Bahai Forums

Go Back   Baha'i Forums > Baha'i Forums > Interfaith

Interfaith Interfaith discussion for different religious traditions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-11-2013, 05:30 AM   #321
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2010
From: Rockville, MD, USA
Posts: 1,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Further Questions;38163[to a third party
I think I understand what you’re saying with 3:30, there’s going to be a Day of Judgment where we will be judged according to our deeds, good and bad.
It should be noted that according to the Baha'i scriptures--and particularly the Book of Certitude (aka Kitab-i-Iqan)--, the Day of Judgement refers to the time when a new Divine Messenger is on earth (as happened again about a century and a half ago) and everyone is judged by whether or not he/she accepts Him once having learned about Him.

Peace, :-)

Bruce
 
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 01-11-2013, 07:36 AM   #322
Junior Member
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Kansas City
Posts: 1
Hi! I'm a Christian and I am fairly new to the topic of Baha'ism so I hope that all will show me much grace and forgive any ignorance on my part.

One question that I have concerning progressive revelation is why God needed to reveal truth to us in progressive increments. Is this related to the application of evolutionary principles to anthropology? Is the idea that ancient man was not "evolved" enough to handle God's full revelation so He had to reveal it to us in progressive increments as evovled the mental and social capability to handle it? If this is not the underlying concept behind progressive revelation, then why else would God withhold such a priceless treasure from ancient man?

Last edited by ByTheNarrowGate; 01-11-2013 at 07:59 AM.
 
Old 01-11-2013, 09:53 AM   #323
Senior Member
 
Zhang's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2012
From: USA
Posts: 297
Welcome NarrowGate, glad to have you.

If you start a new thread and ask your question there you will get more responses. This thread is solely focusing on how progressive Islam is in comparison to Christianity. Thanks Look forward to hearing from you.

I will post more about the Qur'an when I get home. Peace to all...

-张
 
Old 01-11-2013, 11:06 AM   #324
Senior Member
 
arthra's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2006
From: California
Posts: 4,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by ByTheNarrowGate View Post
Hi! I'm a Christian and I am fairly new to the topic of Baha'ism so I hope that all will show me much grace and forgive any ignorance on my part.

One question that I have concerning progressive revelation is why God needed to reveal truth to us in progressive increments. Is this related to the application of evolutionary principles to anthropology? Is the idea that ancient man was not "evolved" enough to handle God's full revelation so He had to reveal it to us in progressive increments as evovled the mental and social capability to handle it? If this is not the underlying concept behind progressive revelation, then why else would God withhold such a priceless treasure from ancient man?
Narrow gate..Thanks for your post..and a warm welcome!

First let me suggest that the proper designation for the Faith is "Baha'i Faith" rather than "Bahaism". Bahaism was a designation used by some academics in the early twentieth century and has been replaced pretty much by the term "Baha'i Faith".

Now as to progressive revelation.. It would be similar in my view to the Bible.. that over time God has revealed ordinances that were suitable to the conditions people were faced with at various times. So the ordinances of Deuteronomy were suitable for the conditions that obtained at the time..

When Jesus appeared there were conditions that people experienced and so perspectives and ordinances were revealed that were suitable.

I've met Christians who accepted progressive revelation in terms of the Bible.

Baha'is of course see the principle of progressive revelation extending through the dispensation of Islam and include the Babi dispensation and the Baha'i dispensation and future dispensations.

The conditions of early man were also significant.. and we believe the same principle of progressive revelation applies in that case as well. There were Baha'u'llah revealed Manifestaions that are unknown to us today that revealed ancient dispensations in the past....this goes back to what we call the ancient covenant between God and man, that God will never leave man alone without divine guidance.

And again welcome to the forum!


Last edited by arthra; 01-11-2013 at 11:08 AM.
 
Old 01-11-2013, 01:57 PM   #325
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Missouri
Posts: 228
@BruceDLimber

Ah didn't know that. Thanks Bruce. Is that with every manifestation or was it just Bahauallah?
 
Old 01-11-2013, 02:01 PM   #326
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Missouri
Posts: 228
Welcome ByTheNarrowGate!

I'm a Christian as well and got here Dec 2012. If I can be of help let me know!
 
Old 01-11-2013, 02:23 PM   #327
Senior Member
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: NZ
Posts: 854
Quote:
Originally Posted by arthra View Post
iconodule..

All you're doing is copy pasting from other sites like truth.net and answering islam..which are biased. You're not even giving correct attribution to your quotes.
Answering islam does contain alot of the primary sources bahais and muslims often over look and if you are going to suggest that tehse cannot be trusted I am then going to suggest that the quran as a text in of itself cannot be trusted as these early islamic sources are our only historical guides to understanding alot of the quran which otherwise could not be understood. Muslims and I hope bahais recognise alot these revelations to muhammad were context sensitive, they werent random and alone and not relating to anything that faced Muhammad, in fact one of the hdaiths points out the prophet's Nine year old wife telling him that his lord seems to fly to please Muhammad and there is certaintly reason to believe that given the nature of these revelations in context to the situations Muhammad faced.

And what Truth.net? Never been nor do I have any intention. But this does not respond to my argument on the nature of textual criticism, which actually benefits from having multiple copies. I'm glad the bible has been put through all of this rigour and still is, they are still releasing critical editions, like the Nestle aland text by the worlds finest textual scholars and critics. Time for the quran to be put through this, but given the threats and possible violence against anyone who would dare to do this by some muslims I suspect it won;t happen in our life times. Maybe when Islam dies out, if it ever dies out or the Moderates overtake the traditionalists, like those lovely saudis who bravely stopped some Christians pracitcing Christmas.
 
Old 01-11-2013, 02:26 PM   #328
Senior Member
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: NZ
Posts: 854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhang View Post
You can't talk about other religions with him. Especially Islam. It bothers him that while the Muslim world was the most advanced Christian Europe was sending children on crusades only to return mangled and defeated. All the while Zheng He was navigating the world on some of the largest and most powerful vessels known to man (spreading Islam peacefully all the while). Best to let him enjoy his fantasy.


P.S. Qur'an burning was and is to this day the approved method of getting rid of an old or no longer useful text of the Qur'an, it shouldn't be seen with any relation to the countless mass book burnings throughout Christian Europe.

How's that for bias?

Peace

-张
Now why is book burning justified now? If you are going to justify all of the fragments of the quran that did not match the rencension of Uthman, why are you critiquing europe for bunring books? Take in mind book burning in Christendom while it has happened was not the universal rule, often what they did with these heretical works was lock them up in a library and more often than not these works were simply not preserved because Christians had no interest in heretical works. Its not evil, its just how things are.
 
Old 01-11-2013, 02:40 PM   #329
Senior Member
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: NZ
Posts: 854
Quote:
Originally Posted by smaneck View Post
Then why bother with all these hadiths?



He did not burn 'fragments'. What he burned were variant readings. These had more to do with differences in dialect than anything else.
Yeah, he burnt varient readings which are fragments which are books, which could include anything it was written on, perhaps maybe some of the earliest ones. and If you don't see the problem witht his and want to blindly accept that Uthman was inspired to do this by allah then you don;'t want to know the actual make up of your quran, its that simple. These varients would be extremely usefull for getting the original meaning but you want to persist with this myth that there were no different readings and as the hdaiths prove, this is not the case and even as modern textual fragments prove its not hte case. The quran has not been perfectly preserved. Its a myth muslims and bahais have accepted to make themselves feel good, not based on any objective criteria or textual examination that happens int he west, youknow with the bible.


Quote:
Originally Posted by smaneck View Post
Then you don't have a problem with us because we are not claiming this. We consider the Qur'an to be wholly authentic because it comes directly from a Manifestation of God. Whether it has been perfectly preserved or not is another question. But it has certainly been better preserved than the original manuscripts of the New Testament.

And as I requested earlier do not post Islamophobic hate-sites like Answering-Islam here.
I seemed to get the impression you were standing by the original islmaic argument of a perfectly preserved quran, if you are not, then thats good and I have no gripe with you. I do think the quran as we have it is mostly faithful but until the serious textual study can be done and released without fear of death, then we won't know for sure.

That being said, How is answeiring islam a hate site in any meaningful way? Do they at all incite people to violence against Muslims? Do they say Muslims should not be given rights? Or are they simply reading the islamic sources muslims and bahais dare not share with the west/ They quote their sources and make their arguments and if you dissagree thats fine, but claiming they are a hate site is beyond any reason. Besides I didn't quote anything directly from them, only the sources which they use and the textual differences which they show to exist in different qurans today. Now you can ignore that with the justification that they are a hate site but it doesnt actually respond to what they are saying or claiming. ITs just an emotional appeal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by smaneck View Post

By that you mean there are lots of verses in the Gospels that are not found in the original manuscripts.
No, not really, I mean more often than not it seems that htere are verses which have crept in, of course its a very long subject matter and I can't claim to have memorised every single difference in the textual tradition, althouhg from what I understand most are minor and we don't often attribute ill will on the scribe that penned it. Verses like the longer ending of mark, the comma Johannium and etc are rare to say the least in terms of hte new testament.





Quote:
Originally Posted by smaneck View Post


All the hadiths regarding these things are considered 'weak' meaning they do not have a valid chain of transmission.
Now honestly I see this claim by muslims all the time, that whenever its a hadith they dissagree its automatically without a hesitation of thought a weak hadith. Now, give the criteria for a weak hadith, as it seems that all the hadiths ultimately are weak in terms of western historical standard, the earliest hadith collection which is rejected by Sunni muslims as I understand it comes a hundred or 200 so years after the facts of the events and this can be questioned as to the real historicity of it, but in terms of muslim standards I see alot hdaiths they like pretty much ver batim quoted like this, and the chain of narration claimed in of itself can be no where verified. That is we hav the hadith collector's claim that this is from X, from Y From Z from Muhammad.


Quote:
Originally Posted by smaneck View Post

Apparently you do not understand what this dispute is about. By the time we get to Uthman's caliphate most of the Companions are dead or dying. Dialectical differences are creeping into the Qur'an as it spreads beyond the Companions to those who did speak the Quraysh dialect. The dispute is not about content, it is about pronunciation. Uthman is concerned that the Qur'an be preserved in its original Qurayshi dialect.

and im telling you it wasnt just dialect, there were different meanings. But lucky for you all of those fragments are burned so you have to rely on one man alone for your quran. I can rely on the entire church for my bible.


Quote:
Originally Posted by smaneck View Post


In other words you are getting this stuff from Islamophobic hate sites. We have already determined that.
you claim that but its not an argument against the evidnece they provide. Have you seen David wood or Sam Green debate? They aren't exactly hateful. Yeah sam Shamoun is an arrogant ass sometimes but I couldn't say he hates Muslims.
 
Old 01-11-2013, 09:50 PM   #330
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Jackson, MS
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconodule View Post
If you don't see the problem witht his and want to blindly accept that Uthman was inspired to do this by allah
I think it is irrelevant whether he was divinely inspired or not. Coming up with a single Qur'an all the Companions could agree on was something that needed to be done while they were still alive. Uthman didn't do this single-handedly. There was a committee formed of the most reliable Companions.

Quote:
then you don;'t want to know the actual make up of your quran,
If Uthman had continued to allow all of these variations of Qur'an readings to appear *then* we would not have known the actual make-up of the Qur'an.

Quote:
I seemed to get the impression you were standing by the original islmaic argument of a perfectly preserved quran, if you are not, then thats good and I have no gripe with you.
Nope, just that it is much better preserved than any other scripture, except the Baha'i scriptures. And like the Baha'i scriptures, I believe all of it is from a Manifestation of God.


Quote:
I do think the quran as we have it is mostly faithful but until the serious textual study can be done and released without fear of death, then we won't know for sure.
Nonsense. Serious textual studies of the Qur'an are being done all the time.

Quote:
That being said, How is answeiring islam a hate site in any meaningful way?
It is there to spread hatred towards Islam.

Quote:
Do they at all incite people to violence against Muslims?
People who follow that website often do commit violence against Muslims.

Quote:
Do they say Muslims should not be given rights?
Yeah, they do. Their website links to Daniel Pipes who has not only attempted to deprive Muslims of their civil rights but has launched a McCarthyite campaign against those who teach Middle East history in academia. Further, they have labeled as terrorists, the one organization in the US which exists to protect the civil rights of Muslim (CAIR.)

Quote:
No, not really, I mean more often than not it seems that htere are verses which have crept in,
Quote:
Now, give the criteria for a weak hadith, as it seems that all the hadiths ultimately are weak in terms of western historical standard, the earliest hadith collection which is rejected by Sunni muslims as I understand it comes a hundred or 200 so years after the facts of the events
To a certain extent but I think modern historical methods could be used to figure out which ones are more likely authentic. Muslims themselves judge the soundness or weakness of a hadith primarily on the basis of the reliability of the isnad or chain of transmission. But if you are going to fabricate a hadith you are going to ascribe to it a good chain of transmission.

Quote:
and im telling you it wasnt just dialect, there were different meanings.
I know that is what you are telling me but that's not what these hadiths are indicating.

Quote:
But lucky for you all of those fragments are burned so you have to rely on one man alone for your quran.
No, not one man. Uthman appointed a committee made up of Companions of the Prophet to oversee the work.
 
Old 01-12-2013, 07:42 AM   #331
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2010
From: Rockville, MD, USA
Posts: 1,354
[QUOTE=Some Further Questions;38174Ah, didn't know that. Thanks Bruce. Is that with every manifestation or was it just Bahauallah?[/QUOTE]

All of Them, as I understand it!

Regards, :-)

Bruce
 
Old 01-13-2013, 11:02 PM   #332
Senior Member
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: NZ
Posts: 854
Was it truly needed to destroy all disagreeing manuscripts? It seems to me that it was only needed if they differed with the one that uthman had created and collected, in order to have a unified quran in the first place. Of course this still did not prevent the quran from being subject to the same textual varients which exist in all ancient manuscripts.
Now, its interesting that you admit the make up for the quran comes from uthman, so Im curious if you accept the authority of uthman to decide the quranic contents you must obviously accept the authority of the church to decide the New testament right?

Again, you cannot demonstrate that, you are reliant on a single manuscript tradition and you have to have lal trust in that tradition that uthman must have been free from all error in doing this. See people have this idea that the catholic church controlled the bible, that ist he roman church, this was never the case and the bible had been received through all the churches not under any one man’s control and this is why we are so confident in it. That despite all of these difrferent geographical churches and locations for these manuscripts and quotations that the bible is a solidly preserved book. You however have it from one source and one location, and you must therefore put all your trust in uthman for your quran.

Now, you say textual studies of the quran are being done all the time, and I agree, but not by muslims or bahai to any meaningful extent, but rather by scholars in the west who are not muslim. People like the germans at this site.
Corpus Coranicum
Give me one Islamic scholarly group doing this.
And its funny that you appeal to Cair, which was an unindited co conspirator in a terrorism funding case by the US government.
Now, I frabicated no hadith and if you say I am then show the hadith that quote do not exist, via online hadith collections or physical hadith collections.
 
Old 01-15-2013, 07:12 AM   #333
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Jackson, MS
Posts: 478
Quote:
Now, its interesting that you admit the make up for the quran comes from uthman, so Im curious if you accept the authority of uthman to decide the quranic contents
Actually, I said nothing of the sort. I said Uthman appointed a committee made up of the Companions of the Prophet who put together the Qur'an in its current form.

Quote:
you must obviously accept the authority of the church to decide the New testament right?
Sorry, doesn't follow. The equivalent would have been the Twelve Disciples, not the church, getting together and deciding on the contents of the New Testament. Certainly, that would have given it greater authority, but the disciples were dead and gone when most of the NT was written. Still, given the material they had to work with, I don't think the church did a bad job.

Quote:
tradition that uthman must have been free from all error in doing this.
I know of no such tradition. Muslims have confidence in the compilation of the Qur'an not because they imagine Uthman to have been infallible but because they trust the collective decisions of the Companions.

Quote:
See people have this idea that the catholic church controlled the bible, that ist he roman church, this was never the case and the bible had been received through all the churches not under any one man’s control and this is why we are so confident in it.

Actually, different churches have different bibles, although they share a lot of commonalities. Protestants threw out the Apocrypha, for instance, whereas Coptics included the Book of Enoch. The Orthodox Church does not except the Book of Revelation.


Quote:
And its funny that you appeal to Cair, which was an unindited co conspirator in a terrorism funding case by the US government.
If there were any real evidence you can be sure they would have been indicted. There was none.

Quote:
Now, I frabicated no hadith and if you say I am then show the hadith that quote do not exist, via online hadith collections or physical hadith collections.
I didn't say you fabricated hadith, I said you completely misrepresent what those hadith say happened. In any case, how would I got about proving a given hadith doesn't exist? Hadith collections only tell us about the ones that do exist, not the ones that don't.
 
Old 01-15-2013, 07:21 AM   #334
Senior Member
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by smaneck View Post
Actually, different churches have different bibles, although they share a lot of commonalities. Protestants threw out the Apocrypha, for instance, whereas Coptics included the Book of Enoch. The Orthodox Church does not except the Book of Revelation.
Eastern Orthodox do accept the Book of Revelation as divine revelation, however it is not publically read in Orthodox liturgies. People often misunderstand this distinction. The Catholic Church east and west prior to the schism agreed upon the very same New Testament comprised of 27 books. It is thus fully canonical for Eastern orthodox. Check the most recent publication of the Orthodox Study Bible (which I own) in English and you'll see it there fully annotated. It is just not considered ripe for liturgical reading, mainly because it is so abstruse in its imagery and could lead to significant confusion if interpreted by individuals rather than in light of sacred tradition. I think that fundamentalist Evangelical abuse of this sacred book - think "End times, "Rapture", "Left Behind" series - demonstrates that the Orthodox had a very good point.

That and there was dispute about including it in the East until around the third century AD ie it wasn't universally approved in the East but was finally settled as canonical. It finally did attain universal recognition primarily through the efforts of the Roman church and the West in general.

Last edited by Yeshua; 01-15-2013 at 07:31 AM.
 
Old 01-16-2013, 06:12 AM   #335
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2010
From: Rockville, MD, USA
Posts: 1,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by smaneck View Post
The Orthodox Church does not except the Book of Revelation.
Uh, Susan, I fear you put this exactly backwards!

I think what you meant to say is that the Orthodox Church does not ACCEPT the book of Revelation, which means that in fact they very much do EXCEPT it!

Peace, :-)

Bruce
 
Old 01-16-2013, 06:15 AM   #336
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2010
From: Rockville, MD, USA
Posts: 1,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeshua View Post
Eastern Orthodox do accept the Book of Revelation as divine revelation, however it is not publically read in Orthodox liturgies.
It's hardly alone in this.

For example, the Lutheran Church also considers Revelation scriptural but doesn't read from in in the liturgy.

Peace, :-)

Bruce
 
Old 01-18-2013, 06:31 AM   #337
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Missouri
Posts: 228
@Baha'is

What do you guys make of the (at least to me) big shift of God's love of sinners from Christianity to Islam and then to later Baha'i recognized religions? Do you think that the verses I posted earlier about Allah not loving such and such sinner need further explaining or is it what it appears to be on the surface? If the latter what changed God's mind? I can understand (if not agree) the view that certain laws etc. were needed for that time/culture but why would God's love of people change so dramatically not once but twice?

I guess I am assuming that the later religions affirm God's love for sinners, I admit I haven't studied much of the Baha'i writings and such (one of these days )
 
Old 01-18-2013, 04:33 PM   #338
Senior Member
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: NZ
Posts: 854
Quote:
Originally Posted by smaneck View Post
Sorry, doesn't follow. The equivalent would have been the Twelve Disciples, not the church, getting together and deciding on the contents of the New Testament. Certainly, that would have given it greater authority, but the disciples were dead and gone when most of the NT was written. Still, given the material they had to work with, I don't think the church did a bad job.
Yet the bahai insist this is the scripture and the quran insists the Christians at the time had the gospel which should be read to find Muhammad in them. Your argument fails because authority rested within the church which is the pillar and ground of truth to determine a canon for that specific church.

Quote:
Originally Posted by smaneck View Post
Actually, different churches have different bibles, although they share a lot of commonalities. Protestants threw out the Apocrypha, for instance, whereas Coptics included the Book of Enoch. The Orthodox Church does not except the Book of Revelation.
You don’t know what your speaking about, the Orthodox church does accept revelation, all Christian churches accept it. There have been different canons but this has never been a problem, like there are different Qurans today and textual varients in these Qurans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by smaneck View Post
I didn't say you fabricated hadith, I said you completely misrepresent what those hadith say happened. In any case, how would I got about proving a given hadith doesn't exist? Hadith collections only tell us about the ones that do exist, not the ones that don't.
If I did misrepresent it, the burden is on you to show that I did.
 
Old 01-18-2013, 05:38 PM   #339
Senior Member
 
arthra's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2006
From: California
Posts: 4,303
Icono dule wrote:

You don’t know what your speaking about, the Orthodox church does accept revelation, all Christian churches accept it. There have been different canons but this has never been a problem, like there are different Qurans today and textual varients in these Qurans.

My comment:

And yet it took along time before the Book of Revelation was accepted into the canon...

It appears that Revelation was the last of the traditional books to be accepted as part of the Christian biblical canon, up to 100 years later than the other books. According to Denzinger, Revelation was accepted at the Council of Carthage of 397 AD;[28] according to McDonald & Sanders it was added at the later 419 council.[29] Revelation's place in the canon was not guaranteed, however, with doubts raised as far back as the 2nd century about its character, symbolism, and apostolic authorship.[30] These doubts have been regularly expressed through Church history.

Book of Revelation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Qur'an has various translations and interpretations but the Arabic text is the same..

 
Old 01-21-2013, 04:44 AM   #340
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Missouri
Posts: 228
But isn't this good news?

[1] Muhammad was so overcome that He would have hurled Himself down a precipice. Then, the clear voice rang out again, in the stillness of the lone hillside, to tell Muhammad that God had chosen Him to be His Messenger to mankind. The weight of revelation was too great to bear, and Muhammad, now aware of His awesome mission to proclaim the Oneness of the Godhead, fled to His home, not more than three or four miles away, and asked Khadijah, His wife, to cover Him with His mantle. Muhammad said, on this occasion, that as He lay covered He felt that His soul had left His body for a while. It is related that it became His wont to seek the cover of His mantle, at the approach of a fresh revelation.

(H.M. Balyuzi, Muhammad and the Course of Islam, p. 20)

How did Muhammad's predecessors Jesus and Moses handle their revelation?

It's a lot of text for Moses but you'll find it in Exodus 3-4. Basically Moses is struck by the sight of the burning bush and decides to check it out. God tells him to remove his sandals because where he is standing is holy. God tells Moses He's heard the cries of Israel and is going to free them, using Moses. Moses is taken back citing his weakness' like stuttering but God affirms his choice in him.

Mat 3:13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. 16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Next chapter Jesus goes into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan. But in both cases of God's revelation upon them, neither acted suicidal or felt as if their soul had left them, huddling with a mantle in the arms of a loved one. Why is Muhammad's reaction so different?

I saw surah 73/74 were referenced but they didn’t shed any light that I could see. If Muhammad had been a sinful man I could understand how the holiness of God was overwhelming which might have drove him to throw himself off a cliff. But if he was sinless why would he feel like doing such a thing? Isn’t suicide (perhaps in all but the rarest of circumstances) a sin? Why would that sinful impulse be there for a sinless prophet?
 
Old 01-21-2013, 05:05 AM   #341
Senior Member
 
ahanu's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Hyrule
Posts: 1,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Further Questions View Post

Next chapter Jesus goes into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan. But in both cases of God's revelation upon them, neither acted suicidal or felt as if their soul had left them, huddling with a mantle in the arms of a loved one. Why is Muhammad's reaction so different?
Jesus' temptation in the wilderness, as painted by the gospel writers, is interesting. Especially these parts:
At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

At once the Spirit sent him out into the wilderness, and he was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him.
(Mark 1.9-13)
"Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 'If you are the Son of God,' he said, 'throw yourself down. For it is written:


'He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’

Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”
(Matthew 4.5-11)
"The devil led him to Jerusalem and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 'If you are the Son of God,' he said, 'throw yourself down from here. For it is written:


'He will command his angels concerning you
to guard you carefully;
they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’”

Jesus answered, “It is said: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”
(Luke 4.9-12)
Was the temptation suicide?
 
Old 01-22-2013, 06:08 AM   #342
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Missouri
Posts: 228
@ahanu

"Was the temptation suicide?"

It doesn't appear so from any of the gospels accounts I think... It doesn't mention Jesus being overwhelmed like Muhammad. It seems more like Satan was trying to tempt Christ to show off. Christ trusted the angels would catch him but didn't want to put that to the test. Do you think otherwise for some reason? With all due respect to you I can't see what pull suicide would have on Christ at this point. It had been over a month since his baptism and it doesn't say he was depressed or doubting....
 
Old 01-22-2013, 06:17 AM   #343
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Missouri
Posts: 228
Showing off fits I think with Satan's character. He fell by pride and wants Christ to fall the same way.
 
Old 01-22-2013, 07:00 AM   #344
Senior Member
 
ahanu's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Hyrule
Posts: 1,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Further Questions View Post
It seems more like Satan was trying to tempt Christ to show off. Christ trusted the angels would catch him but didn't want to put that to the test. Do you think otherwise for some reason? With all due respect to you I can't see what pull suicide would have on Christ at this point. It had been over a month since his baptism and it doesn't say he was depressed or doubting....
According to Matthew:
"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world . . ."
Now is there a mountain on Earth high enough to see "all the kingdoms of the world"? No. It makes me wonder how literal we should take the temptation. Does it represent history, or Jesus' psyche?

Likewise, did the historical Jesus literally stand on the temple with the devil? Probably not. It probably reveals his psyche. The devil here quotes Psalm 91.11-12:
'He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’
Here's the entire chapter of Psalm 91:

1 Whoever dwells in the shelter of the Most High
will rest in the shadow of the Almighty.[a]
2 I will say of the Lord, “He is my refuge and my fortress,
my God, in whom I trust.”


3 Surely he will save you
from the fowler’s snare
and from the deadly pestilence.
4 He will cover you with his feathers,
and under his wings you will find refuge;
his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart.
5 You will not fear the terror of night,
nor the arrow that flies by day,
6 nor the pestilence that stalks in the darkness,
nor the plague that destroys at midday.
7 A thousand may fall at your side,
ten thousand at your right hand,
but it will not come near you.
8 You will only observe with your eyes
and see the punishment of the wicked.


9 If you say, “The Lord is my refuge,”
and you make the Most High your dwelling,
10 no harm will overtake you,
no disaster will come near your tent.
11 For he will command his angels concerning you
to guard you in all your ways;
12 they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.
13 You will tread on the lion and the cobra;
you will trample the great lion and the serpent.


14 “Because he[b] loves me,” says the Lord, “I will rescue him;
I will protect him, for he acknowledges my name.
15 He will call on me, and I will answer him;
I will be with him in trouble,
I will deliver him and honor him.
16 With long life I will satisfy him
and show him my salvation.”
Some Jews during Christ's lifetime may have interpreted verses 11 and 12 as proof of the true messiah. I found the following on wikipedia: "The only surviving Jewish parallel to the temptation uses the standard word šbyt 'roof' not 'wing': 'Our Rabbis related that in the hour when the Messiah shall be revealed he shall come and stand on the roof (šbyt) of the temple.'" If Jesus could toss himself off of the temple without being harmed, then surely he is the messiah. So the temptation becomes how to prove he is the messiah.

Quote:
Do you think otherwise for some reason? With all due respect to you I can't see what pull suicide would have on Christ at this point.
Come on, Jesus is spending a long period of time fasting. Surely there is a great spiritual struggle within him. The temptation details how the messiah could avoid a particular target if he follows the devil: self-sacrifice. The role of suffering servant seems to be what Jesus is wrestling with in his mind. There were so many conflicting opinions on the role of the coming messiah at the time. The "angels" who "attended him" are probably people who could interpret scripture in accordance with God's will. In this light, the temptation does not mention suicide, but it does mention a suicide attempt, for surely a false messiah would die if he jumped off the temple, whereas the true messiah would be saved by angels. Under all these conflicting interpretations of the messiah, I could see how Jesus might want to "hurl himself down a precipice." Imagine you and your people are occupied by Roman forces and corrupt religious leaders. Which do you prefer? A militant messiah or a suffering messiah? Nobody wants to hear about a suffering messiah. Besides this, the New Testament says: "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin." If we take this at face value, this would include the temptation of suicide.

Last edited by ahanu; 01-22-2013 at 07:27 AM.
 
Old 01-22-2013, 07:20 AM   #345
Senior Member
 
ahanu's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Hyrule
Posts: 1,054
In conclusion, I just want say we don't know if Jesus had suicidal thoughts. In my opinion, I would prefer my Jesus to have been tempted with them, because it makes him more like me: human.
 
Old 01-22-2013, 01:35 PM   #346
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Jackson, MS
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by ByTheNarrowGate View Post
One question that I have concerning progressive revelation is why God needed to reveal truth to us in progressive increments. Is this related to the application of evolutionary principles to anthropology? Is the idea that ancient man was not "evolved" enough to handle God's full revelation so He had to reveal it to us in progressive increments as evovled the mental and social capability to handle it? If this is not the underlying concept behind progressive revelation, then why else would God withhold such a priceless treasure from ancient man?

Dear Narrow Gate,

The term "Progressive Revelation" was initially coined by Protestant Christians in the 19th century as a way of understanding the differences between the Old and New Testament. Shoghi Effendi borrowed the term in order to best express Baha'u'llah's concept as addressed in passages like the following:

"The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements."

warmest, Susan
 
Old 01-22-2013, 01:40 PM   #347
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Jackson, MS
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Further Questions View Post
Showing off fits I think with Satan's character. He fell by pride and wants Christ to fall the same way.
Keep in mind Baha'is don't believe in a literal Satan. We believe he is symbolic of man's lower nature. Therefore, when Christ is tempted it is His own lower nature tempting Him.
 
Old 01-22-2013, 06:27 PM   #348
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Missouri
Posts: 228
@ahanu

" Besides this, the New Testament says: "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin." If we take this at face value, this would include the temptation of suicide. "

I can pick up what you're putting down I am tempted to take it at face value that "all points" does include suicide, although I can't say for certain. But assuming that's true isn't it still a profound difference from what we see with Muhammad? After his baptism Jesus doesn't go stand over a cliff considering suicide (nothing in scripture OT or NT specifically mentions or hints at it as far as I know). If I'd lived in that time yeah I'd probably want the militant Messiah (the disciples seemed to at first!). I think there is some truth to Jesus fearing the self sacrifice he knew was coming (as seen in the garden praying) but that it had more to do with the separation from God that had hither to been perfect and complete (why have you forsaken me?) more than any other aspect of self-sacrifice.

@smaneck

Yeah I do recall that. My question is that if Satan represents man's lower nature why is it seen in a perfect manifestation? I thought a sinless person would not have one. But again I'm still learning finer points of Baha'i teachings
 
Old 01-22-2013, 06:36 PM   #349
Senior Member
 
ahanu's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Hyrule
Posts: 1,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Further Questions View Post
@ahanu

" Besides this, the New Testament says: "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin." If we take this at face value, this would include the temptation of suicide. "

I can pick up what you're putting down I am tempted to take it at face value that "all points" does include suicide, although I can't say for certain. But assuming that's true isn't it still a profound difference from what we see with Muhammad? After his baptism Jesus doesn't go stand over a cliff considering suicide (nothing in scripture OT or NT specifically mentions or hints at it as far as I know).
Neither does the New Testament mention Jesus laughed, but that doesn't mean Jesus never laughed.

 
Old 01-23-2013, 11:01 AM   #350
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Jackson, MS
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Further Questions View Post
Yeah I do recall that. My question is that if Satan represents man's lower nature why is it seen in a perfect manifestation? I thought a sinless person would not have one. But again I'm still learning finer points of Baha'i teachings
It is my personal opinion that Manifestations don't give in to Their lower nature, not that They don't have one. If they did not have a lower nature They would not be fully human. If They gave in to Their lower nature, They would not be fully divine.
 
Old 01-26-2013, 11:34 AM   #351
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Missouri
Posts: 228
@ahanu

Well I can appreciate your position but I still maintain that at least at his revelation and even during his temptation with Satan suicide was not a temptation. I think being on the cross, looking forward to say “it is finished” was the most probable time.
 
Old 01-26-2013, 11:35 AM   #352
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Missouri
Posts: 228
Next I’d like to compare the perception and treatment of women. Here is what the Qur’an says.

It seems to be the man’s prerogative not a mutual choice.

2:223 Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will, and send (good deeds) before you for your souls, and fear Allah, and know that ye will (one day) meet Him. Give glad tidings to believers, (O Muhammad).

Rebellion need not be proven, only suspected/perceived. It would likely not go well for the woman who struck back, even in self defense.

4:34 Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

I’ve heard it said that although Muhammad allowed polygamy he restricted it by saying that the wives needed to be treated equally. Wouldn’t the following ayah confuse that concept?

4:129 Ye will not be able to deal equally between (your) wives, however much ye wish (to do so). But turn not altogether away (from one), leaving her as in suspense. If ye do good and keep from evil, lo! Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.

Is there a punishment/restitution prescribed elsewhere? If a man forces himself on his slave girl he can be forgiven. That’s good but does she get anything for being violated?

24:33 And let those who cannot find a match keep chaste till Allah give them independence by His grace. And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation), write it for them if ye are aware of aught of good in them, and bestow upon them of the wealth of Allah which He hath bestowed upon you. Force not your slave-girls to whoredom that ye may seek enjoyment of the life of the world, if they would preserve their chastity. And if one force them, then (unto them), after their compulsion, lo! Allah will be Forgiving, Merciful.
 
Old 01-26-2013, 11:37 AM   #353
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Missouri
Posts: 228
The Hadith (which I understand is secondary to the Qur’an).

Does it matter if the wife has a legitimate reason? Perhaps she’s furious with her husband. Perhaps he beat her earlier (surah 4:34). Perhaps she’s feeling ill, or is exhausted. Is she supposed to grit her teeth through it no matter what or suffer the curses of angels?

Volume 4, Book 54, Number 460:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "If a husband calls his wife
to his bed (i.e. to have sexual relation) and she
refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the
angels will curse her till morning."


I could understand if it were animals or everyone. But another man can pass and it’s fine?

Volume 1, Book 9, Number 490:

Narrated 'Aisha:

The things which annul the prayers were
mentioned before me. They said, "Prayer is
annulled by a dog, a donkey and a woman (if
they pass in front of the praying people)." I said,
"You have made us (i.e. women) dogs. I saw the
Prophet praying while I used to lie in my bed
between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in
need of something, I would slip away. for I
disliked to face him."


I’ve heard it said that Muhammad did not have relations with A’ishah until a few years later. Does anyone know the evidence for this? Assuming that it’s true did Muhammad’s followers know this? They were told to imitate the prophet, isn’t it possible it led some to take child brides and not wait to consummate?


Not long after the arrival of Abu-Bakr's family, Muhammad married 'A'ishah, who was then nine years old. There was no wedding feast, but Sa'd Ibn 'Ubadah, as 'A'ishah herself has narrated, sent them a bowl of fresh milk. 'A'ishah was the first child born in Islam.[1]

(H.M. Balyuzi, Muhammad and the Course of Islam, p. 56)



What about husbands ungrateful for their wives?
Volume 1, Book 2, Number 28:

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

The Prophet said: "I was shown the Hell-fire and
that the majority of its dwellers were women who
were ungrateful." It was asked, "Do they
disbelieve in Allah?" (or are they ungrateful to
Allah?) He replied, "They are ungrateful to their
husbands and are ungrateful for the favors and
the good (charitable deeds) done to them. If you
have always been good (benevolent) to one of
them and then she sees something in you (not of
her liking), she will say, 'I have never received
any good from you."

Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to
offer the prayer) o 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer.
Then he passed by the women and said, "O
women! Give alms, as I have seen that the
majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you
(women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's
Apostle ?" He replied, "You curse frequently and
are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen
anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion
than you. A cautious sensible man could be led
astray by some of you." The women asked, "O
Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our
intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the
evidence of two women equal to the witness of
one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He
said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence.
Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor
fast during her menses?" The women replied in
the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in
her religion."

Why doesn’t Muhammad straight out condemn fornication?
Volume 3, Book 46, Number 718:

Narrated Ibn Muhairiz:

I saw Abu Said and asked him about coitus
interruptus. Abu Said said, "We went with
Allah's Apostle, in the Ghazwa of Barli
Al-Mustaliq and we captured some of the 'Arabs
as captives, and the long separation from our
wives was pressing us hard and we wanted to
practice coitus interruptus. We asked Allah's
Apostle (whether it was permissible). He said, "It
is better for you not to do so. No soul, (that
which Allah has) destined to exist, up to the Day
of Resurrection, but will definitely come, into
existence."
 
Old 01-26-2013, 11:38 AM   #354
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Missouri
Posts: 228
The New Testament (remember this is Christianity and Islam).

It’s joint power to seek intimacy or refrain for a time.

1Co 7:3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
1Co 7:4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
1Co 7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

(This verse is speaking to Christians in general but certainly doesn’t exclude married couples or women).

Eph 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

Eph 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
Eph 5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:


In various places you see women teaching (Aquila and Priscilla), prophesying and many other remarkable things.

And remember that Islam was for the entire world not just the Arabs. Muhammad could have instated a “grandfather” rule sort of like what the NT does with circumcision but unless I’m mistaken it’s not there. All the Christian women who were used to these freedoms were expected to submit to this progressive change if Islam is true.

Last edited by Some Further Questions; 01-26-2013 at 11:42 AM. Reason: extra verses
 
Old 01-28-2013, 01:32 PM   #355
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Missouri
Posts: 228
@smaneck

"It is my personal opinion that Manifestations don't give in to Their lower nature, not that They don't have one. If they did not have a lower nature They would not be fully human. If They gave in to Their lower nature, They would not be fully divine. "

I see. Thanks for that. BTW what's your take on God being angry with Moses in the desert? On the surface it seemed like Moses sinned don't you think? If you don't want to rabbit trail that's cool (I know you're quite capable of giving some answer!)
 
Old 01-28-2013, 04:11 PM   #356
Senior Member
 
arthra's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2006
From: California
Posts: 4,303
SFQ wrote:

I’ve heard it said that although Muhammad allowed polygamy he restricted it by saying that the wives needed to be treated equally. Wouldn’t the following ayah confuse that concept?

4:129 Ye will not be able to deal equally between (your) wives, however much ye wish (to do so). But turn not altogether away (from one), leaving her as in suspense. If ye do good and keep from evil, lo! Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.


Yes this is the Baha'i view.. Muhammad was monogamous with Khadijih over twenty years.. His marriages after she passed away were for state reasons:

Polygamy is a very ancient practice among the
majority of humanity. The introduction of monogamy has
been only gradually accomplished by the Manifestations of
God. Jesus, for example, did not prohibit polygamy, but
abolished divorce except in the case of fornication;
Muhammad limited the number of wives to four, but
making plurality of wives contingent on justice, and
reintroducing permission for divorce; Bahá'u'lláh, Who was
revealing His Teachings in the milieu of a Muslim society,
introduced the question of monogamy gradually in accordance
with the principles of wisdom and the progressive
unfoldment of His purpose

(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 206)

Jesus did not abrogate levirate marriages.


You'll also note that in pagan Arabia there was no limit to the number of wives so a limit of four was set and

Women in Pre-Islamic Arabia had almost no rights. They were not considered equal to men and were thus dictated under a strict patrilineal system. They were viewed as objects and were constantly humiliated. Women had very little control over their marriages and could not inherit property. In the family, their purpose was nothing more but for bearing children although they did not have any rights to them. When a female baby was born it was considered a disgrace to the family and female infanticide was a common response.

Women in pre-Islamic Arabia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Qur'an corrected these abuses..

In the case of Aisha and her age.. It is believed her actual age is unknown. Similarly according to tradition Khadijih was supposed to be forty yeasr of age when she married Muhammad yet there were several children.. It is unlikely she could have been forty years old therefore.
 
Old 01-29-2013, 05:32 AM   #357
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2010
From: Rockville, MD, USA
Posts: 1,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Further Questions;38468[to a third party
[W]hat's your take on God being angry with Moses in the desert? On the surface it seemed like Moses sinned don't you think?
From the Baha'i scriptures:

CHAPTER 44.
EXPLANATION OF THE REBUKES ADDRESSED BY GOD
TO THE PROPHETS
“Question.--In the Holy Books there are some addresses of reproach and rebuke directed to the Prophets. Who is addressed, and for whom is the rebuke?
“Answer.--All the divine discourses containing reproof, though apparently addressed to the Prophets, in reality are directed to the people, through a wisdom which is absolute mercy, in order that the people may not be discouraged and disheartened. They, therefore, appear to be addressed to the Prophets; but though outwardly for the Prophets, they are in truth for the people and not for the Prophets.
“Moreover, the powerful and independent king represents his country: that which he says is the word of all, and every agreement that he makes is the agreement of all, for the wishes and desires of all his subjects are included in his wishes and desires. In the same way, every Prophet is the expression of the whole of the people. So the promise and speech of God addressed to Him is addressed to all. Generally the speech of reproach and rebuke is rather too severe for the people and would be heartbreaking to them. So the Perfect Wisdom makes use of this form of address, as is clearly shown in the Bible itself, as, for example, when the children of Israel rebelled and said to Moses: "We cannot fight with the Amalekites, for they are powerful, mighty and courageous." God then rebuked Moses and Aaron, though Moses was in complete obedience and not in rebellion. Surely such a great Man, Who is the mediator of the Divine Bounty and the deliverer of the Law, must necessarily obey the commands of God. These Holy Souls are like the leaves of a tree which are put in motion by the blowing of the wind, and not by Their own desire; for They are attracted by the breeze of the love of God, and Their will is absolutely submissive. Their word is the word of God; Their commandment is the commandment of God; Their prohibition is the prohibition of God. They are like the glass globe which receives light from the lamp. Although the light appears to emanate from the glass, in reality it is shining from the lamp. In the same way for the Prophets of God, the centers of manifestation, Their movement and repose come from divine inspiration, not from human passions. If it were not so, how could the Prophet be worthy of trust, and how could He be the Messenger of God, delivering the commands and the prohibitions of God? All the defects that are mentioned in the Holy Books with reference to the Manifestations refer to questions of this kind.
“Praise be to God that you have come here and have met the servants of God! Have you perceived in them anything except the fragrance of the pleasure of God? Indeed, no. You have seen with your own eyes that day and night they endeavor and strive, and that they have no aim except the exaltation of the word of God, the education of men, the improvement of the masses, spiritual progress, the promulgation of universal peace, goodwill to all mankind, and kindness toward all nations. Sacrificing themselves for the good of humanity, they are detached from material advantages, and labor to give virtues to mankind.
“But let us return to our subject. For example, in the Old Testament it is said in the Book of Isaiah, chapter 48, verse 12: ‘Hearken unto Me, O Jacob and Israel, My called; I am He; I am the first, I also am the last.’ It is evident that it does not mean Jacob who was Israel, but the people of Israel. Also in the Book of Isaiah, chapter 43, verse 1, it is said: ‘But now thus saith the Lord that created thee, O Jacob, and He that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art Mine.’
“Furthermore, in Numbers, chapter 20, verse 23: ‘And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron in mount Hor, by the coast of the land of Edom, saying, Aaron shall be gathered unto his people: for he shall not enter into the land which I have given unto the children of Israel, because ye rebelled against My word at the water of Meribah’; [Num. 20:23-24.] and in verse 13: ‘This is the water of Meribah; because the children of Israel strove with the Lord, and He was sanctified in them.’
“Observe: the people of Israel rebelled, but apparently the reproach was for Moses and Aaron. As it is said in the Book of Deuteronomy, chapter 3, verse 26: ‘But the Lord was wroth with Me for your sakes, and would not hear Me: and the Lord said unto Me, Let it suffice Thee; speak no more unto Me of this matter.’
“Now this discourse and reproach really refer to the children of Israel, who, for having rebelled against the command of God, were held captive a long time in the arid desert, on the other side of Jordan, until the time of Joshua--upon him be salutations. This address and reproach appeared to be for Moses and Aaron, but in reality they were for the people of Israel.
“In the same way in the Qur'án it is said to Muhammad: ‘We have granted Thee a manifest victory, so that God may forgive Thee Thy preceding and subsequent sin.’ [Cf. Qur'án 48:1-2.] This address, although apparently directed to Muhammad, was in reality for all the people. This mode of address, as before said, was used by the perfect wisdom of God, so that the hearts of the people might not be troubled, anxious and tormented.
“How often the Prophets of God and His supreme Manifestations in Their prayers confess Their sins and faults! This is only to teach other men, to encourage and incite them to humility and meekness, and to induce them to confess their sins and faults. For these Holy Souls are pure from every sin and sanctified from faults. In the Gospel it is said that a man came to Christ and called Him ‘Good Master.’ Christ answered, ‘Why callest thou Me good? there is none good but One, that is, God.’ [Matt. 19:16, 17.] This did not mean--God forbid!--that Christ was a sinner; but the intention was to teach submission, humility, meekness and modesty to the man to whom He spoke. These Holy Beings are lights, and light does not unite itself with darkness. They are life, and life and death are not confounded. They are for guidance, and guidance and error cannot be together. They are the essence of obedience, and obedience cannot exist with rebellion.
“To conclude, the addresses in the form of reproach which are in the Holy Books, though apparently directed to the Prophets--that is to say, to the Manifestations of God--in reality are intended for the people. This will become evident and clear to you when you have diligently examined the Holy Books.
“Salutations be upon you.”

--Some Answered Questions
 
Old 01-29-2013, 08:14 AM   #358
Senior Member
 
arthra's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2006
From: California
Posts: 4,303
Bruce quotes:


EXPLANATION OF THE REBUKES ADDRESSED BY GOD
TO THE PROPHETS

“Question.--In the Holy Books there are some addresses of reproach and rebuke directed to the Prophets. Who is addressed, and for whom is the rebuke?

“Answer.--All the divine discourses containing reproof, though apparently addressed to the Prophets, in reality are directed to the people, through a wisdom which is absolute mercy, in order that the people may not be discouraged and disheartened. They, therefore, appear to be addressed to the Prophets; but though outwardly for the Prophets, they are in truth for the people and not for the Prophets.


Thanks for sharing that Bruce...

 
Old 01-30-2013, 02:53 PM   #359
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Missouri
Posts: 228
@arthra

"His marriages after she passed away were for state reasons"

Since A'ishah's family was already Islamic what state reason was there to marry a nine year old?
 
Old 01-30-2013, 03:00 PM   #360
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Missouri
Posts: 228
@Bruce

Thanks for the info Bruce. Perhaps I'll dig into that more later
 
Reply

  Baha'i Forums > Baha'i Forums > Interfaith

Tags
christianity, islam, progressive



Search tags for this page
Click on a term to search for related topics.
Thread Tools
Display Modes



Facebook @bahaiforums RSS


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2006 - 2018 Bahai Forums. All rights reserved.