Shi'a Muslim and Bahai Only: In What Type of Return (Rajat) of Prophets and Imams do you believe?

[mojtaba]

Dear Mojtaba,

The Qaim according to Hadithes was hidden anyways, so even if His name was completely known, how could have they been able to possibly find Him?

There are also, many verses in Quran, that alludes to Qaim, but never the verses mentions explicitly about Qaim. Why is that so?

Ask from security troops who do not use their original names for calling each other.
When a person will destroy all the tyrany on the world and so, all tyrants were going to kill him before his occultation, for calling such person it is not rational to use his original name.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

There are Many Hadithes that the Name of the 12th Imam is Muhammad. This name was anounced explicitly and clearly. These are but few such Hadithes:

Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.) said:
“The Virtuous successor (Khalafus Salih) is from my progeny. He is the Mahdi and his name is Muhammad. His patronymic is Abul Qasim. He will rise in the last period of time. His mother is called Saiqal.



Abu Ja’far said: “The Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) said: ‘He is a man from me. His name is like mine.


Said Amirul Momineen (a.s.) on the pulpit, “A man shall come from my progeny in the latter days; he will be white with a touch of red, of a broad abdomen, with legs of ample width, and of high shoulders. On his back are two signs, one sign of the color of his skin and another like the sign of the Messenger (a.s.). He has two names. One name will be hidden and the other, proclaimed. The one that will be hidden is Ahmad and the one that will be announced is Muhammad.

The question is about the following Hadith:

Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.) that he said:
“When three names, Muhammad, Ali, and Hasan come in consecution, their fourth one is the Qaim (a.s.).”


If this Hadith is making allusion to Name Muhammad, we know from other Hadithes that, name 'Muhammad' was clearly anounced, what the need is to make an allusion?

 

[spirit_of_dawn]

There are Many Hadithes that the Name of the 12th Imam is Muhammad. This name was anounced explicitly and clearly. These are but few such Hadithes:

Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.) said:
“The Virtuous successor (Khalafus Salih) is from my progeny. He is the Mahdi and his name is Muhammad. His patronymic is Abul Qasim. He will rise in the last period of time. His mother is called Saiqal.



Abu Ja’far said: “The Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) said: ‘He is a man from me. His name is like mine.


Said Amirul Momineen (a.s.) on the pulpit, “A man shall come from my progeny in the latter days; he will be white with a touch of red, of a broad abdomen, with legs of ample width, and of high shoulders. On his back are two signs, one sign of the color of his skin and another like the sign of the Messenger (a.s.). He has two names. One name will be hidden and the other, proclaimed. The one that will be hidden is Ahmad and the one that will be announced is Muhammad.

The question is about the following Hadith:

Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.) that he said:
“When three names, Muhammad, Ali, and Hasan come in consecution, their fourth one is the Qaim (a.s.).”


If this Hadith is making allusion to Name Muhammad, we know from other Hadithes that, name 'Muhammad' was clearly anounced, what the need is to make an allusion?

There is no allusion. What exactly is your problem? Do you have a problem when someone refers to another, using their name and another time using his attribute/title/epithet?

Do you think we should run around asking questions about why Baha'u'llah is sometimes referred to as Husayn Ali Nuri/Jamal-i Mubarak/Jamal Qidam. Or why the Bab is referred to as Mirza Ali Muhammad Shirazi or "Ali Ghabl al-Nabil". You're clearly not here to ask polite questions. Ultimately you have an axe to grind and you're here with an agenda.

Have a nice day

 

[Shiranui117]

***MOD POST***

Thread moved to Same Faith Debates.​

 

[InvestigateTruth]

mojtaba wrote:


Ibrahim ibn Idris has narrated:
Imam Hasan Askari(peace be upon him) sent to me a sheep and said to me:'Slaughter this sheep because of (the birth of) my so-and-so son, and eat its meat, you and your household '. So I did it and after that I saw the Imam and he said to me:'The son of mine that was born, died.' After that, he(i.e., Imam Hasan Askari) sent to me two sheep and also a letter on which has been written:' In the name of Allah, the Beneficent the Merciful; Slaughter these sheep because of (the birth of) your Master, and eat them you and your brothers in religion.' So I did it and after that I saw Imam, But he didn't say to me anything."(i.e., his Master, Imam Mahdi, Son of Imam Hasan Askari had not dye).

According to the Hadith, Allah gave to Imam Hasan Askari two boys. The first of them died and the other didn't.
This part of the Hadith, 'The son of mine that was born, died' is about the first son, not for the second one(i.e., Imam Mahdi).





My Reply:

No! The Hadith does not say, Imam Hasan Askari had Two Boys. You have added your comments to the Hadith to make it say what you like!
If you don't add anything to the Hadith, it is obviously saying, the Son of Imam died!

 

[spirit_of_dawn]

Dear investigatetruth,

Apparently denying the truth and obvious meaning of the Shia traditions runs in the family. We have shown how Baha'u'llah distorted and forged hadiths and we have seen you doing the same here many times. Ironically Bahai scholars do it too.

Here is one sample about Baha'i scholar Moojan Momen in his book “An Introduction to Shiʻi Islam.” Moojan Momen mentions a Shia narration on p. 167 of his book about the year that the Mahdi (who Baha’is believe was the Bab) will appear. According to Moojan Momen the narration states that “He will NOT COME in an odd year” This means that the Mahdi will come in an even year. This prophecy conforms with the Bab who made his claims in the Islamic year 1260 AH.

Funny thing is, when we refer to the source he gives we see that the narration states the exact opposite of how it has been cited by Moojan Momen and clearly states the Mahdi “will COME in an odd year.” This is the original Arabic text of the narration:

" لا يخرج القائم ع إلا في وتر من السنين سنة إحدى أو ثلاث أو خمس أو سبع أو تسع"

Which says:

“The Mahdi will not come but in an odd year [that ends with a] 1, 3, 5, 7, or 9.”

Seriously, what is the problem with you people?

have a nice day

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Dear investigatetruth,

Apparently denying the truth and obvious meaning of the Shia traditions runs in the family. We have shown how Baha'u'llah distorted and forged hadiths and we have seen you doing the same here many times. Ironically Bahai scholars do it too.

Here is one sample about Baha'i scholar Moojan Momen in his book “An Introduction to Shiʻi Islam.” Moojan Momen mentions a Shia narration on p. 167 of his book about the year that the Mahdi (who Baha’is believe was the Bab) will appear. According to Moojan Momen the narration states that “He will NOT COME in an odd year” This means that the Mahdi will come in an even year. This prophecy conforms with the Bab who made his claims in the Islamic year 1260 AH.

Funny thing is, when we refer to the source he gives we see that the narration states the exact opposite of how it has been cited by Moojan Momen and clearly states the Mahdi “will COME in an odd year.” This is the original Arabic text of the narration:

" لا يخرج القائم ع إلا في وتر من السنين سنة إحدى أو ثلاث أو خمس أو سبع أو تسع"

Which says:

“The Mahdi will not come but in an odd year [that ends with a] 1, 3, 5, 7, or 9.”

Seriously, what is the problem with you people?

have a nice day

Dear Friend,

It seems to me, the Baha'I scholar made a mistake.
Notice that, Baha'I scholars are not considered infallible, and do not express an official view of Baha'I Faith.

As regarding to the Hadith, that Qaim appears in and odd year, I tend to agree with your translation.

Notice that in Baha'I view, both the Bab and Baha'u'llah are Qaim.
Baha'u'llah received His revelation in year 69, which is an odd year.

This can also be shown from Shia Traditions.

According to Shia Traditions Qaim after a long time appears, then He is concealed again, and then He rises again.
So, the Bab appeared after a 1000 years, then in the 7th year of His revelation He was martyrd, then Baha'u'llah was raised in year 69.
Then Baha'u'llah ruled for 40 years.

Notice that according to Shia traditions, Mahdi rules for 7 years, then Christ rules for 40 years.

Also, it might be of interest that according to Shia Hadith of Muffazal, 'Kingdom' and 'rulling' of Qaim is Imamat and Messengership. It is not a Worldly Kingdom.

Another thing that might be of interest, is that the Term Qaim, and Christ, and Messiah, are applicable to all Imams and Messengers of God, as much as they are all Raised (Qaim) for the cause of God. You can find what I just said in Shia Traditions if you search for it.

 

[spirit_of_dawn]

Dear Friend,

It seems to me, the Baha'I scholar made a mistake.
Notice that, Baha'I scholars are not considered infallible, and do not express an official view of Baha'I Faith.

As regarding to the Hadith, that Qaim appears in and odd year, I tend to agree with your translation.

Notice that in Baha'I view, both the Bab and Baha'u'llah are Qaim.
Baha'u'llah received His revelation in year 69, which is an odd year.

This can also be shown from Shia Traditions.

According to Shia Traditions Qaim after a long time appears, then He is concealed again, and then He rises again.
So, the Bab appeared after a 1000 years, then in the 7th year of His revelation He was martyrd, then Baha'u'llah was raised in year 69.
Then Baha'u'llah ruled for 40 years.

Notice that according to Shia traditions, Mahdi rules for 7 years, then Christ rules for 40 years.

Also, it might be of interest that according to Shia Hadith of Muffazal, 'Kingdom' and 'rulling' of Qaim is Imamat and Messengership. It is not a Worldly Kingdom.

Another thing that might be of interest, is that the Term Qaim, and Christ, and Messiah, are applicable to all Imams and Messengers of God, as much as they are all Raised (Qaim) for the cause of God. You can find what I just said in Shia Traditions if you search for it.

Baha'i scholars are not infallible but Baha'u'llah is and he forged and distorted a number of Shia traditions in the kitab-i Iqan. Thus following his example, that is what Baha'i scholars do: forging and distorting Shia traditions and concepts in a vain attempt to make it look like Baha'ism has legitimacy. Ironically you are following suit by making up traditions and for example claiming according to Shia traditions Jesus will rule for 40 years! I'll just ignore the rest of the statements you threw in there claiming that they are Shia traditions...

BTW, you can take me for a fool, but neither Baha'u'llah nor the Bab ruled for a single day, let alone 7 or 40 years. Apparently, in the Baha'i glossary, 'rule' means being 'banished or imprisoned'.

Have a nice day and please continue distorting, making up, and misinterpreting Shia traditions. It just shows that Baha'ism holds no water.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Spirit-of-down wrote:

"BTW, you can take me for a fool, but neither Baha'u'llah nor the Bab ruled for a single day, let alone 7 or 40 years. Apparently, in the Baha'i glossary, 'rule' means being 'banished or imprisoned'."


My reply:

I have already quoted a Hadith from Shia sources, in OP that Imam Sadiq said, the kingdom was with Him and other Imams. Now think about, all these Imams were killed and suffered martyrdom. It becomes obvious, by kingdom cannot worldly kingdom be intended.

Moreover according to a very strong Shia Hadithes the Qaim would be imprisoned (Hadith is repeated several times in Bihar)

Abu Basir that he said:
"I heard Abu Ja’far (a.s.) say, “There are four traditions in the Master of this Affair from four apostles: a tradition from Musa, a tradition from Isa, a tradition from Yusuf and a tradition from Muhammad, bliss be for them all. The tradition from Musa is that he is fearful and vigilant; the tradition from Yusuf is the prison; the tradition from Isa is that it is said that he is dead, while he has not died; and the tradition from Muhammad (a.s.) is the sword."


Here are other Shia hadithes that proves, the kingdom of Imams and Prophets are not Worldly:

It is Recorded in Shia Traditions (Bihar or Al-kafi):


"The holy Prophet has said, Al-Fuqaha, the scholars of the Fiqh, Islamic laws are the trustees of the prophets until they are not involved in the worldly matters." People asked, "What is their ‘entering in the worldly matters, O the holy Prophet of Allah?" "Their following the kings is entering in the worldly matters. When they follow the kings then you must be very careful in involving them in your religion." Replied the holy Prophet (s.a.)


In another tradition recorded in Bihar it is said regarding the interpretation of this verse:


“…when He raised prophets among you and made you kings…” (Surah Maidah 5:2)

And the Imam (a.s.) said: Prophets means the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.), Prophet Ibrahim and Prophet Ismail and his descendants; and kings imply the Holy Imams (a.s.).
The narrator says: I asked: But what kingdom do you possess?


He replied: Rulership of Paradise and kingdom of the period of Rajat.”

 

[InvestigateTruth]

And finally I quote Baha'u'llah on this Topic:


"Know, therefore, O questioning seeker, that earthly sovereignty is of no worth, nor will it ever be, in the eyes of God and His chosen Ones. Moreover, if ascendancy and dominion be interpreted to mean earthly supremacy and temporal power, how impossible will it be for thee to explain these verses: “And verily Our host shall conquer.” “Fain would they put out God’s light with their mouths: But God hath willed to perfect His light, albeit the infidels abhor it.” “He is the Dominant, above all things.” Similarly, most of the Qur’án testifieth to this truth.
Were the idle contention of these foolish and despicable souls to be true, they would have none other alternative than to reject all these holy utterances and heavenly allusions. For no warrior could be found on earth more excellent and nearer to God than Ḥusayn, son of ‘Alí, so peerless and incomparable was he. “There was none to equal or to match him in the world.” Yet, thou must have heard what befell him. “God’s malison on the head of the people of tyranny!”
Were the verse “And verily Our host shall conquer” to be literally interpreted, it is evident that it would in no wise be applicable to the chosen Ones of God and His hosts, inasmuch as Ḥusayn, whose heroism was manifest as the sun, crushed and subjugated, quaffed at last the cup of martyrdom in Karbilá, the land of Ṭaff. Similarly, the sacred verse “Fain would they put out God’s light with their mouths: But God hath willed to perfect His light, albeit the infidels abhor it.” Were it to be literally interpreted it would never correspond with the truth. For in every age the light of God hath, to outward seeming, been quenched by the peoples of the earth, and the Lamps of God extinguished by them. How then could the ascendancy of the sovereignty of these Lamps be explained? What could the potency of God’s will to “perfect His light” signify? As hath already been witnessed, so great was the enmity of the infidels, that none of these divine Luminaries ever found a place for shelter, or tasted of the cup of tranquillity. So heavily were they oppressed, that the least of men inflicted upon these Essences of being whatsoever he listed. These sufferings have been observed and measured by the people. How, therefore, can such people be capable of understanding and expounding these words of God, these verses of everlasting glory?
But the purpose of these verses is not what they have imagined...." - Baha'u'llah, Book of Iqan



As far as I am concerned, the point is made.

 

[spirit_of_dawn]

Spirit-of-down wrote:

"BTW, you can take me for a fool, but neither Baha'u'llah nor the Bab ruled for a single day, let alone 7 or 40 years. Apparently, in the Baha'i glossary, 'rule' means being 'banished or imprisoned'."


My reply:

I have already quoted a Hadith from Shia sources, in OP that Imam Sadiq said, the kingdom was with Him and other Imams. Now think about, all these Imams were killed and suffered martyrdom. It becomes obvious, by kingdom cannot worldly kingdom be intended.

Moreover according to a very strong Shia Hadithes the Qaim would be imprisoned (Hadith is repeated several times in Bihar)

Abu Basir that he said:
"I heard Abu Ja’far (a.s.) say, “There are four traditions in the Master of this Affair from four apostles: a tradition from Musa, a tradition from Isa, a tradition from Yusuf and a tradition from Muhammad, bliss be for them all. The tradition from Musa is that he is fearful and vigilant; the tradition from Yusuf is the prison; the tradition from Isa is that it is said that he is dead, while he has not died; and the tradition from Muhammad (a.s.) is the sword."


Here are other Shia hadithes that proves, the kingdom of Imams and Prophets are not Worldly:

It is Recorded in Shia Traditions (Bihar or Al-kafi):


"The holy Prophet has said, Al-Fuqaha, the scholars of the Fiqh, Islamic laws are the trustees of the prophets until they are not involved in the worldly matters." People asked, "What is their ‘entering in the worldly matters, O the holy Prophet of Allah?" "Their following the kings is entering in the worldly matters. When they follow the kings then you must be very careful in involving them in your religion." Replied the holy Prophet (s.a.)


In another tradition recorded in Bihar it is said regarding the interpretation of this verse:


“…when He raised prophets among you and made you kings…” (Surah Maidah 5:2)

And the Imam (a.s.) said: Prophets means the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.), Prophet Ibrahim and Prophet Ismail and his descendants; and kings imply the Holy Imams (a.s.).
The narrator says: I asked: But what kingdom do you possess?


He replied: Rulership of Paradise and kingdom of the period of Rajat.”

I'm sorry but there are more than enough hadiths that explicitly state the kingdom of Imam Mahdi is worldly and Mojtaba already showed them, not to mention that they also possess spiritual rulership as well. Apparently you can't understand this becasue you think a person can't have two forms of rulership at the same time.

Anyways, back to topic. More scientific blunders from Baha'u'llah who had no clue about history. Baha'u'llah claims:

“Empedocles, who distinguished himself in philosophy, was a contemporary of David, while Pythagoras lived in the days of Solomon, son of David, and acquired Wisdom from the treasury of prophethood. It is he who claimed to have heard the whispering sound of the heavens and to have attained the station of the angels. In truth thy Lord will clearly set forth all things, if He pleaseth. Verily, He is the Wise, the All-Pervading,” Baha’u’llah, Tablets of Baha’u’llah Revealed After the Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 145.​

Unfortunately for Baha'is and Baha'u'llah, Empedocles lived between 490–440 BC whilst David lived between 1040–970 BC. There are about 500 years of difference between these dates. Pythagoras lived between 570–495 BC whilst Solomon lived between 970–931 BC. The difference between these two is also about 500 years. None of these people were contemporary a Baha'u'llah claims.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I'm sorry but there are more than enough hadiths that explicitly state the kingdom of Imam Mahdi is worldly and Mojtaba already showed them, not to mention that they also possess spiritual rulership as well. Apparently you can't understand this becasue you think a person can't have two forms of rulership at the same time.

Anyways, back to topic. More scientific blunders from Baha'u'llah who had no clue about history. Baha'u'llah claims:

“Empedocles, who distinguished himself in philosophy, was a contemporary of David, while Pythagoras lived in the days of Solomon, son of David, and acquired Wisdom from the treasury of prophethood. It is he who claimed to have heard the whispering sound of the heavens and to have attained the station of the angels. In truth thy Lord will clearly set forth all things, if He pleaseth. Verily, He is the Wise, the All-Pervading,” Baha’u’llah, Tablets of Baha’u’llah Revealed After the Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 145.​

Unfortunately for Baha'is and Baha'u'llah, Empedocles lived between 490–440 BC whilst David lived between 1040–970 BC. There are about 500 years of difference between these dates. Pythagoras lived between 570–495 BC whilst Solomon lived between 970–931 BC. The difference between these two is also about 500 years. None of these people were contemporary a Baha'u'llah claims.

The western and eastern historians disagree about those dates. Baha'u'llah confirms the eastern Historians dates. What you refer to is the western historian opinion. Do you investigate the truth, or you just trust immediately what those Anti-Baha'i websites say?

 

[spirit_of_dawn]

The western and eastern historians disagree about those dates. Baha'u'llah confirms the eastern Historians dates. What you refer to is the western historian opinion. Do you investigate the truth, or you just trust immediately what those Anti-Baha'i websites say?

According to established science Baha'u'llah made a grave mistake here and the eastern historians were wrong, very wrong. Funny thing is he didn't even bother changing the wordings of the statements and he simply copy-pasted those statements from some history book (verbatim) then falsely claimed that these words were revealed to him. This is an all time low for the Baha'i God. Oh, BTW, again and as usual, anti-Baha'i websites have rightly pointed to another Baha'i blunder. Labeling those websites as "anti-Baha'i" serves no purpose but to play the victim because you cannot address the criticism and are looking for a escape goat to divert attention from the sad fact that Baha'u'llah was far far far from infallible.

Have a nice day

 

[InvestigateTruth]

According to established science Baha'u'llah made a grave mistake here and the eastern historians were wrong, very wrong. Funny thing is he didn't even bother changing the wordings of the statements and he simply copy-pasted those statements from some history book (verbatim) then falsely claimed that these words were revealed to him. This is an all time low for the Baha'i God. Oh, BTW, again and as usual, anti-Baha'i websites have rightly pointed to another Baha'i blunder. Labeling those websites as "anti-Baha'i" serves no purpose but to play the victim because you cannot address the criticism and are looking for a escape goat to divert attention from the sad fact that Baha'u'llah was far far far from infallible.

Have a nice day

1. But dear friend, when you say, the western historians were right, and eastern historians were wrong, you need to prove this. Otherwise you did not make your point.

2. When you say, Baha'u'llah copied from the writings of historians, you need to prove that Baha'u'llah possessed that history Book and were copying from it. Baha'u'llah in the same Tablet wrote, His knowledge is beyond the world, and He knows all that has been said or occured among people. In this case Baha'u'llah knew what the historians correctly had said, so, He confirmed them. Moreover, many expressions and verses of Quran were also, the things that were current among people of that time. For example, Punishment of Theif, which Allah said is cutting hands, according to History was practiced before time of Muhammad. According to your logic, Muhammad had copied such laws from others. God foorbidden! How did you believe in Quran as a Shia?


Have a nice day

 

[spirit_of_dawn]

1. But dear friend, when you say, the western historians were right, and eastern historians were wrong, you need to prove this. Otherwise you did not make your point.

2. When you say, Baha'u'llah copied from the writings of historians, you need to prove that Baha'u'llah possessed that history Book and were copying from it. Baha'u'llah in the same Tablet wrote, His knowledge is beyond the world, and He knows all that has been said or occured among people. In this case Baha'u'llah knew what the historians correctly had said, so, He confirmed them. Moreover, many expressions and verses of Quran were also, the things that were current among people of that time. For example, Punishment of Theif, which Allah said is cutting hands, according to History was practiced before time of Muhammad. According to your logic, Muhammad had copied such laws from others. God foorbidden! How did you believe in Quran as a Shia?


Have a nice day

Obviously you don't have enough knowledge about your own beliefs. Even Shoghi knew that this statement was wrong and tried to justify it by claiming that the translation needs to be modified:

We must not take this statement too literally; "contemporary" may have been meant in Persian as something far more elastic than the English word. Likewise, the whole translation probably needs revising(15 February 1947).​

Funny thing is: a- the translation is flawless, and b- Shoghi made a grievous mistake by stating that the original tablet was revealed in Persian, whilst it was revealed in Arabic. The more you debate the more your false beliefs will be exposed.

Have fun

 

[InvestigateTruth]

[QUOE="spirit_of_dawn, post: 4669944, member: 53606"]Obviously you don't have enough knowledge about your own beliefs. Even Shoghi knew that this statement was wrong and tried to justify it by claiming that the translation needs to be modified:

We must not take this statement too literally; "contemporary" may have been meant in Persian as something far more elastic than the English word. Likewise, the whole translation probably needs revising(15 February 1947).​

Funny thing is: a- the translation is flawless, and b- Shoghi made a grievous mistake by stating that the original tablet was revealed in Persian, whilst it was revealed in Arabic. The more you debate the more your false beliefs will be exposed.

Have fun[/QUOTE]

As regards to your comment that the translation is not flawless.
My reply is, it is not a correct translation. The Arabic word used is "zaman" which can mean, In the Time, in the Age or in the period of time.

As regards to, the statement of Shoghi Effendi, that the word "contemporary" in persian can be understood differently. My comment is, the statement of Shoghi Effendi, does not mean that the Tablet was revealed in Persian. But His statement is related to the fact that the Person who the Tablet was revealed for, was Persian. So, the way Persians may understand that Terminalogy is not exactly the way it is understood in English.


From Letters Written on Behalf of the Universal House of Justice

It is noteworthy that at both the beginning and end of this section of the Tablet, Bahá'u'lláh indicates that He is quoting "some accounts of the sages". These would have been the historical accounts familiar to the person whom He is addressing in the Tablet. The fact that Bahá'u'lláh makes such statements for the sake of illustrating the spiritual principles that He wishes to convey, does not necessarily mean that He is endorsing their historical accuracy. In this connection it is interesting to note the answer given by the beloved Guardian's secretary on his behalf to a question about the "fourth heaven" mentioned in the Kitáb-i-Íqán [B.Z. - see pp. 89, 133]. The translation of the passage is as follows:

As to the ascent of Christ to the "fourth heaven" as revealed in the glorious Book of Íqán, he [the Guardian] stated that the "fourth heaven" is a term used and a belief held by the early astronomers. The followers of the Shi'ah sect likewise held this belief. As the Kitáb-i-Íqán was revealed for the guidance of that sect, this term was used in conformity with the concepts of its followers.

(3 November 1987, written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer) [16]




You are aware that Shoghi Effendi wrote many Prayers in Arabic. How would it be reasonable to think, He was unable to recognize Persian from Arabic.

I hope this was a help my friend.
Have a good Night

 

[spirit_of_dawn]

[QUOE="spirit_of_dawn, post: 4669944, member: 53606"]Obviously you don't have enough knowledge about your own beliefs. Even Shoghi knew that this statement was wrong and tried to justify it by claiming that the translation needs to be modified:

We must not take this statement too literally; "contemporary" may have been meant in Persian as something far more elastic than the English word. Likewise, the whole translation probably needs revising(15 February 1947).​

Funny thing is: a- the translation is flawless, and b- Shoghi made a grievous mistake by stating that the original tablet was revealed in Persian, whilst it was revealed in Arabic. The more you debate the more your false beliefs will be exposed.

Have fun

As regards to your comment that the translation is not flawless.
My reply is, it is not a correct translation. The Arabic word used is "zaman" which can mean, In the Time, in the Age or in the period of time.

As regards to, the statement of Shoghi Effendi, that the word "contemporary" in persian can be understood differently. My comment is, the statement of Shoghi Effendi, does not mean that the Tablet was revealed in Persian. But His statement is related to the fact that the Person who the Tablet was revealed for, was Persian. So, the way Persians may understand that Terminalogy is not exactly the way it is understood in English.


From Letters Written on Behalf of the Universal House of Justice

It is noteworthy that at both the beginning and end of this section of the Tablet, Bahá'u'lláh indicates that He is quoting "some accounts of the sages". These would have been the historical accounts familiar to the person whom He is addressing in the Tablet. The fact that Bahá'u'lláh makes such statements for the sake of illustrating the spiritual principles that He wishes to convey, does not necessarily mean that He is endorsing their historical accuracy. In this connection it is interesting to note the answer given by the beloved Guardian's secretary on his behalf to a question about the "fourth heaven" mentioned in the Kitáb-i-Íqán [B.Z. - see pp. 89, 133]. The translation of the passage is as follows:

As to the ascent of Christ to the "fourth heaven" as revealed in the glorious Book of Íqán, he [the Guardian] stated that the "fourth heaven" is a term used and a belief held by the early astronomers. The followers of the Shi'ah sect likewise held this belief. As the Kitáb-i-Íqán was revealed for the guidance of that sect, this term was used in conformity with the concepts of its followers.

(3 November 1987, written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer) [16]




You are aware that Shoghi Effendi wrote many Prayers in Arabic. How would it be reasonable to think, He was unable to recognize Persian from Arabic.

I hope this was a help my friend.
Have a good Night[/QUOTE]

Sorry for you but the translation is correct, any person that understands Arabic can see that. Furthermore, Shoghi the infallible made an obvious mistake regarding the word contemporary and the language of the tablet. That is self evident and no matter how you try you will not be able to justify this. And please don't make absurd claims: No sane person would write an Arabic tablet then expect the person the tablet is addressed to, to read a specific word in Farsi. And BTW the UHJ letter regarding historical accuracy is so funny. Do you know why? Because this is how the Tablet was revealed: "This is an Epistle which the All-Merciful hath sent down from the Kingdom of Utterance." Apparently, God sends down purely wrong and bogus historical facts from the Kingdom of utterance...

This is what happens when someone claims he has knowledge of all things but in reality he doesn't and copy-pastes stuff from historical books then claims they are revelations from God... Investigate the truth instead of blindly following what Baha'i leaders tell you...

Have a nice day

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Apparently, God sends down purely wrong and bogus historical facts from the Kingdom of utterance...

But to be fair, there is no proof that the eastern Historians were wrong. Then how can you say, God sent down wrong historical fact?

Moreover Shoghi Effendi, stated, we should not take it too literally. That does not mean, it is wrong. It would be wrong if we take it too literal. There are many instances in Quran, that it should not be taken too literal. Among them, are the verses that describe the stages of embryonic developement. It says, first the Bones are generated, then the flash. If we take this too literally, it would be scientifically wrong. But, God forbidden, does it mean Allah sends down wrong verses? No! Allah, and His Prophets spoke up to the level of people's understandings:

It is recorded in Al-kafi:

H 15, Ch. 1, h 15
A group of our people has narrted from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Isa from al-Hassan ibn Ali ibn Faddal from certain persons of our people from abu ‘Abdallah who has said the following.
"The holy Prophet never spoke to people from the height and with the full power of his intelligence. The holy Prophet (s.a.) has said, "We the community of the Prophets are commanded to speak to people up to the level of their intelligence and understanding."


If you believe, God always sends down literal verses, then how did you believe in Quran, as a Shia?

Have a Good night my friend.

 

[spirit_of_dawn]

Shoghi clearly realized that Baha'u'llah's statements were wrong and tried to justify them by attacking the translation, but that didn't solve the issue and made it even worse. Yet, here we have a Baha'i boy claiming the contrary. I'm sorry but I can't argue with someone who doesn't even accept the words of his own so called infallible leaders.

Have fun

 

[loverofhumanity]

Dear investigatetruth,

Apparently denying the truth and obvious meaning of the Shia traditions runs in the family. We have shown how Baha'u'llah distorted and forged hadiths and we have seen you doing the same here many times. Ironically Bahai scholars do it too.

Here is one sample about Baha'i scholar Moojan Momen in his book “An Introduction to Shiʻi Islam.” Moojan Momen mentions a Shia narration on p. 167 of his book about the year that the Mahdi (who Baha’is believe was the Bab) will appear. According to Moojan Momen the narration states that “He will NOT COME in an odd year” This means that the Mahdi will come in an even year. This prophecy conforms with the Bab who made his claims in the Islamic year 1260 AH.

Funny thing is, when we refer to the source he gives we see that the narration states the exact opposite of how it has been cited by Moojan Momen and clearly states the Mahdi “will COME in an odd year.” This is the original Arabic text of the narration:

" لا يخرج القائم ع إلا في وتر من السنين سنة إحدى أو ثلاث أو خمس أو سبع أو تسع"

Which says:

“The Mahdi will not come but in an odd year [that ends with a] 1, 3, 5, 7, or 9.”

Seriously, what is the problem with you people?

have a nice day

They are liars. I did some investigating and look what I came up with.

You mean THIS SOURCE don't you?????

The Year in whiCh The Qā’im will arise.
As for the exact year and day on which the one who will rise (al-qā’im), peace be on him and his fathers, rises, there have been handed down reports concerning that on the authority of truthful men.
[Al-Ḥasan b. Maḥbūb reported on the authority of ‘Alī b. Abī Ḥama, on the authonty of Abū Baṣīr, on the authority of Abū ‘Abd Allāh (Ja‘far al-Ṣādiq), peace be on him:]
(Ja‘far al-Ṣādiq) said: “The one who will rise (al-qā’im) will not come forth in an odd year: one, three, five seven or nine.”

PAGE 517

This is an original source NOT a Baha'i Book actually nothing to do with Baha'i.

It took me a while to track down their LIE amidst other LIES but eventually found this and Momen's claim is LEGITMATE AND TRUTH and the other rubbish read on a site which spreads rubbish is fully contradicted in this Book which clearly says NOT in an odd year.

We don't have to resort to,lies like other websites do. We can show our legitimacy without having to stoop that low. Yet they try to prove we are wrong by spreading lies.

And this translation supports the views of the Baha'is so to say Momen lied when you can go read this for yourself is an INJUSTICE. This book confirms the Baha'i claim and Momen's book as accurate. No Baha'i is changing anything here. The book itself says not in an odd year so please enough of false accusations for quoting what is in the original. Momen only quoted from an authoritative translation.