Why I didn't believe in Bahaism when I researched it.

[Link]

I am sorry, I have to point out, that you definition of Messengers is not exactly as Quran teaches. Messengers of God are those Prophets who come with new Revelation and Holy Book. But those who are only Prophets, such as Soloman, or David, or, Aaron, are the promoters of religions. Qaim is a messenger, which means He is like Muhammad, or Jesus who brings a new Book. The Messengers are also prophets, but not every prophet is a Messenger of God. You cannot find a Messenger of God in Quran, who is not a prophet, but you find many prophets, who are not Messengers, such as the Bani Israel prophets (Anbiya)

Let's discuss this then, but I will open another topic for it. I propose it's the opposite.

Nabi means one who receives a revelation to God to be given to humanity. The meaning of revelation is very specific here, the type of khabar from God here, is meant to be safeguarded for all humans as well to a be proof of authority of whoever it gives and designates authority to. It's a trust that humans are meant to keep intact as revealed and not paraphrase in their own way or distort. As for Quran, as far as I know, is the only revelation that was guaranteed protection.

A Messenger means one who conveys God's Clear message to the minds of the people. The Ghadeer declaration is part of conveying the clear message with without the clear message would not be conveyed at all, but the actual words, are not found in the Quran.

Almost all Prophets were Messengers and almost all Messengers were Prophets. The exception to the rule happens once in a while. Once in a while a Prophet is not a Messenger because the message is firmly established and so he just reveals a divine to book to communicate from the creator and increase in guidance. Sometimes a Messenger is not a Prophet (as is the case with the Mahdi), because God out his wisdom doesn't want to reveal a book to safeguard, but just convey the clear message. Perhaps an example of that in the Quran is Talut/Saul.

We will discuss this another thread though.

 

[stvdv]

But those who are only Prophets, such as Soloman, or David, or, Aaron, are the promoters of religions.

Being a Prophet, without bringing a new book, He still will bring new revelations. God oozes revelations. If you are tuned in, they just are available.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Being a Prophet, without bringing a new book, He still will bring new revelations. God oozes revelations. If you are tuned in, they just are available.

Ok, in Bahai view, and in my understanding, there are two type of revelations.

Direct revelation, which basically means God speaks directly to humanity, even if He may present it as a Messenger. In Bahai view, Messengers are indeed Manifestations of God. They are the mouth peace of God. There is also a lesser inspiration, which is like having true dreams or visions. This is a lesser revelation, and is not like God is speaking directly to humanity having a new covenant.

 

[Link]

Just a simple question.

What do you mean with Prophet:
a) A man inspired by God who starts a new Religion
b) A man inspired by God who does not start a new Religion

IF seal means that there will be no new Religions, that seems like a good plan. Maybe less religious wars in the future
But if that is the case, then there can be still new Prophets. Ever considered that possibility?

Religion to submit to God, no matter which Prophet or who, we ought to submit. This doesn't mean we should take everyone claiming to be a Prophet seriously.

The way I understand it, Quran was not easy to have built in the first place, and the fact to protect it's interpretation, blood was spilled by Shiites to convey us the light of insights pertaining to Quran from Ahlulbayt (as).

They narrated and were killed, jailed, maimed, cursed, and shunned by society, so that we can prepare the way for the Mahdi. The Mahdi will revive the Quran and show what we had through it and remind us the position of God's Kings, he being the last and remaining one of God's chosen.

How we will react, Quran has given different scenarios, and the hadiths are all about different scenarios as well, and which one will happen, not even God knows! The worst is a few accepting and most of the world destroyed, with barely any believers at the end. This despite it's strangeness and severity, is very possible. All we can do is try to make it as unlikely as possible.

And then there is where no one is destroyed, no city, nothing like Noah's people face, because there is enough helpers of God and emigrants to God to react and respond to the Mahdi. This is what we got to build for.

And there is between those two many scenarios. The Quran talks about the Mahdi, but not like Baha'is make it out to be.

 

[stvdv]

No one else could add to the Book of God, until when the Bab came, and unsealed it.

You mean "God unsealed it" I guess.

And it feels to me that it is God adding to the Book of God (or at least that would be perfect)

 

[Link]

What's people reaction to Du'a Nudba and the line "except there is no Prophet after me".

 

[Link]

That is because most people misunderstand Bahaullahs statements in Iqan about Seal.

To tell you the truth, I used to misunderstand it. It did not make sense to me either before!

He does not say Seal means end or last. You are reading more than what He says. But, I agree, one meaning of Seal can be End. And all prophets are one, and all of them End and close the revelation of God. Then when the next one comes, He is the first, and opens again, or unseals it. Only God has the permission to seal, and unseal His revelation. When Jesus completed His revelation and left the world, no one had permission or ability to add any new teachings or divine laws to this religion, until Muhammad. Likewise, when Muhammad completed revelation of the Quran, He sealed Revelations of God. No one else could add to the Book of God, until when the Bab came, and unsealed it.

If God wanted me to understand this way through Baha'allah, he would have said it this way. So to me, it seems Baha'allah out of all ways of interpreting the verse, chose the most ridiculous way to interpret it. This is the impression I get. If he said what you said, it would've made it a better case although still not convincing to me. But now it's as God doesn't know how to talk. Seal of Prophets has to be explained and the ridiculous impression of Baha'allah has to explained by his followers. This is too far for me.

God is the best speaker, look at the verse of parable of light for example. God knows how to speak. Baha'allah and kitabal Itqan looks like a desperate way. He wasn't as creative as you so went with a more foolish interpretation.

 

[stvdv]

Ok, in Bahai view, and in my understanding, there are two type of revelations.

Direct revelation, which basically means God speaks directly to humanity, even if He may present it as a Messenger. In Bahai view, Messengers are indeed Manifestations of God. They are the mouth peace of God. There is also a lesser inspiration, which is like having true dreams or visions. This is a lesser revelation, and is not like God is speaking directly to humanity having a new covenant.

Yes, that's more clear. Thank you. "They are the mouth peace of God", that sounds good.
Sai Baba also said, He did not come to start a new Religion; there are enough Religions to choose from

Even then, God can change His "Game Plan" anytime, if there is an urgent need or just because He just so decides.
I am very careful and avoid interpreting "God will do this (or not)". That is all, I want to say.
Before you know, you put yourself in God's "driver-seat", committing blasphemy

 

[firedragon]

Te reason you find it ridiculous is because you have not studied Islam well. This is one of the fundamental teaching of Religion.
See for example this tradition from Imam Sadiq, recorded in Biharulanwar:


"And our master, Imam Qaim (a.s.) would be standing, resting his back to
the Kaaba. And he will say: O people, whoever wants to see Adam and
Sheeth, should know that I am Adam and Sheeth. And whoever wants to see
Nuh and his son, Saam, should know that I am that same Nuh and Saam. And
whoever wants to see Ibrahim and Ismail, should know that I am that same
Ibrahim and Ismail. And whoever wants to see Musa and Yusha, should know
that I am that same Musa and Yusha. And whoever wants to see Isa and
Shamoun, should know that I am that same Isa and Shamoun. And whoever
wants to see Muhammad (s.a.w.s.) and Amirul Momineen, should know that I
am that same Muhammad and Amirul Momineen. And whoever wants to see
Hasan and Husain, should know that I am that same Hasan and Husain. And
whoever wants to see the Imams from the progeny of Husain, should know
that I am those same purified Imams. Accept my call and gather near me as I
would inform you about all that has been said and all that has not been said.”

This tradition tells us, All Prophets are the same, and coming of the Qaim, is just as coming All of them.

There are many traditions like this! Just do your research my friend.

You are quoting bihar alanwar. Brother, this is a collection of ahadith that is pertaining to the Shii theology. So you quoting this as "fundamental teaching of religion" you are making an absurd statement.

You are quoting a 17th century writing and you claim this is fundamental Islam? Not really. It maybe important to 10% of Muslims. So you cant make that kind of general sweeping statement, that too, claiming someone else is uninformed in theology.

Before doing that did you analyse what you are quoting?

Tell me brother, what is the difference between alhasaa and dharaar? What is the negative criticism of Majlisi, the authors Thareek or system used in this humungous work?

Also, even in this hadith you are quoting you have completely misquoted it. It doesnt mean that the Qaim (Which most dont believe in though you seem to believe its fundamental), is not claiming to be physically all of these names mentioned in it. He is saying that "Listening to him is the same as listening to all of them because he will speak of all things that was informed by all of those mentioned in the hadith". He will also claim that he will tell you what these people quoted did not say. Because he will have the knowledge of all of them. That does not mean he is and was the same persons. Thats evident in the simple last sentence in this hadith.

Peace.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, that's more clear. Thank you. "They are the mouth peace of God", that sounds good.
Sai Baba also said, He did not come to start a new Religion; there are enough Religions to choose from

Even then, God can change His "Game Plan" anytime, if there is an urgent need or just because He just so decides.
I am very careful and avoid interpreting "God will do this (or not)". That is all, I want to say.
Before you know, you put yourself in God's "driver-seat", committing blasphemy

Brother. You doing exactly that. You are making assumptions about God.

 

[Link]

You are quoting bihar alanwar. Brother, this is a collection of ahadith that is pertaining to the Shii theology. So you quoting this as "fundamental teaching of religion" you are making an absurd statement.

You are quoting a 17th century writing and you claim this is fundamental Islam? Not really. It maybe important to 10% of Muslims. So you cant make that kind of general sweeping statement, that too, claiming someone else is uninformed in theology.

Before doing that did you analyse what you are quoting?

Tell me brother, what is the difference between alhasaa and dharaar? What is the negative criticism of Majlisi, the authors Thareek or system used in this humungous work?

Also, even in this hadith you are quoting you have completely misquoted it. It doesnt mean that the Qaim (Which most dont believe in though you seem to believe its fundamental), is not claiming to be physically all of these names mentioned in it. He is saying that "Listening to him is the same as listening to all of them because he will speak of all things that was informed by all of those mentioned in the hadith". He will also claim that he will tell you what these people quoted did not say. Because he will have the knowledge of all of them. That does not mean he is and was the same persons. Thats evident in the simple last sentence in this hadith.

Peace.

I don't accept all traditions Sunni or Shiite that designate Yushua or Simon, they both weren't Prophet or Messenger or Imams per Quran, but that's a different topic. I'm trying to not side-track the topic, because there is Du'a Nudba which does say "where is Al-Hassan, where is Al-Hussain", meaning Imam Mahdi has the same position as them.

I don't have a problem with that expression, but language has to distinguish when we speak exaggerated prose, or when we are talking metaphorically, or when we are talking literally. In the case of seal of Prophets, by flow, it's literal and as serious as it gets. Surah 33 (Al-Ahzab) is about all the controversy surrounding Mohammad and it honoring him in that regard. Everything controversial is pretty much there. This is why also the seal of Prophets and salawat is mentioned there, and really no where else directly.

 

[Link]

What I meant by controversial, is everything that put's Mohammad more on the defensive side is in Suratal Ahzab.

 

[Pastek]

Sometimes a Messenger is not a Prophet (as is the case with the Mahdi), because God out his wisdom doesn't want to reveal a book to safeguard, but just convey the clear message. Perhaps an example of that in the Quran is Talut/Saul.

Are you saying that the Mahdi and Saul are messengers ?
I'm not sure i understand here.

The Quran talks about the Mahdi, but not like Baha'is make it out to be.

Where ?

 

[firedragon]

I don't accept all traditions Sunni or Shiite that designate Yushua or Simon, they both weren't Prophet or Messenger or Imams per Quran, but that's a different topic. I'm trying to not side-track the topic, because there is Du'a Nudba which does say "where is Al-Hassan, where is Al-Hussain", meaning Imam Mahdi has the same position as them.

I don't have a problem with that expression, but language has to distinguish when we speak exaggerated prose, or when we are talking metaphorically, or when we are talking literally. In the case of seal of Prophets, by flow, it's literal and as serious as it gets. Surah 33 (Al-Ahzab) is about all the controversy surrounding Mohammad and it honoring him in that regard. Everything controversial is pretty much there. This is why also the seal of Prophets and salawat is mentioned there, and really no where else directly.

I get your point.

The reason for me to mention the Shii/Sunni split is to address that kind of general statement. Also, Majlisi is very well known and handled by Shii scholars to have collected both hasaa and dharaar though he claims to have used meticulous tariqah. But the problem lies in persons quoting one thing as absolute authority while not understanding the depth of it.

Salaam.

 

[Link]

Are you saying that the Mahdi and Saul are messengers ?

Yes, but the Mahdi is yet to be one, he is a guiding hidden leader for now, but will sent by God to revive the message of the Quran at a whole new level relevant to his time. He is a not a Nabi though as there will be no revelation or book from God revealed, rather he will manifest the wonders of Quran and show what we always had. He will also manifest the wonders of the Torah and Gospels and bring out the originals as well. And also he will bring out from the earth revelations of many Prophets that were hidden and he will manifest what the dark forces been trying to hide regarding God's Kings on earth who are his purified anointed representatives.

Where ?

​

All over the Quran brother but that is a different topic.

 

[stvdv]

Brother. You doing exactly that. You are making assumptions about God.

Yes, I have 1 assumption:
Hypothetically IF God exists (which I can't prove), having all these omnis
THEN I can not have assumptions about what God will or will not do next

Seal of Prophets might mean "no more Prophets will come"
But it also might mean something different. Only God knows
I do not know. Humans can only speculate about God IMO

I cannot predict the future (that is also an assumption I have)

 

[Pastek]

All over the Quran brother but that is a different topic.

He is not in the Quran.

 

[Link]

I get your point.

The reason for me to mention the Shii/Sunni split is to address that kind of general statement. Also, Majlisi is very well known and handled by Shii scholars to have collected both hasaa and dharaar though he claims to have used meticulous tariqah. But the problem lies in persons quoting one thing as absolute authority while not understanding the depth of it.

Salaam.

Salam

This is okay, I agree with Bahais that chains are not a way to determine truth. But chains are useful sometimes and must be kept and it's good to get a study of rijaal just to know who is narrating what. But there is no way to know who is truthful or liar, by just trusting others to determine who is who for us.

That's another topic though too. Holy macro, we opening so much topics, we got to close them quickly and stay on track! Still waiting for opinion on "there is no Prophet after me" which is found in Du'a Nudba which Baha'allah confirms is the words of the Imams (as).

 

[Link]

He is not in the Quran.

Brother, this is an important topic, but we have to agree to disagree at least here, as the topic is specifically about Baha'ism and I don't want the thread to go all over the place! I mentioned it because Baha'is quote a lot of our hadiths about the Mahdi and relate to their Baha'ism and there two Messengers.

We have a lot of hadiths about this and interpretations of Quranic verses, so it's on topic in this regard as far Bahaism goes and Bahais believe in Shiite side of history, but Sunni-Shia dispute about the Mahdi is not the topic!

 

[Pastek]

Brother, this is an important topic, but we have to agree to disagree at least here, as the topic is specifically about Baha'ism and I don't want the thread to go all over the place! I mentioned it because Baha'is quote a lot of our hadiths about the Mahdi and relate to their Baha'ism and there two Messengers.

We have a lot of hadiths about this and interpretations of Quranic verses, so it's on topic in this regard as far Bahaism goes and Bahais believe in Shiite side of history, but Sunni-Shia dispute about the Mahdi is not the topic!

Ok i understand. So waiting to see those verses in another topic.