The murder of Azali's by Baha'is - religious violence
Heather Carr-Rowe
disbelieveth in God is neither trustworthy nor truthful."
' A most dangerous principle to base any civilization on, proving once
again the core fascism of the false prophet of Mazandaran. Who gets to
decide which defintion of "God" is the right one? What does belief have
to do with anything? What difference does it make to the Ground of
Being what notions are held about it at any given time?? '
Dear Wahid,
I agree that the drawing of such lines is dangerous: those who believe in
God according to my definition vs. everyone else.
It is this very excuse Elijah used to justify the mass murder of 450
prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel. It is this very excuse that has been used
by Jews, Christians, and Muslims to justify the slaughter of thousands, of
millions of innocents.
Does this fact negate the legitimacy of the spiritual experiences of all
Jews, Christians and Muslims? Of course not.
What it clearly shows is that 'religion' can become more of a bane than a
boon.
Religion becomes a bane when it becomes a possession, a property, simply
one more thing to be territorial about. Animal instincts click in and the
most heinous things are then done in the name of 'religion', in the name of
'God'.
Baha'is have blood on their hands as well for the very same reason. Because
their 'religion' became a possession, a property to be defended using
whatever means available, even murder:
"It is a fact that three Azalis were murdered by a few Bahá'ís in 'Akká.
That shameful deed brought great sorrow to Bahá'u'lláh, added to the rigours
of His incarceration and evoked poignant lamentation from His pen. He wrote:
'My captivity cannot harm Me. That which can harm Me is the conduct of those
who love Me, who claim to be related to Me, and yet perpetrate what causeth
My heart and My pen to groan.'[1]
[1 The epithet, 'Antichrist of the Bahá'í Revelation', was applied by the
Guardian of the Faith to Siyyid Muhammad-i-Isfahani. An incident which
should be particularly noted is his marriage to the sister of Mulla
Rajab-'Ali, entitled Qahir, one of the Bábís whose murder in 'Iraq the
author of Hasht Bihisht imputed to the Bahá'ís. Edward Browne seems
convinced that Bahá'ís were guilty of that murder. He stated it as a fact in
his Materials for the Study of the Bábí Religion (p. 199), a book which we
shall consider later. In the same work he even names the murderer: 'Nasir
the 'Arab, one of the followers of Bahá'u'lláh' (p. 220)."
(H.M. Balyuzi, E.G. Browne and The Baha'i Faith, p. 34)
"Then occurred a shameful and horrendous, but inevitable, event which
outwardly justified Ilyas 'Abbud's worst fears. This was the murder of three
Azalis at the hands of seven Bahá'ís, an appalling incident which added
immeasurably to the rigours and burdens of Bahá'u'lláh's life, and wrung
from His heart the cry:
My captivity cannot harm Me. That which can harm Me is the conduct
of those who love Me, who claim to be related to Me, and yet perpetrate what
causeth My heart and My pen to groan. . . . My captivity can bring on Me no
shame. Nay, by My life, it conferreth on Me glory. That which can make Me
ashamed is the conduct of such of My followers as profess to love Me, yet in
fact follow the Evil One."
(H.M. Balyuzi, Baha'u'llah - The King of Glory, p. 317)
So Baha'is 'officially' admit that at least three Azali's were murdered in
Akka, and one in Baghdad. From what your saying Nima there were several more
Azali's murdered by Baha'is.
Even one murder is too many. Especially when 'religion' is the excuse being
used.
It is clear from the account given that Baha'u'llah was well aware of the
plans: "to eliminate Siyyid Muhammad-i-Isfahani and his associates."
It is your's and Bayani's contention that He was not only aware of those
plans but that He O.K.ed them.
It would interesting to have been a fly on the wall at that meeting and to
know exactly what transpired. Thing is there are always two sides to such
stories, two sides to such accounts of what actually occurred. Especially
when such things as murder are involved.
If Baha'u'llah were to be charged with conspiracy to commit murder and if
such a case were to go to trial, would He be convicted? On the basis of the
evidence that I've seen so far I would have to say no.
Still at least four Alazis were murdered by Baha'i for 'religious' reasons,
which is inexcusable.
What causes religionists to go too such extremes? A fundamentalistic
mindset which finds excuses for such behaviour within their 'religious'
beliefs and faith. The same can be said for all negative behaviors of over
zealous, fanatic, fundamentalist religionists.
If we look back at the history of the Abrahamic Faiths there are many
accounts of the brutality that those religionists meted out to those who did
not share their 'religion'. Elijah's mass murder of 450 prophets of Baal on
Mount Carmel itself, the murder of all the Jewish inhabitants, men women and
children, in a town in Arabia by Muslims at Muhammad's bidding. The
slaughter of tens of thousands at the hands of 'Christian' Catholics during
the inquisition. The murder of Azali's by Bahai's. The list goes on, and on
... .
What causes such fanaticism?
Territoriality causes such fanaticism. That animal instinct we have yet to
fully outgrow as a kind.
'Religious' territoriality also causes other forms of extremism besides
murder. The attempt by Christians in Canada to wipe out First Nations
religion and culture through forced assimilation is one such example. First
Nations children were forcibly removed from their families and put into
residential schools. They were forbidden to speak their native languages,
forbidden to practice their own religions and were indoctrinated into
Christianity. It is a little know fact but until the 1960's first Nations
peoples in Canada were prohibited by law from practicing their own religious
beliefs. As a Canadian I am deeply ashamed of this dark history. First
Nations peoples are still suffering the consequences of this Christian
'religious' and cultural fanaticism and will for generations to come.
I heard a startling fact the other day. If you were to gauge Canada's
standard of living in the world by using the experience of First Nations
people, we would be number 48 on the list, instead of the top 5, like a
third world country!
This is all the result of 'religious' territorial thinking.
Baha'is would like to believe they are free from such negative aspects of
'religion' but they are far from being free of it.
The Baha'i Faith is rife with examples of 'religious' triumphalism, rife
with examples of such 'religious' territorial thinking. Just peruse a few
Ruhi books, a few messages to the world from The Universal House of Justice
to see many clear examples of such over zealous, territorial, 'religious'
thinking.
There are safeguards in the Baha'i teachings which should prevent such
'religious' territoriality but they have been conveniently ignored up until
now.
One reason for this ignorance is that Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha'
Themselves failed to fully live up to the universal aspect of Their Own
Teachings.
The contradiction between Baha'u'llah's and Abdu'l-Baha's universal
teaching of the oneness of humanity as expressed in the following quotes and
Their repeated warnings to shun certain individuals is as clear as the sun
at high noon.
"Whatsoever hath led the children of men to shun one another, and hath
caused dissensions and divisions amongst them, hath, through the revelation
of these words, been nullified and abolished."
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 94)
"O ye beloved of the Lord! In this sacred Dispensation, conflict and
contention are in no wise permitted. Every aggressor deprives himself of
God's grace. It is incumbent upon everyone to show the utmost love,
rectitude of conduct, straightforwardness and sincere kindliness unto all
the peoples and kindreds of the world, be they friends or strangers. So
intense must be the spirit of love and loving-kindness, that the stranger
may find himself a friend, the enemy a true brother, no difference
whatsoever existing between them. For universality is of God and all
limitations earthly. Thus man must strive that his reality may manifest
virtues and perfections, the light whereof may shine upon everyone. The
light of the sun shineth upon all the world and the merciful showers of
Divine Providence fall upon all peoples. The vivifying breeze reviveth every
living creature and all beings endued with life obtain their share and
portion at His heavenly board. In like manner, the affections and
loving-kindness of the servants of the One True God must be bountifully and
universally extended to all mankind. Regarding this, restrictions and
limitations are in no wise permitted."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 445)
The thing is if you choose to ignore the universal aspect of the oneness of
humanity and selectively shun certain people, you are effectively abandoning
that universality, you are effectively putting the lie to your own professed
belief in this 'pivotal' principle of the oneness of humanity.
If Abdu'l-Baha' truly believed what He taught in the following why wasn't
he able to put this teaching into practice in His own life? :
" In like manner, the affections and loving-kindness of the servants of the
One True God must be bountifully and universally extended to all mankind.
Regarding this, restrictions and limitations are in no wise permitted."
If there are no restrictions or limitations permitted why did Baha'u'llah,
Abdu'l-Baha', and Shoghi Effendi all practice and council clearly defined
restrictions and limitations to the universal teaching of the oneness of
humanity?
The answer can be found in this one line : "universality is of God, all
limitations earthly "
Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha' and Shoghi Effendi were all bound by the earthly
limitations of their shared humanity. This is why they all failed to
practice what they preached, this is why ' shun no man ' came out one side
of their mouths and 'shun these men' came out the other.
So they were human. Does this fact negate the legitimacy of their human
spiritual experience and the expression they gave it? I emphatically say :"
no it doesn't negate that legitimacy! ".
It is my belief that their failure reflects our failure. Our failure as a
kind to make of our human spiritualities, our human spiritual experiences,
our 'religions' a way of life instead of empty words.
There is more than enough of such 'religion' in the world today and far too
much religiosity.
Although Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha' were both well aware of the negative
aspects of 'religion', which is clear from Their Writings, They were both
unable to put this awareness into practice. They were limited by their
territoriality, a trait that we are most obviously far from outgrowing as a
kind.
This does not negate the legitimacy of all Their Teachings though.
Ironically even if we were to master one teaching of Baha'u'llah's, the
principle teaching of the oneness of humanity, and truly regard all people "
as one soul " we will have surpassed the Teachers, in that They Themselves
failed to fully exemplify this Teaching in Their Own lives.
Do I look down on Baha'u'llah, Abdul'-Baha', Shoghi Effendi and The
Universal House of Justice for failing to put into practice this one simple
teaching? No, how can I look down on them when they are all my brothers,
when they are all 'as one soul' with me, when I myself have struggled and
continue to struggle to live by this one teaching myself.
Time doesn't stand still we continue to progress as a kind.
Because progress in science, logic and reason is not static but dynamic,
the point at which religion and reason meet is dynamic as well. As we
progress this point moves forward, or at least it should.
It we fail to move forward our religion becomes one-winged as Abdu'l-Baha'
points out.
What Abdu'l-Baha' is says makes pre-eminent sense to me. In order for
humanity to fly it is necessary that we fly with both wings, which is to
say, as we progress we need to allow those beliefs which are based on myth
and metaphor to fall away and be updated by logical reason and science. If
we resist this process our 'religion' becomes nothing more than
superstition.
There is only us, we are them, 'as one soul'.
Yours Larry
"It was then that some of the followers of Bahá'u'lláh began to think of
putting an end to these activities. Apart from Aqa Husayn and Aqa Rida,
whose accounts have frequently been referred to previously, our sources for
this dire episode include two historical tracts, one by Mirza Aqa Jan, the
amanuensis of Bahá'u'lláh, and the other by Aqa Muhammad-Javad-i-Qazvini.
Both men were eye-witnesses and both broke the Covenant of Bahá'u'lláh after
His ascension.
An Arab believer named Nasir, who was also known as Haji 'Abbas, came to
'Akká from Beirut determined to silence the mischief-makers. In all
probability, he was the same Nasir who was implicated in the murder of Haji
Mirza Ahmad-i-Kashani, in Baghdad.[1] Once in 'Akká, his purpose was made
clear, and not only would Bahá'u'lláh not countenance it, but He promptly
ordered him to return to Beirut, which he did. Muhammad-Javad quotes a
Tablet addressed to Nasir, which caused his return. The following is
Professor Browne's translation of that Tablet:
[1 According to Nabil's Narrative, among the Companions of Tahirih as she
travelled from Baghdad towards Persia was a certain 'Abid and his son Nasir,
who later was known as Haji 'Abbas. If this Nasir is the same man, and there
seems little reason to doubt it, then his later actions would seem to
reflect something of the fervour and impetuosity of those who surrounded
that far-famed Bábí heroine.]
HE is the Helper.
I bear witness that thou hast helped thy Lord, and art one of the helpers.
To [the truth of] my testimony all things testify: this indeed is
the root of the matter, if thou art of those who know. What thou dost by His
command and approval is indeed the duty of help in the sight of thy
Lord the All-knowing and All-understanding. Go hence and do not perpetrate
that wherefrom mischief will result! Put thy trust in God: verily He will
take whomsoever He will: verily He hath power over all things. Verily we
have accepted what thou didst intend in the Way of God. Return to thy place:
then commemorate thy Lord, the Mighty, the Praiseworthy.4
After Nasir's departure, some of the companions, finding this highly-charged
situation intolerable, went to Bahá'u'lláh to beg His permission to deal
with the authors of mischief in their own way and bring their satanic
activities to an end. Bahá'u'lláh, however, not only would not grant them
the permission they sought, but counselled them most emphatically to shun
all violence and retaliation. It seems that Muhammad-Javad-i-Qazvini,
himself; was at first in league with those men, but withdrew from their
company when bidden to do so by Bahá'u'lláh. Muhammad-Javad relates that he
was present, when Aqa Muhammad-Ibrahim-i-Kashani was pleading with
Bahá'u'lláh for permission to eliminate Siyyid Muhammad-i-Isfahani and his
associates. Bahá'u'lláh directed Muhammad-Javad to go home and stay there,
and commanded Mirza Muhammad-Quli, His brother, to eject Aqa
Muhammad-Ibrahim from His presence, which he did.
Seven of the companions, Aqa Muhammad-Ibrahim-i-Nazir, Mirza Husayn-i-Najjar
(another native of Kashan), Aqa Husayn-i-Ashchi (also of Kashan), Mirza
Ja'far of Yazd, Ustad Ahmad-i-Najjar, Aqa Muhammad-'Aliy-i-Salmani and Ustad
'Abdu'l-Karim-i-Kharrat, both of Isfahan, chose to disregard Bahá'u'lláh's
strong injunction and began plotting to rid 'Akká and the exiles of the
incubus of those evil men. There was such commotion afoot throughout the
whole community that Bahá'u'lláh secluded Himself from all. He did what He
had done in Adrianople at the time the rebellion of Mirza Yahya was about to
come into the open, receiving no one, meeting no one.
Despite all this, these seven men persisted in their plans and committed
those foul murders. Thus died Siyyid Muhammad-i-Isfahani, the Antichrist of
the Bahá'í Revelation; the irredeemable Aqa Jan-i-Kaj-Kulah, the right-hand
man of Siyyid Muhammad from the days of Adrianople; and the fickle Mirza
Rida-Quliy-i-Tafrishi.
Let it be said at once that nothing condones murder. But the pressures to
which the Bahá'ís were subjected can be measured by the fact that one of the
seven men who murdered the Azalis was Aqa 326 Husayn-i-Ashchi, whose
recollections we have often quoted in these pages. Aqa Husayn, it is true,
was headstrong and self-willed, even standing up to the highest among the
authorities. But he had grown up in the household of Bahá'u'lláh from the
early days in Baghdad, and his devotion was total and hard to match. Yet at
this juncture he succumbed to the pressures inflicted on the Bahá'ís by
their adversaries.
As it happened, the three Azalis were lodged in a house fronting the Seraye.
The sound of pistol shots, and of shouts and yelling, brought Salih Pasha,
the Mutasarrif, from his house. And then pandemonium broke out. Aqa Rida
writes: 'All, young and old, notables and humble folk, the Governor, the
Chief of Police, and troops rose up, as if a powerful state had made an
attack on them. Armed with stones and sticks, swords and rifles, they set
out towards the house of the Blessed Perfection and the houses of the
companions, arresting whomever they met. The Mutasarrif and his retinue and
troops gathered around the house of the Blessed Perfection. It was now late
in the afternoon . . .'
As was His custom at this time of day, Bahá'u'lláh was absorbed in the
revelation of verses: 'Verily, the sea of calamity hath surged, and gales
have overtaken the Ark of God, the All-Encompassing, the Self-Subsistent. O
Mariner! Be not daunted by gales, for He Who is the Breaker of Dawns is with
Thee in this darkness which hath enveloped the worlds'.5
It was an hour after sunset that an army officer, an official whom
Muhammad-Javad names as Sa'id Big, and Ilyas 'Abbud came into the biruni. Th
e Most Great Branch, Aqa Muhammad-'Aliy-i-Isfahani, Husayn-Aqay-i-Tabrizi
and Muhammad-Javad-i-Qazvini were there. They were asked by the officials to
accompany them to the Seraye. Then they requested that Bahá'u'lláh should
come as well. The Most Great Branch went into the inner quarters and
presented their request to Bahá'u'lláh. He came out of the house, and, as it
was quite dark, a man led the way with a lantern.
Aqa Rida tells us that all who encountered Him on that walk to the
Government House marvelled at the power emanating from His person. One of
the inhabitants of 'Akká, who saw Him on that day, instantly came to believe
in Him and joined the ranks of the companions. 327
The Guardian of the Bahá'í Faith writes:
The consternation that seized an already oppressed community was
indescribable. Bahá'u'lláh's indignation knew no bounds. 'Were
We,' He thus voices His emotions, in a Tablet revealed shortly after this
act had been committed, 'to make mention of what befell Us, the
heavens would be rent asunder and the mountains would crumble.'6
When Bahá'u'lláh entered the Seraye, Muhammad-Javad-i-Qazvini writes, Salih
Pasha, the Mutasarrif, Salim Mulki, the head of the secretariat, and other
officials present stood up before Him. Bahá'u'lláh walked in and took a seat
at the top end of the room. There was utter silence until, at last, the
commandant of the garrison spoke: 'Is it meet that your men should commit
such a heinous deed?' To which Bahá'u'lláh replied: 'Should a soldier under
your command break a rule, would you be held responsible and punished for
it?' Again there was total silence until Bahá'u'lláh rose up, according to
Aqa Rida, and went into another room.
Then, officials went in search of other companions. Mirza Muhammad-Quli,
Mirza Muhammad-'Ali, the second surviving son of Bahá'u'lláh, and Mirza Aqa
Jan were brought in. But since Aqay-i-Kalim was indisposed they let him be.
Throughout that night, Muhammad-Javad-i-Qazvini writes, the whole town was
in great commotion. That same night a Russian steamer cast anchor before
'Akká, and immediately officials banned all entry to or exit from that ship.
Four hours after sunset, they took Bahá'u'lláh away from the office of the
Mutasarrif and lodged him, together with His son, Mirza Muhammad-'Ali, in a
room in Khan-i-Shavirdi, while the Most Great Branch was led to the Liman
(prison), and Aqa Mirza Muhammad-Quli was taken elsewhere. Mirza Aqa Jan was
allowed to go home and bring all that Bahá'u'lláh required for the night.
Then he was placed with a number of other companions in the gaol of the
Seraye. The Guardian of the Bahá'í Faith writes of these events:
Bahá'u'lláh was . . . kept in custody the first night, with one
of His sons, in a chamber in the Khan-i-Shavirdi,[1] transferred for
the following two 328
nights to better quarters in that neighbourhood, and allowed only thrown
after the lapse of seventy hours to regain His home. 'Abdu'l-Bahá was
into prison and chained during the first night, after which He was
permitted to join His Father. Twenty-five of the companions were cast
into another prison and shackled . . .7
[1 Khan-i-Shavirdi is one of the caravanserais of 'Akká. Its date of
construction is uncertain but it was probably built by al-Jazzar or Sulayman
Pasha. In its south-eastern corner is the Burju's-Sultan, the only one still
standing of the numerous Crusader towers that once surrounded 'Akká. The
eastern wing of this khan is adjacent to the Liman and was used as an
extension of it. Thus this is probably where Bahá'u'lláh and His son were
imprisoned.]
Aqa Rida relates the case of Haji 'Ali-'Askar, the same devoted soul who, at
Adrianople, voluntarily accepted banishment to 'Akká and incarceration
there. This veteran of the Faith had come face to face with the Báb, decades
before, and had readily espoused His Cause. Now, not having been out of his
house that day, he had not been arrested and taken away. But being informed
of the detention of his fellow believers, he could not rest that night, and
at dawn hurried to the Seraye and knocked at the gate. Although told to go
away and not make a nuisance of himself, he continued to knock, insisting
that he should share their fate. He would not hold his peace until he was
pushed into prison with the rest of the companions. Aqa Rida also states
that Mirza Muhammad-Quli was detained in the same room with Bahá'u'lláh.
Finally, the Mutasarrif cabled all that had occurred to Subhi 329
Pasha,[1] the Vali of Syria, who took exception at once to the way
Bahá'u'lláh had been treated and reprimanded the Mutasarrif. The next day,
He was moved to the rooms above the Liman. In the afternoon of the third
day, Muhammad-Javad writes, Bahá'u'lláh, the Most Great Branch, Mirza
Muhammad-'Ali and Mirza Muhammad-Quli were led once again to the office of
the Mutasarrif. Bahá'u'lláh had a slight fever that day, and when He told
the Mutasarrif and the Mufti that they had not acted according to the edicts
of God, the Mutasarrif informed Him that He was free to return home; as He
rose to go, they all stood up and humbly apologized for their high-handed
behaviour. Then He and the Most Great Branch, as well as Mirza
Muhammad-'Ali, Mirza Muhammad-Quli and Mirza Aqa Jan, walked home."
[1 According to British consular records, Subhi Pasha arrived in Damascus 27
October 1871 to take up duties as Governor-General; he remained Governor
until January 1873. (FO 195 976 and 1027)]
(H.M. Balyuzi, Baha'u'llah - The King of Glory, p. 323)
Heather Carr-Rowe
disbelieveth in God is neither trustworthy nor truthful."
' A most dangerous principle to base any civilization on, proving once
again the core fascism of the false prophet of Mazandaran. Who gets to
decide which definition of "God" is the right one? What does belief have
to do with anything? What difference does it make to the Ground of
Being what notions are held about it at any given time?? '
Dear Wahid,
I agree that the drawing of such lines is dangerous: those who believe in
God according to my definition vs. everyone else.
It is this very excuse Elijah used to justify the mass murder of 450
prohets of Baal on Mount Carmel. It is this very excuse that has been used
by Jews, Christians, and Muslims to justify the slaughter of thousands, of
millions of innocents.
Does this fact negate the legitmacy of the spiritual experiences of all
star...@yahoo.com
killing Azali's. He was lamenting because these murders could "harm
him" by causing persecution or legal judgments. We have to ask why were
bahais killing Babis in the first place? Was not MHAN directly or
indirectly responsible for these acts in that he was
appropriating/subsuming the Babi movement into his own movement. Would
it not have been wiser to have no religion than to have his followers
finding it necessary to kill off the religionist (Azali's) that he was
standing on? Why was it so necessary for him to spread teachings in
spite of the fact that killings had to take place so his teachings
would be spread? Are not these same teachings given in previous
religions throughout the world? No matter what the teaching, if it be
energized by false intent and force, it will not bear the fruit of
harmony in the world.
Intent, intent, intent.
Starr*
darrick...@yahoo.com
Heather Carr-Rowe wrote:
> "Know thou for a certainty that whoso
> disbelieveth in God is neither trustworthy nor truthful."
>
> ' A most dangerous principle to base any civilization on, proving
once
> again the core fascism of the false prophet of Mazandaran. Who gets
to
> decide which defintion of "God" is the right one? What does belief
have
> to do with anything? What difference does it make to the Ground of
> Being what notions are held about it at any given time?? '
DARRICK: Why the answer is simple! Atheists and Liberal Humanists get
to dictate to the rest of us because they don't believe in God.
Therefore, whatever THEY say is TRUE and should be followed!!!
>
> Dear Wahid,
>
> I agree that the drawing of such lines is dangerous: those who
believe in
> God according to my definition vs. everyone else.
>
> It is this very excuse Elijah used to justify the mass murder of 450
> prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel. It is this very excuse that has
been used
> by Jews, Christians, and Muslims to justify the slaughter of
thousands, of
> millions of innocents.
DARRICK: "MILLIONS" were slaughtered by kings and princes who wanted
more money and land; not because they were Christians or Muslims etc.
Name me a "war" and I'll show you the reason, and the reason is always
money and power; not religion. The only person I know who went to war
over religion was Muhammad, but even He had to give the spoils to His
men or most of them would not have followed Him.
DARRICK: Abraham said the same thing to Levi and Judah when they
murdered an entire Canaanite village (by strategem) because one of the
Canaanites from that village slept with (did NOT rape) their sister!
Abraham did not turn them over to the authorities, but said "You have
caused my name to stink!" He did nothing to his sons, but protected
them.
Heather Carr-Rowe
'You say Mirza Husayn Ali Nuri (MHAN) lamented his followers
killing Azali's.'
Balyuzi's words not mine. Whether or not Baha'u'llah actually gave the O.K.
for those murders to be commited is very much in doubt, very much in
question. Still, He was admittedly in the know about those plans and should
have gone to the authorities to circumvent them. That He didn't doesn't
reflect too well on Him, even if he never actually gave the O.K. as Bayani's
alledge.
Your claim that Baha'u'llah somehow 'appropriated' the Babi movement into
His own is fallacious. Clearly, He believed Himself to be "He Whom God shall
make manifest", the one the Bab had spoke of. The very human spiritual
experience He went through in the Siyah-Chal brought Him come to that
conclusion.
Whatever the facts of the matter, which can never be proven empirically;
whether or not He actually was that one the Bab foretold of, He was within
His right as a human being to believe that He was that one. This is what the
legitimate, inviolability of the human spiritual experience is in my view.
This inviolable human right to interpret one's own spiritual experiences,
as well as the right of others to believe in what has been concluded by the
one who has undergone those experiences is true freedom of religion, true
freedom of human spiritual expression and experience.
It is obvious though that any and all negative aspects of the behaviors of
religionists are their own individual responcibility, not the responcibility
of the founders of religion.
The founders of religion, Baha'u'llah included, can and do contribute
indirectly to the negative behaviors of religionist though; through giving
voice to teachings such as these:
"Know thou for a certainty that whoso disbelieveth in God is neither
trustworthy nor truthful. This, indeed, is the truth, the undoubted truth.
He that acteth treacherously towards God will, also, act treacherously
towards his king. Nothing whatever can deter such a man from evil, nothing
can hinder him from betraying his neighbor, nothing can induce him to walk
uprightly."
Clearly such teachings are of questionable value.
Like I said even if Baha'u'llah was not directly involved through giving
the O.K. to the murders, He was still complicit in that He was aware of the
plans for those murders and did not take the necessary steps for those
murders to be prevented. There would be legal consequences for such
complicity today, back then in Palestine probably not.
It could be, as you pointed out, that such a failure on Baha'u'llah's part
to disclose to the authorities plans for murder to which He was privy have
doomed The World Order of Baha'u'llah from the get go. Clearly, such a
failure to prevent murders, if not explicitly criminal, is most clearly
negligent, questionable.
If a person today was to similarily fail to prevent murders which they were
privy to the plans of, they could be charged as accessories to those
murders. Whether they would be found guilty is another matter, a matter of
intent.
It is when religionists divorce the human aspect of the founders of their
religion from the divine aspect that such negative behaviors of religions,
and religionists arise.
In spite of the negative behaviors of Babis, in spite of the negative
behaviors of Baha'is, the original spiritual experiences of the founders of
those religions remains legitimate. So to with the spiritual experience of
the founders of all other religions.
Both Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha' were well aware of the negative
manifestations of religions, that they did not prevent these negative
manifestations from occuring in the Baha'i Faith, that They were indirectly
guilty of facillitating such negative manifestations does not negate the
legitimacy of their human spiritual experience. I does show though That They
were both, after all, simply of the one hundred billion human beings to have
graced and disgraced this planet, our earth; of those who we are all ' as
one soul' with.
Yours Larry
wahid...@gmail.com
refer to Browne and the links I put up. You are acting the biased
apologist and your case is weak.
W
wahid...@gmail.com
>Does this fact negate the legitimacy of the spiritual experiences of
all
>Jews, Christians and Muslims?
In the context of triumphalism, yes, it most certainly does.
>Baha'is have blood on their hands as well for the very same reason.
Because
>their 'religion' became a possession, a property to be defended using
>whatever means available, even murder:
<Balyuzi snipped>
Balyuzi has as much credibility on pontificating on Baha'is murders of
Bayanis as the Office of the Inquisition has in defending its actions
in the 14th-19th centuries. Besides he is whitewashing.
>So Baha'is 'officially' admit that at least three Azali's were
murdered in
>Akka, and one in Baghdad. From what your saying Nima there were
several more
>Azali's murdered by Baha'is.
Not only from what I am saying, but from what everyone else besides you
baha'is is saying and providing solid evidence for. Kindly refer to the
links you refuse to address.
>It is your's and Bayani's contention that He was not only aware of
those
>plans but that He O.K.ed them.
It is not contention. It is proven fact that he orchestrated them -
all.
<sermonizing snipped>
W
Ergo why your defense of baha'i reeks of hypocrisy.
Heather Carr-Rowe
Larry: "Does this fact negate the legitimacy of the spiritual experiences of
all Jews, Christians and Muslims?"
Nima: ' In the context of triumphalism, yes, it most certainly does.'
Agreed, triumphalism is the scourge and bane of 'religion'. Actually by the
time that triumphalism begins manifesting the more negative aspects of it's
spiritual malady: zealotry, fanatic fundamentalism, it is fair to say that
the term 'religion' no longer applies to what the religionists afflicted
with that malady are practicing, they have become true blue cultists no
matter what their 'religious' affiliation.
This of course applies equally to The Baha'i Faith or Baha'ism as you term
it.
I don't defend cultism in any 'religion'.
The great irony with the Baha'i Faith is that Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha'
were well aware of the fact that postive 'religion': human spiritual
experience and expression has the potential to become negative cultism.
Indeed that the transistion from positive religion to negative cultism seems
inevitable, inexhorable.
It is my belief that this seemingly inevitable process comes about through
the natural Senex/Puer Aeternus dynamic.
It is a great irony that it is mystics that initiate religion and that
because of the Senex/ Puer Aeternus dynamic they are eventually forced from
religion because of that very mystic quality which originated their
religion.
Both Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha' were aware that because progress in
science, logic and reason is not static but dynamic, the point at which
religion and reason meet is dynamic as well. As we progress this point moves
forward, or at least it should.
I agree with Abdu'l-Baha's following assessment of religion: "If religion
were contrary to logical reason then it would cease to be a religion. "
The Haifan Baha'i Faith as it is led by The Universal House of Justice
today fulfills the above condition of Abdu'l-Baha's. Just one example is
needed : the exclusion of women from The Universal House of Justice is quite
clearly contrary to logical reason.
The Haifan Baha'i Faith as it is led by The Universal House of Justice
today fulfills this condition of Abdu'l-Baha's as well : "Any religion
which is not a cause of love and unity is no religion. "
I also acknowledge that the following words of Abdu'l-Baha' apply to the
Haifan Baha'i Faith as it is led by The Universal House of Justice today: "
If religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred and division, it were better
to be without it, and to withdraw from such a religion would be a truly
religious act. For it is clear that the purpose of a remedy is to cure; but
if the remedy should only aggravate the complaint it had better be left
alone."
It is for this reason that I sent my letter of withdrawal to my N.S.A. and
The Universal House of Justice.
Whether or not they accept my withdrawal under the understanding that I
specified remains to be seen:
'I will withdraw from the Baha'i Faith on this understanding and this
understanding alone : that since the Baha'i Faith as it currently exists
meets the requirement of Abdu'l-Baha' of a religion which has become " a
cause of dislike, hatred and division ", that it would be better for me " to
be without it." That " to withdraw from such a religion would be a truly
religious act. "
This is the only basis on which I can withdraw from the Baha'i Faith. '
It is for my own spiritual well being that I'm going through this process
Nima. I still stand by my motive for signing by declaration card thirty five
years ago as being sound.
It is not necessary for 'religions' to become cults. That they seem to
inevitably do so is, I believe, because we as a kind have still not out
grown the animal instinct of territoriality.
For whatever reasons many of my personal spiritual experiences in my life
have been thematically related to Baha'i imageries. If I were to ignore this
fact I would be ignoring a part of who I am. Ignoring aspects of oneself
never has positive outcomes.
My personal spiritual experiences have also shown me that there is genuine
illumination to be had in the teachings of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha, this
in spite of their very human failings and foibles.
As Matthew Fox continues to think of himself as Christian even though he
has been excommunicated by the Catholic church for being too forward
looking, I will continue to think of myself of a Baha'i, as a person of
Baha', even if I am excommunicated from the Baha'i Faith or they accept my
withdrawal under the understanding that I expressed.
Matthew's deep ecumenism offers far more hope of reconciling the world's
religions than the Haifan Baha'i Faith does; the Haifan Baha'i Faith can not
even reconcile it's own coreligionists!
It is odd, I had thought that I'd dealt with all the cultish aspects of the
Faith long ago and had put them behind me. Even though I know in my heart
that I'd distanced myself from the spiritually unhealthy acts of the Baha'i
A.O. , since I remained a Baha'i in good standing those acts still colored
my spiritual life in a subtle and inexplicable way. I never realized it
until after I sent my withdrawal letter to my N.S.A. and The Universal House
of Justice.
The sending of that letter brought on a catharsis that I was not expecting,
a healing that lifted a pall from me that I was unaware of.
Although it may not seem so to you Nima, I'm feeling much better thank you.
There is only us, we are them, 'as one soul'.
Yours Larry
.
wahid...@gmail.com
Abdu'l-Baha'
>were well aware of the fact that postive 'religion': human spiritual
>experience and expression has the potential to become negative
cultism.
Not only aware, they were responsible for creating it and participating
in it in their own lifetimes.
> I don't defend cultism in any 'religion'.
You don't have to. You are a full participant of it.
<snip>
Heather Carr-Rowe
There is one cult that the symptoms of are quite obvious. It is the cult of
Meism.
One major symptom of membership in this cult is that the afficted see
everyone elses beliefs as evidence of their cultishness while overlooking
the fact that their 'religion' of seeing the imagined cultishness of others
is the most insideous cult of all: Meism.
Give up your Meism Nima, it denigrates your intelligence.
Yours Larry
star...@yahoo.com
The following is from a great man and broadcaster in America a man
called Earl Nightingale ...
One of the many lessens we should learn is to follow our own dreams.
"GOOD LEADERS ARE HARD TO FIND, SO I AM NOW FOLLOWING MYSELF".
and this that follows.
Don't Follow The Follower
Processionary caterpillars travel in long, undulating lines, one
creature behind the other. Jean Hanri Fabre, the French entomologist,
once lead a group of these caterpillars onto the rim of a large
flowerpot so that the leader of the procession found himself nose to
tail with the last caterpillar in the procession, forming a circle
without end or beginning.
Through sheer force of habit and, of course, instinct, the ring of
caterpillars circled the flowerpot for seven days and seven nights,
until they died from exhaustion and starvation. An ample supply of food
was close at hand and plainly visible, but it was outside the range of
the circle, so the caterpillars continued along the beaten path.
People often behave in a similar way. Habit patterns and ways of
thinking become deeply established, and it seems easier and more
comforting to follow them than to cope with change, even when that
change may represent freedom, achievement, and success.
If someone shouts, "Fire!" it is automatic to blindly follow the crowd,
and many thousands have needlessly died because of it. How many stop to
ask themselves: Is this really the best way out of here?
So many people "miss the boat" because it's easier and more comforting
to follow - to follow without questioning the qualifications of the
people just ahead - than to do some independent thinking and checking.
A hard thing for most people to fully understand is that people in such
numbers can be so wrong, like the caterpillars going around and around
the edge of the flowerpot, with life and food just a short distance
away. If most people are living that way, it must be right, they think.
But a little checking will reveal that throughout all recorded history
the majority of mankind has an unbroken record of being wrong about
most things, especially important things. For a time we thought the
earth was flat and later we thought the sun, stars, and planets
traveled around the Earth. Both ideas are now considered ridiculous,
but at the time they were believed and defended by the vast majority of
followers. In the hindsight of history we must have looked like those
caterpillars blindly following the follower out of habit rather than
stepping out of line to look for the truth.
It's difficult for people to come to the understanding that only a
small minority of people ever really get the word about life, about
living abundantly and successfully. Success in the important
departments of life seldom comes naturally, no more naturally than
success at anything - a musical instrument, sports, fly-fishing,
tennis, golf, business, marriage, parenthood.
But for some reason most people wait passively for success to come to
them - like the caterpillars going around in circles, waiting for
sustenance, following nose to tail - living as other people are living
in the unspoken, tacit assumption that other people know how to live
successfully.
It's a good idea to step out of the line every once in a while and look
around to see if the line is going where we want it to go. If it is
not, it might be time for a new leader and a new direction.
For those who have tried repeatedly to break a habit of some kind, only
to repeatedly fail, Mary Pickford said, "Falling is not failing, unless
you fail to get up." Most people who finally win the battle over a
habit they have wanted to change have done so only after repeated
failures. And it's the same with most things.
The breaking of a long-time habit does seem like the end of the road at
the time - the complete cessation of enjoyment. Suddenly dropping the
habit so fills our minds with the desire for the old habitual way that,
for a while, it seems there will no longer be any peace, any sort of
enjoyment. But that's not true. New habits form in a surprisingly short
time, and a whole new world opens up to us.
So, if you've been trying to start in a new direction, you might do
well to remember the advice of Mary Pickford: breaking an old habit
isn't the end of the road; it's just a bend in the road. And falling
isn't failing, unless you don't get up.
Earl Nightingale
Taken from weekly mesages and thoughts from Spiritis
www.LoveWithoutEnd.com
"Follow Jeshua and GOD through your own Soul.
Your higher Self will lead the way".
Starr*
wahid...@gmail.com
cult of
>Meism.
Speak for yourself, larry.
Heather Carr-Rowe
I do Nima, but your anti-Baha'ism, your anti-Baha'u'llahism doesn't allow
you to see what I'm speaking of. Cultishness has many aspects. Even those
who are avowed atheists can be cultists. Cultishness is not a 'religious'
affliction alone.
Yours Larry
wahid...@gmail.com
Husayn Ali Nuri really was. The cultist is you.
W
Heather Carr-Rowe
I'm very happy for you Nima. Now that you can see so far perhaps you'll
begin being polite and well mannered as genuinely far seeing people are apt
to be. Then again maybe not.
Yours Larry