• 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!

Is it possible to investigate Bahaullah's claim?

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
I have been reading up a bit. In this book called Bahaullah and the new Era, Esslemont claims that Abdul Baha himself claimed that Bahaullah was very highly educated (Doesnt say anything about formal education. Just education).

"When He was only thirteen of fourteen years old He became renowned for His learning. He would converse on any subject and solve any problem presented to Him. In large gatherings He would discuss matters with the Ulama and would explain intricate religious questions."


I know that this statement contradicts with his other writings but is of particular interest to me since this topic came up. I am not interested in discussing the contradictions but lets take a historical approach to this. However, He did not reveal His station until the appointed time, which was when 1863, the year He declared.

The quote from Abdulbaha just means, Bahaullah was very knowledgeable even in childhood and youth. The idea is, Bahaullah, as a Manifestation of God, was All-knowing from the moment He came to this world, but this learning or education was not acquired through human learning. Bahaullah however did not reveal His mission, until the appointed time, which is known as the Hour in Islamic sources.

There is an extensively well researched book or series called "Encyclopedia of modern Middle East and North Africa" which explains that during the era of Bahaullah in the early 19th century the Ulama of the traditional madrasa were teaching in the so called "New Schools" as well. And it clearly states that religious education took a stand of preeminence in Iran. This was a time when Egypt and Iran and the likes were competing against each other to modernise their armies, and educate their children. They even sent children to Europe for education and that was as a movement, not just parents sending one child to be educated in a European university. This shows the importance shown for education in the region. Thus, religious education was of "preeminence" and general education was booming and thriving in Iran at the time. At least the government was very interested in educating their children. Also, the Ulama being so strong and themselves being educators its pretty evident that religious education and general education went hand in hand in Iran.

Anyway I know how a Hafiz school works for young children (resident). This is a tradition that dates back to time immemorial where children will have their formal general education along with the Huffaz education. So even in the religious institute, general education is imposed upon children.

Bahaullah's father being a state minister and a close associate of the prime minister at there time typically would put his kids to be educated. Being a family that held many high positions in the government, civil and military occupations in the main city of Tehran, you would expect their children to at least have some education in theology. Its almost implausible that a high end minister of the government not making any effort to have at least one year of education for his children when the government is making a lot of effort to educate their general citizens. After his fathers death according to legend Bahaullah was offered his position in the government but he refused. I would like to think that the Prime Minister would not so closely offer him that level of recognition and position without a day of education.

It just seems highly probable that he would have had some education. As Esslemont himself says "He never attended school or college, and what little teaching He received was given at home." thus he means to say that he had some education at home. There is a chance that his father educated him at home. But its also probable that he had some formal education due to the general reasons I have given in this post.

The Vizier in an Islamic country is highly educated in the Shariah. It is obvious. A close associate of the Prime Minister and a Vizier in Iran would have very high levels of education in Fikh. It is only natural that he would consider his kids for education. Thats just another reason. I find it of particular interest that Abdul Baha in "Some Answered questions" would say that Bahaullah never associated with any Ulama but in another place say that he spoke and discussed with Ulama with a lot of intellect. This is a conflict that I cannot resolve. I also highly doubt that the Prime Minister would personally offer the fathers position of Vazir with no knowledge in the religious law.

Peace.
In many Tablets Bahaullah claimed He did not have books to learn, and did not go to school to learn. Some of His followers were very close to Him. For example His brother Kalim, was a believer in Bahaullah, and was willing to be imprisoned because of his belief in Bahaullah. So, if Bahaullah was lying regarding His education, his brother would have known, and would not believe in Bahaullah.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
The quote from Abdulbaha just means, Bahaullah was very knowledgeable even in childhood and youth. The idea is, Bahaullah, as a Manifestation of God, was All-knowing from the moment He came to this world, but this learning or education was not acquired through human learning. Bahaullah however did not reveal His mission, until the appointed time, which is known as the Hour in Islamic sources.

I understand the theological implication of that statement, I am only making a historical approach. I know why Abdul Baha said that.

In many Tablets Bahaullah claimed He did not have books to learn, and did not go to school to learn. Some of His followers were very close to Him. For example His brother Kalim, was a believer in Bahaullah, and was willing to be imprisoned because of his belief in Bahaullah. So, if Bahaullah was lying regarding His education, his brother would have known, and would not believe in Bahaullah.

I am taking a historical approach, not the claims. I understand the claims.

Hope you understand.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Yes........ All is God, far too vast to even be aware of us.
Look at your wrist under a magnifier....... Now, take notice of one single tiny hair there. It is part of you, but you never even noticed it before. :)

A bit like that.
Well, here is what I think and believe -- God is aware of every hair on our heads. I agree that life is immeasurably wonderful.
Jesus spoke of sparrows which were not expensive to buy but which the Father would be aware of: "Two sparrows sell for a coin of small value, do they not? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father’s knowledge.But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. So have no fear; you are worth more than many sparrows."
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
I understand the theological implication of that statement, I am only making a historical approach. I know why Abdul Baha said that.



I am taking a historical approach, not the claims. I understand the claims.

Hope you understand.
I know you are taking a historical approach. So, you think if Bahaullah was knowledgeable, it means He learned that from books and/ or other people, and not possibly because He had innate knowledge. How historically you can make that conclusion?

To me, you can make that conclusion if, you see historically evidence that Bahaullah was spending a lot of time reading books by Himself, or going to special schools to study various religions.

The question is not if Bahaullah had knowledge or not. The question is, where did He get His knowledge from.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I know you are taking a historical approach. So, you think if Bahaullah was knowledgeable, it means He learned that from books and/ or other people, and not possibly because He had innate knowledge. How historically you can make that conclusion?

To me, you can make that conclusion if, you see historically evidence that Bahaullah was spending a lot of time reading books by Himself, or going to special schools to study various religions.

The question is not if Bahaullah had knowledge or not. The question is, where did He get His knowledge from.

I didnt say anything about it being impossible that he had innate knowledge. Historically it seems more probable that he had some education and that's due to the reasons I have already given. There is no evidence to show that he indeed went to a formal college, nor is there any historical evidence to show that he had innate knowledge. Him being God incarnate is a theological approach and its your faith so I didnt touch that area.

I am only taking a historical approach by placing him inside the period of time, situation, and the surroundings as you could see in my post. But this is all very sophomore because, well, I did some research for maybe less than a day. And I did not use anti Bahai literature, I used Bahai literature.
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
I didnt say anything about it being impossible that he had innate knowledge. Historically it seems more probable that he had some education and that's due to the reasons I have already given. There is no evidence to show that he indeed went to a formal college, nor is there any historical evidence to show that he had innate knowledge. Him being God incarnate is a theological approach and its your faith so I didnt touch that area.

I am only taking a historical approach by placing him inside the period of time, situation, and the surroundings as you could see in my post. But this is all very sophomore because, well, I did some research for maybe less than a day. And I did not use anti Bahai literature, I used Bahai literature.
I understand. But, I think it is important for you to realize that your approach, is based on the assumption that Bahaullah must have obtained His knowledge either through formal education or informal education, such as books or learning from other human beings. Then once you made this assumption you are looking at the environment, period of time, etc, to come up with possible explanation from who or where He learned (father, teachers, ulama..etc).

I suggest, one should try to make a more accurate investigation, by saying, in the year so and so, He was going to school to learn so and so. In the year so and so, He was reading so and so Books. In the year so and so, He was learning from His father...etc. then for each period, provide historical evidences, such as testimony of witnesses.

,... nor is there any historical evidence to show that he had innate knowledge. .
Well, if there is no evidence that He got His knowledge through human learning, why can we not conclude, He had His own KNOWLEDGE?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I understand. But, I think it is important for you to realize that your approach, is based on the assumption that Bahaullah must have obtained His knowledge either through formal education or informal education, such as books or learning from other human beings. Then once you made this assumption you are looking at the environment, period of time, etc, to come up with possible explanation from who or where He learned (father, teachers, ulama..etc).

Thats what historians do or at least try to do.

I suggest, one should try to make a more accurate investigation, by saying, in the year so and so, He was going to school to learn so and so. In the year so and so, He was reading so and so Books. In the year so and so, He was learning from His father...etc. then for each period, provide historical evidences, such as testimony of witnesses.

Well, I said this three times. There is no evidence to show that he went to school. Also, you did not say he definitely went to school.

I have given you quotes from Abdul Baha himself that he was taught at home. So maybe he got his education at home.

It just seems probable that his father sent him for some formal education. But there is no evidence unless someone finds a college record or something.

Now you are making a faith claim that he was God, so he had full knowledge of everything. Of course, God would have knowledge of everything. But can you provide documented evidence to that? Theology does not make a historical case, and it was you who said all of that is irrelevant, and made a historical query in your post.

I am not making a definite case on anything but only the probable. So you have misunderstood.
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
Thats what historians do or at least try to do.

I don't think there is such an approach taken by historians when it comes to events related to 19th centuries famous people.
When archeologists or historians are trying to construct historical narrative related some thousands years ago, they often use their imagination to come up with explanations or describing events which there is no clear information available. And in such cases, the historians often agree, that the history of 1000 or 2000 years ago is very unclear, as things were not written in those days, as they are written now.
But When it comes to history related to 19th century, it is a different story. The evidences are available. For example, the marriage certificate and passport of Bahaulah is available. When it comes to Jesus, no such things even existed.
What I mean is, for history of Bahaullah it is not a valid approach to construct stories based on imagination. if a story is true, you would find an actual related piece of evidence.






I have given you quotes from Abdul Baha himself that he was taught at home. So maybe he got his education at home.
Here is the quote you provided from Abdulbaha. There is nothing in it that says, Bahaullah was taught at home:



"When He was only thirteen of fourteen years old He became renowned for His learning. He would converse on any subject and solve any problem presented to Him. In large gatherings He would discuss matters with the Ulama and would explain intricate religious questions."



It just seems probable that his father sent him for some formal education. But there is no evidence unless someone finds a college record or something.

So, what year and at what age approximately?

Now you are making a faith claim that he was God, so he had full knowledge of everything.

No, I said let's set aside God. I am saying if the evidences shows Bahaullah did not learn from books or people, why can we not say, He had His own knowledge? Having His own knowledge, is not necessarily the same as saying God gave Him knowledge. Do you see this?





I am not making a definite case on anything but only the probable. So you have misunderstood.
Not a problem. It is just a discussion, step by step.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I don't think there is such an approach taken by historians when it comes to events related to 19th centuries famous people.
When archeologists or historians are trying to construct historical narrative related some thousands years ago, they often use their imagination to come up with explanations or describing events which there is no clear information available. And in such cases, the historians often agree, that the history of 1000 or 2000 years ago is very unclear, as things were not written in those days, as they are written now.
But When it comes to history related to 19th century, it is a different story. The evidences are available. For example, the marriage certificate and passport of Bahaulah is available. When it comes to Jesus, no such things even existed.
What I mean is, for history of Bahaullah it is not a valid approach to construct stories based on imagination. if a story is true, you would find an actual related piece of evidence.

Sorry. But that is the historical approach. I asked you to place your own standard on your own case that his knowledge was because he was God, so whats the evidence for that? Now you see it becomes a theological discussion again since you are making faith statements? And its not imagination, and no case was made anyway, so I think you are just responding with your emotions. I will respectfully withdraw from this conversation.

Have a great day.
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
But there is no evidence unless someone finds a college record or something.
.
The proof doesn't need to be a college record, because if there was a college certificate, maybe it was lost. This is a possibility for that to consider. But, Bahaullah had many friends, relatives and siblings so, if He had gone to school, somebody would have mentioned that most probably. If you work with probabilities what is you explanation here?
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
Sorry. But that is the historical approach. I asked you to place your own standard on your own case that his knowledge was because he was God, so whats the evidence for that? Now you see it becomes a theological discussion again since you are making faith statements? And its not imagination, and no case was made anyway, so I think you are just responding with your emotions. I will respectfully withdraw from this conversation.

Have a great day.
It is your feeling that I am responding with emotions. I am discussing this logically. But if you are not interested, it is fine.


Have a great day as well
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
It is your feeling that I am responding with emotions. I am discussing this logically. But if you are not interested, it is fine.


Have a great day as well

This is my post. Please show me that its all imagination. How?

I have been reading up a bit. In this book called Bahaullah and the new Era, Esslemont claims that Abdul Baha himself claimed that Bahaullah was very highly educated (Doesnt say anything about formal education. Just education).

"When He was only thirteen of fourteen years old He became renowned for His learning. He would converse on any subject and solve any problem presented to Him. In large gatherings He would discuss matters with the Ulama and would explain intricate religious questions."

I know that this statement contradicts with his other writings but is of particular interest to me since this topic came up. I am not interested in discussing the contradictions but lets take a historical approach to this.

There is an extensively well researched book or series called "Encyclopedia of modern Middle East and North Africa" which explains that during the era of Bahaullah in the early 19th century the Ulama of the traditional madrasa were teaching in the so called "New Schools" as well. And it clearly states that religious education took a stand of preeminence in Iran. This was a time when Egypt and Iran and the likes were competing against each other to modernise their armies, and educate their children. They even sent children to Europe for education and that was as a movement, not just parents sending one child to be educated in a European university. This shows the importance shown for education in the region. Thus, religious education was of "preeminence" and general education was booming and thriving in Iran at the time. At least the government was very interested in educating their children. Also, the Ulama being so strong and themselves being educators its pretty evident that religious education and general education went hand in hand in Iran.

Anyway I know how a Hafiz school works for young children (resident). This is a tradition that dates back to time immemorial where children will have their formal general education along with the Huffaz education. So even in the religious institute, general education is imposed upon children.

Bahaullah's father being a state minister and a close associate of the prime minister at there time typically would put his kids to be educated. Being a family that held many high positions in the government, civil and military occupations in the main city of Tehran, you would expect their children to at least have some education in theology. Its almost implausible that a high end minister of the government not making any effort to have at least one year of education for his children when the government is making a lot of effort to educate their general citizens. After his fathers death according to legend Bahaullah was offered his position in the government but he refused. I would like to think that the Prime Minister would not so closely offer him that level of recognition and position without a day of education.

It just seems highly probable that he would have had some education. As Esslemont himself says "He never attended school or college, and what little teaching He received was given at home." thus he means to say that he had some education at home. There is a chance that his father educated him at home. But its also probable that he had some formal education due to the general reasons I have given in this post.

The Vizier in an Islamic country is highly educated in the Shariah. It is obvious. A close associate of the Prime Minister and a Vizier in Iran would have very high levels of education in Fikh. It is only natural that he would consider his kids for education. Thats just another reason. I find it of particular interest that Abdul Baha in "Some Answered questions" would say that Bahaullah never associated with any Ulama but in another place say that he spoke and discussed with Ulama with a lot of intellect. This is a conflict that I cannot resolve. I also highly doubt that the Prime Minister would personally offer the fathers position of Vazir with no knowledge in the religious law.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Well, here is what I think and believe -- God is aware of every hair on our heads. I agree that life is immeasurably wonderful.
Jesus spoke of sparrows which were not expensive to buy but which the Father would be aware of: "Two sparrows sell for a coin of small value, do they not? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father’s knowledge.But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. So have no fear; you are worth more than many sparrows."

That is the exact opposite of what I believe.
Nor do I believe that a human is worth more than a sparrow, or a rabbit, etc.
Just look at what folks have been doing to humans over recent centuries and millenia. Sparrows might actually get a better deal...... :)
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
This is my post. Please show me that its all imagination. How?
Ok.


I have been reading up a bit. In this book called Bahaullah and the new Era, Esslemont claims that Abdul Baha himself claimed that Bahaullah was very highly educated (Doesnt say anything about formal education. Just education).
Here. You are using the word educated. Educated means, a person who is gone to school or had some teachers or books to learn from. Abdulbaha does not say, Bahaullah is educated, or that He was after acquiring knowledge. He says, Bahaullah was knowledgeable. Two different things.


Bahaullah's father being a state minister and a close associate of the prime minister at there time typically would put his kids to be educated. Being a family that held many high positions in the government, civil and military occupations in the main city of Tehran, you would expect their children to at least have some education in theology.
Here. Why should government officials put their children to be educated in theology? You would need to back this up from historical evidences in the 19th century, what was custom in Persia 19th century. . More importantly, how much education? Do you think they were teaching Children how to interpret Quran, the translation of
Quran chapter by chapter and recorded traditions and hadithes? What about Bible?
Its almost implausible that a high end minister of the government not making any effort to have at least one year of education for his children when the government is making a lot of effort to educate their general citizen
It makes sense they taught some basic reading and some basic math so, they could read and write and can add 10 plus 20 equals to 30. But if yoy think, they were teaching much more than this to children, please provide your historical evidence.


. After his fathers death according to legend Bahaullah was offered his position in the government but he refused. I would like to think that the Prime Minister would not so closely offer him that level of recognition and position without a day of education.
Why did the Prime Minister need someone to be educated in theology? Please provide your answer not from imagination, but, from historical sources that tells us in those days, being educated in theology was required to work in government.

It just seems highly probable that he would have had some education.

Again, you are saying highly probable He would have had education, but you are not backing it up by any evidence. This is why I say, it is what you imagine.




As Esslemont himself says "He never attended school or college, and what little teaching He received was given at home." thus he means to say that he had some education at home.
Yes. So, what level of education, and what SUBJECTS?



There is a chance that his father educated him at home. But its also probable that he had some formal education due to the general reasons I have given in this post.
Again, what formal education? What was the subject of education, and what was the level of education offered to Him. Please provide evidences, to back it up. I mean, everything seems probable. I know. But why not finding out if this probable things were really true in case of Bahaullah?

The Vizier in an Islamic country is highly educated in the Shariah.

What kind of Vizir needed to know Shariah?

What kind of vizir was Bahaullahs father? Persia had Kingdom in those days by the way. They had a class of nobles and They had a class of clergy. The clergy was responsible for explaining and knowing Shariah. The government officials did not need that, neither they were educated in theology.


It is obvious. A close associate of the Prime Minister and a Vizier in Iran would have very high levels of education in Fikh.
This is an assumption you are making. You would need to provide evidence that in those days, A close associate of the Prime Minister and a Vizier in Iran would have very high levels of education in Fikh.


.... I find it of particular interest that Abdul Baha in "Some Answered questions" would say that Bahaullah never associated with any Ulama but in another place say that he spoke and discussed with Ulama with a lot of intellect. This is a conflict that I cannot resolve.

It is easy to solve. Within the context, in one instance Abdulbaha is saying, Bahaullah as a child had some encounters with ulama, and in those encounters He was able to discuss and solve difficult questions and problems for the Ulama.... subjects that the ulama did not know or had difficulty to find answers.

In another instance Abdulbaha is saying, Bahaullah did not associate with Ulama to attend their school or gatherings to learn from them.


I also highly doubt that the Prime Minister would personally offer the fathers position of Vazir with no knowledge in the religious law.
But even if that was the case, the question still remains, where did Bahaullah obtain His knowledge From?
 
Last edited:

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
But even if that was the case, the question still remains, where did Bahaullah obtain His knowledge From?
Einstein didn't do too well at school either and yet look at his attainments in physics and math.
Was he a manifestation of God just because some of his knowledge was not acquired?

And what about where Baha'u'llah quotes from tradition and gets it wrong? Wouldn't this demonstrate that human memory played a part in His acquirement of tradition?

Baha'ullah and Bihar al-Anwar book
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
The quote from Abdulbaha just means, Bahaullah was very knowledgeable even in childhood and youth. The idea is, Bahaullah, as a Manifestation of God, was All-knowing from the moment He came to this world, but this learning or education was not acquired through human learning. Bahaullah however did not reveal His mission, until the appointed time, which is known as the Hour in Islamic sources.


In many Tablets Bahaullah claimed He did not have books to learn, and did not go to school to learn. Some of His followers were very close to Him. For example His brother Kalim, was a believer in Bahaullah, and was willing to be imprisoned because of his belief in Bahaullah. So, if Bahaullah was lying regarding His education, his brother would have known, and would not believe in Bahaullah.
I know you are taking a historical approach. So, you think if Bahaullah was knowledgeable, it means He learned that from books and/ or other people, and not possibly because He had innate knowledge. How historically you can make that conclusion?

To me, you can make that conclusion if, you see historically evidence that Bahaullah was spending a lot of time reading books by Himself, or going to special schools to study various religions.

The question is not if Bahaullah had knowledge or not. The question is, where did He get His knowledge from.
Yeahhh...He? With a capital H?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
That is the exact opposite of what I believe.
Nor do I believe that a human is worth more than a sparrow, or a rabbit, etc.
Just look at what folks have been doing to humans over recent centuries and millenia. Sparrows might actually get a better deal...... :)
I understand your position. So because I am sympathetic with you, I will leave the subject now at least in this post. Not saying I agree with you entirely, but animal life is very important to God. I was thinking about that before. Yes, humans have mistreated others and animals and animals mistreat others.
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
Einstein didn't do too well at school either and yet look at his attainments in physics and math.
Was he a manifestation of God just because some of his knowledge was not acquired?

And what about where Baha'u'llah quotes from tradition and gets it wrong? Wouldn't this demonstrate that human memory played a part in His acquirement of tradition?

Baha'ullah and Bihar al-Anwar book
When was Bahaullah memorizing Hadithes? What year, and where?
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
When was Bahaullah memorizing Hadithes? What year, and where?
I would suggest that in an Islamic society He would be exposed to common Islamic traditions since birth.

Not everything a person does gets recorded by history, for example can we say that Baha'u'llah didn't poop just because it isn't mentioned how many times a day He pooped?

Now kindly answer my question.
What about when Baha'u'llah got it wrong?
 
Top