Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

The Artis Magistra said:

What lies are we thinking of though when it was said that some are liars. Was the thought that on some websites or even in videos and interviews people lie about their past and their religions and their leaving religions and conversions to other things? I've seen a lot of very fake "I've left Islam" Christian type videos which seem a lot less genuine than some "I've joined Islam" types of videos. I've seen lots of fake seeming "I've become a Christian" type videos, and a lot of genuine or sincere seeming ones as well. Some of the features which make a thing look suspect to me are the way they are speaking and acting, the voice and tones and dialogue, the way they hold their eyes, their animosity towards the religions, the slickness and quality and production values. Lots of factors. On a forum, one could never know to what degree someone is telling the truth in their text, but I come off for example as a very genuine person probably and I aim for casual authenticity in my style, whereas a very polished type almost prepared statement look and style to the text gives the impression of some agenda, or some trolls come on and appear to be trolls based on their behavior and text style or incessant obnoxiousness which amounts to hammy performances and "bad acting" for whatever they are trying to pose as, or that they are just aimless bullies trying to get a kick out of people's reactions or something.

I think it is actually some kind of mental disorder when people go around doing that sort of thing. I also think true Christians would never lie and deceive, and the ones who do it are some kind of worldly politicized villains and I hope they roast for it (and whoever does it, not just so-called Christian agenda liars).

All the Bahai on this website, as far as I can tell, are sincere people, giving me the impression of being good people. Actually, the vast majority of people on this website come off to me as actually genuinely decent, kind-hearted, nice, and honest people.

Out of all the people on this website, I think I'm probably the most open, sincere, and free from any covert agenda that I'm not willing to disclose. When I ask questions, like I am doing here in this thread, these are things that actually bother me for real, and what bothers me for real is why:

Why! Why do we select some things, find some things acceptable to select and follow, and find other things unacceptable. It seriously bothers me. Like, why am I so totally blocked from any of this Bahai stuff. It must be the same as a person who feels so totally blocked from the Islam stuff, or from God stuff at all, its the same sort of block, this is an amazing experience, to feel it, to feel what it is really like probably to be like an Atheist or a Christian or Jew who strongly dislikes or is blocked from Islam, I can feel that same sort of feeling when I read this Bahai stuff, its so blocked, and in a way it makes me feel sick that I am like that, that I can't even be opened to it, not even in the slightest, like what the heck is wrong with me? This is what I'm begging you all to help me with and help me understand, because it bothers me, everything I ever bring up in this forum or any forum, it leads up to something real, something that actually concerns me or disturbs me, even if it isn't obvious at first, I don't want to be just blindly closed off to something right from the get-go for no reason, its unfair, but its REAL, its HAPPENING, and I'd be a liar to deny it.

Can anyone give it a shot or a few shots as to why they think this is the case?

Why do we each all believe something, deny other things, is it just how we were brought up? So many people reject the things they were told or believed when they were younger or how they were brought up to believe though, so maybe its not that at all.

Why do I think Joseph Smith and Baha'u'llah are not the same as Moses or Muhammed? Well one thing might be that very little is actually known about the real Moses or Muhammed due to their far away existence in the foggy mists of times long past. Joseph and Baha'u'llah were both people who seemingly made extraordinary claims, and after a certain point, and the content they produced is not to my tastes, and both had their lives ended, while Moses and Muhammed seemed to succeed, were credited as bringing down tremendous books which have ultimately had enormous influence on the world, and they were not slain (but cut everyone else's necks successfully). Based on the Qur'anic versions of these character, I love them a lot, they are both depicted as basically dim-witted simpleton scaredy-cats and I love characters like that, they are lovable because they don't pretend to be sages, but are instead cowardly goons. I can relate, I myself am a simpleton, a cowardly goon, in awe of the power of nature and the weird things I notice, and this is the way the Qur'an seems to make these characters out to be. They are also nobodies, orphans basically, who had circumstances come up which put them in certain weird positions to end up staging highly unlikely projects which saved a people or changed the world at large forever.

I like the Qur'an's version of every single character it mentions, even the villains, they are some of the most entertaining characters, dialogue, internal dialogue or thoughts and reactions, I am so pleased with the book, even as a story book or literature. I feel the deepest disgust and aversion towards the Biblical version of all the same, and the reaction is visceral and violent, it fills me with rage and intense hot sadness and hot tears with how disturbed the Bible makes me, and that is probably because of how its like some kind of alternate version (older and original) to the Qur'an which makes all the characters I love and prefer so much, just the worst people on Earth in my view, yuck central. I strongly abhor the Hadith literature also, for their blessed spitting Metro Muhammed sans pubic hairs, I don't believe a word of it, probably because it doesn't mesh with what I've loved about my interpretation of the Qur'anic version of his character, and so it seems I just believe whatever the heck I want to believe, and what I hate, I don't believe at all.

They say "be opened", and I don't know how to do this, especially when accepting some of these things feels almost like death or accepting poison and destroying everything I have built up in my mind, everything I actually enjoy, and even abandoning all the characters I really love and relate to, in exchange for these totally annoying people I seem to be able to do nothing but actually despise.

How can I remove the hatred in my heart for these "Sage" type characters? How can I, like my fellow monks, monkeys, aces, and apes before me, come to admire and love characters who are annoying "Wise Willing Sages" instead of the "Cowardly Unwilling Simpletons" that I prefer as my Brothers in Awe?

Click to expand...

What scholarly work have you read up on Muhammed and his life? I am not referring to Ibn Hisham but modern scholarly work with a historical approach.

The Artis Magistra said:

Click to expand...

firedragon said:

What scholarly work have you read up on Muhammed and his life? I am not referring to Ibn Hisham but modern scholarly work with a historical approach.

Click to expand...

Oh, nothing modern I think, except books about the History of Islam and its Founding which are academic books, but my focus on those books was to find out what there could be found out about Pre-Islamic Arabia, which led me to some texts like the Book of Idols or whatever. So those were often sort of overviews and quick and seemed to just sort of gloss over it all sort of quickly and follow the stories from the Hadith collections and famous histories that are mostly acknowledged by people. I also watched online lectures about Muhammed here and there, but mostly I don't like any of the stuff or care about that character they talk about or how they talk about him. I preferred what people like this guy had said, which is basically nothing and that very little can be known for certain and that the Qur'an is the contemporary text. I forgot the name of the guy who was the academic or scholar who had said that about Muhammed, but I was looking at early Islamic history, art, and coins, and how the earliest depictions might have had the Macedonian style caps, but what was interesting to me about that is my Mother had seen a dream where she had said it was supposed to be Muhammed depicted in the dream and he was wearing this hat and had a staff, and this is how the coins also depicted him I later found out, even though that is thought by some to be some Greek copy (my mother didn't know anything about that, and separately my father had a similar dream with him wearing that as well, and I saw something like that hat also when I was very little in a hotel where this shadow figure seemed to be standing over me):

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/57/162233282_e699fddb9c.jpg

I also appreciated in the image that these guys appear to have full beards and mustaches, since I absolutely hate the "goat-man" look and total removal of the mustache some people practice, as I find the mustache was a common feature throughout most of Islamic history and Islamic cultures without a big fuss made about it like some groups seem to do today. One can see that three different characters seem to be depicted here, with three different appearances and facial hairstyles, while all wearing the unusual cap that was reported in the dreams by people who had never known or seen this coin which I only saw and discovered myself a few months ago or something.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vJGy40rxa...CFck/s1600/005+Boy+with+Macedonian+hat+BM.jpg

I think that, since the story of Dhul Karnain in the Qur'an seems to be a reference to a segment of the Syriac version of the Alexander Romance, and that the stories of Alexander were likely actually stories of his heir Seleukos or whatever, that Dhul Karnain, who likely also wore this hat most likely at some point, had an influence on fashion throughout these regions and what was considered the attire of chiefs and leaders at times, and that Arabia was a bit behind also in some ways and may have maintained this. Seleucus I Nicator - Wikipedia seemed to be an extremely noble hero who built lots of things and helped lots of people, as compared to Alexander who was mostly destructive and died really fast as well, so was unlikely to have had as much influence and success as the famous Seleucus who contributed most likely to a great portion of stories that were attributed to the short-lived Alexander. Seleucus also seemed to have stories about how he was apparently spoken to by God or something, so the fact that he was the big builder guy and stories of him ended up in myths and legends spread across the Arabic speaking world, I think that he is most likely Dhul Karnain, also because he used to put two bull horns on everything, including himself, his horse, his elephants on coinage, just everything, whereas Alexander was known for his Ammonite Ram Horns, Seleucus had the Bull Horns. Each of the heirs of Alexander had their own heraldry or animal associations, its really cool stuff. The cult of Helios in the Seleucid East - Persée

Seleucus, though little recognized or even heard of today, was one of the biggest world rulers that ever was, and had a huge territory and influence for many years. I think that many of the people who are mentioned in the Qur'an are also known and mentioned throughout history, but under slightly different names or epithets, but are actually incredibly famous and influential people who have caused many of the legends that came after them. So there is a guy who was a world ruler with a huge Empire who "restored the Universal Temple" or founded it or built it, that would be the real Solomon most likely, and it seems that all these rulers are in a chain of rulership and Empires that were some of the biggest in the world in the Middle East, and Muhammed would then fit the picture as another Empire founder with huge influence that led to another massive Empire and territory. So there are stories of the ancient rulers who have the tale of Moses basically as their founding story, even Abraham's story seems to exist in one of these wandering founder figures and Kings. So I think these were not people who were unknown to history, but were people very well known throughout history, but their names and epithets were maybe making people think that someone else was being referred to, plus I think the Biblical timeline is often completely way off and totally wrong.

The Artis Magistra said:

Oh, nothing modern I think, except books about the History of Islam and its Founding which are academic books, but my focus on those books was to find out what there could be found out about Pre-Islamic Arabia, which led me to some texts like the Book of Idols or whatever. So those were often sort of overviews and quick and seemed to just sort of gloss over it all sort of quickly and follow the stories from the Hadith collections and famous histories that are mostly acknowledged by people. I also watched online lectures about Muhammed here and there, but mostly I don't like any of the stuff or care about that character they talk about or how they talk about him. I preferred what people like this guy had said, which is basically nothing and that very little can be known for certain and that the Qur'an is the contemporary text. I forgot the name of the guy who was the academic or scholar who had said that about Muhammed, but I was looking at early Islamic history, art, and coins, and how the earliest depictions might have had the Macedonian style caps, but what was interesting to me about that is my Mother had seen a dream where she had said it was supposed to be Muhammed depicted in the dream and he was wearing this hat and had a staff, and this is how the coins also depicted him I later found out, even though that is thought by some to be some Greek copy (my mother didn't know anything about that, and separately my father had a similar dream with him wearing that as well, and I saw something like that hat also when I was very little in a hotel where this shadow figure seemed to be standing over me):

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/57/162233282_e699fddb9c.jpg

I also appreciated in the image that these guys appear to have full beards and mustaches, since I absolutely hate the "goat-man" look and total removal of the mustache some people practice, as I find the mustache was a common feature throughout most of Islamic history and Islamic cultures without a big fuss made about it like some groups seem to do today. One can see that three different characters seem to be depicted here, with three different appearances and facial hairstyles, while all wearing the unusual cap that was reported in the dreams by people who had never known or seen this coin which I only saw and discovered myself a few months ago or something.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vJGy40rxa...CFck/s1600/005+Boy+with+Macedonian+hat+BM.jpg

I think that, since the story of Dhul Karnain in the Qur'an seems to be a reference to a segment of the Syriac version of the Alexander Romance, and that the stories of Alexander were likely actually stories of his heir Seleukos or whatever, that Dhul Karnain, who likely also wore this hat most likely at some point, had an influence on fashion throughout these regions and what was considered the attire of chiefs and leaders at times, and that Arabia was a bit behind also in some ways and may have maintained this. Seleucus I Nicator - Wikipedia seemed to be an extremely noble hero who built lots of things and helped lots of people, as compared to Alexander who was mostly destructive and died really fast as well, so was unlikely to have had as much influence and success as the famous Seleucus who contributed most likely to a great portion of stories that were attributed to the short-lived Alexander. Seleucus also seemed to have stories about how he was apparently spoken to by God or something, so the fact that he was the big builder guy and stories of him ended up in myths and legends spread across the Arabic speaking world, I think that he is most likely Dhul Karnain, also because he used to put two bull horns on everything, including himself, his horse, his elephants on coinage, just everything, whereas Alexander was known for his Ammonite Ram Horns, Seleucus had the Bull Horns. Each of the heirs of Alexander had their own heraldry or animal associations, its really cool stuff. The cult of Helios in the Seleucid East - Persée

Seleucus, though little recognized or even heard of today, was one of the biggest world rulers that ever was, and had a huge territory and influence for many years. I think that many of the people who are mentioned in the Qur'an are also known and mentioned throughout history, but under slightly different names or epithets, but are actually incredibly famous and influential people who have caused many of the legends that came after them. So there is a guy who was a world ruler with a huge Empire who "restored the Universal Temple" or founded it or built it, that would be the real Solomon most likely, and it seems that all these rulers are in a chain of rulership and Empires that were some of the biggest in the world in the Middle East, and Muhammed would then fit the picture as another Empire founder with huge influence that led to another massive Empire and territory. So there are stories of the ancient rulers who have the tale of Moses basically as their founding story, even Abraham's story seems to exist in one of these wandering founder figures and Kings. So I think these were not people who were unknown to history, but were people very well known throughout history, but their names and epithets were maybe making people think that someone else was being referred to, plus I think the Biblical timeline is often completely way off and totally wrong.

Click to expand...

I asked that because you had in your previous post equated the historicity of Muhammed to Moses.

For historicity of Muhammed, you could read some modern day scholar work. They are very different from Seerahs.

Thats the reason I asked you that question.

firedragon said:

I asked that because you had in your previous post equated the historicity of Muhammed to Moses.

For historicity of Muhammed, you could read some modern day scholar work. They are very different from Seerahs.

Thats the reason I asked you that question.

Click to expand...

Any particular recommendations?

The book I'm reading, sort of loosely connected to Muhammed, is called: Muhammed and the Golden Bough by Jaroslav Stetkevych

The other one I lost as it was on my sd card, but wasn't too much about Muhammed maybe as it was about the Sources for the content of the Qur'an, which is where they quoted that part from the Alexander Romance that has the Gog Magog wall thing in it.

The Artis Magistra said:

Hey, years pass fast, feel free to do it here if you're up to it, and I will keep participating as well, one year sounds like an acceptable length of time to begin and end the Trial of Baha'u'llah, or I can make a thread separate from this, though I have a tendency to want to make it about several
Prophets, but I should keep each separate if I do it. I really like the idea, and it is all from what you wrote, I think it was a great idea. So if I don't make that particular thread, feel free to work out some of it or start the case here in this thread, and then if it seems to me that it will be better in its own thread, I'll move there and refer to some of the materials that were brought up here already there as well.

So yes, I'd love for you to help me with that and there are basically many here who seem to know about things who could help as well over the course of year. What else are we going to do anyway? I think its a good thing.

Click to expand...

Well, as you know I already made a thread about where did Bahaullah get His knowledge from.
This is an interesting topic to investigate in my opinion. After I personally investigate this subject, my conclusion was, there is no evidence that Bahaullah have learned from books or from school. Bahaullah Himself says, His knowledge is from God. Whether or not one believes that, is to the judgment of the individual. This is why I said, you are the judge yourself.

The Artis Magistra said:

Any particular recommendations?

The book I'm reading, sort of loosely connected to Muhammed, is called: Muhammed and the Golden Bough by Jaroslav Stetkevych

The other one I lost as it was on my sd card, but wasn't too much about Muhammed maybe as it was about the Sources for the content of the Qur'an, which is where they quoted that part from the Alexander Romance that has the Gog Magog wall thing in it.

Click to expand...

Ive heard about the book, but never read it. In fact, I have not read any of profs books. The one I would read next is on the arabic language. Well, good choice I suppose.

There is a specialist in the area that we were talking about called Fred Donner. I am sure you would find his books enlightening predominantly because he is taking an absolutely historical approach.

Nevertheless, since you mentioned Alexander several times I would like to say that the idea that Dhul Karnain is Alexander is pure assumption. Words have meanings, and there is no evidence that Dhul Karnain is Alexander. Dhul Karnain means two seasons. Man of two seasons.

The Artis Magistra said:

Can anyone give it a shot or a few shots as to why they think this is the case?

Click to expand...

There seems to be much happening in your mind, your posts contain numerous questions and hundreds of tangent points.

Maybe you need to quite simply consider there is One God which will answer many of your questions. The One God sent all the Messengers and God does as God Wills.

That simplicity allows us to be one human race pursuing all virtue and moral for the good of all free of predudices.

I wish you health and happiness, Regards Tony

Trailblazer said:

The Kitáb-i-Íqán might be considered comparable since it is our primary theological work, although it is only about half as many pages as the Qur'an. I consider this book a miracle.

Click to expand...

Not really. Kithab I iqan has about 20 letters in one row, and about 15 lines per page into about 200 pages.

If you take a Quran lets say the Medinan print, it will have aproximately 40 letters in one row, about 15 likes per page, and over 600 pages.

Thats about a difference of 1:6 in volume.

firedragon said:

Not really. Kithab I iqan has about 20 letters in one row, and about 15 lines per page into about 200 pages.

If you take a Quran lets say the Medinan print, it will have aproximately 40 letters in one row, about 15 likes per page, and over 600 pages.

Thats about a difference of 1:6 in volume.

Click to expand...

Is it correct to say the Quran is a collection of verses given over many years?

The Kitab-i-Iqan was most likely revealed in one day.

Regards Tony

Tony Bristow-Stagg said:

Is it correct to say the Quran is a collection of verses given over many years?

The Kitab-i-Iqan was most likely revealed in one day.

Regards Tony

Click to expand...

I am not comparing and saying one is better. I am just giving the facts and the wrong notion of volume.

firedragon said:

Not really. Kithab I iqan has about 20 letters in one row, and about 15 lines per page into about 200 pages.

If you take a Quran lets say the Medinan print, it will have aproximately 40 letters in one row, about 15 likes per page, and over 600 pages.

Thats about a difference of 1:6 in volume.

Click to expand...

It is also right to point out that it is recorded that verses equivalent to the Quran remained unrecorded every day during the peak of the revelation for a long time. The secretaries were unable to keep up.

firedragon said:

I am not comparing and saying one is better. I am just giving the facts and the wrong notion of volume.

Click to expand...

I also understand and acknowledge that. The Kitab-i-Iqan was one Revelation, on one day in answer to one question from the Bab's uncle.

I would never offer one Revelation is better than another, as it is God's Will as to what is offered in a Message to humanity.

I would offer the entire collection of the works of Baha'u'llah could be seen as the part of one Book, if we compile it as the Quran was compiled.

Regards Tony

firedragon said:

Not really. Kithab I iqan has about 20 letters in one row, and about 15 lines per page into about 200 pages.

If you take a Quran lets say the Medinan print, it will have aproximately 40 letters in one row, about 15 likes per page, and over 600 pages.

Thats about a difference of 1:6 in volume.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that information. I just did a quick search on the web and got the number of pages in the Qur'an and compared that to the Kitab-i-Iqan, but it did not seem right that the Qur'an contained only twice as much in volume.

Tony Bristow-Stagg said:

There seems to be much happening in your mind, your posts contain numerous questions and hundreds of tangent points.

Maybe you need to quite simply consider there is One God which will answer many of your questions. The One God sent all the Messengers and God does as God Wills.

That simplicity allows us to be one human race pursuing all virtue and moral for the good of all free of predudices.

I wish you health and happiness, Regards Tony

Click to expand...

Yes, what you said is what I believe, and that is the religion known as Islam, it is the religion that says that, it is in the book known as the Qur'an. What I'm having trouble with is why exactly the Bahai people don't seem to usually be too familiar with this or what they like about Baha'u'llah more than the Qur'an (which many may not have even read).

If they believe that "One God sent all the messengers and God does as God wills" that is Islam as found in the Qur'an. There seemed to be no necessity for anything further, its still functioning to this day without much trouble and with a greater population, more popularity, and much less organization than the Bahai religion (it has no real true authority structure in place, particularly the Sunni Islam or just general Islam).

So all those tangents, all those questions, its because I'm having trouble coming to grips with a few things:

1. Am I in danger of not being Saved or achieving paradise by pretty much rejecting Baha'u'llah and finding him to be a likely 1800s charlatan usurper type and not believing that anything he has written is anything but the writing of a megalomaniacal leader of a movement (like many, many, many others as I've shown have existed throughout history, some not even recorded probably).

2. Why do I have this extreme doubt and prejudice when other people (older people raised in the USA probably who are generally Caucasian), love Baha'u'llah and believe him and do not doubt him and are interested in and follow this movement from out of Persia/Iran in the 1800s?

3. If this is a matter of my soul at stake for preferring Islam and the Qur'an over Baha'u'llah and his laws and writings, and I'm failing to obey God and I am expected to be punished for it, this is no light or casual or laughing matter for me at all, and it is of immediate and urgent and crucial concern for me that I understand these issues and do what is right and follow what is right, which I think is the Qur'an currently and not the writings of Baha'u'llah, and if I am wrong, I need this clearly established to me as to how I am wrong, especially if my soul and my future condition is at stake!

4. The Christians say I am going to hell for denying the divinity of Jesus Christ as God Incarnate, the Muslims say I'm going to hell for denying their various extra-Qur'anic traditions, the Jews say that I'm a non-Jew and not practicing Judaism so I'm going to be put in some category of less than the best for it most likely, the Mormons say that Joseph Smith and the Man-Gods are going to put me in Spirit Prison or some lesser delight, and so what does Baha'u'llah say? Nothing? Does Baha'u'llah say I can do whatever and I'll be fine? The Atheists say I'm wasting my time and that my deeds will come to nothing after I am dead, and everyone has something to say, why wouldn't I have questions or be distressed? Out of all this mess of people saying this and that to me, and huge bands and gangs of people saying this all together as they hold hands with each other, I have read the various writings somewhat, I have researched the scriptures of the world, and for me, my beliefs are as you stated, which I find are stated most clearly in the book known as the Qur'an, and so, because it is what I find best and most clear and easy of all, I have chosen that book is my most preferred scripture, which has left all the other people shaking their heads in disgust for that choice, that I chose the book associated with Muhammed the Terrible and that he has me tricked and has me fooled, and for it, I'll join him in Dante's Inferno. Why? Simply because I believe in One God, One Power, Doing Good, Avoiding Evil, and that I will have to answer for my crimes and misdeeds, and that only God has the power to resurrect and to forgive.

So I rejected the free gift of Jesus the Son of God and God Himself on Earth, and I reject Bab (but somewhat less so than Baha'u'llah), and I reject Baha'u'llah, and I reject all those Messiahs on the lists of Messiahs, I reject the Mahdi and all the Pre-Mahdi Mahdi Claimants (I don't believe in any Saviors, Mahdis, or the return of Jesus before Judgment Day).

Furthermore, I reject the Jewish scriptures, I reject the unfair stolen blessings given to Jacob which were meant for Esau or whatever weird stuff is written in there, I deny the rightfulness of the activities that were said to be performed by Abraham or that Noah had any ability to rightfully lay a curse on some of his descendants for some crime they did not commit. I despise injustice, and I deny that God is the one who commanded all the injustices and vile crimes against the totally innocent as the Bible proclaims (such as the slaying of suckling infants and whatever else they claim God commanded them to do). For what they represent as their God, they are in my mind forever criminals so long as they support these things or believe that their God has told them to do it, and whoever loves that book can only really be a villain in their heart, because no good or sincere or just person could ever say that justice can be so distorted as to allow such things as God's true and rightful command.

Part 2:


This is the case I take to the afterlife, that I believed and believe and only hold the hope out for a God of right and justice, who does not demand the slaying of infants and innocents in retribution or for any reason. The God of the Qur'an is the sterilized one that does not have these stories associated with them, but denies such commands being made, and so that is preferable to me and my sense of right against wrong.

Baha'u'llah and the Bab before him, seemingly unnecessarily proclaimed themselves great manifestations, and created division and death, causing harm to their own followers and others, and all for apparently no good reason except to have the right to inflate their egos, since Islam was already in place and existing, and the Qur'an was available with its message as well (which really seems just the same to me still, unless someone can clearly outline all the huge and necessary differences). Baha'u'llah had three wives even, so didn't seemingly update much for himself, and the main point seemed to be how he is some big shot for the next thousand years. What good was it to create division, confusion, sectarianism, and bloodshed among the people by making any of these claims at all while Islam was already in place and practiced almost identically to what Baha'u'llah was practicing and preaching himself?

Yet, if I'm wrong about any or all of these things, then according to so many factions, even according to Hindus and Buddhists possibly, I'm headed for a terrible future state and nasty experiences. This is why it is very important, if we are taking any of these things seriously at all, and why I'm concerned about what is true, what is blocking me, how to overcome the blocks, and how to come to know and do what is right which will give me the best results.

This thread was created to invite anyone and everyone (but most especially the Bahai), to discuss why they believe whatever they believe, what they think it is that has them convinced and what they think it is that inhibits me from it, and what the risks are of not believing, and what the benefits are of believing.


So yeah, that is why there are so many questions, the hope behind those questions is that they might stimulate some of the many Bahai people or people more familiar with the Bahai religion and even others to discuss more at length and in detail about everything, the topic isn't only just about the surface points, but also about the psychology and psychological factors behind what even seems to convince people and leaves others in doubt or skeptical.

All my questions are answered by the Qur'an and my reasoning and logic (which I need people to defeat if I am leading myself into error by these things, otherwise I'm doomed!), and in my beliefs, there is no room for man-adoration, and "Manifestations of God" as Prophets or Men even, or even a necessary update to a Qur'an which has not apparently been outdone at all by the copious ocean of writing of Baha'u'llah or even me.

What we seem to have before us, is the story of Joseph Smith, a charlatan treasure hunter and mystical Free-Masonic Spiritist type, who was fond of making tall-tales, who then founded a religion, took on new wives or had affairs, and was executed by the Government, or the story of Baha'u'llah, who was a young man who followed the Bab and then imitated the Bab and took on the role that the Bab claimed would come as soon as the Bab was not even alive to say "no, not him" as that risk was eliminated by his death (if I read the timeline or history correctly, it seems that Bab was executed at 30 and Baha'u'llah took on the role of the leader of the group and the one to come after Bab couldn't confirm or deny it exactly as he was a corpse by then or under duress anyway just before), and then who himself was executed by the Government, and the story of Muhammed, who somehow turned his entire nation and all the tribes into his religion, which then spread across the world leading to one of the biggest Empires the World had ever seen, changing the lives and statuses of most likely millions upon millions, now billions of people over time, and turning the Old World on its head, with an amazing piece of literature, a single compiled book with one apparent author and style, that has been used to this day effectively to govern the lives and exercises of countless people, and which so many have proclaimed miraculous connections to. Ghenghis Khan is pretty impressive as well, and though his people seemed to have a reputation for bloodshed just like the Muslims were said to be killers, was supposedly a devout and spiritual man as well who united his people and changed the world (and many of his descendants became Muslims as well without much apparently difficulty, as their understandings and laws might not really have been that different from those that the Mongols were already familiar with as their Natural Laws).

Then there is Napoleon, who himself (though defeated) (was said to have falsely) proclaimed a kind of Islamic Monotheism as his religion (before Baha'u'llah said so) since Baha'u'llah apparently made mention of Napoleon, who only God knows his heart (though history knows his bloodshed).

In the end, it is God alone who will judge all these people and us, according to most scriptures and writings and beliefs, and we will see who was right and who was wrong, but I'd like to know well before that point, so I can protect myself better if possible.

Now, if people read my writing here carefully, it is trying all sorts of techniques to get people inspired or motivated to talk, to write extensively, to introspect, to think, to share their concerns and thoughts, and also to reason, even to doubt, or wonder. Once these wheels start turning for people authentically, then the real question arises as to why they end up rolling away from each other rather than together towards one point, what leads to the differences is understandings and beliefs? This is a crucial question, especially considering the emphasis the Bahai religion and maybe the writings of Baha'u'llah place on the Universality of the One Religion and Way that is being presented as the Updated Truth of Today (1800s).

So the bottom line is, if a person is a good person, and has the truth, and the truth is the only thing that will save themselves and save others, then it is incumbent upon the just and righteous and good person to give the medicine, the cure, the answer, the truth that will save them and prevent their destruction, and to work with them, and spend time with them, to prevent harm from coming to them, and if they know that harm will come to them but make little to no effort about it, then they must be enemies who care nothing about a person or their welfare overall or do not take the claims of their religions (if their religions make their system and way out to be the only working and acceptable one to attain a good state now or later in the afterlife for example) seriously or something (or another explanation, like thinking that maybe the other ways are good enough and the people are not really in any risk even if their beliefs or systems are not personally preferable).

Personally, since Bahai religion seems so similar to Islam, if they are basically practicing some kind of Islam then I don't think their risk is as high of trouble as someone who is living some sort of lifestyle which is very different from the teachings of the Qur'an.

Tony Bristow-Stagg said:

It is also right to point out that it is recorded that verses equivalent to the Quran remained unrecorded every day during the peak of the revelation for a long time. The secretaries were unable to keep up.



I also understand and acknowledge that. The Kitab-i-Iqan was one Revelation, on one day in answer to one question from the Bab's uncle.

I would never offer one Revelation is better than another, as it is God's Will as to what is offered in a Message to humanity.

I would offer the entire collection of the works of Baha'u'llah could be seen as the part of one Book, if we compile it as the Quran was compiled.

Regards Tony

Click to expand...

I wish everyone would get on the task immediately to provide the entirety of all writings of the Bab and Baha'u'llah in English, for free, online, and in print (which can charge for the printing expenses), and from those complete sets of translated writings (like the translation of the Qur'an with the original untranslated text next to it, and a transliteration can be thrown in as well), a book should also be made of the extracts compiled to make clear what the specific laws, rules, exercises, stories are, so that people can read these and follow these easily and understand why, so that the religion is made available to know well and easy to practice. It has been a lot of years with a lot of dual language speakers with the writings available, why has this project not been completed, and is it being worked on by anyone? With so many followers, shouldn't it have been completed already?

firedragon said:

Ive heard about the book, but never read it. In fact, I have not read any of profs books. The one I would read next is on the arabic language. Well, good choice I suppose.

There is a specialist in the area that we were talking about called Fred Donner. I am sure you would find his books enlightening predominantly because he is taking an absolutely historical approach.

Nevertheless, since you mentioned Alexander several times I would like to say that the idea that Dhul Karnain is Alexander is pure assumption. Words have meanings, and there is no evidence that Dhul Karnain is Alexander. Dhul Karnain means two seasons. Man of two seasons.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure it was Donner I was thinking of who might have said there isn't too much we can be certain of regarding Muhammed, or was that someone else who was saying that in Academia?

I don't think Dhul Karnain is Alexander at all, I think Dhul Karnain is not Alexander, but Seleucus I Nicator the heir to the largest part of his Empire and territory, whose legends and stories were mixed up with and attributed to Alexander. Seleucus had numerous building projects including walls and traveled the places and performed many of the foundings and feats attributed to Alexander the Great, and Seleucus was known by the Epithet of the Horned One or Two Horned as well and it was his major symbol he was known for, and his stories and legends became part of what is known as the Alexander Romance and attributed to Alexander (who never did the things that Seleucus did since Alexander was so short-lived) but the Syriac version of the Alexander Romance (pre-dating the Qur'an apparently) has an almost word for word account that the Qur'an uses to discuss Dhul Karnain, this is why it is no light matter as to the Syriac Alexander Romance containing an account found in the Qur'an when the Qur'an discusses Dhul Karnain, so my belief is that Dhul Karnain is not Alexander, but Seleucus who was well known as far better than Alexander, beloved, extremely kind and just, a person who commanded many people and ruled a huge Empire, helped nations, and built massive walls to protect people and communities, and had as his symbol the Horns, and lived a long life and into old age and was known as deeply spiritual as well as compared to Alexander who was seemingly an ego-maniac with a hot-head and a bad reputation overall.

You can read about how the Syriac Alexander Romance portion is word for word in the Qur'an in a book about the Historical Sources and Literary Sources for the content of the Qur'an which is by Gabriel Said Reynolds (can be found on Library Genesis, I think that is the one that shows that clearly).

The Artis Magistra said:

I'm pretty sure it was Donner I was thinking of who might have said there isn't too much we can be certain of regarding Muhammed, or was that someone else who was saying that in Academia?

I don't think Dhul Karnain is Alexander at all, I think Dhul Karnain is not Alexander, but Seleucus I Nicator the heir to the largest part of his Empire and territory, whose legends and stories were mixed up with and attributed to Alexander. Seleucus had numerous building projects including walls and traveled the places and performed many of the foundings and feats attributed to Alexander the Great, and Seleucus was known by the Epithet of the Horned One or Two Horned as well and it was his major symbol he was known for, and his stories and legends became part of what is known as the Alexander Romance and attributed to Alexander (who never did the things that Seleucus did since Alexander was so short-lived) but the Syriac version of the Alexander Romance (pre-dating the Qur'an apparently) has an almost word for word account that the Qur'an uses to discuss Dhul Karnain, this is why it is no light matter as to the Syriac Alexander Romance containing an account found in the Qur'an when the Qur'an discusses Dhul Karnain, so my belief is that Dhul Karnain is not Alexander, but Seleucus who was well known as far better than Alexander, beloved, extremely kind and just, a person who commanded many people and ruled a huge Empire, helped nations, and built massive walls to protect people and communities, and had as his symbol the Horns, and lived a long life and into old age and was known as deeply spiritual as well as compared to Alexander who was seemingly an ego-maniac with a hot-head and a bad reputation overall.

You can read about how the Syriac Alexander Romance portion is word for word in the Qur'an in a book about the Historical Sources and Literary Sources for the content of the Qur'an which is by Gabriel Said Reynolds (can be found on Library Genesis, I think that is the one that shows that clearly).

Click to expand...

I think this may be the book I read it in:
Library Genesis
Library Genesis: Gabriel Said Reynolds - The Qur'an in its Historical Context

and this is an article (possibly an anti-Islamic website) that mentions it:
Dhul-Qarnayn and the Alexander Romance - WikiIslam

and another interesting article:
Alexander The Great in The Quran - Philological Evidence - Al-Khidir

InvestigateTruth said:

Well, as you know I already made a thread about where did Bahaullah get His knowledge from.
This is an interesting topic to investigate in my opinion. After I personally investigate this subject, my conclusion was, there is no evidence that Bahaullah have learned from books or from school. Bahaullah Himself says, His knowledge is from God. Whether or not one believes that, is to the judgment of the individual. This is why I said, you are the judge yourself.

Click to expand...

Could you please link me once more to this thread where you covered that topic, I'd like to read it if I find the time! Thank you very much!