THEOLOGY, BAHA'I FAITH, HUMAN RIGHTS, ETC.
Massoud Ajami
Dear Sam:
How many peolpe do know that would die for human right?
How many people you know that would die for religion?
I think the answer is obvious. Not many one can find as Mother Tressa, but
looking into the history of the world, Crusade, Spanish Inquisitions, and so
existed and "that is what people do," you may call it human nature. History,
also shows that people are willing to die for their religion, and happened
in almost all religions.
I am not trying to take side, and God forbid if I try to hurt anyone's faith
or feeling, but sometimes you have to cut into the core, and this is with
all due respect to Bahai's people. I, as a devil's advocate would say: My
ancestor handed me my religion for 1200 years, with the standard of promised
masiha, and his signs of comming. Now, a scholar comes and claims he is the
one without regards to all told signs, which is against all of my belive
(again, this is not disrespecting someones faith, rather discussion), now,
for the cause that I may die for (people do), you expect me to bring up
"human rights" for judgment, while my right as a beliver has been
shattered, and violated! I understand that people have right to their owen
opinion and believe, but should it not to be offensive to others?
After Christ, jews and then Christians could not get along. Christians
don't have the law book; they have to use the law of moses, and the
principal and their theology went in different ways, and because of such
problem, Christians isolated theirself from jews. Now these days, when you
say Christians, you don't mean jews.
How could a moslem who believe that Prophet Muhammad is the last
massanger, and his book would be the last one, can accept any religion
and its peole after him would be "ahl-e ketAb?" This is a question to you.
Three people so far declared that they are promised Mahdi. Seyyed Muhammad
Ali Bab, in Iran; Gulam Ahmad, in Pakistan (ahmadiyyeh), and Fard Muhammad
in the US (Nation of Islam), and perhaps they would not ot the last.
[No flame or disrespect was intended]
--
Peace and Prosperity!
---==< 110 >==---
Sam Ghandchi
There is so much talk about Baha'i faith and whether
theology is of interest to soc.culture.iranian. IMO most of
the theology of Baha'i faith is NOT of interest but some of
Muslim theology is. Why? Because Iran is under an
Islamic government not under a Baha'i government. Why
doe that make a diference?
Well when I was in 11th grade, at the time of the Shah,
once one of my classmates in the class-e fegh wanted to
be exempted. He said "sir I am Jewish and so there is no
point to sit in this theology class". The instructor
answered "hey kid, we are discussing the law of
inheritance in Islam here this year. When you die, your
inheritance in this country will be divided according to
the Islamic law and not the Jewish law" I do not know if
I would say the instructor had the right to force that
boring class on anybody, whether Jewish or Muslim, but I
think he had a valid point.
In Iran, now the Islamic Shia law decides who is Ahl-e
Ketab and who is not. The Ahl-e Ketab have more rights
than the religions who are considered not Ahl-e Ketab.
For example, when the Zorastrians are considered Ahl-e
Ketab, they have more rights than when they are
considered as non-Ahl-e Ketab or atesh-parast. BTW, I
believe they are on the borderline. I hope people who
know about it would let me know. Moreover, religions
that are recognized as God's faith rather than as Satan's
worship, should have more rights and less discrimination.
For example, Buddhism in contrast to Yazidis. Again I am
speculating here. I do not know how the Yazidis of
Kerend-e Gharb near Kermanshah are treated under IRI.
So the question for Baha'is, it seems to me, as far as
theology is concerned, is
1)whether they are a recognized religion of God's faith or
are considered as Satanic and
2) whether they are considered as Ahl-e Ketab or are
considered as non-Ahl-e-Ketab.
The answer to each of the above questions means
different rights under an Islamic governement for
followers of Baha'i faith. To answer these questions,
there is no need to know how Baha'i faith considers
marriage rights. (Please note I am not saying to discuss
those issues on SCI or not, that is non of my business). I
am just saying, IMO, that theological questions that have
to do with the recognition of Baha'i faith as a religion of
God and secondly as Ahl-e Ketab, are the issues that can
make a difference in the human rights of Baha'is under
an Islamic government.
Finally, as far as I am concerned, I never knew what a
taboo Baha'i faith talk is in Iranian community. It feels
to me now that it was a taboo comparable to sex talks.
Moreover, I have noticed that whenever the issue of
woman rights is opened, quickly it degenrates into claims
about characteristics of female gender. I like to know
what is HUMAN rights. Whether the human is a Baha'i or
a woman or a Kurd or a triple discriminated Kurdish
Baha'i woman is irrelevant.
For me, I like to know what rights are HUMAN RIGHTS
and regardless of your religion, gender, nationality,
political affiliation, etc.; you are entitled to and I want to
know under ISLAMIC GOVERNMENT, how many of these
rights are possible to have.
In short, some people think that under an Islamic
government, no HUMAN RIGHTS are possible and thus to
have human rights in Iran, the Islamic Government must
first go. Some others, myself included, think that human
rights are relative in any type of state and even a secular
government may be worse than a religious government;
in this regard, just the same thing is true of monarchy
and republic forms of government. There are monarchies
such as Sweden that are democratic and have real respect
for human rights whereas there are republics such as
Iraq that are dictatorial and have no respect for human
rights.
So for me the question is what are the human rights,
what human rights are achievable under an Islamic
Government, and finally what can be done to achieve the
human rights for women, religious minorities, national
minorities, political minorities, etc. Whether death
penalty is in contradiction to human rights or not. These
are the type of questions that are on my mind.
- Sam Ghandchi
Massoud Ajami
>From: sa...@netcom.com (Sam Ghandchi)
>Subject: Re: THEOLOGY, BAHA'I FAITH, HUMAN RIGHTS, ETC.
>Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 05:05:02 GMT
>Well Masoud, you got to bear with me, because I have more
>questions than answers. First, if Muslims believe that the
>Bible of Jews and Christians is not the real book, then
>how come they are consided ahl-e ketab. I always
>thought that it was because, in the eye of Muslims, these
>people at least have some word of God in their beliefs
>although not all, and that they had tahrif such as Trinity
>(taslis), etc. Now couldn't Muslims say the same thing
>about Baha'is. Because Baha'is theology seems to be
>more than 70% that of Shia (both Baha'is and Muslims
>please correct me). So if my assumption is right, then
>the Baha'is are more eligible to be called alh-e
>ketab than the Jews or Christians, although the only
>difference is that they are not in Quran, becuase
>how could they be in there. There were no Baha'is at
>the time. But just like the SHOWER that at the time
>of Reza Shah, the Shia Olama finally accepted it
>as PAK for GHOSL (it was not accepted at first),
>the same could be used for Baha'i question. An
>evaluation like other issues that are evaluated in
>ReslAlehs.
Well my friend, your assumption is not right. First you have to evaluate,
then judge. When Prophet Muhammad says that him and his book are the last
ones, there is no more room for latter options. In the theology of Islam,
the Jews and Christians _of their time_ were nothing but Moslems, and
relation to their faith, no matter how wrong, does not disassociate them.
And on the other hand, no matter how ones theology be close to the faith, it
does not associate them! Isn't that Moslems and Budahists pray the same way?
For the second part, the shower is a judgement call of Shia's sect (its
leader). I remember that Shahrokh said that he did not think that Pfophet
Muhammad would fatwA for Rushdi to die- that is a judgment call, and has
nothing to do with the Pfophet. It is like "hand" in playing soccer, hand is
foul, but "advantage hand" which is purely judgement call, is not a foul.
This is the beauty of Shias sect that they can have this adjustment, but all
and all, none of these calls can go against the principle of the theology,
and unfortunately, Bahais, in the eyes of Shia's, have the theology going
the principle of Shiaism.
>My other question is that even if they are not considered
>ahl-e ketab, they are more more in a toohid than say
>Zorastrians. Then wouldn't they qualify to have
>at least the same rights as Zorastrians in Iran. I
>know that Zorastrians are on the border line of
>ahl-e ketab and non-ahl-e ketab.
Try to seperate an intity of a theology, than a theology against a faith.
What would be the believe of Zorastrians against Shia's faith? Even Sunnis
who deny the Immamat completely, are not against Shaia's principle. Bahais
do not have seperation. They could have their own religion, as they do; they
could have their owen prophet per sa, as they do, and they could have a
seperate intety of their own faith not related to Shia, then no one would
dare to harm, far less if their right would be abolished. _And that could
not be the judgement call_.
As for their closeness, remember the old poem "deed mosA yek shabAny rA be
rAh", and it says:
mA droon rA bengareem-o hAl rA ney broon rA bengareem-o ghAl rA.
Sam Ghandchi
: Dear Sam:
Well Masoud, you got to bear with me, because I have more
questions than answers. First, if Muslims believe that the
Bible of Jews and Christians is not the real book, then
how come they are consided ahl-e ketab. I always
thought that it was because, in the eye of Muslims, these
people at least have some word of God in their beliefs
although not all, and that they had tahrif such as Trinity
(taslis), etc. Now couldn't Muslims say the same thing
about Baha'is. Because Baha'is theology seems to be
more than 70% that of Shia (both Baha'is and Muslims
please correct me). So if my assumption is right, then
the Baha'is are more eligible to be called alh-e
ketab than the Jews or Christians, although the only
difference is that they are not in Quran, becuase
how could they be in there. There were no Baha'is at
the time. But just like the SHOWER that at the time
of Reza Shah, the Shia Olama finally accepted it
as PAK for GHOSL (it was not accepted at first),
the same could be used for Baha'i question. An
evaluation like other issues that are evaluated in
ReslAlehs.
My other question is that even if they are not considered
ahl-e ketab, they are more more in a toohid than say
Zorastrians. Then wouldn't they qualify to have
at least the same rights as Zorastrians in Iran. I
know that Zorastrians are on the border line of
ahl-e ketab and non-ahl-e ketab.
Thank you for responding Masoudt
: Three people so far declared that they are promised Mahdi. Seyyed Muhammad
Shahrokh Mortazavi
ok, massoud, ill play devils advocate too...
>First you have to evaluate, then judge.
thats not good advice because if we *really* want to evaluate
and judge the validity/of the following claim:
>When Prophet Muhammad says that him and his book are the last
>ones, there is no more room for latter options.
we would find no proof to 'back it up'. who granted him
the authority to make such a convenient claim? unless you
just want to take a mans word for what its worth. remember,
there is absolutely no proof that god, assuming there is one, ever
endorsed the above statement. until this 'minor' issue is
resolved, all further actions that are based upon this rather
grandiose assumption are invalid.
so now, based on *my* assumption (that there was no devine
intervention), the bahaiis (and whoever else for that matter)
are on equal grounds with islam and have every right to their
own unique version of what god is like, how
we should/shouldnt behave, etc. now if they too, want to push
something on you with the underlying argument 'cause god says so',
they better be ready to back it up!
in summary, until theres an ounce of proof for these base
assumptions, lets not push our with godlike conviction (im not
saying you do, btw). remember, the probability of there being no
god at all, is non zero. the probability of there being a god, but never
having contacted any one on earth, is non zero. the probability
of aliens, not god, having spoken thru the prophets is non zero.
the probability of muhammad himself having been an interstellar
ambassador sent to guide man - but not from god, is non zero.
>For the second part, the shower is a judgement call of Shia's sect (its
>leader). I remember that Shahrokh said that he did not think that Pfophet
>Muhammad would fatwA for Rushdi to die- that is a judgment call, and has
>nothing to do with the Pfophet.
ok. would you say that it was a bad 'judgement call'?
btw, what is the punishment for making bad judgement calls in islam?
who distinguishes a bad judgement call from a good one and on what
basis?
cheers.
Massoud Ajami
>From: smo...@handel.Eng.Sun.COM (Shahrokh Mortazavi)
>Subject: Re: THEOLOGY, BAHA'I FAITH, HUMAN RIGHTS, ETC.
>In article <massoud.45...@chemteca.sdsu.edu> mas...@chemteca.sdsu.edu
>(Massoud Ajami) writes:
>ok, massoud, ill play devils advocate too...
>>First you have to evaluate, then judge.
>thats not good advice because if we *really* want to evaluate
>and judge the validity/of the following claim:
>>When Prophet Muhammad says that him and his book are the last
>>ones, there is no more room for latter options.
>we would find no proof to 'back it up'. who granted him
>the authority to make such a convenient claim? unless you
>just want to take a mans word for what its worth. remember,
>there is absolutely no proof that god, assuming there is one, ever
>endorsed the above statement. until this 'minor' issue is
>resolved, all further actions that are based upon this rather
>grandiose assumption are invalid.
Any evaluation requires a basis, and that is accepted
fundamentals - I never saw you, but I can not deny your
existance because we converse. And on the other hand,
you are proving my point that if one does not wants to
accept the above, then no relation should be established.
>so now, based on *my* assumption (that there was no devine
>intervention), the bahaiis (and whoever else for that matter)
>are on equal grounds with islam and have every right to their
>own unique version of what god is like, how
>we should/shouldnt behave, etc. now if they too, want to push
>something on you with the underlying argument 'cause god says so',
>they better be ready to back it up!
I am all with you. I say they are and should be a seperate
devine entity.
>in summary, until theres an ounce of proof for these base
>assumptions, lets not push our with godlike conviction (im not
>saying you do, btw). remember, the probability of there being no
>god at all, is non zero. the probability of there being a god, but never
>having contacted any one on earth, is non zero. the probability
>of aliens, not god, having spoken thru the prophets is non zero.
>the probability of muhammad himself having been an interstellar
>ambassador sent to guide man - but not from god, is non zero.
:
:
>ok. would you say that it was a bad 'judgement call'?
>btw, what is the punishment for making bad judgement calls in islam?
>who distinguishes a bad judgement call from a good one and on what
>basis?
>cheers.
There is no such a thing as "bad judgement call," if it was
bad, it wouldn't be judged! There is no godlike conviction,
but sinces the talk somehow was religious, the first accepted
fundemental for both side was the existance of God.
Kamran Hakim
In article <massoud.45...@chemteca.sdsu.edu>, massoud@chemteca.
sdsu.edu (Massoud Ajami) you write:
>Dear Sam:
>
>How many peolpe do know that would die for human right?
>How many people you know that would die for religion?
>I think the answer is obvious.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
OK! Let us examine the obvious Massoud.
>Not many one can find as Mother Tressa, but
>looking into the history of the world, Crusade, Spanish Inquisitions, and so
>existed and "that is what people do," you may call it human nature. History,
>also shows that people are willing to die for their religion, and happened
>in almost all religions.
Great inference. Please remember your line of reasoning.
>I am not trying to take side, and God forbid if I try to hurt anyone's faith
>or feeling, but sometimes you have to cut into the core, and this is with
>all due respect to Bahai's people.
This is wonderful.
>I, as a devil's advocate would say: My
>ancestor handed me my religion for 1200 years, with the standard of promised
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>masiha, and his signs of comming.
I appreciate your honesty for accepting the fact that your religion in
inherited.
>Now, a scholar comes and claims he is the
>one without regards to all told signs, which is against all of my belive
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How could you as ONE who has inherited his religion be sure that what
you believe is what was meant for you to believe. Please understand that
I do not mean any disrespect either. Please allow me to demonstrate by
offering you a couple of examples:
Pharisees viewed Jesus as a Rabbi and scholar Who made Messianic claim.
That claim was against all they believed and they rejected Him. You as
Muslim are taught to believe in Jesus as the Maseeh and you do.
Think about this issue Massoud: You are not Jewish and you do not have
to deal with the implications Jesus being Maseeh, yet since your Muslim
traditional dogma, in the context of which you were raised, dictates
the validity of the claim of Jesus you accept it without even attempting
to place your feet in the shoes of a Jewish fellow. Perhaps if you were
born in a Jewish family then as a Jew you would have viewed things
from a different perspective. Don't you agree my friend?
Massoud You were lucky enough to have been born into a Muslim family.
Your traditional belief defined for you how to deal with the claim of
Jesus relative to Jewish religion. It is wonderful to have been born in
a later religion (later relative to Jewish and Christian Faiths.) Every-
thing would be fine as long as you perceive Islam to be the last religion.
The fate of past religion has already been defined for you and you do
not have to bother yourself with trying to understand and attempting to
make a decision. All of the sudden you are faced with a mental challenge.
Someone makes claim to be the Messiah of your religion (i.e. Islam). Some-
thing terrible has happened when you come face to face with such a claim:
1- Your position is now like the Jewish fellow who lived at the time of
Jesus and your dilemma is the dilemma of that Jewish fellow.
2- As far as you know no change must take place in your religion, yet
the Claimant is making changes, and your inherited traditional belief
does not appear to support it.
Massoud, a terrible thing has happened in your life as a Muslim. Before
you were faced with such a claim (i.e. Baha'i claim) you did not have to
think about your religion. It was there and you just had to follow your
inherited dogma. Now that you are faced with such a claim you are
challenged, on a personal level to think and make a decision. The Muslim
situation is very unique and is described by the Qur'an in a very unique
and profound manner:
"And thus have we made you a MIDDLE nation that you may be the bearers
of witness to the people"
Qur'an 2:143
Muslims are the "middle nation" in the sense that they are in a unique
situation. The Qur'an offers them two examples which metaphorically
represent the situation Muslims should find themselves in. They know:
A- Jews rejected their Maseeh thinking that their religious law was
everlasting, and they were wrong.
B- Maseeh claimed to be the Promised One of the Jewish people and regardless
of Jewish rejection Maseeh was right and Christianity is a true religion.
The Muslim mind must, one way or another deal with this dilemma and face
the possibility that it may be wrong in its judgment of the Baha'i Faith
and its claims. The least significant outcome of this process could perhaps
be: "Let us learn from the history and not allow it to repeat itself."
Acceptance or rejection of Muslims of Baha'i theology is, in my humble
opinion, not as important as Muslim realization: "Let us stop theological
games and let us begin treating one another as human beings. To them their
religion and to us ours."
>(again, this is not disrespecting someones faith, rather discussion),
No offense taken.
>now,
>for the cause that I may die for (people do), you expect me to bring up
>"human rights" for judgment, while my right as a beliver has been
>shattered, and violated!
When Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, (Please don't turn yourself off!),
Pharisees also believed that their rights as believers in the laws of
Moses have "been shattered, and violated!". Don't you think so? After
all Jesus broke the Sabbath and abrogated divorce. Moreover He did not
speak highly of Pharisees religious leaders.
It is inarguably clear that Pharisees were ready to die for their beliefs.
It is also true that they rejected the claims of Jesus as being their
Messiah. It is clear that Pharisees were hurt because of the admonishments
of Jesus and His breaking of the Mosaic laws. It is also clear that as a
Muslim you would side with Christians about the truth of Christ and you
would disagree with Pharisees in their rejection of Jesus. Considering all
these: Was it right of Pharisees to mistreat Jesus and the early Christians
because of their PERCEPTION of who Jesus was? Couldn't your opinion of
Baha'i Faith be also a PERCEPTION as wrong as that of Pharisees? Think
about it. This is nothing but an issue of disagreement in perceptions.
>I understand that people have right to their owen
>opinion and believe, but should it not to be offensive to others?
I admire your sense of fairness. My opinion, as a Baha'i, of Islam must
not be offensive to a Muslim, which I totally submit to and humbly agree
with. On the other hand I know, by the virtue of experience, that a Muslim
reserve the right of persecuting or killing another, like a Pharisee's
attitude towards Jesus and early Christians, if he finds something offensive.
No matter if the offense was REAL or based on his wrong PERCEPTION. I can
only say Alleluja.
>After Christ, jews and then Christians could not get along. Christians
>don't have the law book; they have to use the law of moses, and the
>principal and their theology went in different ways, and because of such
>problem, Christians isolated theirself from jews. Now these days, when you
>say Christians, you don't mean jews.
So what? The question is was Jesus a true Prophet and was Christian religion
true. The only answer a Muslim could possibly give to these two questions
is YES.
How would you have felt about Christianity if you were born into a Jewish
family? Most probably the same way as a Jewish fellow feels about Jesus and
Christianity (i.e. Not the Messiah, and false religion.).
>How could a moslem who believe that Prophet Muhammad is the last
>massanger, and his book would be the last one, can accept any religion
>and its peole after him would be "ahl-e ketAb?" This is a question to you.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
As far as a Jewish fellow is concerned Jewish religion is the last religion
and Mosaic law is the last law. Jesus claimed to be a Messenger of God
and He abrogated the Sabbath Day, etc... So, "how could" a Jew, "accept any
religion and its people" after Moses. Does this argument ring a bell? Is the
answer to this question in the Qur'an or not?
Massoud this question is actually for you. Not for Sam. Sam doesn't care
about theology as you do. He is attempting to see Baha'is, Muslims, Jews,
Christians and Zoroasterians, Hindus and Buddhists, etc... as human beings
without religious labels. He is interested to know how people such as
yourself could not ascend above your dogma to treat Baha'is as human beings.
Pharisees were convinced, as you are, that they had understood the Torah,
thus capable of realizing their Messiah. Yet, you are obliged to agree
based on your belief that they failed in their judgment. Guess who Muslims
are expected to emulate:
Prophet Muhammad said:
"You [i.e. Muslims. KH] shall follow the practices of those who were before
you, span by span and cubit by cubit, so much so that if they entered the
hole of a lizard, you will follow them." (Ahmad)
Abdullah bin Amr bin al-Aas reported Prophet Muhammad saying:
"My Ummah [i.e. nation, people] will undergo and experience all those
conditions which were suffered by the bani-Israel in a manner of
resemblance in which a shoe of a pair resembles the other shoe."
(Tirmidhi)
Isn't it possible that there might be different ways to understand the
verses of the Qur'an. After all the Qur'an says:
"To every people is a term appointed: when their term is reached not
an hour can they cause delay nor (an hour) can they advance."
O children of Adam, verily apostles from among you shall come unto you,
[The Arabic original reads as: "Ya Bani Aadam imaa Ya'tianakum rosolo
minkum.....". KH] who shall expound my signs unto you: whosoever there-
fore shall fear God and amend, there shall come no fear on them, neither
shall they be grieved."
Qur'an 7:34-35
>Three people so far declared that they are promised Mahdi. Seyyed Muhammad
>Ali Bab, in Iran; Gulam Ahmad, in Pakistan (ahmadiyyeh), and Fard Muhammad
>in the US (Nation of Islam), and perhaps they would not ot the last.
And it is up to you as a Muslim to remove your dogmatic sun glass and judge
these claims and treat the believers of these claims (i.e. Baha'is in this
case) as humans. Live and let live. This is a plea for life and equal rights.
The theological arguments presented are simply an attempt to communicate
with you in a language you can relate to.
>[No flame or disrespect was intended]
I appreciate it. Thank you for attempting to talk about this issue.
Warm regards,
Kamran Hakim
Sam Ghandchi
: In article <2pms3k$i...@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> smo...@handel.Eng.Sun.COM (Shahrokh Mortazavi) writes:
: >From: smo...@handel.Eng.Sun.COM (Shahrokh Mortazavi)
[ Deleted for Brevity]
: >so now, based on *my* assumption (that there was no devine
: >intervention), the bahaiis (and whoever else for that matter)
: >are on equal grounds with islam and have every right to their
: >own unique version of what god is like, how
: >we should/shouldnt behave, etc. now if they too, want to push
: >something on you with the underlying argument 'cause god says so',
: >they better be ready to back it up!
: I am all with you. I say they are and should be a seperate
: devine entity.
[Deleted for Brevity]
A question then that I have is what a pious Muslim thinks about
this. I mean I know that each individual has a Marj-e Taghlid,
if Shia, and that questions like this they confer from their
Marj-e or they read a resAleh if the Marj-e is not alive
or not available. Then I believe the pious should have
an opinion on this regardless of making a final judgement
for whole Islam (which I am not and cannot ask from a
Muslim participant on this forum anyway). So my question
again is that what a pious Muslim really thinks of the human
rights for a Baha'i individual. This is like if I was
a follower of Zen and you asked me what is the purpose
of vegetarianism in Zen, I would pronbably say I don't know.
But if you asked me what my purpose was to be a vegetarian,
I would say to be healthy and another Zen follower would
say to avoid killing. So I just want to know what the
pious friends on SCI really think about the human rights of
the Baha'is no matter what the Islam as a whole thinks, which
would also be nice to know if we could confer the ideas
of a few ayatollahs as well. But both of these are
of interest to me to understand.
TIA,
- SamG
Massoud Ajami
>From: ha...@bigq.enet.dec.com (Kamran Hakim)
>Subject: Re: THEOLOGY, BAHA'I FAITH, HUMAN RIGHTS, ETC.
>Date: Sat, 30 Apr 1994 15:20:48 GMT
>How could you as ONE who has inherited his religion be sure that what
>you believe is what was meant for you to believe. Please understand that
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Massoud You were lucky enough to have been born into a Muslim family.
Dear Kamran:
I read your responce. Also, I read your responces on SRI too when I get
time. Sinces this is not a religious forum, I am not willing to carry on
this thread any more. I made my point and you made yours, but just for
information:
I would not sit back and let some one else to define my believe for
me.
I am Muslem not because I was born into one. I choosed to be Shia
while I study Christianity, judaism, Islam, and believe or not,
I read IghAn and aghdas also, and in its original text. And my
finding should be mine!
Regards.
Kamran Hakim
KH>How could you as ONE who has inherited his religion be sure that what
KH>you believe is what was meant for you to believe. Please understand that
KH> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
KH>Massoud You were lucky enough to have been born into a Muslim family.
In article <massoud.44...@chemteca.sdsu.edu>, massoud@chemteca.
sdsu.edu (Massoud Ajami) you write:
MA>Dear Kamran:
MA>
MA>I read your responce. Also, I read your responces on SRI too when I get
MA>time. Sinces this is not a religious forum, I am not willing to carry on
MA> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
MA>this thread any more. I made my point and you made yours,
MA>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Salaam Massoud,
Your reason is understandable and I agree with you that such discussion
is irrelevant to this newsgroup.
MA>but just for information:
MA>
MA> I would not sit back and let some one else to define my believe for
MA> me.
This is wonderful to know. I am convinced that we need more people such as
yourself who think and choose for themselves rather than floating by the
traditional currents.
MA> I am Muslem not because I was born into one. I choosed to be Shia
MA> while I study Christianity, judaism, Islam,
My goal in making the statement about inherited beliefs was not to be
disrespectful, but to point out an underlying social norm. If any offense
is taken I apologize to you. I made my comment because in your original
posting you said:
"My ancestor handed me my religion for 1200 years, with the standard of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
promised masiha, and his signs of comming. Now, a scholar comes and claims
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
he is the one without regards to all told signs, which is against all of
my belive..." [Massoud Ajami] The implications of your particular wording
was rather clear. Arabs of the time of Prophet Muhammad also had their
ancestral religious assumptions which were at odds with Islam. Jews had
their ancestral religious assumptions which were at odds with Christianity
and Christian, etc...
Massoud, in a dynamic world we cannot indefinitely live according to static
rules. Rules can only remain static for a period of time before they loose
their relevance, thus, reference to appearance of Messiahs and progression
of religious laws.
MA>and believe or not,
MA> I read IghAn and aghdas also, and in its original text. And my
MA> finding should be mine!
I am looking forward to hear your comments either privately or in a relevant
forum.
Warm regards,
Kamran Hakim
ha...@bigq.enet.dec.com
Sam Ghandchi
: Dear Sam:
: How many peolpe do know that would die for human right?
: How many people you know that would die for religion?
[Deleted for Brevity]
Yes #1 not that many, and yes #2 a lot.
Dying for human rights takes a lot of PERSONAL CONVICTION.
Some of the ones in Vietnam who set themselves ablaze to
voice their conviction. I posted something on that. Yes
not many, but the ones who do it have a good understanding
of why they are dying. It is not MASS conviction, it is
PERSONAL conviction. In other words the people who work
hard for human rights have independently and for thei
own persoanl reasons come to that conclusion but they
join together. Religious or ideological or political
MASS movements are the reverse.
In contrast, the ones who die for religion are note
necessarily aware and mostly in history have acted
out of prejudice than awareness. The example of
CRUSADES is perhaps unmatched. But again not
every religion and not every time. For example
the Early Christains died out of conviction and
not out of prejudice. May be when a religion is
not in power, the case is different I really
do not know. I read a book called TRUE BELIEVER
by ERIC HOFFER which is a short interesting book
on the topic. But I think it was not regorous (sp?
and was ban-e tonbani in some parts but it was
touching on a lot of pertinent issues and
pragmatic answers that were hard to challenge.a
- Sam Ghandchi
Shahrokh Mortazavi
[discussion deleted...]
kamran (+ other bahaiis),
id like to ask you a hypothetical question. so suppose this is the
year 2500 and a new 'prophet' has risen and thru some loophole, creative
interpretation of verse x, etc. etc., comes up with an argument that
_he_ is the one to be followed now. he also insists on making
nontrivial changes to islamic and especially bahaii beliefs. the
question now is how would bahaiis react to this? would he be given
equal chance to preach, considering his fundamental modifications to
bahaiism? to put it more succintly, do bahaiis believe that there
will be further religions/prophets sent by god? and if yes, will
bahaiis be willing to adopt it, especially if its teaching are at
odds with existing bahaii beliefs?
thanks.
Saman
(Shahrokh Mortazavi) writes...
:>In article Kamran Hakim <ha...@bigq.enet.dec.com> wrote:
:>
:>
:>[discussion deleted...]
:>
:>kamran (+ other bahaiis),
:>
:>id like to ask you a hypothetical question. so suppose this is the
:>year 2500 and a new 'prophet' has risen and thru some loophole, creative
:>interpretation of verse x, etc. etc., comes up with an argument that
:>_he_ is the one to be followed now. he also insists on making
:>nontrivial changes to islamic and especially bahaii beliefs. the
:>question now is how would bahaiis react to this?
Baha'u'llah specifically states that no Messenger will appear before
at least 1000 years from Baha'u'llah's Revelation; so about 2863.
But there is no doubt that other Messengers from God will appear.
:> would he be given
:>equal chance to preach, considering his fundamental modifications to
:>bahaiism?
This is my own personal view: since in the Baha'i Faith the line of
succession is clear and today we follow the Universal House of Justice
(comprised of nine men - this is if Amir does not read this posting!)
, it would be logical for the next Manfestation to approach the
UHJ first. In the Constitution of UHJ, it is written that that
Institution in charge until the appearance of the next Messenger.
It would be up to the UHJ to decided the truth of someone's claim.
;>to put it more succintly, do bahaiis believe that there
:>will be further religions/prophets sent by god? and if yes, will
:>bahaiis be willing to adopt it, especially if its teaching are at
:>odds with existing bahaii beliefs?
:>
:>thanks.
>
Baha'u'llah writes "The All-Knowing physician hath His finger on the
pulse of mankind. He preceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His
unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every
soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its
present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent
age may require."
Therefore, it would be odd if some of the teachings of the next Manifestation
were not different from the teachings of the Baha'i Faith.
regards,
---------------------------------
Saman Ahmadi
e-mail: s0a...@zeus.tamu.edu
---------------------------------
Hooshyar Naraghi
smo...@handel.Eng.Sun.COM (Shahrokh Mortazavi) writes:
>In article Kamran Hakim <ha...@bigq.enet.dec.com> wrote:
>
>
>[discussion deleted...]
>
>kamran (+ other bahaiis),
Well, aside from the joke that ends in "akheh ye mosbat manfish avazi shod,"
I ought to be a +.
>id like to ask you a hypothetical question. so suppose this is the
>year 2500 and a new 'prophet' has risen and thru some loophole, creative
>interpretation of verse x, etc. etc., comes up with an argument that
>_he_ is the one to be followed now. he also insists on making
>nontrivial changes to islamic and especially bahaii beliefs. the
>question now is how would bahaiis react to this? would he be given
>equal chance to preach, considering his fundamental modifications to
>bahaiism? to put it more succintly, do bahaiis believe that there
>will be further religions/prophets sent by god? and if yes, will
>bahaiis be willing to adopt it, especially if its teaching are at
>odds with existing bahaii beliefs?
I think it was Saman who offered the Baha'i Faith's view about the next
prophet and I wouldn't repeat his comments here. Additionally, in the
context of your hypothetical question I wanted to add that I speculate
that the next prophet will not suffer mental cruelty and physical suffrage
in the hands of the followers of the previous religion.
With the cancerous peace inititives and the more integration of the human
race into one united organism, I can visualize a scenario in 2863 or around
that year similar to those Confederation Conferences we used to see in
Star Trek (old or new). The challenging of the new prophet will be more
civilized (whatever it means in the mind of the reader) and less bloody.
>thanks.
You're welcome.
Regards,
Hooshyar F. Naraghi
bav...@netcom.com
(415) 324-1055
shahrokh mortazavi
>Baha'u'llah specifically states that no Messenger will appear before
>at least 1000 years from Baha'u'llah's Revelation; so about 2863.
>But there is no doubt that other Messengers from God will appear.
thanks for your reply saman. its refreshing to hear that bahaiism
allows this degree of en'etAf paziri.
the intention behind my hypothetical question was actually
to create a situation similar to what muslims face today... so
given that baha'u'llah claims the next prophet wont come
until 2863, let me ask the question again: what happens if
a person claims to be a prophet of god before then and starts
preaching his evolutionary version of bahaiism. how will he/she,
and the followers of bahaiism++ be treated under the current
bahaii doctrine? (assuming the uhj rejects the authenticity).
shahrokh mortazavi
...
>>kamran (+ other bahaiis),
> ^^^^^^^
>Well, aside from the joke that ends in "akheh ye mosbat manfish avazi shod,"
>I ought to be a +.
hmm... havent heard that one, tell us!
>I think it was Saman who offered the Baha'i Faith's view about the next
>prophet and I wouldn't repeat his comments here. Additionally, in the
>context of your hypothetical question I wanted to add that I speculate
>that the next prophet will not suffer mental cruelty and physical suffrage
>in the hands of the followers of the previous religion.
i guess i could see the future unfold either way. one picture
is that of a homogenized, united, tolerant people (thru radically
improved global communication & travel). another more bleak
picture is a poor, sick, over populated, disease ridden society
thats further polarized by competing religions... who knows...
Hooshyar Naraghi
smo...@handel.sun.com (shahrokh mortazavi) writes:
>the intention behind my hypothetical question was actually
>to create a situation similar to what muslims face today... so
>given that baha'u'llah claims the next prophet wont come
>until 2863, let me ask the question again: what happens if
>a person claims to be a prophet of god before then and starts
>preaching his evolutionary version of bahaiism. how will he/she,
>and the followers of bahaiism++ be treated under the current
>bahaii doctrine? (assuming the uhj rejects the authenticity).
My understanding is that if the prophet and his followers are Baha'is
they will simply be asked to leave the Faith because the arrival does not
match the explicit writing (no hadis or hearsay) of Baha'u'llah. They could
still preach their new ++ version and be free to do so - I can only speculate
based on my understanding today.
If they are not Baha'is, it wouldn't matter as far as the Baha'i community
is concerned. They are still free to preach their way of life. These are
all assuming that the UHJ had already rejected the authenticity of the
alleged prophet.
Hooshyar Naraghi
(shahrokh mortazavi) writes:
>In article <bavafaCp...@netcom.com> bav...@netcom.com
(Hooshyar Naraghi) writes:
>...
>>>kamran (+ other bahaiis),
>> ^^^^^^^
>>Well, aside from the joke that ends in "akheh ye mosbat manfish avazi shod,"
>>I ought to be a +.
>
>hmm... havent heard that one, tell us!
I forgot the details. Last time I said a joke somewhere they laughed at me
more than the joke itself. I can say it was freshly imported from the No. 1
country in the world manufacturing jokes, i.e., Iran.
Mack jAn, can you help me? I know it had some mechanical/electrical
engineering components in it.
>i guess i could see the future unfold either way. one picture
>is that of a homogenized, united, tolerant people (thru radically
>improved global communication & travel). another more bleak
>picture is a poor, sick, over populated, disease ridden society
>thats further polarized by competing religions... who knows...
In fact, if we look around both versions are being unfolded before our very
own eyes right now. It appears the peaceful treaties signed in the past
20 years have stayed in force, while there are last struggles amongst some
people within certain countries to settle their differences with bloodshed.
I tend to observe that the destructive movements are temporary and the
reconciliatory movements and cooperations are more permanent... who knows...
Cyrus Shahabi
The inhabitants of one village were very dissatisfied with the
quality of the local drinking water. After years of fruitless complaints
to the local authorities, the villages chipped in, got enough money together
to pay for a test and sent a sample of the water to a laboratory for
testing. A few weeks later they got the result of the test.
It said: "Your horse has diabetes."
-Cyrus