"Seal of the Prophets"

All research or scholarship questions
Zazaban
Posts: 249
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 9:16 pm
Location: Canada

"Seal of the Prophets"

Postby Zazaban » Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:22 pm

Okay, I would like to be clear on this whole thing. I have heard multiple explainations to what this means, and I really think I need an answer. I am thinking of becoming a Bahá'í and this is a major roadblock for me.
Justice and equity are twin Guardians that watch over men. From them are revealed such blessed and perspicuous words as are the cause of the well-being of the world and the protection of the nations.
~ Bahá'u'lláh

choogue
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:54 am

Postby choogue » Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:16 am

Well from the previous posts, i think the Bahais believe that the Prophet Muhammad(a.s.) was the seal of the Prophets and Messengers, however he wasnt the seal of the "Manifestation of God".

BW, correct me if im wrong. :)

Regards
Abbas

Baha'i Warrior
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:07 am
Location: U.S.A.

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:40 am

I suggest Dr. Christopher Buck's Symbol and Secret for anyone interested in a good Qur'an commentary, especially Chapter Four (http://bahai-library.com/books/symbol.secret/4.html).

But here it is in a nutshell, again explained by Dr. Buck, in another source:

    Overcoming the Doctrine of the "Seal of the Prophets":

    The Qur'an dignifies Muhammad as the "Seal of the Prophets (Q. 33:40). In the earliest currents of Islamic consciousness, this honorific was by no means understood uniformly (see Yohanan Friedmann, "Finality of Prophethood in Islam," Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 7 [1986]). The concept of Muhammad being the final messenger of God was firmly entrenched in Islamic doctrine, both Sunni and Shi`a. In Shi`ism, however, the concept of walaya, as stated above, allowed for a continuation of divine guidance after the death of the Prophet. Such guidance was considered subordinate to the revelation of the Qur'an. But the Bab had dared to proclaim himself more than an Imam, and a messenger equal to or greater than Muhammad, with a revelation that surpassed the Qur'an in scope and authority. This, obviously, challenged the very foundations of Islam.

    From the perspective of classical Sunni Islam as well as Shi`ism, Baha'u'llah achieved the seemingly impossible: to show that God could reveal a prophet after Muhammad. In a masterful feat of exegesis, Baha'u'llah applied Qur'anic concepts of the oneness of the prophets to relativize the idea of the "Seal of the Prophets." He shows that orthodox claims to Muhammad's finality as having traded on notions of triumphalism unmitigated by the clear, Qur'anic teaching of prophetic unity. Affirming that Muhammad was indeed the last prophet within the "Prophetic Cycle" or Adamic Cycle (kur-i Adam), a new epoch of human history was said to have commenced with the advent of the Bab. In Baha'i parlance, this is the "Cycle of Fulfillment" or Baha'i Cycle (kur-i Baha'i).

    While the accepted notion of the "Seal" as meaning "Last" is kept intact, Baha'u'llah stresses the transcendent importance of the term "Seal" over considerations of historical sequence. Wedding the Qur'anic doctrine of the oneness of the Prophets with Muhammad's distinctiveness as the "Seal," Baha'u'llah writes: "Viewed in this light, they [the Prophets] are all but Messengers of that ideal King, that unchangeable Essence. And were they all to proclaim: "I am the Seal of the Prophets," they verily utter but the truth..." (ET, 179). Through an associative equivalence, Muhammad's uniqueness as the "Seal of the Prophets" is distributed among all other Messengers of God as an equally applicable title, relatively speaking.

    Source: http://bahai-library.com/encyclopedia/iqan.buck.html.

So basically, Muhammad was the seal of the Prophets of the "'Prophetic Cycle' or Adamic Cycle (kur-i Adam)" and the "'Cycle of Fulfillment' or Baha'i Cycle (kur-i Baha'i)," inaugurated by the Bab, is a whole new cycle with its own Messengers, Prophets, or Manifestations of God. It should be noted that we believe Muhammad and Christ, for example, to also be Manifestations of God.

(But the station of Baha'u'llah is higher basically than the other Manifestations since He has the new Message—then again they are all one in the same, according to Baha'u'llah.) Says Baha'u'llah in Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah:

    Every discerning observer will recognize that in the Dispensation of the Qur'án both the Book and the Cause of Jesus were confirmed. As to the matter of names, Muhammad, Himself, declared: "I am Jesus." He recognized the truth of the signs, prophecies, and words of Jesus, and testified that they were all of God. In this sense, neither the person of Jesus nor His writings hath differed from that of Muhammad and of His holy Book, inasmuch as both have championed the Cause of God, uttered His praise, and revealed His commandments. Thus it is that Jesus, Himself, declared: "I go away and come again unto you." Consider the sun. Were it to say now, "I am the sun of yesterday," it would speak the truth. And should it, bearing the sequence of time in mind, claim to be other than that sun, it still would speak the truth. In like manner, if it be said that all the days are but one and the same, it is correct and true. And if it be said, with respect to their particular names and designations, that they differ, that again is true. For though they are the same, yet one doth recognize in each a separate designation, a specific attribute, a particular character. Conceive accordingly the distinction, variation, and unity characteristic of the various Manifestations of holiness, that thou mayest comprehend the allusions made by the Creator of all names and attributes to the mysteries of distinction and unity, and discover the answer to thy question as to why that everlasting Beauty should have, at sundry times, called Himself by different names and titles....(pp. 21–2)

Baha'i Warrior
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:07 am
Location: U.S.A.

Re: "Seal of the Prophets"

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:58 am

Zazaban wrote:Okay, I would like to be clear on this whole thing. I have heard multiple explainations to what this means, and I really think I need an answer. I am thinking of becoming a Bahá'í and this is a major roadblock for me.


Zazaban,

There's one thing I wanted to add. You're not a Muslim, so I don't know why that would be much of a concern to you. The majority of the adherents of Islam have stuck to their own interpretation of the seal of the prophets verse, which is the exact same thing the Jews did at the time of Christ (that is, clutching immovably at their own interpretation of sacred scriptures), and caused them not only to miss the significance of Christ but also persecute the One who God sent. If I may ask, is this the only thing that is keeping you from becoming an adherent of Baha'u'llah?

choogue
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:54 am

Postby choogue » Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:59 am

Thanks BW.

Could you please provide a reference for the readers where the Prophet Muhammad is described as the Manifestation of God in the Quran? Im hoping if i read it from the Quran, i would get a better understanding of the whole Manifestation concept.

Also, the Prophet Muhammad(a.s) was the final Prophet and Messenger of that Prophetic cycle? Cool. Could you please provide a reference from the Quran where the Prophet Muhammad mentions this? Thank. Hopefully it would make things much clearer when investigating the different Prophetic cycles and their meanings. Thanks.

Regards
Abbas

Baha'i Warrior
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:07 am
Location: U.S.A.

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:05 am

abbas wrote:Thanks BW.

Could you please provide a reference for the readers where the Prophet Muhammad is described as the Manifestation of God in the Quran? Im hoping if i read it from the Quran, i would get a better understanding of the whole Manifestation concept.


I never said that the Qur'an says Muhammad is a Manifestation of God. I have told you before that "Manifestation of God" is a Baha'i-introduced term.

abbas wrote:Also, the Prophet Muhammad(a.s) was the final Prophet and Messenger of that Prophetic cycle? Cool. Could you please provide a reference from the Quran where the Prophet Muhammad mentions this? Thank. Hopefully it would make things much clearer when investigating the different Prophetic cycles and their meanings. Thanks.


This isn't in the Qur'an either, and again like my above response, I never said it was. You might want to re-read what I posted more carefully. You will be able to tell from the context of the quote that Baha'u'llah is the one "affirming," not Muhammad:

    Affirming that Muhammad was indeed the last prophet within the "Prophetic Cycle" or Adamic Cycle (kur-i Adam), a new epoch of human history was said to have commenced with the advent of the Bab. In Baha'i parlance, this is the "Cycle of Fulfillment" or Baha'i Cycle (kur-i Baha'i).

choogue
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:54 am

Postby choogue » Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:14 am

BW,

I know what you said. Im just trying to clarify whether it is mentioned in the Quran or it was just a Bahai concept. Dont be quick to jump to conclusions. :smile:

This isn't in the Qur'an either, and I again, I didn't say it was. You might want to re-read what I posted more carefully. You will be able to tell from the context of the quote that Baha'u'llah is the one "affirming," not Muhammad:


Affirming that Muhammad was indeed the last prophet within the "Prophetic Cycle" or Adamic Cycle (kur-i Adam), a new epoch of human history was said to have commenced with the advent of the Bab. In Baha'i parlance, this is the "Cycle of Fulfillment" or Baha'i Cycle (kur-i Baha'i).


Umm...i never said that you mentioned it was from the Quran. I simply asked you if you could present it from the Quran. A simple "No, its not in the Quran" would have been sufficient. ;)

OK cool. So now i understand the concept of a new prophetic cycle and a manifestation of God is a Bahai concept and not mentioned in the Quran and the Bahai's believe the Prophet Muhammad(a.s) was the seal of the Prophets and Messengers.

Thanks for clarifying that. :D

Regards
Abbas

Baha'i Warrior
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:07 am
Location: U.S.A.

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:17 am

abbas wrote:OK cool. So now i understand the concept of a new prophetic cycle and a manifestation of God is a Bahai concept and not mentioned in the Quran and the Bahai's believe the Prophet Muhammad(a.s) was the seal of the Prophets and Messengers.


Yeah, kind of like the concept of 'centripetal force' was introduced sometime after third grade.

Actually, I have shown how the concept of "a manifestation of God" is introduced in the Qur'an. But I said was that the term "Manifestation of God" was introduced by Baha'is.

abbas wrote:Thanks for clarifying that. :D


No problemo.

choogue
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:54 am

Postby choogue » Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:19 am

Yeah, kind of like the concept of 'centripetal force' was introduced sometime after third grade.


Hahaha....Yeh. So true. Great example. ;)

Regards
Abbas

choogue
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:54 am

Postby choogue » Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:21 am

Actually, I have shown how the concept of "a manifestation of God" is introduced in the Qur'an. But I said was that the term "Manifestation of God" was introduced by Baha'is.


Hmmm....cant remember anything like that. But anyway, as you said, the Prophet Muhammad(a.s) is not mentioned to be a Manifestion of God in the Quran.

Regards
Abbas

Baha'i Warrior
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:07 am
Location: U.S.A.

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:21 am

"But what I said," I mean.

Baha'i Warrior
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:07 am
Location: U.S.A.

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:23 am

abbas wrote:
Actually, I have shown how the concept of "a manifestation of God" is introduced in the Qur'an. But I said was that the term "Manifestation of God" was introduced by Baha'is.


Hmmm....cant remember anything like that. But anyway, as you said, the Prophet Muhammad(a.s) is not mentioned to be a Manifestion of God in the Quran.

Regards
Abbas


Qur'an 33:44: "Their greeting on the day when they shall meet Him shall be "Peace!" And He hath got ready for them a noble recompense." = Concept of Manifestation of God. I've already explained it before. Check out http://bahai-library.com/books/symbol.secret/4.html pp. 195–6.

choogue
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:54 am

Postby choogue » Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:26 am

Qur'an: "Their greeting on the day when they shall meet Him shall be "Peace!" And He hath got ready for them a noble recompense." = Concept of Manifestation of God. I've already explained it before. Check out http://bahai-library.com/books/symbol.secret/4.html pp. 195–6.


Yeh, "when they meet him" doesnt really show that its a manifestation of God. Individuals will see it how they want to see it i guess. Individuals could make this mean anything they want. No harm done. :smile:

Regards
Abbas

Baha'i Warrior
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:07 am
Location: U.S.A.

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:35 am

abbas wrote:Individuals will see it how they want to see it i guess. Individuals could make this mean anything they want. No harm done. :smile:


That's hardly the attitude to take to arrive at the truth.

abbas wrote:Yeh, "when they meet him" doesnt really show that its a manifestation of God.


Yes it does. You can't see God. It has to then mean God's Manifestation, unless you are trying to say that the Qur'an contradicts itself.

choogue
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:54 am

Postby choogue » Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:47 am

That's hardly the attitude to take to arrive at the truth.


Exactly what i think! :smile: People just take things how they want which is why so many people can arrive at different conclusions. Thats not the attidude to take. Absolutely agree.

Yes it does. You can't see God. It has to then mean God's Manifestation, unless you are trying to say that the Qur'an contradicts itself.


Nope. The Quran doesnt contradict itself which is why "seeing" and "meeting" are two different things.

Dictionary meanings:

Seeing = to perceive with the eyes; look at.

Meeting = to come upon; come into the presence of; encounter


The only contradiction lies within your posts. You produce the verse which specifically says "meet" and then you say "see".

I dont know. Does anyone else believe seeing and meeting is the same thing??

Regards
Abbas

choogue
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:54 am

Postby choogue » Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:52 am

Sorry Zazaban, It appears we have hijacked your thread.

Would you like us to stop?

Regards
Abbas

Baha'i Warrior
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:07 am
Location: U.S.A.

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:53 am

"Their greeting on the day when they shall meet Him shall be "Peace!" And He hath got ready for them a noble recompense."

Abbas wrote:The only contradiction lies within your posts. You produce the verse which specifically says "meet" and then you say "see".


You have to see God to tell Him "Peace." Do you say, "Peace, bro" to your friend, except that he is in Alaska and you're in front of your television?

choogue
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:54 am

Postby choogue » Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:04 am

You have to see God to tell Him "Peace." Do you say, "Peace, bro" to your friend, except that he is in Alaska and you're in front of your television?


Nah man, ofcourse not. :lol: Actually unless he is on the phone, i guess you can say "Peace Bro" or anything else you like for that matter, without "seeing" him. At the end, we dont need to "see" Allah to actually "meet" Him.

This is why the Quran uses the correct word. Not see, but meet.

But hey, like i said, individuals will see it how they want to see it i guess. Individuals could make this mean anything they want. No harm done. (by "see" i dont literally mean they can view it with their eyes. I guess the correct term here would be "understand". People will understand it the way they want.)

Not trying to confuse anyone. ;)

Regards
Abbas

choogue
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:54 am

Postby choogue » Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:09 am

Zazaban,

Again, sorry for hijacking your thread, but im also interested in why the Seal of The Prophets is a major roadblock for you if your not a Muslim?

Regards
Abbas

Baha'i Warrior
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:07 am
Location: U.S.A.

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:11 am

abbas wrote:
You have to see God to tell Him "Peace." Do you say, "Peace, bro" to your friend, except that he is in Alaska and you're in front of your television?


Nah man, ofcourse not. :lol: Actually unless he is on the phone, i guess you can say "Peace Bro" or anything else you like for that matter, without "seeing" him. At the end, we dont need to "see" Allah to actually "meet" Him.


Oh, so maybe you can tell me if we will be calling Him with Verison Wireless? Is Version Wireless mentioned in the Qur'an...I guess I missed it somewhere?


abbas wrote:This is why the Quran uses the correct word. Not see, but meet.


Abbas, do you tell your friend "See you Wednesday" or "Meet you Wednesday" or can you say both, and don't both mean the same thing? Apply this logic to the Qur'an.

abbas wrote:But hey, like i said, individuals will see it how they want to see it i guess. Individuals could make this mean anything they want. No harm done. (by "see" i dont literally mean they can view it with their eyes. I guess the correct term here would be "understand". People will understand it the way they want.)


There is only one way to see "it," especially something so clear as this.

choogue
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:54 am

Postby choogue » Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:26 am

Oh, so maybe you can tell me if we will be calling Him with Verison Wireless? Is Version Wireless mentioned in the Qur'an...I guess I missed it somewhere?


Hmmm....nah i doubt it. :lol:

Abbas, do you tell your friend "See you Wednesday" or "Meet you Wednesday" or can you say both, and don't both mean the same thing? Apply this logic to the Qur'an.


Ill tell them that i will "see" them on Wednesday. Meet you Wednesday doesnt really make sense. Unless you say i will "meet up with you" on Wednesday.
The method of conversation we use is not the same as the Quran. This should be obvious. Its like saying "speak to you later", doesnt necessarily mean im gonna speak to you later. Its just the method we use to say bye. In a way, its slang.
The Quran is specific, hence the term meet rather than see.

There is only one way to see "it," especially something so clear as this.


To some people it may not be so clear. Just like:

Seeing = to perceive with the eyes; look at.

Meeting = to come upon; come into the presence of; encounter.

To me, this is clear. To you, not so clear.

Everyone has their own opinion, even if its against the Dictionary meaning.
Is seeing the same as meeting? Can you actual meet someone without seeing them? Obviously you would say no, and i would say yes. So forget it. Its out there for the readers to determine for themselves. Seeing=meeting?

Regards
Abbas

uwoHXaCnf
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 2:21 am
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Postby uwoHXaCnf » Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:53 am

this is my first post here on this topic and comes after reading all the other posts.

I am not going to enter the discussion (which I believe has been diverted to some extent) of seeing and meeting God on the Day of Judgement.

Rather I will stick to the point about Prophet Mohammed being the seal of the prophets and messengers.

The Quran clearly states in Surah Ahzab verse 40 that Mohammed is the seal of the Prophets. For 1,400 years and counting, the companions of the prophets, his friends, enemies, those who followed him, historians and traditionalists alike have interpreted this verse as Mohammed being the final prophet AND messenger of Allah. This interpretation was not based on one's whim, but on the basis of the traditions reported by the prophet AND his successors.

Every Messenger was first bestowed with prophethood and then Messengership. So every Messenger was necessarily a prophet, but every prophet was not necessarily a Messenger. This is further endorsed by traditions which indicate that out of 124,000 prophets sent by Allah, only 313 were messengers. So by communicating that Mohammed was the seal of prophets, it automatically means that Mohammed was the seal of the Messengers as well.

None of the 12,4000 prophets or even the 313 Messengers ever said that they were a Manifestation of God. This was an introduction by Bahaullah only to justify his claim.

Not one single tradition exists in Islam to even remotely hint of the coming of a new prophet or messenger in Islam. Not one tradition from a reliable source. The only people we have claiming to do so are the western authors who wrote their own interpretation of the Quran. Needless to say, it is these authors that the Bahais look for support to establish the claim of Bahaullah rather than referring to the prophet of Islam whom the Bahais claim has been superceded by Bahaullah.

Regards
Imran

choogue
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:54 am

Postby choogue » Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:16 am

Thankyou Imran.

You are right. This topic has diverted and we should focus on Zazaban's question regarding the Seal of the Prophet.

Regards
Abbas

Baha'i Warrior
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:07 am
Location: U.S.A.

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:20 pm

post deleted 8-)

uwoHXaCnf
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 2:21 am
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Postby uwoHXaCnf » Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:13 pm

C'mon BW, glad you've let off some steam. Abbas has already mentioned that the topic was diverted. Now lets talk about the interpretation of the seal of the prophets.

Regards
Imran

Zazaban
Posts: 249
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 9:16 pm
Location: Canada

Re: "Seal of the Prophets"

Postby Zazaban » Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:24 am

Baha'i Warrior wrote:
Zazaban wrote:Okay, I would like to be clear on this whole thing. I have heard multiple explainations to what this means, and I really think I need an answer. I am thinking of becoming a Bahá'í and this is a major roadblock for me.


Zazaban,

There's one thing I wanted to add. You're not a Muslim, so I don't know why that would be much of a concern to you. The majority of the adherents of Islam have stuck to their own interpretation of the seal of the prophets verse, which is the exact same thing the Jews did at the time of Christ (that is, clutching immovably at their own interpretation of sacred scriptures), and caused them not only to miss the significance of Christ but also persecute the One who God sent. If I may ask, is this the only thing that is keeping you from becoming an adherent of Baha'u'llah?
It's not really keeping me from anything, just looking for clarification of what would otherwise be a contradiction.
Justice and equity are twin Guardians that watch over men. From them are revealed such blessed and perspicuous words as are the cause of the well-being of the world and the protection of the nations.

~ Bahá'u'lláh

choogue
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:54 am

Postby choogue » Fri Feb 09, 2007 2:33 am

Abbas, no offense, but is English your second language or something?


This is coming from someone who thinks "seeing" and "meeting" is the SAME THING??? HAHHAHA :roll:

Ask anyone on the street if "Meet you on Wednesday" or "See you on Wednesday" is equally valid to say (want to take a poll? lol).


Thats great however you seem to forget what you wrote. "meet you Wednesday" rather than "meet you on Wednesday". If you actually read the post properly you would realise that i added what would make sense when using meeting. However, i guess your used to picking and choosing what to use. :lol:

Not wanting to admit to our clear interpretation of the Qur'an is one thing (to deny the Truth of Baha'u'llah and His Faith), but isn't it rather silly to dispute idly the clear meaning of the word "meet" taken in the context?


To your clear interpretation? Whoa! Thats a wild assumption. But i guess its only clear to people who believe "seeing" and "meeting" is the same things! :eek:

By using your logic, it means we cannot meet someone without seeing them! Your implying its impossible. Using you logic, the word "Him" automatically becomes "Manifestation of God". What else is taken out of context? Let me guess, "grass" would mean a book. The "sky" would mean a box of tissues, etc. Your interpretations are VERY random and completely out of context.

I truly cannot believe you are doing this, unless of course English is your second language. I'm sorry, but from all your posts it is obvious that you only want to argue. How is this defending "Allah"?


What? You cant understand how "seeing" and "meeting" are TWO different things? You cant understand how it is POSSIBLE to "meet" someone with out actually "seeing" them? Obviously your desperate with your claim and trying to change anything to justify it. Its pretty obvious that the term "see" would have been used rather than "meet" in the Quran if we were going to see Him......(which somehow is the manifestation... :ai13 )

This is DEFINITELY my last post on the subject. You don't need to reply.


Ooops....too late. 8-)

Well "seeing" this has been diverted and you let off a good amount of steam, lets focus on Zazabans question. You dont need to reply, unless you really want to ofcourse.

So, Zazaban, do you understand the Seal of the Prophets from Imran's post?

Regards
Abbas

Zazaban
Posts: 249
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 9:16 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Zazaban » Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:25 am

abbas wrote:
Ask anyone on the street if "Meet you on Wednesday" or "See you on Wednesday" is equally valid to say (want to take a poll? lol).


Thats great however you seem to forget what you wrote. "meet you Wednesday" rather than "meet you on Wednesday". If you actually read the post properly you would realise that i added what would make sense when using meeting. However, i guess your used to picking and choosing what to use. :lol:
Actually, he's right. People say "meet you Wednesday" and "see you Wednesday" and adding the "on" seems a bit odd.

People, please be nice, don't make me lock this too. No making fun of people or their english skills.
Justice and equity are twin Guardians that watch over men. From them are revealed such blessed and perspicuous words as are the cause of the well-being of the world and the protection of the nations.

~ Bahá'u'lláh

choogue
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:54 am

Postby choogue » Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:01 pm

People, please be nice, don't make me lock this too. No making fun of people or their english skills.


OK. No more. :D

Regards
Abbas

senfreern
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Cambodia
Contact:

Postby senfreern » Sat Feb 10, 2007 1:29 am

wasn't mohommad just the seal of the minor prophets or something?

also, there HAS to be prophets in the future. didn't the qu'ran say there will be a "reformer" every century or something?

also, the Bab was an islamic scholar. he knew a lot. so did bahaullah. they wouldn't call the qu'ran true if they thought that the seal of the prophets actually meant last prophet..

Jonah
Site Admin
Posts: 411
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 1:25 pm
Location: St Catharines, Ontario (near Niagara Falls)
Contact:

Postby Jonah » Sat Feb 10, 2007 2:36 am

people say "meet you Wednesday" rather than "meet you on Wednesday

I actually use both "see you on Wednesday" and "meet you Wednesday," but not "see you Wednesday" or "meet you on Wednesday".

Maybe it's a regional thing. Like what you call the diagonally opposite corner of something. I say "kitty corner." Other regions say cata-cornered, catacorner, cater-cornered, catercorner, catty-corner, catty-cornered, kitty-cornered.

Sorry, I guess it's pretty off-topic. :ai8

Baha'i Warrior
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:07 am
Location: U.S.A.

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Sat Feb 10, 2007 2:53 am

Yes it's a regional thing, but the point isn't whether the "on" in "meet you on Wednesday" or "see you on Wednesday" is correct—that is a red herring and merely a derivation from the main point. The point was, you can use, as you yourself say, "see you on Wednesday" and "meet you Wednesday" interchangeably (the words "see" and "meet" are indicating the same exact thing).

Therefore, it is proved that the verse,

Qur'an 33:44: "Their greeting on the day when they shall meet Him shall be "Peace!" And He hath got ready for them a noble recompense"

is a clear reference to meeting/seeing God's Manifestation on the Day of Judgement, and that the word "meet" here means the same thing as "see." So far there is agreement about this among all (except for the one minority), and there is no ambiguity in this verse being a clear reference to being faced with God on the Day of Judgment (and being faced with God's Manifestation in the Baha'i explanation).

So, then, that resolves that. Next. 8-)

choogue
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:54 am

Postby choogue » Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:09 am

:roll: *sigh*.......

I cant believe your still going on about it. If it makes you happy, i wont present anymore arguments proving that "seeing" has a different meaning than "meeting". :roll: Geez........From now on "seeing" has the same meaning as "meeting". So if i ever meet someone, but they are hiding behind a curtain, i can use the word "see" - Even though technically i never saw them. :roll:

Also, while im at it, ill just use "manifestation of God" in replace of the word "Him" in every conversation :lol:

Any other words i can change which suits you?

So, hopefully we can now continue on with the main topic since im leaving BW believe that the word meeting and seeing have the same meanings :roll: So, the topic about the Seal of the Prophets......

Regards
Abbas ;)

Baha'i Warrior
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:07 am
Location: U.S.A.

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Sat Feb 10, 2007 12:23 pm

You got to take it easy on those emoticons there, Abbas. 8-)

No, I never said the words "seeing" and "meeting" mean the same thing. It depends on the context. In this context, they are the same thing. (No, that is not called "picking and choosing," that is called being logical and taking context into account.)

And no, please don't replace "manifestation of God" with "Him" in every instance where you see the pronoun in the Qur'an, as that would indeed be incorrect. Again, I have used context and a logical argument to show you that 33:44 is a promise of a future Manifestation. Praise Baha'u'llah for opening our eyes with His clear proofs (though He presents them much more convincingly than the author of this post).

Have a fine day, sir.

Zazaban
Posts: 249
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 9:16 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Zazaban » Sat Feb 10, 2007 1:47 pm

Jonah wrote:
people say "meet you Wednesday" rather than "meet you on Wednesday

I actually use both "see you on Wednesday" and "meet you Wednesday," but not "see you Wednesday" or "meet you on Wednesday".

Maybe it's a regional thing. Like what you call the diagonally opposite corner of something. I say "kitty corner." Other regions say cata-cornered, catacorner, cater-cornered, catercorner, catty-corner, catty-cornered, kitty-cornered.

Sorry, I guess it's pretty off-topic. :ai8
Can't be regional, we live in the same city. :-P
Justice and equity are twin Guardians that watch over men. From them are revealed such blessed and perspicuous words as are the cause of the well-being of the world and the protection of the nations.

~ Bahá'u'lláh

choogue
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:54 am

Postby choogue » Sat Feb 10, 2007 4:15 pm

You got to take it easy on those emoticons there, Abbas.


Hey i should huh? :lol: :lol: :lol:

No, I never said the words "seeing" and "meeting" mean the same thing.


Ok finally. I now know they dont mean the same thing. So, meeting can mean to see someone and also can mean not to actually see someone.

It depends on the context. In this context, they are the same thing.


So when the previous verses are cleary in reference to Allah(swt), which you admit, all of a sudden it refers to the next manifestation and meeting means seeing?

No, that is not called "picking and choosing," that is called being logical and taking context into account


Well commonsense will tell you that it is picking and choosing. The previous verses with the word "Him" being in reference to Allah, then all of a sudden the "Him" turns into "Manifestation of God". Sorry my friend, it has obviously been taken out of context......

Again, I have used context and a logical argument to show you that 33:44 is a promise of a future Manifestation. Praise Baha'u'llah for opening our eyes with His clear proofs (though He presents them much more convincingly than the author of this post).


Clear proofs and logical arguments?? hmmmm.....

The Bahai logic:
[Yusufali 33:40] Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things.
[Yusufali 33:41] O ye who believe! Celebrate the praises of Allah, and do this often;
[Yusufali 33:42] And glorify Him morning and evening. - In reference to God
[Yusufali 33:43] He it is Who sends blessings on you, as do His angels, that He may bring you out from the depths of Darkness into Light: and He is Full of Mercy to the Believers. In reference to God
[Yusufali 33:44] Their salutation on the Day they meet Him will be "Peace!"; and He has prepared for them a generous Reward. In reference to Bahaullah

A Muslim logic:

[Yusufali 33:40] Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things.
[Yusufali 33:41] O ye who believe! Celebrate the praises of Allah, and do this often;
[Yusufali 33:42] And glorify Him morning and evening. - In reference to God
[Yusufali 33:43] He it is Who sends blessings on you, as do His angels, that He may bring you out from the depths of Darkness into Light: and He is Full of Mercy to the Believers. In reference to God
[Yusufali 33:44] Their salutation on the Day they meet Him will be "Peace!"; and He has prepared for them a generous Reward. STILL in reference to God which the context is obvious when continuing from the previous verses

If you can change this "Him" to mean Manifestation of God using the Bahai logic, you should therefore be able to change any "He", "Him", etc to mean Manifestation of God since it is clearly out of context.

Anyway, you obviously wont agree since Bahaullah told you thats not the case, and i wont agree with you since its obviously referring to Allah.

Have a fine day, sir.


Its ok. Just call me Abbas. 8-)

Regards
Abbas

Baha'i Warrior
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:07 am
Location: U.S.A.

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Sat Feb 10, 2007 5:07 pm

You don't represent all Muslims Abbas, trust me, and you certainly don't represent "Muslim logic." There are so many Shi'a schools of thought that each one thinks the other is a "covenant breaker" to use your words. Since you can't see God, the verse (33:44) can only mean God's Manifestation, otherwise there is a contradiction, as I have shown.

choogue
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:54 am

Postby choogue » Sat Feb 10, 2007 5:17 pm

You don't represent all Muslims Abbas, trust me, and you certainly don't represent "Muslim logic." There are so many Shi'a schools of thought that each one thinks the other is a "covenant breaker" to use your words. Since you can't see God, the verse (33:44) can only mean God's Manifestation, otherwise there is a contradiction, as I have shown.


Never said i represent all Muslims or their logic. The logic presented is very simple. Even those "covenant breakers" still understand that the "Him" clearly means Allah(swt). No contradiction whatsoever since the Him means Allah(swt) therefore we meet Allah (be in his presence when we are judged) and not literally see Allah(swt) with our eyes. So no contradiction as proven.

Just to clarify though, is it actually Bahaullah that mentions in the writings that the "Him" in verse 33:44 refers to a Manifestation or is it just you? If it is Bahaullah, which book? I cant remember seeing it in the Iqan, however i may not remember it.

Regards
Abbas

Baha'i Warrior
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:07 am
Location: U.S.A.

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Sat Feb 10, 2007 6:21 pm

abbas wrote:Never said i represent all Muslims or their logic. The logic presented is very simple. Even those "covenant breakers" still understand that the "Him" clearly means Allah(swt). No contradiction whatsoever since the Him means Allah(swt) therefore we meet Allah (be in his presence when we are judged) and not literally see Allah(swt) with our eyes. So no contradiction as proven.


One of the proofs of the Baha'i Revelation is the fact that some of the leading scholars and clergymen of Islam became Baha'is. You read the Iqan, so you should rember this, but Baha'u'llah actually lists some of the prominent Shi'a scholars who became Baha'is. Off hand right now, I can think of Vahid, the greatest ayatollah who was chosen by Nasiri'd-Din Shah, and Hujjat, the leading Shi'a scholar. There are many more examples.

Look, if the leading scholars and clergymen of Shi'a Islam become Baha'is, and if I'm a Shi'a, then I will strongly consider the Baha'i claim (or I could just say they are possessed or misguided, but that would indeed be closed-minded of me). These men were the most educated Shi'as mind you. These men accepted Baha'u'llah's explanation of Qur'anic verses obviously. So they would agree that there would be a contradiction in 33:44, unless you understand Baha'u'llah's explanation.

abbas wrote:Just to clarify though, is it actually Bahaullah that mentions in the writings that the "Him" in verse 33:44 refers to a Manifestation or is it just you? If it is Bahaullah, which book? I cant remember seeing it in the Iqan, however i may not remember it.


Yes, I've quoted it before, it's in the Iqan (which you say you read), and I also pointed you to Symbol and Secret, which provides a good treatment of Baha'u'llah's explanation of the verse. It is a lot more complex then how I'm saying it, mind you. You should read S&S Chapter 4 I believe if you're still interested.

choogue
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:54 am

Postby choogue » Sat Feb 10, 2007 6:48 pm

One of the proofs of the Baha'i Revelation is the fact that some of the leading scholars and clergymen of Islam became Baha'is. You read the Iqan, so you should rember this, but Baha'u'llah actually lists some of the prominent Shi'a scholars who became Baha'is. Off hand right now, I can think of Vahid, the greatest ayatollah who was chosen by Nasiri'd-Din Shah, and Hujjat, the leading Shi'a scholar. There are many more examples.


So if a supposed Shia scholar becomes a Bahai, thats one of the proofs? How is that proof? What about the many Shia scholars who reject it? Can i say that is one of the proofs which indicates its false? Ofcourse not.

One thing you forgot to do again was provide a source for your proof anyway. You cant expect the readers to believe your comments without an un-biased source.

Look, if the leading scholars and clergymen of Shi'a Islam become Baha'is, and if I'm a Shi'a, then I will strongly consider the Baha'i claim (or I could just say they are possessed or misguided, but that would indeed be closed-minded of me).


Well since there are also Shia Scholars who reject it, can i say that i would strongly avoid the Bahai claim? Simply because a Shia scholar didnt become a Bahai?

These men were the most educated Shi'as mind you.


Source please?

So they would agree that there would be a contradiction in 33:44, unless you understand Baha'u'llah's explanation


And what about the other Shia scholars who actually refer to the Prophet Muhammads(a.s) teachings which indicates no contradiction?

Yes, I've quoted it before, it's in the Iqan (which you say you read), and I also pointed you to Symbol and Secret, which provides a good treatment of Baha'u'llah's explanation of the verse. It is a lot more complex then how I'm saying it, mind you. You should read S&S Chapter 4 I believe if you're still interested.


If you could be so kind to quote this again, because i cant find it in the Iqan or the previous posts. Maybe you can just refer me to the page.
The only reason i am asking is to prove to my gf that it was actually Bahaullah that claimed it and not just your interpretation. Im not going to post anything regarding it.

Regards
Abbas

Baha'i Warrior
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:07 am
Location: U.S.A.

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Sat Feb 10, 2007 9:32 pm

The fact that the most prominent shi'a scholar would accept Baha'u'llah is what is one proof to me (but it can't stand by itself as some sort of ultimate proof). Anyone can be a "scholar." So I am not concerned with the scholars who reject Him, I am concerned with those who accept Him, and I might want to see what they say. Since the Qur'an says that God closes the eyes of some people and opens it for others, then it would make perfect sense that many would not see His Truth. If all the scholars agreed that Baha'u'llah was the Promised One, then that statement in the Qur'an would be proven false, and God would have made it too easy for people to recognize His truth. There are many "proofs" of the validity of the Baha'i faith in my opinion, and when I put them all together, it becomes very convincing. The smallest things in life can be proofs, as are the larger things. But nothing can stand by itself as a single proof I believe other than the Word itself.

We could say about the Koran: how is it proof that Islam is a religion from God? You yourself assert that numbers are not important, and aren't "proof" of the validity of a religion. But that might be for you—for me, the fact that 1 in 5 people in the world is Muslim is one proof, but not the only one (I put this fact together with the Words of the Koran, and other things. Again, no single "proof" itself is the sole proof. Because of course, one could argue "what is 1 billion people worshipped satan...). The ultimate proof is God's words. Because every single prophesy can be fulfilled to a T, theoretically speaking, but the supposed prophet could very well be an imposture. So the ultimate proof has been, and always is, the Word of God. This is what moves the soul. Some people think the words of Krishna are the only words of God in this earth, some think that about Islam, some think the words of a poet are the most divine words, but each person for himself has to decide what is/isn't the Words of God. There is no way to empirically test the Words and show with great clarity that they are truly the Words of God; we can put together "proofs" and make our case. But none of us cannot even "prove" that God exists, though they can put together many "proofs" and make a good case for it. In the end, again, the only real proof is the Word of God that speaks to the human soul.

choogue
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:54 am

Postby choogue » Sat Feb 10, 2007 9:50 pm

Yeh thats cool. Finally, i once again agree with what you said.....to a certain extent. No point debating on ones personal opinion. Its all good.

Anyway, as previously requested, could you please provide me with the quote from Bahaullah where he mentions that "Him" means "manifestation of God". You said you have provided it earlier, but ive re-checked the posts and it doesnt actually contain a quote from the Iqan.

Or maybe if someone else can provide it, that would be great.

Thanks
Abbas

Baha'i Warrior
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:07 am
Location: U.S.A.

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Sun Feb 11, 2007 1:18 am

Yes, we finally both agree on something!

Here it is:

    How strange! These people with one hand cling to those verses of the Qur'án and those traditions of the people of certitude which they have found to accord with their inclinations and interests, and with the other reject those which are contrary to their selfish desires. "Believe ye then part of the Book, and deny part?" [2:85] How could ye judge that which ye understand not? Even as the Lord of being hath in His unerring Book, after speaking of the "Seal" in His exalted utterance: "Muhammad is the Apostle of God and the Seal of the Prophets," [33:40] hath revealed unto all people the promise of "attainment unto the divine Presence." To this attainment to the presence of the immortal King testify the verses of the Book, some of which We have already mentioned. The one true God is My witness! Nothing more exalted or more explicit than "attainment unto the divine Presence" hath been revealed in the Qur'án. Well is it with him that hath attained thereunto, in the day wherein most of the people, even as ye witness, have turned away therefrom.

    (Kitab-i-Iqan, pp. 168–69)

choogue
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:54 am

Postby choogue » Sun Feb 11, 2007 2:25 am

Thanks for the quote BW, however this is the quote where Bahaullah mentions about the seal of the prophets. I was hoping to get a quote where Bahaullah talks about verse 33:44 and his interpretation as a coming Manifestation.

I remember you mentioned that the interpretation stated in the Iqan is more complex than the way you are explaining it, so if you have time, could you please highlight the appropriate verse which represents the interpretation and a quick explanation of it?

Let me know if you cant. Thanks.

Regards
Abbas

Baha'i Warrior
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:07 am
Location: U.S.A.

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Sun Feb 11, 2007 2:34 am

abbas wrote:Thanks for the quote BW, however this is the quote where Bahaullah mentions about the seal of the prophets. I was hoping to get a quote where Bahaullah talks about verse 33:44 and his interpretation as a coming Manifestation.


33:44 isn't explicitly stated in the verse, but you know He's talking about it:

"Even as the Lord of being hath in His unerring Book, after speaking of the "Seal" in His exalted utterance: "Muhammad is the Apostle of God and the Seal of the Prophets,"2 hath revealed unto all people the promise of "attainment unto the divine Presence."

The closest verse talking about being in the presence of God ("attainment unto the divine Presence"), or meeting God, after 33:40, is 33:44. There was a tradition in Persian that you didn't even quote the verse from the Koran; it was an insult to the reader if you told him you were citing the Koran. The citations were added later. Same with mentioning a nearby verse, when you indicate its presence. From the context you know He is talking about 33:44.

abbas wrote:I remember you mentioned that the interpretation stated in the Iqan is more complex than the way you are explaining it, so if you have time, could you please highlight the appropriate verse which represents the interpretation and a quick explanation of it?


I meant more generally His discourse on what "attainment unto the divine Presence" means, as the concept is used throughout the Koran. Just go to the Iqan, use your search function, and search for the key words "attainment unto the divine Presence." He basically talks about it all throughout the Iqan. You will get a lot of hits: http://bahai-library.com/file.php5?file ... &language=

choogue
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:54 am

Postby choogue » Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:08 am

So we can assume he's talking about it but cannot be sure since it was not mentioned by him? :-?

Let me tell you one thing. Acknowledging that Bahaullah has said this is suprisingly going to actually benefit me, so im hoping it is clearly shown somewhere!! No offence, but although i believe the claim is very weak, i need to know for sure that he has actually mentioned this and not based on assumptions. So, is there any interpretations from Abdual Bahai or the UHJ or Shoghi that actually states this claim??

If they havent, is there anyone else that has specifically mentioned this who is well known and that other Bahais look up to???? I know im asking for too much, but i just need an appropriate source which reflects that claim without assumptions.

Regards
Abbas

Baha'i Warrior
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:07 am
Location: U.S.A.

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:28 am

As far as I know, Shoghi Effendi and 'Abdu'l-Baha never spoke about it. You have to use assumptions (or logic) to understand what He is saying. Again, Abbas, a lot of the stuff I say I'm not making up. A Baha'i scholar, Dr. Christopher Buck, has spoken about this in his book Symbol and Secret, which I have linked many times. Again, it's in chapter 4 I believe. And anyways, it's not "based on assumptions," it's obvious Baha'u'llah is talking about that (okay, to me and a Baha'i scholar and other Baha'is—His style is complex sometimes for non-Baha'is at first). You have to identify what He's talking about, otherwise they are just words—He's talking about something now you have to identify what that something is with logic. Sometimes religious scripture requires one to think critically, everything's not always given in the kind of "clarity" that others think it should be given, I suppose.

But you don't have to believe it. Anways, whether it is or isn't, that explanation of 33:44 makes a lot of sense when "Him" is understood how I explained it. So regardless my interpretation of the verse still stands.

If you really want to be sure and you can't figure out what it means yourself, you can always write the UHJ or NSA I believe and ask them, they will tell you. Then again I don't know if they ever respond to non-Baha'is (maybe they do).

Fadl
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2004 4:55 am
Location: somewhere "in this immensity"

Postby Fadl » Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:36 pm

Friends, huwa is just a pronoun! It could refer to Allah, a man, or even a camel. In the verse of the Qur'an mentioned, there is no argument that can be made grammatically or from the context alone, which proves whether or not it refers to a Manifestation or to Allah.

On the other hand, Abbas' laundry list of verses where huwa refers to Allah is absolutely illogical, unless it is really his assertion that something like "jamalhu" could only mean "God's camel", since huwa is a pronoun which so frequently refers to God.

These arguments are silly. The fact is, that whether or not it refers implicitly to God or Baha'u'llah is rather a moot point, and just as rational as debating how many angels can dance on a needle.

How could anyone literally meet God? Literally? Is God a created thing with a body and a physically reality that can be "met?" Since I think we all agree the answer is "no," in a physical sense the only wait to "meet" God is to meet his manifestation, who is the only one who represents God in the world of men.

Hey, let's be civil here too! As Baha'is, Muslims, or Buddhists, etc., we are supposed to hold ourselves to a high code of conduct! Right? ;-)

Loren

Baha'i Warrior
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:07 am
Location: U.S.A.

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:33 pm

Another great and insightful post, Loren! Thanks a lot for your comments.

Loren wrote:How could anyone literally meet God? Literally? Is God a created thing with a body and a physically reality that can be "met?" Since I think we all agree the answer is "no," in a physical sense the only wait to "meet" God is to meet his manifestation, who is the only one who represents God in the world of men.


Very good point indeed. This is probably the best point representing the Baha'i position that has been made regarding verse 33:44 in this thread.

If a Shi'a (or Sunni) admits that this verse is talking about a Manifestation of God, then that challenges a lot of the stuff that was preached at him, which he has taken in since childhood. To pretty much everyone on this forum the verse's (33:44) meaning is obvious. However, I have met Christians who are no less defensive, which becomes immediately apparent when I show them a verse that they never saw in their lives. Then, after recovering from the shock of having an obscure verse thrown at them, off the top of their head they say, "Well..." and what follows is not rarely a very weak and illogical arguement, but to them it's logical and I'm illogical—even though I am actually the one giving proof, as opposed to merely being the one who is just doing the easy thing which is denying the proof and doing nothing else.

Of course when you are raised in a Baha'i family you are usually more open-minded than other kids, because you are taught such principles that would make one open-minded, and a conversion is never forced upon you (or it shouldn't be and usually isn't). Indeed, I was not interested in religion during the teenage years, and was even thinking about joining another religion because I thought the laws in the Baha'i Faith were too strict. lol.

Anyway, we don't have a problem with anyone not buying into our interpretations (i.e. of koranic verses), but we can't have people accusing us of perverting, "picking and choosing," and other such foul accusations, especially when we provide a strong case and a lot of supporting evidence, whereas all the antagonist does is attempt to refute the Baha'i position by merely denying, and not actually showing strong proofs himself to back up his own position. Do Baha'is go up to Christians and tell them they are perverting the words of Christ and are "picking and choosing" which words to believe, and therefore are misguided for not being Baha'is?

By the way Abbas, I'm not pointing any fingers at you, since I have met many non-Baha'is who no less passionately antagonize, and resort to saying that the Baha'i are going to hell (and that, God forbid, Baha'u'llah [which they can't even pronounce properly] is Satan), or other vile remarks like that. Indeed, I have stated before that you Abbas are a very open-minded Muslim, and I don't take that back. Muslims many times will actually avoid Baha'is (I've had the experience), and even for example some Americanized Iranians who don't believe in religion will do the same, still retaining the unfounded jealosy/hatred toward Baha'is. So you are at least light years more open-minded than they are.

uwoHXaCnf
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 2:21 am
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Postby uwoHXaCnf » Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:54 am

Loren wrote:Friends, huwa is just a pronoun! It could refer to Allah, a man, or even a camel. In the verse of the Qur'an mentioned, there is no argument that can be made grammatically or from the context alone, which proves whether or not it refers to a Manifestation or to Allah.

On the other hand, Abbas' laundry list of verses where huwa refers to Allah is absolutely illogical, unless it is really his assertion that something like "jamalhu" could only mean "God's camel", since huwa is a pronoun which so frequently refers to God.

These arguments are silly. The fact is, that whether or not it refers implicitly to God or Baha'u'llah is rather a moot point, and just as rational as debating how many angels can dance on a needle.

How could anyone literally meet God? Literally? Is God a created thing with a body and a physically reality that can be "met?" Since I think we all agree the answer is "no," in a physical sense the only wait to "meet" God is to meet his manifestation, who is the only one who represents God in the world of men.

Hey, let's be civil here too! As Baha'is, Muslims, or Buddhists, etc., we are supposed to hold ourselves to a high code of conduct! Right? ;-)

Loren


Loren:

Thanks for the request for civility.

Having said that, what is being provided as an argument is one's own interpretation. Bahaullah did not provide a clear reference to the verse. Secondly, we forget that the Quran was revealed on Prophet Mohammed - have you considered that he (pbuh) and the Imams who followed him would have something to say about the verse. Traditions have no mention of Bahaullah - forget about a clear mention, they do not even hint that there would be another person after Mohammed to absorb any kind of revelation.

If you try to interpret Quran on your own, you will get into aruments about "meeting" and "seeing". So for every verse that you quote from Qurn, please bring at least one tradition that backs your claim. Also refrain from interpreting Quran on your own - traditions condemn this completely.

Regards,

Fadl
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2004 4:55 am
Location: somewhere "in this immensity"

Postby Fadl » Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:54 am

iamimranshaykh wrote:
Loren wrote:Friends, huwa is just a pronoun! It could refer to Allah, a man, or even a camel. In the verse of the Qur'an mentioned, there is no argument that can be made grammatically or from the context alone, which proves whether or not it refers to a Manifestation or to Allah.

On the other hand, Abbas' laundry list of verses where huwa refers to Allah is absolutely illogical, unless it is really his assertion that something like "jamalhu" could only mean "God's camel", since huwa is a pronoun which so frequently refers to God.

These arguments are silly. The fact is, that whether or not it refers implicitly to God or Baha'u'llah is rather a moot point, and just as rational as debating how many angels can dance on a needle.

How could anyone literally meet God? Literally? Is God a created thing with a body and a physically reality that can be "met?" Since I think we all agree the answer is "no," in a physical sense the only wait to "meet" God is to meet his manifestation, who is the only one who represents God in the world of men.

Hey, let's be civil here too! As Baha'is, Muslims, or Buddhists, etc., we are supposed to hold ourselves to a high code of conduct! Right? ;-)

Loren


Loren:

Thanks for the request for civility.

Having said that, what is being provided as an argument is one's own interpretation. Bahaullah did not provide a clear reference to the verse. Secondly, we forget that the Quran was revealed on Prophet Mohammed - have you considered that he (pbuh) and the Imams who followed him would have something to say about the verse. Traditions have no mention of Bahaullah - forget about a clear mention, they do not even hint that there would be another person after Mohammed to absorb any kind of revelation.

If you try to interpret Quran on your own, you will get into aruments about "meeting" and "seeing". So for every verse that you quote from Qurn, please bring at least one tradition that backs your claim. Also refrain from interpreting Quran on your own - traditions condemn this completely.

Regards,


You make a very valid point, and as I look at the text in the arabic, I admit that its meaning is vague to me, and as for any particular hadith on the matter, I don't know of any.

However, where I will disagree with you, is that Bah'u'llah as a Manifestation of God has authority to comment on the Qur'an without references since he is a revelator of God.

I don't ask you to accept that carte blanche, but I mention it to explain my position as a Baha'i.

Thanks for being so thoughtful and civil!

Fadl
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2004 4:55 am
Location: somewhere "in this immensity"

Postby Fadl » Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:54 am

iamimranshaykh wrote:
Loren wrote:Friends, huwa is just a pronoun! It could refer to Allah, a man, or even a camel. In the verse of the Qur'an mentioned, there is no argument that can be made grammatically or from the context alone, which proves whether or not it refers to a Manifestation or to Allah.

On the other hand, Abbas' laundry list of verses where huwa refers to Allah is absolutely illogical, unless it is really his assertion that something like "jamalhu" could only mean "God's camel", since huwa is a pronoun which so frequently refers to God.

These arguments are silly. The fact is, that whether or not it refers implicitly to God or Baha'u'llah is rather a moot point, and just as rational as debating how many angels can dance on a needle.

How could anyone literally meet God? Literally? Is God a created thing with a body and a physically reality that can be "met?" Since I think we all agree the answer is "no," in a physical sense the only wait to "meet" God is to meet his manifestation, who is the only one who represents God in the world of men.

Hey, let's be civil here too! As Baha'is, Muslims, or Buddhists, etc., we are supposed to hold ourselves to a high code of conduct! Right? ;-)

Loren


Loren:

Thanks for the request for civility.

Having said that, what is being provided as an argument is one's own interpretation. Bahaullah did not provide a clear reference to the verse. Secondly, we forget that the Quran was revealed on Prophet Mohammed - have you considered that he (pbuh) and the Imams who followed him would have something to say about the verse. Traditions have no mention of Bahaullah - forget about a clear mention, they do not even hint that there would be another person after Mohammed to absorb any kind of revelation.

If you try to interpret Quran on your own, you will get into aruments about "meeting" and "seeing". So for every verse that you quote from Qurn, please bring at least one tradition that backs your claim. Also refrain from interpreting Quran on your own - traditions condemn this completely.

Regards,


You make a very valid point, and as I look at the text in the arabic, I admit that its meaning is vague to me, and as for any particular hadith on the matter, I don't know of any.

However, where I will disagree with you, is that Bah'u'llah as a Manifestation of God has authority to comment on the Qur'an without references since he is a revelator of God.

I don't ask you to accept that carte blanche, but I mention it to explain my position as a Baha'i.

Thanks for being so thoughtful and civil!

Dorumerosaer
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 3:15 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: "Seal of the Prophets"

Postby Dorumerosaer » Mon Feb 12, 2007 8:06 am

Among the passages where Baha'u'llah comments on the "Seal of the Prophets" are these, and reflecting on them may provide insight:

"Know then that the paradise that appeareth in the day of God surpasseth every other paradise and excelleth the realities of Heaven. For when God - blessed and glorified is He - sealed the station of prophethood in the person of Him Who was His Friend, His Chosen One, and His Treasure amongst His creatures, as hath been revealed from the Kingdom of glory: "but He is the Apostle of God and the Seal of the Prophets", He promised all men that they shall attain unto His own presence in the Day of Resurrection. In this He meant to emphasize the greatness of the Revelation to come, as it hath indeed been manifested through the power of truth. And there is of a certainty no paradise greater than this, nor station higher, should ye reflect upon the verses of the Qur'án. Blessed be he who knoweth of a certainty that he shall attain unto the presence of God on that day when His Beauty shall be made manifest."
(Baha'u'llah, Gems of Divine Mysteries, p. 43)

"Even as the Lord of being hath in His unerring Book, after speaking of the "Seal" in His exalted utterance: "Muhammad is the Apostle of God and the Seal of the Prophets," [Qur'án 33:40] hath revealed unto all people the promise of "attainment unto the divine Presence." To this attainment to the presence of the immortal King testify the verses of the Book, some of which We have already mentioned. The one true God is My witness! Nothing more exalted or more explicit than "attainment unto the divine Presence" hath been revealed in the Qur'án. Well is it with him that hath attained thereunto, in the day wherein most of the people, even as ye witness, have turned away therefrom."
(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 169)


"O Shaykh! . . . While there is yet time, and the blessed Lote-Tree is still calling aloud amongst men, suffer not thyself to be deprived. Place thy trust in God, and commit thine affairs unto Him, and enter then the Most Great Prison, that thou mayest hear what no ear hath ever heard, and gaze on that which no eye hath ever seen. After such an exposition, can there remain any room for doubt? Nay, by God, Who standeth over His Cause! In truth I say: On this day the blessed words "But He is the Apostle of God, and the Seal of the Prophets" have found their consummation in the verse "The day when mankind shall stand before the Lord of the worlds." Render thou thanksgiving unto God, for so great a bounty." (Baha'u'llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 114)

Brent

Dorumerosaer
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 3:15 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Postby Dorumerosaer » Mon Feb 12, 2007 8:09 am

Also, as far as "seeing" and "meeting"; the key to understanding the significance of Scriptural terms is often not found in the dictionary. For example, what does Jesus mean by "seeing" when He says "blessed are your eyes for they see"? He is actually talking about belief in Him.

Likewise with "meeting" God

Brent

Baha'i Warrior
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:07 am
Location: U.S.A.

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:56 pm

pilgrimbrent wrote:Also, as far as "seeing" and "meeting"; the key to understanding the significance of Scriptural terms is often not found in the dictionary. For example, what does Jesus mean by "seeing" when He says "blessed are your eyes for they see"? He is actually talking about belief in Him.

Likewise with "meeting" God

Brent


Good point Brent.

And also, Muslims: Forget what "meeting" is in this case. Just forget the word completely. Let it go. You could just as well replace it will "see," "talk," "smell," "touch," etc. As Loren pointed out, the point is that God is not a man who you can meet or see or smell or touch or whatever. God is not a he. God is an It. This It is completely of a spiritual nature. How can this "It" manifest Itself in a material realm? Can material eyes see that which is spiritual? Can material things "meet" that which is spiritual? Can material things sense or actually be in the presence of or even understand to even the smallest degree—except for what limited understanding has been bestowed upon man by the holy Writings—this It? Therefore, God cannot reveal Himself to us material creatures because He is of a totally different substance, which we can't "detect" or comprehend with our physical forms.

Therefore, the verse

Qur'an 33:44: "Their greeting on the day when they shall meet Him shall be "Peace!" And He hath got ready for them a noble recompense"

can only be referring to a MATERIAL being who REPRESENTS in the material realm this spiritual It that men cannot otherwise see or meet or detect. If the verse 33:44 were to actually mean meeting God personally, then it would not make sense, and it would be flawed, and it would be proof that these words are actually not of God, but merely of a fallible man. However, if the verse is interpreted in the only other way that it could be, then it makes perfect sense—and the reader AFTER being told Muhammad is the seal of the prophets is NOW soon after given a PROMISE of a future Figure who will represent God. We are not being left to ourselves with an old religion that doesn't have teachings which apply to newer and much more advanced times.

Abbas, and the user "iamimranshaykh," author of an anti-Baha'i website (check out his profile), we Baha'is don't even need to show you any hadith or words from Muhammad to back up this interpretaion of 33:44, because the meaning is more than clear, especially to people who think critically.

And Abbas, you claim:

Abbas wrote:But why would i when i came to learn, NOT try and educate you!


(I won't say "thanks for the laugh," to quote you like you did. We usually don't provide responses of such sophistication such as that one.) Why don't you try to prove us wrong then, and actually listen to our logic and don't just negatively respond to every little thing and try to attack it in your own way? So far we have not seen any evidence that you are trying to learn, but actually almost every post of yours (at least directed to me) is nothing but an attempt to disprove a clear and logical argument (though the success of any such attempts is to be debated 8-)).

Zazaban
Posts: 249
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 9:16 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Zazaban » Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:39 pm

Clear and logical argument you say? Your argument seems to have the same amount of leverage as the average Jack Chick Tract. No really, it was using the same style of tactics. Try to convince people to believe in something by using an arugmnet that could only be relevant to somebody who is already convinced. I have actually only seen a single Shia source, exactly as Abbas has stated (Shia only counting Mainstream.)

By the way, if you're going to enter a debate where somebody might have to state that they believe something contrary to what you might believe, don't attack them when they do. It's just immature.
Justice and equity are twin Guardians that watch over men. From them are revealed such blessed and perspicuous words as are the cause of the well-being of the world and the protection of the nations.

~ Bahá'u'lláh

Baha'i Warrior
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:07 am
Location: U.S.A.

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:44 pm

Zazaban wrote:Clear and logical argument you say? Your argument seems to have the same amount of leverage as the average Jack Chick Tract. No really, it was using the same style of tactics. Try to convince people to believe in something by using an arugmnet that could only be relevant to somebody who is already convinced. I have actually only seen a single Shia source, exactly as Abbas has stated (Shia only counting Mainstream.)


That post wasn't addressed to you, Zazaban. And you should read my post before being so quick to revile. If you go back to the post, you will note that,

"we Baha'is don't even need to show you any hadith or words from Muhammad to back up this interpretaion of 33:44, because the meaning is more than clear, especially to people who think critically."

Given that the Qur'an teaches the concept that God is a spiritual entity and thus cannot physically be in the presence of human beings, I do not need "a single Shia source" to back that up. Indeed, not every single verse in the Qur'an is specifically addressed in the hadith. You should know this. The Qur'an contains all the information we need in this case, and we needn't look to any outside source.

Zazaban wrote:By the way, if you're going to enter a debate where somebody might have to state that they believe something contrary to what you might believe, don't attack them when they do. It's just immature.


I don't think you are the best judge of what is mature, really, given that you endorse Abbas' tactics of belittling those who provide interpretations that go contrary to his own beliefs, yet you scold my view (and those with similar views) because you don't agree with them personally. And, about the verse, I'm not talking about some foreign concept—again the idea that God is a spiritual being which cannot possibly be presented to man is in the Qur'an, since He is spiritual and we are material. I'm not making this up, that God is a spiritual being (or essence), unless Abbas or amimranshaykh perhaps believe that God is actually a physical person. If that is so, it would be very revealing indeed.

Zazaban
Posts: 249
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 9:16 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Zazaban » Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:51 pm

I haven't seen him belittling anything. Frankly I think you are oversensitive.
Justice and equity are twin Guardians that watch over men. From them are revealed such blessed and perspicuous words as are the cause of the well-being of the world and the protection of the nations.

~ Bahá'u'lláh

choogue
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:54 am

Postby choogue » Tue Feb 13, 2007 12:08 am

BW,

You really need to stop embarrassing yourself. You are in desperate need to prove a verse that neither Bahaullah or Prophet Muhammad or the Imams mentioned and you expect a Muslim to understand since you "clearly" have interpreted it yourself?

Your only argument is the word "meeting" and "seeing". Meeting can have many meanings and seeing can have many meanings. You can meet someone without seeing them - being in their presence. You can also meet them and also see them - perceiving with the eyes.

If the word in the Quran is seeing, than i would agree that you have a point. But meeting is such an ambiguous word and can be changed to suit your interpretations or mine. So the only way to solve this is to bring forward Hadith and where Bahaullah has stated this.

Why don't you try to prove us wrong then, and actually listen to our logic and don't just negatively respond to every little thing and try to attack it in your own way? So far we have not seen any evidence that you are trying to learn, but actually almost every post of yours (at least directed to me) is nothing but an attempt to disprove a clear and logical argument (though the success of any such attempts is to be debated


Ummm.....you really lack understanding BW. Seriously, this is becoming a joke. What dont you understand?? Why would i try and prove you wrong when i am trying to understand it logically????? If i wanted to prove you wrong, i would be pasting numerous Hadith!

I am listening to YOUR logic and its not making sense! You assume you are providing clear logic, but that is only your assumption and your arrogance is clearly shown by stating pathetic comments as "everyone else on this forum understands". This just proves your desperate attempts by hoping other people understand your logic. Instead of always attempting to attack everything i say, try to understand WHY someone would not understand your logic. What is obvious and clear to you, is obviously not clear to me and vice versa.

You are your own judge and jury where you claim your arguments are logical. Your being arrogant. That is not helping to learn. You seem to forget that everything i post, you are the first person to "attack"! Even when i am trying to request answers from Ex-Muslims, you quickly attack and divert the subject. I had to repeatedly try and divert the topic back and post the same questions again. However you are blinded by your own arrogance and continue trying to "prove" your pathetic logic.

Zazaban had to then SPLIT my thread so he could accomodate your attacks and constant arguing. You fail to see your errors. The questions i posted were for Ex-Muslims. I was more than happy to receive your answers however you continued to divert the topic and embarrass yourself. So before jumping to conclusions and accussing me of attacking, look at the previous posts. Atleast i know Zazaban is able to see this. However again, you are your own Judge and Jury therefore what you say is final! How pathetic!

You are embarassing other Bahai's by your behaviour and im always getting Bahai's telling me that its only your way of thinking and not Bahaullah. Why do you think i was hoping to get a clear statement from Bahaullah showing what 33:44 meant in his logic?? I have many Bahai friends now who ive been talking to and explaining them your point about 33:44. They all say to me not to believe him because it is obvious what its meant. But then i mention to them that Bahaullah has explained this, however they think im making it up and ask me to prove it to them. This is why i am trying to obtain a clear text from Bahaullah's writings that reflect this, so they can see it is not only YOUR logic but also their Prophet!

Anyway BW, you are an obvious waste of time since you have not presented one logical argument, but arrogantly claim you have. Thats fine. Believe what you must if that makes you happy. Im glad you see yourself as the Judge and Jury. What is more important is that you believe you have proven a point but all my Bahai friends, my gf and myself think otherwise.

My gf and i have an agreement. I will learn the Bahai faith and she will learn the Islamic faith. She is currently on the http://www.shiachat.com/forum/

Im not out to prove to YOU that the Bahai faith is wrong. I really dont care what you believe in. You are not able to satisfy my questions and when presented to Bahais that i know, they agree with me. I know you will play these petty games and say "everyone else on this forum understand it", but hey, thats fine. Good on them! Im sure you are aware of the thoughts of hundreds of people that view this forum.


BW, you are not trying to educate. You EXPECT people to believe your way of thinking and then ridcule them if they dont agree with your logic.

Your the only Bahai that ive met who is like that, so i will not play your games and mention that all the Bahais are the same. God forbid!!

Zazaban,

I again appreciate your understanding and logic. No doubt BW will attack your way of thinking simply because you disagree with him, but im sure you're already aware of this.

Thanks Zazaban

By the way BW - You continue to ask "why dont i try and prove you wrong?" Well as i have mentioned, thats not why im here. But since you are trying to prove your faith and your logic is sound, you should have no problem proving it on http://www.shiachat.com/forum/

Goodluck ;-)

Regards
Abbas

Baha'i Warrior
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:07 am
Location: U.S.A.

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Tue Feb 13, 2007 1:22 am

abbas wrote:You really need to stop embarrassing yourself.


:-? ???

abbas wrote:Your only argument is the word "meeting" and "seeing".


No, I have revised my argument recently. Go back and read my last post—you've got it completely wrong I'm afraid. How about you respond to my new argument now, instead of beating a dead horse?

abbas wrote:Ummm.....you really lack understanding BW.


Then please enlighten me. :badgrin:

abbas wrote:Seriously, this is becoming a joke.


What a relief. I thought it was just me.

abbas wrote:What dont you understand?? Why would i try and prove you wrong when i am trying to understand it logically????? If i wanted to prove you wrong, i would be pasting numerous Hadith!


But you can't, because you aren't familiar with them. You haven't even finished reading the Koran, at least since one of your previous posts.

abbas wrote:I am listening to YOUR logic and its not making sense!


Then maybe you should read my responses more carefully. I have taken a new approach to arguing my position for 33:44, which you have conveniently chosen to ignore. First at least acknowledge I made a certain argument, then say it's "not making sense." ;-)

abbas wrote:You assume you are providing clear logic, but that is only your assumption and your arrogance is clearly shown by stating pathetic comments as "everyone else on this forum understands".


Now here comes the personal attacks again. :roll: God forbid I do the same, because your advocate Zazaban will surely not like it!

abbas wrote:This just proves your desperate attempts by hoping other people understand your logic. Instead of always attempting to attack everything i say, try to understand WHY someone would not understand your logic. What is obvious and clear to you, is obviously not clear to me and vice versa.


It's kind of hard to when "someone" doesn't address that logic in the first place (see my first response).

abbas wrote:Your being arrogant.


In psychoanalysis, this is a defense mechanism against anxiety called "projection."

abbas wrote:That is not helping to learn. You seem to forget that everything i post, you are the first person to "attack"!


How can that be that I "forget" everything you post? (Again, see my first response.)

abbas wrote:However you are blinded by your own arrogance and continue trying to "prove" your pathetic logic.


I love you too.

abbas wrote:However again, you are your own Judge and Jury therefore what you say is final! How pathetic!


I'm my own "Judge and Jury," is that what it is now? Proof? :biggrin:

abbas wrote:You are embarassing other Bahai's by your behaviour and im always getting Bahai's telling me that its only your way of thinking and not Bahaullah.


"im always getting..." Zazaban is a Buddhist, and he hardly counts as many different people. I don't know who all these purported Baha'is are you refer to.

And how am I embarrassing Baha'is? You keep name-calling, just look at all your insults. Don't you think you're embarrassing Shi'as by your constant insults and attacks? when they are trying to say "Islam is a religion of peace"? Or can you insult someone else and still be "peaceful"? Am I calling you "arrogant," "pathetic," etc., in almost every sentence I write? I suggest that maybe using such childish "fighting words" does not reflect that well on you, nor the religion you represent.

abbas wrote:Why do you think i was hoping to get a clear statement from Bahaullah showing what 33:44 meant in his logic?? I have many Bahai friends now who ive been talking to and explaining them your point about 33:44. They all say to me not to believe him because it is obvious what its meant.


Look, I am saying what Baha'u'llah said, just putting it in my own words. And I have no proof that you have "many Baha'i friends," nor that you discussed this with them. Hearsay won't do here, and I highly doubt anyways that a group of Baha'is would dare not agree with Baha'u'llah. It's just hearsay, and not relevant to our discussion.

abbas wrote:But then i mention to them that Bahaullah has explained this, however they think im making it up and ask me to prove it to them. This is why i am trying to obtain a clear text from Bahaullah's writings that reflect this, so they can see it is not only YOUR logic but also their Prophet!


These supposed Baha'i friends have easy access to the Iqan. They can post any questions they might have on discussion boards, or ask some learned believers in their community.

abbas wrote:Anyway BW, you are an obvious waste of time since you have not presented one logical argument, but arrogantly claim you have. Thats fine. Believe what you must if that makes you happy. Im glad you see yourself as the Judge and Jury. What is more important is that you believe you have proven a point but all my Bahai friends, my gf and myself think otherwise.


All hearsay, about your friends. And anyway, I'm sure if a Baha'i who was familiar with this part in the Iqan would have explained it to them, then they would have readily understood. It is sometimes also easier to explain things in person than over the 'net—one of the shortcomings of this form of communication.

abbas wrote:BW, you are not trying to educate. You EXPECT people to believe your way of thinking and then ridcule them if they dont agree with your logic.


No, in fact I always admire a well thought out, coherent counter-argument. Not one full of emotion and little in the way of a well thought out argument, with little to no supporting references such as koranic verses or hadith. As far as I know I have been posting most of the hadith.

abbas wrote:Your the only Bahai that ive met who is like that, so i will not play your games and mention that all the Bahais are the same. God forbid!!


Apparently these supposed Baha'i friends of yours all agree with you, like you said. Maybe it'd make you happier if I just agreed with you? Do you want me to say Baha'u'llah's interpretation of 33:44 was wrong? Well, I won't, because I have shown how it is indeed a very logical argument in fact.

abbas wrote:I again appreciate your [Zazaban] understanding and logic. No doubt BW will attack your way of thinking simply because you disagree with him, but im sure you're already aware of this. Thanks Zazaban


I think you've already got his sympathy, man! :lol:

abbas wrote:By the way BW - You continue to ask "why dont i try and prove you wrong?" Well as i have mentioned, thats not why im here. But since you are trying to prove your faith and your logic is sound, you should have no problem proving it on http://www.shiachat.com/forum/


I'm not seeking Shi'a Islam. And I am not out to prove anything to a specific group. I already accept Muhammad, and the One He foretold (Baha'u'llah).

abbas wrote:Goodluck ;-)


Same to you, my friend.

—BW

Zazaban
Posts: 249
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 9:16 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Zazaban » Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:31 am

I would just like to point out some things after the last exchange.

Firstly, I cannot really be called a Buddhist anymore, I've been reeled back to the Baha'i Faith since that. :-P

I think both of you need to cool off. You've been in heated debate for days, and when people have been debating that long they can get a bit tiried of it and begin to get uncivil. I agree, Abbas needs to sling fewer insults, but he still has a point.

This is turning into an exchange of attacks and FAULT FINDING, so I'm going to have to lock this. The christianity disscussion that just started will be split off.
Justice and equity are twin Guardians that watch over men. From them are revealed such blessed and perspicuous words as are the cause of the well-being of the world and the protection of the nations.

~ Bahá'u'lláh


Return to “Discussion”