"The Baha'i Faith"

[Wahid_Azal]

Wahid Azal…

wrote above:

"And we are called BAYANIS, not Azalis (a term of derision fabricated by Abbas Effendi, your British stooge center of the covenant)."

I wonder how your Perisan Baha’i family would respond to your statement…

Was that supposed to be any kind of evidence or argument as to why Miller’s career as Presbyterian Missionary to Iran makes him uncredible or that his book on your cult should not be taken as a fairly decent, introductory source – as attested by multiple non-Bahai scholars, Denis MacEoin amongst them. Or was that a typical Haifan Bahai argumentative sleight of hand, straw man and red herring in the absence of actual argument and facts where subtle ad hom and libel are introduced as a gutless way of not having to address actual substance? What my extended family think or don’t think about my statements regarding Abbas Effendi’s fifth columnist activities as an agent of British imperialism is irrelevent, and, frankly, since you must know, I don’t care what they think about my views on these issues in any case. I believe I have made that abundantly clear in the past on other fora.

Well enough… You are a Bayani not an Azali.

• Art

There is no such thing as Azali and never has been. There are only Bayanis. That said, my reason for being here is based on a challenge made by the alias DavidMark (aka Badi Villar Cardenas) on the comments section of this blog:
bahaism.blogspot.com/2009/11/carved-image-of-bab-in-azerbaijan.html#comments

Well, I am here. Is there anything else you wanted to say to me?

Wahid Azal

bahaicultfaq.blogspot.com/

 

[Wahid_Azal]

DavidMark, do you mean to say that Bahullah believed that Universe was God?. It has no beginning and no end?. We believe that Universe was created. God is the Creator. God has no beginning and no end. But Bahaullah says that Universe has no beginning and no end.

Will you please explain this matter in simple words?? God or Allah is the Khaaliq. He has created things. If Universe existed by itself without any beginning then it means it was always there (or here). And so it was not created by God.

The eternity of the universe is a standard Peripatetic/Neoplatonic point of view that exists equally among Christian, Jewish and Islamic philosophers and theosophical esotericists alike. The Baha’is did not invent this position nor are they the first to articulate it. It has been around long before Bahaism. In the Islamic world it is one of the central doctrines of Avicenna’s (Ibn Sina) Neoplatonic Aristotelianism. It is also articulated in a cryptic form in several traditions (hadith) attributed to the Shi’ite Imams by Kulayni and Saffar al-Qummi. Basically God as creator (khaliq) is also the Necessary Being (wajib al-wujud). As the Necessary Being in its function of Creator, the Godhead cannot ever be in the position of not having been a creator and then one. There must be a creation already-always in order for the predicate Creator to have any consistent reality, since necessity (wujub) posits its logical corrolary of ‘possibility’ (imkan). If the creatio ex nihilo argument be taken literally at face value, then this posits a lack and privation in the Creator in time or succession.

This whole position however comes with the addendum metaphysics of emanationism whereby worlds and realms (usually three but in Avicenna we have ten) proceed from the Primal One, the Necessary Being, the Godhead each with their own modality of eternity and duration. The Godhead in-itself is pre-eternal (azal) and outside of any scheme of time. It’s first emanation then produces its own emanation and so on and so forth down to the realm of gross matter. These emanations or Intellects are each eternal (each less superior than the one before it), but none are pre-eternal in the same way the Necessary Being is. In this scheme the universe can be eternal in temporality while being in a relationship of total dependency vis-a-vis the Necessary Being and Its pre-eternity.

Wahid Azal

 

[planten]

For Baha’is creation is an ongoing process that didn’t stop with “the sixth day” and we believe creation preceded the “first day” of Genesis …So the universe has neither beginning or end and means in our view that God hasn’t rested…
…
…be decomposed. The only difference is that some are quickly decomposed, and others more slowly, but it is impossible that a composed thing should not eventually be decomposed.

(Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 179)

Art you have not replied properly. I said if the Universe was created it should have a beginning. Or I am wrong? Tell me please.

Also by saying that God did not rest, you deny the clear words of the bibleOT. Just because God did not rest, you understand that Universe had no beginning. BibleOT saying that God created world in six days and then rested on the seventh day. It can be metaphorical and it can have other meanings, not literal. But you deny the beginning and the end.

Jesus also talked about the end. Se below:

Christ gave three criteria that are critical:
First Sign:
And as He sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto Him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? And Jesus answered and said unto them…this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. (Matthew 24:3-4 & 14)

Lord Jesus is also saying about the end. But Baha’is say there is no end. Can you explain all these things?? Should we take those words of genesis which say “God made…” as false? Should we take the words of Jesus about the end as false?? Explain clearly please, which one you believe, The BibleOT and Jesus or your Bahaullah??

 

[planten]

To David and Art, I have noticed that you post mixed matter. Your posts do not show where your statement starts and ends and where anything from Bahaullah / Abdul Baha starts and ends.

Please try to separate your statements from those of Bahaullah and Abdul Baha. Always try to put the words of Bahaullah and Abdul Baha in wraps (quotes). I hope you will comply. So that we can have a clear reading.

All of your previous long posts are useless. Do not just bold a few words. Put the words of your leaders only in wrap quotes please. And Also if you use anything from the Quran, put that also in wrap quotes so they are clearly visible. Thanks.

 

[DavidMark]

Art you have not replied properly. I said if the Universe was created it should have a beginning. Or I am wrong? Tell me please.
Also by saying that God did not rest, you deny the clear words of the bibleOT. QUOTE]

planten: I would like to show we believe there is no beginning or end to creation; because God is eternal, and has always had all His names, one of which is The Creator.
That name presupposes a creation. God never changes; the creation is always changing. The Six Days of creation, since the historical Adam, were each a thousand years.
We are living in the “7th Day”, during which the Dominion of God will inevitably encompass the Earth.

Know assuredly that God’s creation hath existed from eternity, and will continue to exist forever. Its beginning hath had no beginning, and its end knoweth no end. His name, the Creator, presupposeth a creation, even as His title, the Lord of Men, must involve the existence of a servant. ~Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 150

When we contemplate this vast machinery of omnipresent power, perceive this illimitable space and its innumerable worlds, it will become evident to us that the lifetime of this infinite creation is more than six thousand years; nay, it is very, very ancient. Notwithstanding this, we read in Genesis in the Old Testament that the lifetime of creation is but six thousand years. This has an inner meaning and significance; it is not to be taken literally. ~‘Abdu’l-Bahá, PUP, p. 463 [Objects exist farther than 6000 Light Years]

 

[planten]

Wahid Azal, you are involving me into unnecessary philosophy. You say:

From Azal: As the Necessary Being in its function of Creator, the Godhead cannot ever be in the position of not having been a creator and then one. **There must be a creation already-always in order for the predicate Creator to have any consistent reality, **since necessity (wujub) posits its logical corrolary of ‘possibility’ (imkan).

It is confusing. How there could be any creation before the Creator?. Who created that creation? Allah creates as He wills and when He wills. He is Khaaliq. He can always create something from nothing.

But you deny that. Yous ay that he cannot do that. You say creation should already be there for Him to be a real creator.

I could not follow you at all. Please note Allah is the one who creates something from nothing (Adamm).

But continue with your philosophical logic. Keep trying.

 

[planten]

DavidMark, please read my post above to Azal. Do not falter.

Know assuredly that God’s creation hath existed from eternity, and will continue to exist forever. Its beginning hath had no beginning, and its end knoweth no end. His name, the Creator, presupposeth a creation, even as His title, the Lord of Men, must involve the existence of a servant. ~Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 150

How come Mr. bahaullah sahib says the creation has no beginning? Did he read it in Bible or Quran? From where he got that? God is an independent creator. He create swhen he wills. You are presupposing that He is bound by your laws and that He cannot be a creator if he did not have something already created.

Beware. He is capable of creating out of NOTHING. He wills and then things happens. You are creating without His will.

Show me something from the BibleOT or NT or Quran which supports the claim of Bahaullah sahib that things (Universe) existed from eternity. We believe that nothing is eternal. All will Perish, except the good Face of God. (Ql-Quran)

Kulla Mann alaihaa Faan. Wa yabqaa Wajhi Rabbika dhul Jalaal e wal Ikram.

verse 55:26-27

Translation:
Everything that is on it will perish. There will remain only the face of the Lord Almighty who has double grace and benevolence

Here are the two verses and a better translation of the same verses

**[55:26] كُلُّ مَنْ عَلَيْهَا فَانٍ‌ ۚ‌ۖ‏

[55:26] All that is on it (earth) will pass away.

---

[55:27] وَّيَبْقٰى وَجْهُ رَبِّكَ ذُوْ الْجَلٰلِ وَالْاِكْرَامِ‌ۚ‏

[55:27] And there will remain only the Person of thy Lord, Master of Glory and Honour. **

…

 

[Wahid_Azal]

Wahid Azal, you are involving me into unnecessary philosophy. You say:

It is confusing. How there could be any creation before the Creator?.

You haven’t understood the problem, brother, and unfortunately because the curriculum of studies and research these days in the Islamic world has been handed down to know-nothings, it is understandable that many Muslims are no longer familiar with some of the core problems and questions existing in the texts of Islamic philosophy that previous generations where quite adept at. No bother. Let me explain it to you so perhaps you will understand.

If there is a predicate actor (faa’il) there must simultaneously be one of patient (ma’ful) in order for the premises to fulfill any consistent logical scheme. Activity cannot exist in a vacuum. It must act upon something in order for it to be Actor, and this acting-upon establishes an intrinsic relationship between the activity and that which it acts upon. The two terms cannot properly function without the other or in any instanced isolation other than as premised abstractions. As such Creator (khaliq) is the active term (faa’iliya) to the patency (maf’uliya) which is creation (makhluq). To put it another way, creation is a function of Creator. That doesn’t mean that Creator and creation are necessarily one and the same completely. What it is saying, however, is that the Cause (illa) subsists or is present in the effect (mal’ul) and that without the Cause, the effect cannot be spoken of either.

Who created that creation?

HU

Allah creates as He wills and when He wills. He is Khaaliq. He can always create something from nothing.

There is no argument on this point whatsoever. This is axiomatic. Where you are getting lost is understanding how the world can be eternal (qadim) while the Godhead is pre-eternal (azal) and also post-eternal (abad). Within the Godhead’s range of All-Comprehensiveness there are also ranges of eternality such as perpetual duration (dahr), everlastingness (samad) and aeveternity (sarmad).

But you deny that.

No, I don’t deny that. What I am denying is your literalist reading of the creation narrative, when the All-High (subhanahu wa ta’ala) Itself states in the Book that It is striking parables or symbols (yadrabu’Llahi al-amthal 24:35), and so these things are not to be taken literally with unsophisticated notions.

Yous ay that he cannot do that. You say creation should already be there for Him to be a real creator.

Again, you misunderstand the subtleties (daqa’iq) of the argument, brother. What I am saying is that without the secondary predicate of creation we cannot speak of the primary predication of Creator in any sense whatsoever either.

I could not follow you at all. Please note Allah is the one who creates something from nothing (Adamm).

No, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) transcends and so is beyond even the limitation of creating something from nothing. It is and nothing is with It, and It is now as it was, fa-afhum!

The insistence of scriptural literalists to make 1) the Divine a super-entity or Being among others and then** 2)** in causality to make a total ontological distinction between Creator and creation in process, is to involuntary commit shirk (associationism, to set-up something other than the Divine) and so compromise **Tawhid (the unicity of the Divine). The eternity of the world and its complete ontological dependence on a pre-eternal One keeps the integrity of Tawhid firmly intact because then we cannot speak of anything being truly real other than the Truly Real (al-haqq). This is because ma fi’l-wujud illa’Llah/there is nothing in existence other than the Godhead since to speak of Existence is to speak of the Divine!

Wahid Azal

 

[Badi1919]

The deteriorating relationship between Baha’u’llah and Subh al-Azal came to a head in 1867. Claims were made on both side about the activities of the other, and it is difficult to establish a factual pattern of events given the nature of later sectarian polemical material about the split from the followers of Baha’u’llah and Subh al-Azal. What is clear is that Baha’u’llah formally challenged the leadership of his half-brother and for all intents and purposes it was Baha’u’llah who emerged as history’s victor. It is important to appreciate the depth of enmity between the two factions with Subh al-Azal being described in Baha’i sources as: “the Idol”;[37] “Arch-Breaker of the Covenant of the Bab”[38] and under the influence of the dajjal ‘anti-christ’ of the Baha’i revelation, Sayyid Muhammad Isfahani (d.1872).[39]

knol.google.com/k/rachel-woodlock/babi-and-baha-i-bahai-religions/2ikwuhzdlhwn6/2#

 

[Wahid_Azal]

newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.religion.bahai/2007-09/msg00216.html

Mirza Husayn Ali Nuri had several [dozen] of the outspoken prominent Babis who supported Azal murdered in Baghdad, Adrianople and Akka. See the introduction to E.G. Browne’s translation of The New History of Mirza Ali Muhammad, the Bab (Tarikh-i-Jadid)(Amsterdam: 1975) pp.xxiii-xxiv, for some of the names and particulars as well as the Persian introduction to Nuqtat’ul-Kaf. In Note W (Mirza Yahya Subh-i-Azal) of his critical edition of **A Traveller’s Narrative **(Cambridge: 1891), 2 volumes, citing Hasht Behesht, Browne says, “All prominent supporters of Subh-i-Azal who withstood Mirza Husayn Ali’s claims were marked out for death, and in Baghdad Mulla Rajab Ali “Kahir” and his brother, Hajji Mirza Ahmad, Hajji Mirza Muhammad Reza, and several others fell one by one by the knife or bullet of the assassin” p.359. “As to the assassination of the three Ezelis, Aka Jan Bey, Hajji Seyyed Muhammad of Isfahan, and Mirza Riza-Kulli of
Tafrish, by some of Beha’s followers at Acre, there can, I fear, be but little doubt…the passage in the Kitab-i-Aqdas alluding (apparently) to Hajji Seyyed Muhammad’s death…proves Beha’u’llah regarded this event with some complaisance” p.370. On the murder of one Aqa Muhammad Ali of Isfahan in Istanbul (who first bore allegience to Husayn Ali and then went back to Azal) by one Mirza Abu’l-Qasim the Bakhtiyari, Browne quotes the words of Mirza Husayn Ali Nuri addressed to the latter, “O phlebotomist of the Divine Unity! Throb like the artery in the body of the Contingent World, and drink of the blood of the Block of Heedlessness for that he turned aside from the aspect of thy Lord the Merciful!” p.363. Baha’i sources carefully omit all of these facts but they have been recorded for posterity by scholars like E.G. Browne, William Miller and Vince Salisbury in their European language studies, not to mention the original language, source documentation which has been provided in Azal’s Notes.

See also,
S.G. Wilson,
BAHAISM AND RELIGIOUS ASSASSINATION The Muslim World vol. 4, issue 4, 1914.

&
**
BAHAISM AND RELIGIOUS DECEPTION** The Muslim World, Volume 5, Issue 2,1914-1915.
at,
wahidazal66.googlepages.com/babidocuments%28westernsources%29

bahaicultfaq.blogspot.com/

 

[arthra]

Planten wrote:

Art you have not replied properly. I said if the Universe was created it should have a beginning. Or I am wrong? Tell me please.

My reply:

I’m sorry I wasn’t clear about that… The process of creation for us is continuous so there would be countless beginnings.

• Art

 

[arthra]

Platen wrote:

Lord Jesus is also saying about the end. But Baha’is say there is no end. Can you explain all these things??

My reply:

We would I think see this as a reference to the end of an age… I realize some people say it means the end in a very literal sense. The new heaven and the new earth then are a reference in our view to new reference points and the earth being transformed as to how we view it.

Platen:

Should we take those words of genesis which say “God made…” as false? Should we take the words of Jesus about the end as false??

My reply:

The words ‘God made…" would be in Hebrew and it would be a fascinating study to explore their meanings…In Hebrew the word " *bara’ *" created has

1) to cut down

2) to cut out

I don’t think we Baha’is have though a specific teaching on that but we believe the universe and process of creation are ongoing…

Platen:

Explain clearly please, which one you believe, The BibleOT and Jesus or your Bahaullah??

My reply:

I believe in all of 'em …

• Art

 

[Badi1919]

Art and David,

what is your reply to Dr. Wahid Azal ?

 

[planten]

David and Art, What is your reply to my question about Creation?? If the creation is already there along with the creator then what has He (God) created?

I had pointed out that God created and creates, as and when He wills, things from “Nothing” not from a “Thing”. If I am wrong please correct me otherwise correct yourself and do not wander into wild fields.

 

[arthra]

David and Art, What is your reply to my question about Creation?? If the creation is already there along with the creator then what has He (God) created?

I had pointed out that God created and creates, as and when He wills, things from “Nothing” not from a “Thing”. If I am wrong please correct me otherwise correct yourself and do not wander into wild fields.

Hello Platen,

That “nothing” in your view may be in our view a something… It may be relatively non-existence but it is a something… Also please note the meaning of the Hebrew word “bara” I cited above when it says “I created” it means cut out of.

I’ll again attempt to answer you from our Baha’i view on this and I’m quoting from Abdul-Baha here:

*Therefore, though the world of contingency exists, in relation to the existence of God it is nonexistent and nothingness. *

*Man and dust both exist, but how great the difference between the existence of the mineral and that of man! The one in relation to the other is nonexistence. *

*In the same way, the existence of creation in relation to the existence of God is nonexistence. *

Thus it is evident and clear that although the beings exist, in relation to God and to the Word of God they are nonexistent

*The Creator always had a creation; the rays have always shone and gleamed from the reality of the sun, for without the rays the sun would be opaque darkness. The names and attributes of God require the existence of beings, and the Eternal Bounty does not cease. If it were to, it would be contrary to the perfections of God. *

~ Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, pp. 281-282

Abdul-Baha in another place says:

Some define existence as the expression of reality or being, and non-existence as non-being, imagining that death is annihilation. This is a mistaken idea, for total annihilation is an impossibility. At most, composition is ever subject to decomposition or disintegration; that is to say, existence implies the grouping of material elements in a form or body, and non-existence is simply the de-composing of these groupings.

~ Abdu’l-Baha, Baha’i World Faith, p. 262

 

[DavidMark]

David and Art, What is your reply to my question about Creation?? If the creation is already there along with the creator then what has He (God) created?
I had pointed out that God created and creates, as and when He wills, things from “Nothing” not from a “Thing”. If I am wrong please correct me otherwise correct yourself and do not wander into wild fields.

I see what you’re saying; but there is really no contradiction.
The matter of the universe is inert without the motive Will of God.
He creates things from dust, which is re-cycled constantly!
Those new entities had never existed before;
the measure of their spirit is determined by the role He desires them to occupy.
For instance, a planet is a mere mineral level of being, but
how wonderfulit is that all things appearing on earth
were in it potentially at the beginning. Inherent in it, as a tree within a seed.
The plants receive the power of growth and sex differentiation.
The animals have greater sense powers and mobility and memory.
But it is humans who can grasp concepts beyond th perception of animals.
Dust returns to dust and spirits return to Spirit.
If you say there was a time when the creation did not exist,
you are saying the Creator is not eternal.

 

[arthra]

Art and David,

what is your reply to Dr. Wahid Azal ?

I don’t know what his question is…

Anyway most of his materials are from Azali sources. I suggested earlier that there were Baha’i sources… and that historians need to look at both sides.

Allegations that Baha’u’llah ordered someone’s demise are allegations from Azali sources. There was a period when both sides were fighting each other and at this distance it would be difficult perhaps to make conclusions…

Since Baha’u’llah was under the jurisdiction of the Shah of Iran or the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire it would have been the business of courts to decide on the matter so we know that Baha’u’llah was never convicted for any allegations made.

Baha’i history can be found in the four volume edition of Adib Taherzade’s Revelation of Baha’u’llah

bahaibookstore.com/productdetails.cfm?PC=7111

and

in the works of Hasan Balyuzi

bahaibookstore.com/productdetails.cfm?PC=4535

• Art

 

[Wahid_Azal]

I don’t know what his question is…

Anyway most of his materials are from Azali sources.

Which time and again have been proven to have independent credibility beyond the historical whitewashes of Baha’i accounts which have virtually no independent credibility.

I suggested earlier that there were Baha’i sources… and that historians need to look at both sides.

And they have, like Denis MacEoin, Muhit Tabatabai, Homa Nateq and others.

Allegations that Baha’u’llah ordered someone’s demise are allegations from Azali sources.

And independently corrborated by non-Bayani sources as well as in accounts provided by Baha’is who subsequently cut their losses with Bahaism, such as Avarih and Sobhi.

There was a period when both sides were fighting each other and at this distance it would be difficult perhaps to make conclusions…

On the contrary, there is much *prima facie * evidence proving beyond any shadow of doubt that the aggressors were in fact the Baha’is and that the conflict was initiated by Mirza Husayn Ali and his partisans.

Since Baha’u’llah was under the jurisdiction of the Shah of Iran or the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire it would have been the business of courts to decide on the matter so we know that Baha’u’llah was never convicted for any allegations made.

That is a transparent spin on the facts, and a lie. If the Ottoman commission of inquiry had found Mirza Husayn 'Ali innocent, pray tell, why did they specifically expel him to the most remote prison-city of the Ottoman Middle East, in Acre, Palestine?

Baha’i history can be found in the four volume edition of Adib Taherzade’s Revelation of Baha’u’llah

Taherzadeh and Balyuzi have written complete hagiographies without any shred of factual credibility in any account they provide. Both, but especially Taherzadeh, manufacture incidents and spin completely unfactual tales. In other words both are ahistorical and churning nothing but self-serving myth. But that is the case with the entirety of Baha’i historiography from start to finish: lies, whitewashes, spin and revisioning facts to accord to with a self-serving agenda and policy.

Wahid Azal

 

[arthra]

Well I still see problems Mr. Azal with biases so that’s where I’m leaving it…

I think the area of Azali contacts with protestant missionaries of a hundred years ago could be fruit for an article some day…

After Miller we have Wilson…

scribd.com/doc/22550959/Samuel-Graham-Wilson

Are you by any chance related to Subh-i-Azal? Hence your name?

• Art

 

[Wahid_Azal]

Well I still see problems Mr. Azal with biases so that’s where I’m leaving it…

Since you are neither a historian or any other position to know otherwise, and since you have been citing official Baha’i material only, your protest is irrelevent, and as such the bias you complain about is primarily your own.

I think the area of Azali contacts with protestant missionaries of a hundred years ago could be fruit for an article some day…

But not as fruitful an area of research regarding Baha’i contacts with British imperialists and military intelligence officers of the Royal British forces, such as Major Wellesley Tudor-Pole and similar. An even more fascinating area for future research is ascertaining the precise reasons and the documentary evidence of Abbas Effendi’s knighting by the British government, since the Baha’i sources are full of contradiction and woolly silence on this matter.

After Miller we have Wilson…

He was writing before Miller, and his material is quite good, but mostly summaries of the work of E.G. Browne.

scribd.com/doc/22550959/Samuel-Graham-Wilson

Are you by any chance related to Subh-i-Azal? Hence your name?

Are personal questions you keep broaching any of your business? And why aren’t you offering any of your own? What is your own full name and in what capacity are you posting on this forum? Are you with the** Baha’i Internet Agency**?

Wahid Azal