Bahaullah fits to be Dajjal and or Masih-ud-Dajjal

One may like to join following interesting thread and my post #2042  @:

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/truth-either-god-exists-or-he-dont.241623/page-103

Txxxxx said:

All religions do this.
Religious people all BELIEVE they have the correct interpretation of the Scriptures, but that is logically impossible since their interpretations differ….. So who really knows [ view full post of the poster at the end of this post]

Magena ^. (word press color vivid purple)

paarsurrey response vide post #2042 

Isn’t it an admission that it is special about the Bahaism people, please?
Yes another, the Second one, peculiarity of the Bahaism people is that they just look for a pretext to quote from Bahaullah etc., and there they go. Right friend, please?
And Bahaullah was not even a Bahai himself, not ever mentioned in Iqan as such, if I missed, please quote from Iqan. Right friend, please?
Allah never had a direct Converse with Bahaullah, I did not find any sentences in the Iqan, if I missed please quote from Iqan, please.
So Bahaullah was neither a prophet/messenger of Allah nor his manifestation, never, as I understand. Right friend, please?
Bahaullah fits to be, I understand, like Paul a manifestation of Dajjal- the Deceiver and that of Masih-ud-Dajjal.
Right friend, please?

Regards

oooooooooo

Txxxxx said: No, it is not a peculiarity of the Baha’i Faith. All religions do this.
Religious people all BELIEVE they have the correct interpretation of the Scriptures, but that is logically impossible since their interpretations differ….. So who really knows which one is correct? Scriptures can have many meanings all of which are correct, but only God knows the intended meaning, and as such the Representative of God has the most correct interpretation. Baha’u’llah was the Manifestation of God for this age and as such He was the Representative of God among men.

“Know assuredly that just as thou firmly believest that the Word of God, exalted be His glory, endureth for ever, thou must, likewise, believe with undoubting faith that its meaning can never be exhausted. They who are its appointed interpreters, they whose hearts are the repositories of its secrets, are, however, the only ones who can comprehend its manifold wisdom. Whoso, while reading the Sacred Scriptures, is tempted to choose therefrom whatever may suit him with which to challenge the authority of the Representative of God among men, is, indeed, as one dead, though to outward seeming he may walk and converse with his neighbors, and share with them their food and their drink.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 175-176

Quotes Series: From Quran- Authored by G-d not by Muhammad

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/quotes-series-from-quran-authored-by-g-d-not-by-muhammad.227090/page-14#post-6426040

Quotes Series: From Quran- Authored by G-d not by Muhammad
Post #272 

Paarsurrey wrote:

“Usually a direct word will be prefaced by the word “say.” ”

Quran is authored by G-d as per the criterion suggested by our Christian friend @xxxxxx in post #97 in this thread . G-d tells Muhammad with the word “say” and or “قُلۡ” in Arabic original language and I have quoted many such verses in my previous posts .
Yet there are other styles (many of them) that depict that the Converse is direct from G-d with Muhammad. Since I daily read some portion of Quran(1/120) very early in the morning, so I will be quoting as I observe them while I read Quran. The words “اَلَمۡ تَرَ” or “Dost thou” is another style of direct address to Muhammad by G-d. And “یٰۤاَیُّہَا النَّبِیُّ” or “O thou Prophet” is yet another one:

[33:17]قُلۡ لَّنۡ یَّنۡفَعَکُمُ الۡفِرَارُ اِنۡ فَرَرۡتُمۡ مِّنَ الۡمَوۡتِ اَوِ الۡقَتۡلِ وَ اِذًا لَّا تُمَتَّعُوۡنَ اِلَّا قَلِیۡلًا ﴿۱۷﴾
Say, ‘Flight shall not avail you if you flee from death or slaughter; and even then you will enjoy but a little.’
[33:18]قُلۡ مَنۡ ذَا الَّذِیۡ یَعۡصِمُکُمۡ مِّنَ اللّٰہِ اِنۡ اَرَادَ بِکُمۡ سُوۡٓءًا اَوۡ اَرَادَ بِکُمۡ رَحۡمَۃً ؕ وَ لَا یَجِدُوۡنَ لَہُمۡ مِّنۡ دُوۡنِ اللّٰہِ وَلِیًّا وَّ لَا نَصِیۡرًا ﴿۱۸﴾
Say, ‘Who is it that can save you against Allah if it be His wish to do you harm or if it be His wish to show you mercy?’ And they will not find for themselves any friend or helper other than Allah.
The Holy Quran – Chapter: 32: As-Sajdah

Right, please?
For the context of the above verses , please, access the above link.

1. Is there any such verse in the Torah of the Judaism where G-d has directly addressed Moses, please?If yes, please quote it here. Right, please?
2. Is there any such verse in the Bible of the Christianity where G-d (not Jesus, as Jesus was never god or son of god) has directly addressed Jesus, please?If yes, please quote it here. Right, please?
3. Is there any such verse in Kitab-i-Iqan by Bahaullah (where G-d has directly spoken to Bahaullah, Bahaullah was never a god), there cannot be any verse as G-d did not speak to Bahaullah directly? If there is any, please quote it here. Right, please?
4. Kitab-i-Iqan was written by Bahaullah in 1862 (not revealed by G-d ) and the Covenant was taken by Bahaullah (without any direct Converse/Commandment of G-d, as I understand) in 1863. Therefore, if there had been any direct Converse from G-d Bahaullah would have mentioned it in Kitab-i-Iqan. In the Pre-Covenant period, Kitab-i-Iqan is the only core book of Bahaullah. Right,please?

Regards
____________
I observe that Quran right from its start to its end is a direct Converse and in a sense a continuous dialogue between G-d and Muhammad providing live guidance, and through Muhammad to his companions, to the other people of his time and the world at large and for all times to come to all humanity. Right, please?

• “یٰۤاَیُّہَا الرَّسُوۡلُ ” translated in English with the words “O Messenger” is another style, please refer my post #243 .
• “وَ لَوۡ تَرٰۤی “/ “If only thou couldst see” as mentioned in post #255.
• Another mode of direct Converse is direct commandment as in the verse [32:31] “فَاَعۡرِضۡ” , “وَ انۡتَظِرۡ” So turn away from them, and wait #261.

It is His mercy that G-d sends His Messengers

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/bahai-and-science.227398/#post-6411453

#18 paarsurrey

xxxxxxxx said: ↑

Of course my version of God is all knowing, all pervasive. He just doesn’t need messengers. Please stop telling me what I believe in false ways. Where are you finding such nonsense? It’s insulting.

Carry on.

“He (G-d) just doesn’t need messengers.”

I agree with one here. G-d does not need any Messengers/Prophets, it is His mercy that G-d sends His Messengers for us human beings guidance:

1. But Bahaullah did not claim in unequivocal terms to be a Messenger/Prophet of G-d in Kitab-i-Iqan – one of the most famous and core book of Bahaullah. If yes then Bahaullah’s followers to please quote from Kitab-i-Iqan in this connection, please.
2. Moreover Bahaullah was never a Bahai. If he ever said so, then also Bahaullah’s followers to please quote from Kitab-i-Iqan in this connection, please.
3. Some Bahais believe that Bahaullah was god. If yes, then he could not claim and cannot be a truthful Messenger/Prophet , as both are distinct from one another.Right, please?
4. etc, and etc

Regards

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

OOO

 

Holy War -the peaceful version- with reasons, arguments and peaceful dialogue

The News:

One will, perhaps, love to read the following:

“Holy War”: Is it Armageddon? with its ” Peaceful Version”! 1

“Holy War”: Is it Armegiddon / Armageddon? – with its “Peaceful Version”! 1 | paarsurrey (wordpress.com)

One will be taken aback to note that Armegiddon/Armageddon is nothing like as one would have imagined or known so far. It is not to be fought with any physical and destructive weaponry and or the lethal arsenal of the day. It is peaceful and in fact, I understand, it has already started and it is sown like a seed!

It was a debate between the Pauline-Christianity (represented by Mr. Abdullah Atham) and the Second Coming 1835-1908 , that took place in Urdu language and was published then by the name “Jang-e-Muqaddas” in 1893 ( 22 May 1893 to 5 June 1893) in the then British India and has been recently translated and published in English by the name “The Holy War”:

The Holy War — A DEBATE BETWEEN ISLAM & CHRISTIANITY — Jang-e-Muqaddas (alislam.org)

Right?

From: a peaceful Ahmadiyya Muslim

OOO  

These are the days of Armageddon – the final battle between good and evil –The peaceful Version! 3

Has Armageddon already started with the advent of Second Coming 1835-1908 ?– The peaceful Version! 2

“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