• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Coming to Islam is coming to a polytheistic religion.

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
See brother, while you accuse others of following others, other than God, you are quoting others, other than God.

Dont you see that you stand on your own accused stand?

Who am I quoting? All the information I get is from Baha’u’llah Who is a Manifestation God or His appointed Successors so i believe it comes from God.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Who am I quoting? All the information I get is from Baha’u’llah Who is a Manifestation God or His appointed Successors so i believe it comes from God.
It is not necessary that what you believe is the only truth. Is there any evidence to support your belief?
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
It is not necessary that what you believe is the only truth. Is there any evidence to support your belief?

Exactly that’s what Baha’u’llah teaches that there is truth everywhere in all religions and science and in nature and people and that we are always learning and no one ever has any exclusive ownership of any truth.

When Baha’u’llah tells us about the many other truths out there and I investigate them myself I find them to be true too. He does not expect us to believe blindly but usually gives a reason why.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
All religions are true, although you do not agree to what the believers of those religions believe, and further, you believe that the final truth is only with your religion. I could never parse this contradiction. But then, Bahaollah is not the first or the last with this scheme of things. That happens with all religions that forked out of Judaism. After Baqaollah, there was Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of the Ahmadiyyas.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
All religions are true, although you do not agree to what the believers of those religions believe, and further, you believe that the final truth is only with your religion. I could never parse this contradiction. But then, Bahaollah is not the first or the last with this scheme of things. That happens with all religions that forked out of Judaism. After Baqaollah, there was Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of the Ahmadiyyas.

We don’t believe in a final truth like Muslims do but progressive truth revealed from age to age. Every person has a different interpretation of scripture but what we accept is the basic foundation, for instance we accept Christ and the Bible and Muhammad and the Quran. The different Christian and Muslim sects cannot agree over their own Holy Books but like with us they all agree on the basic foundation but not the Interpretation.

As long as the basic foundation is accepted unity can exist but once interpretations are elevated and set in stone then they become a sect and cannot agree with one another.

Baha’is accept the basic foundations. Even in our own Faith people understand things differently but we do not form a sect around any interpretation.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
You quoted Effendi. Brother, is he also God?

Conferred infallibility was passed on from Baha’u’llah to Abdul-Baha in His Will and from Abdul-Baha to Shoghi Effendi’s in His will. The Guardian is referring to Shoghi Effendi’s.

The sacred and youthful branch, the Guardian of the Cause of God, as well as the Universal House of Justice, to be universally elected and established, are both under the care and protection of the Abhá Beauty, under the shelter and unerring guidance of the Exalted One (may my life be offered up for them both). Whatsoever they decide is of God. Whoso obeyeth him not, neither obeyeth them, hath not obeyed God; whoso rebelleth against him and against them hath rebelled against God; whoso opposeth him hath opposed God; whoso contendeth with them hath contended with God; whoso disputeth with him hath disputed with God; whoso denieth him hath denied God; whoso disbelieveth in him hath disbelieved in God; whoso deviateth, separateth himself and turneth aside from him hath in truth deviated, separated himself and turned aside from God
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Conferred infallibility was passed on from Baha’u’llah to Abdul-Baha in His Will and from Abdul-Baha to Shoghi Effendi’s in His will. The Guardian is referring to Shoghi Effendi’s.

I could argue that you are doing the same thing you accuse others of.

Its just an argument. Anyone can argue a lot of things.

Peace.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I think that following the Prophets when they deviate from the path of God could fairly be considered a form of shirk by a reasonable person.

Therefore I propose we abolish blind imitation of the Prophets and instead submit all their alleged revelations to the test of reason, discarding that which is unreasonable.

So a Prophet doesn’t like the equal testimony of women... put the idea in the bin.

So a Prophet doesn’t like the idea of monogamous gay folk... put the idea in the bin.

And so on until all this shirk is abolished.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I think that following the Prophets when they deviate from the path of God could fairly be considered a form of shirk by a reasonable person.

Mate. Even cheating someone is Shirk. Because you have worshiped something other than God.

You should try your best to understand Islamic theology prior to making statements like this.

Taking your own money/wealth as an ilah or divinity is shirk. So is your 'ego'. These are all shirk in Islam, according to the Quran.

So a Prophet doesn’t like the equal testimony of women... put the idea in the bin.

Quran does not say that. It does not say testimony is not equal, it says to record a contract, bring two men or two women and a men as witnesses.

You have understood that as demeaning to women because you first approached it that way. But the verse doesnt say that. You are misquoting the verse on purpose.

The verse does not speak about inequality in testimony. Thats misquoting a book. To record a contract, you need two women, maybe because in the future, when calling for witnesses, its better to have two women as witnesses because one may nnot be able to make it. It is only the woman who gets pregnant. It is only the woman who gets menstruation. If you analyse HR data, women take more leave than men. Because of very valid reasons and thats fact.

That does not mean they are unequal in testimony.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
So a Prophet doesn’t like the idea of monogamous gay folk... put the idea in the bin.

Again, you are making the mistake of speaking from top of mind awareness. Its too shallow.

Can you show a verse in the Quran that discriminates against "monogamous gay folk"?
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Quran does not say that. It does not say testimony is not equal, it says to record a contract, bring two men or two women and a men as witnesses.

You have understood that as demeaning to women because you first approached it that way. But the verse doesnt say that. You are misquoting the verse on purpose.

The verse does not speak about inequality in testimony. Thats misquoting a book. To record a contract, you need two women, maybe because in the future, when calling for witnesses, its better to have two women as witnesses because one may nnot be able to make it. It is only the woman who gets pregnant. It is only the woman who gets menstruation. If you analyse HR data, women take more leave than men. Because of very valid reasons and thats fact.

That does not mean they are unequal in testimony.
So you’re reason for not allowing 1 woman to testify on a contract is that they may get maternity leave?

Can’t they just agree to witness via telephone or email when on maternity leave?
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Again, you are making the mistake of speaking from top of mind awareness. Its too shallow.

Can you show a verse in the Quran that discriminates against "monogamous gay folk"?
I could only show verses that are interpreted as being opposed to the monogamous practice of gay relationships, but if that does not describe you i’m not really interested in trying to convince you of the other interpretation.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
So you’re reason for not allowing 1 woman to testify on a contract is that they may get maternity leave?

Can’t they just agree to witness via telephone or email when on maternity leave?

No. You can’t be a witness over the phone. Maybe because you can’t put signatures over the phone.

;)
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
No. You can’t be a witness over the phone. Maybe because you can’t put signatures over the phone.

;)
I’m not talking about the original signature when two witnesses are required, I’m talking about if she has to testify to something she already signed then later goes on maternity leave. Obviously two witnesses aren’t required because in the initial signing 1 may be on leave.

These days we have digital voice verification and all sorts of things that even banks use as verification. I don’t see why after she has signed something she cannot be a witness in a court for example via a video conference or other means just because she is on maternity leave.

Also the court dates can be postponed in many cases due to leave. Otherwise what about when a man is on leave what happens then?

ETA Has it ever occurred to you that in the western world business has not come to a halt even though it does not require double the signatures of women on contracts?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I’m not talking about the original signature when two witnesses are required, I’m talking about if she has to testify to something she already signed then later goes on maternity leave. Obviously two witnesses aren’t required because in the initial signing 1 may be on leave.

The two witnesses are for the contract. 1 being on leave at the initial signing doesn't cut it. Two witnesses required.

How in the world can one person being on leave even come into the picture at the day of signing a contract when the people have not even been identified? That's a bogus argument.

It is at the time of a contract. At that particular time, two women are required as testimony. This is not talking about a latter dispute or/and witnesses being called. Thus, think a little. It is at the latter date that a witness is required, and on that day, it is better to have had two women as witnesses because if one lady cannot come for some reason which are all-natural and things that only women have to go through, another person may be available. I think its a very sound thing to think of.

But i agree that these days there could be various other technologies that could verify things. Well, in the future maybe you could vote from home. Maybe even you will have a robot work for you while you are plugged in from home. And there are many who even finish their Phd's online.

If you wish to argue to the death, you could, of course, bring in all kinds of arguments. Why does a person have to borrow money in the first place? You could still get it transferred online, with some kind of online escrow account where a withdrawal is an evidence enough to convict you in the case of a future dispute. So there is no need for any kind of human witnesses.

In this line of thinking you could speak of all kinds of suggestions. Its silly.

As of today, when you make a contract where you borrow the money you need physical witnesses. Maybe in the future things will change. Some banks require personal guarantors. So if i suggest to them "I can provide you guarantors who will do only voice verification" like you suggested they will tell me to go fly a kite.

Thus, rather than making these silly arguments, just look at the text and make the correct claim.

Cheers.
 
Top