Was Bahaullah a "Bahai", please?

[loverofhumanity]

One should have known what Persian/Arabic words Bahaullah used. Kindly ascertain it and then and let us know, please.
Bahaullah should have used the words messenger/prophet (rasul/nabiyy), the most commonly understood words, yet he did not do it and coined other words. Right, please?
Perhaps he had no message from God or he had no revelation from G-d, so he could not truly use these words of himself. Right, please?

Regards

Thank you for asking brother. You ask some good questions and I enjoy reading you posts and trying to answer your often challenging questions. I have learned a lot from you. .

Each Holy Book has its own style. The Bible is very different in style to the Quran but both are the Word of God. Likewise Baha’u’llah has His own style which us unique to Him but never the less it is still the Word of God.

 

[paarsurrey]

Baha’u’llah is not God.

Certain ones among you,” He declared, “have said: ‘He it is Who hath laid claim to be God.’ By God! This is a gross calumny. I am but a servant of God Who hath believed in Him and in His signs…(Baha’u’llah)

This could be one's personal view/belief, one must have made this view because of ambiguous writings* of Bahaullah, and he was a master/clever of ambiguity. Himself believing in nothing of his many ambiguous claims Bahaullah made others to believe them.

In the above quote the words "He" and "Who" have been capitalized for giving Bahaullah a special (supernatural )status (by the translator, maybe, Shoghi Effendi) above a normal human being. Not even a Pauline-Pagan-Christian would have created such ambiguity in normal writing about Jesus.

Regards
_________
I quote here a post #110 InvestigateTruth, Sep 29, 2018 of one Bahai friend here:
↑
"@InvestigateTruth I disagree with saying that Baha'is make no distinction between God, and Baha'u'llah. I know some Baha'is who do, and some who don't."

InvestigateTruth said:

I didn't mean any one who has a Bahai membership. I meant a perfect Baha'i, like Abdulbaha would not make any distinction between Bahaullah and God. Do you think Abdulbaha made any distinction between God and Bahaullah? Did not Abdulbaha believe who ever has seen Bahaullah, has seen God?

________________
Bahaullah - Prophet or God?
Bahaullah - Prophet or God? The Bahai Awareness Homepage

 

[loverofhumanity]

This could be one's personal view/belief, one must have made this view because of ambiguous writings* of Bahaullah, and he was a master/clever of ambiguity. Himself believing in nothing of his many ambiguous claims Bahaullah made others to believe them.

In the above quote the words "He" and "Who" have been capitalized for giving Bahaullah a special (supernatural )status (by the translator, maybe, Shoghi Effendi) above a normal human being. Not even a Pauline-Pagan-Christian would have created such ambiguity in normal writing about Jesus.

Regards
_________
I quote here a post #110 InvestigateTruth, Sep 29, 2018 of one Bahai friend here:
↑
"@InvestigateTruth I disagree with saying that Baha'is make no distinction between God, and Baha'u'llah. I know some Baha'is who do, and some who don't."

InvestigateTruth said:

I didn't mean any one who has a Bahai membership. I meant a perfect Baha'i, like Abdulbaha would not make any distinction between Bahaullah and God. Do you think Abdulbaha made any distinction between God and Bahaullah? Did not Abdulbaha believe who ever has seen Bahaullah, has seen God?

________________
Bahaullah - Prophet or God?
Bahaullah - Prophet or God? The Bahai Awareness Homepage

Abdul Baha always knew Baha’u’llah WAS NOT God and that is clear to all Baha’is.

 

[shunyadragon]

Abdul Baha always knew Baha’u’llah was God and that is clear to all Baha’is.

' . . . was God?!?!?

' . . . was a Manifestation of God'

 

[loverofhumanity]

' . . . was God?!?!?

' . . . was a Manifestation of God'

A type sorry. I meant wasn’t God. Thanks for the correction.

 

[paarsurrey]

Abdul Baha always knew Baha’u’llah WAS NOT God and that is clear to all Baha’is.

Does one mean that our friend @InvestigateTruth is not a Bahai? Or he attributed god-head about Bahaullah wrongly (post #110).
And then why this trickery (of Capitalization or De-Capitalization) done by Shoghi Effendi in Iqan* against the norms of English language.

Regards
___________
*Kitab-i-Iqan which is my focus as I read it.

 

[shunyadragon]

Does one mean that our friend @InvestigateTruth is not a Bahai? Or he attributed god-head about Bahaullah wrongly (post #110).
And then why this trickery (of Capitalization or De-Capitalization) done by Shoghi Effendi in Iqan* against the norms of English language.

Regards
___________
*Kitab-i-Iqan which is my focus as I read it.

Please cite specifically.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Abdul Baha always knew Baha’u’llah WAS NOT God and that is clear to all Baha’is.

Does one mean that our friend @InvestigateTruth is not a Bahai? Or he attributed god-head about Bahaullah wrongly (post #110).
And then why this trickery (of Capitalization or De-Capitalization) done by Shoghi Effendi in Iqan* against the norms of English language.

Regards
___________
*Kitab-i-Iqan which is my focus as I read it.

Please cite specifically.

This is what was said;

I didn't mean any one who has a Bahai membership. I meant a perfect Baha'i, like Abdulbaha would not make any distinction between Bahaullah and God. Do you think Abdulbaha made any distinction between God and Bahaullah? Did not Abdulbaha believe who ever has seen Bahaullah, has seen God?

The best talk on this is from Some Answered Questions by Abdul'baha and the new translation needs to be read prior to the quote I post below;

Some Answered Questions | Bahá’í Reference Library

This talk says we can never know or describe God. Everything we can describe comes back to the Manifestation. Thus in this light they are all we can know and describe of God.

"....But no soul has ever fathomed the reality of the Essence of the Divinity so as to be able to intimate, describe, praise, or glorify it. Thus all that the human reality knows, discovers, and understands of the names, attributes, and perfections of God refers to these holy Manifestations and leads nowhere else: “The way is cut off, and all seeking rejected.”

Thus it is not wrong to see the Manifestations as God and/or see them as Messengers from God. Baha'ullah says it is only wrong if people on both sides argue about it, then we are both wrong.

So I see no matter what we discuss about God, all we are obtaining to is a further realization of who the Messenger is, they are all we will ever know of God/Allah

Regards Tony

 

[paarsurrey]

A Christian is a follower of Christ, a Baha’i is a follower of Baha’u’llah. One is not a follower of themselves even if they believe in what they are saying.

So no, Baha’u’llah was not the first Baha’i any more than Muhammad was the first Muhammadan.

Muslims don't call themselves Muhammadan, it is the Western Christians who called as such.
G-d told in Quran about Muhammad:
AYAH al-An`am 6:163
Arabic

لَا شَرِيكَ لَهُ وَبِذَٰلِكَ أُمِرْتُ وَأَنَا أَوَّلُ الْمُسْلِمِينَ
Transliteration

La shareeka lahu wabithalika omirtu waana awwalu almuslimeena

Abdul Majid Daryabadi

No associate hath He. And to this I am bidden, and I am the first of the Muslims.
al-An`am 6:163
Bahaullah did not say that the was even a "Bahai" not to speak of him as a "First Bahai".
If yes then please quote from him.

Regards

 

[shunyadragon]

Muslims don't call themselves Muhammadan, it is the Western Christians who called as such.
G-d told in Quran about Muhammad:
AYAH al-An`am 6:163
Arabic

لَا شَرِيكَ لَهُ وَبِذَٰلِكَ أُمِرْتُ وَأَنَا أَوَّلُ الْمُسْلِمِينَ
Transliteration

La shareeka lahu wabithalika omirtu waana awwalu almuslimeena

Abdul Majid Daryabadi

No associate hath He. And to this I am bidden, and I am the first of the Muslims.
al-An`am 6:163

OK, but not meaningful. because this only a cultural issue between different religions over time. Judaism is a more ancient religion acknowledged by Muhammad, and does not acknowledge your designation for believers nor your religion.

Bahaullah did not say that the was even a "Bahai" not to speak of him as a "First Bahai".
If yes then please quote from him.

As responded many times before this is a meaningless issue. Repeating it over and over only gets you a needle on a cracked record. The followers of Baha'u'llah are called Baha'is. Baha'u'llah, of course, did not call himself a Baha'i.

 

[paarsurrey]

OK, but not meaningful. because this only a cultural issue between different religions over time. Judaism is a more ancient religion acknowledged by Muhammad, and does not acknowledge your designation for believers nor your religion.

As responded many times before this is a meaningless issue. Repeating it over and over only gets you a needle on a cracked record. The followers of Baha'u'llah are called Baha'is. Baha'u'llah, of course, did not call himself a Baha'i.

"The followers of Baha'u'llah are called Baha'is."

Not exactly.
Whom they follow who call themselves Atheist or Agnostic or Skeptic?
Those who follow Atheism or Agnosticism or Skepticism are called Atheist or Agnostic or Skeptic.

Did Bahaullah proclaim that he was a Bahai or First Bahai or he was devising a new religion named Bahaism?
If yes, please quote from him.
Anybody please

Regards

 

[danieldemol]

"The followers of Baha'u'llah are called Baha'is."

Not exactly.
Whom they follow who call themselves Atheist or Agnostic or Skeptic?
Those who follow Atheism or Agnosticism or Skepticism are called Atheist or Agnostic or Skeptic.

Did Bahaullah proclaim that he was a Bahai or First Bahai or he was inventing a new religion named Bahaism?
If yes, please quote from him.
Anybody please

Regards

In 1866, Bahá'u'lláh made his claim to be He whom God shall make manifest public 1, as well as making a formal written announcement to Mirza Yahya referring to his followers for the first time as the "people of Bahá". 2
1 MacEoin, Dennis (1989). "Azali Babism". Encyclopædia Iranica.
2 Smith, Peter (2008). An Introduction to the Baha'i Faith. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-86251-5. p24

Baha'u'llah also refers to the "people of Baha" in many other instances, for example Baha'u'llah in the Kitab-i-Aqdas refers to the "people of Baha" 9 times in the text of the Aqdas, or 17 if you include the Questions and Answers as part of the text. And He refers to the "people of Baha" 28 times in other Tablets of Baha'u'llah such as the following from "Ornaments" (Tarazat);

'O people of Baha! Trustworthiness is in truth the best of vestures for your temples and the most glorious crown for your heads. Take ye fast hold of it'

(Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 37)
The term "Baha'i" literally means "of Baha" and is just a short way of reffering to the "people of Baha"

 

[shunyadragon]

"The followers of Baha'u'llah are called Baha'is."

Not exactly.
Whom they follow who call themselves Atheist or Agnostic or Skeptic?
Those who follow Atheism or Agnosticism or Skepticism are called Atheist or Agnostic or Skeptic.

Does not remotely address the question. Not exactly? Not meaningful. Followers of Baha'u'llah are not atheist nor agnostics.

It is simply a fact whether the Baha'i Faith is true or not that "The followers of Baha'u'llah are called Baha'is."

Did Bahaullah proclaim that he was a Bahai or First Bahai or he was inventing a new religion named Bahaism?
If yes, please quote from him.
Anybody please

Regards

No, neither, and not a meaningful issue. Nice slap of sarcasm revealing your real goal of the denigration of the Baha'i Faith. Remember both Judaism and Christianity consider Islam an invented religion without basis in Revelation from God.

 

[paarsurrey]

"Nice slap of sarcasm revealing your real goal of the denigration of the Baha'i Faith. Remember both Judaism and Christianity consider Islam an invented religion without basis in Revelation from God."

I have since corrected my post, please.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Was Bahaullah a "Bahai", please?

One may like to read my post #773 in another thread, which is also relevant here:

siti said:↑
So why do you label yourself "Baha'i"? I don't label myself anything - I just think what I think and believe what I believe.

paarsurrey wrote:
After-all, Bahaullah himself did not claim in Iqan that he was a Bahai, even then some persons used it. Right, please?

Regards

 

[shunyadragon]

Muslims don't call themselves Muhammadan, it is the Western Christians who called as such.
G-d told in Quran about Muhammad:
AYAH al-An`am 6:163
Arabic

لَا شَرِيكَ لَهُ وَبِذَٰلِكَ أُمِرْتُ وَأَنَا أَوَّلُ الْمُسْلِمِينَ
Transliteration

La shareeka lahu wabithalika omirtu waana awwalu almuslimeena

Abdul Majid Daryabadi

No associate hath He. And to this I am bidden, and I am the first of the Muslims.
al-An`am 6:163

Followers of Islam do call themselves Muslims. What you call yourself is your problem.

Bahaullah did not say that the was even a "Bahai" not to speak of him as a "First Bahai".
If yes then please quote from him.

Regards

So what? It has been established many times that Baha'u'llah did not call himself the first Baha'i.

There is nothing meaningful to your objection to using Baha'i to mean follower of the Baha'i Faith.

 

[shunyadragon]

Was Bahaullah a "Bahai", please?

One may like to read my post #773 in another thread, which is also relevant here:

siti said:↑
So why do you label yourself "Baha'i"? I don't label myself anything - I just think what I think and believe what I believe.

What siti and you call yourselves is your problem Siti and you may call yourselves what you choose.

Baha'u'llah was the founder of the Baha'i

paarsurrey wrote:
After-all, Bahaullah himself did not claim in Iqan that he was a Bahai, even then some persons used it. Right, please?

Regards

What 'some people' do is not the standard of the Baha'i Faith.