Baha'i Schools of Thought
jayl...@my-dejanews.com
I am pondering whether, in time, there might evolve formal schools of thought
in the Baha'i Faith, as there are in Islam (I believe they're called
madhabs). There is no living individual (or group of individuals) who can
authoritatively interpret the Baha'i Writings for anyone else. However, we
can and must interpret them for ourselves, and sometimes at least, groups of
people will interpret the Writings similarly. So could there be a day when
Baha'i scholars present a particular spin on the Writings, and then Baha'is
could feel free to decide whether that interpretation "jives" with them, and
follow it?
Could there be a day when Jack, who follows the "Maneck" school of thought,
and Jill, who follows the "Cole" school of thought, could meet up at feast
and be united as Baha'is :)?
Peace,
JayLiz
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Roger Reini
Faith. For one thing, these schools of thought would, IMHO, actually
be fomenting disunity and schism. Think about it; different schools
of thought clustering around certain individuals, where the believers
who subscribed to those schools would tend to view the initial
promulgators as leaders and ascribe authority to them. This is not a
recipe for unity.
For another, I believe that the concept of such schools would be
contrary to the Covenant. Tell me where in the Writings would there
be support for such a thing. As the Supreme Institution in the Faith,
the Universal House of Justice is the final arbiter of disputes.
Surely any polarization into schools of thought would be considered a
dispute.
Smaneck
>So could there be a day when
>Baha'i scholars present a particular spin on the Writings, and then Baha'is
>could feel free to decide whether that interpretation "jives" with them, and
>follow it?
Dear Jayliz,
It was precisely to prevent this kind of thing that the Will and Testament was
written. Keep in mind that the *madhabs* of Islam deal primarily with
interpretations of Islamic law, not theology. So it is not so much a question
of faith as it is of practice. Only the Institutions have the right to
determine proper Baha'i practice. Scholars are forbidden to engage in *ra'i* or
the formulation of legal opinion in opposition to the rulings of the
Institutions.
In Shi'ite Islam a believer is reguired to pick a *mujtahid* of interpreter
whose rulings in regards to Islam they will follow or imitate (taqlid). The
Baha'i Faith forbids both interpretation of this type (ijtihad) and imitation
(taqlid.) Abdu'l-Baha clearly did not wish scholars to be able to yeild the
same kind of authority in the Baha'i Faith that they had in Islam.
Susan Stiles Maneck
History, Stetson University
rlit...@my-dejanews.com
is for the members of that community to put forward their ideas into the pot,
so to speak, and then piece together the best resolution possible. It is a
process of unity creation, and I think that the evolution of "formal schools
of thought" might be considered divisive in many cases.
I could imagine a school of thought which stressed a hands-on approach to
resolving difficulties, and another school of thought which stressed
meditation and contemplation as (possibly) positive examples, but I would
think that a school or group which defined or redefined the meaning of the
writings in ways which would tend to produce division would not be a good
thing.
This is a very thought provoking question and I look forward to reading other
responses.
Robert A. Little
In article <7a1ivs$aoj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
jayl...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am pondering whether, in time, there might evolve formal schools of thought
> in the Baha'i Faith, as there are in Islam (I believe they're called
> madhabs). There is no living individual (or group of individuals) who can
> authoritatively interpret the Baha'i Writings for anyone else. However, we
> can and must interpret them for ourselves, and sometimes at least, groups of
> people will interpret the Writings similarly. So could there be a day when
> Baha'i scholars present a particular spin on the Writings, and then Baha'is
> could feel free to decide whether that interpretation "jives" with them, and
> follow it?
>
jrc...@umich.edu
Dear JayLiz:
I think this has already happened but that conservative Baha'is don't want to
recognize it or have it be publicly acknowledged. Also, conservatives (there
are people *far* to the right of Maneck) right now have tended to capture the
Baha'i institutions, and they are attempting to use that hegemony to exclude
the more 'liberal' schools where these seem to be becoming influential. But,
of course, they will fail, and in the long run all the madhhabs will coexist.
I think the madhhabs are an excellent analogy, because they are ways of
looking at law, and are not sectarian (Shafi`is and Malikis pray alongside
each other in Egypt).
This was an *excellent* observation!
cheers Juan
In article <7a1ivs$aoj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
jayl...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am pondering whether, in time, there might evolve formal schools of thought
> in the Baha'i Faith, as there are in Islam (I believe they're called
> madhabs). There is no living individual (or group of individuals) who can
> authoritatively interpret the Baha'i Writings for anyone else. However, we
> can and must interpret them for ourselves, and sometimes at least, groups of
> people will interpret the Writings similarly. So could there be a day when
> Baha'i scholars present a particular spin on the Writings, and then Baha'is
> could feel free to decide whether that interpretation "jives" with them, and
> follow it?
>
> Could there be a day when Jack, who follows the "Maneck" school of thought,
> and Jill, who follows the "Cole" school of thought, could meet up at feast
> and be united as Baha'is :)?
>
> Peace,
> JayLiz
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
Juan Cole
History, U of Michigan
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai.htm
Smaneck
>My understanding of how the Baha'i Faith ought to work at the various levels
>is for the members of that community to put forward their ideas into the pot,
>so to speak, and then piece together the best resolution possible. It is a
>process of unity creation, and I think that the evolution of "formal schools
>of thought" might be considered divisive in many cases.
Dear Robert,
Certainly this passage from the Feb. 8 letter of the House of Justice suggests
that:
"It is not surprising that individual Baha'is hold and express different
and sometimes defective understandings of the Teachings; this is but an
evidence of the magnitude of the change that this Revelation is to effect
in human consciousness. As believers with various insights into the
Teachings converse -- with patience, tolerance and open and unbiased minds
-- a deepening of comprehension should take place. The strident
insistence on individual views, however, can lead to contention, which is
detrimental not only to the spirit of Baha'i association and collaboration
but to the search for truth itself."
rlit...@my-dejanews.com
Robert A. Little
In article <19990212193747...@ng-fi1.aol.com>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Frederick Glaysher
>
>Certainly this passage from the Feb. 8 letter of the House of Justice
suggests
>that:
>
>"It is not surprising that individual Baha'is hold and express different
>and sometimes defective understandings of the Teachings; this is but an
>evidence of the magnitude of the change that this Revelation is to effect
>in human consciousness. As believers with various insights into the
>Teachings converse -- with patience, tolerance and open and unbiased minds
>-- a deepening of comprehension should take place. The strident
>insistence on individual views, however, can lead to contention, which is
>detrimental not only to the spirit of Baha'i association and collaboration
>but to the search for truth itself."
Sounds fascist. The kind of thing one finds on soc.religion.bahai
and AOL Bahai "Forums."
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm On talk.religion.bahai,
alt.religion.bahai, and AOL: Keyword Bahai, Message Boards
dar...@my-dejanews.com
almost universal acceptance among the American Baha'is), and the Effendi
School (the Faith as interpreted by Abbas Effendi and Shoghi Effendi) which
has few adherents, but is stedily gaining ground. The Remey School is
basically "Unitarianism" with Baha'i nomenclature. The "Cole School" is even
more Humanist than the Remey School, and should be simply name "The Hypocrite
School". The "Maneck School" is totally Remey School. Darrick Evenson
In article <7a1ivs$aoj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
jayl...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am pondering whether, in time, there might evolve formal schools of thought
> in the Baha'i Faith, as there are in Islam (I believe they're called
> madhabs). There is no living individual (or group of individuals) who can
> authoritatively interpret the Baha'i Writings for anyone else. However, we
> can and must interpret them for ourselves, and sometimes at least, groups of
> people will interpret the Writings similarly. So could there be a day when
> Baha'i scholars present a particular spin on the Writings, and then Baha'is
> could feel free to decide whether that interpretation "jives" with them, and
> follow it?
>
> Could there be a day when Jack, who follows the "Maneck" school of thought,
> and Jill, who follows the "Cole" school of thought, could meet up at feast
> and be united as Baha'is :)?
>
> Peace,
> JayLiz
>
dar...@my-dejanews.com
as well as legal interpretations? The School of Isfahan in Shia Islam seems to
be that school which is closest to Baha'i interpretations. It's theological
interpretations are often completely different than that of Orthodox Shiism.
Darrick Evenson
In article <19990212165820...@ng-fi1.aol.com>,
sma...@aol.com (Smaneck) wrote:
> Jayliz writes:
>
> >So could there be a day when
> >Baha'i scholars present a particular spin on the Writings, and then Baha'is
> >could feel free to decide whether that interpretation "jives" with them, and
> >follow it?
>
> Dear Jayliz,
>
> It was precisely to prevent this kind of thing that the Will and Testament was
> written. Keep in mind that the *madhabs* of Islam deal primarily with
> interpretations of Islamic law, not theology. So it is not so much a question
> of faith as it is of practice. Only the Institutions have the right to
> determine proper Baha'i practice. Scholars are forbidden to engage in *ra'i*
or
> the formulation of legal opinion in opposition to the rulings of the
> Institutions.
>
> In Shi'ite Islam a believer is reguired to pick a *mujtahid* of interpreter
> whose rulings in regards to Islam they will follow or imitate (taqlid). The
> Baha'i Faith forbids both interpretation of this type (ijtihad) and imitation
> (taqlid.) Abdu'l-Baha clearly did not wish scholars to be able to yeild the
> same kind of authority in the Baha'i Faith that they had in Islam.
>
> Susan Stiles Maneck
> History, Stetson University
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Smaneck
>Sounds fascist. The kind of thing one finds on soc.religion.bahai
>and AOL Bahai "Forums."
In regards to a statement from the Universal House of Justice which included
the following:
>As believers with various insights into the
>>Teachings converse -- with patience, tolerance and open and unbiased minds
>>-- a deepening of comprehension should take place.
I hope such "fascism" prevails there more and more.
Smaneck
>Wouldn't you agree that some "schools" of Islam have alternative theological
>as well as legal interpretations? The School of Isfahan in Shia Islam seems
>to
>be that school which is closest to Baha'i interpretations.
Dear Darrick,
I think it is quite possible we will have different theological 'schools' but
not the legal schools of the Islamic madhabs. 'Abdu'l-Baha makes it clear that
the "door of interpretation" or the bab-i ijtihad is closed as far as this is
concerned.
Bintyaya
Baha'is. It has nothing to do with reality.
jrc...@umich.edu
Iran around Fadil Mazandarani that is in rivalry with the school that formed
around `Abdu'l-Hamid Ishraq-Khavari. And in the U.S. the 'Science of
Reality' folks were more or less a school and their approach hasn't been
accepted by younger academics. In a sense, World Order, Baha'i Studies
Review, and Baha'i Studies Bulletin all have their own schools associated
with them. Diversity of thought is not bad and is not schism.
cheers Juan
In article <7a4rkq$ea$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
dar...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Wouldn't you agree that some "schools" of Islam have alternative theological
> as well as legal interpretations? The School of Isfahan in Shia Islam seems to
> > Susan Stiles Maneck
> > History, Stetson University
> >
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
Juan Cole
History, U of Michigan
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai.htm
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Smaneck
>There are already such schools. For instance, there is clearly a school in
>Iran around Fadil Mazandarani that is in rivalry with the school that formed
>around `Abdu'l-Hamid Ishraq-Khavari. And in the U.S. the 'Science of
>Reality' folks were more or less a school and their approach hasn't been
>accepted by younger academics. In a sense, World Order, Baha'i Studies
>Review, and Baha'i Studies Bulletin all have their own schools associated
>with them. Diversity of thought is not bad and is not schism.
This is correct. And there is also sort of a "Baha'u'llah Only" school centered
around Dr. Behmardi. Despite Dr. Cole's and Mr. McKenny's constant attempts to
label me a "fundamentalist" I am generally associated with the Baha'i Studies
Review school which might be regarded as the most liberal. As I mentioned in my
earlier post, I think there is nothing wrong with there being various
"schools" of thought in terms of theology. It is the development of different
*madhabs* or legal schools which I would find highly problematic in light of
the Will and Testament.
jrc...@umich.edu
an Episcopalian, but he tended toward what we would now call a fundamentalist
or conservative approach to religion. He was a great hunter of heretics in
the Baha'i faith and was personally responsible for chasing out masses of
thinking people and what we would now call "New Agers." He has left this
conservative legacy both within the Baha'i World Faith (Haifa-Wilmette),
where he had been a hand of the cause and trained others to think this way,
and in the various Remeyite schisms, which are generally far to the Right of
the Baha'i World Faith. I personally really dislike Remey and everything he
stood for, and that includes his very long and distinguished career inside
the Baha'i World Faith.
cheers Juan
In article <19990214002645...@ng50.aol.com>,
Juan Cole
Roger Reini
> There are basically two Schools in the U.S.: the Remey School (which now has
>almost universal acceptance among the American Baha'is), and the Effendi
>School (the Faith as interpreted by Abbas Effendi and Shoghi Effendi) which
>has few adherents, but is stedily gaining ground. The Remey School is
>basically "Unitarianism" with Baha'i nomenclature. The "Cole School" is even
>more Humanist than the Remey School, and should be simply name "The Hypocrite
>School". The "Maneck School" is totally Remey School. Darrick Evenson
This comment could easily be misunderstood, so allow me to clarify.
When Darrick speaks of the "Remey School", he is NOT speaking of those
who broke the Covenant by supporting his outrageous claims of being
the Guardian. He isn't accusing the American Baha'i community of
being Covenant breakers.
If I am to be a part of any school, I want it to be the School of God,
with Baha'u'llah as headmaster and 'Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi and
the Universal House of Justice as His assistants.
Danny Blubaugh
Re: Baha'i Schools of Thought
Date:
Sat, 13 Feb 1999 14:19:33 -0500
From:
"Frederick Glaysher" <fgla...@hotmail.com>
Organization:
http://extra.newsguy.com
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.bahai
References:
1 , 2
Susan Maneck:
>>Certainly this passage from the Feb. 8 letter of the House of Justice
>>suggests
>>that:
>>
>>"It is not surprising that individual Baha'is hold and express different
>>and sometimes defective understandings of the Teachings; this is but an
>>evidence of the magnitude of the change that this Revelation is to effect
>>in human consciousness. As believers with various insights into the
>>Teachings converse -- with patience, tolerance and open and unbiased minds
>>-- a deepening of comprehension should take place. The strident
>>insistence on individual views, however, can lead to contention, which is
>>detrimental not only to the spirit of Baha'i association and collaboration
>>but to the search for truth itself."
Frederick Glaysher:
>Sounds fascist. The kind of thing one finds on soc.religion.bahai
>and AOL Bahai "Forums."
Mr. Glaysher, do you really consider the principle that people should converse
"with patience, tolerance and open and unbiased minds" to be fascist? I find
this difficult to comprehend. Do you interpret the final sentence to be
saying that individual views should not be expressed? If that is your
interpretation, I would agree with your conclusion. However, such an
interpretation is not consistent with the rest of the passage. What the final
sentence is saying is really nothing more than what the previous sentence
says. The passage as a whole says that people should give due consideration
to opposing views, and should do so with civility, and should not try to
thrust their own views down other people's throats in a contentious manner.
Is this something that you disagree with? If so, may I ask you why? And how
do you think people should converse with one another?
Danny Blubaugh
dar...@my-dejanews.com
It is "pure truth", but the foolish such as yourself cannot understand
reality. Darrick Evenson
In article <19990214002645...@ng50.aol.com>,
bint...@aol.com (Bintyaya) wrote:
> This response is basically an attempt to mislead uniformed readers and insult
> Baha'is. It has nothing to do with reality.
>
> >There are basically two Schools in the U.S.: the Remey School (which now has
> >almost universal acceptance among the American Baha'is), and the Effendi
> >School (the Faith as interpreted by Abbas Effendi and Shoghi Effendi) which
> >has few adherents, but is stedily gaining ground. The Remey School is
> >basically "Unitarianism" with Baha'i nomenclature. The "Cole School" is even
> >more Humanist than the Remey School, and should be simply name "The Hypocrite
> >School". The "Maneck School" is totally Remey School. Darrick Evenson
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
ko...@mail.ameritel.net
dar...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Dear Fool,
>
(snip)
Happy anniversary (so I'm a few days late).
Do you still stump missionaries?
(http://www.enoch.com/archives/stumpus/postings.html)
jrc...@umich.edu
Dear Danny:
While it is true that the passage you quote below sounds sweet and
reasonable, if you are fair you will have to admit that in these letters
there is a great deal more that is not fair and reasonable. There is an
insistence that Baha'is accept dogmas framed in Haifa by a body that is not
empowered by scripture to enact dogmas. There is a condemnation of academic
scholarship (as 'materialist' and 'humanist'--i.e. they sound just like Jerry
Falwell). And this condemnation goes beyond just disagreeing with it. They
are attempting to forbide Baha'is from practicing it, and are hinting around
that anyone who does so too 'prominently' or persistently will be expelled
from the religion or worse.
So they UHJ says that it "questions some presumptions of certain current
academic methods because it sees these producing a distorted picture of
reality." But what are the 'current' academic methods? There are only a
limited set of academic methods, and they have been in use for 2 centuries
now, so to use 'current' to suggest they are a passing fad is silly. And it
is ironic that scriptural literalists who want to rewrite ancient Greek
history so that Empedocles (4th century B.C.) was a contemporary of King
David (9th century B.C.) or so that Socrates (who never left Greece) traveled
to Palestine to meet 'Jewish prophets' (what 'prophets' were his
contemporaries, exactly?) should say that *academic* methods produce a
distorted picture of reality. It is the scriptural fundamentalism of the UHJ
that produces science fiction history! Moreover, they still want to deny the
reality of Neodarwinian evolution, and they believe in chemical alchemy.
Their world-view is extremely distorted, and it is because of fundamentalism,
to which academic approaches would be a healthy antidote.
Then another stealth bit of authoritarianism is the statement, "The strident
insistence on individual views, however, can lead to contention, which is
detrimental not only to the spirit of Baha'i association and collaboration
but to the search for truth itself." But no definition is given of
'strident.' Surely the Baha'i conservatives who have posted to trb have been
among the more 'strident' voices anyone has ever heard. But nothing is done
to them and they are not condemned for departing from Baha'i standards of
courtesy or for fomenting contention. No, 'stridency' is solely attributed
to persons, the views of which are unwelcome in Haifa. Basically, this sort
of statement takes back away the Baha'is' right to declare their consciences
and express their views, abundantly guaranteed by Shoghi Effendi and the
other holy figures. *anyone's e-mail messages could be suddenly declared a
'strident' 'insistence on individual views'. Who doesn't insist on his or
her individual views? This is the iron hand in the velvet glove.
Then they say, "Beyond contention, moreover, is the condition in which a
person is so immovably attached to one erroneous viewpoint that his
insistence upon it amounts to an effort to change the essential character of
the Faith." But this requires that they be able to define what the essential
character of the Faith is, which would in turn require that they be able to
engage in Authoritative Interpretation of Baha'i scripture. In fact, these
poor old guys really do think in terms of 'essences' and they have worked
themselves into believing that they can discern 'the essential character of
the faith' and have the right to expel or declare shunned anyone who
disagrees with them about it.
Isn't the equality of women and men part of the 'essential character of the
Baha'i faith'? And yet Michael McKenny and Linda Walbridge were forced out
of the religion for suggesting that it be extended to the UHJ itself. They
simply expressed their opinion, and for that they were sanctioned and their
faith was destroyed. Isn't the unity of science and religion part of the
'essential character of the Baha'i faith'? And yet questioning the virgin
birth of Jesus or accepting the fact of evolution is condemned in Haifa as
un-Baha'i-like. The 'essential character of the Baha'i faith' as conceived
in Haifa is a fundamentalist point of view in which a literal reading of
scripture trumps all the findings of the multi-billion dollar Genome
project!!
The UHJ and its agents have attempted since 1996 to erect dogmas to which it
demands assent, to control the discourse of Baha'is in cyberspace by behind
the scenes nasty letters and phone calls and threats, and have attempted to
make the beautiful, tolerant and universalist Baha'i religion into a narrow,
dogmatic and intolerant sect. Yet their sphere of authority is not dogma but
law, not belief but actions, not scholarship but ethics. They don't have any
business trying to tell academic historians how to write history (or
threatening them with sanctions if they write it the 'wrong' way); they don't
have any business expelling Michael McKenny for his innocent email messages,
which were simple expressions of personal opinion. And `Abdu'l-Baha was
quite forthright that the Baha'i faith has no dogmas but belief in the One
God. To erect a whole slew of them, and then to persecute those Baha'is who
won't assent to them, is to make the Baha'i faith into just a pale version of
Roman Catholicism. In this case, wherein is it in the least original, and
what new does it bring a world largely weary of the old Inquisitions of the
old religions?
So that is why Fred is angry, and why anyone who really cares about the
essence of Baha'i teachings is really angry. Of course, there are lots of
loyalist yes-men who will go along with anything, which is why humanity is in
such a terrible state. But won't *anyone* stand up for Baha'u'llah and
`Abdu'l-Baha?
cheers Juan
UHJ:
Juan Cole
History, U of Michigan
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai.htm
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Smaneck
>They
>are attempting to forbide Baha'is from practicing it, and are hinting around
>that anyone who does so too 'prominently' or persistently will be expelled
>from the religion or worse.
This is nonsense. If it were true I would have been thrown out of the Faith as
well. After I received their July 20 letter this way, but when I point blank
asked them if this was what they meant, they made it quite clear they did not.
>So they UHJ says that it "questions some presumptions of certain current
>academic methods because it sees these producing a distorted picture of
>reality." But what are the 'current' academic methods? There are only a
>limited set of academic methods, and they have been in use for 2 centuries
>now, so to use 'current' to suggest they are a passing fad is silly. And it
>is ironic that scriptural literalists who want to rewrite ancient Greek
>history so that Empedocles (4th century B.C.) was a contemporary of King
>David (9th century B.C.) or so that Socrates (who never left Greece) traveled
>to Palestine to meet 'Jewish prophets' (what 'prophets' were his
>contemporaries, exactly?) should say that *academic* methods produce a
>distorted picture of reality. It is the scriptural fundamentalism of the UHJ
>that produces science fiction history! Moreover, they still want to deny the
>reality of Neodarwinian evolution, and they believe in chemical alchemy.
>Their world-view is extremely distorted, and it is because of fundamentalism,
>to which academic approaches would be a healthy antidote.
Again, the House of Justice made it abundantly clear in their Feb. 8 letter
that this was *not* what they were talking about when they referred to
"materialistic." I had specifically asked them if they meant by "materalistic"
that revelation should trump all other evidence and they made it quite clear it
did not. In fact what they wrote was this:
"The House of Justice recognizes that, at the other extreme, there are
Baha'is who, imbued by what they conceive to be loyalty to Baha'u'llah,
cling to blind acceptance of what they understand to be a statement of the
Sacred Text."
As I pointed out to Michael they were speaking of methods which attempt to
study the Manifestation without reference to the reality of their Revelation or
God's intimate involvement in our history. The House describes those methods it
regards as materialistic in these terms in the July 20 letter:
"It insists that all spiritual and moral phenomena must be
understood through the application of a scholarly apparatus devised to
explore existence in a way that ignores the issues of God's continuous
relationship with His creation and His intervention in human life and
history. Yet, from a Baha'i point of view, it is precisely this
intervention that is the central theme of the Teachings of the Founders of
the revealed religions ostensibly being studied."
Notice the emphasis on "spiritual and moral phenomenon" not historical or
scientific. In the Feb. 8 letter the House writes the following:
"Although, in conveying His Revelation, the Manifestation uses the language
and culture of the country into which He is born, He is not confined to
using terminology with the same connotations as those given to it by His
predecessors or contemporaries; He delivers His message in a form which
His audience, both immediate and in centuries to come, is capable of
grasping. It is for Baha'i scholars to elaborate, over a period of time,
methodologies which will enable them to perform their work with this
understanding."
Clearly, the kinds of methodolgies that the House of Justice considers
materialistic are those which, by definition, can make no room for the station
of the Manifestation, yet take the Manifestation as their *object* of study.
Ron House
> Thanks for pointing this out. Actually, Remey was a Protestant and I think
> an Episcopalian, but he tended toward what we would now call a fundamentalist
> or conservative approach to religion. He was a great hunter of heretics in
> the Baha'i faith and was personally responsible for chasing out masses of
> thinking people and what we would now call "New Agers." He has left this
> conservative legacy both within the Baha'i World Faith (Haifa-Wilmette),
> where he had been a hand of the cause and trained others to think this way,
> and in the various Remeyite schisms, which are generally far to the Right of
> the Baha'i World Faith. I personally really dislike Remey and everything he
> stood for, and that includes his very long and distinguished career inside
> the Baha'i World Faith.
Does it almost seem to you, Juan, that Remey was a victim of God's
ironic sense of justice? After so much time and energy gung-ho pursuing
those who were in all probability fairly nice, harmless people, it
happened to him.
--
Ron House ho...@usq.edu.au
You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong.
NightSerf
> Dear Fool,
> It is "pure truth", but the foolish such as yourself cannot understand
> reality. Darrick Evenson
Perhaps you could provide some data that can be independently
verified to back up your assertion.
-- Serf
jrc...@umich.edu
in academic journals, so I'm not sure why she thinks she is prominent enough
for any of the officials to come after her for her writings. Moreover, she
cannot research in Arabic primary sources and is very limited in the Persian,
so it is not as if she can dig into the archives and tell us anything very
new (it is new perspectives from research that are threatening). What she
has written has been 'phenomenological' (a sympathetic report of a religion's
self-conception), which is the only academic methodology that *might* pass
muster among Baha'i officialdom (if anyone cares). So, this thing she says,
that if academic scholarship were being attacked then she would be in
trouble, is simply not true.
Moreover, she is a special informal assistant to counselor for Protection
A.M. Ghadirian on intellectual issues (which explains her role on this forum)
and has corresponded with house members about how to 'make Cole the issue'
and 'leave him talking only to himself' by constantly attacking him and his
character. Obviously, her willingness to play this sort of sinister role
protects her to some extent, temporarily, from being purged, herself, though
it is widely predicted by her former friends whom she has betrayed that
eventually the authorities will turn on her, as well.
So, I have some simple questions.
1) In what way has Maneck practiced academic scholarship on the Baha'i faith
that is any different whatsoever from the way that Abbas Amanat, Denis
MacEoin, John Walbridge or other academics have?
2) Can anyone quote a 'materialistic' passage in specific to which objection
is made in the writings of any of these individuals?
3) Even if it could be shown that a believing Baha'i was betraying his faith
by writing 'materialistic' history, how could this constitute
*covenant-breaking*?
4) What academic scholarship has been produced on the Bab or Baha'u'llah wich
is acceptable to the Baha'i officials? (Note that Balyuzi, Taherzadeh,
Faydi, etc. are not academics).
5) On what grounds does a legislative institution that has no purview over
matters of Interpretation attempt to intervene in the legitimate research and
writing of committed Baha'i academics, and what gives the former the right to
bring the faith of the latter into question?
cheers Juan
In article <19990215003725...@ng-cg1.aol.com>,
sma...@aol.com (Smaneck) wrote:
> Clearly, the kinds of methodolgies that the House of Justice considers
> materialistic are those which, by definition, can make no room for the station
> of the Manifestation, yet take the Manifestation as their *object* of study.
>
> Susan Stiles Maneck
> History, Stetson University
>
Juan Cole
Smaneck
>Does it almost seem to you, Juan, that Remey was a victim of God's
>ironic sense of justice? After so much time and energy gung-ho pursuing
>those who were in all probability fairly nice, harmless people, it
>happened to him.
Dear Ron,
I don't know whether or not those people who Remey pursued were nice or
harmless, but I do think Remey's rigidity-in-Covenant contributed to his
eventually breaking it. He had a set picture of what the Covenant had to be and
when historical events did not support that picture he ended up violating the
Covenant in order to make it what he thought it should be. With the exception
of Ahmad Sohrab nearly all those people who became Covenant breakers were not
liberals. On the contrary, they were in some sense conservatives opposing new
changes that were being implemented.
Fran Baker
When Baha'is proudly point to the fact that they have no clergy, it
is just this sort of ill that they think/claim they are avoiding.
Just more of the irony, hypocrisy, confusion, and doubletalk with which
this religion is riddled. It's truly amazing how many problems they
can cram into one little religion. Not to mention ignorance...
that's a new one to me about Socrates. But then, there are Baha'is
who think that Napoleon lost the battle of Waterloo because he
ignored Baha'u'llah's letters.
--Fran
Roger Reini
>
>The UHJ and its agents have attempted since 1996 to erect dogmas to which it
>demands assent, to control the discourse of Baha'is in cyberspace by behind
>the scenes nasty letters and phone calls and threats, and have attempted to
>make the beautiful, tolerant and universalist Baha'i religion into a narrow,
>dogmatic and intolerant sect.
I don't agree with your contention that the House is trying "to
control the discourse of Baha'is in cyberspace." Two years ago, I
wrote to the House asking for some guidance about the 2nd election for
t.r.b. Contained in their response to me (dated Oct. 14, 1997) was
this paragraph:
"In general, the House of Justice has no objection to Baha'is'
participating in public, unmoderated discussions about the Faith,
whether those discussions take place in person or through some form of
electronic communication. The wisdom of participating in particular
discussions, must, of necessity, depend upon circumstances prevailing
at the time. When, through such discussions, the Faith is attacked or
erroneous information about it is disseminated, it may become
necessary for individual Baha'is to actively defend it. In some
circumstances, however, to avoid participating in argumentative
exchanges, attracting attention to enemies of the Faith, or engaging
Covenant-breakers, it will be more appropriate to withdraw from the
discussion. While the institutions of the Faith may, on occasion,
find it necessary to offer the friends guidance related to their
participation in particular discussions, generally this, too, is a
matter left to the individual."
The first sentence is key here: "In general, the House of Justice has
no objection to Baha'is participating in public, unmoderated
discussions about the Faith, whether those discussions take place in
person or through some form of electronic communication." If the
House had thought that participating in open newsgroups like a.r.b and
t.r.b was a bad idea for Baha'is, it could have instructed us not to
participate. It did not.
Roger Reini
wrote:
>
>
>When Baha'is proudly point to the fact that they have no clergy, it
>is just this sort of ill that they think/claim they are avoiding.
>Just more of the irony, hypocrisy, confusion, and doubletalk with which
>this religion is riddled. It's truly amazing how many problems they
>can cram into one little religion. Not to mention ignorance...
>that's a new one to me about Socrates. But then, there are Baha'is
>who think that Napoleon lost the battle of Waterloo because he
>ignored Baha'u'llah's letters.
Wrong Napoleon. You're thinking of Napoleon I; it was Napoleon III to
whom Baha'u'llah had addressed Tablets.
jrc...@umich.edu
Dear Roger:
You are perfectly correct that the house of justice decided as far back as
1995 that it was simply impractical to attempt to control what email lists
*exist*. After the very bad publicity the faith received when trb was voted
down the first time (the 'no' votes came in some instances from National
Spiritual Assemblies!), the house of justice took the stance that Baha'i
institutions should not interfere directly in the establishment of discussion
lists.
However, they shifted their strategy from attempting to control the *medium*
(as they do when they demand that print literature be subjected to
prepublication censorship) to attempting to control the *posters*. You don't
hear so much about it because even the victims hush it up, but dozens of
Baha'is have been pulled aside by ABMs and cautioned for their email
messages, and several prominent Baha'i intellectuals have received such
horrible threats from Haifa that they have either fallen silent in public
cyberspace or have left the faith with broken hearts. In one instance, a
*couple* was targeted and threatened, in part because they were the
listowners and attacking them behind the scenes was a deniable way to close
down the list. The Baha'i faith is a very small community with relatively
few members who are highly educated in the humanities and the social
sciences, fields that tend to produce thinkers of a non-fundamentalist bent.
These Baha'is, who speak too plainly, are targeted and silenced with threats
of shunning. It is therefore possible to intervene surgically to affect the
tone and substance of Baha'i cyberspace, opening up spaces like SRB purely
for more fundamentalist comment, and ensuring that although TRB exists, no
Baha'i intellectual in good standing dares consistently post publicly here in
a liberal vein.
As I have said before, however, I think that the bad publicity the Baha'i
officials have received as a result of this strategy (which they apparently
initially thought could be kept relatively quiet) may have caused them to
back off. After all, nothing is now easier than to spread widely on the Net
news of religious persecution, and no one who is Wired thinks well of a
religious leadership that persecutes over email messages. I am not aware of
anyone having been threatened or punished for their email for about a year
now, and none of the earlier threats appears to have been followed through
on, though the very act of making them broke a number of hearts and destroyed
the faith of among the foremost Baha'i thinkers of this generation, including
Linda Walbridge.
cheers Juan
In article <36c80af4...@news.newsguy.com>,
rre...@wwnet.net wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Feb 1999 04:47:37 GMT, jrc...@umich.edu wrote:
>
> >
> >The UHJ and its agents have attempted since 1996 to erect dogmas to which it
> >demands assent, to control the discourse of Baha'is in cyberspace by behind
> >the scenes nasty letters and phone calls and threats, and have attempted to
> >make the beautiful, tolerant and universalist Baha'i religion into a narrow,
> >dogmatic and intolerant sect.
>
Juan Cole
Smaneck
>so I'm not sure why she thinks she is prominent enough
>for any of the officials to come after her for her writings.
Funny Dr. Cole should say this now. A little more than a year ago he was trying
to frighten me into not communicating with the Universal House of Justice
comparing me to Little Red Riding Hood and the House of Justice to the Big Bad
Wolf. He said I'd soon be lunch. Sometime before that he described me as one
of the leading academic scholars involved in Baha'i Studies. Now he would like
to argue that I don't do academic scholarship at all. If so one has to wonder
why Dr. Cole included my article in one of the books he edited or asked me to
moderate H-Bahai? But I suppose ones scholarly expertise in Dr. Cole's eyes is
a function of "which side are you one?'
>Moreover, she is a special informal assistant to counselor for Protection
>A.M. Ghadirian on intellectual issues (which explains her role on this forum)
>and has corresponded with house members about how to 'make Cole the issue'
>and 'leave him talking only to himself' by constantly attacking him and his
>character.
This is sheer slander. I have wrote no such thing to a member to the House and
challenge Dr. Cole to prove that I did. As far as a
"special assistant" to Counselor Ghadirian goes this too, is nonsense, although
he has been a special friend. He is not even aware of my participation on this
forum, so far as I know. My participation on both arb and trb resulted as a
spillover from the fact that Fred Glaysher was forwarding Juan's posts on to
the AOL Message Board and Dr. Cole was responded to my responses on arb.
I have the same reaction to this kind of post as I had when Dr. Cole tried to
tell me three years ago that a secret cabal started by Mason Remey and Horace
Holley had taken over the Faith. I still consider myself in his camp at that
time, but it made me step back and ask myself, "Just what am I dealing with?"
> In what way has Maneck practiced academic scholarship on the Baha'i faith
>that is any different whatsoever from the way that Abbas Amanat, Denis
>MacEoin, John Walbridge or other academics have?
Gee, I thought Dr. Cole was just arguing that I didn't do academic scholarship.
>3) Even if it could be shown that a believing Baha'i was betraying his faith
>by writing 'materialistic' history, how could this constitute
>*covenant-breaking*?
It does not, nor is the House saying it does. The only time when the Covenant
is brought up in their correspondence with me is towards the very end of the
Feb. 8 in reference to my explanation I had given as to why certain academics
had gotten involved in critiquing the Administrative Order; this is what they
described as evolving into an "assualt on the Covenant" not their scholarship
per se.
>4) What academic scholarship has been produced on the Bab or Baha'u'llah wich
>is acceptable to the Baha'i officials?
"Officials" is a meaningless term. We have Institutions period. Dr. Cole would
prefer to use the term "official" because then he simply needs to find one
individual in the administration that might have objected to a given work. But
the House of Justice has recommended Dr. Peter Smith's book on a number of
occassions. Most academic scholarship they don't comment on.
Smaneck
>After the very bad publicity the faith received when trb was voted
>down the first time (the 'no' votes came in some instances from National
>Spiritual Assemblies!),
Correction. There was one obscure NSA (Iceland) that voted against it.
>dozens of
>Baha'is have been pulled aside by ABMs and cautioned for their email
>messages,
Dozens? I'll bet Dr. Cole can't name more than one dozen, if that many.
I notice in this post he describes the same person twice making it appear that
it is a separate incident.
Saman Ahmadi
What led to the downfall of the original Talisman was not really Talisman.
If memory serves, and though I am not aware of what all went on behind
the scenes, the issue was differences of opinion regarding the events that
surrounded the intended publication of "A Modest Proposal" between
those involved in Dialogue Magazine and the USA NSA & Universal
House of Justice - the NSA & House demanding a retraction from one
individual because of how he was portraying the sequence and nature of
events that took place sometime in 1989(?).
What followed was the collective punishment of all the Talisman members
with email addresses identifying them as staff of the US National Center -
they were summarily expelled from list because in the judgment of the
listowner, one or more broke the list rules against "threatening" someone and
*told* on the individual in question to the NSA. The discarded members could
re-enlist if they proved their innocence.
This is what I remember and I am curious if you (Juan) think it is an accurate,
albeit incomplete, portrayal of what occurred.
There were moments on Talisman, sadly too few, that were utter ecstasy and for
the life me I can not understand why you 40-somethings could not see the forest
because of the trees - everything and anything was discussed there and it had,
you have to admit, the tacit approval of House. They allowed the experiment
to go on, I think in part, because there was a wide spectrum of opinions though
often
expressed in an intemperate tone - what you call "plain". I sincerely thought
that when
I had to leave because I was moving, that Talisman would iterate into something
wonderful - sustain its brilliance of the slow read of the Aqdas, for example.
Even someone with "conservative instincts" can have his heart broken.
-saman
Ed Jonsson
> Correction. There was one obscure NSA (Iceland) that voted against it.
The obscure Icelandic NSA never voted against trb. An office employee of
the NSA registered her vote on the NSA's computer without consulting the
NSA or anyone else. This was her own initiative entirely, and I'm told that
the NSA was not happy with it at all. The Icelandic NSA has, to the best
of my knowledge, never made any decisions in favour or disfavour of any
Baha'i newsgroup.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clear up this misunderstanding.
Edvard
Chris Manvell
>Dr. Cole wrote:
>
>>After the very bad publicity the faith received when trb was voted
>>down the first time (the 'no' votes came in some instances from National
>>Spiritual Assemblies!),
>
>
>>Baha'is have been pulled aside by ABMs and cautioned for their email
>>messages,
>
>
>I notice in this post he describes the same person twice making it appear that
>it is a separate incident.
I think what Juan means is that some of the NO votes came from
individual members of NSAs. There is, of course, no evidence that it
was the _NSA_ of Iceland that voted NO, it could have been an individual
using the NSA's account.
Best wishes,
Chris.
--
Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44(0)1471-822 317
Fax.:+44(0)870-056 8081
Personal Web site: <http://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/>
Association of Baha'i Studies (English speaking Europe):
<http://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/BSR/>
Sgriobtiurean Creidimh nam Baha-i (with English Translations)
<http://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/gaelic/>
Richard Boyle
letters then Baha'u'llah (or napoleon) must be truly great. Waterloo was fought in
1815, a few years before Baha'u'llah was born.
The napoleon that Baha'u'llah wrote to was Napoleon III, and he did ignore
Baha'u'llah's letters. What happened to him was, to my mind, quite clearly stated.
Within a few years of receiving the letter, napoleon was captured ate the Battle of
sedan, France was defeated, Paris beseiged and badly damaged, and Napoleon went into
exile in England.
I'd say that what Baha'u'llah wrote was pretty accurate, though perhaps not as
specific as what Baha'u'llah wrote to Kaiser Wilhelm.
Just my two cents worth.
Richard Boyle
Smaneck
>the NSA registered her vote on the NSA's computer without consulting the
>NSA or anyone else. This was her own initiative entirely, and I'm told that
>the NSA was not happy with it at all.
Thanks Edvard for getting that clarified. Please excuse me for referring to
your NSA as "obscure."
warmest, Susan
Smaneck
>I think what Juan means is that some of the NO votes came from
>individual members of NSAs.
Well, that wouldn't mean much since one member of an NSA agreed to sponsor the
formation of this list.
Smaneck
>What followed was the collective punishment of all the Talisman members
>with email addresses identifying them as staff of the US National Center -
>they were summarily expelled from list because in the judgment of the
>listowner, one or more broke the list rules against "threatening" someone and
>*told* on the individual in question to the NSA. The discarded members could
>re-enlist if they proved their innocence.
I never heard about this aspect of Talisman's operation. Very interesting.
RBCF Mark
Baha'i community is a reality at the present time, and these schools of thought
might continue to exist into the future.
Personally, I think that these schools of thought can be positive, as long as
they do not take on partisan or sectarian characteristics or if dialogue
between members of these schools of thought became more argumentative than
consultative.
In any case, I think that it is a moot point since, at least at the present
time, they exist anyway.
Cordially, Mark Foster
Vinson Jamir
There would seem to be an issue related to schools-of-thought, which would
simply be the corollary, or schools-of-thoughtlessness. Schools of thought seem
to me to be cognitive social structures which attend to certain issues. Could we
also say that schools of thoughtlessness are social structures reflecting cognitive
dissonance which do not attend to certain issues? Schools of thought offer
competing formulas and approaches, so schools of thoughtlessness might explain
adroit avoidance of particular sets of issues.
vinson
Ron House
>
> With the exception
> of Ahmad Sohrab nearly all those people who became Covenant breakers were not
> liberals.
Can you fill us in on Ahmad Sohrab?
Smaneck
I don't have time to give your question the in depth answer it deserves right
now. But here is a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi about Ahmad
Sohrab,
published in Lights of Divine Guidance, Vol. One.
------------------------------
He was, for some years the secretary of
Abdu'l-Baha and enjoyed, as a result of this and the fact that he
accompanied Him to America, (to be sure with a number of other Persians),
a great deal of attention from the &Baha'is who looked up to him and
admired him. However, since the Master's Will was read, and the
administrative order, under the Guardianship, began to be developed, he
became cognizant of the fact that his personal ambition for leadership
would have to be subordinated to some degree of supervision; that he would
have to obey the National and local assemblies--just like every other
Baha'i, and could not be free to teach wholly independent of any advice or
supervision. This was the beginning of the defection which in the end took
him outside the pale of the Faith: he refused not to be handled always as
an exception, a privileged exception. In fact, if we keenly analyse it, it
is almost invariably the soaring ambition and deep self-love of people
that has led them to leave the Faith. Towards the end Sohrab used, in the
course of his lectures, to incorporate quotation after quotation of
Baha'u'llah's words in his lectures, without once stating they were
Baha'u'llah's, and when the believers remonstrated with him over this
plagiarism, it had no effect. *After he had, of his own accord, left the
organized body of the Faith and refused to be reconciled with it, he began
to attack the administrators of it, first the American N.S.A., then the
entire administrative order, and in the end the Guardian...Sohrab's influence
and activities in America have waned
greatly... The books and articles he published attacking the Guardian and,
in fact, everything established in the Master's Will, had no effect, and
far from succeeding in causing any breach in the Faith in America, some of
the very few who followed him out of the Cause, gave him up, and returned
to serve the Cause with redoubled enthusiasm!
The Guardian feels that one of the best antidotes to those --Sohrab or
others--who seek to undermine the faith of the believers, especially by
harping on the subject of excommunication, is to place in their hands
"God Passes By". For in that book he (the Guardian) has clearly pointed
out that the Cause of God has always been attacked from within, and that,
beginning in the days of the &Bab, the "Sea of Truth" has over and over
cast out its spiritually dead. It must do this, even as the body seeks to
rid itself of poisons so as to preserve the health of the entire organism.
--------
jrc...@umich.edu
At last! Some common sense on this issue!
However, the surest way to make some schools of thought sectarian rather than
just schools of thought is to persecute them.
cheers Juan
In article <19990216190552...@ng-fi1.aol.com>,
rbcf...@aol.com (RBCF Mark) wrote:
> It seems to me that the existence of different schools of thought within the
> Baha'i community is a reality at the present time, and these schools of
thought
> might continue to exist into the future.
>
> Personally, I think that these schools of thought can be positive, as long as
> they do not take on partisan or sectarian characteristics or if dialogue
> between members of these schools of thought became more argumentative than
> consultative.
>
> In any case, I think that it is a moot point since, at least at the present
> time, they exist anyway.
>
> Cordially, Mark Foster
>
Juan Cole
Fran Baker
>If Baha'is really think that Napoleon lost waterloo because he ignored Baha'u'llah's
>letters then Baha'u'llah (or napoleon) must be truly great. Waterloo was fought in
>1815, a few years before Baha'u'llah was born.
>The napoleon that Baha'u'llah wrote to was Napoleon III, and he did ignore
>Baha'u'llah's letters.
...
>Richard Boyle
I know that, silly. That was my point. Ignorance rampant.
By the way, if you were a world leader and got a letter from someone
saying that he was a Manifestation of God and that you'd better do what he
said or bad things would happen, you too would probably put it in
the bin with all the similar crackpot letters you got every day.
Thinking such letters would be taken seriously is quite naive on
the part of their author and the people who are impressed
by whatever subsequent ills befell the recipients! If the Baha'is
are looking for a Constantine to bring their religion into
prominence, their combination of threats such as Baha'u'llah's
letters and the sucking up I have seen on a local level is not
working very well (not that the religion has not gotten some
attention for a few prominent people). Baha'u'llah's letters should
be an embarrassment to the Baha'is, along with many other things
their "holy" men have done.
--Fran
Timothy F. Mulligan
> Baha'u'llah's letters should
> be an embarrassment to the Baha'is, along with many other things
> their "holy" men have done.
I like to picture Husayn Ali (alias Baha'u'llah) stamping his little feet while he
whines and talks about himself as "This Wronged One."
I strongly recommend the Saturday morning cartoon "Pinky and the Brain." The
parallels between "the Brain," a megalomaniacal mouse who wants the world to kneel before
him, and the midget who called himself "the Glory of God," are astounding.
Tim Mulligan
tmul...@central.uh.edu
K. Paul Johnson
: Dear Fool,
:
: It is "pure truth", but the foolish such as yourself cannot understand
: reality. Darrick Evenson
Mat...@Newtestament.com wrote:
...whoever says "You fool!" shall be liable to the hell of fire.
Matthew 5:22
:
: In article <19990214002645...@ng50.aol.com>,
: bint...@aol.com (Bintyaya) wrote:
: > This response is basically an attempt to mislead uniformed readers and insult
: > Baha'is. It has nothing to do with reality.
: >
: > >There are basically two Schools in the U.S.: the Remey School (which now has
: > >almost universal acceptance among the American Baha'is), and the Effendi
: > >School (the Faith as interpreted by Abbas Effendi and Shoghi Effendi) which
: > >has few adherents, but is stedily gaining ground. The Remey School is
: > >basically "Unitarianism" with Baha'i nomenclature. The "Cole School" is even
: > >more Humanist than the Remey School, and should be simply name "The Hypocrite
: > >School". The "Maneck School" is totally Remey School. Darrick Evenson
: > >
: > >
: > >
: > >
: >
: >
:
: -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Timothy F. Mulligan
between the cartoon mouse known as "the Brain" and the life and character of the midget known
as "the Glory of God"::
http://home.sol.no/reidarav/pb/pb.htm
http://home.sol.no/reidarav/pb/pb1.htm
http://childrenstv.miningco.com/msubpin.htm
http://members.aol.com/acmelabs1/plans.html (A summary of each of the Brain's many plans to
take over the world). Including this one:
Brain Food-
"The common thread in all of my failed schemes is -- human stupidity. People are just too
stupid to accept me as their leader...
We are going to make everyone on earth smart. Smart enough to accept me as their leader... "
One of the most uncanny episodes involved a plan by the Brain to induce sympathy for him
among the people of the world. He broadcast television messages that showed him lying in
bed, moaning about all the terrible things that had happened to him since childhood.
Eventually, the entire world began to weep. Weepy world leaders promised to send him money.
Then, all of a sudden, the Brain changed his demeanor, taking advantage of the world's
sympathy-induced vulnerability. He intoned something like, "I am the ruler of the world.
Fear me!" The only problem was that the Brain had developed a tremor, so that when he said,
"Fear me!," it came out as "Fee-ee-ee--ar m-m-m-eee." At which point the entire world
started laughing at him.
If this episode wasn't based on the life of Baha'u'llah, it was certainly a remarkable
coincidence.
Roger Reini
won't comment on your reasons, other than to correct (once again) a
factual error:
Q: Was Baha'u'llah a midget?
A: No, He was not. He is said to have been 5 feet in height. While
this would be considered quite short for a man by the standards of
1990's North America, it is inaccurate to refer to such a man as a
midget. Also, the term has taken on something of a pejorative tone in
recent years.
Hm -- I've got an idea for a new thread: what TV series (if any) seem
to be imbued with the spirit of the Baha'i Faith and the revelation of
Baha'u'llah.
On Wed, 17 Feb 1999 10:52:08 -0600, "Timothy F. Mulligan"
<tmul...@central.uh.edu> wrote:
>Fran Baker wrote:
>
>> Baha'u'llah's letters should
>> be an embarrassment to the Baha'is, along with many other things
>> their "holy" men have done.
>
> I like to picture Husayn Ali (alias Baha'u'llah) stamping his little feet while he
>whines and talks about himself as "This Wronged One."
>
> I strongly recommend the Saturday morning cartoon "Pinky and the Brain." The
>parallels between "the Brain," a megalomaniacal mouse who wants the world to kneel before
>him, and the midget who called himself "the Glory of God," are astounding.
>
>Tim Mulligan
>tmul...@central.uh.edu
McKenny Michael
Greetings, Paul.
You wrote;
>
> Mat...@Newtestament.com wrote:
>
> ...whoever says "You fool!" shall be liable to the hell of fire.
> Matthew 5:22
>
For me, this is one of the highlights of this newsgroup to date.
Many thanks for it. Hmmm, I wonder if Matthew also had in mind the UHJ
with its comments about "erroneous views", etc.
Thanks again.
Thrive Always,
Michael
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
Roger Reini
On Wed, 17 Feb 1999 17:31:17 GMT, rre...@wwnet.net (Roger Reini)
wrote:
>I, too, enjoy "Pinky and the Brain", though for different reasons. I
>won't comment on your reasons, other than to correct (once again) a
>factual error:
>
>Q: Was Baha'u'llah a midget?
>
>A: No, He was not. He is said to have been 5 feet in height. While
>this would be considered quite short for a man by the standards of
>1990's North America, it is inaccurate to refer to such a man as a
>midget. Also, the term has taken on something of a pejorative tone in
>recent years.
According to the FAQ at the Website for the Little People of America
(http://www.lpaonline.org/), the term "midget" is sometimes used to
describe a proportionate dwarf, but it has fallen into disfavor and is
now considered offensive by people of short stature.
"Dwarf" is defined as a person with an adult height of 4 ft. 10 inches
or shorter.
IMHO, that threshold would have to be reduced if we're talking about
people from the Middle East in the 1800's. So I stand by my statement
that Baha'u'llah was not a midget, and I insist that Tim stop
referring to Him inaccurately.
Timothy F. Mulligan
> According to the FAQ at the Website for the Little People of America
> (http://www.lpaonline.org/), the term "midget" is sometimes used to
> describe a proportionate dwarf, but it has fallen into disfavor and is
> now considered offensive by people of short stature.
>
> "Dwarf" is defined as a person with an adult height of 4 ft. 10 inches
> or shorter.
>
> IMHO, that threshold would have to be reduced if we're talking about
> people from the Middle East in the 1800's. So I stand by my statement
> that Baha'u'llah was not a midget,
An exceedingly pious Baha'i here in Houston was the one who told me, in
hushed tones, about Glory of God's stature. He told me that Glory was four
foot something or other. Of course, this gentleman's say-so has very
little evidential weight. But I've decided to assume he's right for the
purposes of discussion here.
> and I insist that Tim stop
> referring to Him inaccurately.
I will stop referring to him as a midget when you stop calling him a
Manifestation of God. Between the two of us, I think it's you who's being
more inaccurate.
Tim Mulligan
tmul...@central.uh.edu
SueEllen
behavior demonstrated by Mr. Sohrab and others, along with the "curses and
hexes" on the Believers, is to be expected and endured.
Sue
In article <19990217004323...@ng-fi1.aol.com>,
sma...@aol.com (Smaneck) wrote:
snip
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
jrc...@umich.edu
Tim:
I am sorry you had that brutalizing experience with the Baha'is in your
community, whom you found fixated on getting money out of your wallet and on
converting everyone in sight. I am sure it was very disappointing. I really,
really sympathize.
However, I wonder if it valid to criticize Baha'u'llah merely for what you
have been told about his height. Browne met him and did not say anything
about him being especially short. And even if he had been, this says nothing
at all about whether he was a great man. Napoleon was quite short, but
appears to have conquered most of Europe. I don't think you would have
wanted to be an Austrian officer facing that particular 'midget'.
Baha'u'llah was the single most important spiritual teacher to appear on
earth in the past two centuries, because of his clear vision of the need for
an end to destructive wars, for parliamentary democracy, for global
governance, for the end of religious and nationalist and racial chauvinisms,
and for a combination of rich Sufi-style spirituality with progressive social
principles. If you see flaws in any of these ideals, you would be within
your rights to critique them. But I worry about it being beneath your
dignity to cast this taunt at Baha'is simply to assuage your feelings of
betrayal for the empty promises they once made you of a progressive religion
dedicated to service of humankind. The Baha'is are not Baha'u'llah's fault,
I have decided.
When E.P. Thompson, the great historian, left the Communist Party in the
United Kingdom, he retained a great deal of respect for Karl Marx, but no
longer thought of himself as a follower of Marx. He said, the question is,
is Marx on *our* side (the side of progressives)? He decided that the answer
was 'yes'. In the same way, I believe that Baha'u'llah is on the side of
religious progressives, regardless of the mind games many Baha'is are off
playing somewhere.
cheers Juan
In article <36CC5990...@central.uh.edu>,
"Timothy F. Mulligan" <tmul...@central.uh.edu> wrote:
Juan Cole
History, U of Michigan
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai.htm
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
jrc...@umich.edu
Babi-Baha'i holy figures, including Shoghi Effendi, who he thought simply
overstepped his authority. He was excommunicated by Shoghi Effendi, but he
continued to be involved in Baha'i activities, just not those planned by
Horace Holley in Wilmette. It would be an injustice to history to say that
Sohrab "left" the Baha'i faith. In fact he won an important court case
allowing him to say he was a Baha'i and ran a Baha'i bookstore.
Sohrab did have many character flaws. He was over-ambitious. When he heard
that Shoghi Effendi had become guardian, he said "It should have been me!" I
think it is also probably the case that he had a way with getting money out
of people that wasn't entirely on the up and up. He was not an important
figure, having been mainly a cook and translator. On the other hand, older
Baha'is who knew both men have told me that Sohrab was warm and funny and
attractive while Horace Holley was sombre and rather mean.
Pride is not, however, only a characteristic of the excommunicated or of
ex-Baha'is. It is also a characteristic of enrolled Baha'is who have an
inflated sense of their own egos.
cheers Juan
In article <7aii1n$hfs$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
SueEllen <suee...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> Susan: Thank you for posting this and reminding us that the intent and
> behavior demonstrated by Mr. Sohrab and others, along with the "curses and
> hexes" on the Believers, is to be expected and endured.
>
> Sue
>
Steve Marshall
Juan has written a book, "Modernity and the Millennium : the genesis
of the Baha'i faith in the nineteenth-century Middle East", detailing
just how Baha'u'llah fitted into the progressive movements of the day.
I agree with you that Baha'u'llah is not a progressive by some of
today's standards, but I don't think that's the point. For his time
and place he was much more of a progressive than many current Baha'i
writers and spokespeople seem willing to credit.
We're all going to see Baha'u'llah in the way we'd like him to be.
Calling each other hypocrites for doing so is probably not helpful.
It's great that we're now able to discuss such issues together via the
Internet. I look forward to your contributions on the topic.
ka kite ano
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alison & Steve Marshall, Aotearoa | "Fanaticism consists in redoubling
forum...@es.co.nz (New Zealand) | your efforts when you have forgotten
Try: http://www.rightwords.co.nz/ | your aim." - George Santayana
Timothy F. Mulligan
Anyone who claims to be God on earth deserves a swift kick in the ass, albeit
posthumously. Besides that goofy claim, almost all of what is good in Husayn
Ali's "message" can be found in the writings of Enlightenment thinkers. As for
what is unique in his "message," I really don't think hair length, foot-washing,
and popcorn sharing are pressing issues.
Tim Mulligan
tmul...@central.uh.edu
jrc...@umich.edu wrote:
Timothy F. Mulligan
> Tim:
>
> I am sorry you had that brutalizing experience with the Baha'is in your
> community, whom you found fixated on getting money out of your wallet and on
> converting everyone in sight. I am sure it was very disappointing. I really,
> really sympathize.
I would not call it "brutalizing." "Disappointing," yes. I blame myself more
than anyone else. As they say, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
And it was.
> However, I wonder if it valid to criticize Baha'u'llah merely for what you
> have been told about his height.
My criticisms of Husayn Ali go way beyond his height. Fran Baker put her
finger on it when she said several months ago that enforced solemnity is used as a
weapon against critical thinking. The Baha'is have woven a patina of pretty words
around Husayn Ali. Mockery dispels that patina.
> Browne met him and did not say anything
> about him being especially short.
As I've said elsewhere, Browne had a raging hard-on for these Middle Eastern
jefes; he wouldn't have said anything disrespectful. Plus, the midget was seated
when Browne met him.
> And even if he had been, this says nothing
> at all about whether he was a great man. Napoleon was quite short, but
> appears to have conquered most of Europe. I don't think you would have
> wanted to be an Austrian officer facing that particular 'midget'.
Listen, Juan, you're missing the point. I have nothing against short men.
But you can't deny that Baha'is are shocked when they find out that Husayn Ali was
a very, very short man. When I call him a midget, I'm using a tactic of
psychological warfare, not rational argument. In any case, I have a particular
attraction toward short men -- the good looking ones, of course.
> Baha'u'llah was the single most important spiritual teacher to appear on
> earth in the past two centuries,
That's your faith talking, Juan. I don't share it. Most people don't. Not
that numbers matter one way or the other, of course. Firstly, the word
"spiritual" is used to cover many sins of fallacious reasoning; it's meaningless
to me. Secondly, I'm convinced that Husayn Ali was delusional and/or a liar.
Claims similar to yours have been made for a gaggle of goofy guys whom you would
not hesitate to characterize as I have Husayn Ali.
> because of his clear vision of the need for
> an end to destructive wars,
He wasn't the first pacifist.
> for parliamentary democracy,
He wasn't the first democrat.
> for global
> governance,
A lousy idea if I ever saw one. To put it bluntly, statism sucks.
> for the end of religious and nationalist and racial chauvinisms,
Are you kidding me? The Baha'i writings are extremely chauvinistic with
respect to religion. Baha'is unilaterally reinterpret a number of world
religions, in ways that infuriate adherents of those religions, and then claim to
"embrace" them. That's chauvinism of the worst kind: chauvinism disguised,
chauvinism misrepresented. We just finished a thread discussing how Husayn Ali
and his son insisted that Socrates got all his good stuff from Jewish prophets,
implying that the Greeks could not have advanced philosophy and science without
plugging into the chain of religions of which Bahaism is claimed to be the most
recent link. That's chauvinism, Juan.
> and for a combination of rich Sufi-style spirituality with progressive social
> principles.
Husayn Ali basically says (or is interpreted as saying) "eeewwww" concerning
homosexuality. That's not progressive. Women are excluded from the supreme
governing body of Bahaism. That's not progressive. Men and women are treated
unequally under Baha'i divorce and marriage laws. That's not progressive. Girls
receive education ahead of boys if resources are limited, solely on the basis of
sex, regardless of any other circumstances. That's not progressive. People who
reject Husayn Ali after examining his claims are threatened with a crappy
afterlife. That's not progressive.
> If you see flaws in any of these ideals, you would be within
> your rights to critique them. But I worry about it being beneath your
> dignity to cast this taunt at Baha'is simply to assuage your feelings of
> betrayal for the empty promises they once made you of a progressive religion
> dedicated to service of humankind. The Baha'is are not Baha'u'llah's fault,
> I have decided.
I've already addressed this here. Baha'is talk out of both sides of their
mouths. First, they point to the "changed lives" of Baha'is as evidence of Husayn
Ali's purported transformative power. Then, when someone expresses disappointment
with the behavior of a Baha'i, they claim that it can't be imputed to Husayn Ali.
Mr. Little is particularly adept at this little trick. It's called "Heads I win,
tails you lose," and it's a joke, not an argument.
Let me add this: Baha'is have told me that I was being "tested" by Husayn Ali
when a Baha'i I asked for help with a personal issue ended up snubbing me after he
learned I was homosexual. That's fine, but I was also testing Husayn Ali, as I
had every right to do. He failed the test. His influence was not strong enough
in this situation.
> When E.P. Thompson, the great historian, left the Communist Party in the
> United Kingdom, he retained a great deal of respect for Karl Marx, but no
> longer thought of himself as a follower of Marx. He said, the question is,
> is Marx on *our* side (the side of progressives)? He decided that the answer
> was 'yes'. In the same way, I believe that Baha'u'llah is on the side of
> religious progressives, regardless of the mind games many Baha'is are off
> playing somewhere.
I am no longer religious. I think religious faith is an inadequate basis for
belief, given the fact that there are literally thousands of conflicting
religions, sects and cults, most of which are based on faith. Yes, science, and
the everyday practical reasoning that emulates it, relies on assumptions that you
might say are based on a kind of faith, but these assumptions are always in
principle revisable, falsifiable, and verifiable. The strength of science inheres
in the revisability of scientific principles, the weakness of religion in the
immutability of its dogmas -- even if only for "a thousand years."
> cheers Juan
Juan, we don't need any more godmen. You can't fight fire with fire, and you
can't end religious factionalism by adding yet another religion. As religious
scholar Huston Smith said, Bahaism has ended up becoming just another religion.
In fact, that's all it ever was. Why not choose critical thinking, cooperation
and empathy instead of religious faith and morality-by-decree? You might be even
cheerier.
Tim Mulligan
tmul...@central.uh.edu
dar...@my-dejanews.com
Baha'u'llah was NOT a 'progressive' in the
Western understanding of that word! Period! He
was:
1) a Polygamist (He didn't 'have' to marry those
other women!).
2) a Patronist (a man who believed not in a
'classless society', but a society with well-
defined roles of Patrons and Peons--He had
black servants!)
3) a Patriarchist (someone who believed in men
heading the family, and in men heading the
government--i.e. kings/Men of Justice)
4) a Traditionalist (a person who believes in
what is referred by some today as "traditional
family values"--which condemns all forms of
sexuality outside of a legally married man and
woman).
Baha'u'llah seemed ALOT like Brigham Young
(although BY didn't have black slaves/servants).
Both men wanted World Peace. Both men
advocated that women should be educated and
become doctors, lawyers, and scientists (but
NEVER to rule over men). Both advocated an
economic system that would eliminate the
extremes of poverty and wealth (BY advocated
Cooperativism).
Baha'u'llah just CANNOT "fit" into your own
ideas. It's just that simple. Rather than
submitting to the Will of God (as Manifested by
Him), you tried to get the Will of God to
correspond with Western Humanism (the
philosophies of sinful evil men). But, if won't
work.
I've called you a "hypocrite" in the past. Please
let me apologize. You WERE a hypocrite as a
Baha'i. But, you left it. I wish "Baha'i"
Hypocrites--like Robert C. Henderson--those
who "outwardly" support the Laws and
Institutions, but who secret conspiracy against
them, THEY (and not you) are the true
Hypocrites! Take care.
Darrick Evenson
In article <7air9l$p65$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
jrc...@umich.edu wrote:
> Baha'u'llah was the single most important spiritual teacher to appear on
> earth in the past two centuries, because of his clear vision of the need for
> an end to destructive wars, for parliamentary democracy, for global
> governance, for the end of religious and nationalist and racial chauvinisms,
> and for a combination of rich Sufi-style spirituality with progressive social
> principles. If you see flaws in any of these ideals, you would be within
> your rights to critique them. But I worry about it being beneath your
> dignity to cast this taunt at Baha'is simply to assuage your feelings of
> betrayal for the empty promises they once made you of a progressive religion
> dedicated to service of humankind. The Baha'is are not Baha'u'llah's fault,
> I have decided.
>
> When E.P. Thompson, the great historian, left the Communist Party in the
> United Kingdom, he retained a great deal of respect for Karl Marx, but no
> longer thought of himself as a follower of Marx. He said, the question is,
> is Marx on *our* side (the side of progressives)? He decided that the answer
> was 'yes'. In the same way, I believe that Baha'u'llah is on the side of
> religious progressives, regardless of the mind games many Baha'is are off
> playing somewhere.
>
> cheers Juan
>
> In article <36CC5990...@central.uh.edu>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
jrc...@umich.edu
Dear Steve:
Thanks so much for your comments, and the plug! :-) Actually, I think
Baha'u'llah can be defended as a progressive even in today's terms, providing
one is willing to think historically.
Beyond the issue of monogamy, which he came to favor, he took progressive
stances on a range of issues. I define progressive as any movement or
tendency of thought that desires to maximize the distribution of wealth,
power and information in society. That is, reactionary or conservative
movements are such because they wish to concentrate power in a few hands (the
king, or an aristocracy or a junta) and/or wish to concentrate information
and wealth in a few hands. Although class society is apparently unavoidable,
Baha'u'llah wanted wealth, power and information to be spread about as much
as possible. Thus, he quite explicitly called for the end of absolutism,
which was to be replaced with parliamentary democracy; he called for the
Sultan's ministers not to live in opulence while there were poor in
Istanbul's shanty towns (i.e. he called for redistribution of wealth toward
the poor). Indeed, one of the main reasons he gives for his emphasis on
peace is that war overtaxes the poor.
Baha'u'llah is also a progressive in opposing war, in favoring collective
security, in recognizing the need for global cooperation, and in worrying
about unbridled technological and material advancement both with regard to
its implications for the destructiveness of war and for its impact on what we
would now call the environment. This all sounds progressive to me, even
today.
Coming back to gender, although it is true he married three times, it is also
true that he encouraged monogamy toward the end of his life. Nor were the
marriages what we would call matters of individual choice. In Iran there
were really only arranged marriages in that period (and for the most part
still today), and the first two marriages were family alliances set up for
him by his father or eldest brothers. The third was a matter of local social
convention, since you couldn't have a live-in maid in mid-19th century
Shi`ite Baghdad unless you took her as a 'temporary' wife, and Asiyih Khanum
wanted a live-in maid. Baha'u'llah abolished this requirement quite
explicitly only a few years later, in the Kitab-i Aqdas.
In the end, Baha'u'llah's teachings on gender were "Today, the handmaidens of
God are accounted as men." That is, there is no difference in status between
men and women in his religion. I don't see that this statement is at all
patriarchal, quite the reverse.
With regard to the gay issue, Baha'u'llah himself had little to say; the one
place he addresses something like that, in the Most Holy Book, he condemns
the taking of a catamite (ghulam) or boy slave by a master. This passage
comes close to the condemnation of adultery and it may be implied that it is
wrong for a married master to take a boy. Moreover, of course, Baha'u'llah
forbade slavery, so there wouldn't even be any catamites /ghulams in a Baha'i
society. Even so, he does not prescribe a punishment for taking a catamite,
which is quite striking; he only says it is shameful. Contemporary
homosexuality as a social phenomenon did not exist in the 19th century.
Baha'u'llah appears to have been most concerned with issues in exploitation
(master/slave, notable/boy) rather than simple homosexuality. Since he
abolished ritual uncleanness and urged love and toleration for all, it is not
at all clear that were he alive today he would urge any action to be taken
against gays; rather the reverse.
With regard to someone else's comments about my supposed hypocrisy or lack of
it, I simply have to say that I am uninterested in discussing my alleged
character flaws with strangers on Usenet lists, more especially with what
appear to be remarkably uninformed strangers. I have stood for the basic
values Baha'u'llah taught since before I ever became a Baha'i; I stood for
them while I was an enrolled Baha'i, and I stand for them now. Values are
not the property of anyone. And Baha'u'llah's values were demonstrably those
of a progressive man of his time.
cheers Juan
Juan Cole
History, U of Michigan
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai.htm
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Roger Reini
<tmul...@central.uh.edu> wrote:
>
> As I've said elsewhere, Browne had a raging hard-on for these Middle Eastern
>jefes; he wouldn't have said anything disrespectful. Plus, the midget was seated
>when Browne met him.
Once again, this is factually inaccurate.
>
> Are you kidding me? The Baha'i writings are extremely chauvinistic with
>respect to religion. Baha'is unilaterally reinterpret a number of world
>religions, in ways that infuriate adherents of those religions, and then claim to
>"embrace" them. That's chauvinism of the worst kind: chauvinism disguised,
>chauvinism misrepresented. We just finished a thread discussing how Husayn Ali
>and his son insisted that Socrates got all his good stuff from Jewish prophets,
>implying that the Greeks could not have advanced philosophy and science without
>plugging into the chain of religions of which Bahaism is claimed to be the most
>recent link. That's chauvinism, Juan.
If what Baha'u'llah teaches is true (and this I believe), then all the
religions are truly one religion. And Baha'u'llah, as the
Manifestation of God, is in a unique position to comment on the
religions as they have evolved, not necessarily in conformance with
the wishes of their Founder(s). He can offer insight as to what
verses really mean. Undoubtedly this might irritate some believers,
and especially the divines, of the earlier revelations.
Since you say you are no longer religious, I do not expect you to
accept this argument.
dar...@my-dejanews.com
Juan "was" a hypocrite. As a UU, he is not. As
far as his misinterpretations of the Faith and
religion in general, I don't think that's hypocrisy;
just self-delusion. And, yes, the 'progessiveness'
that Baha'u'llah advocated is FAR from what the
term means in English in the West in the latter
20th century!
Darrick Evenson
In article <
36cdb0aa...@news.dun.ihug.co.nz>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Ron House
> Dear Steve,
> Juan "was" a hypocrite. As a UU, he is not. As
> far as his misinterpretations of the Faith and
> religion in general, I don't think that's hypocrisy;
> just self-delusion. And, yes, the 'progessiveness'
> that Baha'u'llah advocated is FAR from what the
> term means in English in the West in the latter
> 20th century!
> Darrick Evenson
"Hypocrisy" is to pretend to do good. Even if Juan were mistaken, I do
not see how logical inconsistency is to pretend to do good. Hypocrisy is
one of the worst of spiritual crimes, and I think you should be a great
deal more careful before spraying that accusation around. In any case,
this NG is for discussing the faith, not accusing people.
Timothy F. Mulligan
Baha'u'llah) was "spiritual." I find nothing spiritual about Husayn Ali's writings.
His writings consistently veer from bombast to bathetic self-pity. They are quite
disedifying.
You Baha'is believe that Husayn Ali mirrors God's attributes. If God is such a
self-dramatizing, histrionic whiner, he doesn't deserve respect, let alone worship.
Tim Mulligan
tmul...@central.uh.edu
Timothy F. Mulligan
> In the end, Baha'u'llah's teachings on gender were "Today, the handmaidens of
> God are accounted as men." That is, there is no difference in status between
> men and women in his religion. I don't see that this statement is at all
> patriarchal, quite the reverse.
Juan, this is false. You know better. Re-read the Kitab-i-Aqdas. Men and
women are treated differently under a number of Baha'i laws.
> With regard to the gay issue, Baha'u'llah himself had little to say; the one
> place he addresses something like that, in the Most Holy Book, he condemns
> the taking of a catamite (ghulam) or boy slave by a master. This passage
> comes close to the condemnation of adultery and it may be implied that it is
> wrong for a married master to take a boy. Moreover, of course, Baha'u'llah
> forbade slavery, so there wouldn't even be any catamites /ghulams in a Baha'i
> society. Even so, he does not prescribe a punishment for taking a catamite,
> which is quite striking; he only says it is shameful. Contemporary
> homosexuality as a social phenomenon did not exist in the 19th century.
So why didn't the "far-seeing" one anticipate the development of the modern
concept of homosexuality and address it?
> Baha'u'llah appears to have been most concerned with issues in exploitation
> (master/slave, notable/boy) rather than simple homosexuality. Since he
> abolished ritual uncleanness and urged love and toleration for all, it is not
> at all clear that were he alive today he would urge any action to be taken
> against gays; rather the reverse.
"The reverse"? What does that mean, Juan? Do you honestly think Husayn Ali
would support gay rights?
It's amusing to me that so many excuses are made for Husayn Ali's statements
on the grounds that they address "his culture" in "the Nineteenth Century." For
a "revelation" that is supposed to last a thousand years and apply to everyone on
the planet, one would not expect so much parochialism.
Tim Mulligan
tmul...@central.uh.edu
Roger Reini
<tmul...@central.uh.edu> wrote:
> I want to add something else about Juan's claim that Husayn Ali (alias
>Baha'u'llah) was "spiritual." I find nothing spiritual about Husayn Ali's writings.
>His writings consistently veer from bombast to bathetic self-pity. They are quite
>disedifying.
On the contrary, I find them to be quite edifying. When I first read
the Hidden Words, I knew that they contained the wisdom of the ages.
I could sense the Voice of God contained within them.
Of course, that's just my opinion.
Timothy F. Mulligan
> On Tue, 23 Feb 1999 09:08:15 -0600, "Timothy F. Mulligan"
> <tmul...@central.uh.edu> wrote:
>
> > I want to add something else about Juan's claim that Husayn Ali (alias
> >Baha'u'llah) was "spiritual." I find nothing spiritual about Husayn Ali's writings.
> >His writings consistently veer from bombast to bathetic self-pity. They are quite
> >disedifying.
>
> On the contrary, I find them to be quite edifying. When I first read
> the Hidden Words, I knew that they contained the wisdom of the ages.
> I could sense the Voice of God contained within them.
How did you recognize the "Voice of God"tm? Had you heard it before? If so, how did
you recognize it then?
> Of course, that's just my opinion.
Yes. Yes, indeed.
Saman Ahmadi
> jrc...@umich.edu wrote:
>
> > In the end, Baha'u'llah's teachings on gender were "Today, the handmaidens of
> > God are accounted as men." That is, there is no difference in status between
> > men and women in his religion. I don't see that this statement is at all
> > patriarchal, quite the reverse.
Juan,
I have never argued with you on a technical point but your quote is one
from Baha'u'llah which he wrote in Persian and used the Arabic-origin
word "rijal". Isn't it true that when an Arabic word is used in Persian
it does not necessarily carry with its full Arabic connotation? Couldn't
Baha'u'llah be understood in this case to be using the meaning of "noble"
for "rijal"?
I know of the reverse to be true - for example while "marhaba" is Arabic
in origin and used as a greeting, in Persian it has the connotation of
"good going".
-saman
Milissa Boyer Kafes
You know, you could both be right! There is no reason to assume that a
particular revelation will be satisfactory to everyone. Although it does seem
odd that the same verse could have such different effects on people, it does
happen!
Peace
Milissa Boyer Kafes
mbk...@bestweb.net
In article <36D3347C...@central.uh.edu>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Vinson Jamir
Aside from those points already mentioned by Juan, please allow me to add one of
my personal favorites, namely Baha'u'llah's abolition of jihad as a practice among
his own following, the result of which was the creation of a pacifist movement at the
very center of Shiite Islamic culture. No one had any reason to expect an outcome so
contrary to prevailing norms prior to its actual occurrence, same as no one had any
reason to anticipate the rise of a movement so coherent and cohesive as Islam amidst
the desolate tribalism of Seventh Century Arabia.
For many years, Husayn-Ali of Nur practiced the Faith of the younger prophet of
Shiraz. Have you any thoughts about the Faith of the Bab?
vinson
"Timothy F. Mulligan" wrote:
> jrc...@umich.edu wrote:
>
> > In the end, Baha'u'llah's teachings on gender were "Today, the handmaidens of
> > God are accounted as men." That is, there is no difference in status between
> > men and women in his religion. I don't see that this statement is at all
> > patriarchal, quite the reverse.
>
McKenny Michael
Greetings, Tim.
You asked:
>
> How did you recognize the "Voice of God"tm? Had you heard
>it before? If so, how did you recognize it then?
>
was supposed to be the words of the Enlightened One had the ring of truth
for me.
When I was 21 I was irresistably drawn to read the Qur'an. I read
the whole book in about one week, and recall thinking that Muhammad was
true, as was Buddha.
Very soon after that I ran into the writings of Baha'u'llah, and
recognized the same truth.
Just because Baha'i fundamentalists have reversed the broad-minded
vision of Baha'u'llah, and regardless of the precise details as to the
impact of his humanity and his age upon him, as indeed the age and human
limitations of Buddha and Muhammad and all greatly in tune with the Soul-
Sphere of the species, doesn't mean that one cannot detect spirituality
in his words, as in the words of others so in tune with the human Soul
Sphere, called god by some.
May this find you very well, may you be even more kindly treated by
the future, and may each of the days ahead of us be better than the one it
succeeds.
All the Best,
Timothy F. Mulligan
> Have you any thoughts about the Faith of the Bab?
It's hard to tell what the "Faith of the Bab" is, since the Bayan has not been
published in English. However, to the extent that the "Bab" taught that God exists, and
that the "Bab" was in some sense God on earth, I think the "Faith of the Bab," like any
religious faith, is nonsense.
Tim Mulligan
tmul...@central.uh.edu
K. Paul Johnson
: <tmul...@central.uh.edu> wrote:
: >His writings consistently veer from bombast to bathetic self-pity. They are quite
:
: On the contrary, I find them to be quite edifying. When I first read
: the Hidden Words, I knew that they contained the wisdom of the ages.
: I could sense the Voice of God contained within them.
:
: Of course, that's just my opinion.
:
Actually, I think it's a bit more than that. The Hidden Words
are so universal in appeal that they do in some sense deserve to
be called "the wisdom of the ages" expressed in the "Voice of
God." That's *my* opinion and a very widespread one among folks
who have read them. Nonetheless, I would agree overall with
Tim's assessment, finding the Hidden Words to be exceptional
rather than typical.
PJ
Roger Reini
<tmul...@central.uh.edu> wrote:
>Roger Reini wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Feb 1999 09:08:15 -0600, "Timothy F. Mulligan"
>> <tmul...@central.uh.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > I want to add something else about Juan's claim that Husayn Ali (alias
>> >Baha'u'llah) was "spiritual." I find nothing spiritual about Husayn Ali's writings.
>> >His writings consistently veer from bombast to bathetic self-pity. They are quite
>> >disedifying.
>>
>> On the contrary, I find them to be quite edifying. When I first read
>> the Hidden Words, I knew that they contained the wisdom of the ages.
>> I could sense the Voice of God contained within them.
>
> How did you recognize the "Voice of God"tm? Had you heard it before? If so, how did
>you recognize it then?
It was intuitive for me. I just knew it, that's all.
>
>> Of course, that's just my opinion.
>
> Yes. Yes, indeed.
I think six million other believers might share my opinion <g>.
Timothy F. Mulligan
> On Tue, 23 Feb 1999 17:06:37 -0600, "Timothy F. Mulligan"
> <tmul...@central.uh.edu> wrote:
>
> > How did you recognize the "Voice of God"tm? Had you heard it before? If so, how did
> >you recognize it then?
>
> It was intuitive for me. I just knew it, that's all.
And this is supposed to convince us? Other people "intuitively" believe that Reverend
Moon and his wife are "the True Parents, the Messiah" (see
http://www.unification.org/rev_mrs_moon.html). Still others "intuitively" believe that Adi Da
Samraj is God on earth (see http://www.adidam.org/AdiDa/home.htm). What does this tell us
about religious "intuition"?
> I think six million other believers might share my opinion <g>.
_Argumentum ad numeram_, or the "Argument from numbers," is a logical fallacy.
Tim Mulligan
tmul...@central.uh.edu
jrc...@umich.edu
Tim and Roger:
I felt the same way when I first read the Hidden Words. I guess we need to
begin any exploration of whether Baha'u'llah was a great spiritual teacher by
defining what we mean by spiritual.
Any takers?
cheers Juan
In article <36d9e8f6...@news.newsguy.com>,
rre...@wwnet.net wrote:
> On the contrary, I find them to be quite edifying. When I first read
> the Hidden Words, I knew that they contained the wisdom of the ages.
> I could sense the Voice of God contained within them.
>
> Of course, that's just my opinion.
>
> Roger (rre...@wwnet.net)
> http://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/
>
Juan Cole
History, U of Michigan
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai.htm
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
jrc...@umich.edu
Dear Saman:
In Persian the verse I quoted is "Imruz, ima'u'llah as rijal mahsub."= "Today,
the handmaidens of God are considered as men."
You are correct that this could also be translated, "Today the handmaidens of
God are considered as notables." That is, when we see a book about Rijal-i
Iran, it means "The great people of Iran," and there might well be entries
about women in it.
But "notables" are people with even more prerogatives and rights in society
than ordinary "men," so if we read the verse that way, it exalts the station
of women even more than just saying they are as (ordinary) "men." It would
then be saying that they are just like the prime ministers and provincial
governors.
In either case, the verse is definitely anti-patriarchal.
cheers Juan
In article <36D37260...@earthlink.net>,
saman-...@usa.net wrote:
> I have never argued with you on a technical point but your quote is one
> from Baha'u'llah which he wrote in Persian and used the Arabic-origin
> word "rijal". Isn't it true that when an Arabic word is used in Persian
> it does not necessarily carry with its full Arabic connotation? Couldn't
> Baha'u'llah be understood in this case to be using the meaning of "noble"
> for "rijal"?
>
McKenny Michael
Greetings, Timothy
You wrote:
>
> Argumentum ad numerum, or the "Argument from numbers," is a
>logical fallacy.
>
I agree with you, and it is not the only logical fallacy one may
encounter from some Baha'is. Gods willing, things will make more sense
as time passes, and more conversations occur among Baha'is and between
Baha'is and those who are not Baha'is, and minds and hearts, we hope,
become more open.
May the light and warmth of the approaching spring touch all the
hearts of those walking through the path of this newsgroup, and those
walking through Baha'i paths, and those walking along all other paths.
To the Bluebirds at Dover,
Roger Reini
<tmul...@central.uh.edu> wrote:
>Roger Reini wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Feb 1999 17:06:37 -0600, "Timothy F. Mulligan"
>> <tmul...@central.uh.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > How did you recognize the "Voice of God"tm? Had you heard it before? If so, how did
>> >you recognize it then?
>>
>> It was intuitive for me. I just knew it, that's all.
>
> And this is supposed to convince us? Other people "intuitively" believe that Reverend
>Moon and his wife are "the True Parents, the Messiah" (see
>http://www.unification.org/rev_mrs_moon.html). Still others "intuitively" believe that Adi Da
>Samraj is God on earth (see http://www.adidam.org/AdiDa/home.htm). What does this tell us
>about religious "intuition"?
Based on statements you've made in other messages, how you reject all
religion, I see no point in continuing the discussion, since you are
certain to reject what I say anyway.
>
>> I think six million other believers might share my opinion <g>.
>
> _Argumentum ad numeram_, or the "Argument from numbers," is a logical fallacy.
But I am not making a formal, structured argument. I'm stating my
opinion that six million other Baha'is might share my opinion that the
writings of Baha'u'llah are the voice of God.
Roger Borseth
It means nothing more than that we have all the same source the Writings of the Central figures for our beliefs, that of The Bab, Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l- Baha. That we don't differ is the unity that we have in the Writings themselves they are the standard by which we build our talks around. Why then should we differ?
Peace and Unity
Roger
Kidnykid wrote in message <19990224235651...@ng04.aol.com>...
>>It seems to me that the existence of different schools of thought within the
>>Baha'i community is a reality at the present time,
>
>I must share an observation at this point.
>
>One of the things that actually drove me away from the faith is the similarity
>of interpretations and viewpoints. Now, I'm not talking about believing that
>Baha'u'llah was the Founder or that Shoghi Effendi was the Guardian. I consider
>these givens that a Bahai must accept.
>
>However, it seemed to me that people giving lectures on certain topics sounded
>almost identical to each other on every single detail - not the essentials, but
>every single detail, as if they had to run their oral statements by Wilmette
>like a book or magazine article.
>
>I don't like that - I don't want to say what it smacks of but suffice it to say
>that it isn't pleasant.
>
>Robin Peters
>One casualty - my wits, as in frightened out of.
>Leonard McCoy, MD, ship's surgeon, USS Enterprise
>
Vinson Jamir
Well, the chief work of Siyyid 'Ali-Muhammad of Shiraz was translated into French some
years ago, which must be great for those who read French. It would not be polite to
suggest that English would be better, would it?
However, if you are interested, Dennis MacEoin's provisional translation is available at
http://bahai-library.org/provisionals/bayan.html and is definitely on my "must read someday
soon" list! (I just recently learned about the site.)
I understand that the burden of Baha'u'llah's "Book of Certitude" was to promote the
Persian Bayan as the "City of Certitude," meaning the fullest expression of Divine Thought
available at that time and that place. In other words, the form of the Kitab-i-Iqan was
apologetics for for the Bayan and its author. From this perspective, it seems illogical for
Baha'is not to be devoted to the appreciation and study of the Bayan at least as much as
they are to other scriptures referred to by Baha'u'llah as revealing the "City of Certitude"
to human perception.
According to its own structure of vahids and chapters, the Bayan represents an
"unfinished work" which the author promised would be completed by the one whose future
advent it anticipates. The Kitab-i-Iqan was Baha'u'llah's offering in fulfillment of that
promise. From this perspective, it would make great sense to compare the two works to see
that they form an integrated whole that would justify one to conclude that the latter
composition actually completed the themes set forth in the earlier work.
In certain specific cases, it has been shown that Baha'u'llah completed the work of the
Bab. One example is the "Badi' Calendar" system set forth in the Bayan. From what
information is available to me, it appears that the Bab described a solar year comprised of
nineteen months of nineteen days each, rounded off by festive intercalary days named
"ayyam-i-ha". Apparently, the Bayan does not specify the placement of the intercalary
days, so Baha'u'llah legislated that they be observed immediately preceding the month of
fasting, or February 26 - March 1st (inclusive). In our observance of this time world, we
seek shelter under the "firmament of the Bayan." (Kitab-i-Iqan, p.3)
Happy Ayyam-i-Ha, Tim!
vinson
Kidnykid
Kidnykid
>that Reverend
>Moon and his wife are "the True Parents, the Messiah" (see
>http://www.unification.org/rev_mrs_moon.html). Still others "intuitively"
>believe that Adi Da
>Samraj is God on earth (see http://www.adidam.org/AdiDa/home.htm). What does
>this tell us
>about religious "intuition"?
And Mormons speak of the burning in the breast - same difference IMHO.
Timothy F. Mulligan
> Based on statements you've made in other messages, how you reject all
> religion, I see no point in continuing the discussion, since you are
> certain to reject what I say anyway.
I am not writing to convince you, Roger. You illustrate quite nicely how religious faith is a
matter of willfulness and not a product of evidence and logic. I am writing, rather, to alert
uncommitted lurkers to the problems with Bahaism in particular and religion in general. Your posts
have served to exemplify those problems.
Tim Mulligan
tmul...@central.uh.edu
Timothy F. Mulligan
Bab"?
Alison Marshall
>begin any exploration of whether Baha'u'llah was a great spiritual teacher by
>defining what we mean by spiritual.
>
>Any takers?
The divine reflected in creation. Baha'u'llah says that everything in
creation is a sign of the divine; that is, everything can reflect the
names and attributes of the divine. Baha'u'llah was a great spiritual
teacher because he reflected the divine to a supreme degree, and the
proof is in the effect that the Hidden Words have on our hearts when
we read them. Our sign recognises his, and we fall in love. That's
spiritual to me.
Alison
Alison Marshall
<tmul...@central.uh.edu> wrote:
> How does necrotizing fasciitis reflect the divine? How does Parkinson's
>Disease reflect the divine?
> How does animal predation reflect the divine?
> How do leeches reflect the divine?
> How do conjoined twins reflect the divine?
> How does cancer reflect the divine?
So, you hate Baha'u'llah, along with necrotizing fasciitis,
Parkinson's Disease, animal predation, leeches, conjoined twins, and
cancer.
Hmmm, not a good start. Is there anything you love?
Alison
Kidnykid
I believe he was one of the early Covenant breakers, because he disagreed with
the Will and Testament's validity. In fact, I think (but am not absolutely
certain) that Wilmette unsuccessfully sued him and another CB over their use of
the name Bahai.
Vinson Jamir
I have never had the chance to read the Persian Bayan. However, the link to MacEoin's page
is working, and my search for the key words "kill," "murder," and "slay" got me only one hit,
which was "slayer." I have pasted at the end of this message the paragraph translated by MacEoin
in which this term appears, in the second chapter of the First Unity (Vahid) of the Persian
Bayan. It appears to refer to the exclusive power of God over life and death. Have you a
better source? Another page by Dennis MacEoin, linked to translation, is
http://bahai-library.org/essays/bayan.questions.html which is an interesting series of questions
and answers related to the translation.
vinson
"Timothy F. Mulligan" wrote:
Whoever ponders upon that will see with certainty that the true spirits are realized in their
essences through the appearance of the Primal Point in the verses of God within the realities of
the souls and the horizons, as
was mentioned by God before this in the Qur'an, in the verse We shall show them Our signs in the
horizons and in their souls, that it may be made clear to them that He is the Truth. So long as
anyone fails to behold the inner reality of all things, which is the spirit of his own heart, he
shall not attain to an understanding of the holy words the word of God is the truth, since it is
by the (mere) mention of the word that the reality is realized within the inner being of the
thing. This refers to God alone, exalted and glorified be He, for none but He is a creator of
anything, or a sustainer of anything, or a slayer of anything, or a vivifier of anything. (from
provisional translation of the Persian Bayan, by Dennis MacEoin)
jrc...@umich.edu
or holy war, despite immense provocation. I really think the Bab is getting
a bad rap on this list for no good reason. Can't people be bothered to quote
and cite when they throw this silliness around?
cheers Juan
In article <36D557C3...@central.uh.edu>,
"Timothy F. Mulligan" <tmul...@central.uh.edu> wrote:
> Tell me, Vinson, is it true that the Bayan calls for the murder of those
who reject "the
> Bab"?
>
> Vinson Jamir wrote:
>
> > Dear Tim,
> > Well, the chief work of Siyyid 'Ali-Muhammad of Shiraz was translated
into French some
> > years ago, which must be great for those who read French. It would not be
polite to
> > suggest that English would be better, would it?
> > However, if you are interested, Dennis MacEoin's provisional translation is
available at
> > http://bahai-library.org/provisionals/bayan.html and is definitely on my
"must read someday
> > soon" list! (I just recently learned about the site.)
>
>
Juan Cole
jrc...@umich.edu
I keep a file of email messages having to do with the problems facing the
Baha'i faith. These include autobiographical accounts of ex-Baha'is.
Feel free to reply privately. But I wonder if you could make time to tell me
something more detailed about your experience of the Baha'i faith. When and
where did you join? How long were you in, and where did you mainly live?
What were your major dissatisfactions or the things that most disturbed you
about the community? What exactly led you to depart? Did you ever develop
any insight into power and electoral practices in the community both at the
local and national levels? Did you ever have any run-ins with the branch of
the 'Learned"?
I'd be very interested to know of your impressions. One problem in the
past has been that ex-Baha'is just fade away, and there is no way to
register *their* experiences for history. Of course, I would be happy to
promise you to honor any restrictions you might put on my use of what you
might tell me (I am a professional historian).
cheers Juan
In article <19990225001531...@ng04.aol.com>,
kidn...@aol.comspamfree (Kidnykid) wrote:
>
> And Mormons speak of the burning in the breast - same difference IMHO.
>
> Robin Peters
> One casualty - my wits, as in frightened out of.
> Leonard McCoy, MD, ship's surgeon, USS Enterprise
>
Juan Cole
Kidnykid
McKenny Michael
Greetings, Vinson and Tim.
I believe the passage reads, "Leave not a single unbeliever alive."
All the Best,
Michael
Vinson Jamir (joy...@bellsouth.net) writes:
> Dear Tim,
> I have never had the chance to read the Persian Bayan. However, the link to MacEoin's page
> is working, and my search for the key words "kill," "murder," and "slay" got me only one hit,
> which was "slayer." I have pasted at the end of this message the paragraph translated by MacEoin
> in which this term appears, in the second chapter of the First Unity (Vahid) of the Persian
> Bayan. It appears to refer to the exclusive power of God over life and death. Have you a
> better source? Another page by Dennis MacEoin, linked to translation, is
> http://bahai-library.org/essays/bayan.questions.html which is an interesting series of questions
> and answers related to the translation.
>
> vinson
>
>
> "Timothy F. Mulligan" wrote:
>
>> Tell me, Vinson, is it true that the Bayan calls for the murder of those who reject "the
>> Bab"?
>>
>> Vinson Jamir wrote:
>>
Frederick Glaysher
the
>>Baha'i community is a reality at the present time,
>
>I must share an observation at this point.
>
>One of the things that actually drove me away from the faith is the
similarity
>of interpretations and viewpoints. Now, I'm not talking about believing
that
>Baha'u'llah was the Founder or that Shoghi Effendi was the Guardian. I
consider
>these givens that a Bahai must accept.
>
>However, it seemed to me that people giving lectures on certain topics
sounded
>almost identical to each other on every single detail - not the essentials,
but
>every single detail, as if they had to run their oral statements by
Wilmette
>like a book or magazine article.
>
>I don't like that - I don't want to say what it smacks of but suffice it to
say
>that it isn't pleasant.
I believe you're onto something that's very important
to understand. We're witnessing this phenomenon all
the time here on Usenet. There's a set collection of
answers and defenses that are repeated over and over,
coached I'm sure, at times, from the sidelines by the
Bahai Jesuit Order. In this sense, it has seemed to me
for a very long time that the Bahai Faith is not a "living
religion," but one quite ossified. There's a text; it's taught
at summer schools and by Iranian Bahais and one mustn't
depart from it.... Living religions evolve and permit their
followers to probe its depths, returning with precious
jewels all may share and benefit from.
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm On talk.religion.bahai,
alt.religion.bahai, and AOL: Keyword Bahai, Message Boards
Frederick Glaysher
One problem in the
>past has been that ex-Baha'is just fade away, and there is no way to
>register *their* experiences for history.
I've noticed the same thing and last fall created a page on my
website Ex-Bahais Explain Why....
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Ex.htm
Kidnykid
>I believe you're onto something that's very important
>to understand. We're witnessing this phenomenon all
>the time here on Usenet.
> There's a set collection of
>answers and defenses that are repeated over and over,
>coached I'm sure, at times, from the sidelines by the
>Bahai Jesuit Order.
>In this sense, it has seemed to me
>for a very long time that the Bahai Faith is not a "living
>religion," but one quite ossified
>There's a text; it's taught
>at summer schools and by Iranian Bahais and one mustn't
>depart from it.... Living religions evolve and permit their
>followers to probe its depths, returning with precious
>jewels all may share and benefit from.
>
It goes further than this. When I brought up the topic of the pilgrimage - I
had signed the declaration card only a few minutes prior to this question - I
was told about the hotel that all the Baha'is stayed at in Haifa and the
airline that they all took. It was strongly implied that I could not search for
a cheaper airline ticket or stay anywhere else in Haifa.
Note that it was an implication rather than an outright statement. I also
remember reading in the American Baha'i that a part of the preparation for the
centenary of Baha'u'llah's death was the negotiation for air discounts. We were
told not to jeopardize what the NSA called the "delicate negotiations" for air
ticket and hotel room discounts by getting our own hotel rooms and air tickets
even if we could get a better deal elsewhere.
By way of contrast, a Catholic going to Rome can negotiate a discount air fare
with any airline he or she chooses. He or she can also go on the pilgrimage
tour of his or her choice, take a direct nonstop flight to Rome if that is his
or her preference and so forth. Baha'is do not even have this freedom. Every
aspect of his or her life seemed to me to be controlled by insinuation - not
just the important aspects of belief but the most minor details or corporate
existence.
If it gets to the point where the Pope tells me what airline to take, and what
hotel to stay at, and how to flush my toilet, I will resign my parish
membership. This is the exact level of control I knew was being exerted in my
life when I was a Baha'i.
Timothy F. Mulligan
> >I felt the same way when I first read the Hidden Words. I guess we need to
> >begin any exploration of whether Baha'u'llah was a great spiritual teacher by
> >defining what we mean by spiritual.
> >
> >Any takers?
>
> The divine reflected in creation. Baha'u'llah says that everything in
> creation is a sign of the divine; that is, everything can reflect the
> names and attributes of the divine.
How does necrotizing fasciitis reflect the divine? How does Parkinson's
Disease reflect the divine?
How does animal predation reflect the divine?
How do leeches reflect the divine?
How do conjoined twins reflect the divine?
How does cancer reflect the divine?
> Baha'u'llah was a great spiritual
> teacher because he reflected the divine to a supreme degree
I guess he does, if those other things do.
Tim Mulligan
tmul...@central.uh.edu
Bintyaya
> I believe the passage reads, "Leave not a single unbeliever alive."
>
I have the Persian Bayan in French and I cannot find the passage anywhere.
Reference please????
Michela
McKenny Michael
Greetings, Michela.
A few years ago on a Baha'i e-mail list someone brought this up. No
one challenged the validity of the quote, and, people like Juan and Susan
were on this list. I recall someone saying the Bab said," Leave not a
single unbeliever alive in the Central provinces of Iran" maybe naming them
in the quote. I don't recall whether this was supposed to be from the Bayan
or from another of the Bab's writings.
I replied that even if the Bab had said such a thing it could be taken
symbolically, and even if the Bab insisted it be taken literally humans
already had advice from deity in the writings of the Buddha, Moses, etc.
on the sanctity of life and the wrongness of murder.
In the letter from the Universal house of Justice to my wife explaining
why I could not be considered a member of the Baha'i community, the UHJ
stated that it seemed I did not understand what a manifestation of god was.
Susan Maneck in the discussion that took place on Baha'i e-mail lists soon
after receipt of this letter said that as far as she could tell it was this
answer of mine that provided the grounds for that assessment by the UHJ that
I did not understand what a manifestation was. In other words, a
manifestation a la UHJ is someone who can order mass murder and be obeyed.
To the day when principle trumps blind obedience of the lack of
principle.
All the Best,
Michael