instead of Abdul Baha , Shoghi Effendi and the UHJ following Bahaullah; Bahaullah has to follow them

 

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/my-current-version-of-hinduism.221194/#post-6123270

Amaxxxx said: ↑

My knowledge of Bahà’i is very limited, so no i have not seen it before 

#5paarsurrey

I understand Bahaullah did not claim in straightforward manner anything of the sort in his core book Kitab-i-Iqan or “Book of Certitude”, please.

Regards

•  Like x 2
•  Winner x 1

adrxxxxx said: ↑

In regards Hinduism Shoghi Effendi has said:

…Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, Islám and the religion of the Sabaeans. These religions are not the only true religions that have appeared in the world, but are the only ones which are still existing. There have always been divine prophets and messengers, to many of whom the Qur’án refers. But the only ones existing are those mentioned above.

So Hinduism is a religion of Divine origins. Otherwise the Baha’i writings have little to say.

In regards the authenticity of the sacred writings including the Bhaghavad Gita we don’t have much to go on either. In response to questions of a more detailed nature Shoghi Effendi said it would be a matter for scholars to investigate further.

Your question concerning Brahma and Krishna: such matters, as no reference occurs to them in the Teachings, are left for students of history and religion to resolve and clarify.
(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi – 14 April 1941)

We cannot be sure of the authenticity of the scriptures of Buddha and Krishna, so we certainly cannot draw any conclusions about virgin birth mentioned in them. There is no reference to this subject in our teachings, so the Guardian cannot pronounce an opinion.

Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster and Related Subjects

So even in consideration of Krishna we haven’t anything specific from the Baha’i writings to say. What do we have?

Blessed souls whether Moses, Jesus, Zoroaster, Krishna, Buddha, Confucius, or Muhammad were the cause of the illumination of the world of humanity. How can we deny such irrefutable proof? How can we be blind to such light?”
(‘Abdu’l-Bahá from a Tablet – translated from the Persian)

The Message of Krishna is the message of love. All God’s prophets have brought the message of love….
(“Paris Talks: Addresses given by `Abdu’l-Bahá in Paris in 1911-1912”, 11th ed. (London: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1979), p. 35)

In my experience many Hindus don’t believe in Avatars or Krishna was a person who walked the earth. As you are aware Shoghi Effendi made this connection.

My favourite question for my fellow Baha’is when the topic of Hinduism arises is who founded Hinduism? As you will appreciate, it wasn’t Krishna. Most are receptive to an alternative view based on known history and studies of comparative religion which is essential to understanding any faith as well as close association with those who practice the religion in question.

#10paarsurrey

 

Sorry, may be the Bahaism people may think that what the Abdul Baha or Shoghi Effendi wrote later was as if it had been said by Bahaullah, but we others who don’t believe in Bahaism cannot and do not consider it the same. Bahaullah is distinctively a different person and Abdul Baha and or Shoghi Effendi are two altogether different persons.

Regards

•  Like x 1
•  Winner x 1
•  Friendly x 1

sivv said: ↑

But that is because you are not trying to pretend that your religion is the same as everyone else’s whilst simultaneously trying to prove how vastly superior your interpretation of those other people’s religions is. But you knew that already, didn’t you?

Anyway, I have no such pretensions either (really) but I have just decided that my version of Baha’i would go in a slightly different direction – rather than trying to understand Baha’u’llah as an avatar of Krishna (or whatever it was), I think it would be more productive to think of Baha’u’llah as an anagram of A BLAH HAUL.

“A BLAH HAUL”

#48paarsurrey

I don’t get one exactly. What is this “A BLAH HAUL”, please?

Nonetheless, Bahaullah did not claim many things himself, and the things he claimed in Iqan he could not give proper reasons/arguments for them .
This work was later done by Abdul Baha , Shoghi Effendi and then perhaps UHJ also.
It is now other way round, instead of Abdul Baha , Shoghi Effendi and the UHJ following Bahaullah; Bahaullah has to follow them.
Please correct me if I am wrong?

Regards

•  Like x 1

 

 

Bahaullah’s claims in Iqan are “implied”,none is unequivocal

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/bahaullah-kitab-i-iqan-%E2%80%9Cbook-of-certitude%E2%80%9D.220566/page-3#post-6111585

All Bahaullah’s claims in Iqan are “implied” one’s, as I understand, none is unequivocal/straight forward. Right, please?

Regards

#39 paarsurrey

#40 Komxxx,

paarsurrey said: ↑

“I have not examined the entire text for instances of this, but I know that in certain places, Shoghi Effendi has changed the original Persian first-person singular pronouns into first-person plural pronouns in English so that it seems that Baha’u’llah is ascribing to himself a degree of divine majesty.” Unquote

I will check and verify it when I will finish going through Farsi-Iqan. It is tantamount to dishonesty on the part of Shoghi Effendi, if he did so.

I will appreciate if you elaborate further the points mentioned in your post with examples, please.

Regards

Tonxxxxxxx said: ↑

This in no way matters, as Baha’u’llah has explained that the door to the knowledge of God is closed and all knowledge reverts back to knowledge of the Manifestations.

Also, Shoghi Effendi had the authority to offer what Baha’u’llah was saying in His Message from God. Thus it means what it means.

Shoghi Effendi most likely knew what was required in the translation to impart to a western mind, the concepts given by Baha’u’llah.

Regards Tony

Click to expand…

“the door to the knowledge of God is closed”

#50paarsurrey, 

It is a meaningless concept. Nobody can close the door to knowledge of God as nobody has hegemony on God-Allah-YHVH, He can give knowledge to anybody and anytime .
If Bahaullah said it, it means that he found God’s door closed for knowledge for himself (Bahaullah) and his blind-faith followers. Right, please?

Regards

Bahaullah: Gawhar Khanum

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/bahaullah-gawhar-khanum.220335/page-6#post-6106497

#109paarsurrey

Bahaullah: Gawhar Khanum

I started this thread with simple questions:
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.

Later with some research on internet about Gawhar Khanum- third wife of Bahaullah, I find some startling things about Bahaullah and his relationship with Gawhar Khanum :

1. “Bahaullah’s third marriage was contracted when he lived in Baghdad. Although details are sketchy, it seems that relatives of Bahaullah arranged the marriage in Kashan, Persia, where the woman, Gawhar Khanum lived. She was then sent with her brother to Bahaullah in Baghdad. This arrangement was meant to honor both Bahaullah and Gawhar Khanum. For Bahaullah to have refused her hand in marriage would have been highly disrespectful to those involved and especially damaging to the woman’s reputation.”
2. “Bahá’u’lláh also married Gawhar Khánum, a widow of a martyr. Her age was not known, the couple also only had one child; Furúghíyyih. Gawhar Khánum was a maid to Ásíyih Khánum.”

Regards

#112paarsurrey

It seems Bahaullah and his followers suppressed information about Gawhar Khanum and as to how Bahaullah unjustly and inhumanly dealt with her.

The above information suggests following questions/apprehensions:

1. Gawhar Khánum was a maid to Ásíyih Khánum, how come Bahaullah established relationship with Gawhar Khánum?
2. If the relationship was disrespectful to Gawhar Khánum, why it was not disrespectful to the other party , namely, Bahaullah?
3. Why Gawhar Khánum’s brother had to intervene in the matter and had to ask Bahaullah to regularize it?
4. Later when the baby-girl was of 2/3 years of age or even less, why did Bahaullah desert Gawhar Khánum and her little child to live with her (Gawhar Khánum’s) brother?
5. What provisions did Bahaullah make for the upbringing of the baby-girl and Gawhar Khánum while they lived with her brother.
6. Was Gawhar Khánum forced to become a Bahai?
7. Later Gawhar Khánum and her girl-child from Bahaullah were excommunicated to deprive them their rights in Bahaullah’s property/inheritance ?

Were all the above acts just and humane, please?

Regards

 

Shoghi Effendi wrongly translates Iqan

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/bahaullah-kitab-i-iqan-%E2%80%9Cbook-of-certitude%E2%80%9D.220566/page-2#post-6106427

#30paarsurrey

Komxxx said: ↑

Yes, Shoghi Effendi is well-known among critics of the Baha’i Faith for his translation trickery.

I am now at page 53 of Kitab-i-Iqan-Farsi.

At passage # 76 is written:

“Knowledge is the most grievous veil between man and his Creator.”

There are no words in Farsi-Iqan which have been translated by Shoghi Effendi as “between man and his Creator.”
Further, “Knowledge is the most grievous veil” is neither a verse of Quran nor it is Hadith. Right, please?

Regards

“The followers of Baha’u’llah are called Baha’is.” Not exactly.

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/was-bahaullah-a-bahai-please.220052/page-8#post-6102436

shunxxxx said: ↑

OK, but not meaningful. because this only a cultural issue between different religions over time. Judaism is a more ancient religion acknowledged by Muhammad, and does not acknowledge your designation for believers nor your religion.

As responded many times before this is a meaningless issue. Repeating it over and over only gets you a needle on a cracked record. The followers of Baha’u’llah are called Baha’is. Baha’u’llah, of course, did not call himself a Baha’i.

“The followers of Baha’u’llah are called Baha’is.”

#151paarsurrey 

Not exactly.
Whom they follow who call themselves Atheist or Agnostic or Skeptic?
Those who follow Atheism or Agnosticism or Skepticism are called Atheist or Agnostic or Skeptic.

Did Bahaullah proclaim that he was a Bahai or First Bahai or he was devising a new religion named Bahaism?
If yes, please quote from him.
Anybody please

Regards

 

References to the quotes in Iqan must be provided

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/bahaullah-gawhar-khanum.220335/page-5#post-6099973

Tony Bristow-Stagg said: ↑

The station of the Quran in the Baha’i Writings is well documented.

As to the rest of the post, that is the same accusation that a Jew or Christain would use about MUhammad and the Quran and Biblical references.

What you need to consider paarsurry is that the Kitab-i-iqan warns us of this. That all the proofs we bring up to reject a Messenger of God, is but a return of the rejections used by all people in the past to refute all Messengers.

Some of the most learned Muslim Divine in the time of Baha’u’llah could not refute His knowledge. Every time they tried, Baha’u’llah would guide them to more scriptures to show thay had not fully considered what they offered as a rejection. They could never find fault in that knowledge. This is why they resorted to persecution and banishment.

That we have trouble finding these references is only indicative of the effort that those who persecuted Baha’u’llah have used to eliminate any trace of the good that has come from Baha’u’llah. The time is not far away, when all those hopes they had of extinguishing the cause, will backfire and the resulting explosion of knowledge that results will vindicate all that Baha’u’llah has offered.

The effort would be better spent looking for those references now, rather than saying they were wrong or did not exist.

Regards Tony

Click to expand…

“The effort would be better spent looking for those references now, rather than saying they were wrong or did not exist.”

#99paarsurrey

That effort must have been made by the followers of Bahaullah, now it should be more easy. The books have been published and most if not all, I understand, are available even online. The references of all such Shia/Islam Ahadith/Narrations should be provided in the Arabic text. Now more than a century has passed, yet it has not been done. How much time Bahaullah’s followers want to take while they say Iqan is their core religious book?

I also understand that in the first hand-written or dictated Iqan had many mistakes even in the Quranic verses quoted and Bahaullah had to correct these later.

Regards

 

Bahaullah misunderstood/misinterpreted/misrepresented many Quranic verses in Iqan

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/bahaullah-gawhar-khanum.220335/page-5#post-6099312

CGDxxxxxx said: ↑

Baha’is have stated that all the other major religions don’t have the truth from God that is needed today. They have also said that many, if not all, the major religions have added in traditions of men and have misinterpretations about the truth of God. Yet, Baha’is respect those beliefs that people hold? Even though, they are wrong?

“misinterpretations about the truth of God”

#95paarsurrey

The points mentioned in your post has prompted me to
ask my Bahai friends here, do they believe that there have been any additions/subtractions in Quran?

My understanding as far as the misinterpretations are concerned, Bahaullah himself misunderstood/misinterpreted/misrepresented many Quranic verses he quoted in Iqan. Bahaullah was not much different than the contemporary divines/clergy against whom he had many complaints.

Right, please?

Regards

 

“God Passes By”

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/bahaullah-gawhar-khanum.220335/page-5#post-6098683

Tonxxxxx said: ↑

This is just a grave misunderstanding of the Revelations of both the Bab and Baha’u’llah.

It is correct that a lot of us can not read Arabic and Persian and thus can not say much about untranslated writings. The great thing here is Baha’u’llah gave a covernant to which the successor, who was first Abdul’baha and then Shoghi Effendi, were able to make clear as to what was revealed in the Writings.

They did a great job and obviously foresaw the turmoil in the future. They both explained the most important aspects of these twin Revelations and made sure translations were available of writings that would cover all these difficult areas of meaning.

The stations given to the Letters if the Living were symbolic, this is a reference to Quddus;

“Regarding the station of Quddus, he should by no means be considered having had the station of a Prophet. His station was no doubt a very exalted one, and far above that of any of the Letters of the Living, including the first Letter, Mulla Husayn. Quddus reflected more than any of the disciples of the Bab the light of His teaching.” (11 November 1936, written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer).

We also have the Universal House of Justice, also under the Covernant of Baha’u’llah who have also clarified this matter;

“It may be helpful to consider that in the Dispensation of the Bab, Quddus is referred to as the “Last Point”, and the “Last Name of God”, is identified, as pointed out in God Passes By, with one of the “Messengers charged with imposture” mentioned in the Qur’an, and is one of the “two witnesses” into whom “the spirit of life from God” must enter, as attested by ‘Abdu’l-Baha in Some Answered Questions, yet, despite these sublime stations, he is not regarded as an independent Manifestation of God.” (24 August 1975, written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer)

There is a truckload of advice available on this topic.

Regards Tony

“God Passes By”

#87paarsurrey

What is this God that has passed by?
Does it means death of Bahaullah?

Anybody, please

Regards

Tonxxxxxx said: ↑

God sends His Messengers in each age God choose to do so.

Regards Tony

“God sends His Messengers in each age God choose to do so.”

#89paarsurrey

How does that one get from the words “God passes by”? I am asking because English is not my mother-tongue.

Regards

Tonxxxxx said: ↑

Abraham came and went, Moses came and went, Jesus, Muhammad, Bab and Baha’u’llah came gave a Message of God and went. Another way to say this is they passed us by.

In another way we can say, in this world, they passed by the majority of humanity that did not see them or listen to Gods Message given by them.

Regards Tony

#91paarsurrey

We change the phrase “God passes by” with “Tom* passes by” or “Tom passed away”, what will this/these new phrases mean, please?

Regards
___________
*Tom, Dick and Harry

 

Bahaullah’s claim of god-head?!

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/was-bahaullah-a-bahai-please.220052/page-8#post-6097154

lovexxxxxxx said: ↑

Baha’u’llah is not God.

Certain ones among you,” He declared, “have said: ‘He it is Who hath laid claim to be God.’ By God! This is a gross calumny. I am but a servant of God Who hath believed in Him and in His signs…(Baha’u’llah)

#142 paarsurrey

This could be one’s personal view/belief, one must have made this view because ofambiguous writings* of Bahaullah, and he was a master/clever of ambiguity. Himself believing in nothing of his many ambiguous claims Bahaullah made others to believe them.

In the above quote the words “He” and “Who” have been capitalized for giving Bahaullah a special (supernatural )status (by the translator, maybe, Shoghi Effendi) above a normal human being. Not even a Pauline-Pagan-Christian would have created such ambiguity in normal writing about Jesus.

Regards
_________
I quote here a post #110 Invxxxxxx, Sep 29, 2018 of one Bahai friend here:
↑
“@Invxxxxxx I disagree with saying that Baha’is make no distinction between God, and Baha’u’llah. I know some Baha’is who do, and some who don’t.”

Invxxxxxxxxxx said:

I didn’t mean any one who has a Bahai membership. I meant a perfect Baha’i, like Abdulbaha would not make any distinction between Bahaullah and God. Do you think Abdulbaha made any distinction between God and Bahaullah? Did not Abdulbaha believe who ever has seen Bahaullah, has seen God?

________________
Bahaullah – Prophet or God?
Bahaullah – Prophet or God? The Bahai Awareness Homepage

lovexxxxxx said: ↑

Abdul Baha always knew Baha’u’llah WAS NOT God and that is clear to all Baha’is.

#146  paarsurrey

Does one mean that our friend @Invxxxxxxx is not a Bahai? Or he attributed god-head about Bahaullah wrongly (post #110).
And then why this trickery (of Capitalization or De-Capitalization) done by Shoghi Effendi in Iqan* against the norms of English language.

Regards
___________
*Kitab-i-Iqan which is my focus as I read it.

 

Why did Bahaullah use the term”Manifestation of God”?

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/was-bahaullah-a-bahai-please.220052/page-7#post-6096222

lovexxxxxxxx said: ↑

He was a Manifestation of God as were Christ and Muhammad. All the Manifestations took a human form and identity and were born into different religious backgrounds but They were all pre existent. That is They were not conceived in this world like we are but pre existed in a world of God before being sent to the world. That is the Baha’i belief.

#134 paarsurrey

“Manifestation of God” is a term coined by Bahaullah himself and used by him frequently for his own self. Except for the errant Pauline-Pagan-Christianity we don’t find this term so frequently used by other messengers of God like Moses and Muhammad.
Did Bahaullah coin this term and use it so often for himself as claiming of messenger/prophet of G-d in a straightforward and unequivocal form it would have entailed a death-penalty from G-d to Bahaullah?
Right, please?

Regards
_____________
From Torah:

Deuteronomy 18:20 Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
20 “‘But if a prophet presumptuously speaks a word in my name which I didn’t order him to say, or if he speaks in the name of other gods, then that prophet must die.’
Bible Gateway passage: Deuteronomy 18:20 – Complete Jewish Bible

Quran:
AYAH al-Haqqah 69:44-46
Sher Ali And if he had forged and attributed any sayings to US,

We would, surely, have seized him by the right hand,
And then, surely, WE would have cut his life-vein,​

al-Haqqah 69:46

shunxxxx said: ↑

Manifestation is simply the English for what is made manifest. A manifestation of God would be what God made manifest through a prophet or Messiah figure. .

I do not think Baha’u’llah used the words: Manifestation of God, but possibly used a Persian or Arabic equivalent.

#137 paarsurrey, 

One should have known what Persian/Arabic words Bahaullah used. Kindly ascertain it and then let us know, please.
Bahaullah should have used the words messenger/prophet (rasul/nabiyy), the most commonly understood words, yet he did not do it and coined other words. Right, please?
Perhaps he had no message from God or he had no revelation from G-d, so he could not truly use these words for himself. Right, please?

Regards