Mirza Ghulam Ahmad vs Bahaullah..who is the real Mahdi..

[Monotheist 101]

I do not associate with either group..but I find it interesting that both have accepted a Mahdi/Jesus around the same time...

I have seen a few Ahmadi and Bahai representatives..do you guys mind stating the reason why, if I were to pick one over the other..I should choose your Mahdi?

There is no malicious intent in creating this thread..rather I want to contrast which out of the two claimants has a more genuine claim..

Thanks

Cheers
God Bless

 

[BruceDLimber]

I have seen a few Ahmadi and Baha'i representatives..do you guys mind stating the reason why, if I were to pick one over the other..I should choose your Mahdi?

That is not for us--or anyone else--to say. Only YOU can make this decision for yourself!

But some of the things you might want to consider in arriving at a conclusion include things like these:

• how spotless (or otherwise) a life each lived
• the "Book" or body of teachings each revealed
• the prophecies (if any) each fulfilled by appearing
• how relevant the teachings of each are in the present day
• what prophecies each has made that have already been proven correct
• the effect, if any, each's religion has had on masses of people
• how widespread a range of cultures each has been able to draw adherents from
• the ability of each religion both to endure and flourish over time.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Monotheist 101]

That is not for us--or anyone else--to say. Only YOU can make this decision for yourself!

But some of the things you might want to consider in arriving at a conclusion include things like these:

• how spotless (or otherwise) a life each lived
• the "Book" or body of teachings each revealed
• the prophecies (if any) each fulfilled by appearing
• how relevant the teachings of each are in the present day
• what prophecies each has made that have already been proven correct
• the effect, if any, each's religion has had on masses of people
• how widespread a range of cultures each has been able to draw adherents from
• the ability of each religion both to endure and flourish over time.

Peace,

I have reached a conclusion using the above criteria...I have chosen Muhammad and the Quran as the final revelation..his stats beat all the rest...

What I wanted to know was what is the Bahai view of Ahmadis and vice-versa.. surely a person willing to accept one Mahdi should have looked into the possibility of anothers claim..My intention was finding out..if so why an Ahmadi chose Ghulam Ahmad over Bahullah and vice versa...I cannot make up my decision on both of them and it doesnt apply to me because Muhammad is the final messenger according to my beliefs..

 

[F0uad]

I have reached a conclusion using the above criteria...I have chosen Muhammad and the Quran as the final revelation..his stats beat all the rest...

What I wanted to know was what is the Bahai view of Ahmadis and vice-versa.. surely a person willing to accept one Mahdi should have looked into the possibility of anothers claim..My intention was finding out..if so why an Ahmadi chose Ghulam Ahmad over Bahullah and vice versa...I cannot make up my decision on both of them and it doesnt apply to me because Muhammad is the final messenger according to my beliefs..

Can i also add all the other sects that claimed to be the messiah and mahdi?

 

[Monotheist 101]

Can i also add all the other sects that claimed to be the messiah and mahdi?

Yes of course.. I mean the same applies to them aswell..I have met a few representatives of the Bahai faith and Ahmadis on here, thats the reason behind specifically pointing them out..All followers of claimants of Mahdi are welcome..please share why you chose your Mahdi over the other..or did you even look into the others claims at all?

 

[Monotheist 101]

What? no representatives from either side..your respective Mahdis would be so disappointed....

 

[muziko]

What? no representatives from either side..your respective Mahdis would be so disappointed....

Really? I think if they both knew that there wasn't useless bickering and making of false promises, they'd both feel like their followers learned something.

 

[Monotheist 101]

Really? I think if they both knew that there wasn't useless bickering and making of false promises, they'd both feel like their followers learned something.

Do you mean that acceptance of the false Mahdi (has to be one of them) was encouraged by both? Dont you feel like Bahaullah deserves to be the undisputed claimant, so other can accept him? Or is he only meant to be Mahdi for the people who are born into Bahai Faith?

My intent for creating this thread wasnt to promote bickering, rather to contrast which claimant is more genuine..I didnt mean to single you guys out..I have met several representatives from both sides on these forums and thought a thread would benefit everyones (even non Bahai and non Ahmadis) understanding of the Promised Mahdi...

Oh well..maybe some ballsy representatives will stand up and speak for their group, look at it from my point of view..If one side can post a more genuine claim than thats one Mahdi off the list of several in my quest to get to the bottom of this dillema..

God Bless

 

[ameraz1]

As-salaam-o-alaikum warehmatulla, (peace and blessings of Allah upon you)

Monotheist 101, are you still interested in discussing this? I see the thread is a year old so not sure if anyone is following it. If so, I can post reply to this topic.

Thanx and wasalaam.

 

[arthra]

You may read the rules for the "comparative religion" section..

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...pecial-general-religion-discussion-rules.html

No debates...

There's a desire here I believe to have a debate between various groups...

 

[ameraz1]

Take a look at the ‘Religious Forums’ motto top-left—it says Discuss, Compare and Debate.

I’m not looking to debate here but, always wanted to speak with Bahais (never have). Firstly, I’d like to say that I have great respect for Bahais. So, both of us belong to successful 19th century messianic movements. I don’t know how much Bahais see their movement as Messianic, but I would imagine they do. As you would have guessed I am an Ahmadi-Muslim (convert from Sunni-Muslim).

I know this much that Bahais believe in the truth of all religions (as do Ahmadi-Muslims). You also believe in the truth of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) and Islam (as a religion denoted for its era).

So here is my question, if Islam and The Quran were true, and The Quran says that in verse 5:3 that religion has been brought to perfection in Islam. The Quran in 33:40 also calls Muhammad (pbuh) as the seal of the prophets—we take it to mean that no new law-bearing prophet can follow.
So, if this is what the Quran says, and you believe in it as a heavenly dispensation of its era, then how would you resolve the conflict the Bahaullah is a new law-bearing prophet?

Best regards

 

[arthra]

Ameraz1 wrote:

So here is my question, if Islam and The Quran were true, and The Quran says that in verse 5:3 that religion has been brought to perfection in Islam. The Quran in 33:40 also calls Muhammad (pbuh) as the seal of the prophets—we take it to mean that no new law-bearing prophet can follow.
So, if this is what the Quran says, and you believe in it as a heavenly dispensation of its era, then how would you resolve the conflict the Bahaullah is a new law-bearing prophet?

My comments:

I would offer that Baha'is can see the Quranic verse 5:3 in the context it was in...

This day have those who disbelieve despaired of your religion, so fear them not, and fear Me. This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion; but whoever is compelled by hunger, not inclining willfully to sin, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Regarding the Qur'anic verse 33:40

Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things.
​

I think the Baha'i view of "Seal" does not mean the "last" Prophet..
Seal of the Prophets means that Prophet Muhammad had authority in relation to the Prophets and Messengers. Also in the Kitab-i-Iqan the verse is referred to:

For it hath been repeatedly demonstrated that through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His name and His attributes, are made manifest in the world. Thus, He hath revealed: "Those shafts were God's, not 179 Thine!"[1] And also He saith: "In truth, they who plighted fealty unto thee, really plighted that fealty unto God."[2] And were any of them to voice the utterance: "I am the Messenger of God," He also speaketh the truth, the indubitable truth. Even as He saith: "Muhammad is not the father of any man among you, but He is the Messenger of God."[3] Viewed in this light, they are all but Messengers of that ideal King, that unchangeable Essence. And were they all to proclaim: "I am the Seal of the Prophets," they verily utter but the truth, beyond the faintest shadow of doubt. For they are all but one person, one soul, one spirit, one being, one revelation. They are all the manifestation of the "Beginning" and the "End," the "First" and the "Last," the "Seen" and "Hidden" -- all of which pertain to Him Who is the innermost Spirit of Spirits and eternal Essence of Essences.

(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 178)

You also may want to review the following essay:

A Bahá'í Approach to the Claim of Finality in Islam

 

[ameraz1]

Thank you for sharing the material. I found the “Bahai Approach To Claim of Finality in Islam” very interesting.
So I think I managed to pick up the comparative between Islamic Theology and Bahai views. In the term ‘Islam’ you see the act of ‘submission to the will of Allah’ which you believe to be true for yourselves as well. And you have some good verses to back up your point with how earlier prophets have been termed Muslims in the Quran.
The view on the ‘Seal of Prophets’ in my opinion is a leap of faith-- that all prophets would have shared this attribute sealing up all that went before them as the Quran discourages distinction between prophets. The Quran also says in 2:253 (which the essay mentions) that some messengers are exalted above others.
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) says in the Hadith that “there are no prophets after me”. He also speaks abundantly about the return of Jesus, Son of Mary. Putting aside the popular contemporary notions of orthodox Muslims today, many renowned Islamic scholars in the past have reconciled this apparent conflict to mean that a prophet can follow Muhammad (pbuh) but only within the confines of The Quran and Islam. The prophet Muhammad in his last sermon also re-emphasizes that there are no prophets after me and in that same sentence he says that there is no “new religion or law after me”. Indeed, given the legacy of The Quran with its preservation in original text after 1,400 years and the amount of prophecies as well as factual statements that scientists today have confirmed appears to mark it as final. Wouldn’t any book that follows The Quran have to surpass those attributes for it to be accepted as a new finality?
Also, how do you defend the need for a new sharia? The themes of global consolidation and universalism already exist in The Quran such as belief in all the prophets, religions and freedom of conscience (the path of self-discovery). Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) himself drafted constitutions and charters with rights and treaties across communities and is proclaimed by The Quran as a prophet for all mankind. So, how does the Bahai Sharia (which is constituted by Kitab-i-Aqdas and Al-Bayan I believe) add or refine or improve upon that or anything else?

 

[arthra]

Amerazi...

I'm not going to argue on this thread as it's solely for comparative religion...

I think I gave our views on your questions. For Baha'is the Faith is an independent dispensation that originated in Iran and Iraq ... hence it has it's own calendar... holy places.. scripture.. and it's own laws and ordinances apart from the ones you may be more familiar with in your background.

 

[ameraz1]

To be honest, I'm not interested in an outright debate. More interested to see Bahai response to polemical content. But, if you would like to continue the conversation, I am ok with moving over to the Debate section. If we do so, by all means feel free to pose any questions or challenges for The Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam.

 

[BruceDLimber]

... Also, how do you defend the need for a new sharia?

First off, we don't call it the sharia.

As to why it's needed, I quote the Baha'i scriptures:

CVI "Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require."
―Gleanings, p. 106

-*-


Also, Muslims often interpret the Qur'an as stating that Muhammad, being the Seal of the Prophets, is the final prophet and that there will be no more Divine Messengers sent by God (or Allah).

But actually, IOV this whole “last prophet” thing is based upon a misunderstanding!

There are in fact several different explanations of the verse in the Qur’an saying Muhammad is the Seal of the Prophets (a statement we Baha’is accept, please note!):

• First off, there is a sense in which EVERY Divine Messenger is the First and the Last, the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, and the Seal!

• Next, there are multiple Arabic words that all translate into English as "prophet."

One of these is "nabi," which refers to a minor prophet such as Jeremiah or Amos.

Another is Ras'ul, which means a major, religion-founding Divine Messenger like Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, or Baha'u'llah (our Founder). (And yes, Muhammad was a major--not a minor--Prophet.)

But the word actually used in the Qur'an is "nabi," meaning Muhammad was the Seal of the minor prophets! This says nothing whatever about the great Divine Messengers.

• Muhammad is also the Seal in the sense that He was the last Messenger during the Prophetic Age, which began with Adam and ended with Him. The Bab then closed out that Age and opened the Age of Fulfillment, of which Baha'u'llah is the first major Messenger.

• Finally, there is a sense in which the word commonly translated as "seal" also means "ornament," so that this verse of the Qur'an may simply be saying that Muhammad is the Ornament of the prophets! (Nothing whatever about any sort of finish.)



Peace,

Bruce

 

[ameraz1]

Hi Bruce, thanks for replying.
No argument on the ‘finality-of-prophethood’ misconception of meaning a literal last. That’s not what I’m talking about—the literal last is a mainstream orthodox notion. The question is . . . Does the Seal designate a finality in the evolution of religion and heavenly law for mankind? And if there would be any new law or religion better suited for the times then what is that suit? And what are the prophecies regarding the coming of the next prophetic dispensation given by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) saying about this? I take it you reject (perhaps as flawed historical record) the statement from Prophet Muhammad’s (pbuh) last sermon where he says, “there is no new law or religion after me”.

If you say each era requires its own religion, then you should articulate what the religion you profess offers to meet today’s needs. Most of the material that I have come across such as racial equality, and universalism already exists in Islam. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is reportedly the first known person to have said publicly that no white man is above a black man nor any Arab over non-Arab. Social justice, world peace, The Kingdom of Heaven or God’s Kingdom on Earth are not new notions or objectives of religion. In fact, these are the same prophecies that Jews held 2,000 years ago regarding The Messiah, yet they still rejected Jesus (pbuh) who per you and me was a true prophet.

Also, while we are on the subject of what needs would cause the Islamic religious law to be abrogated by Bahai religion, can you respond to the excerpt below reportedly from Bahaullah’s book called Iqtidar where he quotes on pages 47,48 (reportedly after the execution of The Bab) . . . “If the Muslims had not failed to yield belief to the claims of the movement, the Islamic Sharia would not have been abrogated”

Peace and Blessings Brother

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

Yes, Baha'is reject the notion that Muhammad ended Divine Revelation, though He was indeed the last prophet (thus called).

I've never heard of a book called the Iqtidar. Can you give the English title, please?

Peace,

Bruce

 

[ameraz1]

As-salaam-o-alaikum (peace and blessings of Allah be on you)

So, if you reject that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) brought the last religion then how do you reconcile that with the words from his last sermon "there is no new religion after me"?

I don't know if the book has an english title. As reported by historian William McElwee Miller in his book "The Bahai Faith: Its History and Teachings", Bahaullah had his son Mirza Muhammad Ali travel to Bombay, India (known as Mumbai today) to begin the publication of Bahai literature which occurred in 1890 (possibly because publishing in Syria was risky). Among the first books to be published were Kitab-e-Aqdas, Kitab-e-Mubin, and Kitab-e-Iqtidar.

 

[BruceDLimber]

So, if you reject that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) brought the last religion then how do you reconcile that with the words from his last sermon "there is no new religion after me"?

At that time, it was true!

The new religions came much later.

As reported by historian William McElwee Miller in his book . . .

You truly couldn't find a WORSE source of information about the Baha'i Faith! A Christian missionary hostile because the Baha'is were succeeding at getting far more followers than he did, he was a well-known enemy of the Faith, and published multiple books attacking it for most of his life.

Indeed, he finally had to retract his statement of 40 years earlier that the Baha'i Faith was a "dying religion" soon to be extinct!

Bruce