The Bahais / Babis-Why were they persecuted

Your knowledge about Christianity is obviously not very vast.

Jehovah's witnesses for instance do not worship Jesus (pbuh).

If the whole point of your entry into the discussion was just to lead to this point:

what is to be done with pagans and their communities acocrding to Islam?

You've wasted your time.

Hmm... Good point.  But then the fact that the  Jehovah's Witnesses define themselves as Chrtistians does mean they accept Christian doctrine regarding Christ.  Anyways, lets classify them as Christians.

What I would contend is that the term "Christian" is very broad, and it does now, and always has, defined very different sets of beliefs.

As I mentioned, in early Christianity there were the Arians (strict monotheists) and the Trinitarians. As the latter were supported by the Roman Emperor (suprise suprise, a Roman emperor supporting a more paganistic variation of Christian doctrine) trinitarianism became the established creed across most of Europe but not all of Europe, it actually survived amongst the Goths of al-Andalus, most of whom later converted to Islam when it arrived in their peninsula, the rest were probably obliterated during the reconquista and inquisitions of the post-Islamic period of Andalus or forced to convert to trinitarianism.

Of course during the reign of the Holy Roman Empire in Europe not a lot of variation in creed existed, but after the fall of the Vatican and the advent of Protestantism, all forms of movements sprung up all over the place with essentially Christian beliefs, but twisted into all manner of variations.

Perhaps you have an idea personally of what Christianity means and what its core creed is, but I think that the New Testament doesn't really support such dogma, unlike Islam for instance, where the creed is very clearly defined in all its details. And the only real schisms occured due to political differences (which may have later expanded out into creed issues).

I entered into the discussion before these posts of yours.  Therefore... I could not have entered  the discussion as a means of leading to this question.   I was following your lead.

I'm well aware of this, I was merely exaggerating the fact that you just appeared to be bursting to ask a question like that. "Oh so you wanna slay all the pagans?"

Originally posted by Qutuz I was merely exaggerating the fact that you just appeared to be bursting to ask a question like that. "Oh so you wanna slay all the pagans?"

Edited by Cryptic - 24-Oct-2006 at 14:24

Originally posted by Zagros Safavi empire was called Iran.

The point was not what it was called, but that it was a very different entity, most importantly that it had much wider boundaries than the modern day nation-state of Iran.

Originally posted by Cryptic Admittably, though, I do have a strong interest in how doctrinally Islam  views me and by extension, Moslems view me.

What you need to understand first, is that this is not about how individuals see/treat you. This is about the legal standing of minority groups within the Islamic Caliphate. Since the Islamic Caliphate is not currently in existence, the question is irrelevant.

Originally posted by Cryptic If you conclusion is that Christianity is so fragmented that Christians do not have a clear sense of their religous identity as Christians and that most do not share core beliefs (Nicean or equivelant creeds), you are mistaken.

I didn't state most. I merely pointed out that there are those who label themselves as Christian, yet who do not adopt the Nicean (Trinitarian) Creed.

Originally posted by Omar al-Hashemi Christians, regardless of denomination, are People of the Book, same as Jews and Muslims, always have been and always will be.

Are you suggesting Muslims are "People of the Book"? If so, then your view is not even valid. The simple fact is that Ahl al-Kitab status has conditions, if someone does not meet those conditions they are not Ahl al-Kitab and are not classified as so under the Islamic Caliphate. If someone stops believing in Jesus (pbuh) and begins believing in Judas as the Messiah, yet continues calling himself a Christian, yet follows none of the injunctions of the Kitab (Bible) in his belief system, would he be considered Ahl al-Kitab? Likewise, as I mentioned before, is the meat and women of people who don't adhere to the Biblical way of life halaal to the Muslims? Can a Muslim man marry an unchaste Christian woman? No he cannot. Can a Muslim eat the meat of a Christian who doesn't slaughter Kosher? No he cannot.

Originally posted by Omar al-Hashemi there weren't any Arian's in the middle east at the time of the prophet.

I did not state there were. However, there were Arians in North Africa, and I'm sure pockets of them would've survived in other places, either way, Muhammad (pbuh) spoke the words of God, he did not need personal experience of those people in order to speak about them.

Originally posted by Omar al-Hashemi Yes of course we are

Muslims are not Ahl al-Kitab. We are the Ummah of Muhammad (Saw), Ahl al-Kitab is a designation used for those people who preceded us, who continued on their deviated ways and rejected the latest messenger. I think you should do a little more research on this one. This concept has been raised by some so called "new age muslims" in America who want to make unity with Christians and Jews, but it is most certainly not supported within Orthodox Islam.

Originally posted by Omar al-Hashemi The Caliphate, or conditions has nothing to do with it... Muslims, Jews, Christians and Sabians. No conditions.

You quoted the evidence for it yourself....

Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures)

Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures)

The conditions are that they follow what's stipulated in their book, in order for them to be classed as people of the book. So if they didn't slaughter Kosher, we don't eat their meat, if they weren't chaste, we don't marry their women and if they don't worship the one God and practise monotheism we don't treat them as monotheists.

Originally posted by Omar al-Hashemi Why not? A muslim man can certainly marry a Christian woman. If you think otherwise I ask you to bring forth your evidence.

The evidence for this one is quite clear in the Qur'an:

This day are (all) things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. (Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time,- when ye give them their due dowers, and desire chastity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues if any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good).

Originally posted by Omar al-Hashemi No, we can't do that. But a seventh day adventist, who is trinitarian and eats Kosher, we can eat from.

These were my words exactly.

Originally posted by Omar al-Hashemi The prophets intepretation of the Quran included trinitarian christians as People of the Book

Did it? I only remember him condemning those who call God one of three, not extending to them the umbrella of Ahl al-Kitab status.


Edited by Qutuz - 25-Oct-2006 at 17:08

Originally posted by Omar Well, this certainly isn't a new concept at all. This is an old concept, but since its not really relevent to the discussion I won't push it.

The age of the concept doesn't determine its validity within Orthodox Islam. Even so, can you name any scholar of repute that ever claimed this? Did any of the 4 great imams of Islam ever claim this? Any of the Sahabah (ra)? These are our first points of reference, not Sheikh Fulan.

AND the Christians

These verses were revealed to the Christians of the time, who were on something wrong, but who were being given the chance to follow a new messenger (pbuh), they rejected and became disbelievers. At that point, when they chose to reject the message, these verses you've quoted were considered mansoukh anyway (ie. they are abrogated, their time of validity for the Christians finished).

A muslim man may marry a Christian woman. Chaste is constant for muslims and People of the Book

Obviously a Muslim woman would be chaste.

He only knew about trinitarian christians I'm sure

Why are you so sure about this? He knew that Christians had begun as a true community of believers and had slowly disintegrated into the cesspool of polytheism we find them in today, why would Allah (swt) not have given him the knowledge that some of them were still sincere in their monotheism?

Trinitatian christians are defintely People of the Book

As I stated, this issue is not even relevant except under an Islamic Caliphate. The status of Ahl al-Kitab has no meaning for Muslims who live outside of dar al-Islam really. Except perhaps in the case of marriage and meat, and in both those cases the vast majority of Ulema decree that it's not permissable or strongly discouraged for either of those things in the present day situation. For example, many Ulema have given the ruling that Muslims living in Christian countries should not marry Christian women, as their laws bring the children under her control and out of her husbands control in the event of divorce etc. I've personally seen many cases of this occuring and it's truly sad to see the Muslim men distraught at how their children end up. Likewise 99% of Christians do not slaughter according to their book, therefore their meat isn't halaal.

The concept of "mansoukh" in Islamic Fiqh is quite well known and studied, if you're not aware of it, and if you misunderstand it to mean the Qur'an is not timeless, then I can only advise you to go and take some lessons in the deen (From Muslim Scholars, not from Interfaithers) and then return to the discussion.

The main reason I believe is that muslims believe that a profit is going to come and lead them or whatever and bahais believe that the profit has come

Thats jews and christians mate, not muslims and bahais.

I know about the jew and christians but I"m pretty sure bahais and muslims have a similar thing.  Muslims are waiting for like another imam or something and bahais believe that he has come.

Oh, you mean that Mahdi thing? There are some sub groups that believe in that, but its not a major muslim belief.


Edited by Omar al Hashim - 11-Nov-2006 at 03:55

Qutuz you are wrong about the Bahai faith being a dieing religion.  There are members of this religion from almost every country on the planet.  Besides it is a relitivly young religion and it takes time to spread.  If you guys really want to learn about the Bahai faith go talk to some Bahai's most of the Bahai's are very devout to their faith and would love to discuss it with you.  Qutuz you have to be out of your mind to think that the Bahai faith was created by the British its a legitamit religion.  Yazzmode621 you are right the Bahai's think that their profit is the mahdi returned but Shia's do not believe it to be true.