Why Bahai

[Dawnofhope]

On the historical
Their is no doubt that a warrior/prophet arose in the late 500's early 600's and preached a fierce mono-theism amongst the arabian tribes and launched them on a mission to conquer the lands that were now vunerable because of the great Persian war the Romans had just fought, lands they believed were their right through Ishmael. The actual details of the conquest and the interpretation of the foundational story seems to be mostly taken from authentic sources but has been reverse engineered by Abdul Malik during his Califate. Mostly the geography, which was a somewhat fluid thing in the minds of people of that time. The Holy Place is where the holy thing is... move the thing, the geography moves, but it is still The Holy Place in the mind of the believer so it never moved as well.

Heres one that just popped into my head. The Roaman Emperor Elagabalus was also the high priest of Elgabal and custodian of the Black stone of Emesa. Somewhere during the crisis of the third century, probably during Zenobia and Aurelians struggles in the late 200, the stone, or what was left of it, seems to have been taken to the Nabataen stronghold of Petra. An ancient well know city on the crossroads of major trade routes and a place of temples and pilgrimage from the arab peninsular for centuries. A place that fits the desciptions given of mecca/bekka far better than the place we have today.

Dan Gibson has shown that every Moslem prayer Niche was pointed at Petra until the time of Abdul Maliks Caliphate, from India to Africa to Persia, this is solid stuff. The Muslims used to explain it by saying the early niches were pointed at Jerusalem and this was changed when Malik built the Dome of the Rock and pointed its niche at what is today Mecca .But modern analysis has shown these early niches pointed a couple of degrees south of Jerusalem right at Petra. The civil war of Maliks, seems to have been when the stone was taken by the rebels to present day mecca and when victorious Malik liked the idea of the religious centre another 1000 miles south and out of his way.

It does not seem reasonable to believe that Mecca, which is only mentioned once by name in the koran,was an already 2000 year old trading city, not on the trade route by 100 miles, and holy site yet not recorded on a single map or mentioned in a single source until the 740's. It is a much better fit to place the origin of Islam amongst the arabian tribes on the periphery of the Nabataen kingdom 1000 miles north of present day mecca. All the actual koranic stories fit this better. it is the Haddiths that explain the foundation story as we have it today that point further south and they all are after proper Imperial control in the early 700's. Actually the majority are from the 800's onwars.

If the foundational story of Islam is actually totally different than the accepted tradition does that make a difference to whether they are a divine manifestation of a continuing message.

As an aside i think that is why the christian story is more believable. By the time Imperial political types got their hands on the the religion there were already so many copies of the different books spread over so many different nations and languages and so much commentary already done by the previous generations that they could not rewrite or do any substantial editing. I bet Constantine wished he could have edited the books at Nicaea but they were stuck with established stuff that went back centuries.

I'm not sure where to go with this. Its based on the opinions and conclusions of historians who are controversial and have been subject to criticism. It would be intellectually dishonest of me to say that I could discount these theories as I'm not an historian and I haven't considered the evidence one way or the other. Its always difficult with religious history being able to weight up the facts. You ask if this alternative historical narrative would make a difference as to whether or not Muhammad was a Divine Messenger? It could do. Would it make a difference to you if mainstream history in regards early Islam was more definitively proven correct? I suspect not.

What we do have is the Quran. The historicity looks solid, specially compared to the Christian scriptures. Does the Quran constitute evidence of a Divine Messenger comparable to moses or David in the Hebrew Bible? I believe it does.

 

[Dawnofhope]

We need to be careful not to dismiss Islam on the basis of bad behaviour of its followers anymore than we should dismiss Christianity for the same reasons.
.... i agree for the most part.... but it seems to me that the FIRST generation of followers of any of the great teachers gives a fair example of a proper manifestation of there beliefs through their actions.

I think that if we just did a side by side of the Twelve Apostles and the top 12 companions of the prophet, both groups held to be representative, by the followers of both faiths, of the living truth taught by their masters we would find diametrically opposed views on the subjects of, taking human life, sexual morays and practises, wealth, politics, inclusion and salvation and the list gets bigger as you go deeper.

Again if the two messages, as interpreted by their initial followers, are in contradiction then they can not be progression can they?
................................................................................
Peace

Judas Iscariot was more than a little dodgy, don't you think!? But seriously, I agree Islam became corrupted early on and Baha'is believe Muhammad intended for His son-in-law Ali to become His successor. That view is shared by Shi'a Islam. However once Christians had their hands on significant power it didn't take long for the rot to set in, did it? The Muslims simply had a lot more power and influence early on. They hadn't had the experience of being chastened through 300 years of persecution until the Roman Emperor Constantine became a Christian. That event alone changed everything for Christianity for better and for worse. So I don't believe the early corruption in Islam as opposed to the delayed corruption in Christianity was a result of any deficiency in what Muhammad taught.

Thank you for your post. Its provided a lot for us to think about.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Thanks for reading the quote and saying what the main points were. I tried to read but couldn't get through the first two sentences. Is there a Cliff Notes on the Baha'i Books?

Do you think I read the Bahaullah quotes that the Bahais post here? That would mean that you take me to be a fool. I have read about Bahaullah and Bahais from Wikipedia. I have a very clear idea about both. I do not need any further reading.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Actually English is my first language brother.

Sorry. I hope my comment didn't offend you.

Of course. Akram means "most honourable" but also has a meaning of "generosity" So Rasool Akram as in the book would mean honourable messenger. I dont know how to give you the reference in the English version brother because it doesn't seem to match. In the arabic version this begins with the 8th verse. Of course repeats many other times. And by the way, this same verse refers to the Quran.

Does Bahai (Bahaayin) mean Bahauallah? If it is, im pretty sure that he is addressed as Honourable Messenger or Rasool Al Akram.

By the way, is there any possibility that you could find a way for me to download the same English Kithab I Akdhas you are reading? I have two versions which are very different, and one doesn't have verses numbered. It goes on like a paragraph.

Here is an English version of the kitab-i-Aqdas with the paragraphs numbered. Its only 190 paragraphs so it shouldn't be too hard.

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Aqdas


The eighth paragraph reads:

We have set forth the details of obligatory prayer in another Tablet. Blessed is he who observeth that whereunto he hath been bidden by Him Who ruleth over all mankind. In the Prayer for the Dead six specific passages have been sent down by God, the Revealer of Verses. Let one who is able to read recite that which hath been revealed to precede these passages; and as for him who is unable, God hath relieved him of this requirement. He, of a truth, is the Mighty, the Pardoner.

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Pages 19-34

Baha'u'llah means Glory of God and Baha'i means a follower of Baha or Baha'u'llah.

Hopefully with the numbered paragraphs you can cut and paste the specific verses from this book you have questions about.

Ive been saying the same thing over and over again brother. This is the justification of Bahaiullah as the rasool, not Nabi. Muhammed maybe the Kathamun Nabi but that doesn't mean Rasools ended at the time. Thats the Bahai argument about the theory that Muhammed is the last prophet. The problem is the prophet and messenger (Nonsensical English words) that represent Nabi and Rasool. This is why I have been trying to ask you about the rasool, not Nabi, which according to your sources respected Bahaulllah is. He is Rasool, not Nabi. (Thats the Bahai point of view, the same as the Ahmadhia point view).

Anyway, thanks for the response and patience.

I see. Baha'u'llah is both a Prophet (?Nabi) and a Messenger of God (? Rasool). Obviously that's a huge difficultly for Muslims because of verse 33:40 in the Quran and the Muslim understanding of the term Khatam an-Nabiyyin. I'm having that out in the open so we can discuss it fully and without reservation. I've grown up Christian and become a Baha'i. I've never been a Muslim so I've never had a problem with it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

For one thing, it is just way too obsessed with monotheism. That right there is a serious flaw.

Not just that, they are too obsessed with the 'manifestation' too - for obvious reasons. I generally follow Sankara and Buddha but do not hesitate to differ from them when I think it is needed. Neither Hinduism nor Buddhism minds it. Bahais (other monotheist religions as well) do not have that freedom, and the House of Justice is there to maintain it that way - "it is the word of Allah".

Buddha's 'Kalama Sutta' (the original Ockham's razor) among other things, says:

"Do not go upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna)
nor upon another's seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya),
nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū) .."

The Hindu and Buddhist stance is "OK, you broadly agree with the concept of 'dharma', but differ in detail; that should not be any problem".

 

[Dawnofhope]

Did the Son of Man come in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory?

Allegorically, yes.

And did the angels come with the great sound of a trumpet?

Allegorically, yes.

Any evidence of that?

There are references in the Bible to similar verses applying to Jesus. They never happened literally either. So its about consistency in the way scripture is intepreted.

Bahaullah was either in jail or in exile depending upon the mercy of the governments of that place.

That is true.

Bab too claimed to be a manifestation of Allah.

Yes, although to my knowledge not using those explicit words.

 

[firedragon]

"Atītāyām bhavitavyam" (Happened in the past).
't' is 'Dantya' (Dental), 'sparsha' (just a little touch between the teeth and the tongue), 'alpaprana' (pronounced quickly), and 'aghosha' (not loud).
Like 't' in French.
Sanskrit - Wikipedia

Haha. Brother. When its dantya, how do you pronounce dantya??

And why do you keep insisting its the English "t" when you and your wiki source says "French t"?

The English T is Cerebral or Moordhanya. Actually not even cerebral. Its almost that, but not dental. So you are simply affirming that. You said Alpaprana. What does that mean? Alpa = Little. Praana = Life. Little life or little effort. What does Aghosha mean? Ghosha means noise or loud sound. A is like the arabic la which negates or makes the next word Shunya. Which means dont make a noise.

Its pronounced "th" like in the word think. Thought.

Anyway, thats the end of it. Cheers.

 

[Dawnofhope]

You know I have an opinion on this. I think Jews have a very good reason to reject Jesus as their Messiah. He didn't fulfill the things in the prophecies. And, some things given as prophecies are taken out of context and were never meant to be prophecies. In other words, they are phony prophecies. One of the main ones I complain about is the "virgin birth" one from Isaiah. A virgin or a young maiden? Was it a prophecy or a "sign" for the King? I see it as a sign and that by the time the child reaches a certain age the Kings enemies will be gone. And they were. This kid also was to be eating some curds or something? When did Jesus do this? Never. And Christians don't use any of the context of the story. They only use and need the word "virgin". That ain't right and if it was the only time Christians did this, it would be enough to falsify their claims. But, it isn't.

So then Christianity did "progress" out of Judaism... and messed everything up. Jews, Baha'is and Muslims all say how Christians got it wrong. And I say it was very early on and even in the writings of the NT. So a progression or a religion with some made up parts that are false? Wouldn't that make it a false religion? You know all those things... Jesus is God. Satan and hell. people were born sinners and need the sacrifice of Jesus to save them and so on.

But I like some things about Christianity. I know people that can feel Jesus in their hearts. Lots of them have love and compassion for others. But then, some feel there is a need to do some Bible bashing and get people to believe before it's too late. So some Christians are great, but that still doesn't change the fact that Jews, Muslims and Baha'is don't agree with many of their major doctrines and beliefs. So a progression? To what? A religions with false beliefs?

So, the question for me is, why does it work? I usually add Mormonism to this question. They have beliefs that other Christians say are false. Protestants say Catholics have false beliefs. Yet people in all of them, if you asked them, know God, can feel his presence in their lives and believe and trust in the things their form of Christianity teaches. So why does it work? Because they believe. Kind of like self-fulfilling prophecies. They can believe in things others say are wrong, but if they believe it... it will work. It will seem as though their idea of God is true. And, things in their life and things that are happening in the world will verify the truth of their beliefs. But all of them believe different things.

Anyway, I don't see religions as a continuing progression but various and very different beliefs that change over time from within and from without. So please carry on with your discussion with Moz. I'm sure I will get a lot out of it.

I agree some prophecies Christians have believed refers to Jesus, may not actually have anything to do with Jesus at all. What the Jews and Christians will agree on, is there are Messianic verses and so both faiths expect a Messiah to come.

Jewish eschatology - Wikipedia

Although the prophecies are often vague and circumstantial, if the Jewish scripture is really from God, these prophecies are there for a reason. I suspect if we were consistent in comparing both Baha'u'llah and Jesus being the fulfilment of prophecies there would be similar levels of clarity for both as to how well they are fulfilled.

I hope you follow the conversation between Moz and I as its a good opportunity for us all to learn more about Islam.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

True, according to the Baha'is. Not true, according to other creeds. Therein lies a challenge, no?

The challenge is determining what is Truth given by the Messenger.

Not what alternate creed men have made of it.

Of course men find it hard to admit they may have got it wrong.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Also stop the rain when it is causing havoc. China, India, Spain and many other countries are reeling under floods (as also cyclones and earthquakes). The death count here exceeds 1,200. It is middle of September and it is still raining cats and dogs. That is what a loving God does. But then, the Muslims are right. Allah is testing people.
"Floods in India" - Google Search (Images for the last one month, even in the desert state of Rajasthan)

View attachment 32877
600mm/24 inches is like optimal. After that we start having problems - some natural, some man-made.

The Human spirit is intrinsically connected to all creation, tip the balance and we suffer those consequenses, some know it as Karma. Some do not see this connection, but all thought has consequences, positive and negative.

Remember this story - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-and-malaysia-gets-very-angry/?noredirect=on

Then man blames God for choice they made, quite ironical. God has forewarned of these times and it will get worse before we tip the balance that dramatically returns the scale to balance.

You are free not to believe this is so. I would consider the Karma of thoughts and replace negative with positive.

Regards Tony

 

[firedragon]

Sorry. I hope my comment didn't offend you.

Not at all of course.

Here is an English version of the kitab-i-Aqdas with the paragraphs numbered. Its only 190 paragraphs so it shouldn't be too hard.

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Aqdas


The eighth paragraph reads:

We have set forth the details of obligatory prayer in another Tablet. Blessed is he who observeth that whereunto he hath been bidden by Him Who ruleth over all mankind. In the Prayer for the Dead six specific passages have been sent down by God, the Revealer of Verses. Let one who is able to read recite that which hath been revealed to precede these passages; and as for him who is unable, God hath relieved him of this requirement. He, of a truth, is the Mighty, the Pardoner.

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Pages 19-34

Baha'u'llah means Glory of God and Baha'i means a follower of Baha or Baha'u'llah.

Hopefully with the numbered paragraphs you can cut and paste the specific verses from this book you have questions about.

I did download it earlier bro. I thought there must be another version. Somehow this is not corroborating with the original arabic version for some reason. Im just trying to reconcile.

Sorry. I hope my comment didn't offend you.



Here is an English version of the kitab-i-Aqdas with the paragraphs numbered. Its only 190 paragraphs so it shouldn't be too hard.

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Aqdas


The eighth paragraph reads:

We have set forth the details of obligatory prayer in another Tablet. Blessed is he who observeth that whereunto he hath been bidden by Him Who ruleth over all mankind. In the Prayer for the Dead six specific passages have been sent down by God, the Revealer of Verses. Let one who is able to read recite that which hath been revealed to precede these passages; and as for him who is unable, God hath relieved him of this requirement. He, of a truth, is the Mighty, the Pardoner.

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Pages 19-34

Baha'u'llah means Glory of God and Baha'i means a follower of Baha or Baha'u'llah.

Hopefully with the numbered paragraphs you can cut and paste the specific verses from this book you have questions about.



I see. Baha'u'llah is both a Prophet (?Nabi) and a Messenger of God (? Rasool). Obviously that's a huge difficultly for Muslims because of verse 33:40 in the Quran and the Muslim understanding of the term Khatam an-Nabiyyin. I'm having that out in the open so we can discuss it fully and without reservation. I've grown up Christian and become a Baha'i. I've never been a Muslim so I've never had a problem with it.

Now I understand why Muslims will have an issue with that.

So you believe that Bahaiullah was a Nabi and Rasool just like Jesus, Moses, David and Muhammed, so he is not like the other prophets who were just Rasool.

The problem I have with this is that the Kithab I Akdhas doesn't say that. So as I understand this seems to be your teaching or a consensus, not scriptural. Well, at least thats how I understand this.

Nevertheless, I am interested in understanding how you interpret the arabic phrase "khatham an nabeeyina". How do you interpret it?

Edit: Sorry brother. I must admit that I have not fully read the Kithab I Akdhas so of course I am missing a lot. If my questions sound unlettered im sorry about that.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

If all creatures emanate from Allah, then each one of them is a manifestation. All humans, all animals and all vegetation. That is correct if one goes by 'Advaita'. 'Advaita' says that even the non-living things are Brahman. Basically, there is nothing other than Brahman in the universe.

I see creation/we enemate from the Messengers.

I see that Baha'u'llah has said that the Holy Spirit is a result of the Most Great Spirit. Abdul'baha has written that when the Holy Spirit issued forth it did so as such;

"... He made the circuits of these luminous divine orbs to be their lofty and celestial spheres; and He made the bodies of these spiritual spheres to be subtle and soft, flowing and liquid, undulating and vibrating, in such manner that these refulgent orbs swim in the circumferences of the spheres, and move in their vast space by the aid of their Creator and Maker, their Ordainer and Fashioner.... "

When all this was put in order, then creation issued from this Holy Spirit, which is all the Manifestations.

This is that explanation on creation, it quotes the Koran.

Tablet of the Universe

@firedragon

Regards Tony

 

[Aupmanyav]

Anyway, thats the end of it. Cheers.

Good that it ends. I too am not a linguist. I agree with you 'T' is 'mūrdhayna' (retroflex), and 'th' is Dantya/Sparsha/Aghosha and Mahāprāna. It is not in any word that we have been discussion till now. Neither in 'Mitra' nor in 'Tu****a' nor in 'Atīta'. 'aTTa' as in Buddhist 'anatta' is the harder sound, 'mūrdhayna'. Sanskrit is straight-jacketed, not flexible. One can't play with it. That is what the grammarian 'Pānini' did with the old 'Vedic Sanskrit' sometime between 600 and 400 BCE.
Pāṇini - Wikipedia

 

[firedragon]

Good that it ends. I too am not a linguist. I agree with you 'T' is 'mūrdhayna' (retroflex), and 'th' is Dantya/Sparsha/Aghosha and Mahāprāna. It is not in any word that we have been discussion till now. Neither in 'Mitra' nor in 'Tu****a' nor in 'Atīta'. 'aTTa' as in Buddhist 'anatta' is the harder sound, 'mūrdhayna'. Sanskrit is straight-jacketed, not flexible. One can't play with it. That is what the grammarian 'Pānini' did with the old 'Vedic Sanskrit' sometime between 600 and 400 BCE.
Pāṇini - Wikipedia

Brother. Peace.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Then man blames God for choice they made, quite ironical. God has forewarned of these times and it will get worse before we tip the balance that dramatically returns the scale to balance.

Well, I don't; because I do not even believe in the possibility of existence of any God or Goddess. But yes, our actions have consequences. Part of the damage during rains in India is because of road building, quarrying and rail building and disfiguring the contour, which causes mud-slides.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Not just that, they are too obsessed with the 'manifestation' too - for obvious reasons. I generally follow Sankara and Buddha but do not hesitate to differ from them when I think it is needed. Neither Hinduism nor Buddhism minds it. Bahais (other monotheist religions as well) do not have that freedom, and the House of Justice is there to maintain it that way - "it is the word of Allah".

Buddha's 'Kalama Sutta' (the original Ockham's razor) among other things, says:

"Do not go upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna)
nor upon another's seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya),
nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū) .."

The Hindu and Buddhist stance is "OK, you broadly agree with the concept of 'dharma', but differ in detail; that should not be any problem".

Hmm. I've always wanted to know a more cultural interpretation of that verse. I always just read it as is. Interesting perspective. Okay. Carry on.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I did download it earlier bro. I thought there must be another version. Somehow this is not corroborating with the original arabic version for some reason. Im just trying to reconcile.

The version I sent you today has the paragraphs numbered for clarity.

Now I understand why Muslims will have an issue with that.

So you believe that Bahaiullah was a Nabi and Rasool just like Jesus, Moses, David and Muhammed, so he is not like the other prophets who were just Rasool.

The problem I have with this is that the Kithab I Akdhas doesn't say that. So as I understand this seems to be your teaching or a consensus, not scriptural. Well, at least thats how I understand this.

Nevertheless, I am interested in understanding how you interpret the arabic phrase "khatham an nabeeyina". How do you interpret it?

Edit: Sorry brother. I must admit that I have not fully read the Kithab I Akdhas so of course I am missing a lot. If my questions sound unlettered im sorry about that.

Baha'is would see Baha'u'llah as being both Nabi and Rasool as with Moses, Jesus and Muhammad.

The Kitab-i-Aqdas is a charter for a future civilisation, not a proclamation of His station. You won't find an explicit proclamation of being a Nabi/Rasool there.

Are you aware Baha'u'llah wrote letters to someof the Kings and Rulers of the world proclaiming His Mission?
The letters included those to Queen Victoria, the Shah of Persia, Czar Alexandra II of Russia, Pope Pious IX and Napoleon III.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh

I don't know Arabic so the etymology of the phrase meaning sealof the prophets I will always struggle with. One meaning may be that Muhammand refers to the end of the Adamic cycle, or the Prophetic era starting from Adam and ending with Himself, whereas the Baha'i Dispensation inaugurates a cycle of fulfilment.

Another Baha'i reflection is this one:

Unsealing the “Seal of the Prophets”

Obviously if the current Islamic interpretation is the only correct one in the sense of Muhammad being the final Prophet/Messenger for all time, there can be no others. I do not believe this of course but we are all free to believe as we please. If we are sincere and search fervently for the truth, Allah will guide us.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I see creation/we enemate from the Messengers. I see that Baha'u'llah has said that the Holy Spirit is a result of the Most Great Spirit. Abdul'baha has written that when the Holy Spirit issued forth it did so as such;

"... He made the circuits of these luminous divine orbs to be their lofty and celestial spheres; and He made the bodies of these spiritual spheres to be subtle and soft, flowing and liquid, undulating and vibrating, in such manner that these refulgent orbs swim in the circumferences of the spheres, and move in their vast space by the aid of their Creator and Maker, their Ordainer and Fashioner.... "

When all this was put in order, then creation issued from this Holy Spirit, which is all the Manifestations.

This is that explanation on creation, it quotes the Koran.

Tablet of the Universe

@firedragon

Regards Tony

 

[Aupmanyav]

I see creation/we enemate .. forth it did so as such;
"... He made the .. Ordainer and Fashioner.... "

Yeah, I can understand. With your 'Bahai' spects on, you cannot see anything else.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Hmm. I've always wanted to know a more cultural interpretation of that verse. I always just read it as is. Interesting perspective. Okay. Carry on.

The last line is not a perspective of 'Kalama Sutta', but the Hindu and Buddhist mind-set. We do not mind differences of opinion and expect them to be there.