Gilberto Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10/12/05, Hajir Moghaddam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> > Scott's entitled to his opinion and should study issues from multiple
> sides, but if you are going to argue that the Quran which exists today
> is changed from the original Quran and so the current Quran is
> incomplete, I don't think that position can be characterized as
> "pro-Islam" and it still seems pretty clearly inconsistent with
> statements in the Bahai writings about the Quran.
> Gilberto, I would agree that this position that the Qur'an is incomplete is
> just as anti-Islamic as believe that the Gospel is incomplete is
> anti-Christian.
OK. Let's start with that. Scott actually did suggest that there was
an old copy of the Quran with extra verses which disagreed with the
standard Uthmanic text followed by Sunnis and Shias all over the
world. So he actually *is* suggesting that the Quran is incomplete, so
by your defi! nition his position *is* anti-Islamic.--------------------------------
I stated that at this point there appear to be further verses in the oldest versions of the Qur'an. This does not mean that the Qur'an as we have known it is unauthentic.
-----------------------------------
At the same time, Bahais will often swear up and down that they are
not anti-Islamic. And so that is exactly why I thought Scott's
position was odd and worth commenting on.---------------------
I said nothing anti-Islamic. I did not say the Qur'an was in error, I said it appears to be subject to a literary history just like the Bible.
---------------------------------
But secondly, from my side, I think I would actually say quite plainly
that I disagree with certain teachings widely held by mainstream
Christians. I might try to be polite and not go out of my way to
offend, but I don't think I would be inclined to mince words. I'm not
a Christian. I disagree with certain parts of the Bible. If
consciously not being a Christian is "anti-Christian" so be it. I try
not to be mean. I think Christians can be great people. I have
Christian friends. But I don't believe as they believe. For me that is
just being candid and honest.--------------------------
I would note further that it does not make any demand on you to think of Islam as adaptive either. Islam HAS adapted in its history. It adapted from the wordsof the Prophet when Abu Bakr and Uthman took up the sword. It adapted to the disappearance of the Imamate. It adapted to the end of the Caliphate. Islam has adapted in the past, and it will be called upon to adapt in the future, or it will fragment, splinter and break. If Islam does fail in that regard it says NOTHING about the truth of the Prophet and His words as recorded in the Qur'an whcih are divine writ - whether we have to rethink what is in the Qur'an or not.
Judaism had to adapt to the building of the Temple. It had to adapt to the loss of the Temple. It has done so. The services at a synagogue have little to do with the worship at the Temple, there is no priesthood anyhmore, but Judaism adapted.
Christianity adapted too. It adapted to reach the gentiles, it adapted to the Nicaean council, it adapted to the Reformation. It adapted to the Renascence and the Age of Enlightenment.
Judaism was most forced to adapt when the Temple was lost after the Revelation of Christ but before it was firmly established. Christianity had to adapt substantively to the challenge of Muhammed particularly in the years when Islam was being firmly established.
This is because there was a new Revelation. Judaism did not recognize Christ's Revelation. Christianity did not recognize the Revelation of Muhammed, but both were forced to adapt.
In my personal religious opinion. The loss of the Caliphate and the new discovery of the Yemeni fragments are the beginnings of Islam's dance with adaptation that the Revelation of Baha`u'llah brought about.
That has nothing to do with the fact that Gilberto is a muslim who does not accept the possibility of new revelation. Individual muslims are forced to adapt constantly in their faith as the world changes around them. They should take some pride and comfort in the fact that Islam has adapted to change in the past and should be able to do so again in the future.
----------------------------------
But then when I look at the Bahai faith, I also see places where the
Bahai faith disagrees (in a similar way) with basic Islamic teachings
and basic Christian teachings, but Bahais will often not say in a
clear open way what all of those differences of opinion are. I'm not
questioning anyone's intentions but it gives the impression of being
less than candid.---------------------
"Religion must be voluntary". No one expects you to accept what you cannot accept. But Islam in the point of view of the Baha`i Faith will just have to adapt to this new revelation, acknowledged or not.
-----------------------------
>
>
>
> ** I guess now, your question comes down to this, and I need to think about
> it a while: Do the Baha'i writings really say that the Qur'an is absolutely
> the perfect Book of God, word-for-word, and that (1) all the revelation
> given to Muhammad is really in the Qur'an, and (2) that "other things"
> didn't creep into the Qur'an? **
>
Here is one reference:
http://bahai-library.com/uhj/resurrection.bible.html
With particular regard to the Bible, a letter dated 28 May 1984
written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice in response to
questions raised by an individual believer outlines two principles to
be observed in studying this book.
In studying the Bible Baha'is must bear two principles in mind. The
first is that many passages in Scared Scripture are intended to be
taken metaphorically, not literally, and some of the parad! oxes and
apparent contradictions which appear are intended to indicate this.
The second is the fact that the text of the early Scriptures, such as
the Bible, is not wholly authentic...
*****
rom Letters Written on Behalf of the Guardian:
...The Bible is not wholly authentic, and in this respect is not to be
compared with the Qur'an, and should be wholly subordinated to the
authentic writings of Baha'u'llah
. (28 July 1936 to a National Spiritual Assembly)
...we cannot be sure how much or how little of the four Gospels are
accurate and include the words of Christ and His undiluted teachings,
all we can be sure of, as Baha'is, is that what has been quoted by
Baha'u'llah and the Master must be absolutely authentic. As many times
passages in the Gospel of St. John are quoted we may assume that it is
his Gospel and much of it accurate.
(23 January 1944 to an individual believer)
When 'Abdu'l-Baha states we believe! what is in the Bible, He means in
substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally
or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet.
(11 February 1944 to an individual believer)
We cannot be sure of the authenticity of any of the phrases in the Old
or the New Testament. What we can be sure of is when such references
or words are cited or quoted in either the Quran or the Baha'i
writings.
(4 July 1947 to an individual believer)
We have no way of substantiating the stories of the Old Testament
other than references to them in our own teachings, so we cannot say
exactly what happened at the battle of Jericho.
(25 November 1950 to an individual believer)------------------------------------------------------------------------
None of these statements say that the Qur'an might be found in other forms. None of these statements are directly by the Guardian, he delgated the letter to the Hands and his secretaries (who were often one and the same). It is my opinion that he wished to avoid definitive statements on his own behalf.
Regards,
Scott
Arnold J. Toynbee
