Questions about the Baha'i

smaneck said:

Hi Niblo,

Did you by any chance read this article? I'd like to hear your comments on it:

A Bahá'í Approach to the Claim of Finality in Islam

Click to expand...

What's the difference between the Bab and Bah'ullah?

Do Bahais believe these men ever performed any miracles?

-

Supreme said:

What's the difference between the Bab and Bah'ullah?

Do Bahais believe these men ever performed any miracles?

Click to expand...

The Bab was the precursor of Baha'u'llah ... His name was Siyyid Ali Muhammad ... He was a merchant by trade... He declared His Mission in 1844 in Shiraz, Iran. He claimed to fulfill the prophesies of the Mahdi.. and the return of the twelfth Imam.. His early followers were also students of Shaykh Ahmad..

Baha'u'llah came later and recognized the claims of the Bab..The Bab revealed there would be One Whom God would make manifest ...after His passing.. The Bab was executed in 1850 in Tabriz.

Most of the followers of the Bab recognized Baha'u'llah His station as fulfilling the promise of the Bab. Mirza Husayn Ali Nuri was the His name and He was from an aristocratic family of the province of Nur near the Caspian .. He was recognized as Baha.. (Glory..Splendour of God).

The above is somewhat similar to the Gospel story of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ.

While there are miracles recorded... in and of themselves they are not regarded as proofs...as a miracle is more miraculous to the one who experiences it than from hear say...

Supreme said:

What's the difference between the Bab and Bah'ullah?

Do Bahais believe these men ever performed any miracles?

Click to expand...

While Baha'is regard both the Bab and Baha'u'llah as Manifestations of God, we consider the Bab also to be the forerunner of Baha'u'llah. As for miracles, I would say both men performed miracles but we don't talk about them that much because Baha'is don't consider miracles as proof of the truth of a revelation. However, there is a rather spectacular miracle associated with the martyrdom of the Bab. An Armenian regiment had been charged with the duty of executing the Bab by firing squad. Sam Khan who headed that regiment, approached the Bab: 'I profess the Christian Faith and entertain no ill will against you. If your Cause be the Cause of truth, enable me to free myself from the obligation to shed your blood.' To this the Báb replied: 'Follow your instructions, and if your intention be sincere, the Almighty is surely able to relieve you from your perplexity.'

"The Báb and His disciple were suspended by ropes from a nail in the wall, the head of Mirza Muhammad-'Ali resting on the breast of the Báb. Seven hundred and fifty soldiers were positioned in three files. Roofs of the buildings around teemed with spectators.

Each row of soldiers fired in turn. The smoke from so many rifles clouded the scene. When it lifted the Báb was not there. Only His disciple could be seen, standing under the nail in the wall, smiling and unconcerned. Bullets had only severed the ropes with which they were suspended. Cries rang out from the onlookers: 'The Siyyid-i-Báb has gone from our sight!'

A frantic search followed. The Báb was found, sitting in the same room where He had been lodged the night before, in conversation with His amanuensis. That conversation had been interrupted earlier in the day. Now it was finished and He told the farrash-bashi to carry out his duty. But the farrash-bashi was terror-stricken and ran away, nor did he ever return to his post. Sam Khan, for his part, told his superiors that he had carried out the task given to him; he would not attempt it a second time. So Aqa Jan Khan-i-Khamsih and his Nasiri regiment replaced the Armenians, and the Báb and His disciple were suspended once again at the same spot. The Nasiri regiment fired. The bodies of the Báb and His disciple were shattered, and their flesh was united."
— H.M. Balyuzi

Unlike the miracles associated with Christ, we don't just have the testimony of Christians for this event. Here is a Western account:

The founder of the sect has been executed at Tabreez. He was killed by a volley of musketry, and his death was on the point of giving his religion a lustre which would have largely increased his proselytes. When the smoke and dust cleared away after the volley, Báb was not to be seen, and the populace proclaimed that he had ascended to the skies. The balls had broken the ropes by which he was bound, but he was dragged from the recess where after some search he was discovered and shot. His death, according to the belief of his disciples, will make no difference as Báb must always exist.
— Sir Justin Shiel

There are also accounts by Shi'ite clerics very antagonistic towards the religion but even they admit the following, although they differ as to what happened to Anis.

1. The Báb and Anís were suspended about three meters above the ground on a rope and fired on by a Christian regiment.
2. The bullets cut the rope and one bullet wounded Anís.
3. The Báb ran into one of the rooms in the barracks.
4. The Báb was brought back out and he and Anís were shot again, this time fatally.

AskTheFamily said:

Smaneck, a Nabi receives revelation or gives news from the heavens, while a Messenger has the clear conveyance.

All Messengers are naturally Nabis, but some Nabis worked to expand on the clear message of a Messenger in which they come as a successor/leader after.

However, as the place of Aeron to Moses shows, there being no Prophet after Mohammad implies Ali is a not a Messenger...otherwise Ali would have been a Messenger as Harun is stated to be a Messenger in Quran but not a Nabi if your interpretation is correct.

The correct understanding is Nubuwa pertains to any revelation given to humanity in form of knowledge while Raselah is the outreaching of the reminder to the masses in a clear manner that is understood by all.

Some Nabis weren't Rasools only due to the fact the clear Resalah message existed among their people and they were just revealing additional wisdom and reminder.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your post Ask the Family.. You are quite knowledgeable and I'm so glad you have found certitude in your faith... It might be of interest to you what the Baha'i view is on the subject as you may have already heard I'll review it again here...

The following is from an article on an academic web site:

... Nabi comes from the same root as Nobovvat (bringing or giving news). It means a person who brings the news, who prophesizes. Rasul, on the other hand, comes from the same root as Resaalat (Mission). Rasul is a person who has a mission or pronounces a mission. In Islamic literature these two terms some times are used interchangeably. Technically speaking Rasul is equal to a Manifestation of God while Nabi is a lesser prophet who comes under the shadow of a Manifestation. For example Muhammad is Rasul of God. Zakaria is a Nabi in Biblical tradition.

Here is the source:

Kitáb-i-Íqán: Faculty notes

We regard both the Bab and Baha'u'llah as Manifestations of God... You can learn more about the term here:

The Concept of Manifestation in the Bahá'í Writings

كَانَ النَّاسُ أُمَّةً وَاحِدَةً فَبَعَثَ اللَّهُ النَّبِيِّينَ مُبَشِّرِينَ وَمُنْذِرِينَ وَأَنْزَلَ مَعَهُمُ الْكِتَابَ بِالْحَقِّ لِيَحْكُمَ بَيْنَ النَّاسِ فِيمَا اخْتَلَفُوا فِيهِ ۚ وَمَا اخْتَلَفَ فِيهِ إِلَّا الَّذِينَ أُوتُوهُ مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا جَاءَتْهُمُ الْبَيِّنَاتُ بَغْيًا بَيْنَهُمْ ۖ فَهَدَى اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لِمَا اخْتَلَفُوا فِيهِ مِنَ الْحَقِّ بِإِذْنِهِ ۗ وَاللَّهُ يَهْدِي مَنْ يَشَاءُ إِلَىٰ صِرَاطٍ مُسْتَقِيمٍ {213}
[Shakir 2:213] (All) people are a single nation; so Allah raised prophets as bearers of good news and as warners, and He revealed with them the Book with truth, that it might judge between people in that in which they differed; and none but the very people who were given it differed about it after clear arguments had come to them, revolting among themselves; so Allah has guided by His will those who believe to the truth about which they differed and Allah guides whom He pleases to the right path.


وَأَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ ۚ فَإِنْ تَوَلَّيْتُمْ فَإِنَّمَا عَلَىٰ رَسُولِنَا الْبَلَاغُ الْمُبِينُ {12}
[Shakir 64:12] And obey Allah and obey the Messenger, but if you turn back, then upon Our Messenger devolves only the clear delivery (of the message).

Although the word delivery is used, balagha suggests reaching out with the message and communicating the message.

وَأَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَاحْذَرُوا ۚ فَإِنْ تَوَلَّيْتُمْ فَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّمَا عَلَىٰ رَسُولِنَا الْبَلَاغُ الْمُبِينُ {92}
[Shakir 5:92] And obey Allah and obey the messenger and be cautious; but if you turn back, then know that only a clear deliverance of the message is (incumbent) on Our messenger.


An example of Nubuwa vs Resalah, is the issue of Imammate of Ali. As you know verses like 42:23/25:57, 4:54-4:59 reveal the Imammate of the family of Mohammad but according to 5:67, what was revealed about Imam Ali needed to be conveyed/out reached/delivered or else the message would not have been delivered.

يَا أَيُّهَا الرَّسُولُ بَلِّغْ مَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْكَ مِنْ رَبِّكَ ۖ وَإِنْ لَمْ تَفْعَلْ فَمَا بَلَّغْتَ رِسَالَتَهُ ۚ وَاللَّهُ يَعْصِمُكَ مِنَ النَّاسِ ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الْكَافِرِينَ {67}
[Shakir 5:67] O Messenger! deliver what bas been revealed to you from your Lord; and if you do it not, then you have not delivered His message, and Allah will protect you from the people; surely Allah will not guide the unbelieving people.

This shows as a Messenger it has to be clear message and delivery to all people.

His Nubuwa however contains knowledge that is not known to everyone. Quran has knowledge that not everyone easily understands although it has been made easy to remember the fundamental truths. The same is true of his revelation and wisdom, aside from the clear message he conveyed, there is a higher wisdom.

That is why Ali was said to be the door to the house of the wisdom or gate to the city of the knowledge, because, there was more knowledge in Nubuwa of Mohammad to be taught then that which was conveyed to the masses. The clear message.

The giving news/information of Ahlulbayt Imammate is in Quran (nubuwa), however, the clear conveyance to all the masses and to the future generations of the nation, was through the message of ghadeer.

Notice the emphasis is if they turn back, than it wasn't an obligation for the Messenger to teach them everything but rather just deliver the clear message.

If they follow the Nabi, then the Nabi will be an Imam who guides by God's command and guide them through the unseen journey.

The Quran called Mohammad both a Nabi and a Rasool.

Thanks for your post All in the Family!

Is that all your own composition? Did you study in a Shiah school?

You could be a fine writer for a Shiah school maybe in Iran?

Essentially for me as a Baha'i the main Rasuls tend to bring scriptures, laws and ordinances. Moses, Christ, Muhammad brought scriptures laws, ordinances. They may also abrogate the earlier laws...

The Nabiyim warn and prophecy as well as the Rasul but are under Their shadow.

Check this out:

arabic - What is the difference between NABI and RASUL? - Islam Stack Exchange

smaneck said:

Let's stay on the same page. You inferred Muhammad committed a sin by taking wives as war booty, something the Hebrew people are explicitly allowed to do in the Tanakh. We are not talking about conquering Palestine as a whole. The truth, is that if these woman were not taken and married to their captors they would likely die with no one to protect them. It wasn't a sin to do this, it was a necessity. It was no different in Muhammad's time than it was in the time of the ancient Hebrews. And nowhere does Jesus abrogate this. The Baha'i Faith is the first religion to abolish slavery.

Click to expand...

The Jews were under the command of Moses, who allowed the divorces because "their hearts are hard", where Jesus said God does not like divorces and divorce and re-marry are committing adultery.

If to marry a woman is to prevent her from dieing (i.e. to save another person because of love), that is not sin, since Love is the law that all other law hung on (according to Jesus). But at the time of Muhammad, the conquers are no longer God's command for Jews to take the promised land, the women can live well on their own (because some of them are ransomed back). Not to mention Jesus has clearly given commandments clarify adultery, killing, and the greatest commandment is now Love, even toward enemies.

dcalling said:

If to marry a woman is to prevent her from dieing (i.e. to save another person because of love), that is not sin, since Love is the law that all other law hung on (according to Jesus). But at the time of Muhammad, the conquers are no longer God's command for Jews to take the promised land, the women can live well on their own (because some of them are ransomed back).

Click to expand...

They were under the another command from God, namely to fight against those who were persecuting the Muslim. Unlike Jesus, Muhammad had a community to protect. And no, there is no way women in 7th century Arabia could live on their own. The ones who Muhammad married were not in the position to be ransomed. Women were taken only when the menfolk had been killed.

I would summarize the Baha'i understanding of religious truth in this way. Baha'is believe that God works through history, religion, and human actions inspired by God. And that this is how the Kingdom of God is built on the earth, not through unscientific and bizarre events like coffins popping up out of the ground, religious figures flying through the air and shooting fire out of their eyes, or God leading a literal army which will destroy the evildoers.

Baha'is see the eschaton as describing a spiritual event of transformation through the same kinds of processes that have taken place throughout the history of human individual and cultural development, not via magic. We don't believe God will use overt and unscientific miracles to remake the world, but that human beings, turning towards God's teachings for this Day (equality of men and women, the oneness of humanity, the unity of religion, the necessity of abolishing war, etc.) will, through the inspiration of the Divine Purpose, work together to achieve it.

smaneck said:

They were under the another command from God, namely to fight against those who were persecuting the Muslim. Unlike Jesus, Muhammad had a community to protect. And no, there is no way women in 7th century Arabia could live on their own. The ones who Muhammad married were not in the position to be ransomed. Women were taken only when the menfolk had been killed.

Click to expand...

The first century Christians were under much harsher persecution from the Romans, and they followed Jesus commandments.

The women has communities to return to, they will live fine without been looted.

There are ahadith that shows Muhammad fight not just to protect too, this happens after God's message of peace and love.

dcalling said:

The first century Christians were under much harsher persecution from the Romans, and they followed Jesus commandments.

Click to expand...

First century Christians were under the rule of an Empire they couldn't hope to succeed in opposing.

The women has communities to return to, they will live fine without been looted.

Click to expand...

Where are you getting this from? In both Muhammad's case and Moses' we are talking about communities where all the men have been killed and the women and children enslaved.

smaneck said:

First century Christians were under the rule of an Empire they couldn't hope to succeed in opposing.

Click to expand...

That is debatable.

smaneck said:

Where are you getting this from? In both Muhammad's case and Moses' we are talking about communities where all the men have been killed and the women and children enslaved.

Click to expand...

Totally different. Moses was under then command of God to take over promised land, Muhammad was fighting other tribes etc, and he even demanded randoms. If he just let the women go without the random, the girl will be better off.

dcalling,

There are a lot of prejudices and bias built up over the centuries toward Prophet Muhammad and a fair examination I think will show that after the Hijra the actions of the Prophet were largely defensive in nature... The women in His household were not ransomed..Some of them were married for reasons of state.. Mary the Copt for example.

As Baha'is we don't agree with some Christians about the life of the Prophet... and we don't hold with many Muslims that the Gospel was corrupted either.

You might be interested in the following article on "Christianity from a Baha'i perspective"

http://bahai-library.com/stockman_christianity_bahai_perspective&chapter=1

-

dcalling said:

That is debatable.

Click to expand...

Not really. The Jews did oppose them and we see the result. They were fewer Christians at the time than there were Jews.

Totally different. Moses was under then command of God to take over promised land, Muhammad was fighting other tribes etc, and he even demanded randoms. If he just let the women go without the random, the girl will be better off.

Click to expand...

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. Muhammad was under the Command of God just as much as Moses. There are only two women, captured as slaves, who the Prophet subsequently married. One of them was a Jewish woman whose entire menfolk had been massacred as a result of betraying Muhammad when they were supposed to be allies. The second was of a tribal chieftain whose husband had died in battle. She could have been ransomed, but since this meant that the tribe which had fought against Muhammad were now kinsmen this meant that all the other people of her tribe were released, more than a hundred of them. In other words Muhammad, like so many rulers often took additional wives in order to form alliances.

smaneck said:

Not really. The Jews did oppose them and we see the result. They were fewer Christians at the time than there were Jews.

Click to expand...

Not true. Certainly, in Arabia, the Jewish community was probably as sizeable as the Christian one, but Christianity in the 7th century had a very large number of adherents.

Mumin said:

"he has revealed"? he rather wanted to distort a revelation.

Click to expand...

Baha'is view Divine Revelation as possessing many different meanings, not just one meaning. So I would not say Baha'u'llah was "distorting" the Qur'an, simply conveying another meaning within the text.

From the Hadith:

"We speak one word, and by it we intend one and seventy meanings..."

It is clear Baha'allah distorted the meaning of the day of judgement/rising in Quran.

-