Who has the power to change God's teaching

Oct 2011
4,213
Quilimari,Chile
#1
It is interesting I find that the different faiths object to the new faiths that interpret their old book, they arise in indignation at how dare these people state that they the original believers do not understand their own book.
I would like to point out, concerning Jesus, did he not show the priests of His day their error?
Is this not a fact?
Now moving forward Islam was not to have priests only learned ones.
My question do not these so called learned ones now try to fulfil the role of priest?

And now they tell Christians their errors. Did not Mohammad come as a Warner to the Christians. And how the majority rose up in rebellion. yes or no? Did Mohammad act any different to Jesus? I do not believe so.

Now the Muslims arise to reject The Bab and Baha'u'llah, what a day, a day of twin Messengers to Warn, but history does not change.

Now as for the Muslims, I have found this of interest, from a most interesting book.

But when we have recited it, then follow thou the recital,
And, verily, afterwards it shall be ours to make it clear [bayanahu] to thee.2

In some translations "make it clear" is translated as "explanation thereof', both having the same meaning

It is evident from the verse cited above that God called on Prophet Muhammad, and thereby His followers, not to hasten efforts to master the understanding of the Qur'an, but rather to follow the instructions therein. God further gives the assurance that He will reveal the explanation of the Book, and that such a clarification will be forthcoming at some future date.

In the Surih of the Heights (VII, vv. 50-1) [7:50-51] it is written:
And now have we brought them the Book: with knowledge have we explained it; a guidance and a mercy to them that believe. What have they to wait for now but its interpretation? When its interpretation shall come, they who aforetime were oblivious of it shall say, "The Prophets of our Lord did indeed bring the truth; shall we have any intercessor to intercede for us? or could we not be sent back? Then would we act otherwise than we have acted" But they have ruined themselves; and the deities of their own devising have fled from them!3

2. SeeMiracles and Metaphors, part II, Commentary on "Then it is Ours to Explain It," pp. 51-58, end p. 11.
3. cf. Qur'an 10:40. Cited by Mirza Abu'l-Fadl inBaha'i Proofs,p. 213, in connection with prophecies concerning the unsealing of the Texts at the time of the return. Additional commentary on this theme and these verses can be found on pp. 10 and 52 ofMiracles and Metaphors. BAHA'U'LLAH: THE GREAT ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE QUR'AN
by MUHAMMAD MUSTAFA
As the above states upon passing to the next life they discover their error and ask could they not have another chance, but sadly when we pass from this life, we can't promise to change our ways and return, there is no returning.

Each Messenger of God has the authority to pass judgement on the past religion, He also has power to change laws etc and teachings. Something all Faiths who believe that their faith is final and can't be changed so desperately need to understand. Did not Jesus do this? Also Mohammad? oh how sad that those who are blind and do not see.
 
Oct 2011
4,213
Quilimari,Chile
#2
I find the book interesting as the pre ceeding words explanation to the above quote are here...............

The task of interpreting the Qur'an is a delicate one. Many interpretations have been written, generally concluding with the phrase: "God and His Apostle alone know the truth". The statement indicates that the interpretation reflects a personal understanding and that the true interpretation remains in the knowledge of God and His Apostle Muhammad.

God warned the Muslims in the Qur'an against interpreting the Qur'an. This is stated very clearly in the Surih of the Family of 'Imran (III, v. 5) [3:5]:
He it is who hath sent down to thee "the Book." Some of its signs are of themselves perspicuous; these are the basis of the Book and others are figurative. But they whose hearts are given to err, follow its figures, craving discord, craving an interpretation; yet none knoweth its interpretation but God And the stable in knowledge say "We believe in it; all is from our Lord" But none will bear this in mind, save men endued with understanding.

Part of this verse is cited by Baha'u'llah in theKitab-i-Iqan, the punctuation contributing to its meaning:
"None knoweth the interpretation thereof but God and they that are well-grounded in knowledge."1

It is evident from the above verse that the Qur'an includes verses that are clear and others that are figurative. The clear verses are ones which provide


1. Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 17 and 213, as translated by Shoghi Effendi. See alsoSelections from the Writings of the Bab,p. 11

The Shi'ih interpretation of "they that are well-grounded in knowledge" is that of being in reference to the Imamate. SeeAn introduction to Shi'i Islamby M. Momen. pp. 151-2.



page 2

the laws and ordinances of the Faith, such as those concerning prayer, ablutions, fasting, alms, marriage, divorce and inheritance. These laws and ordinances distinguish the believers of the Qur'an as an independent community. The verses which set forth these laws and ordinances, being "perspicuous", are not essentially and necessarily in need of interpretation. Whenever specific issues and situations arise which call for the application of these verses, it is generally understood that in the first instance the "well-grounded in knowledge" and after them, distinguished men of learning, may explain and interpret such verses in order to make them applicable to the individual as well as to the community. The figurative verses, however, definitely require interpretation in order that their meanings may be understood. Those described by the Qur'anic verse as leaders who, "craving interpretation", will make pronouncements according to their own whims and fancies, seeking to expound meanings of the figurative verses, will in the end be sources of "error" and "discord". The interpretation of these verses is known only to God and the "well-grounded in knowledge" who do not have the permission to reveal their interpretation despite their knowledge of it. Those endowed with understanding, men of true knowledge, will know that the figurative verses of the Qur'an should not and cannot be authoritatively interpreted by mortal minds. In the Surih of Resurrection (LXXV, vv. 16- 19) [75:16-19], God addresses Prophet Muhammad:
Move not thy tongue in haste to follow and master this revelation: For we will see to the collecting and the recital of it [qur'anahu];
 
Oct 2011
4,213
Quilimari,Chile
#3
Further to this question of the 98 th Surah.............

The texts in Arberry's and Pickthall's translations are much the same, with "Clear Sign" and "clear proof" used in place of "clear evidence". The alteration of meaning brought about through interpretation can be better appreciated in understanding the following terms: The "people of the Book" are the Christians and the Jews. The "unbelievers among the people of the Book" are the Christians and the Jews who refused to accept Islam and Muhammad. The "polytheists" are those who took other gods instead of the one true God. They are neither Christians nor Jews, but rather are the- idolators who were in Arabia at the time of the Prophet. The main difference between Rodwell's and the corrected translation lies in the first verse where Rodwell's translation indicates a past tense for the event, while the corrected translation uses a future tense. How can such a difference exist? The Arabic original of the first verse indicates that a "Clear Evidence" shall come (future tense), while in the fourth verse the "Clear Evidence" is indicated as having already come (past tense). This is further confirmed by Yusuf 'Ali's translation, where the first verse refers to the coming of the "Clear Evidence" as occurring in the future, while the fourth verse confirms that the "Clear Evidence" already came. The verses further explain that the "Clear Evidence" to come is "an Apostle of God reciting pure pages wherein are valuable Books". Apparently, therefore, there are two "Clear Evidences", One that


page 12

shall come and One that had already come at the time of revelation of these verses. Interpretations and translations agree that the "Clear Evidence" mentioned in the fourth verse as having come is the Apostle Muhammad. With regard to the reference in the first verse, the interpreters replaced the Arabic future tense "to come" with "came", the past tense. Yusuf 'Ali comments that the Clear Evidence "to come" is none other than the Apostle Muhammad who was present when these verses were revealed. As far as the interpreters were concerned, there could be no Apostle in the future after Muhammad. To solve the problem they simply interpreted the future as the past and the English translations simply had to follow suit. The meaning of the verses, however, leaves no doubt that they are in reference to two distinct Apostles of God. The Apostle to come in the future would change the attitudes of the unbelievers and polytheists, who would not waver from their beliefs until the Apostle of God appeared. The Christians and the Jews would then believe in the truth of Muhammad and cease to be counted amongst the unbelievers while the polytheists would believe in the one true God and cease to be polytheists. That is precisely what happened when Baha'u'llah came into the world. Baha'is of Christian and of Jewish origin accepted the Prophethood of Muhammad. They were "unbelievers" concerning Muhammad until the "Clear Evidence", Baha'u'llah, came to them. The term did not apply to them before the appearance of Muhammad, for they were believers in God, Jesus Christ and Moses and they were the "people of the Book". The qualification of "unbelievers" fell upon them only after their denial of Muhammad.


page 13

When Muhammad came to them, they were divided: Some believed in Him and were accounted believers, while others refused to accept Him and were identified as "unbelievers". Hence the verse: "Nor were the people of the book divided until after the Clear Evidence came to them." The Surih of the Cow (II, v. 107) [2:107] explains that the differences between the Christians and the Jews shall be resolved only on the Day of Resurrection, and not through the Message of Muhammad: Moreover, the Jews say, "The Christians lean on naught." "On naught lean the Jews", say the Christians. Yet both are readers of the Book. So with like words say they who have no knowledge. But on the Day of Resurrection, God shall judge between them as to that in which they differ. In the Surih of Clear Evidence (XCVIII) [98] the reader will note that the Apostle Who will come will recite "pure pages wherein are valuable Books", that is more than one Book. However, God revealed but one Book to Muhammad, the Qur'an:
He it is Who hath sent down to Thee "the Book".
(Surih III, "The Family of 'Imran", v. 5) [3:5]

Also, the Christians and the Jews are known to the Muslims as the people of "the Book", a singular noun.

It is obvious, therefore, that the Apostle destined to come with "valuable Books" cannot be Muhammad, Jesus, or Moses Who were each recipients of a single Book. To Baha'u'llah, however, many Books were revealed6 and the "Clear




6. On p. 115 ofEpistle to the Son of the Wolf,Baha'u'llah attests that "well-nigh a hundred volumes of luminous verses and perspicuous words have already been sent down from the heaven of the Will of Him Who is the Revealer of signs ..."



page 14

Evidence" promised in the verses is the Revelation of Baha'u'llah. The "Clear Evidence" that had already come is the Revelation of Muhammad.
 
Mar 2013
491
none
#4
I think, there are different ways, that the last good come to us.

I knew not, how it has been. It was never kept. Maybe it can't because it would be not of any sense or meaning. It may be lost, too - transcendent, transfigurated and that in between - just means nothing.

The gathering that is "collection" and of "truth" (so in your other post, that what comes to him). So it is, may be - all that and in it's time - but also to the end ...
It may be a little complicated, in all that languages, faith, scripture, version... but, refering to you other post, "truth" comes to him.
 
Last edited:
Aug 2014
1,358
Blue Planet
#5
I asked an Arabic language teacher whose second language is also Arabic. I asked if that special verb in the SUrah is in future or past (and I didnt tell her that that verb is the one in Quran). she said that that is a future in the past tense; we cab say "future" in general.
 
Oct 2011
4,213
Quilimari,Chile
#6
I asked an Arabic language teacher whose second language is also Arabic. I asked if that special verb in the SUrah is in future or past (and I didnt tell her that that verb is the one in Quran). she said that that is a future in the past tense; we cab say "future" in general.
Dear friend not sure what you are saying here?
 
Oct 2011
4,213
Quilimari,Chile
#7
I asked an Arabic language teacher whose second language is also Arabic. I asked if that special verb in the SUrah is in future or past (and I didnt tell her that that verb is the one in Quran). she said that that is a future in the past tense; we cab say "future" in general.
OK if I understand you correctly then this verse does speak of, one in the future bringing Books plural. Which is what the Author says it says. So would definately point to Baha'u'llah.
Whereas the one in the past tense who brought knowledge was Muhammad.