Page 1 of 1

Kitabi Iqan question

Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 7:32 pm
by shm
Kitabi Iqan it says
Know verily that the purpose underlying all these symbolic terms and abstruse allusions, which emanate from the Revealers of God’s holy Cause, hath been to test and prove the peoples of the world; that thereby the earth of the pure and illuminated hearts may be known from the perishable and barren soil. From time immemorial such hath been the way of God amidst His creatures, and to this testify the records of the sacred books.


I had a question regarding this.
Lets say there was a clergy in Iran for example, and he didnt necessarily want to go against Bahaullah, but since he took the writings of the Quran regarding the advent of Bahaullah literally and not symbolically, this Mulla or clergy failed to recognize the coming of the new Manifestation of God. But this clergy mans intent was not to reject the new Manifestation of God, he only rejected His claims cuz he took the writing of the Quran literally and let say he did not know better to take the writings symbolically. Now according to the quote above from the Kitabi Iqan, this clergy would have been like "barren soil" and would be seperated from the illuminated souls.

What I am having trouble understanding is do "illuminated hearts" always take the writings symbolically, like do these two come hand in hand.
Im for some reason having trouble understanding why God would choose this method, the method being whether the clergy look symbolically or literally at the writings, as a way to seperate the illuminated hearts from the dirty ones. To me it doesnt seem fair. But I know for sure that there is something that I dont understand which is why I think it is unfair, if anybody has any input that they can give on this, I would appreciate it

Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 12:56 pm
by curt
What a fine question! Such was the dilemma of the uncle of the Bab who asked How could my nephew (the Bab) be the promised Qaim when the signs recorded in the Quran concerning the promised Qaim were not literally fulfilled? Baha'u'llah's response was the Book of Certitude itself.

To this hypothetical clergyman I would point out two Quranic verses:

He it is who hath sent down to thee 'the Book.' Some of its signs are of themselves perspicuous (clear, lucid); - these are the basis of the Book - and others are figuarative. But they whose hearts are given to err, follow its figures, craving discord, craving an interpretation; yet none knoweth its interpretation but God. And the stable in knowledge say, 'We believe in it: it is all from our Lord.' But none will bear this in mind, save men endued with understanding. 3:5

It is God who sendeth forth the winds which raise the clouds aloft: then drive we them on to some land dead FROM DROUGHT, and give life thereby to the earth after its death. So shall be the resurrection. 35:10

I don't know that it matters to God whether this hypothetical clergyman looks at the writings literally or symbolically. Baha'u'llah says in the Book of Certitude ...the purpose underlying all these symbolic terms and abstruse allusions...hath been to test and prove the peoples of the world. - p 49 He also says The mystery of this theme hath, in this Dispensation, been a sore test unto all mankind. - p 162

Be that as it may, what helped me most unravel all scriptures were Baha'u'llah's two simple principles from the Book of Certitude: ...true life is not the life of the flesh but the life of the spirit. - p 120 and By the terms "life" and "death", spoken of in the scriptures, is intended the life of faith and the death of unbelief. - p 114

Think, reflect, ask good questions and you will always find the answers. That has been my experience. Best of luck.

Curt

Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 7:25 pm
by Guest
This amounts to a variation on a question about divine justice: If there is a God, who wants us to follow a certain religion, why does he not communicate this more clearly? Why does he always talk to us through people who might be mistaken for lunatics / cheats, in language that must be deciphered using some sort of complex exegesis?

Some possibilities:

(1) These assumptions are wrong (as we might glean from the fact that they make little sense). All this God-talk amounts to psychological projection, like seeing pictures in the clouds.

(2) God really IS clear, but we are stupid / evil, or else his message is meant only for the spiritual elite.

(3) As befits a being who exists in the world of deep meaning and purpose, God avoids bombast (except perhaps in the Old Testament) but speaks to us in the "still small voice" of conscience and/or mystical vision (either ours or someone else's).

are you an outsider SHM ?

Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 2:19 am
by majnun
What an unfined question.
By a suuposition of his imagimation, the
questioner (shm) invites the readers to make
personal projections on this theorical situation.

Picking up a line of text and to blow it up is a
muslim technique used by those who understand not much.
If the questioner would have read the scriptures prior to the
Iqan, he would not have asked such a whirling question.

Some people come in here and ask question that only
show their actual state of passive participation, and they add
bluntly: go ahead gang, find me an answer, convince me.

It is not the first time this questioner uses this technique
to make many loose their precious time, and possibliy insert
doubts in some. Will the questioner still ask the same
style of questions in a year or two ?

Majnun.

Re: are you an outsider SHM ?

Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 11:34 am
by shm
majnun wrote:What an unfined question.
By a suuposition of his imagimation, the
questioner (shm) invites the readers to make
personal projections on this theorical situation.

Picking up a line of text and to blow it up is a
muslim technique used by those who understand not much.
If the questioner would have read the scriptures prior to the
Iqan, he would not have asked such a whirling question.

Some people come in here and ask question that only
show their actual state of passive participation, and they add
bluntly: go ahead gang, find me an answer, convince me.

It is not the first time this questioner uses this technique
to make many loose their precious time, and possibliy insert
doubts in some. Will the questioner still ask the same
style of questions in a year or two ?

Majnun.


Majnun, I do not understand why u took my question the way u did. I was reading "The Revelation of Bahaullah" by Adib Taherzadeh and I came upon this quote from the Kitabi Iqan chapter of the book and I had trouble understanding why God would test people and seperate them by those who take the texts literally and those who take it symbollically. I thought the fact that the clergy either take the text literally or symbolically is not within there own hands and is just how they look at the texts, but Im guessing there is a tie and a connection between the clergy who had illuminated hearts and understood the texts symbolically. In other words I believe these two go hand in hand

Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 11:50 am
by shm
Anonymous wrote:This amounts to a variation on a question about divine justice: If there is a God, who wants us to follow a certain religion, why does he not communicate this more clearly? Why does he always talk to us through people who might be mistaken for lunatics / cheats, in language that must be deciphered using some sort of complex exegesis?

Somewhere in the Kitabi Iqan I believe it explains why God chooses "talks" to us or sends down Prophets/messengers that have something that could raise doubt in the people as to whether in fact they are the true ones from God.

I remember reading in the Kitabi Iqan that Bahaullah explains that Jesus was fatherless, since he was born of the Holy Spirit, but to the people it was unknown and uncertain as to whether Jesus had a father or not. In the Kitabi Iqan it explains when Jesus proclaimed to be the Manifestation of God, the people would say how could someone who is fatherless be a Manifestation of God and would doubt His claims like this.
Similarly Moses who was fed at the table of the Pharoah and who slaughtered a man, was given the station of a Manifestion of God by God. This certainly raised doubt amoung the people when Moses claimed to be the Manifestation of God.

I forget the reason for this but I believe its to test the people and to distinguish the believers and the faithful from the unbelievers.

Im too lazy to find where it explains this in the Kitabi Iqan but the explanation is in there by Bahaullah

Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 11:52 am
by shm
Anonymous wrote:This amounts to a variation on a question about divine justice: If there is a God, who wants us to follow a certain religion, why does he not communicate this more clearly? Why does he always talk to us through people who might be mistaken for lunatics / cheats, in language that must be deciphered using some sort of complex exegesis?

Somewhere in the Kitabi Iqan I believe it explains why God chooses "talks" to us or sends down Prophets/messengers that have something that could raise doubt in the people as to whether in fact they are the true ones from God.

I remember reading in the Kitabi Iqan that Bahaullah explains that Jesus was fatherless, since he was born of the Holy Spirit, but to the people it was unknown and uncertain as to whether Jesus had a father or not. In the Kitabi Iqan it explains when Jesus proclaimed to be the Manifestation of God, the people would say how could someone who is fatherless be a Manifestation of God and would doubt His claims like this.
Similarly Moses who was fed at the table of the Pharoah and who slaughtered a man, was given the station of a Manifestion of God by God. This certainly raised doubt amoung the people when Moses claimed to be the Manifestation of God.

I forget the reason for this but I believe its to test the people and to distinguish the believers and the faithful from the unbelievers.

Im too lazy to find where it explains this in the Kitabi Iqan but the explanation is in there by Bahaullah

Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 10:55 pm
by majnun
shm you intellectualize too much.
Live a little more.
MJ

Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 7:55 am
by Guest
MAJNUN, I AM CLOSELY MONITORING YOUR TOPICS AND YOUR ANTI-MUSLIM INSINUATIONS OR ANSWERS ON THIS WEB. THOUGH I AM A BAHA'I, HOWEVER, I DO NOT APPRECIATE YOUR HAUGHTY CONDESCENDING ATTITUDE. SOW THE FEAR OF GOD IN YOUR HEART.
HOW DARE YOU PREVENT A PERSON FROM QUENCHING HIS THIRST?
LET ANYONE ASK WHATEVER PLEASES HIM TO SATISFY HIS DESIRE FOR MORE KNOWLEDGE. NO QUESTION IS RIDICULOUS TO THE THIRSTY OR WILL YOU ALSO COMMIT WHAT BANI UMAYA COMMITED TO THE LORD OF MARTYRS, LORD HUSSAIN, WHEN HE WAS MARTYRED THIRSTY???

Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 7:49 pm
by majnun
...

Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 5:48 am
by Guest
AS A MATTER OF FACT PROMOTING ANY RELIGION OTHER THAN BAHA'I FAITH IN THIS AGE IS NOT CONDUCIVE TO ANY PROGRESS IN ANY FIELD AND WILL LEAD TO CHAOS.
PROMULGATING CHRISTIANITY IN THIS ERA LEADS TO WANTONNESS & DEPRAVITY WHILE PROMULGATING ISLAM LEADS TO HAMPERING OF GROWTH. HOWEVER, THE INDUBITABLE FACTS REMAINS THAT ISLAM IS THE PARENT RELIGION OF BAHA'I FAITH IRRESPECTIVE OF YOU BEING ABLE TO DIGEST THIS VERITABLE FACT OF NOT.
TO VILIFY ANY RELIGION IS TANTAMOUNT TO BLASPHEMY SIMPLY BECAUSE ALL ARE FROM THE SAME SOURCE, A SOURCE THAT YOU REGRETTABLY DO NOT BELIEVE IN.

FURTHERMORE, DO NOT JUDGE ANYONE BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS AND INSTEAD OF SPEWING VENOM IN THIS SITE AND DECIDE WHO IS A MATURE BAHA'I AND WHO IS AN EMBRYONIC BAHA'I, WHOSE QUERY IS GENUINE AND WHOSE IS RIDICULOUS, I SUGGEST YOU SPARE US ALL YOUR REPUGNANT DISCOURSES WHICH IS ARE SO AKIN TO THE FRIDAY PRAYERS SERMONS OF MULLAHS IN IRAN AND RETURN TO IRAN TO EXPRESS YOUR PENT UP FRUSTRATIONS AND GUIDE YOUR PEOPLE WITH YOUR INDISTINCT ELOQUENCE.

ALLAH'U'ABHA.

Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 9:29 am
by majnun
...

Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 6:06 pm
by majnun
...

Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 9:55 am
by Guest
I HAVE NO SPECIAL OPINION ABOUT THIS

BUT JUST WANT TO FIGURE OUT

HOW TO TURN OFF THE ALL-CAPS