Page 1 of 1
Rejection of Mohammed
Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 1:23 am
A Bahai friend, who is from Iran and has therefore seen Islam in perhaps it's more extreme form, believes that the Bahai writings only include Mohammed as a messenger from God so as to "keep the peace" between world religions.
When I said that anyone who rejects Mohammed rejects all the messengers, he stuck to this view saying yes you should not reject Mohammed - THE REASON ? - NOT because he is genuine messenger from God, but because Baha'u'llah was clever enough to realise that unity is the primary need in the world, so let's make Islam feel included FOR THE TIME BEING.
As I said, my friend cannot be blamed for narrow mindedness I don't think
Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 10:37 am
This view is true in the minds of some including some Christians.
Personally I do not have enough facts to agree or disagree, it seems
to me and this is only my opinion, that past prophets (generally speaking)
have a lot in common in their messages to humanity with some exceptions
for which there is not enough space here to go into. The effects of the
past Prophets revelation is witnessed by the followers who carry on the
teachings and effectiviness of their belief by the way they live firstly and
by what they teach secondly. Opinions vary and misunderstandings is
an everyday occurrence, thus the need for tolerance is becoming more
and more crucial in an ever shrinking world bringing people closer into
shrinking personal spaces. As for me I believe the need for a new
revelation which will bring about the reinvention of a new society of
peoples in the world to work towards a balance of world power that will
give all humanity a voice and part in rebuilding a world torn apart.
I believe Baha'u'llah has brought to mankind that badly needed message
and prescription for the remedy each human soul is in need of, no longer
a section of another part of the world is this remedy for but the whole
planet with it's multi-races of human beings and complex mental structure
of mores and customs but a world embracing new race of human beings
building a kindler, hopeful and meaningful civilization where children,
teens and all human beings walk the streets without fear and terror.
Does this seem like a pipe dream? perhaps, but if Baha'u'llah's revelation
is not the message for this day, then what is!
Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 10:18 pm
I am also from iran and I have been there till a couple of years ago. It is unfortunate that behaviour of government and people of Iran have made Muslim youth to reject Islam as a divine religion, but it is quite saddening when some Bahais say the same thing.
There is no doubt in my mind- and you can confirm what I am going to say - that this friend of yours have not read much of Bahai writings, so he not only doesn't know what Islam is about, but he also dosn't have much understanding of Bahai faith. He also doesn't know that prophets of God are not polititians who believe end justifies the means to lie about something in order to achieve what they want. He doens't know that in Books like Iqan and Badi, Bahaullah is using , interpresting and praising verses from koran over and over. He does'nt know how much he can hurt the faith of God or its believers by saying such things. He probably doesn't even care if he is, or he would think a little more before saying this. He would very probably reject Babi faith if he gets informed about some laws of that. If a Bahai doen't understand the truth of Islam in his heart, he is not a Bahai in heart.
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 3:58 pm
Nowis, ask your friend if he thinks Baha'u'llah was lieing when He refered to Muhammad as a Blessed Beauty, a Manifestation, to all such praise and confirmation of His station.
This is the first time ive heard of someone saying such a thing. Its quite rediculous. Its hard enough trying to explain to people that the faith does NOT just include all religions for the sake of "marketing" or whatnot, in a new agey type fashion. Let alone, actual Baha'i's themselves attesting such ignorance. vaay vaay.
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 4:00 pm
i mean it seriously sounds like this person has never read a single Bahai writing or has any knoweldge of Bahai History, the proclaimed station of The Bab, etc, etc
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 1:42 pm
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 4:57 pm
Dear Majnun, friend.
As always I read your reply with added interest
and wish to thank you for taking time to respond.
Your comment is most timely and there is an awareness
growing among many on the very things you mentioned.
Peace profound as always,
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 1:16 pm
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 8:05 am
While I think it is understandable that one gets caught up in the beauty of the Writings of this age, not to mention their timeliness, we should look again, as the quotations below urge us, at the scriptures of old, particularly the Qur'án, which we know to be authentic, according to our Writings. The first quotation below indicates that the Bahá'í Writings urge us to go back to read the older scriptures, while the second quotation below indicates that the older scriptures help us, in turn, to better understand the Bahá'í Writings. The third quotation further underscores the importance of doing such reading, despite some difficulty.
“The Sacred Books are full of allusions to this new dispensation. In the Book of Íqán, Bahá’u’lláh gives the key-note and explains some of the outstanding passages hoping that the friends will continue to study the Sacred Books by themselves and unfold the mysteries found therein.
“The people, failing to comprehend the meaning of the symbols and the truth of the Sacred Verses, thought them to be myths and unrealizable dreams. It is the duty of the friends who have been endowed by Bahá’u’lláh with the power of discernment to study these Sacred Books, ponder upon their passages and teach the disheartened people of the earth the treasures of knowledge they enclose.”
(On behalf of Shoghi Effendi, Pearls of Wisdom, 65-66)
“Shoghi Effendi wishes me also to express his deep-felt appreciation of your intention to study the Qur'án. The knowledge of this revealed holy Book is, indeed, indispensable to every Bahá'í who wishes to adequately understand the writings of Bahá'u'lláh. And in view of that the Guardian has been invariably encouraging the friends to make as thorough a study of this Book as possible, particularly in their Summer Schools.”
(On behalf of Shoghi Effendi, The Importance of Deepening, p. 221)
"It is certainly most difficult to thoroughly grasp all the Surihs of the Qur'án, as it requires a detailed knowledge of the social, religious and historical background of Arabia at the time of the appearance of the Prophet. The believers can not possibly hope, therefore, to understand the Surihs after the first or even second or third reading. They have to study them again and again, ponder over their meaning, with the help of certain commentaries and explanatory notes as found, for instance, in the admirable translation made by SALE, endeavor to acquire as clear and correct understanding of their meaning and import as possible. This is naturally a slow process, but future generations of believers will certainly come to grasp it. For the present, the Guardian agrees, that it would be easier and more helpful to study the Book according to subjects, and not verse by verse and also in the light of the Báb, Bahá'u'lláh and 'Abdu'l-Bahá's interpretation which throw such floods of light on the whole of the Qur'án."
(On behalf of Shoghi Effendi, Directives of the Guardian, p. 64)
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 8:14 am
If you are interested, I have included some further quotations on this theme in the mini-compilation at http://bahai-library.com/?file=quran_ro ... zamir.html
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 8:29 am
Also, though I am sorry I cannot provide a source, I seem to recall 'Abdu'l-Bahá stating that He was thankful for the time He had in prison, because it allowed Him more time to read from the Qur'án.
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 2:36 pm
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:10 pm
Where or how do ye see that this “urge” is commanded to us ?
I thought that the quotations on behalf of the beloved Guardian, Shoghi Effendi, were abundantly clear on this...If you are not clear on the position of Shoghi Effendi, as the Guardian, an institution anticipated by Bahá'u'lláh Himself in His Most Holy Book, I would advise you study this more deeply. If you are clear on the position he occupies, I would hope you would not dispute his clear positions, if you consider yourself to be a Bahá'í.
Or, more directly: how come you do feel that inner need to go back in time, and scrutinize old manuscripts ?
As is mentioned in the Seven Valleys, the people of Bahá do not see any difference between the past, present, or future. Although the social laws change, the spiritual/moral teachings are essentially the same from age to age.
Translations of the Qur’an , made by Rodwell and Sale, are so distorted that many felt the need of making a better translation, from the original arabic text. Dr Khalifa went to Arabia himself to bring back a large sized photocopy of the original assembled Qur’an, to start his translation.
After 19 years of work, his translation is much clearer than older translations.
It is a fact that as an Egyptian, he knew Arabic much better than mister Rodwell or Sale.
(As an example : ) He translated correctly the “hidden parrot” in chapter two,
and so many other subtleties that an outsider, not familiar with the arabic tongue, would catch only after many head scratching.
In comparison with Khalifa’s, or Progressive Muslim’s
versions, SALE and RODWELL are utterly obsolete. In many new editions scriptures (in French) published by the Baha’is here, they take quranic citations from Denise Masson’s translation (1967, Folio ed.). You can verify this on the “Médiathèque” site on the Net.
In many texts of the Blessed Beauty, the Messenger induces a modern
comprehension by saying :
People of the past wrongly interpreted a verse from the Gospel or the Qur’an
by sense A,
but the authorized Messenger correct this vision, with sense B.
He does not say: go back and read all that stuff again to find the
same "Nirvana" as I (Baha’u’llah) offer you now.
A shorter ranged suspension may works fine on flat roads, but
today’s life is a bumpier road. By the way, it is written on Wikipedia,
that this same Billy Bush you see on “access hollywood” is the cousin
of George Bush, and the nephew of the father of Bush. Sons of pop’s
are modern viruses.
Ain’t life strange sometimes ?
More personal: I rebuke many translations.
I have 4 copies of the Qur’an in French, plus the English Khalifa
Version. Since my eyes collided with the Bab’s and Baha’i scriptures,
I did not, and wished not to open the Qur’an ounce, to get something from it.
Same for the Bible / Gospel, except to check
The original greek or hebrew texts, of what Abdul Baha does take as examples,
Because translators simply wrote over with material many times re-translated.
To my eye, there nothing more close (for citations) than to include the original
Text, whether arabic persian hebrew or greek, beside those citations.
The Gail / Khan’s translations people enjoy so much should be entirely
revised and corrected too, because with their over-divinisation and over-holy-nisation terminology, the basic psychological procedure included in these therapeutic texts, becomes difficult to see. This is on what we should focus; on the actual writings, not the writings of the past to make us better understand the actual ones.
Valleys are different zones of our brain, to be reconnected together.
How many do understand that simple fact, and how many do not ?
There is no “pre existence”, the word qdam means : [as a name] the past, or, [as an adverb.] before,
And the Valleys command : examine and face your past (qdam), to heal.
Shoghi Effendi recommended Sale's translation as the most scholarly and accurate for the time, as well as Rodwell's for being the most literary at the time. Shoghi Effendi even used Rodwell's translations (with some minor alterations--see here
), As is mentioned in a letter from the Research Department of the Universal House of Justice, the friends are free to use whichever translation they like. Of course, generally speaking, it is preferable that a translation be done by a believer, but at least in the case of Sale, even his notes are more scholarly and descriptive than they are biased. This is not to say that they cannot be improved upon. But to dismiss these translations entirely as being hopelessly convoluted, is surely not justified, particularly as they were recommended by Shoghi Effendi himself (at least as the best translations available at the time). The examples from these translations that I have seen criticized on the net have been, to my assessment at least, due to a misunderstanding of the English usage of the time.
So dear Brettz, I think this need or urge to go back to older scriptures for whatever
reason you mentioned, is simply an invention of your head.
I might expect a little more humility from an avowed believer. Mocking or patronizing others, as you have done at this forum to others as well, is not befitting a Bahá'í. One should never be certain that one has a more complete understanding than another, much less to say so. In this case, if you would read the quotations I supplied, I imagine you will find them to be in accordance with my own words, and if not, I would hope you could enlighten me and others here as to why you think they are not.
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:26 pm
Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 2:58 pm
Majnun, I just saw the question you had asked me, I have been busy these days:
...Inventing rules inspired by old mentalities from
the East (on sexuality or else) only reduce the
range of the suspension, making it too rigid.
Inventing new "baha'i"rules that fit mister Farid
own life conditions, is as comic as it is egocentric.
Dear Farid, know that we do not use horses to travel
1-Seems like you think I have invented some new rules.
when I looked back at my post, the only thing you may have thought is a NEW rule is when I said:
If a Bahai doesn't understand the truth of Islam in his heart, he is not a Bahai in heart.
You know that Jews and Christians have to acknowledge Islam as a divine faith before being accepted as Bahais. This is not a new rule, it has always been like this from the first day of Bahai faith. Isn't this all I am saying?
2- you also say that this rule is "inspired by old mentalities". As I mentioned udner first note, this comes also from Bahai mentality.
3-then you said that these rules fits my condition. What is my condition that these rules fits it? How can this fits anybody's condition? This is for new believers and I don't know how it can serve somebody like me.
As I understand from your posts, you also believe in divinity of Islam and other religions before it. So I don't understand where it is that you don't agree with me. maybe you can show me those lines.
Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 3:50 pm
Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 5:25 pm
I go through your post :
1-You said, "To understand the truth of islam, is not an obligation"
Understanding the truth of a religion is to acknowlege it having divine source. A bahai MUST believe that the religions confirmed by Bahai faith are from God. Islam is one of them. You cannot be a Bahia and believe in what you like, and not what is told you by your faith. Can you?
2- then you said "secondly, the heart is a pump, it does not understand anything."
these are from writings:
" O ESSENCE OF NEGLIGENCE! Myriads of mystic tongues find utterance in one speech, and myriads of hidden mysteries are revealed in a single melody; yet, alas, there is no ear to hear, nor heart to understand.(Baha'u'llah: Persian Hidden Words, Page: 16)"
"...Ponder a while those holy words in your heart,..."
(Baha'u'llah: The Kitab-i-Iqan, Page: 5)
Ponder this in thy heart; how it behooveth thee to be.
(Baha'u'llah: Arabic Hidden Words, Page: 2)
Thus commandeth you the Lord of every understanding heart.
(Baha'u'llah: The Kitab-i-Aqdas, Page: 66
If you consult some dictoinaries, you'll see that heart is not only a pump.
3- then you said: "This was for what you wrote on sexuality.
Did you not wrote on a tread in this forum that
sexuality was only intended for a classical reason?
This is an archaic mentality, out of phase with the reality. "
please show me what you are referring too. I think you are confusiong me with someone else. please quote what you are talking about. I really don't know what it is.
4- then you said : Where did you get that feeling, like Brettz, that there is
A duty written somewhere about this ? 5-
It seems that you thought those lines was from me. They are not from me, I forgot to mention its source and actually I removed it shortly after.
"The people, failing to comprehend the meaning of the symbols and the truth of the Sacred Verses, thought them to be myths and unrealizable dreams. It is the duty of the friends who have been endowed by Baha'u'llah with the power of discernment to study these Sacred Books, ponder upon their passages and teach the disheartened people of the earth the treasures of knowledge they enclose.
(11 March 1923) "
(Shoghi Effendi: The Importance of Deepening, Page: 212)
so now you see where I and bretz have seen this duty. Do you also disagree with Guardain on this?
Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 6:10 pm
It seems like you had a problem with Instructions sent on behalf of the Guardian. You said: Who’s word has any weight here, the Bab’s, or some words “on behalf of somebody” ?What you quoted is not “his clear position”, but from “behalfves”. It has NO value.
"Instructions sent on behalf of the Guardian are binding, as are the words of the Guardian; although of course, they are not the Guardian's words."
(Multiple Authors: Lights of Guidance, Page: 314)
In other words, universal house of jusitice is telling us that they are bining as the direct words of Guadian. I hope it solves your problem.
Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 7:04 pm
Majnun , here is the same story taught to Muslims by Muhammad, please read these excerpts patiently to understand them the way they are.
"In the Qur'an we read that Muhammad spoke to his followers, saying:
`Why do you not believe in Christ, and in the Gospel? Why will you not accept Moses and the Prophets, for surely the Bible is the Book of God? ...
This is what Muhammad taught His people concerning Jesus and Moses, and He reproached them for their lack of faith in these great Teachers, and taught them the lessons of truth and tolerance.
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Paris Talks*, Page: 47)
"Furthermore, it is significant and convincing that when Muhammad proclaimed His work and mission, His first objection to His own followers was, "Why have you not believed on Jesus Christ? Why have you not accepted the Gospel? Why have you not believed in Moses? Why have you not followed the precepts of the Old Testament? Why have you not understood the prophets of Israel? Why have you not believed in the disciples of Christ? The first duty incumbent upon ye, O Arabians, is to accept and believe in these. You must consider Moses as a Prophet. You must accept Jesus Christ as the Word of God. You must know the Old and the New Testaments as the Word of God. You must believe in Jesus Christ as the product of the Holy Spirit....Therefore, it is evident that ignorance and misunderstanding have caused so much warfare and strife between Christians and Muslims. If both should investigate the underlying truth of their religious beliefs, the outcome would be unity and agreement; strife and bitterness would pass away forever and the world of humanity find peace and composure."
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Promulgation of Universal Peace*, Pages: 201-202)
Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 7:41 pm
Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 9:11 pm
Re: You are in a cage
Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 9:49 pm
We now all work with Windows, why should we use
MS-DOS, or Fortran, or the other older programs ?
hey, i thought i was the only one who used examples like that lol.
Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 11:19 pm
I think I am going to write about each topic in a separate post.
a- While you focus on the English version (distorted) that is
-Why do you think English version is distorted? Do you believe that you know Arabic better than the guardian? Why didn’t he use the word “mind” instead of heart?
b-While you focus on the English version (distorted) that is
I don’t focus on English version, but here we use English language and also translation of writings to English. I am Iranian and I use Arabic and Farsi when I speak with my Iranian friends.
c- Definitions of the Persian dictionary:
qalib-y (the mind)
qalb ( and also fuad ) like heart has the pumping machine as its anatomical meaning. Mind or center of emotion is its other meaning(just refer to some dictionaries if you are in doubt), the way heart is in English. The dictionary you used, is giving you the meaning of heart that applies to the particular quote. If you still don’t believe me, ask some Arab or Iranian people. Another choice you have is to consult an Arabic dictionary like Almonjed.
d-wa qalib-y nha ta haraf-y byanad
I don’t know where you have got this, but the last word is wrong, it’s not “byanad”, it's “byabad” , which means :understands not as you said "statement".
If you don’t know Farsi or Arabic, then its wiser to use translations, or you may do such big mistakes.
e-Every body knows a heart does not talk nor listen nor understand.
When did I say that heart in its anatomical sense does these things?. Did you get all these when I said : “If a Bahai doesn’t understand the truth of Islam in his heart…”
What made you think I am referring to anatomical heart?
I hope you don’t think that when Bahaullah said “Possess a pure, kindly and radiant heart” (Baha'u'llah: Arabic Hidden Words, Page: 1) , he was thinking of an anatomical heart that somehow manages to radiate light. Or when he said “Not until thou dost purify thine heart from every trace of …"(Baha'u'llah: Gleanings, Page: 237) he was telling his followers to take out their heart and clean it.
f- while this meaning of heart used in sentences like “ I knew it in my heart” is used prevelantly( even teenagers use it ) , not only poets, why do you think its wrong when I use it? If somebody says that the food is divine , do you think he is claiming that God has made it?
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2005 12:02 am
This MUST above, is an invention of your head, dear Farid
This is why its not an invention of me, this is a matter of 2x2 =4 :
1-When somebody accepts some belief unconditionally, then he accepts
whatever there is in that belief.
2-A Bahai believes that Bahaullah is sent from God ( I am happy that you agree with this much)
3-the same Bahaullah is saying that Muhammad was sent by God.
4-So a Bahai MUST agree with this too.
So its not an invention, it’s the natural consequence of 1, 2 and 3. This is the simplest logic there is.
It’s not up to the believer to agree with some of the things writings include and disagree with others. It's what philosophers do, not believers.
Now if you haven’t seen anywhere in writings the divinity of Muhammad being confirmed, let me know to help you finding some.
Before we sign the enrolement card, nobody ask you : do you acknowledge christianity ?
do you acknowledge Judaism, do you acknowledge Islam ?
When you sign the enrolement card, also nobody asks you if you believe in fasting, obligatory prayer, rejection of adultery, investigation of truh, compatibility of science and faith or other things. It’s quite pointless to do these, since the assumption is that when you believe in the faith, then you also believe in all its laws and beliefs. Now divinity of Muhammad is also a belief emphasized in Bahai faith over and over. Everybody with smallest familiarity with Bahai faith know it, let alone those who have done investigation and have come to embrace the faith. Even my Muslim friends know that in Bahai faith we believe their prophet. So how can a Bahai that has consciously accepted the faith not know this? So asking this in the enrolement card is pointless.
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2005 12:36 am
But you twisted what you cited from this date, by omitting
“written on behalf”. Please don’t be such a hypocrit twister in your next posts.
a-Seems like you failed to see that I didn’t only mention the date of it. Just go back and see for yourself. Seems like you took the date as source. Under the date you see: (Shoghi Effendi: The Importance of Deepening, Page: 212)
b- I copy-pasted from Mars and it automatically puts the source at the end. When you do it with Mars, you get exactly what you see in my post. If you don’t believe me , use Mars and see it for yourself.
The expression “these Sacred Books” means
The writings of Baha’u’llah.
Another misunderstading by you. You just had to read one paragraph before it to know what is mean by sacred books. This is the previous paragraph:
“The Sacred Books are full of allusions to this new dispensation. In the "Book of Iqan", Baha'u'llah gives the keynote and explains some of the outstanding passages hoping that the friends will continue to study the Sacred Books by themselves, and unfold the mysteries found therein.”
(Shoghi Effendi: The Importance of Deepening, Page: 212)
The sacred books here are books who have alluded to this dispensation.
Bahaulah's books don't allude to this dispensation , they explicitly talk about it. If you have studied Iqan, you should know that Bahaullah is explaing symbols used in passages form Bible and Quran, not symbols or passages from his own writings or even Bab's writings
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2005 3:48 am
More over, what is written “on behalf” of somebody
is always questionable. These letters were sent to individual
beleivers, written by the staff, while Shogi was somewhere else
around the world. It has NO SERIOUS VALUE.
a- Then why is it that they are used over and over in lights of guidance and by Bahai writers. Why should UHJ give what has no serious value or is questionable?
b- don’t you think that the mere fact that they are approved by UHJ and published by them tells us that they are reliable?
c- all the letters written on behalf of the Guardian used by UHJ are verified by the Guardian by stamping or signature . Oral quotes on the other hand are not to be relied. I think you are confusing these two.
These letters were sent to individual
Well, a counsel sent to ONE guy,
a-Its not a counsel to one, it’s a councel to “ friends”. As you see it's plural.
b-this is not the only case that something is written for an individual but is binding to everyone
-- Obligatory prayers were revealed by Baha’u’llah when some Bahais asked for it . It doesn’t mean that only those people should act upon it and do the obligatory prayer.
--many of the laws of Aqdas were also revealed since some people asked for them, but again they are for everybody.
--many laws revealed after Aqdas were also in response to some individuals.
I follow what Baha’u’llah wrote.
What about what Abdulbaha, Guardian and UHJ has written? You know that some covenant breakers also follow what only Baha’u’llah has written. Probably you don’t want to do what they do.
You wont find one spot where Baha’u’llah
wrote this argumentation about old scriptures,
What UHJ presents us with is part of Baha’u’llah’s covenant, as obedience to Abdulbaha and Guardian is . That’s why it doesn’t matter where you break, you will be a covenant breaker anyway, even if you believe in Baha’u’llah, Abdulbaha and the Guardian but not UHJ.
Again you invent to save your god : the Qur’an
a-Why do you think if I say Bahais should study quran means that I think quran is my God?
b-scriptures are not God and nobody can say that. All we can say is that they are revealed by prophets of God. This is a very simple and basic fact.
If each counsel sent on behalf of each letter sent while Shogi was not there
becomes binding, we would be in a prison of rules
I can only think why you are saying this. You have rejected letters on behalf of the Guardian, so you never took your time to study them, as a result you simply don’t know what they are about . It seems you think they are full of new laws and rules. I will let you read for yourself and see what they are about.
a MUST, to immerged one-
self in the Qur’an ?
Seems like for you studying other religions means bahais should study thick and thin of them. You derive this false conclusion, then you suddenly get scared. If somebody advises me to study calculus or anatomy, or a foreign language , he is not saying to go and learn whatever there is in these sciences or language. Even if I read one chapter of calculus, I can say I have studied calculus. If I tell you I have studied a certain language, I am not saying that I have a PhD in it, not even a baccalaureate , just that I have taken some time to study it and I know something about it.
When Guardian is advising friends to study scriptures of the past, He is not saying go and stop everything else and devote your lives to studying old scriptures. Everybody knows it’s quite absurd and impractical for most people.
i have no desire (or envy) to open up my Qur'an again
we are not talking about you or me here. You can do what you want. I promise you nobody will even care.
No “god” (named: anthropomorphism
by dr Khan) is involved in that process.
This is quite a different issue; I don’t understand its relation to our topic. If you like to talk about this, you can start a new topic. I don’t have the intention to start a discussion here about it, but since you mentioned it, I just say something short. There is no spirituality without God. Spirituality is the closeness to God. I leave the rest for you to read and search on this issue.
We now all work with Windows, why should we use
MS-DOS, or Fortran, or the other older programs
a-We don’t and we shouldn’t use MS-DOS. Did I say that we should apply what is in quran to our lives?
b-Fortran is not an operating system. It’s a programming language. Please use example that you are familiar with.
c-some knowledge of Dos is necessary for every computer student. If you don’t believe me , go and ask some computer students.
Now Bahis don't follow any clery, so every single Bahai is responsible to educate himself.
Secondly, citing what others wrote, especially scriptures,
is a muslim custom or yours, to which bahais are protected from
a-I don’t exactly know what you mean by this. Bahais can quote anybody as long as they give the source. Did I quote anything without giving its source?
b-what is it that Bahais are protected from?
Maybe you could translate the Badi in English, and submit
It to the House, as your gift to the world ?
a-Looks like you are not aware that Bahais are not allowed to translate a holy book. You can translate some passages from holy books, not all of it.
b-Do you think that Bahai world is really waiting for me to translate the book of badi? Do you really think we lack enough knowledgeable people who are enough in love with their faith to do it if they were allowed to?
The last word (byadad) is a verb
you did a mistake again, its byabad, not byadad.
You really need to wait to learn something before you use it.
Here I mention another example, please focus on the bold part.
"With regard to the school's program (Louhelen) for the next summer; the Guardian would certainly advise, and even urge the friends to make a thorough study of the Qur'an, as the knowledge of this sacred Scripture is absolutely indispensable for every believer who wishes to adequately understand and intelligently read, the writings of Baha'u'llah
(Shoghi Effendi: Directives of the Guardian, Page: 63)
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2005 4:11 am
I agree with most of the things you enumerate (rqm)
in this case, you have also accepted that most of things you had said befoer were flawed, since all I enumerated were in rejection to what you had said.
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2005 10:22 am
Well you are stiill young and full of
a-how did you figure out that I am still young? did you guess? how sure are you that your guess is correct?
--if it's because you noticed I slept late last night, it's usually older people who have sleeplessness , not young people.
--if its because I typed a few words yesterday, it's also middle aged people who are more inclined to write books or articles.
b-what made you think that I am full of energy
-- if your quess is correct about me being young , still not all young people are full of energy,
-- if it's because I typed a few words , then I tell you, typing words don't need too much energy If typing words needed much energy, then typists had to be the fittest people.
One day you will calm down.
if by calming down you mean not poining out others' misunderstandings, I never want to calm down, but I understand why you would like me to.
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2005 11:18 pm
I have identified that the biggest problem keeping the American Bahai community from advancing their teaching of others and their own education system is the fact that most Bahais in this country come from a Christian background and a Christian society and cannot see the corrective Muhammadean teachings before indulging into the faith.
First, lets look at the difference between Christianity and Islam after Muhammad. Muhammad came and taught that Christians had corrupted their religious practice astray from the teachings of Christ; that Christians began worshiping Jesus and not God. That they took a simple misunderstanding "Jesus is Lord, and died for our sins" and made that the predication for the entire religion. While Muhammads teachings confirmed the truth that "There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is His Prophet" He did not simply state that, thats all you need to recognise and then you are a Muslim. No, He explained that there were 5 pillars to Islam and those following Islam must be true scholors of their text; you cant just "accept" a simple idea like the Christians did and expect to be "saved" and all is said and done. So we can identify Muslim religious scholorly practice as just that...scholorly...and refined from simple thoughts of those who "accepted" the Gospel. In other words, theres more to religion than just "accepting Jesus as the 'son of God' and that he 'died for our sins'"
So for Bahais to succeed Muhammadean teachings in this straight path, we must continue that tradition, and in the Middle East; in Iran, that is done. In America this is not done. People are coming from Christian backgrounds, and this community was built on people coming from Christian backgrounds, so the American Bahai community keeps it just as simple. Instead of keeping it scholorly, to say you need to be well read and scholorly to be a Bahai, all the American Bahai Community is saying is, "just accept Bahaullah as the oneness of mankind," then everything else, every other study is excess to that. This needs to be corrected. People accept Christianity out of 'love' for Jesus. They just hear the story of Christ and some how metaphorically connect that with their lives and feel all their problems will be solved if they accept the idea that He "died for our sins." Muslims do not say "I love Muhammad," no, they read His teachings thoroughly and say "Allah u Akhbar (God is Great)" No one just accepts Muhammad for one reason or another, it is impossible. There is not a simple story of sacrifice or sorrow to connect with, only scholorly teachings. Baha'is are going back to the Christian method. Its okay to say "I love Bahaullah." the mistake of Muslims was cutting out the idea of another Prophet enitirely because they were so bent on the focus of God; but do not make it the basis of your faith. The basis of your faith should be the scholorly teachings of Bahaullah, and not just simply accepting basic ideas as Christians have.
Thats why we need to stop teaching the faith off of simply these "principles," including race unity. Imagine how many people hear the principles and say "..oh well I guess im a Bahai too" but they arent being serious. We must be serious when we teach. Explain the religious proofs, explain the prophecies leading up to Bahaullah, and explain the prophecies that will come, as told by Bahaullah. Only then will they truely immerse themselves in study of the faith and get a scholorly understanding of what the faith is, THEN declare for well rounded great reasons.
Now some may say "oh if we just read our principles and they connect...whats wrong with that? Isnt that good?" Like I said, most people who say that arent seriously thinking about becoming Bahais, they just show a smile and admiration for what we teach, and not something they could join. Sometimes they may investigate and join, but mostly they do not. The reason why this doesnt work is because when we just read off principles to people, they will see us as trying to create some sort of "alternative to Christianity." They wont get the idea in their heads that we are claiming to be the Straight Path, and rather a group on our own, with our own ideals. Its easy to say "we believe all religions are true" but they dont know what that means. It sounds great, but they will think one of two things: that we are just trying to accept all religions to avoid going to hell, or that we are some kind of unitarians tyring to spread peace and love. We must explain that its not "all" religions we agree with, just those that follow One God, and only a handfull of them at that. Read "Theif in the Night" if iyou have not already done so. Be able to explain the faith in a scholorly method. When presenting the faith, do not start off by saying, as they do in the pamphlets, "Bahais believe in (insert principles here)" rather state our position and that of Bahaullah in the scope of all religions. What separates the Bahai era from all others. Peoples first impressions of the faith are the ones that last, so make them strong, and not assimiliationist in an attempt to give them some mild alternative to what they already know.
Now, with the 5 year plan, our goal is to get the focus of our teaching on Bahaullah Himself. The most importnant thing to keep in mind, is do not try to turn Him into a Christ figure. That is another form of assimilation. No "Bahaullah is my homeboy." None of that. Remember the corrective teachings of Muhammad and Bahaullah. Show our love for Him, but do not let anyone think that we worship anyone besides God.
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2005 3:31 am
Majnun, you have raised some issues and asked me some questions.
To be honest, I didn't understand what you were looking for. Also I didn't understand if your questions from me were rhetorical or not. It seems you have already reached to conclusion, so where do you need my help I don't know. Instead of telling you about all points of your last post that are not clear to me, why don't you go back and edit that post and try to remove any vagueness from it , in a way that you think an ordinary reader could get it. As now, I only have to speculate what you are trying to say and I don't like to do that. Now that you are trying to be so precise about translations, I ask you to try a little of that yourself with what you write and at least read it once and edit it. Please always think about those who are going to read what you write and put yourself in their place.
it is just a detail
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2005 12:18 pm
I just said early translations seems
slightly different from the original texts,
and are in need of a small revision.
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:03 pm
I just said early translations seems
slightly different from the original texts
a-so you think by taking some farsi courses , you have mastered in it to the degree that you even can understand slight differences?
if you are refering to tranlations done by the Guardian or under the supervision of UHJ, then:
b-you think Guardian or people selected by UHJ who were at the top of the class in knowing the language and rules of translation and also knowlege of the subject, couldn't see these slight differnces but you can?
c)do you think as soon as you look up a word in a dictionary and you see something that seems wrong, you are qualified to criticize ?
d)you think every Bahai person who knows Farsi as his mother language and is also good at English is qualified to translate holy books?have you ever asked yourself then why UHJ doesn't allow it?
Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:21 pm
Thank you Majnun for writing your last post organized and easy to read.
it is not difficult to see distortions.
Every professsional musician may
touch a false note, ounce in a while.
Let’s see in these examples if what you noted was a false note or not.
You may change your mind about it is not difficult to see distortions after seeing them
A drop of the billowing ocean of His endless mercy hath adorned all creation with the ornament of existence, and a breath wafted from His peerless Paradise hath invested all beings with the robe of His sanctity and glory. A sprinkling from the unfathomed deep of His sovereign and all-pervasive Will hath, out of utter nothingness, called into being a creation which is infinite in its range and deathless in its duration
(Baha'u'llah: Gleanings, Page: 61)
XXVII. All praise to the unity of God, and all honor to Him, the sovereign Lord, the incomparable and all-glorious Ruler of the universe, Who, out of utter nothingness, hath created the reality of all things
(Baha'u'llah: Gleanings, Pages: 64-65)
Nothing short of His all-encompassing grace, His all-pervading mercy, could have possibly achieved it. How could it, otherwise, have been possible for sheer nothingness to have acquired by itself the worthiness and capacity to emerge from its state of non-existence into the realm of being?
(Baha'u'llah: Gleanings, Page: 65)
Nay, all else besides these Manifestations, live by the operation of their Will, and move and have their being through the outpourings of their grace. "But for Thee, I would have not created the heavens." Nay, all in their holy presence fade into utter nothingness, and are a thing forgotten
(Baha'u'llah: The Kitab-i-Iqan, Page: 103)
Our purpose in revealing these convincing and weighty utterances is to impress upon the seeker that he should regard all else beside God as transient, and count all things save Him, Who is the Object of all adoration, as utter nothingness.
(Baha'u'llah: The Kitab-i-Iqan, Page: 195)
No sign can indicate His presence or His absence; inasmuch as by a word of His command all that are in heaven and on earth have come to exist, and by His wish, which is the Primal Will itself, all have stepped out of utter nothingness into the realm of being, the world of the visible.
(Baha'u'llah: The Kitab-i-Iqan, Page:98)
The statement in the "Gleanings", p. 64-65, "who out of utter nothingness.." etc., should be taken in a symbolic and not literal sense. It is only to demonstrate the power and greatness of God. No. 9.
(Shoghi Effendi: Letters to Aust. and New Zealand, Page: 41)
In the Qayyumu'l-Asma' - the Bab's commentary on the Surih of Joseph - characterized by the Author of the Iqan as "the first, the greatest and mightiest" of the books revealed by the Bab, we read the following references to Baha'u'llah: "Out of utter nothingness, O great and omnipotent Master, Thou hast, through the celestial potency of Thy might, brought me forth and raised me up to proclaim this Revelation.
(Shoghi Effendi: World Order of Baha'u'llah, Page: 101)
1267. The wish of Abdu'l-Baha, that which attracts His good pleasure and, indeed, His binding command, is that Baha'is, in all matters, even in small daily transactions and dealings with others, should act in accordance with the divine Teachings. He has commanded us not to be content with lowliness, humility and meekness, but rather to become manifestations of selflessness and utter nothingness.
(Shoghi Effendi: Living the Life, Page: 1)
Glory be to Thee, O my God! The power of Thy might beareth me witness! I can have no doubt that should the holy breaths of Thy loving-kindness and the breeze of Thy bountiful favor cease, for less than the twinkling of an eye, to breathe over all created things, the entire creation would perish, and all that are in heaven and on earth would be reduced to utter nothingness.
(Baha'u'llah: Prayers and Meditations, Page: 90)
1)I aim only at the Gail /Khan translations.
---Above examples are all Guardian’s translation. So it shows who you are aiming. Unless you were not aware of these examples, in which case I am right when I tell you that you
jump to conclusion the moment it comes to your head.
--didn’t you say in the case of translation of qhab to heart, that it was distorted when you said: While you focus on the English version (distorted) that is:,
(PW no 16) nor heart to understand. The sentence you
refer to is : wa qalib-y nha ta haraf-y byanad.
qalib means “mind”.
Well, this was not Khan’s or Gail’s translation, this was Guardian’s.
2)because the errors and the distiortions
in it are obviously MIND BLOWING
did’nt you say in your last post that : translations seems
slightly different from the original texts
so how comes you are saying now that they are MIND BLOWING?
Does it mean that any slight difference blows your mind?
The assumption is that the minute i see something i dont understand,
i jump to the roof and blast the top of my lungs over the Khans.
--This was not an assumption, as soon as you looked up the word qhalb and you saw mind as its meaning, you said the translation was distorted, and that translation was not by khan or Gail, it was by the Guardian.If you had consulted your Persian or Arabic friends first, they would have told you that ghalb is the exact equivalent of heart and not mind, that it’s also a blood pumping machine.
--you also jumped to conclusion in the case of “absolute nothingness” , since if you had done some research, you could see that it’s actually the way Guardian has also translated it.
After short discution with arabic members, we came
to the conclusion that, in the context of the valleys, it is a
demonstration (show, define) of the presence (of mind) on top of the absence.
This is the
kind of dreamlike non-sense iranians may help clear out.
You may want to make these short discution alittle longer before calling anything dreamlike non-sense .
since Gurdain also has translated it this way over and over, you are actally calling his translation dreamlike non-sense too.
Chance are a Persian person is more qualified to
translate Farsi, than us westerners. It's logical.
--It’s not logical: In translation you have to be able to only understand the source you are translating from , but you should be able to know the language you are translating to so much better, since you are going to write in that language. There is no doubt that westerners who know the target language better, can do it better. I will write you later about this from my experience when I was a member of national translation committee the last one and a half years of my life in Iran.
--even if we assume that you are right, it doesn’t apply to holy books. Translating holy books is not the same as translating other stuff.
In other words, you cannot say that just being an Iranian and knowing Farsi and English makes you qualified to translate a holy book. You were exactly asking me to do this when you out of nowhere suggested that I translate Badi. You will also see this when I write you later about the experience I had with it.
Don't be afraid of the UHJ.
They are intelligent people and
they are not just a group of intelligent people, they are an infallible institution.
Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:49 pm
it is a
demonstration (show, define) of the presence (of mind) on top of the absence.
Wrong, wrong , wrong. completely wrong. You are wrong and also those Iranian or Arab friends of yours.
Here you need more than just some knowlege of Farsi or Arabic , although you also don't have that either. I don't have any time to write about this issue here. It's up to you to study where these terms are coming from and what they are used for.
Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Please, be more understanding with one another, there appears
to be misunderstanding among the friends.
Need more be said?
Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 11:54 pm
farid wrote:they are not just a group of intelligent people, they are an infallible institution.
Well, I shouldn't say "infallible", it is a big word, but they are at least "infallible" in legislation.