Bahai Forums

Go Back   Baha'i Forums > Baha'i Forums > Baha'i Teachings

Baha'i Teachings Baha'i Teachings and Doctrine - Social Principles, Greater Covenant, Lesser Covenant


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-21-2014, 01:55 AM   #41
Senior Member
 
Sen McGlinn's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: New Zealand mainly
Posts: 699
Quote:
Originally Posted by h123 View Post
Unfortunately you have misread both words.
First, it is not "Ahmari" it is "akhbari" which means "news" or "reports" or "narrations". And it is not a fable, apparently it is a reference to reports from the Bab, or words of God.
Second, the last word before what I have quoted is "entiha" that means "end" or "finish" Showing the last section has come to an end and what I quoted is a new section.
Third, the second word you have mentioned is not "befarma'id" it is "befarmayad," and what I have translated is correct.

You are right that it reads akhbari, “any reports,” and befarmayad, “he may command,” however my point remains: one cannot pick out a couple of words and interpret them without considering the context. For example, the Bible says, “curse God and die.” You could argue whether this means we should curse God and die, or if we do curse God we will die, but the context shows the actual meaning::
Quote:
Job 2:9 Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die. But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.
You say the previous quote is from the Bab or from God. Or from someone else. It makes a difference, surely, to know what it is that Baha’u’llah is answering or commenting upon. The quote which the copyist has overlined in black ends with enteha. This is common, it just means, “end of quote.” It does not mean you can disregard everything that went before. It may be crucial to understanding who is speaking next, and what he means.

For example, in Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, Baha’u’llah quotes the Bab’s address to Dayan, concerning the hidden and preserved knowledge. That quote ends with ‘enteha’. Then Baha’u’llah explains what is meant. It is a form of argument you will learn to recognise, if you read more of his works. I found 26 instances in the Epistle to the Son of the Wolf alone.

Towards the end of his life, Baha’u’llah wrote a number of very clear works setting out his teachings systematically: The Epistle to the Son of the Wolf is a long one, but there are also short works such as the Bisharat, Tarazat, Tajalliyat, Kalimat-i-firdawsiyyih and Lawh-e Dunya.

Rather than starting with a word here and there in the Kitab-e Badi, an approach that does not give you any context for understanding, I suggest you begin with these shorter works, followed by the Epistle to the Son of the Wolf. That will give you a general framework of Baha’u’llah’s teachings, and also familiarize you with the terminology he uses. For a contemporary reader, it is somewhat archaic, and there are some grammatical features common to Babi and Bahai texts which Browne comments on, I think in the Introduction to his translation of the Traveller’s Narrative. With that background, and a bit of research into the addressee and context of the Kitab-e Badi, you will be in a position to read the book from the beginning. It appears there is no-one on this discussion forum who has read the Kitab-e Badi thoroughly.
 
Join Baha'i Forums


Welcome to Baha'i Forums, an open Baha'i Faith community! We welcome everyone and the community is free to join so register today and become part of the Baha'i Forums family!


Old 01-21-2014, 03:06 AM   #42
Banned Camp
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: under God's grace
Posts: 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sen McGlinn View Post
You are right that it reads akhbari, “any reports,” and befarmayad, “he may command,” however my point remains: one cannot pick out a couple of words and interpret them without considering the context. For example, the Bible says, “curse God and die.” You could argue whether this means we should curse God and die, or if we do curse God we will die, but the context shows the actual meaning::


You say the previous quote is from the Bab or from God. Or from someone else. It makes a difference, surely, to know what it is that Baha’u’llah is answering or commenting upon. The quote which the copyist has overlined in black ends with enteha. This is common, it just means, “end of quote.” It does not mean you can disregard everything that went before. It may be crucial to understanding who is speaking next, and what he means.

For example, in Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, Baha’u’llah quotes the Bab’s address to Dayan, concerning the hidden and preserved knowledge. That quote ends with ‘enteha’. Then Baha’u’llah explains what is meant. It is a form of argument you will learn to recognise, if you read more of his works. I found 26 instances in the Epistle to the Son of the Wolf alone.

Towards the end of his life, Baha’u’llah wrote a number of very clear works setting out his teachings systematically: The Epistle to the Son of the Wolf is a long one, but there are also short works such as the Bisharat, Tarazat, Tajalliyat, Kalimat-i-firdawsiyyih and Lawh-e Dunya.

Rather than starting with a word here and there in the Kitab-e Badi, an approach that does not give you any context for understanding, I suggest you begin with these shorter works, followed by the Epistle to the Son of the Wolf. That will give you a general framework of Baha’u’llah’s teachings, and also familiarize you with the terminology he uses. For a contemporary reader, it is somewhat archaic, and there are some grammatical features common to Babi and Bahai texts which Browne comments on, I think in the Introduction to his translation of the Traveller’s Narrative. With that background, and a bit of research into the addressee and context of the Kitab-e Badi, you will be in a position to read the book from the beginning. It appears there is no-one on this discussion forum who has read the Kitab-e Badi thoroughly.
You bring up some good points, but they are not applicable to the current document. As you can see I have put the page that the quote has been taken from in my post. If you think I have taken anything out of context please show me. I am even willing to post the previous and next pages.

Anyway, irrespective of the context, Baha'u'llah is plainly calling some people-whoever they may be-donkeys.
 
Old 01-21-2014, 09:28 AM   #43
Senior Member
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: Canada
Posts: 1,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by h123 View Post
Although, what I brought up was meant to be compared with Baha'u'llah's own words about how to speak with and interact with other people and not compared with previous religions-for there are apparent differences in the teachings-but for the sake of fairness I will answer your objection.

The point you have brought up has one main difference with what Baha'u'llah has said. The parables you have mentioned use the words "as though they had been frightened" and "as bold as a lion". Pay attention to the words used. These words show that a specific trait is in mind and the parable is used to show a specific similarity between the two cases that has explicitly been mentioned. Unfortunately Baha'u'llah does not follow this pattern. He plainly refers to them as donkeys..
So, it seems to me, you are saying that if Baha'u'llah instead of saying "Oh you donkeys" have said "Oh you who are like donkeys", then it would have been fine, and you are saying that since Baha'u'llah did not say 'as if, or like donkeys' then He is actually refering to them the donkey animals who have 4 legs and two big ears!??
Are you joking? It is obvious that, Baha'u'llah is not thinking they are actually the animal donkeys as they are the infidles, but they have the characteristic of donkeys. It is not alwasy necessary to use 'as if' or 'like' to indicate a parable. As others had even shown that Quran calls Jews 'apes' because they broke the Sabbath Law. It doesn't say 'like apes'. So, do you think they literally became apes, or their characteristics became like apes?

فَلَمَّا عَتَوْا عَن مَّا نُهُوا عَنْهُ قُلْنَا لَهُمْ كُونُوا قِرَدَةً خَاسِئِينَ
"Be ye apes, despised and rejected." 7:166


And if your objection is that, it is not nice to call the infidles, donkeys, then, I have to tell you, God did not come so people think He is nice or not. He came for judgement, and to those who were like donkeys, He called them as such. In fact here is another one, where Baha'u'llah refers to them as 'Dogs':

"Encompassed as I am at this time by the dogs of the earth and the beasts of every land, concealed as I remain in the hidden habitation of Mine inner Being, forbidden as I may be from divulging that which God hath bestowed upon Me of the wonders of His knowledge, the gems of His wisdom, and the tokens of His power, yet am I loath to frustrate the hopes of one who hath approached the sanctuary of grandeur, sought to enter within the precincts of eternity, and aspired to soar in the immensity of this creation at the dawning of the divine decree." Gems of divine Mysteries, p.14

Moreover, I find it ironic, when Muslims had accepted that God takes the infidles to literally hell-fire and burns them there, but they cannot accept, God calls the infidles dogs and donkeys! A Fair judgemet is required.

Last edited by InvestigateTruth; 01-21-2014 at 09:33 AM.
 
Old 01-21-2014, 09:53 AM   #44
Senior Member
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: Canada
Posts: 1,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by h123 View Post

I'll quote myself from my first post: "These two phrases are usually put forward as the official Baha'i reaction towards non-Baha'is and followers of other religions. What I intend to show in this topic is that there are other orders and statements regarding non-Baha'is that are inconsistent with these two phrases."
Maybe I will be proved wrong, maybe I won't. In either case I, the other members, and those who will read the thread in the future will be able to decide on these issues with greater insight that is free from bias. As I have previously said, I am not dogmatic, If I am proved wrong I will change my beliefs.
Firstly, you need to see in their context, is Baha'u'llah refering to non-baha'is as donkeys, simply because they have a different belief, or is He refering to a particular non-baha'is who have been opposing the Revelation of God?
From the context is is clear, Baha'u'llah is talking about those infidles who tried to void the Words of Baha'u'llah, for He says:

"the truth and will not be made void by the words of the polytheists"

Secondly, there is a difference between authority of Baha'u'llah, and other Baha'is. Baha'u'llah had the Authority to judge mankind. The Baha'is do not have that authority. So, it is not like just because Baha'u'llah called them donkeys, now Baha'is are asked or have authority to call them as such. But as we have the instruction to be even kind to our enemies.
You see, that is a main difference between the way most Muslims act with regards to Revelation of Muhammad. So, for example, when Muhammad fought in His time, then the Muslims think they also have the right to do the same. This is not how we view religion.
 
Old 01-21-2014, 10:08 AM   #45
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2013
From: United States
Posts: 1,204
Yes, Baha'u'llah calls the ones who threw Him into the Siyah Chal, who strung up His Holiness the Bab, who martyred Mona for the crime of being a 16 year old Baha'i girl -- yes He calls them dogs and donkeys. He also prays for them, saying they know not what they do.
 
Old 01-21-2014, 10:52 AM   #46
Banned Camp
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: under God's grace
Posts: 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by InvestigateTruth View Post
So, it seems to me, you are saying that if Baha'u'llah instead of saying "Oh you donkeys" have said "Oh you who are like donkeys", then it would have been fine, and you are saying that since Baha'u'llah did not say 'as if, or like donkeys' then He is actually refering to them the donkey animals who have 4 legs and two big ears!??
Are you joking? It is obvious that, Baha'u'llah is not thinking they are actually the animal donkeys as they are the infidles, but they have the characteristic of donkeys. It is not alwasy necessary to use 'as if' or 'like' to indicate a parable. As others had even shown that Quran calls Jews 'apes' because they broke the Sabbath Law. It doesn't say 'like apes'. So, do you think they literally became apes, or their characteristics became like apes?

فَلَمَّا عَتَوْا عَن مَّا نُهُوا عَنْهُ قُلْنَا لَهُمْ كُونُوا قِرَدَةً خَاسِئِينَ
"Be ye apes, despised and rejected." 7:166


And if your objection is that, it is not nice to call the infidles, donkeys, then, I have to tell you, God did not come so people think He is nice or not. He came for judgement, and to those who were like donkeys, He called them as such. In fact here is another one, where Baha'u'llah refers to them as 'Dogs':

"Encompassed as I am at this time by the dogs of the earth and the beasts of every land, concealed as I remain in the hidden habitation of Mine inner Being, forbidden as I may be from divulging that which God hath bestowed upon Me of the wonders of His knowledge, the gems of His wisdom, and the tokens of His power, yet am I loath to frustrate the hopes of one who hath approached the sanctuary of grandeur, sought to enter within the precincts of eternity, and aspired to soar in the immensity of this creation at the dawning of the divine decree." Gems of divine Mysteries, p.14

Moreover, I find it ironic, when Muslims had accepted that God takes the infidles to literally hell-fire and burns them there, but they cannot accept, God calls the infidles dogs and donkeys! A Fair judgemet is required.
This is the last time I'll respond to Islamic discussions in this thread. For as I have said many times, I have not come here to preach nor defend Islam. If an atheist, christian, Buddhist, Jew, etc had said what I had said, would you have used verses of the Quran to justify your arguments?! If the Baha'i faith is in "accordance with science and reason" as it claims, there is no need to refer to Islamic beliefs and reasonable/logical arguments can be easily put forward to justify your claims. So, in this thread, simply view me as an atheist and prove your claims using reasoning and logic.

Now, as I said this is the last time I am continuing a discussion on Islam. If you want to refer to the Quran, at least refer to it in a truthful and sincere way. Where in my citations did I distort Baha'i scripture or put forward distorted and flawed translations? What you have quoted is a curse from God in which God curses those Jews by the sentence "Be you apes," but you are trying to make it look like God said this "Oh Jews you are apes." I'll leave it up to you to go and see what happened to the Jews after this curse because it is totally off-topic. What is clear is that God does not say to them "you are apes" and there is no name calling by God in Islam. Case closed.
Regarding, Heaven and Hell, Islam claimed from day 1 that there is Heaven and Hell. What relation this has to name calling in the Baha'i faith I fail to recognize.

What you said: "they cannot accept, God calls the infidles dogs and donkeys." shows that you see name calling by Baha'u'llah totally acceptable. That is all I wanted to show in Baha'u'llah's words and since you deem it appropriate there is no point in continuing this discussion, for the point has been accepted by you.

Last edited by h123; 01-21-2014 at 11:10 AM.
 
Old 01-21-2014, 11:08 AM   #47
Banned Camp
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: under God's grace
Posts: 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by InvestigateTruth View Post
Firstly, you need to see in their context, is Baha'u'llah refering to non-baha'is as donkeys, simply because they have a different belief, or is He refering to a particular non-baha'is who have been opposing the Revelation of God?
From the context is is clear, Baha'u'llah is talking about those infidles who tried to void the Words of Baha'u'llah, for He says:

"the truth and will not be made void by the words of the polytheists"

Secondly, there is a difference between authority of Baha'u'llah, and other Baha'is. Baha'u'llah had the Authority to judge mankind. The Baha'is do not have that authority. So, it is not like just because Baha'u'llah called them donkeys, now Baha'is are asked or have authority to call them as such. But as we have the instruction to be even kind to our enemies.
You see, that is a main difference between the way most Muslims act with regards to Revelation of Muhammad. So, for example, when Muhammad fought in His time, then the Muslims think they also have the right to do the same. This is not how we view religion.
Wrong again, but as I said no Islamic discussions here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Light View Post
Yes, Baha'u'llah calls the ones who threw Him into the Siyah Chal, who strung up His Holiness the Bab, who martyred Mona for the crime of being a 16 year old Baha'i girl -- yes He calls them dogs and donkeys. He also prays for them, saying they know not what they do.
"A kindly tongue is the lodestone of the hearts of men" - Baha'u'llah
 
Old 01-21-2014, 12:22 PM   #48
Senior Member
 
Sen McGlinn's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: New Zealand mainly
Posts: 699
Quote:
Originally Posted by h123 View Post
Anyway, irrespective of the context, Baha'u'llah is plainly calling some people-whoever they may be-donkeys.
What's your point? Unless we can figure out the context, the micro-fact seems to have no significance. What would be significant would be if this told us how he felt about certain thinking or behaviour. What thinking or behaviour is being called donkey-like? We need a context.

I am not able to read the book from the beginning myself, to follow the whole argument and see what point Baha'u'llah is making here. While the donkeys are there, I am not confident your translation is correct, for if it is, the word order is unusual for Persian. Again, this might become clearer from a reading of the context.
 
Old 01-21-2014, 12:35 PM   #49
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2013
From: United States
Posts: 1,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by h123 View Post
"A kindly tongue is the lodestone of the hearts of men" - Baha'u'llah
When someone is cutting your throat, it is not necessary to claim that they are on a high spiritual plane. Because they have proven what they are by their own actions.

Of course to blame all Muslims, of Shia, for the actions of a few is completely not acceptable. But we will not claim that those who murdered Baha'is for their faith are meritorious in God's sight. They are not, and never shall be.
 
Old 01-21-2014, 12:55 PM   #50
Member
 
Joined: Jan 2014
From: it's too cold
Posts: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by h123 View Post
This is the last time I'll respond to Islamic discussions in this thread. For as I have said many times, I have not come here to preach nor defend Islam. If an atheist, christian, Buddhist, Jew, etc had said what I had said, would you have used verses of the Quran to justify your arguments?! If the Baha'i faith is in "accordance with science and reason" as it claims, there is no need to refer to Islamic beliefs and reasonable/logical arguments can be easily put forward to justify your claims. So, in this thread, simply view me as an atheist and prove your claims using reasoning and logic.

Now, as I said this is the last time I am continuing a discussion on Islam. If you want to refer to the Quran, at least refer to it in a truthful and sincere way. Where in my citations did I distort Baha'i scripture or put forward distorted and flawed translations? What you have quoted is a curse from God in which God curses those Jews by the sentence "Be you apes," but you are trying to make it look like God said this "Oh Jews you are apes." I'll leave it up to you to go and see what happened to the Jews after this curse because it is totally off-topic. What is clear is that God does not say to them "you are apes" and there is no name calling by God in Islam. Case closed.
Regarding, Heaven and Hell, Islam claimed from day 1 that there is Heaven and Hell. What relation this has to name calling in the Baha'i faith I fail to recognize.

What you said: "they cannot accept, God calls the infidles dogs and donkeys." shows that you see name calling by Baha'u'llah totally acceptable. That is all I wanted to show in Baha'u'llah's words and since you deem it appropriate there is no point in continuing this discussion, for the point has been accepted by you.
I know Muslims don't believe in the Bible but here you go:

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.

You are trying to deflect from the what seem to be contradictions in your own religion by constantly insisting the Baha'i Faith has contradictions. To human minds, yes, just as your religion does. The Baha'i Faith requires the reconciliation of certain concepts. We recognize how we are born noble yet some people are horribly immoral. We recognize God is wrathful and angry but gentle and kind. We recognize God condemns and punishes but humans don't have the right to condemn others and we are to conceal the sin of others. We show kindness and friendship but turn away from the ungodly. Baha'u'llah came to serve His mission and not to be a crowd-pleaser or tell everyone what they'd like to hear. Sometimes the truth hurts.

Not everything is black and white. The same paradoxes exist in your religion (and every other religion in the entire world) but you try to draw away from this.

Look at this quote from Shoghi Effendi:

Let us also bear in mind that the keynote of the Cause of God is not dictatorial authority but humble fellowship, not arbitrary power, but the spirit of frank and loving consultation. Nothing short of the spirit of a true Bahá’í can hope to reconcile the principles of mercy and justice, of freedom and submission, of the sanctity of the right of the individual and of self-surrender, of vigilance, discretion and prudence on the one hand, and fellowship, candor, and courage on the other.

This perfectly illustrates the reconciliation of these principles.

Jews and Christians reconcile God embarking on mass murdering sprees yet still being loving, gentle, and kind. Jesus was loving and kind, but He strongly condemned the Jews who openly rejected Him. The Bible and the Qur'an both use stark words of condemnation.

John the Baptist in Matthew 3:7

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Jesus in Matthew 12:34

O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

Jesus in Matthew 16:3-4

And in the morning, ‘It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” So he left them and departed.

Jesus to Peter in Matthew 16:23

But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

Jesus in Matthew 17:17

And Jesus answered, “O faithless and twisted generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you? Bring him here to me.”

Matthew 23:13-19

But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell[b] as yourselves.

“Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred? And you say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.’ You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred?

Mark 7:27

And he said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”

Luke 11:40

You fools! Did not he who made the outside make the inside also?

John 8:44

You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Paul in Acts 13:10

...and said, “You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord?

But wait, Jesus is wrong by His own standards!

Matthew 5:44

But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

The passage in the beginning of Jesus directs us to not judge others but jesus judged others constantly.

Luke 6:37

Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

Jesus condemns evilness frequently.

Romans 12:10

Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.

This comes from the guy who was throwing every insult in the book at the ungodly.

God and Baha'ullah could lie to everyone and say, "Hey, please be nice" but that wouldn't work out great. To me an effective warning that seems harsh and unkind is better than a meek, ineffective warning pandering to someone's feelings whilst they wallow in waywardness. This is true kindness so these people would know their souls are in danger and be redeemed by God if they choose so.

If you can't find a way to reconcile this the Islam is not for you not is Christianity, the Baha'i faith or any religion.
 
Old 01-21-2014, 01:06 PM   #51
Member
 
Joined: Jan 2014
From: it's too cold
Posts: 88
Here is the full text.

http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/areprint...tab-i_Badi.pdf

The Kitab-i-Badi was written by Baha'ullah to defend Himself against the slander. This make the tone commanding, even polemical. The text is very hard to read in some places. I mean like illegible and faded.

Here is the description from the academic site:

of Baha'u'llah. Tehran: Privately published by "284", n.d. [early 1940's ?]. Reprinted, East Lansing, Mi.: H-Bahai, 2004. Baha'u'llah's apologia, written to refute the accusations leveled against him by Mirza Mihdiy-i-Rashti (Mirza Mihdiy-i Gilani) in defense of the new faith. Similar to the Kitab-i-Iqan but twice as long. Written in Persian and Arabic during the Edirne period.The same images were used when the Kitáb-i Badí‘ was published in 1992/148 BE by Zero Palm Press.

I hope this is translated soon.

Last edited by bahaiextraordinaire; 01-24-2014 at 05:33 AM.
 
Old 01-21-2014, 04:33 PM   #52
Senior Member
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: Canada
Posts: 1,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by h123 View Post
If an atheist, christian, Buddhist, Jew, etc had said what I had said, would you have used verses of the Quran to justify your arguments?! If the Baha'i faith is in "accordance with science and reason" as it claims, there is no need to refer to Islamic beliefs and reasonable/logical arguments can be easily put forward to justify your claims. So, in this thread, simply view me as an atheist and prove your claims using reasoning and logic.
My friend, the logic is that, when you have introduced yourself as a Shia Muslim, it makes sense to discuss things from a 'common point'. The common point between Shia and Baha'i, is Quran, and the authentic Shia traditions.
Moreover, If you don't want me to discuss from our common point, then to be fair, let's discuss from an 'unbiased' and 'neutral' point of view.
A 'neutral' and 'unbiased' person, is one who neither believes or disbelieves, but rather he says: "Baha'i Faith may or may not be divinely inspired, but let me learn before I judge'. But that is not how you have started. Your position is 'I know Baha'i faith is a false religion, so let me show why it is false'. If you claim you have been unbiased, I disagree, and I will show you below why:

Quote:
...shows that you see name calling by Baha'u'llah totally acceptable. That is all I wanted to show in Baha'u'llah's words and since you deem it appropriate there is no point in continuing this discussion, for the point has been accepted by you.
This is a wrong conclusion, because you are putting words in my mouth.
Firstly, in Baha'i view, Baha'u'llah is not doing 'name calling', but He is passing judgement on those infidels who have opposed the Revelation of God and harmed Baha'u'llah, and His followers. Moreover, from a Baha'i View, every word that comes out from Mouth of Baha'u'llah, is, 'how and what' God told Baha'u'llah to say, regardless if the words appear to be from Baha'u'llah or God, even as it was revealed by Baha'u'llah:

"He speaketh not as prompted by His own self, but as bidden by Him Who is the All-Knowing, the All-Wise." The Most Holy Tablet

Now, let's look at it from an 'unbiased and neutral' point of view".

From this point of view we don't know if indeed Baha'u'llah is revealing the word of God or not, but we cannot reject the possibility, therefore, the question is, if indeed Baha'u'llah is revealing what God asks Him, is it possible that, this God judges and rebukes those who opposed His Messenger and harmed Him and His revelation, by addressing them with words such as 'donkeys and dogs'?

an unbiased and neutral answer is: 'this is possible, because I cannot determine how this God should or should not address His enemies, neither I know how would this God speaks, therefore how can I know if this is not possible?'.

But you are not unbiased, because either you are saying, 'Baha'u'llah surely was not speaking the word of God', or you are saying 'God cannot, and would not speak like this to His enemies'.




Quote:
Now, as I said this is the last time I am continuing a discussion on Islam. If you want to refer to the Quran, at least refer to it in a truthful and sincere way. Where in my citations did I distort Baha'i scripture or put forward distorted and flawed translations?
You have tried to put words in my mouth as I showed above. The form of distortion from you, is not in translation, but a misinterpretation that ignores the historical context.



Quote:
What you have quoted is a curse from God in which God curses those Jews by the sentence "Be you apes,"
Well, here you are speaking as Muslim. But if you were an atheist who thinks that Muhammad invented Quran, then from the atheist point of view, it is not God who is cursing them, but it is Muhammad who is doing 'name calling' indirectly, by pretending these are the words of God. That is how you are treating the Baha'i Scriptures. Are you not?

Last edited by InvestigateTruth; 01-21-2014 at 04:36 PM.
 
Old 01-21-2014, 10:49 PM   #53
Banned Camp
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: under God's grace
Posts: 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sen McGlinn View Post
What's your point? Unless we can figure out the context, the micro-fact seems to have no significance. What would be significant would be if this told us how he felt about certain thinking or behaviour. What thinking or behaviour is being called donkey-like? We need a context.

I am not able to read the book from the beginning myself, to follow the whole argument and see what point Baha'u'llah is making here. While the donkeys are there, I am not confident your translation is correct, for if it is, the word order is unusual for Persian. Again, this might become clearer from a reading of the context.
As I said the text is there. If you think there are problems in the context and translation please show which part has what problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Light View Post
When someone is cutting your throat, it is not necessary to claim that they are on a high spiritual plane. Because they have proven what they are by their own actions.

Of course to blame all Muslims, of Shia, for the actions of a few is completely not acceptable. But we will not claim that those who murdered Baha'is for their faith are meritorious in God's sight. They are not, and never shall be.
Actually Mathew,
I agree with what you say. My common-sense tells me that evil must be dealt with accordingly as must, good. I know you don't disagree with me. What irritates me is the fact that when Baha'is preach the Baha'i faith, a farfetched version of "oneness of humanity" is put forward. All I ever see are the two quotes similar to those in post #1 and to this:
" If others hurl their darts against you, offer them milk and honey in return; if they poison your lives, sweeten their souls; if they injure you, teach them how to be comforted; if they inflict a wound upon you, be a balm to their sores; if they sting you, hold to their lips a refreshing cup."

Or

"See enemies as friends and consider demons as angels. Deal with betrayers with utter kindness as you would with the loyal. Make bloodthirsty wolves smell the scent of musk like gazelles. Give traitors shelter and refuge and be the reason for peace of the heart and soul of the anxious." (Abdu’l-Bahā’, Makātīb, vol. 3, p. 160.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bahaiextraordinaire View Post
You are trying to deflect from the what seem to be contradictions in your own religion by constantly insisting the Baha'i Faith has contradictions. To human minds, yes, just as your religion does. The Baha'i Faith requires the reconciliation of certain concepts. We recognize how we are born noble yet some people are horribly immoral. We recognize God is wrathful and angry but gentle and kind. We recognize God condemns and punishes but humans don't have the right to condemn others and we are to conceal the sin of others. We show kindness and friendship but turn away from the ungodly. Baha'u'llah came to serve His mission and not to be a crowd-pleaser or tell everyone what they'd like to hear. Sometimes the truth hurts.

Not everything is black and white. The same paradoxes exist in your religion (and every other religion in the entire world) but you try to draw away from this.

Jews and Christians reconcile God embarking on mass murdering sprees yet still being loving, gentle, and kind. Jesus was loving and kind, but He strongly condemned the Jews who openly rejected Him. The Bible and the Qur'an both use stark words of condemnation.

. . .

God and Baha'ullah could lie to everyone and say, "Hey, please be nice" but that wouldn't work out great. To me an effective warning that seems harsh and unkind is better than a meek, ineffective warning pandering to someone's feelings whilst they wallow in waywardness. This is true kindness so these people would know their souls are in danger and be redeemed by God if they choose so.

If you can't find a way to reconcile this the Islam is not for you not is Christianity, the Baha'i faith or any religion.
1-Pay attention to what I answered to Mathew. My problem is with the farfetched version of peace and goodness preached by Baha'is far and wide whilst the sayings and actions of Baha'i leaders show otherwise. Don't compare that with other religions that have drawn a clear line from day 1 between good and bad, evil and non-eveil, believers and non-believers, enemies and friends, the loyal and traitors, wolves and sheep.

2-A religion with contradictions and paradoxes is void. It doesn't matter what it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bahaiextraordinaire View Post
Here is the full text.

http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/areprint...tab-i_Badi.pdf

The Kitab-i-Badi was written by Baha'ullah to defend Himself against the slander. This make the tone commanding, even polemical. The text is very hard to read in some places. I mean like illegible and faded.

Here is the description from the academic site:

of Baha'u'llah. Tehran: Privately published by "284", n.d. [early 1940's ?]. Reprinted, East Lansing, Mi.: H-Bahai, 2004. Baha'u'llah's apologia, written to refute the accusations leveled against him by Mirza Mihdiy-i-Rashti (Mirza Mihdiy-i Gilani) in defense of the new faith. Similar to the Kitab-i-Iqan but twice as long. Written in Persian and Arabic during the Edirne period.The same images were used when the Kitáb-i Badí‘ was published in 1992/148 BE by Zero Palm Press.

I hope this is translated soon. Slanderous accusation against the Faith from out of context "translations" give me so much "oomph" to improve my language skills. I'm speaking generally, btw. Not about this particular instance.
As I have previously said I would be grateful if someone shows me which part of the text I have taken out of context.


Quote:
Originally Posted by InvestigateTruth View Post
#1#My friend, the logic is that, when you have introduced yourself as a Shia Muslim, it makes sense to discuss things from a 'common point'. The common point between Shia and Baha'i, is Quran, and the authentic Shia traditions.

#2#Moreover, If you don't want me to discuss from our common point, then to be fair, let's discuss from an 'unbiased' and 'neutral' point of view.
A 'neutral' and 'unbiased' person, is one who neither believes or disbelieves, but rather he says: "Baha'i Faith may or may not be divinely inspired, but let me learn before I judge'. But that is not how you have started. Your position is 'I know Baha'i faith is a false religion, so let me show why it is false'. If you claim you have been unbiased, I disagree, and I will show you below why:
#3#This is a wrong conclusion, because you are putting words in my mouth.
Firstly, in Baha'i view, Baha'u'llah is not doing 'name calling', but He is passing judgement on those infidels who have opposed the Revelation of God and harmed Baha'u'llah, and His followers. Moreover, from a Baha'i View, every word that comes out from Mouth of Baha'u'llah, is, 'how and what' God told Baha'u'llah to say, regardless if the words appear to be from Baha'u'llah or God, even as it was revealed by Baha'u'llah:

"He speaketh not as prompted by His own self, but as bidden by Him Who is the All-Knowing, the All-Wise." The Most Holy Tablet

Now, let's look at it from an 'unbiased and neutral' point of view".

From this point of view we don't know if indeed Baha'u'llah is revealing the word of God or not, but we cannot reject the possibility, therefore, the question is, if indeed Baha'u'llah is revealing what God asks Him, is it possible that, this God judges and rebukes those who opposed His Messenger and harmed Him and His revelation, by addressing them with words such as 'donkeys and dogs'?

an unbiased and neutral answer is: 'this is possible, because I cannot determine how this God should or should not address His enemies, neither I know how would this God speaks, therefore how can I know if this is not possible?'.

But you are not unbiased, because either you are saying, 'Baha'u'llah surely was not speaking the word of God', or you are saying 'God cannot, and would not speak like this to His enemies'.

You have tried to put words in my mouth as I showed above. The form of distortion from you, is not in translation, but a misinterpretation that ignores the historical context.

#4#Well, here you are speaking as Muslim. But if you were an atheist who thinks that Muhammad invented Quran, then from the atheist point of view, it is not God who is cursing them, but it is Muhammad who is doing 'name calling' indirectly, by pretending these are the words of God. That is how you are treating the Baha'i Scriptures. Are you not?
1-The "common point" I have with all humanity with whatever thought or belief they have is reason and common-sense. That is why I didn't bring up an interfaith debate here, nor cited any non-Baha'i works. please try to understand this.

2-I don't remember ever saying the Baha'i faith is a false religion. All I ever said is prove me wrong and I'll gratefully accept.

3-My answer is exactly what I said to Mathew and bahaiextraordinaire.

4-No, that is not how I am treating Baha'i scripture. I am comparing the words of Baha'u'llah with the standards preached by Baha'is about interacting with non-Baha'is. Read what I responded to Mathew and bahaiextraordinaire.

Be rest assured, that had I seen a clear line drawn in Baha'i preaches between Baha'is and non-Baha'is, friends and enemies, opposers and acceptors, I wouldn't have brought up this topic.
 
Old 01-21-2014, 11:13 PM   #54
Tony Bristow-Stagg
 
tonyfish58's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: Normanton Far North Queensland
Posts: 3,958
The only problem I see is if someone has the problem?

It all boils down to what life is a Baha'i to conduct! That is plain for all to see, it is the Love for the One and Only God, while we are on this One Planet, to be undertaken as One People Please! We are 100% Peaceful as were the Founders of this Faith!

The writings are there as a warning and a promise. The warning is to awaken the slumber of one who searches for God. The promise is what one can achieve if they follow the Laws of Baha'u'llah.

The warnings are a bounty to all, they help us look inside ourselves and find out who we are and where we have to be. Life is not all promise, if it was, no one would be able to gauge what is good and what is not so good? This is not a contradiction, it is the Balance to which we are all weighed.

Here is something on this thought I wrote quite some time ago

"Have you every considered/meditated on this world and come up with that it is a World of Opposites?

HERE IS A REFLECTION...

Heartache, Happiness,
Agony, Ecstasy,
Sorrow, Joy.
Loneliness, Reunion.
Darkness, Light.
Concealed, Revealed.
Opposites attract,
negatives highlight positives.
Pain brings happiness,
tribulation brings Joy.
Oh God may this life be full of negatives,
so we can learn to appreciate the positives.

Tony Bristow-Stagg B.E. 148"

God Bless all - Regards Tony
 
Old 01-22-2014, 04:22 AM   #55
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jul 2011
From: n ireland
Posts: 1,747
Tony, I'm nothing short of astounded. Such beautiful poetry,and from an Aussie fisherman too lol. Please please share anything more you may have

Last edited by aidan; 01-22-2014 at 06:44 AM.
 
Old 01-22-2014, 06:35 AM   #56
Member
 
Joined: Jan 2014
From: it's too cold
Posts: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by h123 View Post
1-Pay attention to what I answered to Mathew. My problem is with the farfetched version of peace and goodness preached by Baha'is far and wide whilst the sayings and actions of Baha'i leaders show otherwise. Don't compare that with other religions that have drawn a clear line from day 1 between good and bad, evil and non-eveil, believers and non-believers, enemies and friends, the loyal and traitors, wolves and sheep..
First, I do not feel there has been facetiousness in the Baha'i Administration in translation. The kitab-i-Aqdas is in English and a variety of other languages. It is online for free. There are even PDFS. The Kitab-i-Iqan is in English as well as other works. Seekers are free to read these books or they may not.

Second, taking randoms quotations and saying these represent the way Baha'ullah behaves is wrong just as much as me taking a bunch of random positive quotations is wrong. This is not the Baha'i Faith and it will never be shown in fullness in a hand-picked statement to present a certain one-sided image.

Third, the exact same thing you accuse us of is done in Islam. "Heaven is at the fee of the mother" first and then, "Women are deficient in intelligence "second. Acts of kindness by Muhammad first and warfare and blood shed second. Charity to orphans first and self-flagelation on Ashura second. "Islam is one" first, we get to Ahmadis, Ibadi, Twelver Shi'a, Quarnists, Bohras, Nizari Ismailis, Zaydis second.

Try for Christianity. The grace of God first, your relatives in eternal fire second. Gospels first, vengeful Old Testament second. Equal under Christ, sexism and homophobia second.

Third, there is this idea we are nothing more than hippies. We're not. People get this vague idea we're Unitarian Universalists. We're not. People think it's the religion where you can do anything you want. It's not. This is the false human perception. It is nothing more to me than your own failure to investigate the truth and that we cannot be blamed for. I've read Balyuzi's stuff and he is forthright about the misgivings of some early baha'is and the turmoil surrounding the Faith in the early days. His book about Muhammad first tells us about the murder of the conniving Jewish poet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h123 View Post
2-A religion with contradictions and paradoxes is void. It doesn't matter what it is.
I'll reiterate a few points here. You are judgmental about the very same thing that happens in Shi'a Islam. By your own words here, your own religion is nothing but a contradictory lie. How can you judge Baha'is but not judge yourself?

I never was trying to say the Baha'i Faith has contradictions. I said, "To human minds, yes, just as your religion does." The qualities of wrath and kindness, mercy and justice, condemnation and praise are present in nearly every religion I can think of. If these are unreconcialble contradictions to you then theism is innately contradictory to you. This makes you own religion contradictory or else you deny God can have multiple faces. I stress how "contradictions" are the qualities and attributes our own human mind fails to understand because we are incapable of complete understanding. God's completeness is innacsesible to our minds.

I later said, "The same paradoxes exist in your religion (and every other religion in the entire world) but you try to draw away from this". "Paradoxes" being the different qualities and actions humans fail to understand that are present in every religion.

I also stressed how condemnation of the ungodly is a gracious call to righteousness, but I guess you agree.

I ended with, "If you can't find a way to reconcile this then Islam is not for you nor is Christianity, the Baha'i faith, or any religion. "

Last edited by bahaiextraordinaire; 01-24-2014 at 07:19 AM.
 
Old 01-22-2014, 07:48 AM   #57
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2010
From: Rockville, MD, USA
Posts: 1,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by TahirihTahirih;49007Alternative translation from the Arabic for all to read:

[B
вы Љубитељи Боже Не хвала Закрепите в Бога І вершы і неизбежна пропаст Бурхан хүмүүс Захиалгат беше от заканадаўцы острый
[/B]

Any thoughts, ...?
"For all to read??!!!"

Hardly "for all" if you don't bother to provide an English translation.
 
Old 01-22-2014, 08:09 AM   #58
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2013
From: United States
Posts: 1,204
Let's keep this civil folks.

Thanks!
 
Old 01-22-2014, 09:49 AM   #59
Senior Member
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: Canada
Posts: 1,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by h123 View Post
1-The "common point" I have with all humanity with whatever thought or belief they have is reason and common-sense. That is why I didn't bring up an interfaith debate here, nor cited any non-Baha'i works. please try to understand this.
Are you saying that Quran and Authentic Traditions contradict with common sense in your belief? If not, then why don't you also want us to bring them into our discussions?



Quote:
2-I don't remember ever saying the Baha'i faith is a false religion.
I didn't mean to say, you have said it explicitly, but your approach, as I have shown, proves otherwise. Let me ask you this: Do you believe that Baha'i Faith is a false religion? If no, what do you see in Baha'i Faith that makes you think, it might actually be from God?


Quote:
All I ever said is prove me wrong and I'll gratefully accept.
Prove you wrong about what?

Quote:
3-My answer is exactly what I said to Mathew and bahaiextraordinaire.
I made a reply in post #44. You have only disagreed with one sentence (which doesn't make much difference), while you didn't reply to rest of it. That means you accepted it, so, I don't see why you still have problem.



Quote:
4-No, that is not how I am treating Baha'i scripture. I am comparing the words of Baha'u'llah with the standards preached by Baha'is about interacting with non-Baha'is. Read what I responded to Mathew and bahaiextraordinaire.
Well, that is again a change of question from your part. But still I feel my post #44 clears this up.


Quote:
Be rest assured, that had I seen a clear line drawn in Baha'i preaches between Baha'is and non-Baha'is, friends and enemies, opposers and acceptors, I wouldn't have brought up this topic.
Not in my view. Show me a quote that Baha'u'llah or Abdulbaha say, 'kill your enemy'. The instructions in Baha'i Faith is very clear. Here are a few things:

"The first Glad-Tidings which the Mother Book hath, in this Most Great Revelation, imparted unto all the peoples of the world is that the law of holy war hath been blotted out from the Book."

"It is permitted that the peoples and kindreds of the world associate with one another with joy and radiance. O people! Consort with the followers of all religions in a spirit of friendliness and fellowship. Thus hath the day-star of His sanction and authority shone forth above the horizon of the decree of God, the Lord of the worlds."

"In every country where any of this people reside, they must behave towards the government of that country with loyalty, honesty and truthfulness. This is that which hath been revealed at the behest of Him Who is the Ordainer, the Ancient of Days."

"O people of God! That which traineth the world is Justice, for it is upheld by two pillars, reward and punishment. These two pillars are the sources of life to the world."


"In former religions such ordinances as holy war, destruction of books, the ban on association and companionship with other peoples or on reading certain books had been laid down and affirmed according to the exigencies of the time; however, in this mighty Revelation, in this momentous Announcement, the manifold bestowals and favours of God have overshadowed all men, and from the horizon of the Will of the Ever-Abiding Lord, His infallible decree hath prescribed that which We have set forth above."

From Tablets of Baha'u'llah

Last edited by InvestigateTruth; 01-22-2014 at 10:03 AM.
 
Old 01-22-2014, 02:04 PM   #60
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2013
From: United States
Posts: 1,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by h123 View Post
Actually Mathew,
I agree with what you say. My common-sense tells me that evil must be dealt with accordingly as must, good.
I think it's a bit more subtle than that.

Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha explained that, especially today, many of the enemies can become friends when we treat them with kindness and respect. But we saw that too in Islam, Christianity and Judaism. So nothing new there.

But there are those who are dangerous, and we must protect ourselves from, in this day, by avoidance. Such as covenant breakers.

Quote:
Don't compare that with other religions that have drawn a clear line from day 1 between good and bad, evil and non-eveil, believers and non-believers, enemies and friends, the loyal and traitors, wolves and sheep.
But that line hasn't been so clear. Many enemies of Muhammad, Jesus etc. were eventually converted to friendship, and other times friends betrayed Them and became enemies.

Quote:
2-A religion with contradictions and paradoxes is void. It doesn't matter what it is.
The paradoxes and contradictions are in our own understandings.

Baha'u'llah explains this phenomenon here:

"In sum, the differences in objects have now been made plain. Thus when the wayfarer gazeth only upon the place of appearance—that is, when he seeth only the many-colored globes—he beholdeth yellow and red and white; hence it is that conflict hath prevailed among the creatures, and a darksome dust from limited souls hath hid the world. And some do gaze upon the effulgence of the light; and some have drunk of the wine of oneness and these see nothing but the sun itself.
Thus, for that they move on these three differing planes, the understanding and the words of the wayfarers have differed; and hence the sign of conflict doth continually appear on earth. For some there are who dwell upon the plane of oneness and speak of that world, and some inhabit the realms of limitation, and some the grades of self, while others are completely veiled."

Last edited by Matthew Light; 01-22-2014 at 04:42 PM.
 
Old 01-22-2014, 04:20 PM   #61
Senior Member
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: Canada
Posts: 1,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by h123 View Post
1-Pay attention to what I answered to Mathew. My problem is with the farfetched version of peace and goodness preached by Baha'is far and wide whilst the sayings and actions of Baha'i leaders show otherwise.
.
Perhaps you should read some of the actions of Abdulbaha. here is a story:

Hear how he treats his enemies. One instance of many I have heard will suffice. When the Master came to ‘Akká there lived there a certain man from Afghanistan [Haji Siddiq], an austere and rigid Mussulman [Muslim]. To him the Master was a heretic. He felt and nourished a great enmity towards the Master, and roused up others against him. When opportunity offered in gatherings of the people, as in the Mosque, he denounced him with bitter words.
‘This man,’ he said to all, ‘is an imposter. Why do you speak to him? Why do you have dealings with him?’ And when he passed the Master on the street he was careful to hold his robe before his face that his sight might not be defiled. Thus did the Afghan. The Master, however, did thus: The Afghan was poor and lived in a mosque; he was frequently in need of food and clothing. The Master sent him both. These he accepted, but without thanks. He fell sick. The Master took him a physician, food, medicine, money. These, also, he accepted; but as he held out one hand that the physician might take his pulse, with the other he held his cloak before his face that he might not look upon the Master. For twenty-four years the Master continued his kindnesses and the Afghan persisted in his enmity.
Then at last one day the Afghan came to the Master’s door, and fell down, penitent and weeping, at his feet. ‘Forgive me, sir!’ he cried. ‘For twenty-four years I have done evil to you, for twenty-four years you have done good to me. Now I know that I have been in the wrong.’ The Master bade him rise, and they became friends.
(‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Centre of the Covenant, p. 101)



Here is another one:


It is related of Shaykh Mahmud of ‘Akka that he ‘hated the Bahá’ís. While many of his fellow-townsmen had gradually come to realize how very wrong they had been and were speaking of the prisoners in terms of appreciation and praise, Shaykh Mahmud remained adamant in his hatred. One day he was present at a gathering where people were talking of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá as a good man, a remarkable man. The Shaykh could bear it no longer and stormed out, saying that he would show up this ‘Abbas Effendi for what He was. In blazing anger he rushed to the mosque, where he knew ‘Abdu’l-Bahá could be found at that hour, and laid violent hands upon Him. The Master looked at the Shaykh with that serenity and dignity which only He could commend, and reminded him of what the Prophet Muhammad had said: “Be generous to the guests, even should he be an infidel..” Shaykh Mahmud turned away. His wrath had left him. So had his hate. All that he was conscious of was a deep sense of shame and bitter compunction. He fled to his house and barred the door. Some days later he went straight into the presence of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, fell on his knees, and besought forgiveness: “Which door but thine can I seek; whose bounty can I hope for but thine?"’ He became a devoted Bahá’í.
(Honnold, Annamarie, Vignettes from the Life of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 50)



Enemies
 
Old 01-22-2014, 04:44 PM   #62
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2013
From: United States
Posts: 1,204
Those stories are so beautiful, they are bringing a tear into my eyes.

Thank you!
 
Old 01-23-2014, 01:06 AM   #63
Banned Camp
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: under God's grace
Posts: 404
I had prepared an answer to all the quotes but I deleted it. What I will be saying in the following sentences suffices as an answer to all those quotes.

Let me narrate a story about Baha'u'llah's attitude, about the sincerity in Baha'i claims, about how the Baha'i faith is preached:

Dr Habib Mu'ayyad, who was apparently Abdu'l-Baha's Physician, published his diary in Iran in the Baha'i year 118 Badi` by the National Baha'i trust of Iran. The book was given the title: "Khatirate Habib."
The book was translated by the respected and prominent Baha'i translator, Ahang Rabbani, and given the title: "Eight Years Near Abdu'l-Baha, the Diary of Dr Habib Muayyad."
The translation can be found here:
http://bahai-library.com/pdf/r/rabba...ayyad_2013.pdf

Now pay attention closely to the original Farsi text of a section where `Abdu'l-Baha is speaking about Baha'u'llah on p. 266:
"
وقتيکه جمال مبارك از سليمانيه تشريف آوردند يك روز توي كوچه تشريف مي بردند با مرحوم آقا ميرزا محمدقلي، يك شخص كباب فروش آهسته گفت: باز بابي ها آفتابي شدند! جمال مبارك به ميرزا محمدقلي فرمودند: بزن توي دهنش. ميرزا محمد قلي ريش او را گرفته توي سرش مي زد، رفت نزد ايلچي شكايت كرد. ايلچي خود او را حبس كرد. گفت يقين جسارت بزرگي كرده اي كه بابي ها تو را زده اند
"
Now scroll down to page 276 of the translation I provided from Ahang Rabbani:
"One day when Bahá’u’lláh had returned from Sulaymáníyyih, He was walking in the street with the late Áqá Mírzá Muhammad-Qulí. A kabob-maker had
whispered, “Once more the Bábís have come into the open.” The Blessed Beauty told Mírzá Muhammad-Qulí, “Rebuke him appropriately!” Mírzá Muhammad-Qulí grabbed his beard and punished him. The Kabobí took a complaint to the constable, but was thrown in jail and told, “Obviously you must have grievously insulted them for the Bábís to have punished you in such manner!” p. 276.

Do you see inconsistencies with the stories in post #61? Yes or no doesn't matter what matters is the fact that in the original Farsi text that has been deliberately mistranslated, Baha'u'llah had given another order and Mirza Muhammad Quli didn't just grab his beard but acted according to Baha'u'llahs order:

"The Blessed Beauty told Mírzá Muhammad-Qulí, “Hit him in the Mouth!” Mírzá Muhammad-Qulí grabbed his beard and started hitting him in the head."

Image of Farsi text for comparison:

Last edited by h123; 01-23-2014 at 01:13 AM.
 
Old 01-23-2014, 01:38 AM   #64
Tony Bristow-Stagg
 
tonyfish58's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: Normanton Far North Queensland
Posts: 3,958
I think you are trying to pitch your 3 strike ball to the wrong batting team my friend

I have read this story both ways and in the end He obviously got “Rebuked appropriately!”

This is a memory of a person, that may be or not be 100% accurate. It is not scripture so we only take it as interesting information only! Do you think this one memory sets the tone of the entire message?

This story only reminds me of Jesus in the Temple! There are other stories where God issues very stern replies and punishment! But I take these in context.

Those times are long gone and Abdul'Baha is the standard set for us to Live our Lives. May we all work towards achieving this!

Regards Tony
 
Old 01-23-2014, 05:26 AM   #65
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2010
From: Rockville, MD, USA
Posts: 1,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by h123 View Post
What I will be saying in the following sentences suffices as an answer to all those quotes. . . .

Now pay attention closely to the original Farsi text . . . .
Which of course the vast majority of us here cannot read!

Nor are you in fact referring to a legitimate Baha'i website, but an apparent attack site with a similar name.

So your whole post is merely Yet Another Distortion attempting to mislead others.

You will forgive me, I trust, if I'm not the least impressed or amused.

(And why, actually, did you say you repeatedly insist on wasting our time here?)
 
Old 01-23-2014, 08:35 AM   #66
Banned Camp
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: under God's grace
Posts: 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyfish58 View Post
I think you are trying to pitch your 3 strike ball to the wrong batting team my friend

I have read this story both ways and in the end He obviously got “Rebuked appropriately!”

This is a memory of a person, that may be or not be 100% accurate. It is not scripture so we only take it as interesting information only! Do you think this one memory sets the tone of the entire message?

This story only reminds me of Jesus in the Temple! There are other stories where God issues very stern replies and punishment! But I take these in context.

Those times are long gone and Abdul'Baha is the standard set for us to Live our Lives. May we all work towards achieving this!

Regards Tony

Tony,

Of all the people, you were the last I'd have expected to give such a response.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceDLimber View Post


Which of course the vast majority of us here cannot read!

Nor are you in fact referring to a legitimate Baha'i website, but an apparent attack site with a similar name.

So your whole post is merely Yet Another Distortion attempting to mislead others.

You will forgive me, I trust, if I'm not the least impressed or amused.

(And why, actually, did you say you repeatedly insist on wasting our time here?)
Dear Bruce,

I neither intended to amuse or impress you or waste your time. I sincerely apologize if you think I am to be blamed. But please, be fair, that website is not an attack site, and the translator of that book was not a non-Baha'i, it was the respected and prominent Baha'i translator, the late Ahang Rabbani. Even though you say you don't understand Farsi, I would be most happy if you point out the distortion you claim I made to mislead others. I apologize again if you think I am to blame for wasting your time.
 
Old 01-23-2014, 09:29 AM   #67
Senior Member
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: Canada
Posts: 1,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by h123 View Post
I had prepared an answer to all the quotes but I deleted it. What I will be saying in the following sentences suffices as an answer to all those quotes.

Let me narrate a story about Baha'u'llah's attitude, about the sincerity in Baha'i claims, about how the Baha'i faith is preached:

Dr Habib Mu'ayyad, who was apparently Abdu'l-Baha's Physician, published his diary in Iran in the Baha'i year 118 Badi` by the National Baha'i trust of Iran. The book was given the title: "Khatirate Habib."
The book was translated by the respected and prominent Baha'i translator, Ahang Rabbani, and given the title: "Eight Years Near Abdu'l-Baha, the Diary of Dr Habib Muayyad."
The translation can be found here:
http://bahai-library.com/pdf/r/rabba...ayyad_2013.pdf

Now pay attention closely to the original Farsi text of a section where `Abdu'l-Baha is speaking about Baha'u'llah on p. 266:
"
وقتيکه جمال مبارك از سليمانيه تشريف آوردند يك روز توي كوچه تشريف مي بردند با مرحوم آقا ميرزا محمدقلي، يك شخص كباب فروش آهسته گفت: باز بابي ها آفتابي شدند! جمال مبارك به ميرزا محمدقلي فرمودند: بزن توي دهنش. ميرزا محمد قلي ريش او را گرفته توي سرش مي زد، رفت نزد ايلچي شكايت كرد. ايلچي خود او را حبس كرد. گفت يقين جسارت بزرگي كرده اي كه بابي ها تو را زده اند
"
Now scroll down to page 276 of the translation I provided from Ahang Rabbani:
"One day when Bahá’u’lláh had returned from Sulaymáníyyih, He was walking in the street with the late Áqá Mírzá Muhammad-Qulí. A kabob-maker had
whispered, “Once more the Bábís have come into the open.” The Blessed Beauty told Mírzá Muhammad-Qulí, “Rebuke him appropriately!” Mírzá Muhammad-Qulí grabbed his beard and punished him. The Kabobí took a complaint to the constable, but was thrown in jail and told, “Obviously you must have grievously insulted them for the Bábís to have punished you in such manner!” p. 276.

Do you see inconsistencies with the stories in post #61? Yes or no doesn't matter what matters is the fact that in the original Farsi text that has been deliberately mistranslated, Baha'u'llah had given another order and Mirza Muhammad Quli didn't just grab his beard but acted according to Baha'u'llahs order:
No, there is no inconsistency. Firstly, the Bab'is were severely prosecuted, beaten and killed by the fanatics in those days. So, it makes sense that Baha'u'llah would rebuke such behaviour, but this story is nothing in it that suggests Baha'u'llah encouraged beating or killing, which I will explain below. There are about 17000 works written by Baha'u'llah, I promise you cannot find in any of His writings that He permits beating whatsoever. Here are a couple of quotes in Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah:


"He that wisheth to promote the Cause of the one true God, let him promote it through his pen and tongue, rather than have recourse to sword or violence. We have, on a previous occasion, revealed this injunction, and We now confirm it, if ye be of them that comprehend."


"Know thou that We have annulled the rule of the sword, as an aid to Our Cause, and substituted for it the power born of the utterance of men. Thus have We irrevocably decreed, by virtue of Our grace. Say: O people! Sow not the seeds of discord among men, and refrain from contending with your neighbor..."

"Be patient under all conditions, and place your whole trust and confidence in God. Aid ye your Lord with the sword of wisdom and of utterance."





Secondly as others said, the accuracy of words in the story is in question. So, the expression " بزن توي دهنش " is a slang, which although literally means 'hit him in mouth', but as you are well aware, it actually in Persian means 'to rebuke someone or to verbally disprove someone'. So, it could be that Baha'u'llah gave him some instruction to tell the man to stop insulting the Babi's but the author of the book, in his own slang words is describing the story as such.
Moreover, if the other man went and pulled his beard or hit him in head, this is not what Baha'u'llah asked him to do, and we are not saying the Baha'is are perfect or they follow the Baha'i teachings perfectly correct. Then it is the question of how hard he pulled his beard and hit on the head. Did he do this just get his attention by tapping on the head of man, or he knocked him down?

The conclusion is, this does not prove there is any contradictions in actions or sayings of the Baha'i Faith central figures. Baha'u'llah was known as 'The Father of Poor' even before His mission starts as a Messenger of God'

"Bahá’u’lláh and Ásíyih Khánum were known as the Father of the Poor and the Mother of Consolation for their extraordinary generosity and regard for the impoverished. " Ásíyih Khánum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Last edited by InvestigateTruth; 01-23-2014 at 09:46 AM.
 
Old 01-23-2014, 09:36 AM   #68
Banned Camp
 
Joined: Oct 2013
From: Rise with Joy
Posts: 903
"Hit him in the mouth" is as literal as the Persian phrase "dirt on your head". And no one dumps dirt over anyone else's head literally. Or "I'll eat your liver" actually means I love you, not cannibalism.
 
Old 01-23-2014, 09:36 AM   #69
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jul 2011
From: n ireland
Posts: 1,747
In this part of N Ireland we have a saying "give him a slap on the mouth" which means a verbal rebuke
 
Old 01-23-2014, 10:37 AM   #70
Banned Camp
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: under God's grace
Posts: 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by InvestigateTruth View Post
...
Secondly as others said, the accuracy of words in the story is in question. So, the expression " بزن توي دهنش " is a slang, which although literally means 'hit him in mouth', but as you are well aware, it actually in Persian means 'to rebuke someone or to verbally disprove someone'. So, it could be that Baha'u'llah gave him some instruction to tell the man to stop insulting the Babi's but the author of the book, in his own slang words is describing the story as such.
Moreover, if the other man went and pulled his beard or hit him in head, this is not what Baha'u'llah asked him to do, and we are not saying the Baha'is are perfect or they follow the Baha'i teachings perfectly correct. Then it is the question of how hard he pulled his beard and hit on the head. Did he do this just get his attention by tapping on the head of man, or he knocked him down?
...
Up to now I was being accused of taking everything out of context whilst I had clearly cited the contexts or had given clear references for the contexts to be checked. I am amazed at what you write:

1-Before putting forward the "slang" excuse and blaming the author for using slang, you better re-read the book and pay attention that this is a direct quote from `Abdu'l-Baha not some slang vulgar from some careless writer. Before you bring the excuse that it was a rebukement for an "insult" reread the passage again and see that there was no insult, a mere whisper: "A kabob-maker had whispered, “Once more the Bábís have come into the open.”"
Lets rebuke him using slang words because he announced we have come!! I don't think so.

2-The context of the quote clearly shows that Baha'u'llah had said "hit him in the mouth," in the literal sense and Mírzá Muhammad-Qulí who was ordered to do this had clearly understood it to mean "hit him" and had grabbed the guys beard and had started to hit him in in the head. If Baha'u'llah had meant anything else he would have prevented it. If `Abdu'l-Baha had understood it to mean anything but hitting he would have explained it in the quote. And the poor kebob seller was hit pretty hard, or else he wouldn't have taken complaint to the constable. The answer of the constable makes it pretty clear: "Obviously you must have grievously insulted them for the Bábís to have punished [the Farsi says "hit" not "punished"] you in such manner."

Last edited by h123; 01-23-2014 at 10:40 AM.
 
Old 01-23-2014, 10:57 AM   #71
Banned Camp
 
Joined: Oct 2013
From: Rise with Joy
Posts: 903
Bahaullah may have used the slang term and the guy deserved it and was hit.

What's wrong with a smack now and then?

Or maybe Bahaullah meant it as slang and the guy shouldn't have hit him.

Anyway "hitting" as a punishment was normal in Middle East Europe and Americas 100 years ago.
 
Old 01-23-2014, 12:47 PM   #72
Member
 
Joined: Jan 2014
From: it's too cold
Posts: 88
1-Before putting forward the "slang" excuse and blaming the author for using slang, you better re-read the book and pay attention that this is a direct quote from `Abdu'l-Baha not some slang vulgar from some careless writer.

No, Abdu'l-Baha didn't write this that I know of. It's a pilgrims note. It has no binding authority for Baha'is. It was written based off what this author recorded of Abdu'l-Baha.

Plenty of things could have happened here. Maybe Baha'ullah used the slang word and it was misinterpreted by the Babi. Maybe Abdu'l-Baha used the slang to convey that the Babi was angry and hit the man after Baha'u'llah said to rebuke. Maybe the man simply wrote it down wrong and had misunderstood.

We weren't there and we have no idea what happened. We don't know that Baha'ullah could have prevented this. We don't even know if this an accurate version of the story. How do you know Abdu'l-Baha would have explained this? It's a diary. We don't even know if Abdu'l-Baha even read this. We don't know his exact words besides this account.

"Let me narrate a story about Baha'u'llah's attitude, about the sincerity in Baha'i claims, about how the Baha'i faith is preached:"

Muhammad murdered people like how Asraff was beheaded after Muhammad told the Muslims to go and deceive him. 'Asma' bint Marwan and Abu 'Afak.

Last edited by bahaiextraordinaire; 01-24-2014 at 07:29 AM.
 
Old 01-23-2014, 05:02 PM   #73
Senior Member
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: Canada
Posts: 1,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by h123 View Post

1-Before putting forward the "slang" excuse and blaming the author for using slang, you better re-read the book and pay attention that this is a direct quote from `Abdu'l-Baha not some slang vulgar from some careless writer.
This is not a quote written by Abdulbaha. The author of this book is someone else, who is saying, Abdulbaha said such a story.
Just for your information, in Baha'i Faith there is a distinction between the Authoritative Writings, and Pilgrim notes. The central Figures of Baha'i faith, signed / sealed any text they wrote or asked someone to write it, as a sign of authenticity. Everything else that is narrated by others is not considered authoritative, because how can we know the accuracy of these narrations? How can we know without a reasonable doubt these are exactly what Abdulbaha said? However, the Baha'is can use the pilgrim notes as they contain truth and guidance, but since these narrations are not confirmed by Central Figures, therefore they cannot be used as authoritative text.


For your information:

"Authenticity and authority

The question of the authenticity of given texts is of great concern to Bahá'ís. As noted, they attach considerable importance to the writings of whom they consider to be authoritative figures.[1] The primary duty of the Research Department of the Universal House of Justice and the International Bahá'í Library is the collection, cataloguing, authentication, and translation of these texts.[31]
By way of comparison, "pilgrims' notes" are items, or sayings, attributed to the central figures but have not been authenticated. While these may be inspirational, these are not considered authoritative.[1][32] Some of `Abdu'l-Bahá's collected talks (e.g. `Abdu'l-Bahá in London, Paris Talks, and The Promulgation of Universal Peace.) may fall into this category, but are awaiting further authentication.[33] The Star of the West, published in the United States from 1910 to 1924, contains many pilgrim's notes and unauthenticated letters of `Abdu'l-Bahá's."


Bahá'í literature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Old 01-23-2014, 08:58 PM   #74
Banned Camp
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: under God's grace
Posts: 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by InvestigateTruth View Post
This is not a quote written by Abdulbaha. The author of this book is someone else, who is saying, Abdulbaha said such a story.
Just for your information, in Baha'i Faith there is a distinction between the Authoritative Writings, and Pilgrim notes. The central Figures of Baha'i faith, signed / sealed any text they wrote or asked someone to write it, as a sign of authenticity. Everything else that is narrated by others is not considered authoritative, because how can we know the accuracy of these narrations? How can we know without a reasonable doubt these are exactly what Abdulbaha said? However, the Baha'is can use the pilgrim notes as they contain truth and guidance, but since these narrations are not confirmed by Central Figures, therefore they cannot be used as authoritative text.


For your information:

"Authenticity and authority

The question of the authenticity of given texts is of great concern to Bahá'ís. As noted, they attach considerable importance to the writings of whom they consider to be authoritative figures.[1] The primary duty of the Research Department of the Universal House of Justice and the International Bahá'í Library is the collection, cataloguing, authentication, and translation of these texts.[31]
By way of comparison, "pilgrims' notes" are items, or sayings, attributed to the central figures but have not been authenticated. While these may be inspirational, these are not considered authoritative.[1][32] Some of `Abdu'l-Bahá's collected talks (e.g. `Abdu'l-Bahá in London, Paris Talks, and The Promulgation of Universal Peace.) may fall into this category, but are awaiting further authentication.[33] The Star of the West, published in the United States from 1910 to 1924, contains many pilgrim's notes and unauthenticated letters of `Abdu'l-Bahá's."


Bahá'í literature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As I have always said, my reason and common-sense do not allow me to blindly follow a single version of anything.
Why must I imprison my thought, withhold my speech, be limited on what I can read and who I can speak with when I am "investigating the truth"?
I look at official Baha'i writings,
I look at unofficial writings,
I look at original scripture,
I look at official translations and I compare them with the original Farsi/Arabic texts.
I even read what those labelled as covenant-breakers have said and seen and what the enemies of Baha'u'llah have said.

Why? Because the truth cannot be found except by analyzing the sayings of all the aforementioned groups and reaching a conclusion. Because maybe the covenant breaker is right! Maybe the enemy is right! And maybe the official version is right!

By limiting my understanding and my endeavor to reach the truth to some limited, hand-picked authoritative texts, you are insulting reason and common-sense. You are limiting ones ability to make a sound judgment. You are limiting the "investigation for the truth."
 
Old 01-23-2014, 11:06 PM   #75
Member
 
Joined: Jan 2014
From: it's too cold
Posts: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by h123 View Post
As I have always said, my reason and common-sense do not allow me to blindly follow a single version of anything.
Why must I imprison my thought, withhold my speech, be limited on what I can read and who I can speak with when I am "investigating the truth"?
I look at official Baha'i writings,
I look at unofficial writings,
I look at original scripture,
I look at official translations and I compare them with the original Farsi/Arabic texts.
I even read what those labelled as covenant-breakers have said and seen and what the enemies of Baha'u'llah have said.

Why? Because the truth cannot be found except by analyzing the sayings of all the aforementioned groups and reaching a conclusion. Because maybe the covenant breaker is right! Maybe the enemy is right! And maybe the official version is right!

By limiting my understanding and my endeavor to reach the truth to some limited, hand-picked authoritative texts, you are insulting reason and common-sense. You are limiting ones ability to make a sound judgment. You are limiting the "investigation for the truth."
Pilgrim's notes are not authoritative because they are pilgrim's notes and not because we don't like the contents. The content has nothing to do with the authority. In the Baha'i Faith, what is not an authentic writing of the Bab, Baha'u'llah or Abdu'l-Baha is not scriptural. We could not make this authoritative even if we wanted to because this does not meet the standards. You can use it as a source but the authority is not there and authenticity can be called into question.

You standards for investigation of the truth demonstrate unsound bias.

You are going through texts to find the worst statements you can possibly find in the entire book and present it against us ignoring everything good. You are selectively choosing statements without understanding them in accord with opther statements and calling these contradictions.

Let's take the Kitab-Badi for example. This is a marvelous apologetic book written rapidly by Baha'ullah to defend His claims. The Bab's wife and mother are praised as the best of women. Azali claims to leadership are refuted. Apparently the only thing you got from this book was that Baha'ullah rebukes someone in a similar manner as the Qur'an calling the sabbath breaking Jews despised and apes. In another thread you supported the leadership of Azal despite apparently having read the Kitab-i-Badi. What did you obtain from reading this text if you missed the main purpose of the book.

Most conclusions you reach are the ones against what Baha'is believe. I've seen very few points of agreement. On premise, you appear to support the opposite of what every Baha'i believes. The topic shifts wildly in the threads you post in. We started on relations with non-Baha'is and now have moved to the authority of Baha'i texts. .

Your responses are sometimes fallacious.

1. The argument from personal incredulity where you can't conceive how this is true meaning it's false to you.

2. The argument from repetition where you repeat the same claim until no one cares enough to continue discussing such as in the thread on the successor of the Bab where you hammered the same point over and over again.

3. Ad hominem where you insult for not agreeing with you such as how you accused InvestigateTuth of hampering the search for the truth when he/she was saying the text is questionable and not that it should be thrown out.

4. Etymological fallacy where you assumed a certain meaning in the diary tending to paint Baha'ullah in a negative perspective.

5. Quote mining and cherry picking in going through writings to look for nothing but statements perceived as negative.

6. Historian's fallacy like where you assumed a nineteenth century Babi would react to a command in a certain way based off 21st century values and society.

7. Psychologist's fallacy in assuming Baha'ullah would act a certain way when the Babi scorned the man.

Straw man like where you disregarded my post on Baha'u'llah's condemnation by misrepresenting my point when the purpose of my post was that this isn't a contradiction.

You're applying standards to the Baha'i Faith that you fail to apply to your own religion. Contradictions in Islam? Yes. If you think the different qualities of God are contradictions then Shi'ism is wrong automatically. Leadership disputes? Zaydis, Ismailis, and Shia/Sunni split. You think it was wrong when you say Baha'u'llah hit someone when Muhammad shared responsibility for murders. Idolatry? Shi'as pray to Imam Husayn. You say Baha'is teach the Faith in a false manner when Muslims teach non-Muslims what a beautiful religion Islam is and don't mention the many negatives in the way certain Muslims interpret and practice.

You're still a Shi'i Muslim so you can find a way to overcome these issues in your own faith while you do not for the Baha'i Faith.

Edited for the rude tone.

Last edited by bahaiextraordinaire; 01-24-2014 at 07:27 AM.
 
Old 01-23-2014, 11:50 PM   #76
Banned Camp
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: under God's grace
Posts: 404
There is a certain member in this thread whose tone clearly resembles a certain member who was banned and had multiple accounts that were all deleted. That certain member and all his posts that are insults and slander will be ignored. If that certain member continues his immature attitude, I will post the PMs he sent to me and I will expose his two-faced hypocritical behavior.
 
Old 01-24-2014, 12:45 AM   #77
Senior Member
 
Sen McGlinn's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: New Zealand mainly
Posts: 699
Quote:
Originally Posted by InvestigateTruth View Post
... the expression " بزن توي دهنش " is a slang, which although literally means 'hit him in mouth', but as you are well aware, it actually in Persian means 'to rebuke someone or to verbally disprove someone'. ...
I have a couple of questions about this idiom. First, do you think that Baha'u'llah spoke in this way, or is it the author's idiomatic summary of the purport of Baha'u'llah's words? Obviously Baha'u'llah's writings are beautiful and formal language: did he speak colloquially when with friends? I observe that in the various Persian memoirs I have read, the way Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha speak is not consistent, and I assume this is because the authors often do not quote Baha'u'llah, but rather summarise his meaning in their own idiom, which of course depends on their own background.

Second, on the meaning of this idiom. For me, tu'i zadan or bezan tu'i has the connotation of the quick repeated motion of beating or scrambling, as one beats or scrambles an egg. But my Persian is far from native: does the verb suggest that sort of motion to you? Further, I note that when dahAn is used in idioms, it usually means speech rather than mouth. For example, dar dahan 'aam uftaadan means to be the subject of gossip, not to be in the mouths of common people; sad-dahan is not somebody who has many mouths, but someone who says many inconsistent things; a faraakh-dahan is free with his words, not with his teeth; and so forth. So putting this together, I wonder whether the meaning might be "throw his words in his face" (refute him), rather than "rebuke him."
 
Old 01-24-2014, 01:17 AM   #78
Senior Member
 
BlinkeyBill's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Quilimari,Chile
Posts: 4,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by h123 View Post
There is a certain member in this thread whose tone clearly resembles a certain member who was banned and had multiple accounts that were all deleted. That certain member and all his posts that are insults and slander will be ignored. If that certain member continues his immature attitude, I will post the PMs he sent to me and I will expose his two-faced hypocritical behavior.
Hmmmmmm my friend why do you not answer the points put to you instead of posting threats.

I feel we are starting to see a different h123?
 
Old 01-24-2014, 03:21 AM   #79
Banned Camp
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: under God's grace
Posts: 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlinkeyBill View Post
Hmmmmmm my friend why do you not answer the points put to you instead of posting threats.

I feel we are starting to see a different h123?
The relevant points have been answered. If it isn't against the rules I'll immediately post the PMs.
 
Old 01-24-2014, 04:59 AM   #80
Banned Camp
 
Joined: Oct 2013
From: Rise with Joy
Posts: 903
There's also a difference in Persian between hit him in the mouth and hit him over the head. My sense is that mouth conveys that he showed disrespect or said something disrespectful and deserves rebuke, while head connotes idiocy or bad judgment or doing something incorrect.
 
Reply

  Baha'i Forums > Baha'i Forums > Baha'i Teachings

Tags
bahaullah, nonbahais, orders, sayings



Thread Tools
Display Modes



Facebook @bahaiforums RSS


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2006 - 2017 Bahai Forums. All rights reserved.