Consider thou the Revelation of the Point of the Bayan - exalted is His glory. He pronounced the First One(1) to believe in Him to be Muhammad, the Messenger of God. Doth it beseem a man to dispute with Him by saying that this man is from Persia, the Other from Arabia, or this one was called Husayn while the Other bore the name of Muhammad? Nay, I swear by God's holy Being, the Exalted, the Most Great. Surely no man of intelligence and insight would ever pay attention unto limitations or names, but rather unto that with which Muhammad was invested, which was none other than the Cause of God. Such a man of insight would likewise consider Husayn and the position he occupied in the Cause of God, the Omnipotent, the Exalted, the Knowing, the Wise. And since the First One to believe in God in the Dispensation of the Bayan was invested with command similar to that with which Muhammad, the Messenger of God, was invested, therefore the Bab pronounced him to be the latter, namely His return and resurrection. This station is sanctified from every limitation or name, and naught can be seen therein but God, the One, the Peerless, the All-Knowing.
(Baha'u'llah: Tablets of Baha'u'llah, Pages: 184-185)
The reason I ask this question is because when Baha'u'llah declared His Mission in 1863 He said that no Manifestation would appear for one thousand years. Were there any Baha'is alive at this time who had been declared to be Muhammad, Jesus, or one of the other Prophets, and were any pronounced to be Prophets after this time? Did Baha'u'llah even pronounce anyone to be a Prophet before this time? The only person I can recall Him referring to in this way is Mulla Husayn, who was dead. The problem, of course, in Baha'u'llah pronouncing people Prophets would be that it could screw things up as far as leadership and the Covenant is concerned. I mean, surely He wouldn't refer to lesser individuals as Prophets but not 'Abdu'l-Baha, because these references could be used to undermine 'Abdu'l-Baha and claim that others had a higher station. Also, if they were alive at Ridvan 1863 it would make His no Manifestation for one thousand years proclamation look silly. It would be particularly bad if any such individuals were still alive at the time of Baha'u'llah's passing, because of we have someone who can point to a Tablet in which Baha'u'llah proclaims him to be Jesus, he might be able to turn people towards him instead of 'Abdu'l-Baha. 'Abdu'l-Baha vehemently denied being Jesus, and hence it can be imagined how it would be if a Baha'i (who would then become a Covenant-breaker) was still alive who was Jesus, according to Baha'u'llah's testimony. No Manifestation is supposed to be alive at that stage, according to Baha'u'llah Himself. In WOB Shoghi Effendi makes efforts to distinguish 'Abdu'l-Baha from the Prophets, admitting that having Him claimed to be a Prophet only serves to help the claims of the Covenant-breakers. Hence I doubt there were any people proclaimed Prophets still alive at the time of Baha'u'llah's passing. I am really interested to know if Baha'u'llah totally avoided proclaiming people to be Prophets during His ministry, or whether He stopped doing this at a particular time, such as 1963 or I think 1967 when the Tablet of the Branch was Revealed. This could make for an interesting research paper for someone with the knowledge, providing something interesting can be brought forth.
Baha'u'llah said, "Surely no man of intelligence and insight would ever pay attention unto limitations or names" and then gives two reasons why Mulla Husayn was Muhammad, namely (1) being invested with the Cause of God, and (2) being invested with a command similar to Muhammad. Now hold on a minute. Wouldn't several Baha'is, man of whom were alive at the time of Baha'u'llah's passing, fulfill both criteria, if not for Muhammad for some other Prophet? If so, wouldn't they have to be regarded as a Prophet? After all, "no man of intelligence and insight" is supposed to be attention to limitations or names. Or do we avoid doing this now because it's theologically inconvenient? Wouldn't 'Abdu'l-Baha fulfill Baha'u'llah's own criteria for Prophethood, and if so, why is He denying that He is a Prophet? The only words of Baha'u'llah I can think of in which 'Abdu'l-Baha is equated with Prophethood are the words reported of Baha'u'llah, which have that "I am He and He is Me" or whatever it is. Those words certainly give the impression of Prophethood for 'Abdu'l-Baha, but since Prophethood had already been redefined by Him at this stage perhaps He thought He could get away with such words, given that it would only be pilgrim's notes, which have no authority!
Baha'u'llah then wrote:
Know thou moreover that in the Day of Revelation were He to pronounce one of the leaves to be the manifestation of all His excellent titles, unto no one is given the right to utter why or wherefore, and should one do so he would be regarded as a disbeliever in God and be numbered with such as have repudiated His Truth.
(Baha'u'llah: Tablets of Baha'u'llah, Page: 185)
"Manifestation" here is not capitalized, interestingly enough.
Regards, David
_________________________________________________________________
Download MSN Messenger @ http://messenger.xtramsn.co.nz - add your friends!
---------- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
