Islamic concept of Mahdi/Jesus/Messiah

[paarsurrey]

Yes, the word Qaim is in the Quran, in the form of disconnected letters, which appears in a verse of a Surrah:

حم (1) عسق (2) كَذَٰلِكَ يُوحِي إِلَيْكَ وَإِلَى الَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِكَ اللَّهُ الْعَزِيزُ الْحَكِيمُ


From hadithes of Imams Sadiq and imam reza, we know that حم عسق، in this verse is a short form, of the name of Qaim, and the year He appears.

حم (H M) is Muhammad
عسق (A S Q): A is Ali, S is sixty, Q is Qaim.

The whole verse

حم عسق means: Qaim of year sixty, is Ali Muhammad.

ق = قائم
س = ستین
ع م ح= علی محمد

The word Qaim is not there in the Quran verses
[42:1] [42:2], [42:3], [42:4] or in the context verses. It is a wrong interpretation. The word Qaim is not there . Please don't misrepresent Quran.
If Bahaullah mentioned it, it is enough for his fallibility, please.
Regards

 

[InvestigateTruth]

The word Qaim is not there in the Quran verses
[42:1] [42:2], [42:3], [42:4] or in the context verses. It is a wrong interpretation. The word Qaim is not there . Please don't misrepresent Quran.
If Bahaullah mentioned it, it is enough for his fallibility, please.
Regards

Yes, everything is in Quran:
“…There is not a grain in the darkness (or depths) of the earth, nor anything wet or dry (green or withered), but is (written) in a Clear Book (Qur’an).” (al-An‘am, 59)

How can you say, the Qaim or Mahdi is not in the Quran, when God says, every thing is in the Quran?

 

[paarsurrey]

Yes, everything is in Quran:
“…There is not a grain in the darkness (or depths) of the earth, nor anything wet or dry (green or withered), but is (written) in a Clear Book (Qur’an).” (al-An‘am, 59)

How can you say, the Qaim or Mahdi is not in the Quran, when God says, every thing is in the Quran?

"How can you say, the Qaim or Mahdi is not in the Quran, when God says, every thing is in the Quran?" Unquote.

Mahdi is in Quran as a Successor of Muhammad.
I believe Qaim and Guardian are concepts of Shiaism followed by Bahaullah, due to his fallibility, as he was also in Iran .
It is not in Quran.
If yes, then please quote from Quran giving the verses in the context to support one's claim and for correct understanding.

Regards

 

[InvestigateTruth]

"How can you say, the Qaim or Mahdi is not in the Quran, when God says, every thing is in the Quran?" Unquote.

Mahdi is in Quran as a Successor of Muhammad.
I believe Qaim and Guardian are concepts of Shiaism followed by Bahaullah, due to his fallibility, as he was also in Iran .
It is not in Quran.
If yes, then please quote from Quran giving the verses in the context to support one's claim and for correct understanding.

Regards

The word Qaim is in Quran as God. The concept is in agreement with Bahaullah being manifestation of God, or the Qaim. Is the word Mahdi in the Quran?


أَفَمَنْ هُوَ قَائِمٌ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ نَفْسٍ بِمَا كَسَبَتْ وَجَعَلُوا لِلَّهِ شُرَكَاءَ قُلْ سَمُّوهُمْ أَمْ تُنَبِّئُونَهُ بِمَا لَا يَعْلَمُ فِي الْأَرْضِ أَم بِظَاهِرٍ مِّنَ الْقَوْلِ بَلْ زُيِّنَ لِلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مَكْرُهُمْ وَصُدُّوا عَنِ السَّبِيلِ وَمَن يُضْلِلِ اللَّهُ فَمَا لَهُ مِنْ هَادٍ

13:33

 

[paarsurrey]

The word Qaim is in Quran as God. The concept is in agreement with Bahaullah being manifestation of God, or the Qaim. Is the word Mahdi in the Quran?


أَفَمَنْ هُوَ قَائِمٌ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ نَفْسٍ بِمَا كَسَبَتْ وَجَعَلُوا لِلَّهِ شُرَكَاءَ قُلْ سَمُّوهُمْ أَمْ تُنَبِّئُونَهُ بِمَا لَا يَعْلَمُ فِي الْأَرْضِ أَم بِظَاهِرٍ مِّنَ الْقَوْلِ بَلْ زُيِّنَ لِلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مَكْرُهُمْ وَصُدُّوا عَنِ السَّبِيلِ وَمَن يُضْلِلِ اللَّهُ فَمَا لَهُ مِنْ هَادٍ

13:33

Did Bahaullah quote the above Quran-verse for himself specifically being a Qá’im and gave the reference of Quran verse 13:33 in this connection in his “kitab-i-iqan”?

If yes, then please give the context verses, some preceding and some following, in support of this claim, please.

Regards

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Did Bahaullah quote the above Quran-verse for himself specifically being a Qá’im and gave the reference of Quran verse 13:33 in this connection in his “kitab-i-iqan”?

If yes, then please give the context verses, some preceding and some following, in support of this claim, please.

Regards

No, He did not quote 13:33 in Iqan.

 

[duvduv]

In the holy Quran it is stated concerning Jesus;

"(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me, and to make lawful to you part of what was (before) forbidden to you..."
(The Qur'an (Yusuf Ali tr), Surah 3:50)

One simply cannot make lawful something which was forbidden without modifiying the law, anyone who says otherwise has ignored the plain meaning of the text inasmuch as it does not confirm their superstitions.

Kind regards

Isn't it interesting that this reference to Jesus and the law contradicts what it says in Matthew's version where he is quoted as saying he has come to FULFILL the law, and that not a jot of the law is to be abandoned......

 

[paarsurrey]

No, He did not quote 13:33 in Iqan.

Then one's saying that Bahaullah claimed to be Qaim in the sense it is used in Quran verse 13:33, or elsewhere in Quran, is simply incorrect.
Regards

 

[danieldemol]

Isn't it interesting that this reference to Jesus and the law contradicts what it says in Matthew's version where he is quoted as saying he has come to FULFILL the law, and that not a jot of the law is to be abandoned......

It comes with a catch though, and the catch is until the heavens and the earth pass away. According to my understanding this was not a reference to the visible earth and heavens but symbolic language.
But from an Islamic perspective one would have to ask the question, if not one jot or tittle could be altered from the law until the visible earth and heavens passed away how could it be permissable for His holiness Muhammad to change the Quiblah from Jerusalem to Mecca when the visible earth and heavens are still standing??
Anyhow the Gospels themselves record that Jesus broke the law of the Sabbath and of divorce, so even Christians would have to do all sorts of mental gymnastics if they believe this is a reference to the visible heavens and the visible earth.

Kind regards

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Then one's saying that Bahaullah claimed to be Qaim in the sense it is used in Quran verse 13:33, or elsewhere in Quran, is simply incorrect.
Regards

I don't think we can make that conclusion. The word Qa'im is in the Quran, and when Muhammad and Shia Islam were using the word 'Qaim' for the promised One, they got the idea from a Quranic word, which is seen in 13:33.

If you also read 3:18'

"There is no god but He: That is the witness of Allah, His angels, and those endued with knowledge, standing firm (Qaim) on justice. There is no god but He, the Exalted in Power, the Wise."

Notice that Qaim, which means the "One who is Standing" , in this verse is related to 'Justice'. And the Qaim is the One who establishes Justice on earth, as described in a number of Hadithes.

 

[duvduv]

It's difficult for me to take the stories of the gospels seriously as historical information because there is strong evidence that the NT was composed in the days of Constantine. It may even be that the contradictory teachings about a Jesus figure in the Quran were based merely on popular stories unrelated to the canon that had emerged several centuries earlier, i.e. Jesus born of Maryam with no father...based on the stories of Yeshu son of Pandera and Miriam identified in the Babylonian Talmud.

 

[paarsurrey]

Isn't it interesting that this reference to Jesus and the law contradicts what it says in Matthew's version where he is quoted as saying he has come to FULFILL the law, and that not a jot of the law is to be abandoned......

The Quranic verse simply says that after Moses, the clergy made the Israelites peoples to indulge in such practices and customs that were not in the Moses' Law, and therefore a simple religion of Moses became complicated due to such customs and practices. Jesus' mission was to bring Israelites back to the Law of Moses. Jesus did not bring any new religion.
Bahaullah was wrong if he said that Jesus brought out a new religion.
Bahaism people have the right to believe in anything they like with reasons and or absolute no valid reasons and arguments. Right, please?

Regards