Why Bahai

[Terry Sampson]

About Bahaism? Regards

A Baha'i Conundrum (by invitation only)

 

[shunyadragon]

"Bab"

Some followers of Bab in the forum have strongly objected to it. They describe that Bab was within the Shia-Twelver Islam, while Bahaism is a new religion.

"They are often accused of misrepresenting other creeds. I for one agree that they do indeed misrepresent the non-Abrahamics to a grave degree."

Yes, Hinduism friends in the Forum has taken exception to it.

"As you may easily imagine, most Muslims consider the Bahai Faith to misrepresent Islaam as well, mainly by presenting a new revelation and a new prophet in defiance of the Qur'an."

Yes, it is true.

"Still, these days the Bahais are among the most motivated non-Muslim defenders of the validity and reputation of Islaam"

It is a Bahaism tactic to misrepresent Islam.
Islam doesn't need and defendants from Bahaism people. We can and we do defend Islam from Quran, whatever our denomination.

Regards

I did not know there were Babis on this forum.

 

[shunyadragon]

A Baha'i Conundrum (by invitation only)

Needs explanation. Membership in the Baha'i Faith is an individual choice and not by invitation only.

 

[firedragon]

The words you were using were 'Nabi' and 'Rasool'. You had mentioned they were like 'Prophet' and 'Messenger' but there wasn't an equivalent in English.

You have made clear what the term 'seal' means, but I'm unclear why you as a Muslim would believe Muhammad is the final Rasool and Nabi like Moses, Jesus, David or Muhammad.

As an aside there are less open forums where you can choose who you want (or don't want to talk to). For example I was tagged today on this thread.

A Baha'i Conundrum (by invitation only)

These are the base meaning of the root words. Forget about who and what for now.

Nabi - Informer. Nabbai - Inform. As in Nabiuni - Inform me. Nabbaanaa - Informed us.
Rasool - The one who is sent or a messenger. Arsalna - We sent.

I never said that Muhammed is the final Rasool "&" Nabi. As the Quran says, he is the final "Nabi".

1. Some Muslims argue that Nabi is the base. The foundation. To be a Rasool, you have to be a Nabi first. Like you have to do a degree before doing the Phd. So if Muhammed is the last degree holder, there won't be a Phd or a degree holder in the future. Do you understand that? So in this argument, Muhammed becomes the Seal or the final which means there will never be any more Rasools or Nabi's.

2. Some other Muslims, like the Ahmadhiya, Rashad kalifa adherents, and of course some Bahai's as well (though honestly you seem to be unaware of this argument. No offence) believe or argue that Rasool is the base or the degree holder. Nabi is the Phd. So the last Nabi means there won't be any more Phd's, but that doesn't mean we won't have degree holders. So there can be a rasool, even if there aren't anymore Nabi's. Do you understand this argument?

I am only answering your question brother. Nothing more nothing less.

In this thread brother I do not intend at all to argue or debate the validity of your faith, I just think its stupid and very very childish to discuss and debate someones faith without having some good knowledge in the idea and depth of their faith. See, we grow up understanding and training in our respective theologies. And of course some of us are trained in another theology. I won't mince my words but in my case I was born in a traditional Sunni Muslim family and society and educated in it. In school we grew up deeply studying Buddhism as curricula. Later we end up studying Christianity and the Bible and have a deep relationship in higher studies. But never the Bahai faith. As a matter of fact, not even Hinduism or many other faiths to be frank. Thats the reason.

All my questions to you are with the intent of understanding the faith.

Anyway, what I have always seen and known is that Muslims, Christians, Buddhists are mostly mesmerised by the teaching of the institution (people get offended at this kind of small talk). I only intend to go to the roots and read the scripture and learn what it says and how that maps to the theology and frankly I have known them to be poles apart. Sometimes chalk and cheese. Thus, when you explain something from your understanding and learning I wish to know where that comes from. Whats the root? Does it actually teach this or is it an idea of people extra to the so called books we pay lip service to?

Anyway, that was a general comment.

Now you said and linked to a Kithab I Akdhas that has 190 verses. (Actually 189) while the Arabic original (with a tinge of Persian as well, not Classical Arabic and certainly not the grass-root Arabic) has 238. The older manuscript has 472. You can never quote them as numbers of verses its not written that way. The English version has condensed it. Not removed anything, but condensed it. It ends with the phrase "Asthu mukaarin bisharri nawuu aklaani" which means "the time human's become rational (or lets say grow up/mature/become intellectual). So then you know it matches perfectly. I asked a few friends in academic circles brother and what I understood is that there has been many translations earlier as well but there were a lot of problems due to addition of statements, explanations etc so people were not clear what the scripture is. So this new translation is good and clear.

But yet, it contains a 190th verse which speaks of "dont have opium" which is immediately after the commandment to have one universal language in governance throughout the world. As far as I can see, that Opium verse is added later. I dont know by who. Maybe by respectable Effendi. Im not clear on that. What can be said is that it doesn't suit the writing style, the poetic style of the earlier writings, and seems like a much later addition which is definitely not in the original arabic version, nor does it fit the topic nor the wisdom portrayed prior. Its like something that fell from somewhere and fell into that place just out of nowhere. Maybe you can shed some light on that.

Anyway as I told you earlier Kithab I Akdhas speaks "rasool". Many many times.

But when it mentions "Nabi" it speaks of older Nabi's. Verse 105 as an example speaks of "prophets who are of transcendent nature were humans and were ascetic" (meaning they were practicing abstinence from worldly pleasures like the Buddha). Well, thats a mention of the word Nabi.

But you claim Bahaullah was both Nabi and Rasool. Well. Thats not a direct statement in the Kithab I akdhas, the holy book.

Is it a teaching of the institution?

Anyway, this is already too long.

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

Bahaullah did not claim that he had any Converse with G-d, in his core book of thought "Kitab-i-Iqan". His writing, as I understand, are not Word of Revelation of G-d as we Muslims believe Quran is. Muhammad never said that Quran is authored by him.
Bahaullah's writings are authored by Bahaullah, one could see it from the official site.

Regards

I understand that. My question was in the belief. Do they believe!

 

[Terry Sampson]

Needs explanation. Membership in the Baha'i Faith is an individual choice and not by invitation only.

The discussion there is between Adrian, Trailblazer, and me. Invitation into the discussion "is by invitation only".

 

[loverofhumanity]

Oh, there definitely is.

And what if we are telling the truth and Buddha has reappeared?

 

[LuisDantas]

And what if we are telling the truth and Buddha has reappeared?

That makes no sense and would not be worth considering even if in some esoteric sense "true".

 

[Terry Sampson]

That makes no sense and would not be worth considering even if in some esoteric sense "true".

Theoretically, wouldn't a Buddha's "reappearance" suggest that he or she had undergone a really huge, involuntary set-back?

--Just curious about the oddity of loverofhumanity's proposal

 

[loverofhumanity]

Thanks for your very kind explanation. I really appreciate it.

Please make one thing clear if you dont mind. Are you speaking of all of this in your post with scriptural teachings or teachings of who you consider are authorities. Like people.

Hope you understand my question.

Now lets take what you said about the Buddha and the return of a Buddha. You meant coming of the "Other" Buddha. Not return of the same Buddha. Siddhartha is "Shunya" now. Doesn't exist. So he cannot return as a reincarnation.

Anyway, keeping that aside, when you speak of the future Buddha, which literature are you speaking of? When you say "Buddha said" or your exact quote "Buddha spoke of future Buddha’s", where did Buddha say that? Do you understand my question? The coming of Maithri Buddha is a concept but not found in lets say the Tipitaka that is the most authentic literature attributed to inherited tradition of the Buddha. So there is no record of such a teaching. Unless you believe in a statue that is dated to 500 BC and people believe that is the coming Maithri Buddha. But that is a latter attribution and people said. Not their scripture.

So when you say this, the Buddhas coming, are you saying that "the Buddha said this, and you know he said because your scripture (e.g. Kithab I Akdhas) said so"? Or are you making that statement based on Buddhist scripture? Or is it only a teaching of the theology by elders or piers.

I hope my question is clear and you could explain briefly.

Scripture. By Buddha I meant the future Buddha spoken about by Gautama not the reincarnation of Gautama.

For example. The sun returns every day and although it’s the same sun yet we call it the sun of Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday but in reality there is only one sun.

The Book of Certitude by Baha’u’llah explains the oneness of all the Great Beings. They have differing missions and personalities and outward appearances but their essence and purpose is one and th same.

https://www.bahai.org/library/authoritative-texts/bahaullah/kitab-i-iqan/kitab-i-iqan.pdf?4eacb3cb

8. The Arising of the Buddha Metteyya
And the Blessed One named Metteyya will arise in the world—perfected, a fully awakened Buddha, accomplished in knowledge and conduct, holy, knower of the world, supreme guide for those who wish to train, teacher of gods and humans, awakened, blessed—just as I have arisen today. He will realize with his own insight this world—with its gods, Māras and Brahmās, this population with its ascetics and brahmins, gods and humans—and make it known to others, just as I do today. He will teach the Dhamma that’s good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end, meaningful and well-phrased. And he will reveal a spiritual practice that’s entirely full and pure, just as I do today. He will look after a Saṅgha of many thousand mendicants, just as I look after a Saṅgha of many hundreds today.

https://suttacentral.net/dn26/en/sujato#dn26:24.6

 

[Aupmanyav]

I'm too old to live long enough to really enjoy the gold Rolls or the Motor-Yacht. Hmmm.... Hell..... :

Same with me. I have ideas, but I am too old to begin anew.

Global Warming

Yeah, most probably. Last year also the rains were heavy in some parts. It is even more widely spread this year.

 

[loverofhumanity]

That makes no sense and would not be worth considering even if in some esoteric sense "true".

I believe it’s true from my personal investigation and you differ and that’s fine. We are all entitled to our views. My belief is Buddha was truly enlightened and taught truth. And we read from the Words of Buddha in our Houses of Worship throughout the world each week. We revere the Buddha and His teachings.

The Dhammapada is a wonderful book full of gems of wisdom. There’s everything to like about Buddhism. I’ve lived in a Buddhist country and village and it’s a beautiful teaching and people.

I have nothing but praise for Buddha as I follow Him also.

 

[firedragon]

Scripture. By Buddha I meant the future Buddha spoken about by Gautama not the reincarnation of Gautama.

For example. The sun returns every day and although it’s the same sun yet we call it the sun of Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday but in reality there is only one sun.

The Book of Certitude by Baha’u’llah explains the oneness of all the Great Beings. They have differing missions and personalities and outward appearances but their essence and purpose is one and th same.

https://www.bahai.org/library/authoritative-texts/bahaullah/kitab-i-iqan/kitab-i-iqan.pdf?4eacb3cb

8. The Arising of the Buddha Metteyya
And the Blessed One named Metteyya will arise in the world—perfected, a fully awakened Buddha, accomplished in knowledge and conduct, holy, knower of the world, supreme guide for those who wish to train, teacher of gods and humans, awakened, blessed—just as I have arisen today. He will realize with his own insight this world—with its gods, Māras and Brahmās, this population with its ascetics and brahmins, gods and humans—and make it known to others, just as I do today. He will teach the Dhamma that’s good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end, meaningful and well-phrased. And he will reveal a spiritual practice that’s entirely full and pure, just as I do today. He will look after a Saṅgha of many thousand mendicants, just as I look after a Saṅgha of many hundreds today.

https://suttacentral.net/dn26/en/sujato#dn26:24.6

Brother. You are quoting Deega Nikaya from Sutta Pitaka. Have you read it bro?

Anyway, I am not gonna refute this or anything in this thread. Thanks.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Brother. You are quoting Deega Nikaya from Sutta Pitaka. Have you read it bro?

Anyway, I am not gonna refute this or anything in this thread. Thanks.

I read a lot of the suttas. I'm curious given the thread. How does quoting from Deega challenge what Lover said?

From what I know, I don't see a pattern in The Dharma in full that "a god like figure" like Baha'i see, who will return like abrahamic prophets.

If not here, can you PM me?

 

[firedragon]

I read a lot of the suttas. I'm curious given the thread. How does quoting from Deega challenge what Lover said?

From what I know, I don't see a pattern in The Dharma in full that "a god like figure" like Baha'i see, who will return like abrahamic prophets.

If not here, can you PM me?

Hmm. Okay.

Have you read the Pancha Nikaya? Its part of the Sutta Pitaka.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hmm. Okay.

Have you read the Pancha Nikaya? Its part of the Sutta Pitaka.

To tell you honestly, yes and no. I haven't studied suttas; but, I have read many of them off and on without reference to the "books." It's a huge project to study.

Can you give me an idea and/or link specific to your answer?
I usually go to accesstoinsight to read a lot. The suttacentral is good too and haven't gone there in awhile.

When I looked it up, I get "Anguttara Nikaya". What does Pancha mean?

 

[Vinayaka]

And what if we are telling the truth and Buddha has reappeared?

The 'what if' is a pointless simplistic argument. I'm surprised you used it. I've seen it used quite a lot by some folks, but it seems to be only in one direction, in favour of their personal belief. It can always be turned around to the exact opposite. Surely, Lover, you have something more substantial to offer than that. But in reality it goes all over, as the following examples illustrate.

What if your God doesn't exist?
What if God does really exist?
What if Revoltingest is actually God?
What if Baha'u'llah, Christ, Trump (insert whatever name you want) was a con man who happened to dupe everyon?
What if I'm right?

So best not to deal in overly simplistic hypotheses.

 

[Vinayaka]

I believe it’s true from my personal investigation and you differ and that’s fine. We are all entitled to our views. My belief is Buddha was truly enlightened and taught truth. And we read from the Words of Buddha in our Houses of Worship throughout the world each week. We revere the Buddha and His teachings.

The Dhammapada is a wonderful book full of gems of wisdom. There’s everything to like about Buddhism. I’ve lived in a Buddhist country and village and it’s a beautiful teaching and people.

I have nothing but praise for Buddha as I follow Him also.

Do you have a statue of Buddha like Buddhist temples do to really show the true respect he deserved?

 

[loverofhumanity]

The 'what if' is a pointless simplistic argument. I'm surprised you used it. I've seen it used quite a lot by some folks, but it seems to be only in one direction, in favour of their personal belief. It can always be turned around to the exact opposite. Surely, Lover, you have something more substantial to offer than that. But in reality it goes all over, as the following examples illustrate.

What if your God doesn't exist?
What if God does really exist?
What if Revoltingest is actually God?
What if Baha'u'llah, Christ, Trump (insert whatever name you want) was a con man who happened to dupe everyon?
What if I'm right?

So best not to deal in overly simplistic hypotheses.

Yes it is simplistic. The most profound truths are very simple.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Do you have a statue of Buddha like Buddhist temples do to really show the true respect he deserved?

When the Buddha was alive there were no Buddhist temples or statues yet His followers were considered to be true Buddhists. His early followers only had the Buddha and His teachings and no statues and that was acceptable to the Buddha.