Is God portrayed by Bahais as cunning and deceptive?
Mr Mahdi
called Heaven and Hell "al-maseer" which means in arabic "The final place of
destination." Bahais "interpreted" Heaven and Hell as "spiritual conditions."
God never said or implied that Heaven and Hell were "spiritual conditions," you
bahais did. Also Allah describes Satan as a BEING being created from smokeless
fire. Again, bahais "interpreted" this to me Satan is not a being but an
"ego." Also, one of the worst examples of textual twisting is when you
"interpret" the Two Trumpets which the Quran is very clear and explicit about
describing the Day of Resurrection and Judgement to mean "Bab and bahaullah."
Allah or Muhammad (saaw) NEVER EVER said or implied this. It is a inventions
of you bahais and may Allah curse the liars.
Also we have the prophet whom the Quran was revealed to to explain the Quran.
Muhammad (saaw) is the best human being when it comes to understanding Islam.
If Heaven and Hell really meant "spiritual conditions," he would of said it and
not be deceptive like the "god" of the bahais. Bahais portray God as this
cunning and deceptive God who says one thing and then later on "through
manifestations" says another. God as the Quran and even Bible teaches is not
this deceptive God that changes what He meant because it was "strategic" to do
so. It is funny that when a literal meaning of a verse or belief agrees with
the
bahai faith, they take it literally, but when the literal meaning does not
agree with the bahai faith, they take it "metaphorically." This is all done to
avoid falsification, and like the false religion the bahai faith is, it needs
to have a secondary source of legislation to survive in the modern age. That's
why the adminstration in the bahai faith is a life line for its survival in the
modern age. A true religion only needs one messenger or prophet to convey a
COMPLETE message. The Bahai faith being a false religion is still NOT
complete, despite having MANY "messengers" to convey the message, from the
false prophets bab, bahaullah, abdul baha, shogi effendi, to the "infallible"
UHJ.
May Allah curse the Liars.
Mahdi
patk...@my-deja.com
In article <19990706204825...@ng-fp1.aol.com>,
mrm...@aol.com (Mr Mahdi) wrote:
> It is funny that the best interpretor of Quran is not man but God
Himself. (snip)
Have you found that verse in the Holy Qor'an yet which says that Blessed
Isa was not crucified?
> It is a inventions
> of you bahais and may Allah curse the liars.
As you wish.
(snip)
> May Allah curse the Liars.
Perhaps they have already cursed themsleves.
Blessings!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Roger Reini
>It is funny that the best interpretor of Quran is not man but God Himself. God
>called Heaven and Hell "al-maseer" which means in arabic "The final place of
>destination." Bahais "interpreted" Heaven and Hell as "spiritual conditions."
>God never said or implied that Heaven and Hell were "spiritual conditions," you
>bahais did. Also Allah describes Satan as a BEING being created from smokeless
>fire. Again, bahais "interpreted" this to me Satan is not a being but an
>"ego." Also, one of the worst examples of textual twisting is when you
>"interpret" the Two Trumpets which the Quran is very clear and explicit about
>describing the Day of Resurrection and Judgement to mean "Bab and bahaullah."
>Allah or Muhammad (saaw) NEVER EVER said or implied this. It is a inventions
>of you bahais and may Allah curse the liars.
You have your understanding of the Qur'an, which clearly differs from
the understandings set forth by the Baha'is in this newsgroup and from
the understanding as put forth in the Baha'i writings. Of course, you
are entitled to your opinions, as we are entitled to ours.
Consider this: if, for the sake of argument, you accepted that
Baha'u'llah was a Manifestation of God, then would you not agree that
He would have the right to interpret the Qur'an the way He chose
(meaning the way God chose)?
>
>Also we have the prophet whom the Quran was revealed to to explain the Quran.
>Muhammad (saaw) is the best human being when it comes to understanding Islam.
... as is any of the Manifestations of God.
>If Heaven and Hell really meant "spiritual conditions," he would of said it and
>not be deceptive like the "god" of the bahais. Bahais portray God as this
>cunning and deceptive God who says one thing and then later on "through
>manifestations" says another.
Might this not be due to humanity's having progressed spiritually to
the point where it could be given a more detailed explanation of
certain spiritual truths? It is not God who's changing, but man.
> God as the Quran and even Bible teaches is not
>this deceptive God that changes what He meant because it was "strategic" to do
>so. It is funny that when a literal meaning of a verse or belief agrees with
>the
>bahai faith, they take it literally, but when the literal meaning does not
>agree with the bahai faith, they take it "metaphorically." This is all done to
>avoid falsification, and like the false religion the bahai faith is, it needs
>to have a secondary source of legislation to survive in the modern age. That's
>why the adminstration in the bahai faith is a life line for its survival in the
>modern age.
I agree that the Administrative Order, operating under the Covenant of
Baha'u'llah, is vital for the survival of the Faith, but not for the
same reasons as you.
> A true religion only needs one messenger or prophet to convey a
>COMPLETE message.
This is your opinion. IMHO, it is not a teaching of God. The words
He sends are complete for their time but are not complete for all
time.
> The Bahai faith being a false religion is still NOT
>complete, despite having MANY "messengers" to convey the message, from the
>false prophets bab, bahaullah, abdul baha, shogi effendi, to the "infallible"
>UHJ.
>
>May Allah curse the Liars.
>
Mr Mahdi
>Isa was not crucified?
You sure got guts for asking me this question. Allah answered your question is
4:157 in the "Qur'an" (not "Qor'an"):
"And because of their saying 'We killed Messiah Jesus son of Mary, the
Messenger of Allah,' BUT THEY KILLED HIM NOT NOR CRUCIFIED HIM (in arabic it is
"Maa qataluhu wa maa Salabuhu') but the RESEMBLANCE of Jesus was put over
another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ are full of
doubts. They have no knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For
surely, they killed him not (i.e. Jesus)."
Watch when you read this verse what kind of excuse and twisting you will give
me. Allah clearly said in the purest of Arabic that Jesus was not killed or
crucified but a man that look like Jesus was. But bahais in their sick
twisting of their text said that Jesus wasn't killed or crucified "spiritually"
but he was killed and crucifed "physically" and that Jesus almost "volunteered"
to be killed. If that was so, Muhammad (saaw) whom the Quran was revealed to
would of told us that. But he didn't because as you have seen clearly from the
verse above, God clearly gave us the real story about what happened.
Mahdi
Vinson Jamir
You cite a verse from the Qur'an which explicitly states Jesus was not killed
but likewise confirms that a death did occur. This is quite naturally confusing.
I believe we ought to compare other relevant texts on this subject to obtain
further insights, for example: "So Peace is on me the day I was born the day that I
die and the Day that I shall be raised up to life (again)"! (Qur'an 19:33, A.Yusuf
Ali translation) This verse is every bit as clear and precise as the one you cite,
and it says quite the opposite. The verse you cite says Jesus did not die; this
one explicitly refers to the death of Jesus. How best to reconcile this apparent
conflict? Certain Christian denominations insist upon a complete identify between
the physical and spiritual nature of Jesus Christ. Is such belief in any way
consistent with Islam?
vinson
Mr Mahdi
>further insights, for example: "So Peace is on me the day I was born the day
>that I
>die and the Day that I shall be raised up to life (again)"! (Qur'an 19:33,
>A.Yusuf
>Ali translation) This verse is every bit as clear and precise as the one you
>cite,
>and it says quite the opposite. The verse you cite says Jesus did not die;
>this
>one explicitly refers to the death of Jesus. How best to reconcile this
>apparent
>conflict?
Very easy. Jesus DIDN'T DIE YET. Plain and simple. Jesus will die but not
now. One of the fulfillments of the prophecy of Jesus is that he will come
after Imam Mahdi and he will establish peace. Then after that he will die.
You look to Noah, whom lived over 950 years. Allah can make Jesus live as long
as he wants, but sooner or later Jesus (as) will die.
And plus the verse you cited (19:33) said about the day of being born. That
word is in the past tense. The statement about the day of death will come is
in the present tense, indicating death will come but not now or in the past.
Mahdi
Bintyaya
The way you have it transliterated, it can be pronounced Keeyoo' ran by the
peole for whom it is transliterated. Bad transliteration causes bad
pronunciation.
Mr Mahdi
>peole for whom it is transliterated. Bad transliteration causes bad
>pronunciation.
I have addressed this silly argument before. When people transliterate Arabic
to english, it is based on phonectically correct transliteration, not based on
how people who speak english pronounce these letters. I have ask "Pat" several
times to give me an example of a Qur'an that is transliterated as "Qor'an."
Pat has yet to do so. Every Quran I have is transliterated as "Qur'an." In
arabic, there is no "O" vowel except in foreign loan words like "kombuter"
(computer).
Mahdi
Mr Mahdi
>the understandings set forth by the Baha'is in this newsgroup and from
>the understanding as put forth in the Baha'i writings. Of course, you
>are entitled to your opinions, as we are entitled to ours.
It is funny that when bahais "interpret" the Quran or hadith, they are led by
"manifestations" of God, but when Muslims read a verse or hadith and believe in
its clear meaning, somehow according to bahais they are lead my Mullas and
their own desires. Bahais twist a verse to a point that it is completely
opposite in meaning and even structure, and yet they accuse muslims of
rejecting the "evidence." God clearly said in the most clearest of terms Jesus
(as) was not killed or crucified but a man that look like Jesus was. Despite
this, bahais somehow still find in the verse that Jesus was killed and
crucified, but it was not "spiritually" but only physically. This is textual
twisting beyond a doubt. It is amazing that the Quran was revealed to Muhammad
(saaw) and yet he never ever said what the bahais are saying.
>Consider this: if, for the sake of argument, you accepted that
>Baha'u'llah was a Manifestation of God, then would you not agree that
>He would have the right to interpret the Qur'an the way He chose
>(meaning the way God chose)?
The problem is the bahaullah and bab are clearly false prophets, and only an
intellectual sincere person will admit to this.
>Might this not be due to humanity's having progressed spiritually to
>the point where it could be given a more detailed explanation of
>certain spiritual truths? It is not God who's changing, but man.
This is the common bahai argument that man has not progressed back then but
they did now so thats why you have the conflicting versions. This is a weak
argument beyond a shadow of the doubt. You had the Egyptian culture, the same
one who built the pyramids, and the pyramids are so much of a masterpiece that
even the modern day experts have a hard time understanding how they were able
to build the pyramids. You have geniuses back then, far from simple minded
people bahais like to portray people in the past. Plato wasn't a simple minded
man. The old world geniuses that helped shaped our world today were far from
being intellectual inferiors. Bahais have no proof whatsoever that people in
the past were intellectually inferior than people today. Bahais confuse
technology with intellectual inferiority. Having archaic technology doesnt
mean you are less intellectual than a person living in an age of technology.
>I agree that the Administrative Order, operating under the Covenant of
>Baha'u'llah, is vital for the survival of the Faith, but not for the
>same reasons as you.
LOL, an intellectual sincere person can see that the bahai faith is a false
religion with an imcomplete message that constantly needs "reinterpreting" in
order to make its beliefs sound sensible in the modern age. That's why the UHJ
is considered to be "infallible" in order for people to have a new "legitmate"
interpretation of the bahai faith in the modern age. The bahai faith is a
little over 150 years old and yet it has all of these major changes in their
structure and beleifs. What a false religion and what false prophets. The
Bahai faith is the only religion I know of that makes converts sign a card and
their names and addresses put in a database in order for them to be tracked.
>This is your opinion. IMHO, it is not a teaching of God. The words
>He sends are complete for their time but are not complete for all
>time.
It is not an opinion. As a matter of fact, it is in the Quran. The Quran said
that Islam convers all aspects of life and is a completed, perfected, message.
The bahai faith despite having bab, bahaullah, abdul baha, shogi effendi, UHJ,
etc., is STILL NOT a complete religion.
Mahdi
Bintyaya
written. Like other semitic alphabets (Herbrew and Assyrian), Arabic does not
write most of the vowel sounds down. And Arabic words are not all pronounced
the same way either, it depends on which Arabic country you're in. Obviously
you don't understand the purpose of transliteration, so drop the subject. It
doesn't look good when you criticize others about a topic which is so trivial
It's like criicizing people's spelling when a British person spells a word
differently than an American does, although both spellings are acceptable
variants.
Michela
Mr Mahdi
>You're wrong. There is an "o" vowel-it's a spoken vowel, it's just not
>written.
This is funny. If you knew anything about arabic, there is a "Damma" vowel
mark on top of the Qaf letter. The Damma vowel mark is not pronounced as "O,"
but as a "U." I dont know if you are arab because of the "bint" in your name,
but I am not talking about how "arabs" pronounce it, I am talking about the
"FaSeeh" or correct way of pronouncing it. In Egypt, they pronounce many
sounds in a completely different way, but that doesn't make them right.
>It's like criicizing people's spelling when a British person spells a word
>differently than an American does, although both spellings are acceptable
>variants.
You need to stop making a fool of yourself by trying to criticize me in
something you obviously do not know. Like I said, I am not talking about how
people pronounce it, I am talking about the correct way of pronouncing it
according to the langauge not "colloquialism." Why dont you bahais ask Juan
Cole, and orientalist and a arabist on who is right. I would to see one of you
ask this man about the correct transliteration of arabic sounds.
Mahdi
Roger Reini
>>Have you found that verse in the Holy Qor'an yet which says that Blessed
>>Isa was not crucified?
>
>You sure got guts for asking me this question. Allah answered your question is
>4:157 in the "Qur'an" (not "Qor'an"):
>
>"And because of their saying 'We killed Messiah Jesus son of Mary, the
>Messenger of Allah,' BUT THEY KILLED HIM NOT NOR CRUCIFIED HIM (in arabic it is
>"Maa qataluhu wa maa Salabuhu') but the RESEMBLANCE of Jesus was put over
>another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ are full of
>doubts. They have no knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For
>surely, they killed him not (i.e. Jesus)."
May I ask from what translation this came from? I have the same verse
from a translation by Maulvi Sher Ali (edited by Malik Ghulam Farid):
4:158. And for their saying, `We did slay the Messiah, Jesus, son of
Mary, the Messenger of ALLAH;' whereas they slew him not, nor did they
bring about his death upon the cross, but he was made to appear to
them like one crucified; and those who differ therein are certainly in
a state of doubt about it; they have no certain knowledge thereof, but
only pursue a conjecture; and they did not arrive at a certainty
concerning it.
4:159. On the contrary, ALLAH exalted him to Himself. And ALLAH is
Mighty, Wise.
I have seen "exalted" rendered as "raised", which would seem to lend
creedence to the interpretation that Jesus willingly yielded His life
on the cross.
>
>Watch when you read this verse what kind of excuse and twisting you will give
>me. Allah clearly said in the purest of Arabic that Jesus was not killed or
>crucified but a man that look like Jesus was. But bahais in their sick
>twisting of their text said that Jesus wasn't killed or crucified "spiritually"
>but he was killed and crucifed "physically" and that Jesus almost "volunteered"
>to be killed. If that was so, Muhammad (saaw) whom the Quran was revealed to
>would of told us that. But he didn't because as you have seen clearly from the
>verse above, God clearly gave us the real story about what happened.
>
>Mahdi
>
>http://members.aol.com/mrmahdi/opinions/index.htm
Bintyaya
My brother-in-law is a Palestinian Arab who has lived in Saudi Arabia and
currently resides in North Yemen. I consider him more of an authority on
Arabic than you, about whom I know nothing. For all I know, you are an
American who learned Arabic at a state college. He tells me that even in
Saudi Arabia itself Arabic isn't all pronounced the same. That doesn't make
any one pronunciation correct or incorrect, just different. I've heard
Egyptians accuse other Arabs of mispronouncing words because they speak
differently. All they do is make asses out of themselves, because they don't
understand the concept of linguistic change, regional differences and local
accents. There is no such thing as a pure language, because language isn't
static. (Something the Academie Francaise is learning right now) It grows and
changes all the time. No language is pronounced the same way it was 600 years
ago. There is no such thing a one right way to speak any language. The
British may think they have "pure English" because the language originated in
Britain, but linguistic scholars think that the English spoken on a group of
islands off the coast of North Carolina has English that is spoken more like
the English of 400 years ago than British English.
Unless you have a dead language, you can't expect any one variation of it to be
the correct variation. Arabic is not a dead language.
Michela
Mr Mahdi
>You make a lot of assumptions.
>
That's the pot calling the kettle black:
>I consider him more of an authority on
>Arabic than you, about whom I know nothing. For all I know, you are an
>American who learned Arabic at a state college.
You make a lot of assumptions. You don't know how much arabic I know so you
better be quite. And second, I didn't learn arabic in any college or
institution. I studied arabic for 4 years and had constant help from Arabs. I
learned the standard arabic and a few dialects like the Saudi Arabia dialect
and the infamous Egyptian dialect.
>He tells me that even in
>Saudi Arabia itself Arabic isn't all pronounced the same.
Again if you were paying attention I said that I wasn't talking about how arabs
pronounce arabic, because for example in Egypt they pronounce the "J" as "G",
the "th" as t or s, the DH as d or z. But that doesnt make them right or does
it change "FaSeeH" or standard arabic. I am talking about that not
"colloquialism." Again, stop making assumptions are start paying attention
.>All they do is make asses out of themselves, because they don't
>understand the concept of linguistic change, regional differences and local
>accents.
You don't understand arabic at all so please be quite. Like I said, I said
please ask Juan Cole who is an arabist and orientalist about this very issue.
> No language is pronounced the same way it was 600 years
>ago. There is no such thing a one right way to speak any language.
That is what makes Arabic special. How the Quran is pronounced was passed down
since the Quran was revealed. Things like Tajweed and Tarteel are sciences of
how to recite the Quran. So the accent and pronounciation is the same since
the Quran was revealed.
>Unless you have a dead language, you can't expect any one variation of it to
>be
>the correct variation. Arabic is not a dead language.
Unless you understand arabic, I forgive you for now your ignorance and naivte
in the subject of Arabic. So ask your buddy Juan Cole about whether or not I
am right.
Mahdi
Mr Mahdi
>from a translation by Maulvi Sher Ali (edited by Malik Ghulam Farid):
It came from the transaltion of Taqi ud-Deen Hilali and Muhammad Muhsin Khan.
But the best way to understand the Quran is to understand the Arabic, because
the purity of the Quran lies in the Arabic not the translation.
>4:158. And for their saying, `We did slay the Messiah, Jesus, son of
>Mary, the Messenger of ALLAH;' whereas they slew him not, nor did they
>bring about his death upon the cross, but he was made to appear to
>them like one crucified; and those who differ therein are certainly in
>a state of doubt about it; they have no certain knowledge thereof, but
>only pursue a conjecture; and they did not arrive at a certainty
>concerning it.
Wrong verse. It is 157 not 158.
> 4:159. On the contrary, ALLAH exalted him to Himself. And ALLAH is
>Mighty, Wise.
Its not 159 but 158. At any rate, the arabic for exalted or raised in this
verse is "rafa'a." Rafa'a denotes putting something up or raising it. The
verse says in arabic "rafa'ahu-llahu ilaihi." That means that Allah raised
Jesus TO HIM. It has nothing to do with the silly twisted interpretation
bahais give it that Jesus "willingly" yielded his life on the Cross. This is
textual twisting at its worse. God raised Jesus up to the Heavens as this
verse clearly said, not anything else. Again, the Quran was revealed to
Muhammad (saaw), and if the verse really meant as bahais claim it did, he would
of told us but he didnt.
Mahdi
patk...@my-deja.com
In article <19990707113749...@ng-fp1.aol.com>,
mrm...@aol.com (Mr Mahdi) wrote:
> >Have you found that verse in the Holy Qor'an yet which says that
Blessed
> >Isa was not crucified?
Interestingly the Holy Qoran confirms the Injeel
003.003
YUSUFALI: It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the
Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of
Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and
He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong).
PICKTHAL: He hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture with
truth, confirming that which was (revealed) before it, even as He
revealed the Torah and the Gospel.
SHAKIR: He has revealed to you the Book with truth, verifying that which
is before it, and He revealed the Tavrat and the Injeel aforetime, a
guidance for the people, and He sent the Furqan.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html#003.003
Since I tend to believe that Allah says a thing and it is, I understand
the Gospel being referred to almost 1400 years ago as the Gospel which
was in circulation 1400 years ago, rather than some occultated Gospel
which had ceased to exist 1400 years ago. Bible translations available
today are based on the Greek texts which were widely circulated in the
time of Blessed Muhammed. Those who would argue that Allah is _not_
referring to the commonly circulated Injeel of 1400 years ago would be
suggesting that somehow Allah is being deceptive. Any takers, Mr.Mahdi?
In turn, the Injeel describes the crucifixion of the Blessed Isa:
27: Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the praetorium,
and they gathered the whole battalion before him.
...
[33] And when they came to a place called Gol'gotha (which means the
place of a skull),
[34] they offered him wine to drink, mingled with gall; but when he
tasted it, he would not drink it.
[35] And when they had crucified him, they divided his garments among
them by casting lots;
[36] then they sat down and kept watch over him there.
http://www.hti.umich.edu/bin/rsv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=4563978
Note that the soldiers of the governor crucified Blessed Isa. The
governor was a _Roman_ official. The Romans, not the Jews crucified
Him.
> (snip)
> Allah answered your question is 4:157 in the "Qur'an" (not "Qor'an"):
[note: I am pleased to see that you can capitalize the first letter of
proper nouns.]
Yes. Hadn't you insisted that God said that Blessed Isa was _not_
crucified? I thought I called your attention to three popular and
respected translations of the Holy Qor'an, each clearly indicating that
_the Jews_ had not crucified Him.
A transliteration of an Nisa 157:
Waqawlihim inna qatalna almaseeha AAeesa ibna maryama rasoola Allahi
wama qataloohu wama salaboohu walakin shubbiha lahum wa-inna allatheena
ikhtalafoo feehi lafee shakkin minhu ma lahum bihi min AAilmin illa
ittibaAAa alththanni wama qataloohu yaqeenan
http://www.muslimnet.net/ALNNISA(4).htm
Those three standard translations (note I deleted the words in
parenthesis):
YUSUFALI: That they said, "We killed Christ Jesus the son of
Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified
him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein
are full of doubts, with no knowledge, but only conjecture to follow,
for of a surety they killed him not:-
PICKTHAL: And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of
Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it
appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in
doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a
conjecture; they slew him not for certain.
SHAKIR: And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of
Marium, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they
crucify him, but it appeared to them so and most surely those who differ
therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting
it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/
As you can see, I did not translate to suit my interpretation.
Your interpretation:
> "And because of their saying 'We killed Messiah Jesus son of Mary, the
> Messenger of Allah,' BUT THEY KILLED HIM NOT NOR CRUCIFIED HIM (in
arabic it is
> "Maa qataluhu wa maa Salabuhu') but the RESEMBLANCE of Jesus was put
over
> another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ are full
of
> doubts. They have no knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture.
For
> surely, they killed him not (i.e. Jesus)."
>
> Watch when you read this verse what kind of excuse and twisting you
> will give me.
I'll just ask you to explain your interpretation. Which of the
transliterated words that I pasted are the words for "another man (and
they killed that man)". I think we can agree that the Jews did not
crucify Him. Since the Injeel alaready said that the Romans crucified
Blessed Isa, and a plain reading of the Arabic clearly shows that the
Jews did kill crucify Him, this twisted interpretation suggests 1) that
Allah confirmed a false Injeel, and 2) Allah killed a man just to trick
everyone at the crucifixion. Please note, this interpretation is _not_
the interpretation of a Baha'i, but one who claims to be a Muslim.
Interestingly he did it in a thread where he was arguing that the
Baha'is are the ones who offer these blasphemous interpretations.
> Allah clearly said in the purest of Arabic that Jesus was not
killed or
> crucified but a man that look like Jesus was.
Perhaps it seems that way to you. Perhaps only your translation clearly
says that, while all the translations agree that some follow their own
conjecture. Of course, I have conjectures as well; I do try to
distinguish my conjectures from the clear text, though.
> But bahais in their sick
> twisting of their text said that Jesus wasn't killed or crucified
"spiritually"
> but he was killed and crucifed "physically" and that Jesus almost
"volunteered"
> to be killed. If that was so, Muhammad (saaw) whom the Quran was
> revealed to would of told us that.
Since Allah already confirmed the Injeel which is quite clear on the
physical crucifixion of Blessed Isa, that is simply redundant; we were
already told. I am reminded of many years ago when my wife would not
serve dinner until her son came in. I went outside and asked why he ahd
not come in, he said that his mother had only called him twice.
> But he didn't because as you have seen clearly from the
> verse above, God clearly gave us the real story about what happened.
You have given us your clear conjecture. That Baha'is describe Allah as
deceptive is in the same vein.
The Holy Qor'an confirms the Injeel. The Injeel describes how the
Romans killed Blessed Isa. The Holy Qor'an clearly states that the Jews
did not kill Blessed Isa, though they claimed it. My interpretation is
based on the truth of the Holy Qor'an, the truth of the Holy Gospel, it
is not based on the uninformed insertion of extraneous words into the
Holy Text.
patk...@my-deja.com
In article <19990707184433...@ng-fa1.aol.com>,
mrm...@aol.com (Mr Mahdi) wrote:
> The madness continues:
Wherever you go, there you are.
> That's the pot calling the kettle black:
Mirror mirror on the wall . . .
> You make a lot of assumptions. You don't know how much arabic I know
so you
> better be quite. And second, I didn't learn arabic in any college or
> institution. I studied arabic for 4 years and had constant help from
Arabs. I
> learned the standard arabic and a few dialects like the Saudi Arabia
dialect
> and the infamous Egyptian dialect.
It is not just a matter of Arabic. If the issue were simply one of
Arabic, we would all agree that in Arabic, the Holy Reading is not
spelled Q-U-R-'-A-N, since these are _not_ Arabic letters. It is about
most closely choosing those letters used by English readers which are
associated with the sound of the title of the Book.
(snip)
>start paying attention
Michela advised you that you are out of your league in
transliterations which is what phonics is about. You did not take the
hint. Test question: Arabic has two letters which are associated with
th sounds (where one sound is shown by the two letters "T" and "H" in
English). How many th sounds are there in English and pick one
English word for each of those th sounds.
> .>All they do is make asses out of themselves, because they don't
> >understand the concept of linguistic change, regional differences and
local
> >accents.
>
> You don't understand arabic at all so please be quite.
Michela is quite correct.
> Like I said, I said
> please ask Juan Cole who is an arabist and orientalist about this very
issue.
Maybe he can help you out in picking out the Arabic words you translated
as "another man (and they killed that man)" from "walakin shubbiha lahum
wa-inna allatheena ikhtalafoo feehi lafee shakkin minhu ma lahum bihi
min AAilmin illa ittibaAAa alththanni wama qataloohu yaqeenan"
(snip)
> So ask your buddy Juan Cole about whether or not I am right.
Ask Juan yourself. He is a very knowledgeable man.
patk...@my-deja.com
In article <19990707121407...@ng-fk1.aol.com>,
mrm...@aol.com (Mr Mahdi) wrote:
(snip)
> And plus the verse you cited (19:33) said about the day of being born.
That
> word is in the past tense. The statement about the day of death will
come is
> in the present tense, indicating death will come but not now or in the
past.
Would you expect the Blessed Child to speak of His death in the past
tense? I would think that the Holy Infant would speak of His birth in
the past tense and His death in the future tense, when He was two or
three years old. That He did not speak of His death in the past tense
thirty years before He died did not mean that he would not die thirty or
so years later.
29: But she pointed to the babe. They said: "How can we talk to one who
is a child in the cradle?"
30: He said: "I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me
revelation and made me a prophet;
31: And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on
me Prayer and Charity as long as I live;
32: Hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable;
33: "So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the
day that I shall be raised up to life"!
- Yusuf Ali translation of Holy Qor'an, Surah of Maryam
Mr Mahdi
>003.003
>YUSUFALI: It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the
>Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of
>Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and
>He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong).
The sending of thr Books like Injeel and Taurat was in the past tense, and thus
negated by the "Shar'a" of Islam. Muhammad (saaw) said in a hadith that if
Moses (as) was alive today, he will have no choice but to follow him (saaw).
Whether your pitiful blunder in reading the text or your bad english and
arabic, you are making a fool out of yourself. The Quran didnt come to
complement the Bible, it came to abrogate it. Ask even Juan Cole who knows
what Al-Kitab means, he will tell you Quran. The Quran came to confirm the
truth that is contained in the Bible, and to correct its mistakes. One of
these mistakes is the story of the Crucificion in the Bible. Another example
how the Quran corrects the Bible is that in the Bible is says the whole earth
was flooded in Noah's flood. The Quran corrected this mistake by saying only
Noah's people were flooded. Also the Bible says that the magicians of Pharoah
threw down their sticks and it turned into real snakes, while the Quran
corrected this by saying the magicians used their ropes and sticks to make it
appear like it was snakes. Also the Bible blames Lot of incest, David and his
household of murder and rape, etc., and many other prophets and messengers of
crimes. The Quran corrected all these lies in the Bible. Also in the Bible,
alcohol was not forbidden, but it was in the Quran. Why arent muslims allowed
to drink alcohol when the Bible didnt forbid it? Because the Quran abrogated
the Bible!
>Those who would argue that Allah is _not_
>referring to the commonly circulated Injeel of 1400 years ago would be
>suggesting that somehow Allah is being deceptive. Any takers, Mr.Mahdi?
May Allah curse the devils. Like I proved above, the Quran corrected a lot of
mistakes in the Bible and confirmed the parts which are true and the Quran
abrogated the laws and beliefsin the Bible like alcohol. Also Al-Kitab means
the Quran. Muhammad saw 'Umar (ra) and scolded him for admiring the Bible and
said that if Moses was alive to today, he will have no choice but to follow
him. So any takers, "Pat" Kohli?
>In turn, the Injeel describes the crucifixion of the Blessed Isa:
But like Allah said in 4:157, Jesus was not killed or crucified. You can all
this delusional confidence and aggressiveness and even an attempt at a sense of
humor, but once you develope intellectual sincerity you will realize your
attempt in defending your false religion is a joke. I will repeat, the Quran
corrected many mistakes in the Bible, confirmed what is the truth, abrogated
the Bible, and Al-Kitab means Quran.
>Note that the soldiers of the governor crucified Blessed Isa. The
>governor was a _Roman_ official. The Romans, not the Jews crucified
>Him.
As a bahai, you of course reject what Allah said about the crucificion. Allah
said a man that look like Isa (in the arabic the word used to say "similiar" is
"shubbiha"). If Allah said "Maa qataloohu wa maa Salaboohu" He means just
that. You can't use a abrogated text like the Bible and say the Quran really
means something else when Allah in the purest and clearest arabic clearly
explained what happened. You asked for a verse and you got it, and yet you
still deny it because you prefer falsehood over truth.
>As you can see, I did not translate to suit my interpretation.
LOL. You keep forgetting that the Quran is in arabic not english. Do what I
didnt, spend are couple of years or months learning arabic and then come back
and then maybe you can learn how to understand Quran better and spell Qur'an as
"Qur'an" not "Qor'an."
>Allah confirmed a false Injeel, and 2) Allah killed a man just to trick
>everyone at the crucifixion.
Allah never confirms a false Injeel, it it you bahais that do that. Also,
there are hadiths and narrations about the man who was killed and that man was
not a good man. Read Tasfeer of Quran and you will find out.
>Perhaps it seems that way to you.
It seems to anybody who reads arabic. Maa qataloohu wa maa Salaboohu means in
arabic that they didnt kill him nor did they crucify him. Why would Allah say
that and then used the refuted Bible as a reference point and ultimate
"tafseer" for the Quran?
>Perhaps only your translation clearly
>says that, while all the translations agree that some follow their own
>conjecture.
I dont follow "translations," I follow the arabic. I didnt learn arabic for 4
years just to follow "translations."
>Since Allah already confirmed the Injeel which is quite clear on the
>physical crucifixion of Blessed Isa, that is simply redundant; we were
>already told.
Now I am being redundant. Like I proved above, the Quran abrogates the Bible,
corrects its mistakes, and confirms its truth.
> My interpretation is
>based on the truth of the Holy Qor'an, the truth of the Holy Gospel, it
>is not based on the uninformed insertion of extraneous words into the
>Holy Text.
So why did Allah forbade alcohol in the Quran and not the Bible? Why did Allah
correct the mistakes in the Bible like Noah's flood, the stories of the
Prophets, Pharoah's magician, etc.? Why would Allah "add" things in the Quran
that is not in the Bible?
Mahdi
Mr Mahdi
>didnt,
I meant to say:
"Do what I did."
Mahdi
Bintyaya
linguistic theory is beyond the ken of some people.
Michela
>Greetings!
>
>In article <19990707184433...@ng-fa1.aol.com>,
(Quite what? I can be quite persistent)
Ron House
> The Quran corrected all these lies in the Bible.
003.003
He hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture with truth,
confirming that which was (revealed) before it, even as He revealed the
Torah and the Gospel.
003.048
And He will teach him the Scripture and wisdom, and the Torah and the
Gospel,
005.046
And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps,
confirming that which was revealed) before him in the Torah, and We
bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and a light, confirming
that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah - a guidance and an
admonition unto those who ward off (evil).
005.047
Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath revealed
therein. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are
evil-livers.
> Why arent muslims allowed
> to drink alcohol when the Bible didnt forbid it? Because the Quran abrogated
> the Bible!
003.026
Say: O Allah! Owner of Sovereignty! Thou givest sovereignty unto whom
Thou wilt, and Thou withdrawest sovereignty from whom Thou wilt. Thou
exaltest whom Thou wilt, and Thou abasest whom Thou wilt. In Thy hand is
the good. Lo! Thou art Able to do all things.
> As a bahai, you of course reject what Allah said about the crucificion.
Again: 003.003
... even as _He_ revealed the Torah and the Gospel.
--
Ron House ho...@usq.edu.au
The evils of each age always seem self-evidently right at the time.
Mr Mahdi
>003.003
>He hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture with truth,
>confirming that which was (revealed) before it, even as He revealed the
>Torah and the Gospel.
Like I said, there is truth in the Bible. But the Bible isnt completely true
and thats why God revealed the Quran. The Quran talks about abrogation, you
bahais wont mention that in this discussion. The Quran corrected many of the
mistakes and lies in the Bible, you bahais wont mention that here. The Quran
has laws that the Bible do not have, the Quran abrogated some of the laws the
Bible do not have, etc. You bahais wont mention that here because it will not
make your religion look it, esp. in light of its refutation.
>> As a bahai, you of course reject what Allah said about the crucificion.
>
>Again: 003.003
>... even as _He_ revealed the Torah and the Gospel.
>
Like I keep saying, the Quran corrected the mistakes and lies in the Bible and
confirmed the parts which are true. Why dont you bahais mention about why the
Quran explained Noah's Flood as only a flood that occured with Noah's people
not the whole earth as the Bible says, why dont you bahais mention the fact
that the Quran corrected the lies in the Bible when the Bible talks about Lot
committing incest, David and his household committing rape and murder, etc?
You bahais are silent on that because yoou know it will refute your whole weak
argument. "Pat" and his delusional and humorous attempt in being the "Bahai
hope" refuses to address these issues, its about distorting the Quran and
leaving subjects that might make him look bad like the Quran talking about
"naskh" or abrogation or the Quran correcting the Bible.
Mahdi
Mr Mahdi
>
>Wherever you go, there you are.
>
>> That's the pot calling the kettle black:
>
>Mirror mirror on the wall . . .
Did you say that with your funny sounding Farsi accent or did you try to use
your "American" accent this time? At any rate, its funny that a religion whose
main converts in America are middle to upper class white yuppies who listen to
classical and 60s rock tries to inspire people like you into having this
"aggressive and overly-confident" attitude displayed in your vain attempt in
defending your religion. The bahai faith has been in America for over 100
years and yet bahais number only about 25,000 to 60,000, most of them are like
you from Iran. Since 1960, 4 million people converted to Islam in the US. So
being delusional and overly-confident wont make the lies in your religion seem
true.
>It is not just a matter of Arabic. If the issue were simply one of
>Arabic, we would all agree that in Arabic, the Holy Reading is not
>spelled Q-U-R-'-A-N, since these are _not_ Arabic letters.
Well what do you know, the arabic word "Qur'an" is not spelled in non-arabic
letters. Really? Wow, we are having a discussion on why you write "Qor'an"
instead of "Qur'an" and yet you still can't prove you are right. I have asked
you several times to show me where Quran was spelled as "Qor'an", you have yet
to do so. I have seen Qur'an countless numbers of times, and sometimes I saw
"Koran," but I never saw "Qor'an." I have several Quran and they all say on
the front cover "Qur'an" not "Qor'an."
>It is about
>most closely choosing those letters used by English readers which are
>associated with the sound of the title of the Book.
>
English readers like myself pronounce the ARABIC (not farsi) word of Qur'an as
"Qur'an." That's why like I said every Quran I got you see on the front cover
"Qur'an."
>Michela advised you that you are out of your league in
>transliterations which is what phonics is about.
Michela is extremely naive and ignorant when it comes to arabic. If Michela
and you really wanted to refute what I said, you guys would of referred to a
arabist such as Juan Cole and you could of silenced me on this issue once and
for all. I keep talking about "FaSeeH" arabic not "colloquialism," you guys
either are too ignorant to realize that or you guys are ignoring me on purpose.
Also ask an arabist about the science of reciting Qur'an, such as Tajweed and
Tarteel. The way the Qur'an was pronounced is the same way it was pronounced
when the Qur'an was revealed, the same accent and everything. So this refutes
Michela naive assumptions about arabic.
> Test question: Arabic has two letters which are associated with
>th sounds (where one sound is shown by the two letters "T" and "H" in
>English). How many th sounds are there in English and pick one
>English word for each of those th sounds.
The "dh" sound is equavalent to the "th" sound in "the." The "DH" sound is the
more emphatic form of "dh." The "th" sound is like the "th" sound in "thing."
The "th" is italicized to sound like the "dh" and when it is not italicized is
sounds like the "th" in "thing." Any more questions?
>Michela is quite correct.
You dont even speak arabic and you are saying Michela is correct?
>Maybe he can help you out in picking out the Arabic words you translated
>as "another man
Maybe you need to learn arabic before you display such confidence. The word
"shubbiha" as used in the verse means in arabic one who resembles somebody
else. The verse says "Walakin 'shubbiha' lahum." "But he resembeled to them."
Who is this "he," it is someone who resembled Jesus? Why yes, the word
"shubbiha" clearly describes that. And if you read tafseer which you dont,
there was man who was killed and crucified. But that man like the Quran says
was the "shubbiha" of Jesus not Jesus himself!
>Ask Juan yourself. He is a very knowledgeable man.
LOL, its you guys that need the help not me. I know my arabic, none of you
guys are fluent in arabic and yet you arrogantly and naively challenge me on
arabic.
Mahdi
Mr Mahdi
>linguistic theory is beyond the ken of some people.
You were talking as a naive and ignorant "linguist." You have no idea of
arabic, did you know the sciences of Qur'an like Tajweed and Tarteel? The way
the Quran is pronounced today was the same way it was taught in the time the
Quran was revealed. The accent, the pronounciation, everything. So please
dont confuse "colloquialism" with "FaSeeH' or standard proper arabic. Arabic
is way above your league and before you make a fool out of yourself AGAIN,
consult arabists like Juan Cole to see who is right.
Mahdi
Ron House
> The anti-muslim polemics continues:
What?
An article containing nothing but words from the Quran is called an
anti-muslim polemic?!
> >003.003
> >He hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture with truth,
> >confirming that which was (revealed) before it, even as He revealed the
> >Torah and the Gospel.
> Like I said, there is truth in the Bible. But the Bible isnt completely true
> and thats why God revealed the Quran.
005.046
And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps,
confirming that which was revealed) before him in the Torah, and We
bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and a light, confirming
that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah - a guidance and an
admonition unto those who ward off (evil).
> The Quran talks about abrogation, you
> bahais wont mention that in this discussion.
Baha'is have been mentioning it all along - the entire point is that the
Baha'i dispensation abrogated the Quranic one. Your basic argument is
unsustainable. On the one hand you want us to accept that the Bible and
Torah are erroneous (in spite of what Muhammad said about them) but then
you won't accept that the Quran might be. After all, if two scriptures
contain errors (in spite of what Muhammad said), why not a third? My
point here is that the entire notion (and Baha'is reading might pay
attention here too) of scripture as inerrant words is not sufficient to
comprehend the true nature of God or His message. Fallible humans
(including Muhammad - he said so himself) have been shared a glimpse of
God's majestic and wonderful purpose for mankind, both here and in the
worlds of eternity. That message has been written in words that humans
can understand, not in words that do true justice to the Ultimate
Reality behind appearances, and this for the very good reason that _no_
human words can encompass the ultimate Truth. Therefore the notion of
scripture as inerrant, infallible descriptions is unworkable. Indeed,
all scriptures contain incorrect statements, and if Mr Mahdi wants to go
across to, say, alt.atheism.moderated, he'll be served up scores of
examples of proven errors in the Quran.
Muhammad explained this matter very well. He discusses the doubts
expressed to him by the followers of previous religions:
[5.59] Say: O followers of the Book! do you find fault with us (for
aught) except that we believe in Allah and in what has been revealed to
us and what was revealed before, and that most of you are transgressors?
and mentions one particular claim:
[5.64] And the Jews say: The hand of Allah is tied up! ...
which is precisely what Mr Mahdi is saying now: Mr Mahdi has determined
that certain passages from the Quran preclude another messenger, so he
denies that one is possible. He has tied Allah's hand (or tried to). But
He continues:
[5.64] ... Their hands shall be shackled and they shall be cursed for
what they say. Nay, both His hands are spread out, He expends as He
pleases; and what has been revealed to you from your Lord will certainly
make many of them increase in inordinacy and unbelief; and We have put
enmity and hatred among them till the day of resurrection; whenever they
kindle a fire for war Allah puts it out, and they strive to make
mischief in the land; and Allah does not love the mischief-makers.
"He spreads _as_he_pleases_"! Not, Mr Mahdi, as you have decided He
should do to preserve your limited understanding.
> Like I keep saying, the Quran corrected the mistakes and lies in the Bible and
> confirmed the parts which are true. Why dont you bahais mention about why the
> Quran explained Noah's Flood as only a flood that occured with Noah's people
> not the whole earth as the Bible says, why dont you bahais mention the fact
> that the Quran corrected the lies in the Bible when the Bible talks about Lot
> committing incest, David and his household committing rape and murder, etc?
> You bahais are silent on that because yoou know it will refute your whole weak
> argument. "Pat" and his delusional and humorous attempt in being the "Bahai
> hope" refuses to address these issues, its about distorting the Quran and
> leaving subjects that might make him look bad like the Quran talking about
> "naskh" or abrogation or the Quran correcting the Bible.
These things are not a problem for me, Mr Mahdi, because I have too wide
an understanding of the purpose of scripture to be misled into
nit-picking about errors in _any_ scripture. Your beliefs about the
infallibility of the Quran are easily demolished, but I very much doubt
you will be honest enough with yourself to really look into the matter
with a searching heart and mind. But please prove me wrong, for I cannot
make you see greater and deeper truths in religion than you want to see.
If you are happy with a literal Quran and you overlook the evidence
against your belief, then provided you follow the Quran's instructions
to do good, I cannot fault you and I have no interest in rebutting any
further arguments of yours against the Baha'i Faith. But how much better
it would be for you if you could see the evidences of God's actions
towards all peoples and how in this day God wishes all to be united in
love and justice.
Roger Reini
>>May I ask from what translation this came from? I have the same verse
>>from a translation by Maulvi Sher Ali (edited by Malik Ghulam Farid):
>
>It came from the transaltion of Taqi ud-Deen Hilali and Muhammad Muhsin Khan.
>But the best way to understand the Quran is to understand the Arabic, because
>the purity of the Quran lies in the Arabic not the translation.
But enough of it comes through in the various translations so that
anyone who does not know Arabic can state that it is indeed a Book of
God. That is what I believe. And since I do not know Arabic, that's
the only way I can know it for myself.
>
>>4:158. And for their saying, `We did slay the Messiah, Jesus, son of
>>Mary, the Messenger of ALLAH;' whereas they slew him not, nor did they
>>bring about his death upon the cross, but he was made to appear to
>>them like one crucified; and those who differ therein are certainly in
>>a state of doubt about it; they have no certain knowledge thereof, but
>>only pursue a conjecture; and they did not arrive at a certainty
>>concerning it.
>
>Wrong verse. It is 157 not 158.
I have heard that different translations have different verse
numberings. The numbering is irrelevant here, as opposed to the
content of the verses.
>
> > 4:159. On the contrary, ALLAH exalted him to Himself. And ALLAH is
>>Mighty, Wise.
>
>Its not 159 but 158. At any rate, the arabic for exalted or raised in this
>verse is "rafa'a." Rafa'a denotes putting something up or raising it. The
>verse says in arabic "rafa'ahu-llahu ilaihi." That means that Allah raised
>Jesus TO HIM. It has nothing to do with the silly twisted interpretation
>bahais give it that Jesus "willingly" yielded his life on the Cross. This is
>textual twisting at its worse. God raised Jesus up to the Heavens as this
>verse clearly said, not anything else. Again, the Quran was revealed to
>Muhammad (saaw), and if the verse really meant as bahais claim it did, he would
>of told us but he didnt.
>
>Mahdi
>
>http://members.aol.com/mrmahdi/opinions/index.htm
Roger Reini
Therefore, further discussion would be pointless. However, I will
comment on one thing you stated.
You said:
> The bahai faith is a
>little over 150 years old and yet it has all of these major changes in their
>structure and beleifs.
This is untrue. There have been no major changes in the beliefs as
set forth by Baha'u'llah. And there have been few significant changes
in the structure of the Administrative Order. The Universal House of
Justice was established by Baha'u'llah. The Guardianship was
anticipated by Him, though it was 'Abdu'l-Baha who formally
established it under that name. The Continental Boards of Counselors
are assuming the functions of the Hands of the Cause.
Mr Mahdi
>005.046
>And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps,
>confirming that which was revealed) before him in the Torah, and We
>bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and a light, confirming
>that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah - a guidance and an
>admonition unto those who ward off (evil).
>
Again, you are on purpose going around in circles trying to make me dizzy and
forget my arguments. I have said REPEATEDLY about the Quran correcting the
mistakes in the Bible, the Quran aborgating laws and beliefs in the bible, etc.
And all you do is quote another verse saying the same thing! If the Bible was
all pure, then the Quran wouldnt need to correct the story of the Flood, the
lies the Bible attributes to prophets and messengers, accusing them of things
like incest, rape, murder, looting, etc., and many other things. Why don't you
talk about that? Why dont you ask yourself why does the Quran CORRECT not
CONFIRM these biblical stories?
>Baha'is have been mentioning it all along - the entire point is that the
>Baha'i dispensation abrogated the Quranic one. Your basic argument is
>unsustainable.
What hypocrisy. You want to say the books of the bahai faith abrogated the
Quran and Islam while at the same time you are saying the Quran confirms not
abrogates the stories in the Bible? Again, why did the Quran gave a different
explanation of Noah's flood, Pharoah's Magician, and I forgot to mention the
story of creation, defended the honor of the prophets and messengers of the
Bible by refuting the lies that it contained, etc.? Why arent you talking
about this?
> Indeed,
>all scriptures contain incorrect statements, and if Mr Mahdi wants to go
>across to, say, alt.atheism.moderated, he'll be served up scores of
>examples of proven errors in the Quran.
What a ignorant foolish person. I dare you go to
http://salam.muslimsonline.com/~islamawe/ to see all of these alleged
"mistakes" in the Quran refuted. You are also being a hypocrite by saying the
Quran has "proven errors." One day you are saying the Quran is from God, the
next moment you said the Quran has "proven errors." Please cite one "proven
error" of the Quran, and please go to the site I referred you above and see
your anti-Islamic beliefs and those of the enemies of Islam thoroughly refuted.
>5.64] And the Jews say: The hand of Allah is tied up! ...
>
>which is precisely what Mr Mahdi is saying now: Mr Mahdi has determined
>that certain passages from the Quran preclude another messenger, so he
>denies that one is possible. He has tied Allah's hand (or tried to). But
>He continues:
>
>
Devils like to twist the word of God to fit their beliefs and agendas. The
verse talking about "God's hands are tied up" were revealed when the Jews told
Muhammad (saaw) that God is close-fisted. It has nothing to do "deny
revelation" after Islam. God's Hands can never be tied up, so saying Muslims
believe or say so proves how bahais hate Islam with a passion.
I have refuted this silly notion here before and on AOL. Allah always speaks,
with or without "revelation." God's words are never endless, He never ceases
to speak. God is always speaking, giving orders to His angels and rest of
Creation. Bahais like to twist the meaning of "Kalimat" which means words to
mean only "revelation."
>"He spreads _as_he_pleases_"! Not, Mr Mahdi, as you have decided He
>should do to preserve your limited understanding.
My limited understand, LOL. You call Muslims as the ones who tie the Hands of
God. Muslims believe God's Hands can never be tied, and to say so is complete
blasphemy. Again, that verse you bahais like to twist was revealed when the
Jews told Muhammad (saaw) that God is closed-fisted. You bahais prove once
again how you hate Muslims, Islam, and the truth.
>These things are not a problem for me, Mr Mahdi, because I have too wide
>an understanding of the purpose of scripture to be misled into
>nit-picking about errors in _any_ scripture.
In other words, don't answer my questions/argument but just
beat-around-the-bush and think that I may forget what you said.
> Your beliefs about the
>infallibility of the Quran are easily demolished, but I very much doubt
>you will be honest enough with yourself to really look into the matter
>with a searching heart and mind.
I feel sorry for your ignorance. How can the Quran be from God and have
mistakes? God doesnt make mistakes or breaks His promises. The Quran says it
confirms the truth in the Bible, while at the same time refuting its mistakes
and lies. Allah said that He will protect the Quran from any corruptions. SO
like the typical bahai you are calling God a liar. Like I said, go to May
Allah curse the devils:
>Baha'is have been mentioning it all along - the entire point is that the
>Baha'i dispensation abrogated the Quranic one. Your basic argument is
>unsustainable.
What hypocrisy. You want to say the books of the bahai faith abrogated the
Quran and Islam while at the same time you are saying the Quran confirms not
abrogates the stories in the Bible? Again, why did the Quran gave a different
explanation of Noah's flood, Pharoah's Magician, and I forgot to mention the
story of creation, defended the honor of the prophets and messengers of the
Bible by refuting the lies that it contained, etc.? Why arent you talking
about this?
>"He spreads _as_he_pleases_"! Not, Mr Mahdi, as you have decided He
>should do to preserve your limited understanding.
My limited understand, LOL. You call Muslims as the ones who tie the Hands of
God. Muslims believe God's Hands can never be tied, and to say so is complete
blasphemy. Again, that verse you bahais like to twist was revealed when the
Jews told Muhammad (saaw) that God is closed-fisted. You bahais prove once
again how you hate Muslims, Islam, and the truth.
>These things are not a problem for me, Mr Mahdi, because I have too wide
>an understanding of the purpose of scripture to be misled into
>nit-picking about errors in _any_ scripture.
In other words, don't answer my questions/argument. Just beat-around-bush and
act like I will not pay attention.
> Your beliefs about the
>infallibility of the Quran are easily demolished, but I very much doubt
>you will be honest enough with yourself to really look into the matter
>with a searching heart and mind.
I feel sorry for your ignorance. You claim to believe that the Quran is from
God and yet you believe it has mistakes, implying that God makes mistakes.
Like the typical bahai you are calling God a liar because He said in the Quran
he will protect it from corruption and mistakes. How can God promise the Quran
to be free from corruption and mistakes and yet you believe it has mistakes.
Like I said before, go to http://salam.muslimsonline.com/~islamawe/ to see your
arguments and the arguments and claims of others thoroughly refuted. Please
after going to the site, comment on the site and tell me what you learned.
>But please prove me wrong, for I cannot
>make you see greater and deeper truths in religion than you want to see.
God already proved you wrong. You have said the Quran has "proven errors,"
Allah refuted that notion in the Quran many times. Go to that site and see the
proofs right before your eyes.
>If you are happy with a literal Quran and you overlook the evidence
>against your belief, then provided you follow the Quran's instructions
>to do good, I cannot fault you
Oh yeah, when a literal meaning of a belief agrees with the bahai faith, they
take it, then a literal meaning does not agree with the bahai faith, they take
it as "symbolic or metaphorical."
>and I have no interest in rebutting any
>further arguments of yours against the Baha'i Faith.
Aaaah, because you cant??? You cant refute or rebut truth, you could try, but
it wont work, trust me.
>But how much better
>it would be for you if you could see the evidences of God's actions
>towards all peoples and how in this day God wishes all to be united in
>love and justice.
Spoken like the typical cultist. You are no different than any other cult or
cultist, just you guys are accepted in the UN. They all have this delusional
utopian view of their religion creating peace on earth and love for all of
mankind kind. Man suffers from systematic problems, much more complicating
than "moral and spiritual" solutuions. It takes a system of life to solve
systematic problems, and a "feel-good" religion is far from being any solutions
to any problems esp. systematic.
Mahdi
Mesbah Javid
news:19990708125936...@ng-fg1.aol.com...
| May Allah curse the devils:
|the Quran aborgating laws and beliefs in the bible, etc.
Quran abrogated Bible as you say. Also you may be
interested to know that Kitab-i-Aqdas abrogated Quran and
all previous Dispensations. Additionally 500,000 year Baha'i
Dispensation abrogated 6000 year Adamic Cycle which began
with Prophet Adam and ended with Prophet Muhammad.
Mesbah Javid
| I have addressed this silly argument before. When people
transliterate Arabic
| to english, it is based on phonectically correct
transliteration, not based on
| how people who speak english pronounce these letters. I
have ask "Pat" several
| times to give me an example of a Qur'an that is
transliterated as "Qor'an."
| Pat has yet to do so. Every Quran I have is
transliterated as "Qur'an." In
| arabic, there is no "O" vowel except in foreign loan words
like "kombuter"
| (computer).
|
Shoghi Effendi also adopted that transliteration in
translation of the Baha'i Writings from Arabic and Persian
into English. For example he wrote "Qur'an" the same way as
Mr. Mahdi is writings it. See "Qur'an" in the following:
Devotional Portion of 19-Day Feast:
"During the devotional part of the Nineteen Day
Feast any part of the writings of the Bab, Baha'u'llah and
the Master can be read, also from the Bible and Qur'an, as
these are all sacred scriptures. This part of the meeting
need not be confined to prayers, though prayers can and
should be read during it. [Shoghi Effendi]
Mesbah Javid
news:19990707142513...@ng-cl1.aol.com...
| You're wrong. There is an "o" vowel-it's a spoken vowel,
it's just not
Assyrian), Arabic does not
Transliteration symboles adopted by Shoghi Effendi can
be found at the end of most annual volumes of "The Baha'i
World", and there is no "o" or "O" in it.
rlit...@my-deja.com
When you say "May Allah curse the devils:" you seem to be expressing
your own desire, rather than the desire of Allah.
I wish to say that I believe one of the signs of wisdom is hunger for
knowledge and wisdom, and one of the signs of ignorance is the attitude
of wisdom and knowledge.
Whenever I have begun to believe that I know, I have stumbled and
fallen over my own ignorance, and when I have sought knowledge, I have
found it.
Mr. Mahdi, you are intelligent and you have education, but the moment
you begn to believe that you KNOW, you are in that moment cutting
yourself off from learning what you don't know, which is always far
more than you could possibly every know.
The people who post here can teach you as much as you can teach them -
but you must first open your heart and your mind to what they have to
say.
Humility is found in the Quran, is it not?
And love?
Robert A. Little
n article <19990708125936...@ng-fg1.aol.com>,
Mr Mahdi
>interested to know that Kitab-i-Aqdas abrogated Quran and
>all previous Dispensations. Additionally 500,000 year Baha'i
>Dispensation abrogated 6000 year Adamic Cycle which began
>with Prophet Adam and ended with Prophet Muhammad.
No prophet or messenger of God ever mentioned anything about "cycles" of
prophethood or messengership. This is an inventions of the bahais to make
sense of the word "Khatam." By clever and deceptive twisting, bahais will say
that (some bahais will say this, not all) that yes Muhammad (saaw) is the last
messenger and prophet, BUT he was the last in the "Adamic cycle." But most
bahais though will try to twist the word "khatam" to mean that Muhammad (saaw)
is not the last. Bahais often differ in strategy but they have similiar goals
in decieving the people.
Plus this silly cultish "500,000" years is beyond rationale and common sense.
This is as silly as the beliefs on Scientology and other New Age cults. It has
no basis whatsoever except in the silly imagination of bahais who actually
believe this stuff. Like I said before, a true religion only needs one
messenger or prophet to convey a COMPLETE message, the bahai faith is still not
complete despite having a series of false prophets like bab, bahaullah, abdul
baha, shogi effendi, and now the "infallible" UHJ. And funny thing about it is
that this all happened in about 150 years!
Mahdi
Mr Mahdi
>translation of the Baha'i Writings from Arabic and Persian
>into English. For example he wrote "Qur'an" the same way as
>Mr. Mahdi is writings it. See "Qur'an" in the following:
>
>
Pat, are you taking notes? It is this time shogi effendi not just me. I guess
you will change your style from now on since an "infallible" person has written
Qur'an as "Qur'an." And I am wondering why you guys have yet to ask Juan Cole
whether I am right or wrong.
Mahdi
Mesbah Javid
news:37857fc2...@news.newsguy.com...
| 4:158. And for their saying, `We did slay the Messiah,
Jesus, son of
| Mary, the Messenger of ALLAH;' whereas they slew him not,
nor did they
| bring about his death upon the cross, but he was made to
appear to
| them like one crucified; and those who differ therein are
certainly in
| a state of doubt about it; they have no certain knowledge
thereof, but
| only pursue a conjecture; and they did not arrive at a
certainty
| concerning it.
|
Why Muhammad Says that the Jews Did Not Crucify Christ ?
"Regarding your question relative to Surih 4: 156 of
the `Qur'an' in which Muhammad says that the Jews did not
crucify Jesus, the Christ, but one like Him; what is meant
by this passage is that although the Jews succeeded in
destroying the physical body of Jesus, yet they were
impotent to destroy the divine reality in Him."
(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian
to an individual
believer, March 19, 1938)
Mesbah Javid
| Plus this silly cultish "500,000" years is beyond
rationale and common sense.
| This is as silly as the beliefs on Scientology and other
New Age cults. It has
| no basis whatsoever except in the silly imagination of
bahais who actually
| believe this stuff. Like I said before, a true religion
only needs one
| messenger or prophet to convey a COMPLETE message, the
bahai faith is still not
| complete despite having a series of false prophets like
bab, bahaullah, abdul
| baha, shogi effendi, and now the "infallible" UHJ. And
funny thing about it is
| that this all happened in about 150 years!
There was a time when an "static" religion was enough,
from 1844 gradually humanity is reaching maturity and
requirements of time change quickly, as a result a "dynamic"
religion is needed which can change "secondary laws" in
accordance with the need of the time and with
"infallibility". Do you know of any other world religion
than the Baha'i Faith? no vallah.
Chris Manvell
One of the problems here, Mesbah, is that the rules of transliteration
have evolved since Shoghi Effendi made his translations (I do not know
if he intended his method to apply to his work in perpetuity). For
example, the Britannica uses "Baha`Ullah" in place of "Bahá'u'lláh" (I
ahve also seen Baha'Ollah), "Hoseyn" instead of "Husayn," "'Abd ol-Baha"
in place of "'Abdu'l-Bahá," etc. Also I have found papers that use the
circumflex accent in place of our more familiar acute. EB does use
"Qur'an," but gives also the alternative "Koran."
The following is taken from an article by Lewis (an assistant professor
of Persian) published in the Baha'i Studies Review in 1996.
"When Shoghi Effendi implemented a uniform convention of transliteration
for Bahai [sic] publications, he followed a system adopted by the Royal
Asiatic Society in 1896. In a letter written on his behalf in 1931, it
was explained that this system of transliteration was "now adhered to by
the most eminent scholars." The fact that the Bahai system for
transliteration was generally accepted by academics in 1931, whereas
academics themselves have constantly been developing and refining
transliteration systems, inadvertently gives Bahai works the look of
old-fashioned (and now politically suspect) orientalist scholarship of
the early twentieth century. Modern academic conventions use the macron
or circumflex to represent the long vowels, rather than the acute accent
still used in Bahai publications. Most modern systems also drop the
underline under th, dh, sh and gh. Furthermore, there are now systems
constructed or modified especially for Persian, whereas the older
systems are based upon Arabic pronunciations, and do not do a decent job
of conveying the sounds to non-speakers of Persian.
"There is certainly an advantage for the Bahai community in maintaining
uniform spelling with Bahai texts published in the 1930s through the
1990s; it may undoubtedly prove disconcerting for Bahais who have
written "Bahá'u'lláh" for over fifty years to now read and write Bah '
All h, Bah 'ull h, or simply Bahaullah (as in this review) or, following
the Persian pronunciation, Bahâollâh. Nevertheless, since Shoghi Effendi
seems to have intended that Bahai transliteration correspond to the
accepted academic norms, we will now need to learn the current
conventions of transliteration, rather than clinging to ones that today
are outmoded. Here is one case where adherence to the letter of the
instructions of the Guardian may actually conflict with the spirit of
his intent. The Bahai conventions of transliteration are no longer
accepted by academics and, as a pronunciation guide for Persian words,
the system fails miserably, and has generally been replaced among
scholars by the conventions followed in the Encyclopaedia Iranica.
"... Bahai doctrine will certainly not suffer if publishers are given
leeway to omit apostrophes and acute accents from the words Bahaullah
and Bahai.... Is there any possibility that these words could be
confused with something else? Is the general reader expected to mentally
convert every occurrence of every proper name, title and technical word
into the Arabic script, or even to care? ..."
There is also an article by Momen, "The System of Transliteration," in
the Bahá'í Studies Bulletin 5:1-2 (January 1991): 13-69. I do not have a
copy of this article so cannot comment on it.
With respect,
Chris.
--
Chris Manvell Tel.:+44(0)1471-822 317
Breacais Iosal, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Fax.:+44(0)870-056 8081
Personal Web site: <http://manvell.org.uk/>
Association for Baha'i Studies (English-Speaking Europe):
<www.breacais.demon.co.uk/BSR/> and <www.bahai-library.org/bsr/>
Sgriobtiurean Creidimh nam Baha-i (with English Translations)
<http://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/gaelic/>
patk...@my-deja.com
In article <19990708110445...@ng-bh1.aol.com>,
mrm...@aol.com (Mr Mahdi) wrote:
> >Mirror mirror on the wall . . .
>
> Did you say that with your funny sounding Farsi accent or did you try
to use
> your "American" accent this time?
My funny sounding accents include 1) Bronx: wassamaddawichew?,
and 'sconsin: "wur frum kenohshuhdohnshunoh." I gather yuo failed to
ask your mother about my family name. She is your mother; you should be
able to talk to her about these things. If regrettably you are not on
speaking terms, perhaps you could pick up the San Antonio White Pages
and page through to the Ks for Kohli. How many of those Kohlis ahve
names like Pradipta and Vijai? How many have names like Mehdi and
Firouz?
> At any rate, its funny that a religion whose
> main converts in America are middle to upper class white yuppies who
listen to
> classical and 60s rock tries to inspire people like you into having
this
> "aggressive and overly-confident" attitude displayed in your vain
attempt in
> defending your religion.
I had heard of Cat Stevens before, but he is a Brit, not a Yank.
> The bahai faith has been in America for over
100
> years and yet bahais number only about 25,000 to 60,000, most of them
are like
> you from Iran. Since 1960, 4 million people converted to Islam in the
US. So
> being delusional and overly-confident wont make the lies in your
religion seem
> true.
A) you are changing the subject. B) You've played this pawn before and
did not tell how many _American_ Muslims there were around 100 AH. C) I
am not from Iran - this seems to be a problem you experience
recurrently: a preference for your own conjectures as 'facts' even when
they are false. Should I post a weekly personal ethnicity FAQ to assure
you I haven't changed nation of origin since last week?
http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=md]/threadmsg_md.xp?AN=496850994&fmt=text
> >It is not just a matter of Arabic. If the issue were simply one of
> >Arabic, we would all agree that in Arabic, the Holy Reading is not
> >spelled Q-U-R-'-A-N, since these are _not_ Arabic letters.
>
> Well what do you know, the arabic word "Qur'an" is not spelled in
non-arabic
> letters. Really? Wow, we are having a discussion on why you write
"Qor'an"
> instead of "Qur'an" and yet you still can't prove you are right. I
have asked
> you several times to show me where Quran was spelled as "Qor'an", you
have yet
> to do so.
I have explained that in English, the letters Q and U when in series are
pronounced as a KW sound. IF the Faseh pronunciation for the title of
the Book were KWR'AN, then "Qur'an" would be the correct
transliteration.
> I have seen Qur'an countless numbers of times, and
sometimes I saw
> "Koran," but I never saw "Qor'an."
Well lookey here http://www.pitt.edu/~megst20/shiraz.html .
> I have several Quran and they all say on
> the front cover "Qur'an" not "Qor'an."
Perhaps you could read the Yusuf Ali rendering of the ayat in question.
Maybe when your Arabic gets better you will get a Holy Qor'an that does
not have "Qur'an" written on it.
> English readers like myself pronounce the ARABIC (not farsi) word of
Qur'an as
> "Qur'an."
I have never heard it pronounced that way by a Muslim.
> That's why like I said every Quran I got you see on the
> front cover "Qur'an."
Like I said, maybe some day you'll get past those translations.
> >Michela advised you that you are out of your league in
> >transliterations which is what phonics is about.
(snip)
> If Michela
> and you really wanted to refute what I said, you guys would of
referred to a
> arabist such as Juan Cole and you could of silenced me on this issue
once and
> for all.
I referred you to the Arabic and you told me that one word answered the
question as if there were one word that the people of Hejaz used which
meant that one man was made to look like another and then killed. I've
heard that Arabic is a rich language, with thirty words for lion.
> I keep talking about "FaSeeH" arabic not "colloquialism,"
you guys
> either are too ignorant to realize that or you guys are ignoring me on
purpose.
> Also ask an arabist about the science of reciting Qur'an, such as
Tajweed and
> Tarteel. The way the Qur'an was pronounced is the same way it was
pronounced
> when the Qur'an was revealed, the same accent and everything. So this
refutes
> Michela naive assumptions about arabic.
I suppose that all Muezeens sound just like Bilal.
> > Test question: Arabic has two letters which are associated with
> >th sounds (where one sound is shown by the two letters "T" and "H" in
> >English). How many th sounds are there in English and pick one
> >English word for each of those th sounds.
>
> The "dh" sound is equavalent to the "th" sound in "the." The "DH"
sound is the
> more emphatic form of "dh." The "th" sound is like the "th" sound in
"thing."
> The "th" is italicized to sound like the "dh" and when it is not
italicized is
> sounds like the "th" in "thing." Any more questions?
I am impressed by your understanding of phonics. "The thing' is a
correct answer. Those who have seriously studied phonics, such as
Michela and myself, might have used "Than thank" or "This thistle" since
these words begin with the same first four letter, it is even more
obvious that the initial sound is different. I suspect you were able to
apply your correct Arabic pronunciation education. As for additional
questions, I could have asked you how Q-U is pronounced, but I've
already told you the answer and it seems you have a different answer.
> >Michela is quite correct.
>
> You dont even speak arabic and you are saying Michela is correct?
That you have not heard me speak Arabic does not mean that I can not
speak it or read it. However, I was attempting humor at your expense,
an apparently vain pursuit. I continue to find it odd that you should
lecture on spelling.
> >Maybe he can help you out in picking out the Arabic words you
translated
> >as "another man
>
> Maybe you need to learn arabic before you display such confidence.
The word
> "shubbiha" as used in the verse means in arabic one who resembles
somebody
> else. The verse says "Walakin 'shubbiha' lahum." "But he resembeled
to them."
> Who is this "he," it is someone who resembled Jesus? Why yes, the
word
> "shubbiha" clearly describes that. And if you read tafseer which you
dont,
> there was man who was killed and crucified. But that man like the
Quran says
> was the "shubbiha" of Jesus not Jesus himself!
Your first interpretation included the phrase "but the RESEMBLANCE of
Jesus was put over another man (and they killed that man)" now you say,
"But he resembeled to them". Rather than continuously revising your
interpretation in the face of simple questions on which English word or
words correspond to each Arabic word, perhaps you would care to explain
how Yusuf-Ali, Pickthal and Shakir all agree that it only 'appeared so
to them', while you insist there is a stunt double, like in Hollywood?
Did these guys not get as good an Arabic teacher as you did? Any
conjectures?
> >Ask Juan yourself. He is a very knowledgeable man.
>
> LOL, its you guys that need the help not me. I know my arabic, none
of you
> guys are fluent in arabic and yet you arrogantly and naively challenge
me on
> arabic.
That is what you say, but you've also said I'm from Iran. You claim
that the Holy Qor'an corrects the mistakes of the Injeel, even though
the Holy Qor'an says it confirms the Injeel it does not say that it
corrects the mistakes of the Injeel. Do not be surprised if I do not
concede that you speak Arabic like a Makkan.
Kaf haleq!
- "Bat"
ko...@ameritel.net
Mesbah Javid
in message news:Ke7I9EAI...@breacais.demon.co.uk...
| One of the problems here, Mesbah, is that the rules of
transliteration
| have evolved since Shoghi Effendi made his translations (I
do not know
| if he intended his method to apply to his work in
perpetuity).
Dear Chris,
I was totally unaware that this matter is so grave, but
after reading your posting of Prof. Lewis, I discovered how
beautifully the beloved Guardian and the UHJ saved all the
Baha'i Writings around the world from possible chaotic
situation by these couple of instructions:
Transliteration of Baha'i Terms
"On another page(1) is given the list of the best known
and most current Baha'i terms, and other Oriental names and
expressions, all properly and accurately transliterated, the
faithful spelling of which by all the Western friends will
avoid confusion in future, and insure in this matter a
uniformity which is greatly needed at present in all Baha'i
literature. The full code will be duly communicated to the
various National Assemblies, and the transliteration of the
Oriental terms mentioned in the English letters sent out by
the Haifa Spiritual Assembly will provide a correct and
reliable supplement to the above-mentioned list. I feel
confident that all the friends will from now on follow this
system and adhere scrupulously and at all times to this code
in all their writings. <End> To the beloved of the Lord and
the handmaids of the Merciful, the accredited delegates to
the Annual Convention of America,
[Shoghi Effendi, March 12, 1923]
"Regarding the transliteration of Persian and Arabic
words the House of Justice requests that the method adopted
by the beloved Guardian, and which is described in the
various volumes of `The Baha'i World', be followed, as it
permits all languages which use the Roman alphabet to
transliterate such terms in the same way throughout the
Baha'i world."
(on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to
the National Spiritual Assembly of Panama, July
16, 1979)
Mr Mahdi
>
>When you say "May Allah curse the devils:" you seem to be expressing
>your own desire, rather than the desire of Allah.
>
It is an expression common in Islamic terminilogy. It is not rare for Muslims
to say: "May Allah curse the enemies of Islam, May Allah curse so and so."
Even Allah cursed people in the Qur'an.
>I wish to say that I believe one of the signs of wisdom is hunger for
>knowledge and wisdom, and one of the signs of ignorance is the attitude
>of wisdom and knowledge.
>
>Whenever I have begun to believe that I know, I have stumbled and
>fallen over my own ignorance, and when I have sought knowledge, I have
>found it.
Again, that's the pot calling the kettle black. Don't act all morally superior
and condescending now. Why dont you criticize Ron House for attacking like he
knows about things which he has no idea, why dont you criticize him for
claiming the Quran has "proven errors?" Again, for Ron House and anybody else
that believes this nonsense, check out this site:
http://salam.muslimsonline.com/~islamawe/
Mahdi
Mr Mahdi
>speaking terms, perhaps you could pick up the San Antonio White Pages
>and page through to the Ks for Kohli.
"Kohli" as far as I know is farsi for "kohl," a type of eye makeup.
>I had heard of Cat Stevens before, but he is a Brit, not a Yank.
Wow, how many people you see in the streets and prisons convert to the Bahai
faith in America or even England? The bahai faith is far from being a
grass-roots religion except in poor 3rd countries where they know converting
people will be easy to do. You and I know that the overwhelming majority of
people who convert to the bahai faith in America are white, middle to upper
class, and for some reason are into classical music and 60s rock.
>A) you are changing the subject. B) You've played this pawn before and
>did not tell how many _American_ Muslims there were around 100 AH. C) I
You are a silly person. America wasnt "discovered" so to speak at that time,
so how in the HELL can Muslims be in a country when the "known world" at that
time didnt know it existed? Can you come up with better questions than that
because that is beyond weak.
>I have explained that in English, the letters Q and U when in series are
>pronounced as a KW sound. IF the Faseh pronunciation for the title of
>the Book were KWR'AN, then "Qur'an" would be the correct
>transliteration.
You repeating the already refuted allegations wont help your vain cause.
KW'ran is not how the transliteraters had in mind, it is you trying to defend a
non-existent sound in a word that is from the Arabic language. I would like
for you to pick up a Websters Dictionary, read the definition for the "Q"
letter section, and it will tell you what you will truly regret. It says
certain words from languages like ARABIC does not I repeat does not need or use
the U letter after the Q. I know this is ground-breaking news, so if you dont
believe me, pick up a Webster's New World dictionary and find what you been
dreading all this time.
To make you save some time, I decided to copy what is in the dictionary to show
you the real:
(Defining the letter Q as in Webster's New World dictionary)
2. any of the speech that this letter represents, as, in English words (EXCEPT
THOSE BORROWED FROM ARABIC) where it is always followed by u, the (kw) of queen
or (k) of conquer.
Now, Webster's New World Dictionary has said it, what else would you like to
say? This also proves that Michela is a amateur linguist at best.
>Well lookey here http://www.pitt.edu/~megst20/shiraz.html .
>
Well lookey at Webster's. And plus, "Shiraz" is an irani name.
>I have never heard it pronounced that way by a Muslim.
I know bahais like to twist the word "muslim" to mean bahai.
>I suppose that all Muezeens sound just like Bilal.
What is a "muezeens?" I heard of "mu'adhdhin," which means caller of the
Adhan, but never "muezeens." At any rate, your silly comeback shows the lack
in debating skills on your behalf. Common sense will tell you that I didnt
mean the same exact voice, I meant of course the same accent and methodology
and technique of pronouncing the arabic.
>Those who have seriously studied phonics, such as
>Michela and myself
LOL. Tell that to Webster's New World Dictionary.
> I continue to find it odd that you should
>lecture on spelling.
Tell that to Webster's New World Dictionary.
>Your first interpretation included the phrase "but the RESEMBLANCE of
>Jesus was put over another man (and they killed that man)" now you say,
>"But he resembeled to them".
You can do better than that. I was copying from the "translation" of the Quran
by Hilali and Khan. The interpretation of the meaning were an approximation of
the meaning. By I translated it by the literal meaning of "Shubbiha lahum."
> perhaps you would care to explain
>how Yusuf-Ali, Pickthal and Shakir all agree that it only 'appeared so
>to them', while you insist there is a stunt double, like in Hollywood?
Your silly questions and even sillier attempt at a sense of humor shows your
frustrations. I would accept the words "appear to them" because again it is an
approximation of the arabic words. Resembeled, appeared, etc., what the heck,
the approximation is all correct because it clearly denotes a person other than
Jesus appearing to the people because how else would you explain "shubbiha?"
> You claim
>that the Holy Qor'an corrects the mistakes of the Injeel, even though
>the Holy Qor'an says it confirms the Injeel it does not say that it
>corrects the mistakes of the Injeel.
It is amazing how you like to avoid questions you cant answer and weave around
in debates. I proved to you how the Quran corrected the stories in the Bible
about Noah's flood, the story of Creation, Pharoah's magicians, the lies
attributed to the prophets and messengers, etc., and yet you decided to use
common sense and avoid what you cant answer and act like I forgot and rehash
the same old refuted arguments you always bring up. You are far from a good
debater, I suggest you develope something called "intellectual sincerity"
before you make a fool out of yourself trying to prove refuted beliefs.
Mahdi
Bintyaya
Why bother? A man who has studied a language for only four years sets himself
up as an expert, not just on all variations of that language, its correct
pronunciation (which, I am sure, if he's an American, he will never achieve),
but also on its transliteration, not just into English, mind you, but into all
languages using Latin alphabets, proving that he does not know what the purpose
of transliteration is. On top of that, he tells me to "be quite." Quite what?
Michela
"The only thing worse than an ignorant man is an ignorant man who does not know
that he is ignorant." (source unknown).
"Don't cast your pearls before swine" Jesus.
"People with causes inevitably turn themselves off intellectually." V.S. Naipul
Bintyaya
>be found at the end of most annual volumes of "The Baha'i
>World", and there is no "o" or "O" in it.
Which probably explains why he uses the horrible "Naw Ruz" as the
transliteration for the holiday, which has resulted in awful mispronunciation
by American English speakers.
I said the sound "o" was not written in Arabic. I've heard it spoken. I've
also seen the word Qu'ran transliterated as Koran (which is the title used on
my translation by Dawood).
There is more than one system of transliteration. The one used by Shoghi
Effendi may have resulted in better pronunciation of words used by speakers of
British English. Americans make the words sound worse. Transliteration of
symbols also is different in different languages, because the letters represent
different sounds. Noh Rooz might be a better transliteration in American
English. In French you'd have to write "rouz". Either way, neither the
Americans nor the French will get the "r" right.
Michela
Mr Mahdi
up as an expert, not just on all variations of that language, its correct
pronunciation (which, I am sure, if he's an American, he will never achieve),
but also on its transliteration, not just into English, mind you, but into all
languages using Latin alphabets, proving that he does not know what the purpose
of transliteration is. On top of that, he tells me to "be quite." Quite
what?<
I will give you the benefit of a doubt and say you didnt read the last post I
wrote concerning this issue. So, please do so and see how Webster put you in
your place and proved how you are an amateur linguist at best.
Mahdi
Ron House
> May Allah curse the devils:
> >005.046
> >And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps,
> >confirming that which was revealed) before him in the Torah, and We
> >bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and a light, confirming
> >that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah - a guidance and an
> >admonition unto those who ward off (evil).
Sorry that the words of the Quran cause you such pain.
Let me summarise my problem with your position:
(1) Muhammad says the Quran, Bible and Torah are from God,
(2) You say, therefore the Quran (because it is from God)
cannot contain errors.,
(3) You say the Bible and Torah contain errors.
Can you not see the contradiction between saying:
"Because the Quran is from God, it has no errors" and
"Even though the Bible and Torah are from God, they do contain errors"?
Note: _I_ do not claim any of these books, nor the Baha'i scriptures, to
be free from errors, therefore your attempts to involve me in your
confusion do not succeed.
And one more note: You say, the errors in the Bible and Torah were put
there when people changed the books. Yet you say this did not happen to
the Quran. Why not? Because the Quran says so? What if that change was
put there by men?
> > Indeed,
> >all scriptures contain incorrect statements, and if Mr Mahdi wants to go
> >across to, say, alt.atheism.moderated, he'll be served up scores of
> >examples of proven errors in the Quran.
>
> What a ignorant foolish person. I dare you go to
> http://salam.muslimsonline.com/~islamawe/ to see all of these alleged
> "mistakes" in the Quran refuted. You are also being a hypocrite by saying the
> Quran has "proven errors." One day you are saying the Quran is from God, the
> next moment you said the Quran has "proven errors." Please cite one "proven
> error" of the Quran, and please go to the site I referred you above and see
> your anti-Islamic beliefs and those of the enemies of Islam thoroughly refuted.
Very well. I went to:
http://www.aboutislam.com/newislamic/science.htm
and found this (among lots of other things):
8:86. "Until then, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it
set in a spring of murky water; near it he found a people; We said, 'O
Zul–qarnain! either punish them or show them kindness."
"For readers unfamiliar with the name Zul–qarnain, it is a reference to
Alexander the Great. In the context of the passage Alexander the Great
claims to be a servant of Allah, find the place where the sun sets; and
sees people around it! This is truly remarkable, is it not? Perhaps the
sun had to settle into the murky water so as not to burn the people? Can
the Quran be the Word of God and relate fiction as history?"
I then checked your site and could find no comment on this. Perhaps you
can rebut it for me.
> >5.64] And the Jews say: The hand of Allah is tied up! ...
> >
> >which is precisely what Mr Mahdi is saying now: Mr Mahdi has determined
> >that certain passages from the Quran preclude another messenger, so he
> >denies that one is possible. He has tied Allah's hand (or tried to). But
> >He continues:
> >
> >
>
> Devils like to twist the word of God to fit their beliefs and agendas. The
> verse talking about "God's hands are tied up" were revealed when the Jews told
> Muhammad (saaw) that God is close-fisted. It has nothing to do "deny
> revelation" after Islam. God's Hands can never be tied up, so saying Muslims
> believe or say so proves how bahais hate Islam with a passion.
[5.59] Say: O followers of the Book! do you find fault with us (for
aught) except that we believe in Allah and in what has been revealed to
us and what was revealed before, and that most of you are transgressors?
That is the subject Muhammad is talking about.
> >and I have no interest in rebutting any
> >further arguments of yours against the Baha'i Faith.
>
> Aaaah, because you cant??? You cant refute or rebut truth, you could try, but
> it wont work, trust me.
I have no interest in it because you now have enough information to
re-evaluate your beliefs. Further discussion is indulging you and
wasting people's time.
> >But how much better
> >it would be for you if you could see the evidences of God's actions
> >towards all peoples and how in this day God wishes all to be united in
> >love and justice.
>
> Spoken like the typical cultist. You are no different than any other cult or
> cultist, just you guys are accepted in the UN. They all have this delusional
> utopian view of their religion creating peace on earth and love for all of
> mankind kind. Man suffers from systematic problems, much more complicating
> than "moral and spiritual" solutuions. It takes a system of life to solve
> systematic problems, and a "feel-good" religion is far from being any solutions
> to any problems esp. systematic.
622: Muhammad announces his mission.
1999: Mr Mahdi says "Man suffers from systematic problems, much more
complicating than "moral and spiritual" solutuions."
Mr Mahdi has said that Muhammad's system has failed to solve the
problems here now in 1999. He said this, not me.
patk...@my-deja.com
In article <19990708214300...@ng-fs1.aol.com>,
mrm...@aol.com (Mr Mahdi) wrote:
> >Why bother? A man who has studied a language for only four years
sets himself
> up as an expert, not just on all variations of that language, its
correct
> pronunciation (which, I am sure, if he's an American, he will never
achieve),
> but also on its transliteration, not just into English, mind you, but
into all
> languages using Latin alphabets, proving that he does not know what
the purpose
> of transliteration is. On top of that, he tells me to "be quite."
Quite
> what?<
Quite correct of course. The fellow is a cipher. He knew that English
had two theta sounds. Yet though I've not only been spelling Qor'an
Q-o-r-'-a-n, but he noticed it and now he tells me that in English some
words of foreign origin need _not_ have a -u- right after the -Q-. I
must fall back on my previous suspicion, possibly a Jew or a Christian
trying to make Muslims look odd.
> I will give you the benefit of a doubt and say you didnt read the last
post I
> wrote concerning this issue. So, please do so and see how Webster put
you in
> your place and proved how you are an amateur linguist at best.
Yeah. You got the picture: Iqan, as in Kitab-i-Iqan, Aqdas, as in
Kitab-i-Aqdas. "Q" need not be followed by "u". Now that _you_ know
this and since you know that -Q-u- is sounded as -K-w-, go right
ahead and spell 'Qor'an' phonetically.
The transliteration discussion mirrors the discussion of interpreting
Allah as deceptive. Party A alleges that a group of people (group B)
describe Allah as deceptive. Then party A claims that when Allah
confirms the Book, that means that the Book had errors. Party A argues
that Allah changed the physical appearance of a man so that he would be
killed. Party A raises these points as if Allah really does decieve to
prove that Group B describes Allah is deceptive. Yet the members of
Group B argue that when Allah confirms the Book, the Book is accurate.
The members of group B argue that the Jews were decieved because they
thought they had done something that the Romans had actually done.
Group B argues that Allah does not deceive while Party A insists that
they are wrong and that Allah really does decieve. Note that it was
party A who started the discussion.
Michela is right; you have concluded your argument, Mr.Mahdi. Pretend
that you are only one who doesn't see your picture, if you must. I can
only wonder if you are one of those so-called Christians or Jews who is
against Islam and seeks to misrepresent Muslims in a bad light.
Kaf Haleq (that means 'bye bye')
- Pat
Mr Mahdi
Sorry what Alllah says cause you bahais so much pain. Later on I will refute
your claims that you visited the site and saw no refutations of the alleged
"proven errors" in the Quran. This shows how much you bahais hate Islam.
>Can you not see the contradiction between saying:
>"Because the Quran is from God, it has no errors" and
>"Even though the Bible and Torah are from God, they do contain errors"?
I didnt say the "Bible" was from God. I said that in the Bible there is some
truth in it. The rest of it is lies.
>Note: _I_ do not claim any of these books, nor the Baha'i scriptures, to
>be free from errors, therefore your attempts to involve me in your
>confusion do not succeed.
It is funny how bahais like to call God a liar. God said in the Quran that He
will protect the Quran from corruption and errors, of course, bahais dont
believe this.
>And one more note: You say, the errors in the Bible and Torah were put
>there when people changed the books. Yet you say this did not happen to
>the Quran. Why not? Because the Quran says so? What if that change was
>put there by men?
God promised that He will protect the Quran. As a matter of fact, there are
Qurans that existed 1400 years, and I would like for you to compare the Qurans
od today and see if you find any contradictions.
>Very well. I went to:
>
>http://www.aboutislam.com/newislamic/science.htm
>
>and found this (among lots of other things):
>
>8:86. "Until then, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it
>set in a spring of murky water; near it he found a people; We said, 'O
>Zul–qarnain! either punish them or show them kindness."
>
>"For readers unfamiliar with the name Zul–qarnain, it is a reference to
>Alexander the Great. In the context of the passage Alexander the Great
>claims to be a servant of Allah, find the place where the sun sets; and
>sees people around it! This is truly remarkable, is it not? Perhaps the
>sun had to settle into the murky water so as not to burn the people? Can
>the Quran be the Word of God and relate fiction as history?"
>
This is amazing that you went to an anti-Muslim polemic site and use it as
"reference." This silly above mentioned claim has been thoroughly refuted from
the site you refused to go to. Again, this proves how much you hate Islam. I
will give you the specific page where this silly claim you cited from that anti
Muslim website is refuted: http://members.aol.com/RamiKen/jochen.htm
I hope anybody who reads this post goes to the site I just referred above and
see the truth of Islam. And while you are at it Ron House, try checking out :
www.it-is-truth.org
>[5.59] Say: O followers of the Book! do you find fault with us (for
>aught) except that we believe in Allah and in what has been revealed to
>us and what was revealed before, and that most of you are transgressors?
>
>That is the subject Muhammad is talking about.
>
>
Now you became a scholar of exegis of the Quran? The asbab un-nuzool or the
reason of revelation were clear about this. A group of Jews approached Muhammad
(saaw) saying that God is close-fisted. Then this verse was revealed refuting
the blasphemy of the Jews. You are twisting the meaning again by saying
"Muhammad" was talking about this ayat. Again, not only you are wrong about
the reason of revelation of the ayat, you clearly show how you believe the
Quran is not a direct revelation from God by saying "what 'Muhammad' is talking
about."
>Mr Mahdi has said that Muhammad's system has failed to solve the
>problems here now in 1999. He said this, not me.
May Allah curse the liars. Below, as you all see in every post, I have a link
to various sites on my website that explain Islam as a system of life and
proves that "God's" system will solve the problems here now in 1999 and beyond.
To conclude, please go to the above mentioned sites and see your beliefs and
those of the anti-Muslim polemics thoroughly refuted. You are no doubt a
person who hates Islam, as Allah said in the Quran that hatred of Islam and
Muslims have already appeared from their mouths but what they have in their
hearts is far worse.
Mahdi
Mr Mahdi
trying to be funny and at the same time confident in defending your false
religion is the real reason why I am laughing. I will prove to you and the
rest of the world how you like to bob and weave out of debates in order to make
people forget that your statements and beliefs have just been refuted:
>Quite correct of course. The fellow is a cipher. He knew that English
>had two theta sounds. Yet though I've not only been spelling Qor'an
>Q-o-r-'-a-n, but he noticed it and now he tells me that in English some
>words of foreign origin need _not_ have a -u- right after the -Q-. I
>must fall back on my previous suspicion, possibly a Jew or a Christian
>trying to make Muslims look odd.
>
Yada yada yada. Before it was QU = Kw now it is "oh yeah, its ok to spell so
and so as Qur'an." You refusal to admit your defeat shows how intellectual
insincere you are. For the past several posts you and Michela the "linguist"
gave me a hard time with the infamous "Kw" and "Qu," it is clear you are
agreeing with me NOW, but you are too afraid to admit it. I laugh at your
debating skills, you are far from being, good, average, or common. You are bad
to put it best.
>Yeah. You got the picture: Iqan, as in Kitab-i-Iqan, Aqdas, as in
>Kitab-i-Aqdas. "Q" need not be followed by "u". Now that _you_ know
>this and since you know that -Q-u- is sounded as -K-w-, go right
>ahead and spell 'Qor'an' phonetically.
Of course you "get the picture" NOW. But despite this, you still refuse to
admit your defeat, you try to bob and weave out of the predicament you got
yourself in hoping that I and others will forget. You still havent made any
comments on the Webster's Dictionary explanation of the letter "Q." I know it
is too embarassing for you and Michela, so like the typical bahais, you guys
once again run from truth and embrace error. And by the way, just as a
reminder, the Qu in Qur'an is transliterated as such because of the Damma vowel
mark on the Qaf letter. Thats why you see the overwhelming majority of Qurans
transliterated as "Qur'an." It has nothing to do with "Kw" sound as you guys
know but afraid to admit. For the sake of completeness, why is the "qu" in
conquer not pronounced as "kw?"
> Note that it was
>party A who started the discussion.
>
Notice again how "Pat" likes to bob and weave the issues. I already refuted
the notion that the Quran confirms ALL of the Bible. Notice Pat still hasnt
responding to this, he tries to give trite unfunny analogies hoping again that
I will forget the past.
>Michela is right; you have concluded your argument, Mr.Mahdi.
You and Michela need to tell that to Webster's New World dictionary and the
REAL linguists, not the pitiful amateurs you and Michela are. I hope in the
next post you and Michela address the now infamous "Webster's New World
Dictionary" definition of the letter Q. And you guys still havent asked Juan
Cole.
>I can
>only wonder if you are one of those so-called Christians or Jews who is
>against Islam and seeks to misrepresent Muslims in a bad light.
LOL. Your jokes are as false as your religion.
Mahdi
Kamran Hakim
Mr Mahdi wrote in message <19990706204825...@ng-fp1.aol.com>...
>It is funny that the best interpretor of Quran is not man but God Himself.
God
>called Heaven and Hell "al-maseer" which means in arabic "The final place
of
>destination." Bahais "interpreted" Heaven and Hell as "spiritual
conditions."
Sallam my dear Mahdi,
Mahdi means one who shall guide. What a wonderful name. I truly enjoyed your
line of reasoning. Please allow me to see if I understand you correctly:
Heaven and Hell are the destination towards which we are going. That is to
say, God has provided Muslims with a path to follow and a recipe to live by,
in the path of life, and their success or failure on this path determines
the destination. This is great. That is to say, you and I, as neighbors,
follow a certain path or maseer to go to college. You fulfill your duties as
a student and I don't. After the passage of several years you become a
doctor and I am a drop out. I guess you must be in heaven and I must be in
hell. This is a very interesting concept. If you and I are now stranded in
an island what would be the
physical difference between you and I. We will be both male, around the
same age. We would both need to eat and sleep, etc..., etc... Ultimately the
most substantial difference between the two of us should be your
intellectual abilities as an educated individual. It is nothing but a
"conditional difference", or a "difference in
states". Neither my ignorance, nor your knowledge are physical entities
which we can carry with us and put them on display. Our status becomes
apparent to others as we begin to speak or attempt to resolve an issue or
mange a situation. You would demonstrate success, and I shame. Now, as you
and I begin to function in the society, you will tend to end up with the
better job, higher status, more amenities in life and I end up with far less
than what you posses. Your mansion, in which you live, appears as paradise
compared to my apartment, and the car you would drive would be far superior
than the one I would, etc... Where I would be and what I would do appears as
hell compare to where you would be and what you would be able to do. The
intangible knowledge would offer you a position of physical ascendancy over
mine the same way Heaven would be in a position of ascendancy over hell.
The issue of heaven and hell being spiritual states might not be as mindless
as you might think as an educated person. After all the paradise and the
hell described in Islamic theology are a bit too hard to explain as an
educated person:
"The Prophet said: In the night in which I was taken to heaven, I entered a
place in Paradise named Baidakh whose camps are of emerald and green pearls
and red Yaqoot. They asked: O Prophet of God, Salam to you. I asked O
Gebrail, whose sound is there? He said: of the beautiful women in camps.
They seek permission to salute you. So give them permission. They will be
saying: We are pleased therewith. We will never be dissatisfied. We will
remain here forever. We will never travel. Then he recited the verse: The
beautiful damsels detained in camps. In another verse: Pure women. Muzaher
explained this by saying that they will be free from menstruation, urine,
stool, cough and children." [Imam Muhammad Ghazali, Ihya Ulum-id-Din, trans
by Fazlul Karim, vol 4, p. 504]
"A man asked the Prophet: O Prophet of God, will the inmates of Paradise
have sexual intercourse? He said: Anybody among them will be given sexual
strength of seven persons among you. The Prophet of God said: An inmate of
Paradise will have five hundred Hurs, four thousand unmarried women and
eight thousand widowed women. Each of them will keep embracing him for the
duration of his whole worldly life-time." [ibid. p. 505]
"He also said: The inmate of Paradise will be beardless and hairless. Their
colour will be white and their eyes painted with painted with collyrium.
They will be youths of 33 years of age. They will be six cubit long and
seven cubit broad [i.e. each cubit is equal 17 to 22 inches. KH]. He also sa
id: The lowest rank of an inmate of Paradise will be eighty thousand
servants and seventy two wives. In short there will be such a bliss in
Paradise which no eye has seen, no ear has heard and no heart has
conceived." [ibid. p. 505]
"The Prophet said: There are seventy thousand valleys in Hell and in each
70,000 serpents and 70,000 scorpions. The unbelievers and hypocrites will
meet them." [ibid. p. 506]
"The Prophet said: There are serpents in Hell like the necks of the camels
of Bukht. If one of them stings, the effects of its poison will continue for
40 years. There are scorpions therein. They are so poisonous that if one of
them stings once, its effect will continue for 40 years." [ibid. p. 508]
"The Prophet said: The front teeth of the inmates of Hell will be so big as
the mount Uhud and the thickness of his skin will be the distance of three
days journey..." [ibid. 508]
Do I need to say more? If you wish I will be very happy to quote other
sources. I chose Ghazali because of the important place he occupies as a
theologian and philosopher known throughout the world and the fact that he
is respected by both Sunnis and Shi'ahs
It is rather interesting that Ghazali mentions such issues in Ihya
Ulum-id-Din, yet, in Munkidh min al-Dalal, or Deliverance from Error, he
makes the following warning: "The second evil comes from the sincere but
ignorant Muslims who think the best way to defend religion is by rejecting
all the exact sciences. Accusing their professors of being astray, he
rejects their theories of the eclipses of the sun and moon, and condemns
them in the name of religion. These accusations are carried far and wide,
they reach the ears of the philosopher who knows that these theories rest on
infallible proofs; far from losing confidence in them, he believes, on the
contrary, that Islam has ignorance and the denial of scientific proofs for
its basis, and his devotion to philosophy increases with his hatred to
religion." [The Sacred Books and Early Literature of the East, Charles F.
Horne, ed., (New York: Parke, Austin, & Lipscomb, 1917), Vol. VI: Medieval
Arabia, pp.
99-133]
The implacations associated with the literal approach to these traditions
would only undermine Islam and your credibility as an intelligent
individual. The esoteric meanings of Heaven and Hell (i.e. their treatment
as spiritual states) offer a far more profound message which would
rightfully glorify Prophet Muhammad and Islam. Do yourself a service and
quit what you are doing.
To end this issue, I'd like to quote once more from Kimiyaye Sa'adat,
another one of Ghazali's composition where he identifies three type of
spiritual fires of hell. Please note the term spiritual. He says: "Know that
in the spiritual Hell there are three types of fires: one is the fire of the
worldly appetites, second is the fire of shame from becoming disgraced and
defamed, third, is the fire of being deprived from the Beauty of God's
Presence. All these three forms of fire are related to one's soul and heart
and not one's body." [p. 117. trans from Persian by myself] It is important
to remind you that as one dies, one leaves his/her body behind and it is
one's soul or spirit which takes its flight towards judgment of God.
I highly recommend Ghazali's writings for you to become acquainted with. You
might gain a different perspective on life and your beliefs.
>God never said or implied that Heaven and Hell were "spiritual conditions,"
you
>bahais did. Also Allah describes Satan as a BEING being created from
smokeless
>fire. Again, bahais "interpreted" this to me Satan is not a being but an
>"ego."
My dear Mahdi, if the literal implications of Hell and Heaven are so
unreasonable, as I have attempted to portray above, imagine how unreasonable
a creature made out of "smokeless fire" must be. It is so late at night now
that quoting such a verses would not be seemly. I hope you forgive me.
>Also, one of the worst examples of textual twisting is when you
>"interpret" the Two Trumpets which the Quran is very clear and explicit
about
>describing the Day of Resurrection and Judgement to mean "Bab and
bahaullah."
>Allah or Muhammad (saaw) NEVER EVER said or implied this. It is a
inventions
>of you bahais and may Allah curse the liars.
I agree that the idea of human beings looking like trumpets requires much
twisting to form the final outcome, yet, facetiousness aside, the
Revelator's of God's Will could be viewed as a Trumpet (i.e. Sur-i Israfil)
since through their speech they awaken humankind from their slumber of loss.
The same task is fulfilled at military
camps in early mornings. The sound of the trumpet awakens everyone within
several miles.
Baha'u'llah in interpretation of Matthew 24:29-32 : "...and they shall see
the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet."
[The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 25] interprets this trumpet call as follows: "Nay, by
"trumpet" is meant the trumpet-call of Muhammad's Revelation, which was
sounded in the heart of the universe, and by "resurrection" is meant His own
rise to proclaim the Cause of God. He bade the erring and wayward arise and
speed out of the sepulchres of their bodies, arrayed them with the beauteous
robe of faith, and quickened them with the breath of a new and wondrous
life. Thus at the hour when Muhammad, that divine Beauty, purposed to unveil
one of the mysteries hidden in the symbolic terms "resurrection,"
"judgment," "paradise," and "hell," Gabriel, the Voice of Inspiration, was
heard saying: "Erelong will they wag their heads at Thee, and say, `When
shall this be?' Say: `Perchance it is nigh.'" [Qur'an 17:51] The
implications of this verse alone suffice the peoples of the world, were they
to ponder it in their hearts.
Gracious God! How far have that people strayed from the way of God! Although
the Day of Resurrection was ushered in through the Revelation of Muhammad,
although His light and tokens had encompassed the earth and all that is
therein, yet that people derided Him, gave themselves up to those idols
which the divines of that age, in their vain and idle fancy, had conceived,
and deprived themselves of the light of heavenly grace and of the showers of
divine mercy. Yea, the abject beetle can never scent the fragrance of
holiness, and the
bat of darkness can never face the splendour of the sun." [Bahá'u'lláh, The
Kitab-i-Iqan, pp. 116-118]
Likewise, He associates the sounds of the trumpet with His own revelation:
"Verily We have sounded the Trumpet which is none other than My Pen of
Glory, and lo, mankind hath swooned away before it, save them whom God
pleaseth to deliver as a token of His grace. He is the Lord of bounty, the
Ancient of Days." [Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 61]
"Verily, the Crier hath cried out, when the promised time came, and they
that have recognized the splendours of Sinai have swooned away in the
wilderness of hesitation, before the awful majesty of thy Lord, the Lord of
creation. The trumpet asketh: `Hath the Bugle been sounded?' Say: `Yea, by
the King of Revelation! when He mounted the throne of His Name, the
All-Merciful.' Darkness hath been chased away by the dawning light of the
mercy of thy Lord, the Source of all light. The breeze of the All-Merciful
hath wafted, and the souls have been quickened in the tombs of their bodies.
Thus hath the decree been fulfilled by God, the Mighty, the Beneficent. They
who reject the truth have said: `When were the heavens cleft asunder?' Say:
`While ye lay in the graves of waywardness and error.' Among the faithless
is he who rubbeth his eyes, and looketh to the right and to the left. Say:
`Blinded art thou. No refuge hast thou to flee to.' And among them is he
who saith: `Have men been gathered together?' Say: `Yea, by My Lord! whilst
thou didst lie in the cradle of idle fancies.' And among them is he who
saith: `Hath the Book been sent down through the power of the true Faith?'
Say: `The true Faith itself is astounded. Fear ye, O ye men of understanding
heart!' And among them is he who saith: `Have I been assembled with others,
blind?' Say: `Yea, by Him that rideth upon the clouds!' Paradise is decked
with mystic roses, and hell hath been made to blaze with the fire of the
impious. Say: `The light hath shone forth from the horizon of Revelation,
and the whole earth hath been illumined at the coming of Him Who is the Lord
of the Day of the Covenant!'" [Tablets of Baha'u'llah, pp. 118-119]
You must agree if Heaven and Hell could have far more profound metaphorical
meanings then the term trumpet might also have a more profound meaning than
the literal. Don't you agree?
>Also we have the prophet whom the Quran was revealed to to explain the
Quran.
>Muhammad (saaw) is the best human being when it comes to understanding
Islam.
>If Heaven and Hell really meant "spiritual conditions," he would of said it
and
>not be deceptive like the "god" of the bahais.
You really view the sexual orgies of Heaven with 72 wives and "five hundred
Hurs, four thousand unmarried women and eight thousand widowed women",
etc... as a literal phenomenon which is really going to happen to you. I'd
like to warn you that if your judgment regarding the revelation of
Baha'u'llah is incorrect 70,000 snakes and scorpions await you. I wish you
Heaven.
>Bahais portray God as this
>cunning and deceptive God who says one thing and then later on "through
>manifestations" says another. God as the Quran and even Bible teaches is
not
>this deceptive God that changes what He meant because it was "strategic" to
do
>so.
Please don't get me going on this. If your literal view is correct, then the
God of Noah must have been quite deceptive. If you like I will generate a
list of all the divine deceptions associated with a literal approach to the
Qur'an and the Bible. I have got some juicy ones to share with you.
> It is funny that when a literal meaning of a verse or belief agrees with
the
>bahai faith, they take it literally, but when the literal meaning does not
>agree with the bahai faith, they take it "metaphorically."
The Baha'i approach must fulfill 4 criteria, according to 'Abdu'l-Baha:
1- It must be sensible;
2- It must be reasonable
3- It must be inspirational
4- It must be in agreement with Scriptures.
This is a hard set of criteria to meet. If you consider this funny God bliss
you. God loves laughter. We need more happy people in the world.
> This is all done to
>avoid falsification, and like the false religion the bahai faith is, it
needs
>to have a secondary source of legislation to survive in the modern age.
>That's why the adminstration in the bahai faith is a life line for its
survival in the
>modern age.
Islam has thousands of mutually conflicting sources of legislation (i.e.
maraje-i taqleed). Would you say that all these sources of legislation exist
for Islam to "avoid falsification" and "survive in the modern age"?
The Baha'i Administration is a divinely ordained system. Time will judge its
usefulness and effectiveness.
>A true religion only needs one messenger or prophet to convey a
>COMPLETE message.
Like Islam broken into Mu'tazeli, Ash'ari, Akhbari, Sufi on one hand and
Sunni (Hanbali, Shafe'i, Hanafi, Maleki) and Shi'ah (12er, Ismaili, etc...)
These are among the more prominent ones. This is what is meant by
completeness that no one know who is the rightful successor? Or is it the
uniform interpretation which conveys its completeness?
> The Bahai faith being a false religion is still NOT
>complete, despite having MANY "messengers" to convey the message, from the
>false prophets bab, bahaullah, abdul baha, shogi effendi, to the
"infallible"
>UHJ.
The Bab, as the Revelator of God's Will completed the revelation in Islam by
claiming to be the Qa'im and the Mahdi of the House of the Prophet. He was a
Founder of an independent religion.
Baha'u'llah, as the Revelator of God's Will was the Return of Isaa bin
Maryam and the Founder of the Baha'i Faith which is independent from the
Babi Faith.
'Abdu'l-Baha is neither a Prophet nor the Revelator of God's Will. He
fulfills the task of leadership and source of interpretation for the
Revelation of Baha'u'llah. This is a task which was never fulfilled in
Islam, after the passing of Muhammad.
Shoghi Effendi is the Guardian of the Faith and is a part of the
Administrative Order of Baha'u'llah. He was neither a Prophet, nor the
Revelator of God's Will.
The Universal House of Justice (UHJ) is another integral part of the
Administrative World Order of Baha'u'llah which have the power of
legislations of laws which are not specifically revealed in the Book of
Aqdas.
>May Allah curse the Liars.
>Mahdi
May Allah bliss you and direct you to the Heaven of your imagination and
give you the strength of not seven but seventy men that you could thoroughly
enjoy your Heavenly existence :-).
Warm regards,
Kamran Hakim
Kamran Hakim
rlit...@my-deja.com
I do not feel superior to you, most especially in this area where you
have demonstrated much knowledge. I am not speaking to the mind, but
rather to the heart, which is the seat of all wisdom, and is the center
of our being. Your being.
I am attempting to convey the attitude which I believe leads to greater
understanding, to greater closeness with each other, and which leads us
to God. Humility is a sign of wisdom. Love is a sign of God. Those who
possess love and humility are the people who can teach us and enrich
our lives.
If you wish to attack Ron House, or any other person, you may do so,
but if you do you cut yourself off from learning from them, from
growing close to them, from teaching them.
It is love, divine love, which transformed the world some 1300 years
ago, not anger. The Koran is the repository of that love, and those
Muslims who exemplify love in their words and humility in their lives
are truly the followers of Muhammad, of God.
Robert A. Little
In article <19990708193411...@ng-fg1.aol.com>,
mrm...@aol.com (Mr Mahdi) wrote:
> >Dear Mr. Mahdi
> >
> >When you say "May Allah curse the devils:" you seem to be expressing
> >your own desire, rather than the desire of Allah.
> >
>
> It is an expression common in Islamic terminilogy. It is not rare
for Muslims
> to say: "May Allah curse the enemies of Islam, May Allah curse so and
so."
> Even Allah cursed people in the Qur'an.
>
> >I wish to say that I believe one of the signs of wisdom is hunger for
> >knowledge and wisdom, and one of the signs of ignorance is the
attitude
> >of wisdom and knowledge.
> >
> >Whenever I have begun to believe that I know, I have stumbled and
> >fallen over my own ignorance, and when I have sought knowledge, I
have
> >found it.
>
> Again, that's the pot calling the kettle black. Don't act all
morally superior
> and condescending now. Why dont you criticize Ron House for
attacking like he
> knows about things which he has no idea, why dont you criticize him
for
> claiming the Quran has "proven errors?" Again, for Ron House and
anybody else
> that believes this nonsense, check out this site:
> http://salam.muslimsonline.com/~islamawe/
>
Mr Mahdi
>but if you do you cut yourself off from learning from them, from
>growing close to them, from teaching them.
Ron House attacked God, Islam, and Muslims. He even said God makes mistakes in
the Quran because the Quran has "proven errors." I gave 2 posts that had links
to sites that refute the claims and allegations of anti-Muslim polemists.
Despite this, Ron House all of a sudden became silent and didnt respond yet.
Mahdi
rlit...@my-deja.com
I think that if you reread what Ron said, you will see that he did not
attack anything but your preconceptions. He was trying to make you look
at the problem with a new perspective. I believe that Ron House
believes in the core of his heart that the Koran is the Book of God,
but he does not necessarily believe in your interpretations of what the
Koran means. This is a very different thing.
He wants you to gain a different perspective. He is not asking you to
abandon the one you have, just entertain the possibility that there
might be other ways of understanding, other meanings. I think that the
Koran says something about 72 meanings?
With respect,
Robert A. Little
In article <19990709232823...@ng-fg1.aol.com>,
Ron House
> >If you wish to attack Ron House, or any other person, you may do so,
> >but if you do you cut yourself off from learning from them, from
> >growing close to them, from teaching them.
> Ron House attacked God, Islam, and Muslims. He even said God makes mistakes in
> the Quran because the Quran has "proven errors." I gave 2 posts that had links
> to sites that refute the claims and allegations of anti-Muslim polemists.
> Despite this, Ron House all of a sudden became silent and didnt respond yet.
My first post replying to an article of yours consisted entirely of
quotes from the Quran, which you called anti-Muslim polemics. As my
previous posts here have been reasonably critical of current Baha'i
administration and practice, I can't help but wonder how that very first
post of mine, containing words you say you believe are true, could have
triggered such wrath in you unless deep in your heart you know you have
fallen from the truth revealed by the prophets. Then you issued a curse
upon seeing another verse from the Quran in your next post. Then you
carefully excised my detailed explanation of my understanding of how
scripture encompasses the truths of God in a way that transcends literal
thinking, deliberately misrepresenting my position as "like to call God
a liar." At all times you have issued curses liberally. Do you really
imagine that "The Merciful, The Compassionate" enjoys watching what you
are doing? Deep inside you must know God has seen your black heart and
will judge you truly according to the cursing standard you yourself have
set up, unless you repent and ask God to guide you. You could do no
better than to follow Robert's advice:
rlit...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I am attempting to convey the attitude which I believe leads to greater
> understanding, to greater closeness with each other, and which leads us
> to God. Humility is a sign of wisdom. Love is a sign of God. Those who
> possess love and humility are the people who can teach us and enrich
> our lives.
Let me add here my appreciation, Robert, of your many gentle and wise
postings on TRB, whose love and true spirituality shine through whether
I agree with your point of view or not.
Mr Mahdi
a clear-cut refutation hoping I will forget:
>My first post replying to an article of yours consisted entirely of
>quotes from the Quran, which you called anti-Muslim polemics. As my
>previous posts here have been reasonably critical of current Baha'i
>administration and practice, I can't help but wonder how that very first
>post of mine, containing words you say you believe are true, could have
>triggered such wrath in you unless deep in your heart you know you have
>fallen from the truth revealed by the prophets. Then you issued a curse
>upon seeing another verse from the Quran in your next post. Then you
>carefully excised my detailed explanation of my understanding of how
>scripture encompasses the truths of God in a way that transcends literal
>thinking, deliberately misrepresenting my position as "like to call God
>a liar." At all times you have issued curses liberally. Do you really
>imagine that "The Merciful, The Compassionate" enjoys watching what you
>are doing? Deep inside you must know God has seen your black heart and
>will judge you truly according to the cursing standard you yourself have
>set up, unless you repent and ask God to guide you.
Like the typical bahai, Ron avoids the issue I raised in the last post and does
an ad hominem attack on my "poor black heart." I am not the anti Muslim bigot,
you are Ron. AGAIN, you have yet to say anything about the links I gave you
refuting the silly baseless allegations you made concerning the "proven errors"
in the Quran. You think I will forget but I havent. You bahais think people
have a short memory, thats why you guys like to avoid the issues and talk about
something else.
>Let me add here my appreciation, Robert, of your many gentle and wise
>postings on TRB, whose love and true spirituality shine through whether
>I agree with your point of view or not.
Bahais often like to act morally superior and condescending as we can see with
this sentence I quoted. How can you have "love and true spirituality" when you
attack the Quran and say it has "proven errors," and when I gave you links to
site refuting this silly claim all of a sudden you became quite.
Mahdi
Mr Mahdi
>
>I think that if you reread what Ron said, you will see that he did not
>attack anything but your preconceptions.
What "preconceptions?" That the Quran is error free and has no mistakes? You
mean those "preconceptions?"
>He was trying to make you look
>at the problem with a new perspective.
If that were the case, why didnt he respond to the links I gave him refuting
his claims that the Quran has "proven errors?"
>I believe that Ron House
>believes in the core of his heart that the Koran is the Book of God,
>but he does not necessarily believe in your interpretations of what the
>Koran means. This is a very different thing.
You need to defend truth not Ron House for the sake of defending Ron House.
Ron House made a baseless claim that the Quran has "proven errors," and then
when I have him links to these sites:
http://www.muslim-answers.org/
http://members.aol.com/RamiKen/jochen.htm
http://salam.muslimsonline.com/~islamawe/
he all of a sudden became silent and refused to discuss any further on the
issue.
>He wants you to gain a different perspective.
Oh yeah, to believe like he does that the Quran has mistakes. Oh, that
different perspective.
> I think that the
>Koran says something about 72 meanings?
What the HELL are you talking about? The Quran doesnt saying anything about
any number of meanings let alone 72!
Mahdi
Ron House
> Dear Mr. Mahdi
>
> I think that if you reread what Ron said, you will see that he did not
> attack anything but your preconceptions. He was trying to make you look
> at the problem with a new perspective. I believe that Ron House
> believes in the core of his heart that the Koran is the Book of God,
> but he does not necessarily believe in your interpretations of what the
> Koran means. This is a very different thing.
Yes. It is instructive to look closer at the passage that Mr Mahdi
thinks has been refuted on the web site he gave. It said:
8:86. "Until then, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it
set in a spring of murky water; near it he found a people; We said, 'O
Zul–qarnain! either punish them or show them kindness."
The site Mr Mahdi referred to said that Alexander (the "he" in the
above) travelled west until he found the sun setting over the sea
(either the Mediterranean or the Black, I believe, but I have lost the
URL to check). Therefore the sun really did "appear" to set in a pool of
murky water.
Let's analyse this according to both Baha'u'llah's principles as given
in the Kitab-i-Iqan and according to literalism.
Baha'u'llah is prepared (as He did many times) to see metaphorical
meanings in passages. To call the Mediterranean a "spring of murky
water" might be a reasonable metaphorical description under some
circumstances. To say the sun set "in" it might capture the feelings and
impressions of watching the sun pass behind the horizon (which is not
literally "in" at all). Therefore Baha'u'llah's concepts explained many
times capture a possible meaning of this passage quite well.
Now let's turn to the literalist explanation. Clearly at a loss faced
with modern scientific understanding that the sun doesn't set "in"
anything, least of all a spring of murky water, the literalist falls
back on what must surely be the only escape route: it "appears" to set
etc etc.
But where does that leave us? If we accept this, we must accept that
there is some principle that allows us to substitute "appears to" for
"does" in every circumstance (otherwise what grants the literalist the
right to do so here?). So when the Quran promises that believers will go
to heaven, does that mean they merely "appear" to go to heaven? Or
better yet: When Muslims tell us that Muhammad is the final prophet,
does it mean that he will merely "appear" to be the final prophet? My
point is that the literalist framework carries the seeds of its own
destruction. It is sad when someone is trapped in literalism; it is much
worse when they use it as an excuse for committing evil; such a person
as the latter might well find that God will take their literalism and
turn it against them.
> He wants you to gain a different perspective. He is not asking you to
> abandon the one you have, just entertain the possibility that there
> might be other ways of understanding, other meanings. I think that the
> Koran says something about 72 meanings?
--
Mr Mahdi
>The site Mr Mahdi referred to said that Alexander (the "he" in the
>above) travelled west until he found the sun setting over the sea
>(either the Mediterranean or the Black, I believe, but I have lost the
>URL to check). Therefore the sun really did "appear" to set in a pool of
>murky water.
This is a complete lie that the site said "Alexander." As a matter of fact,
the site said Dhul-Qarnain is NOT Alexander the Great but he is Cyrus. How
could he visited the site I gave him where the same site said Dhul Qarnain is
NOT Alexander the Great?
>Now let's turn to the literalist explanation. Clearly at a loss faced
>with modern scientific understanding that the sun doesn't set "in"
>anything, least of all a spring of murky water, the literalist falls
>back on what must surely be the only escape route: it "appears" to set
>etc etc.
>
>
LOL, if you knew anything about arabic you will know that "the escape route"
allegation is completely baseless. Before you respond to this, I would suggest
you GO to the site (because I do not believe you went to the site in the first
place) to see that in Arabic this was clearly an expression not a actual
statement of the sun setting in murky waters.
AGAIN, here is the link that refutes Ron House's attack on the Quran:
http://www.muslim-answers.org/
http://members.aol.com/RamiKen/jochen.htm
(this one contains the refutation of Ron House's allegation of the Quran having
"proven errors"
Brian Walker
nice to see that Mr. Mahdi has lost none of his humour ...
Mr Mahdi wrote in message <19990707161440...@ng-cm1.aol.com>...
>This is funny. If you knew anything about arabic, there is a "Damma" vowel
>mark on top of the Qaf letter. The Damma vowel mark is not pronounced as
"O,"
>but as a "U." I dont know if you are arab because of the "bint" in your
name,
>but I am not talking about how "arabs" pronounce it, I am talking about the
>"FaSeeh" or correct way of pronouncing it. In Egypt, they pronounce many
>sounds in a completely different way, but that doesn't make them right.
o yes it does. It is true that there is a wide variety of pronunciation of
arabic, as there is of english. What is acceptable to the country is
"right". It may not accord with your pronounciation, but egyptian arabic is
every bit as correct as syrian arabic.
>You need to stop making a fool of yourself by trying to criticize me in
>something you obviously do not know. Like I said, I am not talking about
how
>people pronounce it, I am talking about the correct way of pronouncing it
>according to the langauge not "colloquialism." Why dont you bahais ask
Juan
>Cole, and orientalist and a arabist on who is right. I would to see one of
you
>ask this man about the correct transliteration of arabic sounds.
1. Correct pronounciation ... depends on where you come from. As a Scot, I
pronounce with a scottish accent. It is every bit as correct as an accent
from N.Carolina. It is not even a colloquial difference, just a regional
one.
2. Transliteration. I speak a number of languages, and am learning more.
Arabic/Persian (poorly) Russian (well) and am learning Chimese (Cantonese
and Mandarin). The point being that all these languages can be
transliterated. At the moment I am using 4 different methods of transcribing
Chinese into roman script, as well as the characters. The fact is that
transliterating arabic is not universally standardized. One system may be
preferred, but others are current.
Who is right? It makes a difference to you? Well, in that case, would you
mind spelling "Baha'i" properly? It is the accepted transliteration of
b-h-a-'-i.
Brian
Mr Mahdi
><after a longish pause away from the groups ...>
Didn't Hong Kong revert to Chinese rule?
>o yes it does. It is true that there is a wide variety of pronunciation of
>arabic, as there is of english. What is acceptable to the country is
>"right". It may not accord with your pronounciation, but egyptian arabic is
>every bit as correct as syrian arabic.
>
Like I said, I am going to go on easy on you. I dont know if you are dumb or
acting dumb, but I keep saying it is not how people of various dialects
pronounce the letters but what the arabic language or "FaSeeH" dictates. The
"FaSeeH" or the standard arabic is not based on really a dialect, it is based
on the proper pronounciation of the arabic. For example, the art of reciting
Quran teaches students to recite the Quran in the same way the Quran was first
recited by Muhammad (saaw) and his companions. The pronounciation of the
letters must not deviate from the "FaSeeH." Your obvious ignorance of the
arabic language makes you extremely naive to challenge me on this point.
> speak a number of languages, and am learning more.
>Arabic/Persian (poorly)
LOL, I bet you know less than 20 arabic words and absolutely little to nothing
about arabic grammar.
>Who is right? It makes a difference to you? Well, in that case, would you
>mind spelling "Baha'i" properly? It is the accepted transliteration of
>b-h-a-'-i.
Actually, "Baha'i" is an arabic word. The "B" letter has a fatHa vowel mark
which makes it "Ba," the 'h" letter also has a fatHa vowel with an "alif"
letter connected to it, so it is "haa" and the "hamza" (or you can call this is
an "alif") has a kisra vowel mark and a "ya" letter connected to it which makes
it "ee." So the proper way to transliterate is "Bahaa'ee."
End of lesson one.
Mahdi
Brian Walker
...
Mr Mahdi wrote in message <19990724012234...@ng-ck1.aol.com>...
>I am going to go easy on you unlike the "Pat" and "bintyaya" jokesters:
>
>><after a longish pause away from the groups ...>
>
>Didn't Hong Kong revert to Chinese rule?
On July 1. 1997, yes. Why?
>Like I said, I am going to go on easy on you. I dont know if you are dumb
or
>acting dumb, but I keep saying it is not how people of various dialects
>pronounce the letters but what the arabic language or "FaSeeH" dictates.
The
>"FaSeeH" or the standard arabic is not based on really a dialect, it is
based
>on the proper pronounciation of the arabic. For example, the art of
reciting
>Quran teaches students to recite the Quran in the same way the Quran was
first
>recited by Muhammad (saaw) and his companions. The pronounciation of the
>letters must not deviate from the "FaSeeH." Your obvious ignorance of the
>arabic language makes you extremely naive to challenge me on this point.
"the arabic language" - really? you are saying there is only one arabic
language? That arabic is not divided into a wide variety of regional
languages? Or are you saying that the traditional and stylized
pronounciation of the Qur'an is the only true and correct pronounciation of
arabic? Then why, pray tell, do not all arabic speakers use correct grammar?
Why is it that there is so much variation? And I bet that you, Mahdi, do not
use the correct suffixes in grammatical purity. Or else you will be the only
arabic speaker I have heard who does.
>> speak a number of languages, and am learning more.
>>Arabic/Persian (poorly)
<sigh> yes, I must improve, but Cantonese and Mandarin have the priority
just now.
>LOL, I bet you know less than 20 arabic words and absolutely little to
nothing
>about arabic grammar.
LOL, I bet you do not know me, but I forgive you the joke.
>Actually, "Baha'i" is an arabic word. The "B" letter has a fatHa vowel mar
k
>which makes it "Ba," the 'h" letter also has a fatHa vowel with an "alif"
>letter connected to it, so it is "haa" and the "hamza" (or you can call
this is
>an "alif") has a kisra vowel mark and a "ya" letter connected to it which
makes
>it "ee." So the proper way to transliterate is "Bahaa'ee."
Well, I never. Arabic word is it? That was around the first question any
non-Baha'i asks - where does the name Baha'i come from. My question was, if
you are so keen on correctness, why do you persist in mis-spelling Baha'i?
>End of lesson one.
LOL Mahdi, you have not lost your sense of humour ...