims of "progressive" revelation makes so much sense... until I looked closer. Does the Baha'i Faith and their prophets The Bab and Baha'u'llah hold up to scrutiny? For me, there are some problems in some of the details of their claims and beliefs. You seem to be finding some of your own. Are they enough to go beyond just questioning, and maybe even, rejecting the Baha'i Faith? Or, is there a way to accept them as a legitimate new religion, but maybe just not for you?

This thread is not about the legitimacy of the Bahai faith, acceptance, rejection or neutral stances. This is in fact nothing about the faith. I wish to ask specific questions and that's not about the faith, its about things I find in their text.

 

[firedragon]

The audience that the Bab said to them, Here is a Book like Quran, were the 19th century Muslims in Persia who gave special importance to Arabic. To them it was miracle if someone wrote in the style of the Quran.

It is not written in the style of the Qur'an. You can repeat it a million times but it will not become true. You are saying this because someone told you this and you have believed it naively.

You keep saying "style". What is this style you keep talking about? Just because its in one language is it "the style"? Well, I can tell you that you are absolutely wrong.

Or is it that the Bab has included chapter names that are similar to the Qur'an? Tell me, is that a reason to call it the "same style"?

 

[firedragon]

Why do you think God cannot repeat exactly what He said before, or partially repeat what He said before?
It seems to me, you start as if, you know certainly the truth is, that the Book of the Bab is not from God, then you say, why He has copied it from the Quran. Eventhough there are just in some cases, the verses have same expressions as the Quran.
Why don't you start from a position that you don't know if His Book is from God or not (neutral position)
I mean, to me, you look so biased. On one hand, if His Book have similar expression and rythm as the Quran, you are saying He has copied it, and if you don't see the similarity, you are saying it is not like the Quran.

Nope. Wrong.

I start with the book as a book and examine your claims. This is a topic you brought in as an attempt to answer my question in the OP. I have respect for you and some other Bahai's as well otherwise Im telling you sis I would not respond to you.

I examine the book and examine your claims about it. That does not mean I am beginning thinking anything. Thats a loading you have done based on your own premises. You begin with the belief, thus you expect others to do the same? Or do you think everyone who ever has a question has an agenda?

Also you just made up a lie. You know why I am telling you its a lie? Its because I told you that the Bab has quoted verbatim from the Quran, not similar expression and rhythm. Its verbatim. And the issue with that is the parts quoted are direct quotations bab did intentionally while you guys are misrepresenting the Baby as well by saying he was requiting it, not quoting it.

The rhythmic style ends within a chapter and conflicts with the Quranic quotes. The divide is simply evident. It just seems like you have not explored it. I am sorry I read your book, and that happened it was you who gave the book.. I never read it before that.

You can say I am bias, and I can say you are bias. Have you ever taken a neutral position and studied the book as you are asking me to? Tell me, where did the Bab get the Surah names? Can you explain if you have studied this book?

 

[firedragon]

@adrian009 @InvestigateTruth

Out of super curiosity, something I have never clarified from you is "what do you position the Quran as"?

1. Is it inerrant God's word?
2. Is it the musings of a prophet, purely prophetic interpretation alone?

If I missed other options please define. I need to understand this. How does the Bahai faith place the Qur'an?