Re: Baha'u'llah can't be a prophet of God.

This is an archived post from the old bulletin board. For new posts, see the forum.

Posted by Nick Stone on May 26, 2101 at 13:41:57:

In Reply to: Re: Baha'u'llah can't be a prophet of God. posted by David on May 25, 2101 at 10:50:56:

Hi Dave,

You asked how I could find miracles amazing which I had never witnessed. Of course I was not there, but I have seen the photos of the original "revelation-writing" made by Baha'u'llah's secretary, and I have read his account of the speed of the revelation. Given the vast array of proofs I have found within the Faith to accept Baha'u'llah, I see no reason to believe that the accounts of the speed of revelation were falsified. Indeed, it is evident that if God were revealing through a human being the revelation would flow out very rapidly as the revelation is not the thought process of that individual but direct from God. This also explains how Mohammad was able to reveal the Koran, despite the fact that he was illiterate.

With regard to Mohammad's influence upon humanity being negative - the teachings Mohammad gave were the blueprint for society at that time. Shoghi Effendi says that all religions have been designed to be universal, but they have only needed to be renewed through the incompetency of their followers. As far as I know, Mohammad stated that Muslims were not to harm the Jews or Christians. That Islam originated in a land of barbarians also has to be taken into account. You are judging from the point of modern "civilisation". When Mohammad came, he actually had to instruct the people not to bury their new born girls alive as this was their custom. These people had failed to be civilised through Christianity. Everything has to be seen with regards to historical context. A child cannot immediately be taught calculus upon starting maths class. Mohammad's teachings lifted up the Arabs to heights they could never have achieved otherwise. Look at their successes in science, maths and medicine. Streets ahead of "Dark Ages" Europe.

I suggest you read 'Abdu'l-Baha's chapter on Mohammad in Some Answered Questions (available on this site.)

My personal take on admonitions towards violence and war in Islam... Jihad is a defensive war, to be undertaken when attack is used as as a method of defence. Perhaps without war as a method of promulgation, it would have taken far longer to spread Islam in the Middle East. Maybe it was the long term interests of the peoples that war was used. Christianity was also spread through conquest. This is one of the reasons the Baha'i Faith has not spread so quickly yet, as we cannot use force to promulgate, it has to be through example and the power of our words.

In the Babi dispensation I have not heard of any Babis actually going out and starting any wars. They defended themselves when necessary. At the battle of Sheikh Tabarsi, as soon as the Babis began winning a fight, they would retreat back to the fort. Again I think the injunctions of the Bab have to be taken in context. He had to make it clear that his religion was not just a reforming movement within Islam, but a clean break from the past, the door to a new age. Such a break would necessarily be violent and stressful, especially since it took place within fanatically intolerant Persia.

Baha'u'llah has however, forbidden Holy War, and forbidden Baha'is to carry arms.

this topic is closed - post at