asier9
Member
Leaving aside the question-- and I grant this is probably the more pertinent one-- that the meaning of idolator and unbeliever as used in Quran was meant to mean those Arabians alive during the time of Muhammad who didn't accept Him as a Messenger of the Almighty, and never meant other "People of the Book", such as Jews and Christians. I would contend that this kind of revisionist reading of the Quran has more to do with the cultural conflict created by Western cultural imperialism than what Muhammad had intended.
But again leaving aside this question because it may still be argued that "People of the Book" as applied by Muhammad may not also now include Baha'is I would ask on different grounds in what sense Baha'is could be considered unbelievers? Since they fully accept the Prophet Muhammad and all his teachings. Baha'is believe everything about Muhammad that Muslims do. The only difference is in light of another revelation Baha'is now understand the meaning to be different than Muslims suppose. How this happens will become clear in the following.
Secondly, I ask that we suppose for sake of establishing whether or not it is a valid line of reasoning that while Muhammad might have been the "Seal of the Phrophets" Allah's covenant with mankind means that his mercy and guidance will never be final or closed. That along these lines Baha'u'llah was in reality the promised one of Muslim prophecy ( I am sorry that I now only remember the ****e' version, which is the return of the 12th Imam and Jesus Christ, and forget which two figures Sunni's are waiting on to return). With this assumption would your quoted verses take on a entirely different meaning? For now it would be "Muslims" who would be accounted as among the idolators or unbelievers in that more general and broad sense mentioned above. With that assumption these verses would then be read as meaning that Muslims should marry Baha'is. This is what I alluded when I suggested that Baha'is with their different context can honestly come to a different interpretation, and therefore establish that in principle interpretation is dependent upon context. No doubt there is but one true context that reflects the Divine reality and the myriad other that are only the vain imaginings of men, but how are mere mortals to establish which is which? The fact is that our context will be predicated on our beliefs which I shouldn't have to but will probably need to point out is entirely different beast from what one actually knows. So we can see that the interpretation is not so clear and self evident but instead depends on one's beliefs. In this case specifically the belief as to whether or not Baha'u'llah was a true one from God. For those who have never investigated the claims with fairness and sincerity, can not be said to hold a considered belief based anyting substantial. The consequence of which that you are not privy to competing interpretations which might actually be more reasonable. You are locked in a way of reading the text that might have nothing to do with reality. And certainly if you have to make excuses for the text in light of empirical fact than certainly you on the road of folly and your interpretation is one of grievous error.
This idea of elevating one's belief to certainty and taking those mere beliefs to be the truth, especially when an honest and sincere judgement of the facts has not been undertaken, reminds me of verses from Baha'u'llah's tablet of Ahmad:
Rely upon God, thy God and the Lord of thy Fathers. For the people are wandering in the paths of delusion, bereft of discernment to see God with their own eyes, or hear His Melody with their own ears. Thus have We found them, as thou also dost witness.
Thus have their superstitions become veils between them and their own hearts and kept them from the path of God, the Exalted, the Great.
Be thou assured in thyself that verily, he who turns away from this Beauty hath also turned away from the Messengers of the past and showeth pride towards God from all eternity to all eternity.
One thing has clearly been manifested. In no society since the time of Baha'u'llah where these Muslim scholars have had a say in the government has anything remotely resembling Justice been produced in that civilization--and if you disagree, then please provide a clear example to the contrary. A single one can you produce it will suffice. This leads us to either accept--God Forbid-- that the Quran is nonsense or that these scholars-- despite all that time spent in study as Bismillah has alluded-- don't have any real clue as to its Divine meaning. What other conclusion could be reached?
As far as the Baha'i scriptures are concerned there is nothing in the Baha'i writings, that I am aware of anyway, prohibiting interfaith marriage, and when seen from the Baha'i perspective those very verses from the Quran that Sahar produced state that it is better for a non-Baha'i, be they Muslim or whatever, to marry a Baha'i rather than someone of their own faith. with the caveat that addresses Luis praise of the Islam's "high regard for the responsibility of people towards society and of society towards married couples" that the parents of both couples have to be in support of the union, as might be supposed when one understands the "basic underlying theme of preservation, unity, stability, and bond between creation and creator" is in fact identical to both Faiths seeing how they originate from the same source and constitute from the Baha'i perspective the theology of but single religion that is being successively refined in accordance with a capacities of man.
But again leaving aside this question because it may still be argued that "People of the Book" as applied by Muhammad may not also now include Baha'is I would ask on different grounds in what sense Baha'is could be considered unbelievers? Since they fully accept the Prophet Muhammad and all his teachings. Baha'is believe everything about Muhammad that Muslims do. The only difference is in light of another revelation Baha'is now understand the meaning to be different than Muslims suppose. How this happens will become clear in the following.
Secondly, I ask that we suppose for sake of establishing whether or not it is a valid line of reasoning that while Muhammad might have been the "Seal of the Phrophets" Allah's covenant with mankind means that his mercy and guidance will never be final or closed. That along these lines Baha'u'llah was in reality the promised one of Muslim prophecy ( I am sorry that I now only remember the ****e' version, which is the return of the 12th Imam and Jesus Christ, and forget which two figures Sunni's are waiting on to return). With this assumption would your quoted verses take on a entirely different meaning? For now it would be "Muslims" who would be accounted as among the idolators or unbelievers in that more general and broad sense mentioned above. With that assumption these verses would then be read as meaning that Muslims should marry Baha'is. This is what I alluded when I suggested that Baha'is with their different context can honestly come to a different interpretation, and therefore establish that in principle interpretation is dependent upon context. No doubt there is but one true context that reflects the Divine reality and the myriad other that are only the vain imaginings of men, but how are mere mortals to establish which is which? The fact is that our context will be predicated on our beliefs which I shouldn't have to but will probably need to point out is entirely different beast from what one actually knows. So we can see that the interpretation is not so clear and self evident but instead depends on one's beliefs. In this case specifically the belief as to whether or not Baha'u'llah was a true one from God. For those who have never investigated the claims with fairness and sincerity, can not be said to hold a considered belief based anyting substantial. The consequence of which that you are not privy to competing interpretations which might actually be more reasonable. You are locked in a way of reading the text that might have nothing to do with reality. And certainly if you have to make excuses for the text in light of empirical fact than certainly you on the road of folly and your interpretation is one of grievous error.
This idea of elevating one's belief to certainty and taking those mere beliefs to be the truth, especially when an honest and sincere judgement of the facts has not been undertaken, reminds me of verses from Baha'u'llah's tablet of Ahmad:
Rely upon God, thy God and the Lord of thy Fathers. For the people are wandering in the paths of delusion, bereft of discernment to see God with their own eyes, or hear His Melody with their own ears. Thus have We found them, as thou also dost witness.
Thus have their superstitions become veils between them and their own hearts and kept them from the path of God, the Exalted, the Great.
Be thou assured in thyself that verily, he who turns away from this Beauty hath also turned away from the Messengers of the past and showeth pride towards God from all eternity to all eternity.
One thing has clearly been manifested. In no society since the time of Baha'u'llah where these Muslim scholars have had a say in the government has anything remotely resembling Justice been produced in that civilization--and if you disagree, then please provide a clear example to the contrary. A single one can you produce it will suffice. This leads us to either accept--God Forbid-- that the Quran is nonsense or that these scholars-- despite all that time spent in study as Bismillah has alluded-- don't have any real clue as to its Divine meaning. What other conclusion could be reached?
As far as the Baha'i scriptures are concerned there is nothing in the Baha'i writings, that I am aware of anyway, prohibiting interfaith marriage, and when seen from the Baha'i perspective those very verses from the Quran that Sahar produced state that it is better for a non-Baha'i, be they Muslim or whatever, to marry a Baha'i rather than someone of their own faith. with the caveat that addresses Luis praise of the Islam's "high regard for the responsibility of people towards society and of society towards married couples" that the parents of both couples have to be in support of the union, as might be supposed when one understands the "basic underlying theme of preservation, unity, stability, and bond between creation and creator" is in fact identical to both Faiths seeing how they originate from the same source and constitute from the Baha'i perspective the theology of but single religion that is being successively refined in accordance with a capacities of man.
Last edited:
