bahaism and prophets

[nameless]

#1. bible shows lut sleeping with his daughters; and david purposely sending uriah to wars with the intention of getting him killed, so that he could marry his wife. both these narratives are vehemently denied by muslims.

#2. since bahaism recognises both bible and quran in their current form, which view do they agree with, christian or muslim regarding these prophets.

#3. i dont desire a debate or an explanation here, only which view does bahaism agree with regarding these prophets.

[Baha'i Warrior]

Nameless,

If the Holy Koran says something that goes contrary to what the Bible says, we go with the Koran because we know it was revealed by Muhammad Himself, and we do not believe all of the Bible to be authentic (i.e. all of it being directly revealed by God through His Messengers).

But we do not believe all Hadith to be authentic. The Bab, Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha do refer to certain Hadith, however.

Also, Nameless, it is not that big of a deal, but I wonder why you refer to the Baha'i Faith as "Bahaism"? We do not use that term.

[nameless]

<<If the Holy Koran says something that goes contrary to what the Bible says, we go with the Koran because we know it was revealed by Muhammad Himself, and we do not believe all of the Bible to be authentic (i.e. all of it being directly revealed by God through His Messengers).>>

#1. cool

<<--But we do not believe all Hadith to be authentic. The Bab, Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha do refer to certain Hadith, however.-->>

#2. cool. is there any criteria for hadith reference.

<<--Also, Nameless, it is not that big of a deal,-->>

#3. hmmm

<<--but I wonder why you refer to the Baha'i Faith as "Bahaism"? We do not use that term.-->>

#4. ummm, actually i should not be credited with inventing that word because its found at a few sites like answers.com and wordnet dicitonary.

#5. if there is anything wrong in my using it do tell me so that i may stop using that term.[/table]

[Baha'i Warrior]

<<--But we do not believe all Hadith to be authentic. The Bab, Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha do refer to certain Hadith, however.-->>

#2. cool. is there any criteria for hadith reference.

Do you mean any reference to the authenticity of Hadith in the Writings?


There is somewhere in the Writings where Shoghi Effendi probably talks about this (maybe someone knows where to locate them?) but here are some related things I could find, but nothing directly referring to Hadith, but I did find:

Shoghi Effendi: "We cannot be sure of the authenticity, word for word, of any of the past Holy Scriptures except the Qur'an, as they were either not written down during the Prophet's lifetime or have been changed in the course of time and the originals lost"

(So this means we cannot be sure of the authenticity of Hadith because they are not a part of the Koran.)

Also, not Hadith, but....

"It is a fundamental belief of the Bahá'ís that Imam `Ali was the lawful successor of the Prophet of Islam. After him his lineal male descendents known as the `holy Imams' led the Shi'ah community until the year 260 AH. Bahá'u'lláh regarded the Imams as the legitimate successors of the Prophet, acknowledged the value of their work in the elucidation of the Qur'an, confirmed many of their sayings as recorded in the books of `Ahadith (traditions), quoted several of these in His Writings, interpreted their words, extolled their station (especially that of Husayn, the third Imam) in glowing terms, and referred to them as `those unquenchable lights of divine guidance' and `those lamps of certitude'."



another quote on about the Koran:

"...the unfailing testimony of God to both the East and the West is none other than the Qur'an." (Iqan, 210)

#5. if there is anything wrong in my using it do tell me so that i may stop using that term.

well we don't call Islam Islamism because they are different things.

see "Distinguishing between Islam and Islamism"

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/954


There's nothing wrong with it, but most of the people on this message board are probably more familiar with the term "Baha'i Faith." It's up to you, I was just wondering[/i]

[another guest]

BW,

Please, when you quote something, follow it with the source. For example, you gave an extensive quote from Adib Taherzadeh in your last message -- but anyone unfamiliar with it would assume it was from an authoritative source, as the Shoghi Effendi quote which preceded it, or the quote from Baha'u'llah which followed.

Thanks, sources make all the difference.

[nameless]

<<--Do you mean any reference to the authenticity of Hadith in the Writings?-->>

#1. u said bab, bahaullah and abdulbaha do refer to some hadith, so i was wondering if there was any criteria they used when referring to those hadith. i mean how would they decide which hadith were fit for reference, seeing they do not endorse either shia or sunni hadith.

<<--well we don't call Islam Islamism because they are different things.-->>

#2. islamism i think is understood as 'militant' islam. but to be fair to muslims, in all likelihood its a non-muslim connotation without any attempt to understand the term.

<<--There's nothing wrong with it, but most of the people on this message board are probably more familiar with the term "Baha'i Faith." It's up to you, I was just wondering-->>

#2. u actually made me think over that, and i came up with following 'justification':

juda -> judaist/jew -> judaism

christ -> christian -> christianity

baha -> bahai -> bahaism

buddha -> buddhist -> buddhism

#3. so i dont think when i use bahaism i infer a new understanding, rather just like a convention. so unless u or any other bahai thinks its not cool, i will continue using that term.

#4. ofcourse a notable exception to such derivation is the word 'islam'.

#5. i wonder what muslims say about muhammad -> muhammadan -> muhammadanism

[nameless]

#1. i am still waiting to hear bahai views on whether they agree with bible that lut slept with his daughters and david got uriah killed to marry his wife. quran does not say anything about that (atleast not directly, atleast not far as *i* know), it is muslims who deny it.

#2. so do bahais go with bible on that(?)

[Baha'i Warrior]

i don't know if we do have an opinion on that. we probably don't.

just curious, is this important to you?

[nameless]

<<--i don't know if we do have an opinion on that. we probably don't.-->>

#1. how can the future unite when history divides.

<<--just curious, is this important to you?-->>

#2. yes.

[Hossein]

Hi
nameless do you know how many version bible has?

have a nice time
Hossein

[nameless]

<<--nameless do you know how many version bible has? -->>

#1. which version has been authorised by bahaullah(?)

#2. have a nice time u too.

[Hossein]

Hi

#1. which version has been authorised by bahaullah(?)

The right one.

I just asked you, how many version bible has? If you know answer me, do not answer my question by question.

[nameless]

<<--The right one.-->>

#1. and does it go under a name(?) or does it suffer being my namesake(?)

<<--I just asked you, how many version bible has?-->>

#2. gospels have 'versions'. gospel according to saint a, saint b, saint c....so on. the books of old testament do not seem to have similar 'versions'. translations: yes.

<<--If you know answer me, do not answer my question by question.-->>

#3. or else, i break a divine law(?) or ur law(?)

#4. have a nice time u do:-)

[nameless]

#1. i found bahai view on lut's act: on this very site.

'5. Genesis XIX, 29-38--the text makes it quite clear that Lot was not responsible for the action committed by his two daughters, as they gave him wine and made him drunk.'

#2. that's the view of shoghi effendi (as given on this site), so i can effectively hold that as bahai view.

#3. however i could not find any reference over david getting uriah killed.

#4. the bible text on this website is the king james translation.