Re: Request for Answer,anon(# 3) 3rd Attempt for correct posting

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

Posted by Munir A.Qureshi on July 04, 2101 at 08:29:50:

Dear anon,
This morning I saw your reply on board, I think that after this long discussion your are forgotten my question. Next pat of my question was,š 2-NEXT QUESTION: - Science of the last eras till Hazrat Mohammad (piece be upon Him) was quite different from our era, so how this principle apply upon that times? If the meanings of „HOLY-BIBLE & HOLY-QURANš were similar to the modern knowledge, what did the people of those eras had understood when these verses revealed before them? If they had understood some things else & you understand other meanings then it is a contradiction not „UNITY OF RELIGIONSš (WAHDAT-E-ADYANS). Please describe?š. It is quite clear that the present Sciences were not exists those last eras, But the Holly Books described about the creation of universe, there static values, and its abolishment, and all these matters were stated dogmatically, by special order. Do you not understand that present Science doesn‚t believe as described by the Holly Books. At those days there was no idea of „Theory of evolutionš and all matters were described in „Theory of special creationš. On those days no one knows Evolution and now the wisdom of mankind don‚t believe in Special Theory. Dear anon , past religions are presented in the theory of Special Creation & now you and other modern groups are describing all those matters in the Theory of Evolution and I thing all you are inspired from modern human research not from Devine guidance. Duality may accrue in human research, not possible in Devine Knowledge. I have to quote you above simple results repeatedly, in different words. Now I again turn towards your reply>>>>>>you have written that,š
„Well, no where in the Baha'i writings is this station of Adam or His creation contradicted. And also, no where in science is there proof of the "first man" and where he came from etc.š I can present you the wording of Abdul-Bahah, as He stated that Adam was a king of the time , but the old religions never stated Adam as ruler of the time, but described as the first man raised up from the dust.(I think Bahaullah was also described creation of Adam from dust , but from His other quotations it also be proved that mankind is as long as God and it is a endless series.) What so ever at present Bahai‚s don‚t believe that Hazrat Adam was the first person of the mankind, as already described in previous Holy Books. As concern to the modern science , Darwin was the first person who object the theory of special creation of Adam, and all of us mostly well aware about Darwinism, After Darwin the theory of Evolution spread all over the word and the religious groups be forced to change the meanings of their Holly Books.(Where were the Islamic City type groups before Darwin , Kepler & Galileo and when new meanings were discussed amongst religious peoples before the change of Sciences.) The Modern theory of creation of humanity is not as special creation but by evolutionary effects. In Qura‚n there is a verse thatš Surely, We had created man in the best makeš(95/4 Al- Tin).But the theory of evolution tells that the man is come to his form by improvement of lower stage. There are a no of other verses in Holly Qura‚n describing the creation of Adam by the order of God and He awake up, and there was no parents for Him∑∑∑∑∑∑∑∑∑ You say that,š I have also written before about human knowledge and understanding. To summarizeš, But I proved before you that the present Science is not the summary of old religious knowledge. You said that.š I think we can also agree that Divine Knowledge does not changeš, I well come your approach if you might be agree the meanings of knowledge remain constant
Now I come towards your questions you asked in this letter: --------------------------------1.> **So is your main argument against the Baha'i Faith that Baha'u'llah contradicts the Messengers of the Past by changing the meanings of Past Scripture?------------------Yes of course it is a fact that Bahaullah changed the al understood meanings of Qura‚n, I agree that in each language there are metaphors , but you will also agree with me that all metaphors based on some realities, if it is not so than there are no meanings of any word, such as if you say that David is a loin, you means that He is brave, and you also know that lion is a brave animal , if you don‚t know that lion is a brave animal , you can‚t this word „lionš in metaphor, do you understood my words. Now if you use the word of „skyš as metaphor, you know that there is a sky, but if you describe the word as metaphor and refuse the originality of sky, how you can use the term. Bahaullah has taken all the originalities in metaphor, and refuses the original meanings already understood. Base of His accusation is on metaphors not on realities already prescribed. Before Him non of one messengers refuse the real meanings, accepting metaphor to some extant. If you do not believe the special reality of angles as a separate creation what did you mean that ALLAH helped the believers (who were going to face their enemies) with thousands angles and a no of other places this word angle is used in its original meanings , you can easily trace out in the pages of Holly Qura‚n. And if this word is used as metaphor in some places, how can you refuse the original meanings in too much places. This an example and you can understand for other things as it is. Your slogan „Unity of Science & Religionš is also due to new explanations of Science.
Secondly you asked,š **If that is what you believe, I think we can start from there and move on with that in mind. If that is so, you are trying to prove this contradiction.>>>>>>>>
Before I reply your question, please let me know that you want to understand the matter according to human research or in the light of Holly Books if you are mixing the two things , I assure you that actually you believe in human research , and you adopt the religion to change of taste. After receiving your reply I will try to give you my observations.
3. You asked,š **I also am trying to figure out, are you trying to prove that the "Harmony of Science and Religion" is false?>>>>>>>>>
No spared need to reply. Devine knowledge given to humanity should be super seated , otherwise no need to inform the believers , the themselves achieve by their wisdom∑∑∑
In Quran there is a verse that, „O ye men, it is you that stand in need of Allah, but Allah is He Who in Self Sufficient, the Praiseworthy.š You asked my introduction, I can say only this, that I am needful to Him and nothing else my static value, You know my name. Please forgive me if you feel some unsuitable words in my writings. With regards. Munir A. Qureshi.

this topic is closed - post at