Please accept my apologies for not offering general comments on the Bahai faith. I do not, normally, like to offer general comments on other faiths or sects. Both your questions pertain to an aspect of interpreting literature, which is specifically related to when should a speech be interpreted as metaphorical, figurative or allegorical and when should it be interpreted as literal. Even though there is no universally accepted rule to guide us in this respect, yet a commonly applied principle is that of studying the structure and the implication of the sentence in which the phrase under consideration is used. For instance consider the word 'lion'. Lion, generally implies the huge wild cat, generally found in thick jungle [1] . Nevertheless, when I say: "I saw a big lion in the zoo", the word lion, even though it is not spoken with reference to a jungle, refers to 'the huge wild cat'. On the contrary, however, when someone says: "Omar Mukhtar was called 'the Lion of the Desert'", no one in his right senses would imply that Omar Mukhtar is the name of a 'wild flesh-eating cat'. Thus, one of the basic principles in the interpretation of a word in its literal or figurative sense is to study the structure and the implication of the sentence in which the word is used. It should, however, remain clear that sometimes a difference of opinion can occur in the interpretation and the usage of words. As far as interpreting the 'raising of the dead' or 'satan' or 'paradise' or 'hell' is concerned, I really do not find anything in the structure of the sentences in which these words are used or their implications which hinders taking these words in their literal meanings. It, therefore, seems imperative that those who interpret these words figuratively should explain the reasons and the bases for doing so. In my opinion, interpreting these words and phrases - as they have been used in the Qur'an - in a figurative sense is like interpreting the word 'lion', as used in the sentence "I saw a lion in the zoo", figuratively. Let us take the 'raising of the dead in the hereafter' as a case in point. When the Qur'an, in a number of its verses, declared that the dead shall one day be raised and brought to judgment, those who rejected its message objected to it (as recorded by the Qur'an) by saying: 'When we are dead and have become ashes [or scattered in dust], how shall we be raised again?" At this point, had the Qur'an implied the 'raising of the dead' in a metaphorical or a figurative sense, it would simply have declared that it would not be a literal raising of the dead, but a metaphorical one. The Qur'an, on the contrary, has answered this objection by saying: Were We unable to create them the first time that they should doubt the new creation ( Qaaf 50: 15) And: You already know about the first creation, why then do you not take heed [about the second one]? ( Al-Waaqi`ah 56: 62) And: Does man think that we shall not be able to reassemble his bones? Indeed We can even remold the tips of his fingers. ( Al-Qiyamah 75: 3 - 4) I really do not think that in the presence of such verses of the Qur'an, one would be reasonable to interpret the raising of the dead as metaphorical. The other referred concepts may be seen in the light of the preceding explanation. In the light of the foregoing explanation, I would suggest that those who are still persistent in interpreting the referred concepts figuratively be asked to state their bases of doing so. We can subsequently analyze their bases to see if these bases hold any weight. 3 rd July 2000 [1] The word 'jungle' is used here in its literal implication, implying 'area of land usually in a tropical country that is covered with a thick growth of trees and tangled plants'. The word 'jungle' however, is used figuratively when I say: "A jungle of regulations", implying 'confused, disordered and complicated mass of things' or when I say "the concrete jungle", implying 'a typical modern city'. Answer published by Moiz Amjad