Paragraph 157

And it came to pass that on a certain day a number of the opponents of that peerless Beauty, those that had strayed far from God’s imperishable Sanctuary, scornfully spoke these words unto Muḥammad: “Verily, God hath entered into a covenant with us that we are not to credit an apostle until he present us a sacrifice which fire out of heaven shall devour.” The purport of this verse is that God hath covenanted with them that they should not believe in any messenger unless he work the miracle of Abel and Cain, that is, offer a sacrifice, and the fire from heaven consume it; even as they had heard it recounted in the story of Abel, which story is recorded in the scriptures. To this, Muḥammad, answering, said: “Already have Apostles before me come to you with sure testimonies, and with that of which ye speak. Wherefore slew ye them? Tell me, if ye are men of truth.” And now, be fair; How could those people living in the days of Muḥammad have existed, thousands of years before, in the age of Adam or other Prophets? Why should Muḥammad, that Essence of truthfulness, have charged the people of His day with the murder of Abel or other Prophets? Thou hast none other alternative except to regard Muḥammad as an impostor or a fool—which God forbid!—or to maintain that those people of wickedness were the selfsame people who in every age opposed and caviled at the Prophets and Messengers of God, till they finally caused them all to suffer martyrdom.

Check-in time. Where are we in the overall argument of the book? We're still looking at the sovereignty of the Promised One and attaining the presence of God. By this point, He has moved into the realm of the Return being more than just the return of the Manifestation. It is the return of all the signs, too. And here it is particularly the return of the enemies of the Cause.

In this instance, they are denying Muhammad because of a belief that He must bring forth the fire of heaven for a sacrifice, which isn't even in the story of Cain and Abel when you read it. Whether you read it in Genesis or in the Qur'an, it reads quite differently than what we are told, and Baha'u'llah acknowledges this. He says it is "as they heard it recounted", which seems to imply that it is not as written.

Just because we heard the story of Cain and Abel this way does not mean it's true. How often have people ridiculed the story of Noah because, they ask, where did he get 2 duck-billed platypuses, or two elephants. But the story doesn't say 2 of each animal. Go back and re-read the original. What we hear is not necessarily what is there. And if we base our acceptance of the next Messenger on a false premise, we will likely miss Their return. 

In this paragraph, Baha'u'llah relates the story of how Muhammad is asked to produce a miracle of an accepted sacrifice consumed by a fire from heaven. The people say that this is the necessary sign. Muhammad points out that other Messengers came with such a sign, but the people slew them. Why, He asks. "Why did you slay them?" Of course, it couldn't have been the people who were there at the time, so what is He saying? Muhammad seems to be saying that this is one of the signs of the Return. In other words, He is asking them to consider the past. He is asking them to look back at the Messengers they have accepted and see what holds true. Look at the pattern.

The important thing, though, is not the story of Cain and Abel here, but the fact that Muhammad is asking these priests why they denied other Messengers who have shown this proof. Why did they kill these other Messengers, if this is the criteria? Of course, they couldn't have killed these others who lived hundred of years ago. Instead, Muhammad is pointing out that it is this attitude that has slain all the Messengers.

Remember, way back in paragraph 6 we read "the more closely you observe the denials... the firmer will be your faith in the Cause of God".

Another point to note is the egotism of "God has entered into a covenant with us..." They not only seem to vaunt the idea that they are special because of this Covenant, but that they actually understand it, and nothing can change their understanding. This brings to mind the criteria for seeking truth in paragraph 1: "No man shall attain the shores of the ocean of true understanding except he be detached from all that is in heaven and on earth." They are not detached from their understanding, therefore miss recognizing when their interpretation is incorrect.

Baha'u'llah also uses the word "scornfully" to describe their attitude, which means they ask their questions without respect and full of contempt. The nature of their questions seems to be designed to corner, to cast doubt, to interrogate, and does not appear to arise from a pure heart. Again, they do not appear to be demonstrating sincerity. But then we can contrast this with Muhammad's response, which appears both cogent and challenging. He is using their own scripture to prove His case.

This is something that we notice over and over again. The answers are always given from their sacred books and traditions. Whether it is Jesus citing the Tanakh, or Muhammad using the Bible, or Baha'u'llah here using the Qur'an, the proofs always come from the traditions that the opponents hold to be true.

Similarly, our teaching efforts should also be so. If followers from other religions question us regarding authenticity, we should answer from their books, such as the Bible, the Quran, or the Bhagavad-Gita. While we can, and should, quote the Writings of Baha'u'llah and the Bab, the proofs are far more effective if they come from the source they already recognize. We should speak with admiration and respect for their traditions, for we know that they come from God, even if they have been misunderstood. Remember, when discussing interfaith issues, we are treading on holy ground.