Baha'i View On Sarah

[Harel13]

Hi Baha'is

A couple of days ago I was sent by another RFer a section of text that was part of a statement made by Abdu'l-Baha:

"During the time of the Abrahamic prophethood it was considered allowable because of a certain exigency that a man should marry his aunt, even as Sarah was the sister of Abraham’s mother." (source)
​

This struck me as odd, because the Torah doesn't mention that Sarah was Abraham's aunt. At best, it says that she was his half sister (Gen. 20:12). Then I thought it might be something from the Quran, but couldn't find anything. In fact, Sarah isn't even mentioned by name:

"And his Wife was standing, and she smiled. Then We gave her good tidings of Isaac and after Isaac, Jacob. She said, "Woe to me! Shall I give birth while I am an old woman and this, my husband, is an old man? Indeed, this is an amazing thing!" (source)
​

Further digging showed that this statement was part of a speech Abdu'l-Baha gave to a Jewish congregation in San Francisco in 1912 (https://centenary.bahai.us/news/message-jews).
Going over the speech, it seems to have been an attempt to preach the Baha'i view to these Jews. Personally, I think it would've made more sense to use the Jewish view on this matter in such a speech, but anyway:

Is this an error on Abdu'l-Baha's part? (I found a couple more errors regarding Judaism and Jewish history in that speech, but I'm wondering specifically about this one) Or is this a less-known Baha'i tradition? If so, is there a source to this?

 

[danieldemol]

Hi Baha'is

A couple of days ago I was sent by another RFer a section of text that was part of a statement made by Abdu'l-Baha:

"During the time of the Abrahamic prophethood it was considered allowable because of a certain exigency that a man should marry his aunt, even as Sarah was the sister of Abraham’s mother." (source)
​

This struck me as odd, because the Torah doesn't mention that Sarah was Abraham's aunt. At best, it says that she was his half sister (Gen. 20:12). Then I thought it might be something from the Quran, but couldn't find anything. In fact, Sarah isn't even mentioned by name:

"And his Wife was standing, and she smiled. Then We gave her good tidings of Isaac and after Isaac, Jacob. She said, "Woe to me! Shall I give birth while I am an old woman and this, my husband, is an old man? Indeed, this is an amazing thing!" (source)
​

Further digging showed that this statement was part of a speech Abdu'l-Baha gave to a Jewish congregation in San Francisco in 1912 (https://centenary.bahai.us/news/message-jews).
Going over the speech, it seems to have been an attempt to preach the Baha'i view to these Jews. Personally, I think it would've made more sense to use the Jewish view on this matter in such a speech, but anyway:

Is this an error on Abdu'l-Baha's part? (I found a couple more errors regarding Judaism and Jewish history in that speech, but I'm wondering specifically about this one) Or is this a less-known Baha'i tradition? If so, is there a source to this?

The first source you provided is from Abdul-Baha’s writings, which would be infallible for Baha’is.

I assume then that they are left to imagine that Genesis got the story wrong, even though from a scientific perspective the reverse is much more likely the case.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Hi Baha'is

A couple of days ago I was sent by another RFer a section of text that was part of a statement made by Abdu'l-Baha:

"During the time of the Abrahamic prophethood it was considered allowable because of a certain exigency that a man should marry his aunt, even as Sarah was the sister of Abraham’s mother." (source)
​

This struck me as odd, because the Torah doesn't mention that Sarah was Abraham's aunt. At best, it says that she was his half sister (Gen. 20:12). Then I thought it might be something from the Quran, but couldn't find anything. In fact, Sarah isn't even mentioned by name:

"And his Wife was standing, and she smiled. Then We gave her good tidings of Isaac and after Isaac, Jacob. She said, "Woe to me! Shall I give birth while I am an old woman and this, my husband, is an old man? Indeed, this is an amazing thing!" (source)
​

Further digging showed that this statement was part of a speech Abdu'l-Baha gave to a Jewish congregation in San Francisco in 1912 (https://centenary.bahai.us/news/message-jews).
Going over the speech, it seems to have been an attempt to preach the Baha'i view to these Jews. Personally, I think it would've made more sense to use the Jewish view on this matter in such a speech, but anyway:

Is this an error on Abdu'l-Baha's part? (I found a couple more errors regarding Judaism and Jewish history in that speech, but I'm wondering specifically about this one) Or is this a less-known Baha'i tradition? If so, is there a source to this?

Hi @Harel13

Examining the material you cite it is from a talk given by Abdu'l-Baha in San Francisco, California, October 1912. As it is a talk that was translated at the time into English at the time. It is therefore not considered part of our authoritative the Sacred Writings.

The point Abdu'l-Baha is making regards the temporal nature of some laws revealed by God. For example, while it would have been permissible for Abel, Cain and Seth to marry their sisters during an earlier dispensation, it would not be permitted for a man to marry his sister in a later dispensation. So whether Sarah as Abraham's sister or Aunt, the important aspect is the spiritual principle, not the secondary details.

We have no way of knowing for certain whether Sarah was in fact Abraham's sister or Aunt.

 

[Harel13]

The point Abdu'l-Baha is making regards the temporal nature of some laws revealed by God. For example, while it would have been permissible for Abel, Cain and Seth to marry their sisters during an earlier dispensation, it would not be permitted for a man to marry his sister in a later dispensation. So whether Sarah as Abraham's sister or Aunt, the important aspect is the spiritual principle, not the secondary details.

Yes, I got that part.

We have no way of knowing for certain whether Sarah was in fact Abraham's sister or Aunt.

So would you say that the verse in Genesis is in error? Or that it was Abdu'l-Baha's translator that made the mistake?

 

[paarsurrey]

Cain and Seth marrying their sisters is a Jewish idea, though, so I myself don't have a problem with that (keeping in mind that this was a speech giving in a Jewish community).

Sorry, I later found in the RF rules that debate is not allowed in the Interfaith section, so I have deleted my post. However, I could let one know my points in a personal message, if one is interested.

Regards

 

[Harel13]

Sorry, I later found in the RF rules that debate is not allowed in the Interfaith section, so I have deleted my post. However, I could let one know my points in a personal message, if one is interested.

I deleted mine, too. I'd be happy to hear your thoughts in private.

 

[danieldemol]

Examining the material you cite it is from a talk given by Abdu'l-Baha in San Francisco, California, October 1912

According to my understanding that is only the material in the second citation, the first citation is from Selected Writings of Abdul-Baha.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Yes, I got that part.

So would you say that the verse in Genesis is in error? Or that it was Abdu'l-Baha's translator that made the mistake?

I found another reference to Sarah being Abraham’s Aunt in a publication called ‘Star of the West’.

During the time of Adam it was permissible for man to marry his sister, and Abel, Cain and Seth took unto wife their own sisters. In the Abrahamic cycle a certain expedient made it permissible for man to marry his aunt, as Sarah was the sister of Abraham's mother; but when Moses came and established the law of the Torah these material ordinances were abrogated and changed. Later Christ came and broke the Sabbath and forbade divorce. When Moses came to the world there were no houses of correction, no forms of punishment and because of the lawless condition of the people the law of God had to be strict and direct. ..

Star of the West/Volume 6/Issue 16/Text - Bahaiworks, a library of works about the Bahá’í Faith

Within the text is written:

*Note—Compiled in Stuttgart, Germany, during August, 1914. This manuscript was presented to Abdul-Baha personally by Mr. Latimer while in Akka in October of the same year. Abdul-Baha gave consent to its publication.—The Editors.

So it would appear Abdul-Baha believed Sarah to be Abraham’s Aunt rather than sister.

In another passage Shoghi Effendi refers to the traditional literal Christian understanding of this verse and comments:

Concerning the passage in the Old Testament in which Abraham is reported to have addressed his wife as his sister, the interpretation given it by some Christians cannot hold, as it implies that the Messengers of God are all sinners. A much more plausible explanation would be, that in doing so Abraham wished to emphasize the superiority of the spiritual relationship binding him with his wife to the purely physical and material one.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Dawn of a New Day, Pages 197-198

In regards the discrepancy between Ishmael and Isaac being sacrificed in the story of Genesis as opposed to the Quran the Universal House of Justice writes:

1. 
   In this Tablet, Bahá’u’lláh confirms the station of ‘Sacrifice’ to both Isaac and Ishmael, on account of the sovereignty of the Word of God. Elsewhere in His Writings, however, Bahá’u’lláh confirms that Ismael, not Isaac, was the intended sacrifice (Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 75). Yet, in this Tablet to Hájí Mírzá Kamálu’d-Dín, it is unimportant which son was selected by God to accompany Abraham to the altar. The Universal House of Justice notes that this discrepancy between the Torah and the Qur’án is evidence of how Bahá’ís view the Holy Books of previous dispensations. They write: “In one of His Tablets, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’ refers to this discrepancy, and explains that, from a spiritual point of view, it is irrelevant which son was involved. The essential part of the story is that Abraham was willing to obey God’s command to sacrifice His son. Thus, although the account in the Torah is inaccurate in detail, it is true in substance....”
   
   (Letter of August 9th, 1984 to an individual believer; Universal House of Justice Memorandum, The Resurrection of Christ)
   

Tablet to Hájí Mírzá Kamálu'd-Dín

So it is possible for the account in the Torah to be inaccurate from a Baha’i perspective but we would look to the deeper spiritual message.

I hope that gives a clearer picture as how Baha’is may view Jewish Scriptures. For me personally it is of no consequence whether Sarah was Abraham’s Aunt or sister.

 

[Dawnofhope]

According to my understanding that is only the material in the second citation, the first citation is from Selected Writings of Abdul-Baha.

The first citation is from Baha’i World Faith, a publication that is no longer in circulation. Although it refers to selections of writings from Abdul’baha it is actually from a talk out of ‘Promulgation of Universal Peace’. The second citation appears to be from the Quran.

As mentioned in my post above there is yet another reference from Star of the West where Abdul-Baha refers to Sarah being Abraham’s Aunt.

 

[Harel13]

I found another reference to Sarah being Abraham’s Aunt in a publication called ‘Star of the West’.

During the time of Adam it was permissible for man to marry his sister, and Abel, Cain and Seth took unto wife their own sisters. In the Abrahamic cycle a certain expedient made it permissible for man to marry his aunt, as Sarah was the sister of Abraham's mother; but when Moses came and established the law of the Torah these material ordinances were abrogated and changed. Later Christ came and broke the Sabbath and forbade divorce. When Moses came to the world there were no houses of correction, no forms of punishment and because of the lawless condition of the people the law of God had to be strict and direct. ..

Star of the West/Volume 6/Issue 16/Text - Bahaiworks, a library of works about the Bahá’í Faith

Within the text is written:

*Note—Compiled in Stuttgart, Germany, during August, 1914. This manuscript was presented to Abdul-Baha personally by Mr. Latimer while in Akka in October of the same year. Abdul-Baha gave consent to its publication.—The Editors.

So it would appear Abdul-Baha believed Sarah to be Abraham’s Aunt rather than sister.

In another passage Shoghi Effendi refers to the traditional literal Christian understanding of this verse and comments:

Concerning the passage in the Old Testament in which Abraham is reported to have addressed his wife as his sister, the interpretation given it by some Christians cannot hold, as it implies that the Messengers of God are all sinners. A much more plausible explanation would be, that in doing so Abraham wished to emphasize the superiority of the spiritual relationship binding him with his wife to the purely physical and material one.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Dawn of a New Day, Pages 197-198

In regards the discrepancy between Ishmael and Isaac being sacrificed in the story of Genesis as opposed to the Quran the Universal House of Justice writes:

1. 
   In this Tablet, Bahá’u’lláh confirms the station of ‘Sacrifice’ to both Isaac and Ishmael, on account of the sovereignty of the Word of God. Elsewhere in His Writings, however, Bahá’u’lláh confirms that Ismael, not Isaac, was the intended sacrifice (Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 75). Yet, in this Tablet to Hájí Mírzá Kamálu’d-Dín, it is unimportant which son was selected by God to accompany Abraham to the altar. The Universal House of Justice notes that this discrepancy between the Torah and the Qur’án is evidence of how Bahá’ís view the Holy Books of previous dispensations. They write: “In one of His Tablets, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’ refers to this discrepancy, and explains that, from a spiritual point of view, it is irrelevant which son was involved. The essential part of the story is that Abraham was willing to obey God’s command to sacrifice His son. Thus, although the account in the Torah is inaccurate in detail, it is true in substance....”
   
   (Letter of August 9th, 1984 to an individual believer; Universal House of Justice Memorandum, The Resurrection of Christ)

Tablet to Hájí Mírzá Kamálu'd-Dín

So it is possible for the account in the Torah to be inaccurate from a Baha’i perspective but we would look to the deeper spiritual message.

I hope that gives a clearer picture as how Baha’is may view Jewish Scriptures. For me personally it is of no consequence whether Sarah was Abraham’s Aunt or sister.

Thank you.

 

[Harel13]

So it is possible for the account in the Torah to be inaccurate from a Baha’i perspective but we would look to the deeper spiritual message.

Does this mean that only the Torah is inaccurate and the Quran isn't, or can the Quran also be inaccurate?

So it would appear Abdul-Baha believed Sarah to be Abraham’s Aunt rather than sister.

But no basis for this idea, to your knowledge?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Does this mean that only the Torah is inaccurate and the Quran isn't, or can the Quran also be inaccurate?

There is an important discussion to be had in regards the authenticity of Jewish, Christian, Islamic and Baha'i scriptures. The first point is that Baha'is see the Jewish and Christian scriptures as authentic. Although we can not be certain they contain the exact Words Spoken by Moses or Christ they are protected books and contain within them all that God wished to convey through Moses and Christ respectfully.

According to the universal House of justice:

You ask for elucidation of the statement made on behalf of the Guardian in this letter of 11 February 1944, "When 'Abdu'l-Bahá 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." Is it not clear that what Shoghi Effendi means here is that we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Moses and Christ in the Old and New Testaments are Their exact words, but that, in view of the general principle enunciated by Bahá'u'lláh in the "Kitab-i-Iqan" that God's Revelation is under His care and protection, we can be confident that the essence, or essential elements, of what these two Manifestations of God intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in these two Books?
(19 July 1981 to an individual believer)

So we do not take the mainstream Muslim view that the Torah and Gospel are corrupted.

OTOH the Quran and Baha'i writings are more reflective of the actual Words Spoken by the Founding Prophet as opposed to the Gospel and Torah. So in the case of the sacrifice of Ishmael or Isaac or the status of Sarah, we would place greater weight on the Quran or the Baha'i Writings rather than the Torah.

But no basis for this idea, to your knowledge?

For Baha'is, Abdu'l-Baha has a unique station in religious history. Although not considered to have the same Station as Moses, Christ, Muhammad or Baha'u'llah has nonetheless been assigned by Baha'u'lah Himself as the Centre of the Covenant, as authorised interpreter of the Baha'i Writings and the Perfect exemplar of the Baha'i Faith.

 

[Harel13]

For Baha'is, Abdu'l-Baha has a unique station in religious history. Although not considered to have the same Station as Moses, Christ, Muhammad or Baha'u'llah has nonetheless been assigned by Baha'u'lah Himself as the Centre of the Covenant, as authorised interpreter of the Baha'i Writings and the Perfect exemplar of the Baha'i Faith.

Interesting. So this, among other things, may be a secret piece of knowledge that Abdu'l-Baha held, and for this reason Baha'is don't know where he got it from?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Interesting. So this, among other things, may be a secret piece of knowledge that Abdu'l-Baha held, and for this reason Baha'is don't know where he got it from?

I don't think there's any mystery about it for Baha'is.

How was it that Moses came to know of Adam, Noah and Abraham?

 

[Harel13]

How was it that Moses came to know of Adam, Noah and Abraham?

Israelite tradition and from God.

 

[Harel13]

@adrian009 I was wondering - I can understand believing Abdu'l-Baha was privy to secret knowledge from a divine source in relation to his view on Sarah, for example. However, there are a number of other discrepancies I noticed in that particular speech. Most can be explained in the same manner - secret knowledge, etc. But what about this one:

"Seventy thousand Jews did Nebuchadnezzar captivate, and he took them with him to Iraki Ajam (Persia)"
​

and yet later he said:

"Before the rise of Christ it is a fact that in Persia the name of Moses had not been heard."
​

Both statements were made in the same speech. On one hand, Abdu'l-Baha was aware that Jews were in Persia at least from the time of Nebuchadnezzar, yet, on the other hand, says that 'the name of Moses' was unknown in Persia before the time of Jesus. How can the latter be so, if by that time, Jews had been living in Persia for hundreds of years, as Abdu'l-Baha states himself (and is an historically accepted fact)?

 

[Dawnofhope]

@adrian009 I was wondering - I can understand believing Abdu'l-Baha was privy to secret knowledge from a divine source in relation to his view on Sarah, for example. However, there are a number of other discrepancies I noticed in that particular speech. Most can be explained in the same manner - secret knowledge, etc. But what about this one:

"Seventy thousand Jews did Nebuchadnezzar captivate, and he took them with him to Iraki Ajam (Persia)"
​

and yet later he said:

"Before the rise of Christ it is a fact that in Persia the name of Moses had not been heard."
​

Both statements were made in the same speech. On one hand, Abdu'l-Baha was aware that Jews were in Persia at least from the time of Nebuchadnezzar, yet, on the other hand, says that 'the name of Moses' was unknown in Persia before the time of Jesus. How can the latter be so, if by that time, Jews had been living in Persia for hundreds of years, as Abdu'l-Baha states himself (and is an historically accepted fact)?

The message Abdu’l-Bahá is conveying is not that the Persians had literally never heard the name Moses. Rather he is emphasising that despite the Persian’s substantial encounter with the Jewish community the Message and Reality of Moses had not touched the hearts of the Persians. It had not led to the establishment of any significant community who arose to follow the Torah. It was only through Christ that the Reality and Teachings of Moses and the Hebrew Prophets were widely accepted beyond the Jewish peoples.

I would see this as being a core difference in the laws of Moses and Christ. Moses did not emphasise the promulgation of the Torah throughout the world whereas Christ clearly did. To this day many Jews have an aversion to teaching their faith to non Jewish communities and are quick to dismiss any efforts along these lines as proselytising. The Christians on the other hand see it as their sacred duty.

 

[Dawnofhope]

A couple of further thoughts.

1/ I’ve often read Abdu’l-Baha using hyperbole to make a point. So he may exaggerate or make a somewhat extreme comment that isn’t literally true to make a point. I’ve then heard the argument from critics that if he was Divinely inspired why did he make an inaccurate statement.

2/ The talk you reference makes very little direct reference to Bahá’u’lláh or the Baha’i Faith. An effective teacher recognises the capacity of his audience and assists them to progress. That means challenging them with some new insights but also not confusing or overwhelming them by going to far.

Abdu’l-Baha’s nine month trip to North America had an enormous influence on the American Baha’i community who would later spread the Baha’i Faith through the world. It was the American community who championed the Baha’i Faith as the Persian community were unable to due to Persecution. It perhaps emphasises the adaptability of the Baha’i community to take root in different cultures and how the Baha’i community in the West has little resemblance to Islamic communities.