Discussion of Islam - split from Bahais(discussion/debate)

Really? Funny. There is no verse 5:157 in the Qur'an.

------------

BUUUUUUUUUUUUT... I'm pretty sure you're talking about 4:157.

According to my understanding of docetism, Muslims cannot have docetic understanding regarding this verse or any other verse regarding Jesus, because we don't believe he was God... just a regular human like you and me... a really, really, really good man, but just a man.

Just because the verse says that it was 'made to appear' that he was crucified when he was not, does not mean that we believe that Jesus's body wasn't a real body.

Like most libraries, Bahai-library collects all sorts of stuff. There's at least one anti-Bahai book there: I know because I used OCR to scan and proof-read it. In the case of the translation by MacEoin, it's a good translation, and has comments you may make up your own mind about. If I had been writing the commentary, I would have pointed out that Shia marriage law does not require any witnesses, and that Sunni law gives less value to the witness of a woman. The things Baha'u'llah changed, as compared to Islamic law and customs, seem to me as interesting as what he left unchanged.

While most of the translations of scripture are by Bahais, we also use those by non-Bahais (and there are some by Bahais that are so bad no-one uses them!). Traveller's Narrative, a book by (or commissioned by, the history's not clear) Abdu'l-Baha, translated by EG Browne, a non-Bahai. If you look at his commentary on it (in the Philo Press edition), there's some things that look wrong, and other points where he says himself that he hasn't been able to get a clear idea of the Bahai attitude (eg on politics and the constitutional revolution in Iran).

Once, in a discussion on what could be considered the "core teachings" (what Catholics call dogma) of the Bahai Faith, I was presented with this:

[the Bahai Faith] "has no clergy, no religious ceremonial, no public prayers; its only dogma is belief in God and in his Manifestations (Zoroaster, Moses, Jesus, et al., Baha'o'llah)."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Tablets of Abdu'l-Baha v3)

This must be right, right? Tablets of Abdu'l-Baha is a good source. So no rituals, public prayer or dogmas?

No - the editors of the book put in a Foreword for the benefit of readers who might not know anything about the Bahai Faith, and they used an article translated from the Encyclopaedia Larousse. I suppose for the same reason that I direct people to the wikipedia article on the Bahai Faith for basic information: they start with the assurance of a broad-brush picture that they know is not written by biased insiders.

The moral of the story is - whatever the book may be, check out who is speaking.

Th Bahai Faith does have rituals, public prayers, and dogmas: the Encyclopaedia (in about 1915) may be unbiased but it was not very knowledgeable.

Referring again to post 86 regarding Banu quraiza here is the hadith regarding Muhammad's Seal of Approval to kill men and enslave women and children (to be sold later).
Sahih Bukhari 5:59:447

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: The people of (Banu) quraiza agreed to accept the verdict of Sad bin Muadh. So the Prophet sent for Saad, and the latter came (riding) a donkey and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said to the Ansar, "Get up for your chief or for the best among you." Then the Prophet said (to Sad)." These have agreed to accept your verdict." Sad said, "Kill their (men) warriors and take their offspring as captives, "On that the Prophet said, "You have judged according to Allah's Judgment," ..

Does the Quran accept this hadith?.
Quran 8:67 It is not for any prophet to have captivesuntil he hath made slaughterin the land.

This should answer objections raised by jjwhite and slaveofgod regarding Muhammad's biography(Sirat or seerah).

Edited reference post number

We (I am sure of JJWhite's acceptance) accept that hadith as authentic and true - no doubt

That Quran ayah refers specfically to the battle of Badr as far as I know.

Now do you accept this verse from the Bible?
When judgement was passed on Banu Qurazyah this is the verse which was used for their punishment

Do you accept that?

We (I am sure of JJWhite's acceptance) accept that hadith as authentic and true - no doubt

That Quran ayah refers specfically to the battle of Badr as far as I know.

Now do you accept this verse from the Bible?

When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

When judgement was passed on Banu Qurazyah this is the verse which was used for their punishment

Not just the banu quraiza, Muhammad and his Sahaba made living by Looting.The Sunna(sayings and practices) of muhammad show this.I have given refrences in posts 135 and 136.


No, i don't.


Incase you have forgotten u accepted that Quran verse 8:67 was in relation to banu quraiza.

No body is going to accept it.That is why we have "man made" Laws regarding how to treat civilians in war zones.

Now it is your turn.

Do you accept man made laws or you want to live by Quran and sunna of muhammad?.

Muhammad and his Sahaba made living by Looting.The Sunna(sayings and practices) of muhammad show this.

I have a suggestion. Why don't you read more of the Sunnah, so you can examine what Prophet Muhammad (s) and the Sahabah did with what was acquired?