Bahaullah: Gawhar Khanum

[TransmutingSoul]

Comparing the Baha'i Writings to the Qur'an and Baha'u'llah to Muhammad is truly laughable.

I would see that as no laughing matter, as that is a line between what is true and what is false.

Many in the past have jumped the wrong side of the line and used the same arguments as repeated in your posts.

As a Baha'i, I will always wish you well and happy, no matter the side of the line you choose.

Regards Tony

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Baha'u'llah married Gawhar in 1862, before his "declaration," which Baha'is say happened in 1863 (though E.G. Browne dates it later). In either case, this was when he was still a self-proclaimed follower of the Bab, yet the Bab only allowed his followers to have two wives simultaneously.

The Bab said His Laws are conditional upon acceptance by the later Manifestation (Bahaullah).

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Bahaullah got married with his third wife, Gawhar Khanum:

1. who did solemnize this marriage?
2. and on what tradition?
3. It sure happened in the post Iqan period.

It is important to ascertain the religion Bahaullah himself followed+ till then.

Thread open to everybody believing in a religion or no-religion.

Regards

_______________
#119

+ irrespective of those who follow him till such time he unequivocally renounced the religion he was following or unequivocally and unambiguously announced a new religion, gave it a specific name and invited others to follow it.

Bahaullah is the Manifestation of God. God is not asked for His actions!

 

[shunyadragon]

To address a lot of the questions and arguments of distortions made by Bahāʾīs here:

If you don't know of this, then clearly you've only studied what your Bahāʾī leaders have allowed to be translated and distributed to the masses. Are you not fluent in Arabic or Persian?




The relevant text is found in Unity 8, Gate 15 of the Persian Bayān:

​

This statement is pretty clear. The Bāb made it obligatory to marry and to have children. This was according to the general pattern of his laws, which took many the recommended actions within Islam and made them obligatory (among them this and the recommendation to have only one wife). According to the Bāb, if a spouse is infertile, then the other can marry again so as to have children, but only under these circumstances and only with the permission of their spouse. In other places, the Bāb makes it clear that only one wife is allowed under normal circumstances (8:2). None of the special circumstances were present in the case of Bahāʾuʿllah, so in reality, he was transgressing against the Bāb's laws when he took his second wife, and doing it again with Gawhar. His first wife was not infertile.
Incidentally, this fact (that the Bāb prohibited polygamy under normal circumstances) is even recognized by Bahāʾī authors: "She [Tahirih] began to correspond with the Bab and soon espoused all his ideas [....] She denounced not only polygamy but the use of the veil" (The Dawn-Breakers, p. 270 [footnote])."
In summary, the Bāb allows bigamy but only if the original spouse is infertile.

First, the statement is not clear that the man cannot have a third wife. It says the man must marry if the wife is infertile.

Tahirih denouncing polygamy is not the Bab forbidding polygamy. The writings of Tahirih are not recognized as Revelation nor spiritual laws. It the foretelling the spiritual law of the Baha'i Faith that indeed forbids future polygamy.

 

[Komori]

The Bab said His Laws are conditional upon acceptance by the later Manifestation (Bahaullah).

That idea comes straight out of Shoghi Effendi's imagination. The Bab never expresses such a view; it completely contradicts his entire cosmology.

Tahirih denouncing polygamy is not the Bab forbidding polygamy. The writings of Tahirih are not recognized as Revelation nor spiritual laws.

Tahirih was a Letter of the Living. In the Bab's view, she was the return of Fatima, one of the Fourteen Infallibles in Shi'a Islam, and thus the manifestation of the divine feminine. Contemporary followers of the Bab view her writings as scripture, and all the evidence suggests the Bab viewed her as endowed with divine authority.

 

[paarsurrey]

To address a lot of the questions and arguments of distortions made by Bahāʾīs here:

If you don't know of this, then clearly you've only studied what your Bahāʾī leaders have allowed to be translated and distributed to the masses. Are you not fluent in Arabic or Persian?


The relevant text is found in Unity 8, Gate 15 of the Persian Bayān:

​

This statement is pretty clear. The Bāb made it obligatory to marry and to have children. This was according to the general pattern of his laws, which took many the recommended actions within Islam and made them obligatory (among them this and the recommendation to have only one wife). According to the Bāb, if a spouse is infertile, then the other can marry again so as to have children, but only under these circumstances and only with the permission of their spouse. In other places, the Bāb makes it clear that only one wife is allowed under normal circumstances (8:2). None of the special circumstances were present in the case of Bahāʾuʿllah, so in reality, he was transgressing against the Bāb's laws when he took his second wife, and doing it again with Gawhar. His first wife was not infertile.
Incidentally, this fact (that the Bāb prohibited polygamy under normal circumstances) is even recognized by Bahāʾī authors: "She [Tahirih] began to correspond with the Bab and soon espoused all his ideas [....] She denounced not only polygamy but the use of the veil" (The Dawn-Breakers, p. 270 [footnote])."
In summary, the Bāb allows bigamy but only if the original spouse is infertile.

"Perchance that this child is a leaf from the leaves of Paradise, should he give his faith to He Whom God shall make manifest; otherwise, he will turn into the leaves of the Fire." Unquote from Bab.

@Komori! what is one's understanding of "He Whom God shall make manifest" as told by Bab, please.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I'm pretty sure you haven't even read a single page of Subh-i Azal's writings.
Baha'u'llah's writings give him no credibility, considering they're a jumbled mess of incoherent ramblings repeating the same few doctrines over and over again and which pale in comparison to those who he was constantly paraphrasing and plagiarizing and then treating it as some kind of 'new revelation.' Anything that is good in Baha'u'llah's writings can be found elsewhere in the works of Ibn Arabi, Mulla Sadra, Rajab Bursi, etc., and these men were not prophets.
Comparing the Baha'i Writings to the Qur'an and Baha'u'llah to Muhammad is truly laughable.

A good summation, indeed!
Regards

 

[shunyadragon]

That idea comes straight out of Shoghi Effendi's imagination. The Bab never expresses such a view; it completely contradicts his entire cosmology.

Huh? Does not address the actual factual nature of the Bibi text you have cited.


Tahirih was a Letter of the Living. In the Bab's view, she was the return of Fatima, one of the Fourteen Infallibles in Shi'a Islam, and thus the manifestation of the divine feminine. Contemporary followers of the Bab view her writings as scripture, and all the evidence suggests the Bab viewed her as endowed with divine authority.

Absolutely no, her writings are NOT considered scripture in neither the Babi nor the Baha'i Revelation. There is no reference in the Babi nor the Baha'i writings the considers them scripture nor spiritual laws. If you believe so cite the Baha'i or Babi scripture the descripes specifically Tahirih writings as scripture. I know better, such reference does not exist.

The Bab only referred to one of the letters of living that will be 'The One who God will make manifest.'

Only the writings of the Bab were considered scripture prior to Baha'u'llah. The writings of Tahirh may be considered prophetic and inspirational and enlightening, but neither the Bab nor Baha'u'llah recognized her writings is scripture.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Baha'u'llah's writings give him no credibility, considering they're a jumbled mess of incoherent ramblings repeating the same few doctrines over and over again and which pale in comparison to those who he was constantly paraphrasing and plagiarizing and then treating it as some kind of 'new revelation.' Anything that is good in Baha'u'llah's writings can be found elsewhere in the works of Ibn Arabi, Mulla Sadra, Rajab Bursi, etc., and these men were not prophets.

Coherence like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[siti]

I love this thread...sorry to pick on your comment @InvestigateTruth again but this...

The Bab said His Laws are conditional upon acceptance by the later Manifestation (Bahaullah).

...is priceless when you consider Baha'u'llah's own explanation (as cited in the Intro to the Kitab-i-Aqdas) as to why the laws of the current dispensation will/would be implemented gradually:

Indeed, the laws of God are like unto the ocean and the children of men as fish, did they but know it. However, in observing them one must exercise tact and wisdom... Since most people are feeble and far-removed from the purpose of God, therefore one must observe tact and prudence under all conditions, so that nothing might happen that could cause disturbance and dissension or raise clamor among the heedless. Verily, His bounty hath surpassed the whole universe and His bestowals encompassed all that dwell on earth. One must guide mankind to the ocean of true understanding in a spirit of love and tolerance. The Kitab-i-Aqdas itself beareth eloquent testimony to the loving providence of God.
​

So the presumably the fact that Baha'u'llah was himself unable to embrace the Divine standard of monogamous marriage, or even limit himself to bigamy, numbers him among those who were "feeble", "far-removed from the purpose of God" and "heedless".

 

[shunyadragon]

And what credibility does this give Baha'u'llah? The majority of the Muslims recognised the pretender Abu Bakr as the successor of Muhammad. Basically all of the learned Babis who had actually read the Bab's writings rejected Baha'ullah and followed Subh-i Azal.

So much for the credibility of being learned. Where are the Babis today if this is meaningful? The Revelation of Baha'u'llah bore the fruit and did not depend on the 'learned.'

Oh! To make it clear you do not recognize the Revelation of the Bab, and you are playing one against the other unethically to justify your hostile agenda.

 

[shunyadragon]

I love this thread...sorry to pick on your comment @InvestigateTruth again but this...

...is priceless when you consider Baha'u'llah's own explanation (as cited in the Intro to the Kitab-i-Aqdas) as to why the laws of the current dispensation will/would be implemented gradually:

Indeed, the laws of God are like unto the ocean and the children of men as fish, did they but know it. However, in observing them one must exercise tact and wisdom... Since most people are feeble and far-removed from the purpose of God, therefore one must observe tact and prudence under all conditions, so that nothing might happen that could cause disturbance and dissension or raise clamor among the heedless. Verily, His bounty hath surpassed the whole universe and His bestowals encompassed all that dwell on earth. One must guide mankind to the ocean of true understanding in a spirit of love and tolerance. The Kitab-i-Aqdas itself beareth eloquent testimony to the loving providence of God.
​

So the presumably the fact that Baha'u'llah was himself unable to embrace the Divine standard of monogamous marriage, or even limit himself to bigamy, numbers him among those who were "feeble", "far-removed from the purpose of God" and "heedless".

Baha'u'llah did not marry beyond his previous wives after the Revelation beginning the Baha'i Era and the spiritual law of monogamy.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm pretty sure you haven't even read a single page of Subh-i Azal's writings.
Baha'u'llah's writings give him no credibility, considering they're a jumbled mess of incoherent ramblings repeating the same few doctrines over and over again and which pale in comparison to those who he was constantly paraphrasing and plagiarizing and then treating it as some kind of 'new revelation.' Anything that is good in Baha'u'llah's writings can be found elsewhere in the works of Ibn Arabi, Mulla Sadra, Rajab Bursi, etc., and these men were not prophets.
Comparing the Baha'i Writings to the Qur'an and Baha'u'llah to Muhammad is truly laughable.

This clearly represents and reveals your hostile attitude toward the Baha'i Faith and your willingness to manipulate and misrepresent the writings of the Bab and Baha'u'llah to justify your agenda.

Actually, as far as the Jews and Christians go the Quran is a laughable corruption of local sources. Jews do consider Christian scripture as valid.

Question: Where is the Islam of a universal spiritual guidance, and peace for humanity?

 

[Komori]

Absolutely no, her writings are NOT considered scripture in neither the Babi nor the Baha'i Revelation. There is no reference in the Babi nor the Baha'i writings the considers them scripture nor spiritual laws. If you believe so cite the Baha'i or Babi scripture the descripes specifically Tahirih writings as scripture. I know better, such reference does not exist.

The Bab only referred to one of the letters of living that will be 'The One who God will make manifest.'

Only the writings of the Bab were considered scripture prior to Baha'u'llah. The writings of Tahirh may be considered prophetic and inspirational and enlightening, but neither the Bab nor Baha'u'llah recognized her writings is scripture.

Oh yeah, I'm sure you know so much better. Can you even read a word of Arabic or Persian? Can you read handwritten Arabic/Persian manuscripts?

So much for the credibility of being learned. Where are the Babis today if this is meaningful? The Revelation of Baha'u'llah bore the fruit and did not depend on the 'learned.'

So let me get this straight. You think that the population of a religion determines how true it is? The Christians on this forum would like to have a word with you. And FYI, there is still a small Babi community in Iran. This fact is undeniable.

Actually, as far as the Jews and Christians go the Quran is a laughable corruption of local sources.

Aha! The Baha'is show their true colors!

 

[siti]

Baha'u'llah did not marry beyond his previous wives after the Revelation beginning the Baha'i Era and the spiritual law of monogamy.

No indeed, but God's laws did not change did they? Only the human understanding of them via progressive revelation...which was required precisely because "most people [though presumably not his chosen Manifestations] are feeble and far-removed from the purpose of God" - if the Persian Bayan recommended no more than two wives (as it does seem to have done although I am far from expert on that subject), presumably by 1862 (when Baha'u'llah married his 3rd wife) He would have at least been aware that God didn't really appreciate people having a multiplicity of wives...or maybe he hadn't read that part yet? But wait - he didn't have to actually read it in a book did he...

...in any case, didn't Baha'u'llah also subsequently give his son permission to marry a second wife - which Abdu'l Baha chose not to do?

Dang! Its hard to get one's head around all this progressive revelation thing...God seems to have revealed exactly the opposite to what he expected people to do sometimes...???

 

[loverofhumanity]

Wives of Baha'u'llah

 

[shunyadragon]

No indeed, but God's laws did not change did they?

God's Laws do change for Age to Age according to Christian, Islamic and the Baha'i Faith In responding to your posts I have to take into consideration of your hostility toward the Baha'i Faith and your reputation of the dishonest misrepresentation the Baha'i Faith.

Only the human understanding of them via progressive revelation...which was required precisely because "most people [though presumably not his chosen Manifestations] are feeble and far-removed from the purpose of God" - if the Persian Bayan recommended no more than two wives (as it does seem to have done although I am far from expert on that subject), presumably by 1862 (when Baha'u'llah married his 3rd wife) He would have at least been aware that God didn't really appreciate people having a multiplicity of wives...or maybe he hadn't read that part yet? But wait - he didn't have to actually read it in a book did he...

Over the top dishonest acrid accusations, as usual based on your hostile agenda.

Baha'u'llah did not give permission for Abdu'l baha to have two wives.

 

[shunyadragon]

Oh yeah, I'm sure you know so much better. Can you even read a word of Arabic or Persian? Can you read handwritten Arabic/Persian manuscripts?

Apparently you cannot, because your translations do not justify your claims primarily because of your hostile agenda.

[quoite]
So let me get this straight. You think that the population of a religion determines how true it is? [/quote]

Actually YES! Human fallibility and frallity aside If the population and guidance provided to the believers does not reflect the claim of the message it is not relevant in today's world, and the relevance to how true it is today.

The Christians on this forum would like to have a word with you.

They may have many words with me and have over the years. They of course like Judaism and Islam think they are the only true religion. I do not believe the Christianity is message of spiritual relevance to the contemporary world. If I did I would be a Christian.

And FYI, there is still a small Babi community in Iran. This fact is undeniable.

The Baha'i community in Iran has been under the siege of persecution it's whole history, and many killed, put in prison, not allowed to have education nor employment, and their children taken away.

Aha! The Baha'is show their true colors!

Aha! you have shown your true colors of hostility a long time ago. You neglect that we disagree, because you are Muslim and I am a Baha'i.

You have failed to give any reasonable justification that anyone should believe that Islam is a light of guidance, and justice for all people in the contemporary world. As with other Muslims on this forum . . .

Still waiting . . .

 

[siti]

God's Laws do change for Age to Age according to Christian, Islamic and the Baha'i Faith ...In responding to your posts I have to take into consideration of your hostility toward the Baha'i Faith and your reputation of the dishonest misrepresentation the Baha'i Faith...Over the top dishonest acrid accusations, as usual based on your hostile agenda...Baha'u'llah did not give permission for Abdu'l baha to have two wives.

Are you sure? Or are you just declaring my questions "acrid", "hostile" and "dishonest" because you have no better response to offer? It doesn't do your "Cause" any credit at all to attack the messenger...ad hominem is not a valid form of discourse - especially not for people who profess to promote unity among the human family.

If you read my questions carefully rather than getting puffed up and defensive, you will see that I am asking a serious question about the process of progressive revelation...God's Law is revealed progressively - in itself it presumably does not change - unless you are suggesting that God changes his mind on a whim now and again like humans do - only what is expected of humans under the current revelation changes...did Baha'u'llah know that? Was he - like Jesus (claimed to be) much more fully aware of God's purpose than he could possibly explain to others in his time - but then why could he not have anticipated - bearing in mind that this was long after his first miraculous visions and realization that he was in touch with the Almighty himself - such a simple precept as one man, one wife? Whatever may or may not be true about accounts of the lives of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l Baha, that question deserves an answer I think. Don't you?

 

[shunyadragon]

Are you sure? Or are you just declaring my questions "acrid", "hostile" and "dishonest" because you have no better response to offer? It doesn't do your "Cause" any credit at all to attack the messenger...ad hominem is not a valid form of discourse - especially not for people who profess to promote unity among the human family.

If you read my questions carefully rather than getting puffed up and defensive, you will see that I am asking a serious question about the process of progressive revelation...God's Law is revealed progressively - in itself it presumably does not change - unless you are suggesting that God changes his mind on a whim now and again like humans do - only what is expected of humans under the current revelation changes...did Baha'u'llah know that? Was he - like Jesus (claimed to be) much more fully aware of God's purpose than he could possibly explain to others in his time - but then why could he not have anticipated - bearing in mind that this was long after his first miraculous visions and realization that he was in touch with the Almighty himself - such a simple precept as one man, one wife? Whatever may or may not be true about accounts of the lives of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l Baha, that question deserves an answer I think. Don't you?

Your only digging your trench of hostility deeper and deeper. The spiritual laws definitely do change progressively as taught by Christianity, Islam and the Baha'i Faith. Read your own posts you ridicule the Baha'i Faith based on misinformation.

The rest is rambling, like your abuse and corruption of the word proselytise to condemn the Baha'i Faith and did not respond to my post that called you out on this.