Investigating Bahaullah's Book of Iqan

[InvestigateTruth]

Bahaullah wrote more than 17000 works. One of these works, which also is the second important Book in Bahai Scriptures Ranking, is the Book of Iqan. The English Translation of the Book of Iqan, is only about 60 pages! According to some historical accounts, He wrote it in 2 days.

This is what Bahaullah wrote in this Book, about Iqan:

"In fact, all the Scriptures and the mysteries thereof are condensed into this brief account. "

Here, 'this brief account', is the Book of Iqan. This means, that All scriptures of the past, such as Quran, Bible, Buddhism, Hinduism and Zoroasterism Scriptures are included in this Book, in a 'condensed' form.
If you add all those scriptures, you end up with probably several tens of thousands of pages or more. Condensing them in 60 pages, would mean that, in principle, all scriptures are briefly available in the Book, albeit, mostly in the form of mentioning or allusions.

To investigate this, I suggest, all those who believe or are familiar with the Scriptures, quote a principle teaching. Then we will see if from this Book, we can bring the same teaching in the 'condensed' form or not, thereby we investigated the claim of Bahaullah about this Book.

Here is an example:
Those who are familiar with Buddhism, know Buddha taught that 'idle talking' must be prevented. This is also found in the Book of Iqan:

"The seeker of truth ....must never seek to exalt himself above anyone, must wash away from the tablet of his heart every trace of pride and vainglory, must cling unto patience and resignation, observe silence, and refrain from idle talk."

 

[siti]

Atonement...that is the "one sacrifice for sins forever" propitiatory sacrifice of the "one [man], Jesus Christ" that is unquestionably clear in the Christian scriptures (see John 3:16; Hebrews 10:12; 1 John 2:2; Romans 5:17).

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Atonement...that is the "one sacrifice for sins forever" propitiatory sacrifice of the "one [man], Jesus Christ" that is unquestionably clear in the Christian scriptures (see John 3:16; Hebrews 10:12; 1 John 2:2; Romans 5:17).

Bahaullah taught, what applies to One Manifestation of God, applies to all. Thus, all Prophets who are manifestations of God, sacrificed Themselves. And in every age, believing in Him, is the cause of forgiving sins.

In principle He did say these in the Iqan:

"Leaders of religion, in every age, have hindered their people from attaining the shores of eternal salvation, inasmuch as they held the reins of authority in their mighty grasp. Some for the lust of leadership, others through want of knowledge and understanding, have been the cause of the deprivation of the people. By their sanction and authority, every Prophet of God hath drunk from the chalice of sacrifice, and winged His flight unto the heights of glory. What unspeakable cruelties they that have occupied the seats of authority and learning have inflicted upon the true Monarchs of the world, those Gems of divine virtue!"

"It is also recorded in the Gospel according to St. Luke, that on a certain day Jesus passed by a Jew who was sick of the palsy, and lay upon a couch. When the Jew saw Him, he recognized Him, and cried out for His help. Jesus said unto him: “Arise from thy bed; thy sins are forgiven thee.” Certain of the Jews, standing by, protested saying: “Who can forgive sins, but God alone?” And immediately He perceived their thoughts, Jesus answering said unto them: “Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, arise, and take up thy bed, and walk; or to say, thy sins are forgiven thee? that ye may know that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins.” This is the real sovereignty, and such is the power of God’s chosen Ones! "


"Whosoever acknowledged His truth and turned unto Him, his good works outweighed his misdeeds, and all his sins were remitted and forgiven."

 

[siti]

Right - so there is, in fact, no mention of the unique, sin-atoning, propitiatory sacrifice of the "one Jesus Christ" in behalf of the "whole world" - that's a fairly significant omission and departure from the Christian scriptures I would have thought.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Right - so there is, in fact, no mention of the unique, sin-atoning, propitiatory sacrifice of the "one Jesus Christ" in behalf of the "whole world" - that's a fairly significant omission and departure from the Christian scriptures I would have thought.

That is Christian interpretation, isn't it ? Bahaullah didnt say, He is rewriting the interpretations that the Christian have. He said, all that is in Scriptures are condensed in this Book. Hence the difference between scriptures and the interpretations by mainstream.

 

[siti]

That is Christian interpretation, isn't it ? Bahaullah didnt say, He is rewriting the interpretations that the Christian have. He said, all that is in Scriptures are condensed in this Book. Hence the difference between scriptures and the interpretations by mainstream.

You're wriggling again IT!

I did not quote or cite Christian tradition, I quoted/cited scripture. Should I spell it out:

"But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God" - Hebrews 10:12

"For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ." - Romans 5:17

"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." - 1 John 2:2

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." - John 3:16

"The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." - John 1:29

"And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." - Matthew 1:21

"For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." - Mark 10:45

"...this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." - Matthew 26:28

You don't have to be a theologian or a Manifestation to figure out that the unique, sin atoning sacrifice of the "one, Jesus Christ" is an absolutely vital, indeed pivotal, scriptural doctrine not an unscriptural tradition.Whether or not one believes it, there is no question whatsoever that this IS what Christian scripture contains...

The claim is that "all the Scriptures...are condensed into ... [the Kitab-i-Iqan]" .

But the clearly scriptural and scripturally important teaching of atonement is not there - is it?

 

[sayak83]

Bahaullah wrote more than 17000 works. One of these works, which also is the second important Book in Bahai Scriptures Ranking, is the Book of Iqan. The English Translation of the Book of Iqan, is only about 60 pages! According to some historical accounts, He wrote it in 2 days.

This is what Bahaullah wrote in this Book, about Iqan:

"In fact, all the Scriptures and the mysteries thereof are condensed into this brief account. "

Here, 'this brief account', is the Book of Iqan. This means, that All scriptures of the past, such as Quran, Bible, Buddhism, Hinduism and Zoroasterism Scriptures are included in this Book, in a 'condensed' form.
If you add all those scriptures, you end up with probably several tens of thousands of pages or more. Condensing them in 60 pages, would mean that, in principle, all scriptures are briefly available in the Book, albeit, mostly in the form of mentioning or allusions.

To investigate this, I suggest, all those who believe or are familiar with the Scriptures, quote a principle teaching. Then we will see if from this Book, we can bring the same teaching in the 'condensed' form or not, thereby we investigated the claim of Bahaullah about this Book.

Here is an example:
Those who are familiar with Buddhism, know Buddha taught that 'idle talking' must be prevented. This is also found in the Book of Iqan:

"The seeker of truth ....must never seek to exalt himself above anyone, must wash away from the tablet of his heart every trace of pride and vainglory, must cling unto patience and resignation, observe silence, and refrain from idle talk."

What would it demonstrate? Bahaullah was later than all these religions and can simply take those teachings out of their works. That's the same objection with the Quaran regarding Judaism and Christianity of course.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

You're wriggling again IT!

I did not quote or cite Christian tradition, I quoted/cited scripture. Should I spell it out:

"But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God" - Hebrews 10:12

"For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ." - Romans 5:17

"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." - 1 John 2:2

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." - John 3:16

"The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." - John 1:29

"And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." - Matthew 1:21

"For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." - Mark 10:45

"...this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." - Matthew 26:28

You don't have to be a theologian or a Manifestation to figure out that the unique, sin atoning sacrifice of the "one, Jesus Christ" is an absolutely vital, indeed pivotal, scriptural doctrine not an unscriptural tradition.Whether or not one believes it, there is no question whatsoever that this IS what Christian scripture contains...

The claim is that "all the Scriptures...are condensed into ... [the Kitab-i-Iqan]" .

But the clearly scriptural and scripturally important teaching of atonement is not there - is it?

The exclusive claim is with regards to the Spirit of Christ, not the physical body of jesus. Buddha also said He sacrificed Himslef many times when Had come this earth to teach Dharma to save mankind. It is in The Sutra of Mañjuśrī’s Questions:

"During the past three immeasurable eons I have donated to others my head, eyes, legs, marrow, brain, hands, legs, joints, countries, cities, wives, children, slaves, elephants, and horses. In all these various donations, I never had a single thought of seeking any reward.."

So, it is not literally only jesus. But if you think, there is only One Spirit, who had appeared, once as Buddha, another time as Jesus, another time as Zoroaster, then, it also reconciles the scriptures, and Bible makes logical sense. When jesus says, He is the Only Son, He is speaking spiritually, not physically. If this same spirit appears in Buddha, and says, I am the one who appeared many times before, it is true. All of these are explained in Iqan. But, the point is, to appreciate that the Manifestations had to sacrifice themselves to save humanity. This is the concept, and it is in Iqan!

 

[InvestigateTruth]

What would it demonstrate? Bahaullah was later than all these religions and can simply take those teachings out of their works. That's the same objection with the Quaran regarding Judaism and Christianity of course.

Ok, we need to investigate and see if Bahaullah studied Religions in details. When and where did Bahaullah studied Islam, Christianity, Buddhism,...etc, to know their details, and come up with a Book that has all scriptures condensed in it? The difference between Bahaullah and Muhammad is Time! Bahaullah is much closer to us in time, than Muhammad, and details of history is much better known about Him, than Muhammad. So, according to History, when, and where He studied religions?

 

[siti]

The exclusive claim is with regards to the Spirit of Christ, not the physical body of jesus. Buddha also said He sacrificed Himslef many times when Had come this earth to teach Dharma to save mankind. It is in The Sutra of Mañjuśrī’s Questions:

"During the past three immeasurable eons I have donated to others my head, eyes, legs, marrow, brain, hands, legs, joints, countries, cities, wives, children, slaves, elephants, and horses. In all these various donations, I never had a single thought of seeking any reward.."

So, it is not literally only jesus. But if you think, there is only One Spirit, who had appeared, once as Buddha, another time as Jesus, another time as Zoroaster, then, it also reconciles the scriptures, and Bible makes logical sense. When jesus says, He is the Only Son, He is speaking spiritually, not physically. If this same spirit appears in Buddha, and says, I am the one who appeared many times before, it is true. All of these are explained in Iqan. But, the point is, to appreciate that the Manifestations had to sacrifice themselves to save humanity. This is the concept, and it is in Iqan!

Yes - OK - can you please sit still and stop wriggling - so what you are saying is that there is no teaching of "one sacrifice for sins forever" (Hebrews 10:12) in the Iqan. Right!

 

[sayak83]

Ok, we need to investigate and see if Bahaullah studied Religions in details. When and where did Bahaullah studied Islam, Christianity, Buddhism,...etc, to know their details, and come up with a Book that has all scriptures condensed in it? The difference between Bahaullah and Muhammad is Time! Bahaullah is much closer to us in time, than Muhammad, and details of history is much better known about Him, than Muhammad. So, according to History, when, and where He studied religions?

How would I know? He could have quite easily. He was literate and lived long enough. In 19 th century there were enough books around too. People who write so many books usually read.a lot as well.

 

[siti]

Ok, we need to investigate and see if Bahaullah studied Religions in details. When and where did Bahaullah studied Islam, Christianity, Buddhism,...etc, to know their details...

OK - lets start with how Baha'u'llah learned the details of Islam...

Baha'u'llah's own (older) sister (who would have known him as well as anyone) wrote (in a letter to Abdu'l Baha titled Tanbih al-Na’imin):

"He [Baha'u'llah] wouldn’t disengage from learning the rudiments for a moment. After studying the rudiments of Arabic and literature he inclined towards the science of philosophy (hikmat) and mysticism (irfan) so that he might benefit from these. It was such that he would spend most of the day and night socializing with high statured philosophers and the gatherings of mystics and Sufis... he (meaning Bahaullah) was a man who had seen most of the words and phrases of the mystics and philosophers and had heard and understood most of the signs of the appearance (of the Mahdi) . . . after returning from Badasht and after the Shaykh Tabarsi Fort war was over, he was engaged day and night in socializing with great Islamic scholars and followers of mysticism..."

Abdu'l Baha himself almost lets it slip in conversation with Baha'i "Hand of the Cause" John Esslemont:

"When He [Baha'u'llah] was only thirteen or 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 (leading mullas) and would explain intricate religious questions."
Bahá'u'lláh and the New Era: Chapter 3

That clearly shows that, in his youth, Baha'u'llah spent considerable time discussing religious matters with the "Ulama" - religious teachers.

Baha'u'llah also referred to (I mean read) books in order to answer questions as he (Baha'u'llah) himself admits in the very book we are investigating here: Book of Certitude (page 184)

"For instance, a certain man, reputed for his learning and attainments, and accounting himself as one of the pre-eminent leaders of his people, hath in his book denounced and vilified all the exponents of true learning. This is made abundantly clear by his explicit statements as well as by his allusions throughout his book. As We had frequently heard about him, We purposed to read some of his works. Although We never felt disposed to peruse other peoples’ writings, yet as some had questioned Us concerning him, We felt it necessary to refer to his books, in order that We might answer Our questioners with knowledge and understanding. His works, in the Arabic tongue, were, however, not available, until one day a certain man informed Us that one of his compositions, entitled Irshadu’l-‘Avám, could be found in this city. From this title We perceived the odour of conceit and vainglory, inasmuch as he hath imagined himself a learned man and regarded the rest of the people ignorant."

Does it not seem odd that having granted Baha'u'llah divine insight into the entire wealth of Abrahamic, Zoroastrian, Buddhist and Hindu scripture and tradition, He was suddenly either unable or unwilling to directly reveal the contents of a direct attack on the "exponents of true learning" and this divine Manifestation had to resort to looking it up in a document written in a language he had never studied???!!! (NB - the last sentence in that quote directly from Baha'u'llah is priceless in my opinion - I can't help thinking of kettles, pots and the colour black for some reason).

And finally, here's a quote from another Baha'i library source from an article written about Baha'u'llah's 2-year reclusion in Kurdistan during which he renewed his propensity for religious dialogue with the Sufis.

"In this poem [Al- Qasidah-al-Warqa'iyyah], Bahá'u'lláh displays the ability to express Bábí theological beliefs in Sufi terminology. This is not surprising, however, in view of the fact that Sufi works were popular in Persia and, over the centuries, had left a lasting impact on the culture and literature of that country. Persians of nobility, such as Bahá'u'lláh, were raised on such Sufi classics as Rumi's Mathnawi and Attar's The Speech of the Bird (or Mantiqu't-Tayr). Moreover, Sufism had experienced a revival in 19th century Persia and was highly favored in the court circles which included the family of Bahá'u'lláh."

I think its pretty clear that Baha'u'llah did indeed invest a significant amount of time and effort in studying the details of religions. Don't you?

 

[siti]

Well that killed it didn't it? Ooops!

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Well that killed it didn't it? Ooops!

If you remember, we had this discussion, in the other thread, called Great Beings....
You left in the middle of the discussion, and did not reply to me.
You seem to exaggerate things, to show Bahaullah has learned His knowledge. All we see is, according to History, Bahaullah had sometimes encounters with scholars when He was a youth. You are exaggerating such few encounters, during a short period of time when He was child or a youth, as a basis, for a knowledge of Writing more than 17000 works, during His later 40 years of Writing. Its like if a person had a few encounters with doctors, then He became the most knowledgeable doctor of his time. Do you see this?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

OK - lets start with how Baha'u'llah learned the details of Islam...

Baha'u'llah's own (older) sister (who would have known him as well as anyone) wrote (in a letter to Abdu'l Baha titled Tanbih al-Na’imin):

"He [Baha'u'llah] wouldn’t disengage from learning the rudiments for a moment. After studying the rudiments of Arabic and literature he inclined towards the science of philosophy (hikmat) and mysticism (irfan) so that he might benefit from these. It was such that he would spend most of the day and night socializing with high statured philosophers and the gatherings of mystics and Sufis... he (meaning Bahaullah) was a man who had seen most of the words and phrases of the mystics and philosophers and had heard and understood most of the signs of the appearance (of the Mahdi) . . . after returning from Badasht and after the Shaykh Tabarsi Fort war was over, he was engaged day and night in socializing with great Islamic scholars and followers of mysticism..."

Abdu'l Baha himself almost lets it slip in conversation with Baha'i "Hand of the Cause" John Esslemont:

"When He [Baha'u'llah] was only thirteen or 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 (leading mullas) and would explain intricate religious questions."
Bahá'u'lláh and the New Era: Chapter 3

That clearly shows that, in his youth, Baha'u'llah spent considerable time discussing religious matters with the "Ulama" - religious teachers.

Baha'u'llah also referred to (I mean read) books in order to answer questions as he (Baha'u'llah) himself admits in the very book we are investigating here: Book of Certitude (page 184)

"For instance, a certain man, reputed for his learning and attainments, and accounting himself as one of the pre-eminent leaders of his people, hath in his book denounced and vilified all the exponents of true learning. This is made abundantly clear by his explicit statements as well as by his allusions throughout his book. As We had frequently heard about him, We purposed to read some of his works. Although We never felt disposed to peruse other peoples’ writings, yet as some had questioned Us concerning him, We felt it necessary to refer to his books, in order that We might answer Our questioners with knowledge and understanding. His works, in the Arabic tongue, were, however, not available, until one day a certain man informed Us that one of his compositions, entitled Irshadu’l-‘Avám, could be found in this city. From this title We perceived the odour of conceit and vainglory, inasmuch as he hath imagined himself a learned man and regarded the rest of the people ignorant."

Does it not seem odd that having granted Baha'u'llah divine insight into the entire wealth of Abrahamic, Zoroastrian, Buddhist and Hindu scripture and tradition, He was suddenly either unable or unwilling to directly reveal the contents of a direct attack on the "exponents of true learning" and this divine Manifestation had to resort to looking it up in a document written in a language he had never studied???!!! (NB - the last sentence in that quote directly from Baha'u'llah is priceless in my opinion - I can't help thinking of kettles, pots and the colour black for some reason).

And finally, here's a quote from another Baha'i library source from an article written about Baha'u'llah's 2-year reclusion in Kurdistan during which he renewed his propensity for religious dialogue with the Sufis.

"In this poem [Al- Qasidah-al-Warqa'iyyah], Bahá'u'lláh displays the ability to express Bábí theological beliefs in Sufi terminology. This is not surprising, however, in view of the fact that Sufi works were popular in Persia and, over the centuries, had left a lasting impact on the culture and literature of that country. Persians of nobility, such as Bahá'u'lláh, were raised on such Sufi classics as Rumi's Mathnawi and Attar's The Speech of the Bird (or Mantiqu't-Tayr). Moreover, Sufism had experienced a revival in 19th century Persia and was highly favored in the court circles which included the family of Bahá'u'lláh."

I think its pretty clear that Baha'u'llah did indeed invest a significant amount of time and effort in studying the details of religions. Don't you?

I think you are just making your conclusions on conjectures. There is not even a single evidence that Bahaullah learned anything from Muslim Scholars. It is true, He sometimes was in gatherings where Religious discussions came up where some Muslim learned were, but, it was always the case that Bahaullah answered the difficult questions, that the Scholars were unable to. Do you see why I say you are making you conclusions based on conjectures?
Why I say that? Because, Just because Bahaullah was sometimes in gatherings where scholars were, is not an evidence He learned from them, because when you look at details of such encounters, Bahaullah taught them always, not that He learned from them. Moreover, this is just when Bahaullah was very Yonge, a teenager, and is for a short period of time, which will be impossible to learn so many things by reading. If you look at the knowledge of scholars in His time, they were literalist Muslims, who believed Bible was corrupted who believed Quran is to be interpreted literally, whereas, we see, Bahaullah totally differently teaches, explains, and interprets Religious matters. And your jumping from this conjecture, to another one about knowledge of Bible, Buddhism, etc, is quite without any evidence, because when we look at the history of that time, the Persian Muslims in His time, mostly considered Christianity, Buddhism, and even Zorastrianism corrupted religions, and not worthy of even learning them, thus the scholars of His time almost never bothered to learn any of other Religions, so, your idea that Bahaullah was learing such things from them, is not only without evidence, but also irreasonable and contradicts logic. I don't mean to defend the Bahai faith, or Bahaullah, I just tell you why I see the way you are putting everything together is just conjectures. You also seem to think it is very easy to learn Religions, and write Books, in the style that Bahaullah wrote. I discussed this in more details with you in the other thread for the Great Beings, and you did not continue. So, why repeating same thing again! This is just out of the scope of thread.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

How would I know? He could have quite easily. He was literate and lived long enough. In 19 th century there were enough books around too. People who write so many books usually read.a lot as well.

We can know from written History of His Life. Bahaullah several times announced to people, including the King of Persia that His knowledge is not through human learning, but a divine knowledge, and He urged people and the King to investigate, by going to the city He grew up, and ask anybody, to make sure Bahaullah did not go to school and did not have teacher to learn details of Religions. No body had seen Him, studying extensively Religions, among people who were near Him. So, no, there is no evidence He was learning all these from books or scholars.
If anyone says He was learning these things, An accurate investigation, must be able to answer the followings:
1. How long (months, years) He was studying either by going to school, a private teacher, or on His own.
2. What materials of studying exactly He was learning from. Was it grade one school? Or was it advanced Religious theology? What books?

Moreover, All agree that whenever Bahaullah was Writing His Books, or Tablets He wrote them directly from His mind, and fast. He did not have any Books around Him to look up things to quote them, or remember them or to get help from them, or refresh His memory, during His nearly 40 years of constant Writings.

 

[sayak83]

We can know from written History of His Life. Bahaullah several times announced to people, including the King of Persia that His knowledge is not through human learning, but a divine knowledge, and He urged people and the King to investigate, by going to the city He grew up, and ask anybody, to make sure Bahaullah did not go to school and did not have teacher to learn details of Religions. No body had seen Him, studying extensively Religions, among people who were near Him. So, no, there is no evidence He was learning all these from books or scholars.

I don't believe much of anything in Bahaiullah's hagiography.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I don't believe much of anything in Bahaiullah's hagiography.

You answered very quickly. I added more to my post...
It is fine not to believe. Anyone is free to believe or not believe, but if we claim to make a definite conclusion, it must be based on evidences.
Why do you think it is not possible to know if Bahaullah's written history life can be validated or invalidated, though evidences and logical deductions?

 

[siti]

If you remember, we had this discussion, in the other thread, called Great Beings...You left in the middle of the discussion, and did not reply to me.

Because you did the same thing you have done here - you make a claim without any evidence whatsoever to support it, I present evidence carefully selected mostly from Baha'i sources that clearly refutes the claim and then you simply repeat your unfounded claim. It is perfectly obvious to anyone but the willfully blind that Baha'u'llah was both well educated and well read in matters of religion. It is perfectly obvious to anyone but the willfully blind that Baha'u'llah had a detailed knowledge of Islam, a less in depth conception of Christianity and a sketchy, general knowledge of other traditions such as Buddhism etc. It is perfectly obvious to anyone but the willfully blind that this is exactly what someone would have gleaned from the literature available to the sons of noblemen in 19th century Persia. And it is perfectly obvious to anyone but the willfully blind that this is precisely how Baha'u'llah gained his religious knowledge - he discussed it at great length with the Muslim clerics and - whilst he was in Kurdistan for 2 years - with the Sufi mystics...and he read books - by his own admission! It was only later that he decided to make up the story about being (relatively) uneducated in such matters to lend weight to his claim of divine inspiration. There is almost nothing new in Iqan or in any other book he wrote as far as I can tell and we have had a very prolonged discussion on that subject before too - not one thing that is claimed to be new in the Baha'i catalogue of supposedly novel revelations for the current age had not been written about by someone else decades, centuries or even millennia before. Not one example has been presented in literally thousands of posts by Baha'is on the subject.

As for my comments being "off-topic" - I quoted directly from Iqan - and it was you who suggested

Ok, we need to investigate and see if Bahaullah studied Religions in details. When and where did Bahaullah studied Islam...

...since, as you pointed out, we have already done that investigation, I posted my findings again here. And still you have no adequate answer.

As far as I am concerned, as far as how Baha'u'llah got his knowledge of Islam, the case is open and shut - he learned it from Muslim clerics, Sufi mystics and reading books. Now you either have to concede that this is what the evidence seems to show - or present actual evidence - not just statements of blind credulity - to the contrary.

 

[siti]

No body had seen Him, studying extensively Religions, among people who were near Him.

Except his sister.

All agree that whenever Bahaullah was Writing His Books, or Tablets He wrote them directly from His mind, and fast.

Who are "all" - how many - please quote them directly.