From: ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Subject: Question about Baha'i
Date: 8 Nov 92 15:48:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: romeo.721237710



This from Dr. Habib Siddiqui (RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com):

1. Are Baha'is Ahli Al-Kitab (People of the Book)?
Ans: No.

2. Are they considered to commit Shirk (violating Monotheism)? They
   accept Jesus as a Prophet, but also as the Son of God, but they mean
   a different thing from the Christians by the "Son of God" or "God"
   -- they don't mean that he is Allah s.w.t. but that he is a "mirror
   perfectly reflecting Allah" as is also Muhammad s.a.w.
Ans: Let me say that they are not Muslims, since Muslims, as you know,
     are the ones who believe that Muhammad is the last of the Nabis
     (prophets) and Rasuls (Messengers) sent by our creator, Allah.
     Bahais, like the Qadiani/Ahmedis, do not believe in the finality
     of the nabuat (prophethood) and risala (messngership) in Muhammad
     (SAWS), by twisting the meaning of the verse concerning "khatimin-
     nabiin" in the Qur'an. All the scholars accept that it means that
     there would not be any other Nabi or Rasul after Muhammad (SAWS),
     and this has been further collaborated in the Sahih hadith of the
     Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) (see, e.g., Bukhari and Muslim). Yet, the
     Bahais, like their allies - Qadiani/Ahmadis, say that the phrase
     refers to "ring" (that one puts on the finger for beautification).
     They also fabricate sayings of the Ulama of Islam, including
     Ayesha (RA), Imam Suyuti, to suggest that even the dear wife of
     the Prophet (SAWS) did not accept the fact that Muhammad was the
     last of the Prophets and Rasuls, sent by Allah. They also bring
     some liars in support of their views and claim that these were
     well-known Ulama of Sunni and Shia schools of thought. We have
     never known of any such Ulama in Islam who said contrary to what
     is known about the finality of Muhammad's (SAWS) prophethood and
     Messengership. They are liars. Their deception knows no bounds
     in fabricating hadiths and writings of the Ulama of Islam. *True*
     monotheism can only be found in Islam, and not in some mentally
     unstable person's claims, later propagated and financed by the
     enemies of Islam. (Please, read the books concerning the history
     of this deviant movements and their founders, written by scholars
     of Islam, who have exposed their true images.)

     In their goal to accomodate all the man-made theologies or
     religions, they say things which are self-contradictory. How could
     a person be a Hindu (a polytheist) and another a Jew (a monotheist)
     and still both be Bahais? It is definitely a weird, mumbo jumbo
     theology to deceive people. Most of the Bahai theology has nothing
     to do with its founder, who was executed in Iran, nearly a hundred
     years ago, but are prducts of Abdul Baha, a self-claiming
     follower. It has from its very inception been supported by the
     Russian and English governments (who were traditionally at war
     with the Muslim Khilafa). Its head office in Israel is run by
     Free Masons and Zionists, who are all agog to see the destruction
     of Islam. It was as a result of the collaboration between them
     and the late Shah of Iran that they had a free hand in administer-
     ing the government prior to the Islamic Revolution. This also
     explains why the Shah sold oil during the 1973-war to Israel.
     (The entire government, esp. its foreign service and Savak - the
     secret Army of the Shah, was controlled by the Bahais.)

3. Currently on soc.religion.bahai there's a thread about reconciling
   Islam and Christianity. One major sticking point is the crucifixion
   and resurrection -- the Bible says "Christ both died, and rose, and
   revived" (Romans 14:9) while the Quran says "and they did not kill
   him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so" (Women
   4:157) -- and the Baha'i say that this is due to a misinterpretation
   on the part of Muslims, pointing out the disagreement between Muslim
   scholars, etc. and saying that Isa p.b.u.h. *did* die on the cross
   but that the Jews were simply not responsible for Allah let them, or
   that they were only able to kill his body but not his soul, etc. (For
   details see soc.religion.bahai.) What is the Muslim response to
   this? Is it permissible under orthodox Islam to accept Isa p.b.u.h.'s
   crucifixion and resurrection without accepting his diety?
Ans: The Bahais, like the Ahmedi/Qadianis, twist the meanings of the
     Qur'an in Surah an-Nisa to give a distorted rendering. While the
     Qadiani/Ahmadis say that Jesus did not die on the cross and that
     he later died in Kashmir, Bahais, as you read in the srb-net,
     say that although Jews could not kill Jesus (because God did not
     allow them to crucify him), but he died a physical death (not
     in spirit). The Qur'an's meaning is quite self-explanatory and
     is further explained in the hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (SAWS).
     All the Muslims, since the time of Muhammad (SAWS), accepted the
     fact that despite their intention to crucify or kill Jesus, the
     Jews were not able to crucify or kill him and that Allah saved him
     by raising him to the heaven. Jesus did not die and is alive and
     is going to come back to the earth towards the end of time (before
     the day of Qiyamat) to kill ad-Dazzal, the false-Messiah. He would
     follow the shariah of Islam, marry and rule the world for a few
     years, kill the pig (some consider this to mean the Christian Pope,
     who justifies thru' the New Testament the eating of swine flesh;
     others that he would kill pig as a symbol of chrisitian's breaking
     Islamic or Mosaic law of not eating pork) and lift the jijya tax
     on the non-Muslims (scholars believe this to mean that there would
     be no non-Muslim during his time, necessiating the abolishment of
     such taxes as is/was usually levied on the non-Muslims living under
     Islamic Khilafah for their protection in person and properties.
     Note that compared to zakah, which is a must on Muslims, the amount
     of jijya tax, levied on non-Muslims, is a very insignificant tax.)
     After bringing peace and ruling the world for several years, Jesus
     would die (natural death) and would be burried next to the grave of
     Muhammad (SAWS) in Madinah. He will not bring any new laws and
     will judge by the Qur'an, the FINAL testament for humanity.

     The Qur'an does mention that what the people believe concerning
     the so-called crucifixion of Jesus is based on conjecture and that
     it appeared as if he was crucified. Muslim scholars believe that
     someone else (looking like him, may be by trasfiguration) was,
     instead, crucified. There is a hadith (ibn Abi-Hatim, an-Nasa'iyy)
     which suggests that one of the disciples was trasformed to look
     like Jesus and was crucified, instead of Jesus, and that the angels
     raised ^Isa (AWS) to heaven. Among the early christians, there were
     a number of sects, e.g., Basilidians, Caprocretians, Ebionites and
     others, who also did not accept that Jesus was crucified, and that
     he was, instead, substituted by someone else. For this, they suffe-
     red persecution from the emerging Trinitarian church. The Gospel
     of Barnabas (part of christian Apocrypha being banned in successive
     christian decrees in 382, 465 and 496 C.E), which was in wide
     circulation in north African churches, prior to 325 C.E., shows
     that it was Judas Iscariot, the betrayer, who was transformed when
     he came with the Roman soldiery to arrest Jesus, and it was Judas
     who was crucified. His body was later stolen by others which caused
     the rapid spread of the rumor that Jesus had rose from his death.
     A Roman decree at that time forbade anyone discussing about Jesus,
     and during the ensuing period some of the followers fled to Syria,
     some spreading the rumor that Jesus was God or that he was a son
     of God, others that he was a false prophet (since he did not ful-
     fill the prophecies that he was not going to die and that God had
     preserved his life until towards the end of time), and still a
     small segment (including Maryam -the mother of Jesus, Barnabas and
     other original disciples from the group of 12, Nicodemus and Josef
     of Abramathia) who preached the truth (they were later visited by
     Jesus and the angels testified to the fact that he was not cruci-
     fied). Paul, the self-appointed disciple, was deceived by Satan
     and preached the false-gospel (regarding the so-called crucifixion
     and resurrection of Jesus). Christians (rather the deviant
     Trinitarians) from the very beginning, therefore, tried to destroy
     this gospel. There is no denying that this gospel was in circula-
     tion in early christian history and that is what caused one decree
     after another to be issued for its destruction (you don't ban a
     book which is non-extant). (Ref: Acia Sanctorum Boland Junii Tom
     II). In recent years, after the English translation by a die-hard
     christian couple, Lonsdale and Laura Ragg, (orignially tr. in 1907)
     became popular among truth-seeking people, a whole bunch of Trini-
     tarians are trying to falsify the authenticity of the Gospel.
     (Their fear is, of course, genuine, given the fact that if someone
     believes in what Barnabs wrote, then there is no alternative for
     him but to take the shahadah in Islam.)  Muslim scholars like Ataur
     Rahim and M.A. Yusseff have written books defending the authentici-
     of the Gospel (Read, e.g., Gospel of Barnabas, ed. M. A. Yusseff
     (with comments); The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Gospel of Barnabas and
     the new testament by M.A. Yusseff (American Trust Publications))
     These Trinitarians have tried to suggest that the present Gospel
     is a forgery, written possibly by a Muslim or a Muslim-sympathiser.
     This is outrageous, since a Spanish version was extant, centuries
     before the Latin version was discovered by Fra Marino (a friend of
     Pope Sixtus). Moreover, which Muslim or sympathiser would put the
     Latin version (from which the translation into English was done)
     in the library of the Pope or in the Prussian Councillor's library?
     The original Greek version was destroyed during the Papal decree,
     although a small burnt segment of the Gospel still exists in the
     Museum. During King Zeno's reign (478 c.e.) a copy of the hand-
     written Gospel was found on the breast of Barnabas, when his
     remains were discovered in a grave. What happened to that copy?
     Why not the Vatican Church release that material, if they haven't
     yet destroyed the manuscript? Most christians would deny the
     existence of any such manuscript, for obvious reason of hiding the
     truth.

     It is not the Gospel of Barnabas alone which suggests that Jesus
     was not crucified and that someone else was substituted, instead,
     the recent excavations (in Dec. 1945) in the village of Nag Hammadi
     in Upper Egypt has exhumed an earthenware jar containing 13 scrolls
     bound in a leather. One of these depicted Jesus as saying, "I did
     not succumb to them as they (Jews) had planned. ... And I did not
     die in  reality but in appearance, lest I be put to shame by them.
     .. For my death which they think, happened in their error and
     blindness, since they nailed their man unto death..." (Ref: J.
     Robinson, The Second Treatise of the Great Seth, p. 332) Let the
     Christians and the Bahais explain the messages of these scrolls.

     To answer your question, finally: no, we, as Muslims, do not accept
     the crucifixion and the so-called resurrection of Jesus from death.
     For us, the Qur'an explicates what to believe and what not to. The
     Trinitarian theology is very much dependent on the so-called doc-
     trines of crucifixion and resurrection merely to support Pauline
     view about original sin and atonement. All these man-made, Satan-
     inspired doctrines, are rejected by Islam. The gospels which the
     Christians today consider as canonical are nothing more than un-
     authentic, edited, corrupted views concerning the teachings and
     life of Jesus, a Prophet of Islam. Do not forget, how these books
     became canonical at the Nicaene council, headed by a pagan emperor,
     Constantine, in 325 c.e, while about more than 200 other gospels
     were thrown out and destroyed (and formed the part of apocrypha).
     None of the manuscripts date earlier than the third century and are
     in the Greek language, while Jesus spoke an old-Syriac (Aramaic)
     language.Why were not a single copy in Hebrew or Aramaic preserved?
     Was it because that they did not agree with the corrupted forms
     which were later to become canonical gospels? Christian scholars
     themselves pointed out as to how the gospels were corrupted. Read
     E.G. White's, O'Culmann's views on the new testament textual criti-
     cism.

     So, a Muslim CANNOT accept either the crucifixion or the resurrec-
     tion of Jesus, not to mention of his deity (I have in the past
     shown that there is not a single verse in the NT which shows that
     Jesus ever claimed that "I am God" and/or "worship me". Ref: A
     Rebuttal of Missionary theology)

===
H. Siddiqui.