According to who? The Koran places Isa Ibn Maryam as a prophet. Isa's prophesy was that the "son of man" (Matthew 24:29:31) would come in accordance with Daniel 7:13 & Zechariah 9:14 Zechariah 2:6 & Deut 4:32, which happens after all the beast (Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, and the combination of Rome and the Islamist are all crushed (great tribulation) (Daniel 2:45), or in the case of Zechariah 9:14, whereas Ephraim and Judah take down Greece/Gentiles/nations. Or Zechariah 2:6-12, whereas the LORD will choose Judah and Jerusalem (Joel 3:1-2) and will pass judgment on the nations. According to the Koran's named prophet, Isa Ibn Maryam, the "Christ", will come back to rule for 1000 years (Revelation 20:4). Are you going to hold on to your discounted hadiths (Islamic narratives)? Did Mhmd rule for 1000 years with those that were raised from the dead? Or is there even any contemporary history that proves the Mhmd of Mecca even existed?
-
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!
Bahaism and faults I personally find with it.
- Thread starter Link
- Start date
According to who? The Koran places Isa Ibn Maryam as a prophet. Isa's prophesy was that the "son of man" (Matthew 24:29:31) would come in accordance with Daniel 7:13 & Zechariah 9:14 Zechariah 2:6 & Deut 4:32, which happens after all the beast (Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, and the combination of Rome and the Islamist are all crushed (great tribulation) (Daniel 2:45), or in the case of Zechariah 9:14, whereas Ephraim and Judah take down Greece/Gentiles/nations. Or Zechariah 2:6-12, whereas the LORD will choose Judah and Jerusalem (Joel 3:1-2) and will pass judgment on the nations. According to the Koran's named prophet, Isa Ibn Maryam, the "Christ", will come back to rule for 1000 years (Revelation 20:4). Are you going to hold on to your discounted hadiths (Islamic narratives)? Did Mhmd rule for 1000 years with those that were raised from the dead? Or is there even any contemporary history that proves the Mhmd of Mecca even existed?
Apparently, the prince of Saud doesn't give credence to the hadith, since he is taking his scissors to it. After the 70 Islamic warriors were killed in battle, it was determined to put together a single Koran when it was found out that there were multiple versions being recited, and to burn the other versions. If there weren't written versions, what were they burning? "Hypocrisy" is to say one thing and to do another. That is kind of like saying Islam is a peaceful religion, and then have an Islamist cut the head off someone who doesn't agree with him, or in the modern-day version, shoot them or blow them up. The "Christians" call themselves peaceful also, but the Roman church took the writing of the false prophet Paul and started burning people alive to save their souls. I think the Protestants did the same thing, but to a lesser degree. Neither have a history of being peaceful. The similarity is they both try to take root from the book of the Jews, referenced in the Koran, and yet have their own hadiths/commentary to make it into a lie (Jeremiah 6:6).
InvestigateTruth
Well-Known Member
Thr Qaim does two things. He teaches correctly Quran, and He also reveals a new Book.
He teaches Islam of Muhammad, but the Religious leaders oppose Him and fight Him with the Quran. There is so much corruption in Islam, that when He teaches Islam, they think He is teaching something different, as another religion.
But in addition to this, He also brings a new Book, new Laws, and new Judgement.
The Bab lived only 7 years from beginning of His mission. During the first 5 years, He did not bring any new Laws. He was only preaching the True Islam of Muhammad.
Only in the fifth year, He brought a new Law in the Book of Bayan. Only in the fifth year, His followers realized it was now start of a new Laws and Ordinances. Before the fifth year, His followers saw it as reviving true Islam of Muhammad.
The Imams did say that there is no more revelation as Quran was completed. But they meant that, the Imams are not going to add anything more to the Quran, or they will not reveal new Laws and Ordinances. This was again, in Bahai view, misunderstood. What the Imams said, was, they will not reveal anymore scriptures. But they did say the Qaim comes with a new Book and Law.
firedragon
Veteran Member
All irrelevant.
P1. You dont believe Muhammed ever lived on the face of the earth.
P2. You go to hadith which is about the death of Muhammed (who apparently never lived according to you)
Conclusion: Thats hypocrisy.
Anyway, knowing you will never reply honestly with no red herrings irrelevant to the thread and the post,
1. 70 huffaz dont memorise portions of the Quran (which you created) but huffaz memorise the whole Quran. millions do it today.
2. you said there were multiple versions of the Quran were recited in a hadith (you don't believe in hadith but quote it hypocritically). The hadith does not say "many versions". That too is created. Read it clearly. They standardised the manuscript that was with Hafza. But it doesnt say versions.
This thread is irrelevant for your rant. There is another thread to go and insult Islam.
Every one can see you dont know what you are talking about. Jay Smith and Robert Spencer are not educated. They are both pretending to be. Thats your problem.
Truthseeker
Non-debating member when I can help myself
What can I say? The word of God is deep, it has multiple meanings.
Explain. How can this be true? I see nothing of this in the Bible. Do you think you see this in the Qur'an or hadith?
What does Du'a Nudba say? I'm unfamiliar with that term.
What are you referring to? You are so cryptic. Anyway, the failings that followers may have are not the responsibility of the Founder. Look at the faults that Muslims have had. Are they the responsibility of Muhammad?
Beautiful chanting waiting for Mahdi. Only trouble is, He has already come. He is not somebody waiting to come here from mythical cities.
He said Muhammad said stoning was the law under Judaism confirmed by a Jewish leader. Nothing there about stoning under Muslim law. Laws don't stay static and unchanging over time according to Baha'i teaching.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Truthseeker
Non-debating member when I can help myself
When the people of Khaybar asked the focal center of the Muḥammadan Revelation concerning the penalty of adultery committed between a married man and a married woman, Muḥammad answered and said: “The law of God is death by stoning.” Whereupon they protested saying: “No such law hath been revealed in the Pentateuch.” Muḥammad answered and said: “Whom do ye regard among your rabbis as being a recognized authority and having a sure knowledge of the truth?” They agreed upon Ibn-i-Súríyá. Thereupon Muḥammad summoned him and said: “I adjure thee by God Who clove the sea for you, caused manna to descend upon you, and the cloud to overshadow you, Who delivered you from Pharaoh and his people, and exalted you above all human beings, to tell us what Moses hath decreed concerning adultery between a married man and a married woman.” He made reply: “O Muḥammad! death by stoning is the law.” Muḥammad observed: “Why is it then that this law is annulled and hath ceased to operate among the Jews?”
(The Kitáb-i-Íqán)
www.bahai.org/r/808884335
The people of Khaybar were Jews. Of course you know there is no stoning prescribed in the Qur'an for adultery. There are hadiths that say that, but coincidentally when Muhammad prescribed stoning in them, the adulterers were Jews.
(The Kitáb-i-Íqán)
www.bahai.org/r/808884335
The people of Khaybar were Jews. Of course you know there is no stoning prescribed in the Qur'an for adultery. There are hadiths that say that, but coincidentally when Muhammad prescribed stoning in them, the adulterers were Jews.
Truthseeker
Non-debating member when I can help myself
Isa had a brother, James. Read your Bible. I know of no descendants of Moses that succeeded him, but he appointed Joshua to succeed him, who was not related.
If Isa or Jesus was not a Founder, then what was He?
Truthseeker
Non-debating member when I can help myself
Where in the Qur'an does it says this about the family? From what I remember it was hadith that said this. Hadith is not as reliable as Qur'an, and saying they are all the best collectively was true at that time, but I have to believe a later Revelation that said they were not equal. Muhammad rose above the rest of His family. Who should I trust on this, in the interpretation of this? You or a source I believe to be divine?
Truthseeker
Non-debating member when I can help myself
Suffice it to say I don't believe the Bab or Baha'u'llah made that up, but God revealed that to them. What is Saheefa Sajjadiya? I looked it up and it is the reported sayings of an Imam. Not as reliable as Qur'an. I believe in the Imams, but how can we be sure they said what was reported? Someone could have reported something that was not true. Muslims will say there is an unbroken chain or oral memorization, but is that really true in all cases?
firedragon
Veteran Member
Most of what you said is just conjecture.
1. Quran has nothing about stoning. True.
2. hadith does speak about stoning. true
3. Muhammed did not prescribe stoning. You should prove it with the Isnad, thadhlees, mathn, etc, etc.
4. Adulterers were not always Jews. Sometimes it was a monkey. And the hadith was from Abu Hurraira.
Maybe you should get acquainted with Islamic hadith and other stuff before completely relying on what ever source you are relying on. Predominantly bogus really.
All irrelevant.
P1. You dont believe Muhammed ever lived on the face of the earth.
P2. You go to hadith which is about the death of Muhammed (who apparently never lived according to you)
Conclusion: Thats hypocrisy.
Anyway, knowing you will never reply honestly with no red herrings irrelevant to the thread and the post,
1. 70 huffaz dont memorise portions of the Quran (which you created) but huffaz memorise the whole Quran. millions do it today.
2. you said there were multiple versions of the Quran were recited in a hadith (you don't believe in hadith but quote it hypocritically). The hadith does not say "many versions". That too is created. Read it clearly. They standardised the manuscript that was with Hafza. But it doesnt say versions.
This thread is irrelevant for your rant. There is another thread to go and insult Islam.
Every one can see you dont know what you are talking about. Jay Smith and Robert Spencer are not educated. They are both pretending to be. Thats your problem.
There are many Muhammads who lived on the face of the earth. It is just that there is no contemporary historical evidence that a Muhammad lived in a mystical great trading area called Mecca. Present day Mecca has never had canals and fruit orchards and was never a great trading area, with prominent citizens being Abraham and Solomon. There was a contemporary Arab leader in the north, who was governor/king of Hira, and was called Muhammad of the Ta'i (northern Arabs), under the rule of the Persians. Your "hadiths" were real and created around 200 years after the death of this so-called Muhammad of Mecca died, written mostly by sons of Persians, mostly in the area of present-day Baghdad. As for the "present day" Koran, there are many different Korans. As for Arabic the original Koran was written in, it is only a small minority of Muslims who can even read Arabic, and the present canonized Koran is not in the Arabic of the people of the 7th century Mecca. As for my post being "irrelevant", well, this forum is on "scriptural" debates. The debate is on "faults" of Bahaism, of which multiple differing Korans can be a problem, of which the last batch of uncanonized versions were supposedly thrown into the Nile in 1924, but many of those supposedly thrown into the Nile, exist to this day. Which one have you memorized? Keep in mind, according to the Koran, you can lie to kafirs with respect to protecting your faith. Also, without the "hadiths", the Koran is like a boat without an oar, without any background information. The hadiths are under question, by the prince of Saud, and you have a plurality of Korans, which are not standardized, and which have no full copy (only fragments) of the supposed original Koran within 100 years after the death of this supposed Mhmd (Muhammad). Copies, in writing, had originally been sent to the Arabic provinces according to the Islamic narrative.
Last edited:
They emphasized on the verse to imply that. And so the verse of seal of Prophets to imply they are not Prophets and would not channel scripture from God to humans - the hadiths all explain it to mean literally what it says.
I see it in all three. I explained in Quran here: Twelve in Quran. | Religious Forums
It's not only that, the Quran shows killing is only allowed in Bani-Israel for two things:
(1) killing a person
(2) causing havoc in the earth
You and I have disagreement on two, but we certainly agree that adultery is not included in 2.
He was like Imam Mahdi (a), end to succession of successors of an Ahlulbayt (a). He is also coming back to serve as a minister under Imam Mahdi (a) rule per hadiths.
Also Joshua didn't succeed Musa (a), it was Harun (a). This is something Quran corrects and there is a reason Joshua is not in the Quran and Harun (a) emphasized with his name 20 times in Quran and 12 times along side Musa (a). The hadiths about Joshua contradict Quran.
The story of Harun (a) dying in wilderness after hating on the leadership of Musa (a) is a fabrication per Quran. The Bible is not correct in this regard neither hadiths, they both contradict Quran in that regard.
The proper hadiths about succession are the ones that show it went in the offspring of Harun (a).
By a founder, I mean establish Tawheed and message and be the point of where an Ahlulbayt and succession starts. Musa (a) was the founder to be followed by Twelve branches of the blessed tree of light in Bani-Israel and way/course to God. Isa (a) is the final of these Twelve Branches. Then there is a different Ahlulbayt (a) to come outside of that covenant.
Last edited:
firedragon
Veteran Member
Of course. But the problem is people do their Islamic Scholarship from Jay Smith videos and Jihadwatch. Both of them uneducated and stupid sources.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Again, it is hypocrisy to believe Muhammed was a myth, and quote ahadith about his death.
HYPOCRISY.
Yet we have a lot of hadiths explaining those hadiths to mean he will revive the teachings of Quran and Sunnah, that it will look like a new religion when it's the original religion of Mohammad (s).
The Quran is explained to be a new book due to the insights he will provide to it. There are many ahadith explaining it and so again, you have to interpret it one way and not show the other hadiths explaining their own words, and then use it as circumstantial evidence which in this case is a half truth and not a firm evidence.
Again, it is hypocrisy to believe Muhammed was a myth, and quote ahadith about his death.
HYPOCRISY.
Bro, just ignore this guy.