Logs of Talisman Discussions of Bahai Faith 4/96
Wed, 6 Mar 1996 14:18:30 PST8PDT
From: "Eric D. Pierce"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: FYI: background messages/ Re: As I was saying
Hi,
See the appended texts for the original talisman messages that I
was able to find that reference the pilgrimage incident (reverse
chronological order).
Date: 01 Oct 95 01:45:22 EDT - Publicly Confronting Injustice
Date: 17 Jul 95 17:46:34 EDT - Review and Ruined Lives
Unfortunately I can't resist commenting on this item, sorry for
trashing up this archival posting with opinions.
As I'm sure many folks are thinking, it is hard to know the
wisdom of microscopically discussing this "publicly" on talisman
without having all (or at least most of) the available important
information about the case.
I would assume that since it indirectly involves the previously
discussed complex "Modest Proposal" fiasco and the response to
Steve about that matter by the Universal House of Justice (the
private letter to him was posted without Steve's permission
[he didn't even know the extent to which hardcopies of the letter
were in circulation]), we will probably not be able to make any
clear calls on this one either.
Really, is anyone still in doubt that both "sides" in these old
disputes probably overreacted and therefore things spun out of
control? As a subscriber privately mentioned to me a few days
ago in some comments on the "structural deficiency" issue:
: When the Individual Rights and Freedoms letter was
: first published both xxxxx and I thought that its
: very title was indicative of a major part of the
: problem. When one reads the letter from a non-USA
: perspective it is a very balanced statement
: regarding "Individual and Institutional Rights and
: Freedoms", but the official title implies that the
: difficulty rests solely on the shoulders of the
: individual. The last sentence in the first
: paragraph sums up the whole balance. The House of
: Justice speaks directly to both parts of the
: equation, "The source of the potential difficulties
: of the situation appears to us to be an inadequacy
: of Baha'i perspective on the part of both individual
: believers and their institutions."
..............^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
My personal experience leads me to think that these types of
incidents don't so much clearly show that there are always
nefarious forces operating within the admin (I personally think
that abuses DO happen on occasion), they indicate the
problematic aspects of the sometimes byzantine nature of the
way the system tends to currently operate (personal connections
through a quasi-elite social network). Sometimes the "honor
system" is just not going to be the best way to run admin in a
young multicultural religious community.
Thus the approach we take to developing an appropriate attitude
about finding solutions will fall out across a spectrum from:
* embedded formalized structral guarantees of "due process",
etc. are the "only" way to go to insure justice, so we better
scream about rights,
to
* divine guidance is the "only" way to go, so be submissive.
I guess what I trying to get around to is that there seems to be
two core issues here, one is the prevalance in the community of
denial about abuses of power, the second is what kind of
legitimate attitudes and actions should we develop as individuals
as the admin evolves into a more mature, open and spiritualized
system. The role of academic/intellectual/scholarly specialists
and writers is clearly different than that of "common" Baha'is
(me), and additional responsibilities apply to specialists.
If the discussion is framed in terms of screaming about the
existence and signifigance of the denial (and other related
dysfunctional authority-challenging behaviours) then we may never
get around to completing (or be allowed to complete) a workable
range of possible solutions.
I have absolutely no idea if that makes any sense!
Eric (rapidly becoming hopelessly moderate) Pierce
> Date sent: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 14:30:40 -0500 (EST)
> From: lwalbrid
> To: talisman@majordomo.ucs.indiana.edu
> Subject: As I was saying
> Dear Richard, Alex, and other non-faint-hearted Talismanians:
>
> May I present David's "Retraction" posting as Exhibit A.
>
> As I recall, David posted several months ago that he had had his
> pilgrimage rights revoked enroute to Haifa. I seem to remember that he
> had a discussion with David Ruhe (I know it was a standing UHJ member)
> who told him that the House had not been involved with this case and that
> he assumed this was an American NSA matter. I also recall that David was
> ultimately allowed to continue on pilgrimage because he appealed the case
> to the House (David, please feel free to correct me if I have
> misunderstood all of this.)
>
*****************************************************************
******************** appended message 1 of 2 ********************
*****************************************************************
Date sent: 01 Oct 95 01:45:22 EDT
From: David Langness <72110.2126@compuserve.com>
To:
Subject: Publicly Confronting Injustice
Dear Talismanians,
I extend a hearty thanks to Mary Kay and Linda, strong voices both, for
their equally frank and honest letters on the subject of Franklin Kahn's
rights. Their unfettered expression of deeply-felt beliefs strikes me
as precisely what we developed Talisman to foster.
But let me say this about privacy -- I want none of it. I agree with
Tony about what sort of judicial style we want to emulate. Do we
actually look toward the show trials of the Chinese, the kangaroo
courts of Stalinist Russia, or the secret proceedings of the current
regime in Iran for our models? Where in our jurisprudential canon
does the enshrinement of "privacy" come in? Yes, we have developed a
tradition of stripping people of their administrative rights in private,
without due process, but does that mean we should continue down that
path?
Any Baha'i who has ever been a victim of our "private" way of trying and
convicting believers who have offended the powers that be knows what I
am talking about. And those who have not -- precisely because of the
cloak of silence and secrecy that surrounds such proceedings -- have no
access to information about such abuses of power, naively assuming that
removal of rights must be a serious process, and that therefore no
administrative body would ever invoke such a sanction lightly or unjustly.
I really don't like dragging out my own example, but since I lived it, I
will. In 1988, on my way to pilgrimage in Haifa, I was informed by the
secretary of the NSA, in a phone conversation while I waited for a plane
in Portugal, that my pilgrimage rights had been taken away for writing
and "distributing" a Dialogue magazine article on reinvigorating the
American Baha'i Community. At the time, I was staying with a former
member of the US NSA. We both called other US NSA members, and none had
any knowledge of any removal of rights. We appealed to the Universal
House of Justice, I was granted a 3-day visit, and it took four years
to regain my right to pilgrimage.
Had this act of administrative fiat been conducted in the open light of
day, it would not have been able to stand on its own merits. In fact,
several UHJ members have since commented to many different people that
our rights to pilgrimage (there were four of us so sanctioned) had never
*really* been removed; that such an act was unprecedented; and that no
such administrative punishment even existed. One House member told me
privately that the US NSA had been, to use his words, "severely
reprimanded" for their action, which probably was taken without the
knowledge of the body en toto.
So the next time my administrative rights are threatened, or perhaps I
should say if and when they are taken away, I want the light of day to
shine on that action. I want access to a public, open, and honest
proceeding. I want due process, the right to confront allegations
directly, and most of all, I want others to feel free to discuss the
case. These are not, by the way, some "western liberal" notions of
the rights of the individual, they are basic human rights accorded by
the UN Charter and the Declaration of Human Rights. We need, in my
view, the equivalent of a Declaration of Rights to accompany the
Constitution of the Universal House of Justice, to ensure that each
and every Baha'i is guaranteed fair and equal treatment under
Baha'u'llah's laws.
As to the assertion that our institutions are at an embryonic stage
now and so need love instead of criticism -- the notion strikes me as
fundamentally wrong. Criticism *is* love, if done in the spirit of
consultation and helpfulness. When we take our institutions to task
for a lapse in judgement or for what we see as a wrong direction taken,
we exercise our sacred duty as Baha'is to help our nascent institutions
grow. Those who believe that love is silence; that love is an averted
gaze; that love ignores injustice -- well, for those folks, I would ask
that a hard look at the definition of love might be in order.
Forgive me for going on about this issue, but I know so many Baha'is who
have been on the receiving end of great injustices done to them by our
own administrative order, and the suggestion that we ought to be quiet
about such things so they can work themselves out in private sends me
screaming down the road. I can't help but recall the example of the
Master, who confronted injustice with an insistent and strident voice
that never gave up. We ought to emulate that quality, don't you think?
Love,
David
*****************************************************************
******************** appended message 2 of 2 ********************
*****************************************************************
Date: 17 Jul 95 17:46:34 EDT
From: David Langness <72110.2126@compuserve.com>
To:
Subject: Review and Ruined Lives
Dear Talismanians,
Muchas gracias to Juan, John and the many others who have commented on
review and censorship. Not wanting to repeat the plethora of penetrating
points already raised, I'd like to make one that I feel the strongest
about:
Much of the support for review comes couched in terms that seem public-
service minded, to whit, Tim Nolan's comment that "it is important to
protect the rights of individuals, but it is far more important to provide
the public with a unified and correct view of the Faith.
My contention: that this premise no longer rings true. What the public
wwants, IMHO, is not a uniformity-bound, monolithic body of opinion on all
the issues the Faith raises. What the public wants is a place where
diversity of opinion is obvious and tolerated.
The statement that Tim made about dropping review requirements undermining
"all the teaching efforts of Baha'is all over the world" suffices as an
example of the fallacy of such a premise. I personally find Horace
Holley's view of the Faith autocratic, excessively cold and bureaucratic,
and much more centrally controlled than anything I could conceivably
subscribe to, but HH's books certainly did not undermine the teaching
efforts, any more than William Sears' books did. Both of those wonderful
and spirit-filled Baha'is made significant errors in their writings, but
still passed review with no problems.(Although I understand Mr. Sears had
review problems of his own in his later years) Did this stop us from
printing their works? No. Should it have -- did their errors undermine
the teaching efforts? Again, no.
On the related subject of review ruining lives -- I could recount many
true stories, but one and a half will suffice. A dear friend who I
considered one of the finest Baha'is and even human beings I've ever known
withdrew from the Faith over review-related issues, and remains alienated
from it to this day. This person loves Baha'u'llah immensely, and now
cannot see a way to be a Baha'i. I recognize the element of individual
choice in that course of action, but were it not for review this person --
a talented writer and teacher of the Faith -- would still be in our midst.
If that isn't life-ruining, I don't know what is.
The half story, my own, involves dialogue magazine and an aborted
pilgrimage. For twenty years after I declared I saved my pennies for
my trip to Haifa, and finally, in 1988, went. Halfway there I was called
from Wilmette by an NSA member and told that my rights to pilgrimage had
been removed because I had written an unpublished article for dialogue
magazine and submitted it for review. No Baha'i law had been broken.
The article, a plea for the revivification of the American Baha'i
community, had upset some NSA members because it called for term limits
and various other reforms, and had been sent to a group of 5-7 other
Baha'is for peer review before publication.
If you want a life-ruining experience, try being turned away from the Holy
Threshold. (I immediately appealed to the House and was granted a 3-day
visit, but have still never been on pilgrimage) It took me two years to
even begin recovering, and I resolved to throw myself back into Baha'i
activity then, fearing that further separation would only permanently
alienate me. Today I'm an active Baha'i who just finished five years
work writing a new introductory book on the Faith. Review and its
pernicious effects almost destroyed that, and I have no doubt that others
who went down another path, who were more sensitive and less stubborn
and pigheaded than I, left the Faith and permanently crippled their own
spiritual growth.
I intensely want the practices of review and censorship to end in our
lifetime. If they do not, as Juan astutely points out, we run the risk
of institutionalizing them. Yes, we must unify behind the House of Justice
and support the review process, as Mark points out -- I had my new book
reviewed by the British NSA, thank you, where review takes on a much less
authoritarian cast -- but we must all, each and every one of us, write
independently to the House and ask them to end review. Wouldn't it be
wonderful if we could emerge into the 21st Century (2000? 2001? Who
cares?) free to write and publish what we think?
Love,
David
Mon, 1 Apr 1996 16:25:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
To: talisman
Subject: Re: Women and the House
Having been serially invoked by both Tony and Richard, I feel
constrained to say something on this topic rather than be snootily
aloof.
The first elected body in Chicago was mixed, but the Eastern teachers
then insisted that only an all-men one was acceptable. Their explanation
for the prohibition of women on the House of Justice was quite simply
menstrual pollution. Unfortunately I have seen no indication that
anybody raised the obvious question of why then exclude postmenopausal
women.
I have said many times, only half jokingly, that the clear as the noonday
sun reason for 'Abdul-Baha saying that the explicit text said that only
men would be on the House of Justice was to keep Corinne True off!
Whatever her other qualities, she was not gifted for administration. She
is certainly the mother of the Wilmette temple as without her in the
community it would never have been built there; it would have been built
elsewhere and finished by about 1908. She certainly wanted to get on the
Chicago House; indeed she kept the letter from 'Abdu'l-Baha to herself
for some months and it was only produced by her after much rumor as to
its existence. However, I have to also say that she has my deepest
respect, as in the late 1920s the US NSA decided that in order to bring
new blood into the administration it would send a letter to all the
convention delegates informing them that current NSA members did not wish
to be re-elected. The letter was actually written, but never sent.
True, herself, let the delegates know that she would not accept
re-election as Shoghi Effendi had told her that she could serve the faith
better in areas other than administrative work and that she should avoid
that arena. True certainly agitated to try to get administrative
position, and performed disastrously when she got it, but she had the
eventual humility to take good advice and recognise her limitations.
On the letter to Waite: One of the most interesting things about this
letter is that it was not prompted by one from Waite. She states that it
adressed various issues being discussed in the community at the time but
about none of which she had personally written to 'Abdu'l-Baha. As she
was a reasonably neutral person in the disputes of the time, as well as
someone for whom 'Abdu'l-Baha had a high regard, it would seem he wrote
to her so that the tablet could be circulated without prior association
with any 'side.'
In relation to "general" Houses of Justice, it should be noted that the
idea of one administrative body running community affairs was not the
common model at the time. There could be a number of bodies with
differing, and overlapping, functions. The House was seen in many ways
as a coordinating body, and its control over other bodies was not a
settled matter.
My feeling is that this is another issue in which Baha'is then and now
are looking for a mere code of laws. I don't think 'Abdu'l-Baha gave a
flying travel teacher about the picky details of organising
administration or building the M-ul-A, he just wanted the Baha'is to quit
arguing and do it.
Now, having probably offended many, let me finish by saying that I see no
reason at all for excluding women from membership in the House of Justice
but heartily concur with the right of the House to decide they don't want
them there now. This has nothing to do with prejudice against women, it
is simply discrimination. People do not have to be prejudiced to
discriminate, but they should expect it to be viewed askance.
Oh, we might also note that reasoning on a similar basis to that which
limited membership on the House to men, Queen Victoria was male. In the
Lawh-i-Dunya it is stated that the British form of government represents
the joining of the best of kingship and representational government. In
using the word "kingship" this obviously indicates the participation of
only men, therefore Queen Victoria must have been a transvestite. (The
interesting questions remains, was Albert also or did they have a same
sex marriage?) Come on here, what is so hard about the difference
between gendered language and gendered referents? Or is there really a
mass of opinion that most of the Hidden Words are addressed only to men (O
Son of ...)?
Jackson
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 13:10:43 -0500 (EST)
From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
To: "Don R. Calkins"
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women and the House
On 1 Apr 1996, Don R. Calkins wrote:
> One possibility that has been totally ignored is that once Houses of Justice
> are formed at the national and local levels, women will not be allowed to
> serve on them.
The basic idea behind this comment may not have been mentioned in the
current discussion, but it has certainly been discussed. I believe the
position to be simple: either women may _not_ serve on all houses of
justice, or women _may_ serve on all houses of justice. I do not see any
way to have a split decision that permits service on some only.
I think we might note that at the time the original ruling was made that
it was seem by many as needing some leaps of interpretation to go ahead
with any election of a UHJ at all. It is not surprising that the extent
of those leaps might be calculated to be as short as possible. We must
remember that whatever the teachings supposedly propounded by the faith
that misogynism was hardly absent from the community in the 1960s.
Indeed, it is documented that in one country's national convention
several leading Persian pioneers of prominent family personally
counselled all the delegates that although women were technically eligible
for election to the NSA they would of course bear in mind that it would
be most unsuitable and an affront to the dignity of the body if a woman
were actually elected.
Jackson
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 21:22:12 -0500
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women and the House
Dear Alex:
Yes, it was me who was insisting that the (1902) letter from 'Abdu'l-Baha
which excluded women from membership on the House of Justice was addressed to
the Chicago situation. It was written to Corinne True in response to her
petition that women should be allowed to serve on the Chicago local
body--then called the House of Justice, and addressed by 'Abdu'l-Baha as
such.
I did not intend to say, however, that 'Abdu'l-Baha intended this
exclusion to apply only to the Chicago House of Justice. He clearly intended
it as an exclusion from all Houses of Justice. The New York House of Justice
was similarly composed of men only, as were all of the local Houses of
Justice in Iran at the time. It was believed that Baha'u'llah's use of the
word rijal to address the members of the House of Justice limited the
membership on all such bodies to males.
To answer your questions: (By the way, Rob Stockman disagrees with me
totally on most of these points, but he has not seen all the historical
evidence. Not that such evidence would necessarily change his mind--but it
sure changed my mind.)
1. Yes, there is abundant evidence that 'Abdu'l-Baha's (1902) letter refers
to the Chicago House. We have Corinne True's letter to 'Abdu'l-Baha, his
reply, the minutes of the Chicago Assembly concerning this. We know that
True was agitating for women's membership on the Chicago House, and that this
letter ended the controversy for a time.
Even the House of Justice, in its letter on this subject, implicitly
accepts the fact that the "as manifest as the sun at noonday" quote cannot,
by itself, support the idea of the exclusion of women from the present
Universal House of Justice. They base their argument mostly on a subsequent
letter from 'Abdu'l-Baha (1909) which was also directed to the Chicago
Assembly (True was still agitating) but said the same thing--this time
referring to the Chicago House as Baytu'l-Adl Ummumi (General House of
Justice, but which can also be translated universal [small u] House of
Justice--the normal term for the International House of Justice being
Baytu'l-Adl Azam).
2. The restriction of membership on Houses of Justice was, in 1902,
universal. The three House of Justice elected in America--New York, Kenosha,
Chicago--were elected in accordance with instruction and Tablets received
from 'Abdu'l-Baha, applied by the Persian teachers.
3. The explicit Text 'Abdu'l-Baha refers to is the apostrophe that
Baha'u'llah addresses to the House of Justice (in general) in the Aqdas which
reads: "O ye men (rijal) of Justice!"
4. There were a number of specific historical circumstances that led
'Abdu'l-Baha to lift the restriction on women's membership on Houses of
Justice in America (not in Iran). Not the least of these was the demands of
the American women. But still, in 1911, when specifically asked if women
should be elected to the Kenosha Assembly, 'Abdu'l-Baha said no.
What led him to change his mind is not clear. But, perhaps his new
experiences in America during his tour, which gave him a first had view of
how a gender-integrated society might work. Perhaps because the Chicago
Assembly could not meet because of a shortage of active Baha'i men. Perhaps
the fact that organization was irregular in many cities where Baha'is
lived--with various committees, Boards of Counsel, Assemblies and Houses of
Justice in session. Above all, I think, 'Abdu'l-Baha did not want this to
become a matter of controversy and did not think it was an important matter
to be maintained at the risk of more gender tension in the community--Lord
knows there was enough already!
Those are my thoughts on the issue. You might get the Women's Service on the
Institutions of the Faith paper from Eric and have a look at the full
argument. Maybe Jackson can fill in some of the obvious blanks I have left
in the above. (Thanks in advance, Jackson. :-)
Regards,
Tony
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 15:14:20 +0100 (MET)
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: women & UHJ
Ruhi's projection of dominating-father stereotypes onto the
House of Justice raises an interesting thought. In
Maastricht, as in Walla Walla, mommy is the discipline
side of the equation, and papa is the old softy. Is there a
correlation between family structures and willingness to
contemplate the membership of women on the Universal
House of Justice? Straw poll please.
If we are just projecting our upbringing and deepest desires
around, I can at least say that my Universal House of
Justice consisting of beautiful young women under the age
of 19 has a certain aesthetic advantage over Ruhi's
Universal House of Justice consisting of men of the sort
who know that children need punishing. (Ruhi, would my
tongue-in-cheek vision be more acceptable if the maids in
question were all dominatrix types?)
Accepting the men=discipline women=forgiveness&mercy
equation for the moment, my model might also fit the role
of the Universal House of Justice better, since Baha'u'llah
gives the role of admininistering punishment to
the kings and rulers, not to the Universal House of Justice.
A Universal House of Justice consisting of marshmallow
mommies? A world government of stern fathers? But oddly
enough, it is in the political realm, where governments are
asked to reduce any recalcitrant member to submission
using military force [1], that women are guaranteed a role:
In this Revelation of Baha'u'llah, the women go
neck and neck with the men. In no movement will
they be left behind. Their rights with men are equal
in degree. They will enter all the administrative
branches of politics. They will attain in all such a
degree as will be considered the very highest station
of the world of humanity and will take part in all
affairs. [2]
My theory is that this is because women are tougher and
better at discipline (just kidding).
Fortunately we are not condemned to endlessly projecting
our most freudian selves onto the white marble of Haifa.
We have some texts to help us. I enclose a compilation of
relevant texts derived almost entirely from the Service of
Women paper as an aid to more substantial discussion.
A: from Baha'u'llah we have:
----------------------------
O ye Men (rijal) of Justice! Be ye in the realm of
God shepherds unto His sheep... [3]
And:
We have decreed that a third part of all fines shall
go to the Seat of Justice [maqarr al-'adl], and We
admonish its men [rijal] to observe pure justice, [4]
But:
Today the handmaidens of God are regarded as
gentlemen (rijal). Blessed are they! Blessed are they!
[5]
And
Today whoever among the handmaidens attains the
knowledge of the Desire of the World is considered
a gentleman (rajul) in the Divine Book. [6]
And
Whosoever from amongst the handmaidens hath
recognized the Lord of all Names is recorded in the
Book as one of those men (rijal) by the Pen of the
Most High. [7]
B: From `Abdu'l-Baha we have the following:
-------------------------------------------
The House of Justice, however, according to the
explicit text of the Law of God, is confined to men;
this for a wisdom of the Lord God's, which will ere
long be made manifest as clearly as the sun at high
noon. [8]
And
According to the ordinances of the Faith of God, women are
the equals of men in all rights save only that of membership on
the Universal House of Justice [bayt al-'adl 'umumi], for, as
hath been stated in the text of the Book, both the head and the
members of the House of Justice are men... [9]
But He knew that rijal is not exclusively masculine in the writings of
Baha'u'llah:
Verily, according to Baha'u'llah, women are judged as gentlemen
(rijal). [10]
and an indication of his gradualist strategy may be found here:
In America, the cradle of women's liberation, women are still
debarred from political institutions because they squabble.
(Also, the Blessed Beauty has said, "O ye Men [rijal] of the
House of Justice.") Ye need to be calm and composed, so that
the work will proceed with wisdom, otherwise there will be
such chaos that ye will leave everything and run away. ... In
brief, ye should now engage in matters of pure spirituality and
not contend with men. 'Abdu'l-Baha will tactfully take
appropriate steps. Be assured. In the end thou wilt thyself
exclaim, "This was indeed supreme wisdom!" [11]
And there is historical evidence which indicates (not conclusively) that
`Abdu'l-Baha, in the letter saying that the membership on the bayt al-
'adl 'umumi, was probably referring here to the House of Justice in
Chicago and not that in Haifa. If so he later changed that ruling to
permit the service of women on such assemblies, in various
permutations:
The Spiritual Assemblies which are organized for the sake of
teaching the Truth, whether assemblies for men, assemblies for
women or mixed assemblies, are all accepted and are conducive
to the spreading of the Fragrances of God. This is essential.
[12]
and
It is permissible to elect the members of the Spiritual Assembly
from among the men and women; nay, rather, it is better, so
that perfect union may result. [13]
and
you have a spiritual Assembly of men and you can establish a
spiritual Assembly for women. Both Assemblies must be
engaged in diffusing the fragrances of God and be occupied
with the service of the Kingdom. The above is the best solution
for this problem... [14]
C: And from Shoghi Effendi we have
-------------------------------------
four letters from secretaries saying that women cannot serve on the
Universal House of Justice or International House of Justice [15], and
one from Shoghi Effendi himself:
He [the Guardian] is debarred from laying down independently
the constitution [of the Universal House of Justice] ... and from
exercising his influence in a manner that would encroach upon
the liberty of those whose sacred right is to elect the body of
his collaborators. [16]
Which would seem to mean that his (secretary's) letters on this topic
do not prevent the Universal House of Justice altering its constitution,
or the delegates to the International Convention from voting, so as to
admit women.
In short there are grounds enough to argue the point on the basis of
texts and historical evidence, on either side. Reasoning by analogy
from family structures is unnecessary and, given that family structures
vary, will only be convincing for people within the same cultural
group.
Sen
1: Gleanings, p. 249; Proclamation of Baha'u'llah, p. 115; Gleanings, p.
254.
2: Quoted in Paris Talks (London: Baha'i Publishing Trust, 1912) pp
182-83.
3: Kitab-i-Aqdas para. 54
4: ibid
5: Quoted in Ahmad Yazdani, Mabadiy-i Ruhani, Tehran: Baha'i
Publishing Trust, 104 Badi', p 109.
6: ibid
7: Women: Extracts from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, 'Abdu'l-Baha,
Shoghi Effendi,and the Universal House of Justice, comp. by The
Research Department of the Universal House of Justice, Thornhill,
Ont.: Baha'i Canada Publications, 1986, #7, p 3.
8: Selections from the Writings of 'Abdu'l-Baha, Haifa: Baha'i World
Centre, 1978, pp 79-80.
9: 'Abdu'l-Baha to Corinne True, 24/7/09, microfilm, National Baha'i
Archives.
10: Quoted in Ahmad Yazdani, Maqam va Huquq-i Zan dar Diyanat-i
Baha'i, vol. 1, Tehran: Baha'i Publishing Trust, 107 Badi'.
11: Women, #11, pp 6-7.
12: House of Spirituality (Albert R. Windust, Librarian) to Board of
Consultation, Kenosha, Wis., 23/7/10, House of Spirituality Papers,
National Baha'i Archives.
13: ibid
14: 'Abdu'l-Baha to the members of the Spiritual Assembly and Mr.
Bernard M. Jacobsen, Kenosha, Wis., 4/5/11, House of Spirituality
Papers, National Baha'i Archives.
15: a) Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, dated July 28, 1936,
Baha'i News, No. 105 (February 1937) p 2.
b) Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, dated December 14,
1940, quoted in Dawn of a New Day (New Delhi: Baha'i Publishing
Trust, n.d.) p 86.
c) Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, dated September 17,
1952, Baha'i News, No 267 (May 1953) p 10.
d) Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, dated July 15, 1947,
quoted in "Extracts on Membership of the Universal House of Justice"
(an unpublished compilation of the Universal House of Justice).
16: Dispensation of Baha'u'llah p 58 (USA booklet format); World
Order of Baha'u'llah p 150
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen McGlinn ph: 31-43-3216854
Andre Severinweg 47 email: Sen.McGlinn@RL.RuLimburg.NL
? Help M Main Menu P PrevMsg - PrevPage D Delete R Reply
O OTHER CMDS V ViewAttch N NextMsg Spc NextPage U Undelete F Forward
From snoopy@skipper.physics.sunysb.eduMon Aug 28 19:01:24 1995
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 15:32:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Stephen Johnson
To: Milissa Boyer
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women/UHJ
On Mon, 28 Aug 1995, Milissa Boyer wrote:
> Also, I have noticed that some theories, such as Ahmad's, focus on the
> DIFFERENCES between men and women. Have you noticed how when theories focus
> on differences, women lose out?
Dearest Melissa.
Good day!
I just wanted to point out that this is not really the case.
Women are the first educators of the children. Women are the first
influence (_true_ influence) on the people of the society by being the
first beings to love a child, the first to influence a child, the only to
bear a child. This is by nature, not by law. Men will never be able to
do this. If we had the eyes of divine insight I believe that we would
find that to be a mother (the noblest of all professions) is more
important than anything I could do -- even being on the Universal
House of Justice. Most every woman can be a mother...9 in a couple
billion chance of a man being on the Universal House of Justice.
As a man I am stronger than the majority of most women (which gets me
really far in this day and age), will mostly likely die at a younger age
than most women...oh, and I can serve on the Universal House of Justice
while the entire world (Baha'i and non-Baha'i alike) can rush down on me
with swords of evil words and vehement opposition. The National
Spiritual Assembly of Iran has been systematically wiped out how many
times? The National Spiritual Assembly of the United States has received
how many threatening letters blaming them of threatening the soul of the
Faith? (And yet every year they pray that they do not get reelected since
they are paid $20,000 a year, are missing out on their career, are
getting attacked from all sides, etc.) In the future the Universal House
of Justice will certainly be the point of attack for all of those who
wish to attack the Faith. I wouldn't doubt it if radicals will post
themselves as snipers on the top of the mountain and take pot shots at
the members of the Universal House of Justice.
If I had any brains I certainly wouldn't want to be on the Universal
House of Justice. Why do we always miss what is really important
(people, mothers, teachers) and focus on what isn't ('leadership'?).
Just throwing in my 2 cents worth.
stephen johnson
From sindiogi@NMSU.EduMon Aug 28 19:09:34 1995
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 16:22:27 -0600 (MDT)
From: "S. Indiogine"
To: Milissa Boyer
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women/UHJ
Dear friends, let me delurk for just a moment.....
On Mon, 28 Aug 1995, Milissa Boyer wrote:
> Ahmad, Richard and Talismanians....
>
> This issue of no women on the UHJ is not soul-wrenching for Juan alone.
> It is for me, too! Why? Because it is hypocritical, that's why. How can
> I take a body seriously when it spouts all of these nice, warm and fuzzy
> verses about equality but then does not practice it?
>
> When I first became a Baha'i, I did so with an understanding that this was
> the first religion that truly taught the equality of men and women. I should
> have known it was too good to be true.......
I am dead serious: the posting by Juan that not the last has been said on
the male-only UHJ was the best thing for me for months. It gave me hope
when I had lost it.
However we cut, slice, or dice it, it is discrimination and it is against
the Principles of our Faith. It can not stand.
I like to teach the Faith when possible. I am sure you all know how the
male-only UHJ makes everything so difficult. My first question to a Bahai
as a seeker was the number of women on the UHJ. The answer, coupled with
the pseudo-teaching of parallel evolution, has delayed my becoming a
Bahai for 5 years. I immensely regret that. Enough is said...
> Also, I have noticed that some theories, such as Ahmad's, focus on the
> DIFFERENCES between men and women. Have you noticed how when theories focus
> on differences, women lose out? But 'Abdu'l-Baha said the differences were
> neglible! It is very significant to me that 'Abdu'l-Baha used the metaphor
> of a bird, with each wing like each of the sexes. There is no active member
> here and no recipient.....in fact just the opposite! This metaphor emphasizes
> the equality of men and women and makes BOTH of them ACTIVE. And best of
> all, it distracts from their differences and emphasizes their common humanity.
>
> And the active/passive metahpor is indeed very old. St. Paul used an active/
> passive metaphor (Christ/Church) in the NT. And of course he used it in the
> same way Ahmad has....to restrict women. And Ahmad's theory reminds me of
> St. Augustine's yucky comment that "he who mounts is the true parent," and
> yes Augustine was making the same point Ahmad was. I guess since he is a
> doctor, we can't hold it against him for using biological metaphors!!
> However, I am just pointing out that 'Abdu'l-Baha used many other kinds of
> metaphors so I wonder why Ahmad zoomed in on this particular one. And I hope
> Ahmad understands why women aren't too thrilled about biological metaphors....
> historically this active/passive metaphor has ALWAYS been used against us.
So true. Anytime I hear that we are equal but different I know that someone
is trying to justify some sort of discrimination, be it racial or gender
based, or anything else.
This biological justification has a long prescientific history. At the
beginning it was likely that humans did not even know that males were
necessary for reproduction. Societies would often be matrilinear and the
father would not be relevant or known. Later, maybe under the knowledge
derived from the domestication of animals, a rude form of genetics was
acquired and related to humans. The mistake was made in equating the
human sperm and womb to the seed and soil of the just discovered
agriculture. It was a totally faulty analogy which was accepted for
centuries. Lo and behold the patriarchal era.
"the sons of Levi ..... have come out of the loins of Abraham." Hebrews 7:5
Note that the descendance is ONLY atributed to a male source. In reality
we have found out that while half of our chromosomes is from each parent,
there is also a maternal-only genetic inheritance. That is, our
mitochondria contain a chromosome of DNA. All our mitochondria are
maternal. The sperm mitochondria does not enter the egg cell and perishes.
"You shall not covet your neighbor's house ; you shall not covet your
neighbor's wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or
his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor" Exodus 20:17
I wonder if these 'items' owned by men are listed in order of value. But
the message is very clear. Women are owned by men. There are countless
other examples in the Bible.
In order to have an idea on how advanced gentics was in those times read
Genesis 30:31-43. Very interesting reading if you can make any sense out
of it.
Bye,
Eric Indiogine (sindiogi@nmsu.edu), Las Cruces, New Mexico
## True loss is for him whose days have been ##
## spent in utter ignorance of his self ##
-* Baha'u'llah, Words of Wisdom #21 *-
From PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.eduMon Aug 28 19:12:34 1995
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 15:27:48 PST8PDT
From: "Eric D. Pierce"
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women and Houses of Justice ("Service of Women" paper) #2
Greetings Mr. Shaut and other esteemed members,
Hope all is well up in the land of MicroSerfs!
re:
> From: Rick Schaut
> To: owner-talisman@indiana.edu, Talisman@indiana.edu
> Date sent: Mon, 28 Aug 95 12:21:08 PDT
> Subject: Re: Women and Houses of Justice ("Service of Women" paper)
...snip
> Thank you, Eric, for pointing this out. I'm beginning to see the same
> arguments more than once, and, until such time as the Universal
> House of Justice decides to address the issue, the horse is quite
> dead.
Dead as far as voting for women, and as far as the Supreme Body
specifically stating that there is authoritative acceptance or
rejection of this or any other alternate "position".
>
> Moreover, I don't see a positive result from attempts, from either point
> of view, to convince the readership of Talisman of the validity of
> one's point of view. We are not the Universal House of Justice,
> therefore none of us is in a position to address the issue.
Well... my assumption is that there is a viewpoint commonly held
by the "usual suspects" (liberals/intellectuals), that mulling this
one over will possibly result in the development of fresh insights
at both high and low levels, and that seeds need to be planted in
the minds of future members of the Supreme Body. Given the current
difficulty of addressing such "controversial" topics due to the
usual fractionalizing, I'm sure that in order to move the
understanding of this complex issue forward, much dust will be
flung about by those on both "sides".
>
> I encourage all to take their concerns directly to the Universal House
> of Justice. It is your right to do so, and is far more likely to have some
> positive effect than hasing it out amongst ourselves.
Good idea, however, I'm sure that there is some reasonable fear
amongst the advocates of inclusion that it may not be the right
time, and that by further developing the argument for inclusion
of women via discussion and research, a premature setback may be
averted.
My experience has been that there is both positive and negative
that can come from an awareness of the line of thinking that
the advocates of inclusion take.
It can assuage the cognitive dissonance that frequently develops
(eg the message from the delightfully uppity woman in Kansas City
today!) when folks start deepening on this issue. Of course some
would argue that having one's mind soothed by a possibly fallacious
line of thinking is a "vain imagining" and/or "idle fancy".
Another positive is that there are a lot of incredibly absurd
rationalizations of the exclusion policy that are thrown around
as "kitab-i-hearsay" type stuff. By moving the discussion to real
issues such as the meaning and interpretation of the writings and
the historical events behind the current policy, the community
probably gains a lot by not having to fall back on such absurdist
rationalizations, and we can coherently explain the situation to
seekers and new members, so as to let them decide how they want to
define their own sense of obedience to the Divine Institutions.
So, we are faced with the old conundrum (or axiological conflict?),
remain "unified" in ignorance, or become aware and divided?
>
> >I have an electronic copy of the "Service of Women" paper that Sen
> >sent me privately earlier in the summer.
>
> Is it possible that this can be placed on some ftp site?
Not here. I don't think that the ~powers that be~ would be very
happy to have a database technician using campus (state) resources
to make religious materials available to anonymous logins! I don't
know a religious studies (or history or sociology) professor here
that could do it under scholarly auspices.
I'll ask the folks up at BCCA.org if they want to make it available,
but I don't know them very well.
Now that the bambino is getting older (almost 2 years) and the wife
will soon have the bulk of her masters degree done, I'm pondering the
possibility of restarting my outside RDBMS consulting, mostly to
generate $ for purchase an internet box, a Unix system (yuk, I am
finally going to have to learn it) and hopefully a NT box. Besides
the business use, I would want to offer internet resources for ABS
and talisman type activities (organizing online talisman archives
may have to wait, sorry all), and possibly helping the LSAs and
institutes hereabouts to get wired up.
>
> Warmest Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
Dan Orey just came by and shared some of the magic and a momento
of his trip to South America! Wow.
With warmth and fuzziness,
EP
From think@ucla.eduTue Aug 29 10:19:53 1995
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 01:23:27 -0700
From: Safa Sadeghpour
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: writings on UHJ
>
>
>Ahmad: Thank you very much for the quotations.
>
>My question to you is this: You initially said that the reason women
>cannot serve on the Universal House of Justice is that Baha'u'llah called
>its members "rijal/men" in the Most Holy Book.
>
>I think I have demonstrated that Baha'u'llah also called the members of
>local houses of justice "rijal/men."
>
>Logically speaking, you have 2 choices:
>
>1. To continue to make your former argument, but to acknowledge that
>women cannot by the same token serve on local houses of justice, either,
>given that Baha'u'llah referred to them abstractly as "men."
>
>2. To acknowledge that your previous argument must be revised and that
>Baha'u'llah's use of the word rijal/men does not form the basis upon
>which women are excluded from the universal house of justice. But then
>what is the basis?
>
>Incidentally, aside from his use of the word "rijal/notables/men" to
>refer to the members of the houses of justice, Baha'u'llah neither in the
>Most Holy Book or elsewhere ever explicitly says "Women may not serve on
>houses of justice." `Abdu'l-Baha at one point thought that the
>terminology was sufficient grounds to exclude them, but he demonstrably
>changed his mind about this, with regard to the local level, in 1912.
>It seems to me that there is therefore no longer any reason to maintain
>that Baha'u'llah legislated women's exclusion from the House (He did
>not). Such an exclusion does not therefore form part of the Revelation
>(vahy, `ibadat), and ipso facto falls into the category of matters upon
>which the House may legislate.
>
>Contrary to what has been alleged, I am upholding the authority of the
>Supreme Institution here. They are dependent upon the information at
>hand in making their rulings; I think they deserve to have more information.
Dear Juan,
It is very true that the UHJ decisions rest upon available information, but
this
is not the case in regards to Abdul-Baha. As it is clear from His statements,
He supported, or better said, Interpreted the Writings to mean that
women may not form part of the UHJ.
It's not enough to consider one case where it _seems_ that Abdul-Baha
"changed his mind"
to support the notion that one of the Master's interpretations was not
correct, and he would have changed his mind if given enough time. A
better argument must be presented to show how Abdul-Baha's
understanding of this matter was incorrect without denying His
title as the Center of the Covenant and the Interpreter of Baha'u'llah's
Writings. This matter must be resolved before even trying to interpret
by ourselves the meaning of Baha'u'llah's statement regarding
"rijal/men."
your friend throughout all existence,
Safa Sadeghpour
>
>cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"NO created thing shall ever attain its paradise unless it appeareth in its
highest
prescribed degree of perfection. For instance, this crystal representeth the
paradise of the
stone whereof its substance is composed. Likewise there are various stages
in the
paradise for the crystal itself... So long as it was stone it was worthless,
but if it attaineth the excellence of ruby--a potentiality which is latent
in it-- how much a carat will it be worth? Consider likewise every created
thing." The Bab
"The shining spark of truth comes forth only from the clash of differing
opinions." Abdu'l-Baha
Safa Sadeghpour (think@ucla.edu)
http://www.smc.edu/homepage/maclab/maclab.web/web/safa.web/safa.htm
IRC: painful
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comTue Aug 29 10:21:56 1995
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 01:34:35 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Women and the Universal House of Justice.
Women and the Universal
House of Justice.
The matter was raised this time by the Posting 'Seed of Creation' or at
least that how I see it.I
believe Lora and others are correct you can not equate Spirituality and
Biology. no matter how
the original poster reformats ,it was demeaning to women. Juan is
entitled to believe that women
should serve on the
Universal House of Justice, his points in terms of the finer points of
translation , culture and
Baha'i administrative evolution were of value even though I beg to
differ. The conclusion one
comes to is John Walbridge's that the matter rest with Baha'u'llah. As far as
the threaded analysis that
women on the appointed International
Council meant women would be on the Universal House,that could be a
stretch of logic but I
seem to remember ,in the 10 year Crusade if the pattern is to be
logically followed,it was laid
down the Baha'i Court was to come into existence before the election of
the Universal House..
That is one of the unfulfilled goals of the 10 year Crusade, the
Guardian passed on in 1957, the
Hands of the Cause had no option except to call for the Election of the
House of Justice.It is an
interesting point but I believe it to be a redundant one.. We simple
do not know what would have
transpired,speculation makes interesting
after Dinner talk but it is not relevant to the issue.
Does it matter whether only women serve as members of the Body or only
men or a mixture of
both, or even Martians with pink spots as long as they have the
capacity to know and worship God
,frankly I do not believe it does.We know from the writings there is no
gender of the soul.We are
from a spiritual aspect a genderless Religion, so there seems a
contradiction. On the one hand we
believe in the equality of the genders , yet women are precluded from
serving on the Supreme
Body. We are told the reason will become apparent. As it hasn't yet it
is not an act of disloyalty
to wonder about the situation. However some of the comments and
suggestions are unwarranted
as I see it.
We need to explore what is the real situation regarding women in
the Faith.One point of
historical
note ; the Baha'i Faith is the only Major Religion to have as its Head
a woman , I know of
branches or sects of religions have been started or run by women
although relatively few in
number but not a Major Religion, Bahiyyih Khanoum was the Head of the
Faith during the
prolonged absences of the Shoghi Effendi in the 1920s.That fact is
clearly recorded in His own
handwriting , if there was some spiritual infirmity or inability in
women which does not allow
them to function at the highest level in accordance with the
requirements of God's religious law
and teaching on this plane of existence ,then I would find it difficult
to imagine that Shoghi
Effendi could have left the affairs of the Faith in the hands of a
woman. He clearly had no
problem and left His Beloved Great Aunt on more than one occasion to
carry the burden of the
Cause. I must stress the Guardian's written statement is 'Head ship of
the Greatest Holy Leaf' in
relation to the affairs of the Cause. Over the past 30 plus years I
heard some amazing reasons
why women do not serve on the Universal House of Justice . It is
difficult to pick one that
defines the point I am trying to make perfectly , so this little gem
will have to do. In England in
the early 60's I attended a youth deepening at a summer school, the
presenter was explaining to we the gathered 'Young Turks', how the
House functioned. So we
could go out and teach the Faith with fire and resolve. The person was
asked why no women on
the House of Justice,the reply ran as follows :" this is a difficult
concept to understand but I have
considered it and this is my opinion which is believed to be correct."
We waited in hushed
silence for the enlightenment that would follow. " You see if women
were allowed to serve it
could that the lady or ladies could become pregnant, by their husbands
of course. This would mean an unelected soul was
consulting on the affairs of the
Faith." You could have heard a pin drop at this breakthrough statement.
Eventually I got fed up and
I said that has to be the stupidest reason I have ever heard ,what on
earth are you talking
about.Everybody started to laugh and the presenter retired in
confusion. The remark was
demeaning to the station of women by bringing in that a woman's primary
biological function
would automatically disqualify her from being able to serve at that
level.The same can be said for
the coarser remark that a woman's menstrual cycle makes it impossible
for her to be rational for
a period of time each month.The last time it was said to me was 4 years
ago the person stated;
well they are crazy for 4 or 5 days each month. I believe my reply was
well then they have a valid
reason for those few days, how do you explain the whole month of
crazyness you have. Every
man on Talisman will have heard far worse remarks than those two, as
will most if not all the
women .So the question still remains we have a paradox:.
It would be neat and pretty if women could be on the House of
Justice.We would be politically
correct, we could say see the Baha'i Community has equality at all
obvious levels for
women.Instead we have to show our commitment in a different way and
reshape our
understanding of how we value each other.One of the problems is how we
regard the individuals
who serve on our Institutions. By implying that service on the Supreme
Body somehow gives
personal power to the individual and thereby gives power to that
gender, misses the entire
purpose of that Institution and the lesser but sister Institutions in
the Faith.The individual is not to
have personal authority ,we create a defacto clergy when we say or
imply personal power comes
with the position. We do not have our token woman or women serving on
the House of Justice to
show how we are commited to female rights. The hard to swallow fact is
the Baha'i Community
has hardily moved down the road towards equality of the genders.I have
this overwhelming
feeling we are going to have to work very hard to create a Baha'i
Society that has the required
spiritual equality of the sexes, which can then become a model for the
World to copy.Why do
you think the House of Justice issued the letter on Violence and Sexual
Abuse of Women and
Children, because the Baha'i men are all acting in accordance with the
teachings of the Blessed
Beauty towards Women and Children. No the very reverse, where is the
grassroots commitment
towards this change. I do not know of one Community that has set up a
scholarship fund to assist
young women to go to College.I do not know of one community who has set
up a similar fund to
assist women in countries like India. We are going to have to make more
than a token effort to
show this vital teaching of Baha'u'llah in action.There is no
convenient facade to hide behind we
have to make it work at a personal level, at a family level, at a local
community level and a
national level.. Women in simple terms must be given preference in our
Baha'i Community,
Baha'i men have to provide the encouragement,the support and if
necessary open the doors that
allow women the freedom to grow and develop as an individual and a
gender.There is in my
opinion no easy way out we have to start at the bottom at the personal
level and develop a whole
new way of interacting based on the Teachings of Baha'u'llah.That
paradox maybe the permanent
reminder of the debt the Human Race owes to women and ensure the future
Baha'i World Society
fully reflects the Equality of the Sexes,it would be much easier to
have a token woman or women
on the House of Justice but then there might be those who would see no
need to change the way
society treats women.
Although in the Faith the people who serve on our Institutions have no
personal power or
authority,we do have people who are appointed to serve in the Arm of
the Faith that is the Hands
of the Cause,they have personal rank in the Faith. There were women
Hands of the Cause, there is
one woman in the remaing three. Counselors who are appointed to carry
on that function have
personal rank, there are women Counselors.Auxillary Board Members have
rank, there are
women ABM's.
I see no way that the Universal House of Justice can change a ruling of
the Master, women it
would seem will not serve on that Body.It might be a good idea if all
of us attempt to put into
practice more fully the Teachings of Baha'ullah in respect of the
Equality of Women so that a
Baha'i Community will emerge that reflects that as one of its
hallmarks.Kindest Regards Derek
Cockshut.
From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlTue Aug 29 10:42:17 1995
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 95 18:54:52 EZT
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: women on UHJ
Juan, could you be a little more explicit here:
JC> Baha'u'llah in one Tablet says that the rijal-i buyut-i `adliyyih
(the men of the houses of justice) are charged with ensuring
that a universal language is chosen.
Could you explicate 'adliyyih for non-Arabicists? Is it used by non-Baha'i
sources for other concepts or institutions? And what is the
source? Date?
My suspicion is that the reference is to civil rulers (parliaments?) or
courts rather than the Houses of Justice as we know them, because of
other passages from Baha'u'llah on the subject:
It beseemeth you and the other officials of the Government to
convene a gathering and choose one of the divers languages,
and likewise one of the existing scripts, or else to create a new
language ... (Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, page 138)
It behoveth the sovereigns of the world - may God assist them
- or the ministers of the earth to take counsel together and to
adopt one of the existing languages or a new one (Tablets of
Baha'u'llah, page 22)
It is incumbent upon all nations to appoint some men of
understanding and erudition to convene a gathering and through
joint consultation choose one language from among the varied
existing languages, or create a new one ... (Tablets of
Baha'u'llah, pages 165-166)
This doesn't weaken the argument at all, since Baha'u'llah says (if my
conjecture is correct) 'rijal of the parliaments/courts', yet 'Abdu'l-Baha
says:
In this Revelation of Baha'u'llah, the women go neck and neck
with the men. In no movement will they be left behind. Their
rights with men are equal in degree. They will enter all the
administrative branches of politics. (Paris Talks, page 182)
Thus taking rijal in the honorific (Persian) rather than gender-specific
(Arabic) sense.
Rob: granted that the 1909 tablet to True appears to refer to the
Universal House of Justice as we know it rather than the Chicago
House of Justice (which I think we must assume unless someone can
find an instance of the name 'Universal House of Justice' being used in
Chicago in 1908/9), is a single text to an individual believer enough to
establish a principle of law? I see two problems: first, that isolated texts
can be found in the tablets of 'Abdu'l-Baha which we feel perfectly
justified in ignoring, e.g.: in Tablets of 'Abdu'l-Baha Abbas p. 337:
"Men are enjoined more than women to give the Message of the Cause
of God and to diffuse His fragrances." I've never seen that incorporated
in a teaching plan! What we do in practice is take the whole corpus of
his writings, and those of Baha'u'llah, and assign a higher priority,
tacitly or not, to those which are clearly addressed to the Baha'is as a
whole or the institutions - ie which are intended to shape the Baha'i
Faith rather than respond to the needs of an individual. In other words,
we don't in practice take each and every statement of 'Abdu'l-Baha as if
it was a decision of the supreme court on the interpretation of the
constitution. And this seems to be a sensible practice.
That leads to the second problem with putting so much weight on this
one tablet: if we do take the whole corpus of the writings, and
particularly those of 'Abdu'l-Baha, into account it seems clear to me
that there is a development (or perhaps it's just inconsistency - so many
published texts are undated it's hard to be sure). Can we take a 1909
tablet as the last word on the subject? I'm sure I've seen a tablet in
which `Abdu'l-Baha says that women are excluded from politics
because they squabble (source anyone?). The Tablet cited above (Paris
Talks, page 182) which says that they will participate in politics is
dated August 28, 1913. I assume that the one saying they are excluded
is earlier. Similarly there's a tablet of 'Abdu'l-Baha (cited in The Service
of Women) in Ahmad Yazdani, Maqam va Huquq-i Zan dar Diyanat-i
Baha'i, vol. 1, which states:
Verily, according to Baha'u'llah, women are judged as rijal.
Could anyone date this tablet? If it comes after 1909 would it not
modify the previous tablets? [For the sources in the writings of
Baha'u'llah which `Abdu'l-Baha is referring to (also cited in The Service
of Women) see Ahmad Yazdani, Mabadiy-i Ruhani, p 109, and the
Compilation on Women #7, p 3.]
This is not to say that we can drop the 1909 tablet from consideration,
but I do think it has to be considered along with all the other texts.
Being a theologian rather than a canon lawyer, I'm inclined to a
hermeneutic based primarily on ascertaining fundamental principles,
using not only the texts but also the lives of Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-
Baha. Would one of our historians be so kind as to write anintellectual
biography of `Abdu'l-Baha?
BTW: so far as I know the issue of the election of women to the
House(s) of Justice fell off the agenda after 1909. Does anyone know of
relevant texts after this, or of a reason why it was not further discussed?
Sen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen McGlinn ph: 31-43-216854
Andre Severinweg 47 email: Sen.McGlinn@RL.RuLimburg.NL
6214 PL Maastricht, the Netherlands
***
When, however, thou dost contemplate the innermost essence of things,
and the individuality of each,
thou wilt behold the signs of thy Lord's mercy . . ."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Aug 29 10:44:31 1995
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 12:43:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: Ahmad Aniss
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: writings on UHJ
Ahmad: Thank you very much for the quotations.
My question to you is this: You initially said that the reason women
cannot serve on the Universal House of Justice is that Baha'u'llah called
its members "rijal/men" in the Most Holy Book.
I think I have demonstrated that Baha'u'llah also called the members of
local houses of justice "rijal/men."
Logically speaking, you have 2 choices:
1. To continue to make your former argument, but to acknowledge that
women cannot by the same token serve on local houses of justice, either,
given that Baha'u'llah referred to them abstractly as "men."
2. To acknowledge that your previous argument must be revised and that
Baha'u'llah's use of the word rijal/men does not form the basis upon
which women are excluded from the universal house of justice. But then
what is the basis?
Incidentally, aside from his use of the word "rijal/notables/men" to
refer to the members of the houses of justice, Baha'u'llah neither in the
Most Holy Book or elsewhere ever explicitly says "Women may not serve on
houses of justice." `Abdu'l-Baha at one point thought that the
terminology was sufficient grounds to exclude them, but he demonstrably
changed his mind about this, with regard to the local level, in 1912.
It seems to me that there is therefore no longer any reason to maintain
that Baha'u'llah legislated women's exclusion from the House (He did
not). Such an exclusion does not therefore form part of the Revelation
(vahy, `ibadat), and ipso facto falls into the category of matters upon
which the House may legislate.
Contrary to what has been alleged, I am upholding the authority of the
Supreme Institution here. They are dependent upon the information at
hand in making their rulings; I think they deserve to have more information.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From LORA_M@meddeans.creighton.eduTue Aug 29 10:54:58 1995
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 09:25:04 CST
From: Lora McCall
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Male language in the Revelation
Dear Talismanians,
I like Tony's points about the use of male-coded language not
excluding women, but includes them (us) implicitly. I want to
believe he's absolutely right. I want it to be that way, and it is
for many Baha'is who have managed to transcend our culture and
socialization in a way that gets us beyond the subtleties of male
superiority and patriarchy. Here's an experiment for the fearless
male: at the next Feast, Holy Day, Assembly meeting or wherever you
get the opportunity, read a handmaiden prayer. Not one of the "bless
*that* handmaiden because she is special to me" prayers, but one of
the "bless me Lord, *I* am Thy handmaiden" prayers. Observe the
responses from members of the community. Does anyone act uneasy?
Talk to individuals who may have noticed your prayer to get their
responses.
This is an interesting exercise. I've watched it happen in my own
community on occasion. I agree with Tony that prayers that use male
pronouns are not believed to be reserved exclusively for men.
However, there *is* a perception that prayers that use female pronouns
*are* exclusively for women. If you don't believe me, try my
experiment! :)
My comments are meant to be descriptive not judgemental. I'm not
trying to throw fuel on a fire. But, my challenge remains, Men:
start saying those Handmaiden prayers as if you mean it! :)
I feel profoundly grateful to Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha:
> Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha that say quite explicitly that Baha'i women, in
> this day, are to be regarded as "rijal." (Tony)
Warmly,
Lora
}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
**********************************************************************
"Beloved friends: Do not be dismayed or deterred. Take courage in
the security of God's law and ordinances. These are the darkest
hours before the break of day. Peace, as promised, will come at
night's end. Press on to meet the dawn."
The Universal House of Justice
**********************************************************************
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
From rvh3@columbia.eduTue Aug 29 11:01:48 1995
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 10:45:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Richard Vernon Hollinger
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: The issue of a male-only UHJ
It seems to me that the exclusion of women from the UHJ rests not on
letters from the Guardian or his secretary, the latter of which appear to
misunderstand the context of the 1902 tablet to the Chicago House of
Spirituality. Rather, the crux of the matter is that `Abdu'l-Baha
specifically stated in the 1909 tablet that women were excluded only from
the baytu'l-adl-i ummumi. The latter almost certainly refers to the UHJ,
as this is the terminology that he used in his Will and Testament to
refer to the UHJ (in passages probably written about this same time) and
the 1909 tablet contains a reference to the head of the House of Justice,
which can only be the Guardian.
`Abdu'l-Baha did reverse himself concerning women's service on local
bodies, and in Baha'i jurisprudence the later position would take
precdence, I presume. But he did not reverse himself concerning women on
the UHJ. He might well have done so had he lived longer and it might
well be a fuller expression of the Baha'i principle of gender equality if
women were on the UHJ (I believe it would). But the issue *really* is
who now has the authority to overturn a ruling from `Abdu'l-Baha?
Richard
From richs@microsoft.comTue Aug 29 16:01:44 1995
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 95 10:33:48 PDT
From: Rick Schaut
To: owner-talisman@indiana.edu, Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women and Houses of Justice ("Service of Women" paper) #2
Eric and friends,
>From: "Eric D. Pierce"
>Greetings Mr. Shaut and other esteemed members,
>Hope all is well up in the land of MicroSerfs!
Fairly well. It'd be nice if the stock went back up, but I can't
complain. I'm still 'serfing' along.
>> From: Rick Schaut
>> Thank you, Eric, for pointing this out. I'm beginning to see the same
>> arguments more than once, and, until such time as the Universal
>> House of Justice decides to address the issue, the horse is quite
>> dead.
>Dead as far as voting for women, and as far as the Supreme Body
>specifically stating that there is authoritative acceptance or
>rejection of this or any other alternate "position".
I didn't want to cut short discussion. There is, however, a distinct
difference between discussion and argumentation. In general, when
the same line of reasoning has been posted more than once, we've
moved from the realm of discussion and into the realm of argumentation.
[Deletia]
>> I encourage all to take their concerns directly to the Universal House
>> of Justice. It is your right to do so, and is far more likely to have some
>> positive effect than hasing it out amongst ourselves.
>Good idea, however, I'm sure that there is some reasonable fear
>amongst the advocates of inclusion that it may not be the right
>time, and that by further developing the argument for inclusion
>of women via discussion and research, a premature setback may be
>averted.
Most attempts to advocate inclusion miss the fundamental conflict which
exists in this case. On the surface, it looks like a conflict between
principle and action (or words and deeds). However, upon closer
examination, one sees that the real conflict is between the Covenant
and the principles of the Faith.
The facts are rather clear. Baha'u'llah gave `Abdu'l-Baha the
authority to interpret His Writings. This was not conditioned upon
our ability to make sense of 'Abdu'l-Baha's interpretations. In an
exercise of this authority, `Abdu'l-Baha has stated that only men
may serve on the Universal House of Justice. This contradicts
the basic principle of the equality of men and women, and does
not seem to make sense given the history of this issue.
The questions, then, are:
* To whom would devolve the authority of interpreting the writings
when we no longer have a living human being occupying an
institution to which this authority has been granted?
* If the Universal House of Justice decides that women really
ought to be allowed in its membership, would such a decision
be outside the bounds of the authority granted to the Universal
House of Justice? Would it constitute a usurpation of the authority
reserved for `Abdu'l-Baha and the institution of the Guardianship?
Or, in sum total,
* Can this exclusion be changed without violating the Covenant
of Baha'u'llah in some way or another?
At present, I don't believe it can, though I am _eager_ to entertain
a line of reasoning which would lead me to conclude otherwise. Such
a line of reasoning must be based upon the documents which define
Baha'u'llah's Covenant. If all we can say is that it doesn't make sense,
then I'm afraid that the line of reasoning doesn't prevail.
Warmest Regards,
Rick Schaut
From richs@microsoft.comTue Aug 29 19:05:05 1995
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 95 13:16:17 PDT
From: Rick Schaut
To: owner-talisman@indiana.edu, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: *Subverting the House*? (fwd)
Christopher and others,
>From: Christopher Buck
> I must protest your insinuation that there are those online
>who are engaging in *extremely skilful attempts to subvert the
>integrity of the House*.
While I don't agree with Robert's characterization, I can understand
it. If people consider themselves "advocates of inclusion" and
talk about attempts to influence the decisions of possible future
members of the House of Justice, then they are walking very
close to the line if not over it.
There _are_ Covenantiary issues involved, here. I've raised
them. Having raised these issues, how should I view people's
attempts to discuss membership of the House when these
discussions fail to address the Covenantiary aspects of the
topic?
Warmest Regards,
Rick Schaut
From PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.eduWed Aug 30 10:09:49 1995
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 17:24:16 PST8PDT
From: "Eric D. Pierce"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: *Subverting the House*? (fwd) [*** clarification ***]
Greetings again to Mr. Shaut and the talisman members,
re:
> From: Rick Schaut
> To: owner-talisman@indiana.edu, talisman@indiana.edu
> Date sent: Tue, 29 Aug 95 13:16:17 PDT
> Subject: Re: *Subverting the House*? (fwd)
...snip
> While I don't agree with Robert's characterization, I can understand
> it. If people consider themselves "advocates of inclusion" and
> talk about attempts to influence the decisions of possible future
> members of the House of Justice, then they are walking very
> close to the line if not over it.
Part of the above statement sounds vaguely similar to something I
posted yesterday :
:
: From: "Eric D. Pierce"
: To: Talisman@indiana.edu
: Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 15:27:48 PST8PDT
: Subject: Re: Women and Houses of Justice ("Service of Women" paper) #2
:
...snip
: Well... my assumption is that there is a viewpoint commonly held
: by the "usual suspects" (liberals/intellectuals), that mulling this
: one over will possibly result in the development of fresh insights
: at both high and low levels, and that seeds need to be planted in
: the minds of future members of the Supreme Body. ...
As far as Mr. Shaut's statement "attempts to influence the decisions of
possible future members of the House of Justice, ..."
The jump from my non-scholarly opinion about a hypothetical group
of "the usual suspects" (a joke BTW), to an implication that there
are attempts to influence "decisions" seems a bit vigorous, but I
thank him for pointing out the need for clarification.
My previous statement is merely a ~supposition~ that there ~might~
be a viewpoint held by an abstract group who feel that "planting of
seeds" is needed (I probably should have said "it is desired that
seeds be planted..." rather than "need to be planted").
Clarification: first of all *I* am not specifically advocating
adherance to (or rejection of) the "inclusion" theory. It is very
interesting to study the issues the "Service" paper raises, and
even more interesting to observe the various reactions of the
membership to the ideas it puts forward. I make no pretense of
having the scholarly/administrative training or experience to
advocate that others adopt positions pro or con, and doubt that
it is appropriate to have a desire to do so given the principles
of consultation and the Baha'i definition of justice in the
Hidden Words. We should strive to investigate all the ideas
raised about an issue in a detached, creative and inspired
manner, and then be patient and live with ambiguity until the
matter takes on the weight of enlightened opinion and/or
authoritative guidance is given by the Divine Institutions.
Indeed, having survived an attempted LSA/AB investigation of
myself merely because I mentioned to some of the local members
that I had read the paper and found it and some of the rumored
wild (unpublished) opinions of some of the authors and their
supporters interesting if not outrageous, I hope that I haven't
become lax. To be perfectly honest, I thought that I had
become so jaded by such experiences that there was little
that could inspire any fear of authoritarian retribution, but
I now feel a wee bitty twinge, and thus am stimulated to plink
out yet more blather on the keyboard. :)
>
> There _are_ Covenantiary issues involved, here. I've raised
> them. ...
I'm sure that your raising of Covenantiary issues is appreciated,
but for myself, I find the topic obscure, non-intuitive and
complex, possibly to the point where only researchers and those
really deep into the administrative stuff really know how to
~correctly~ respond to the leading edge of research (or dare I
say it: dissent) on these issues.
Being a mere cheerleader (no I don't wear a tutu ) that dabbles
and indulges in the fluff of what I consider to be the forces of
reform and progress here, I have only sought to describe the way
that I have seen this issue play out in the life and development
of the community.
I have attached the appropriate excerpt from your earlier message
so that anyone that missed your questions will have another chance
to peruse them.
> ... Having raised these issues, how should I view people's
> attempts to discuss membership of the House when these
> discussions fail to address the Covenantiary aspects of the
> topic?
First of all (and I ask this without malice), other than out of
general interest, why should anybody be concerned with how you
view the discussion? If you are stating that you are unsatisified
with the content of the discussion, so be it.
Otherwise, did I miss a message from the list owner that we now
have thought-police on talisman? If I recall correctly, there was
a discussion (archives from last winter?) regarding the ILLEGALITY
of any tampering with talisman (a state sponsored project) by Baha'i
Institutions.
I hope I haven't overreacted to your statement, I know you
have sincere concerns. Have you read all of the components of
the "Service of Women" paper that Sen posted? Are you aware that
more in depth research is reportedly being done on the exact
concerns you have raised?
>
> Warmest Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
Oh well, I just saw Dr. Cole's posting on the same topic, so
if this is a bit redundant, sorry.
EP
----- attachment -----
* Most attempts to advocate inclusion miss the fundamental conflict which
* exists in this case. On the surface, it looks like a conflict between
* principle and action (or words and deeds). However, upon closer
* examination, one sees that the real conflict is between the Covenant
* and the principles of the Faith.
*
* The facts are rather clear. Baha'u'llah gave `Abdu'l-Baha the
* authority to interpret His Writings. This was not conditioned upon
* our ability to make sense of 'Abdu'l-Baha's interpretations. In an
* exercise of this authority, `Abdu'l-Baha has stated that only men
* may serve on the Universal House of Justice. This contradicts
* the basic principle of the equality of men and women, and does
* not seem to make sense given the history of this issue.
*
* The questions, then, are:
*
* To whom would devolve the authority of interpreting the writings
* when we no longer have a living human being occupying an
* institution to which this authority has been granted?
*
* If the Universal House of Justice decides that women really
* ought to be allowed in its membership, would such a decision
* be outside the bounds of the authority granted to the Universal
* House of Justice? Would it constitute a usurpation of the authority
* reserved for `Abdu'l-Baha and the institution of the Guardianship?
*
* Or, in sum total,
*
* Can this exclusion be changed without violating the Covenant
* of Baha'u'llah in some way or another?
*
* At present, I don't believe it can, though I am _eager_ to entertain
* a line of reasoning which would lead me to conclude otherwise. Such
* a line of reasoning must be based upon the documents which define
* Baha'u'llah's Covenant. If all we can say is that it doesn't make sense,
* then I'm afraid that the line of reasoning doesn't prevail.
From rstockman@usbnc.orgWed Aug 30 10:12:16 1995
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 95 19:48:48
From: "Stockman, Robert"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Service of Women on the Universal House of Justice
I apologize for the delay in responding to this particular thread. I
went home on Thursday to work there and when I tried to get my e-mail
Friday night, it jammed. Everyone, if you are going to respond to an
e-mail I put on Talisman, PLEASE do not send it to me and to Talisman.
Just send it to Talisman and let Talisman forward it to me. What
happens is this: the message comes to Talisman "cc"ed to me and
Talisman adds a second "cc" to me, so the message comes to me
cc:Robert Stockman cc: Robert Stockman. This causes CC:Mail Remote
(our Lotus e-mail software) to freak out. As soon as it hits such a
message it locks up and ceases to work. So if I have messages waiting
for me, as soon as cc:mail reaches that message it shuts down and I
can't get any more messages.
This only happens when I am at home, though even more rarely, our
master cc:mail program on the Baha'i National Center freaks out from
such messages and refuses to accept any e-mail from our server at all.
When that happens the Baha'i National Center itself is totally cut off
from e-mail until someone notices the problem and fixes it.
Anyway, the Talisman people say it isn't their problem and the CC:Mail
people say it isn't their software, so everyone at the Baha'i National
Center pressures me to unsubscribe from Talisman. And our software
nerds (I mean no offense) are really quite good, so if they can't
figure it out, its a REAL problem.
In this case, I was knocked off e-mail until Monday, when our software
people came back to work and got my voice mail message. Unfortunately
before they could act a thunderstorm rolled through and knocked out
all electricity for our part of Evanston for three hours, so it was
Monday night before I could get my e-mail. By then I had 166
messages. Since then I have come back to South Bend and, trying to
get my e-mail, I have had to call the Baha'i National Center three
times to get my e-mail unstuck, because three other messages were
"cc"ed to me twice. Now I have it all, but I haven't read it yet.
But I have read Juan's message, and have a brief, "clear-thinking"
response to offer.
1. "The 1902 letters excludes women from all kinds of House of
Justice": This is an interpretation of the letter, which says women
are excluded from "the" House of Justice. This could mean (1) the
Chicago House of Justice; (2) all Houses of Justice; (3) the Universal
House of Justice. `Abdu'l-Baha's tablet makes no reference to
"Chicago" at all. Corinne True's letter does refer to Chicago early
on, but when she asks about Houses of Justice she asks about "the"
House of Justice as well (she is ambiguous). And we don't know how
the translator summarized her letter, so we don't know what question
`Abdu'l-Baha was really answering. He could also have chosen to
answer a different question than He was asked, something He
occasionally did.
2. "The 1912 oral instruction in Chicago allows women on local Houses
of Justice": This was not an oral instruction, it was written. I
apologize I did not give the text to you in full in my last message.
Here it is:
According to the ordinances of the Faith of God, women are the
equals of men in all rights save only that of membership on the
Universal House of Justice, for, as hath been stated in the text of
the Book, both the head and the members of the House of Justice
must be men. However, in all other bodies, such as the Temple
Construction Committee, the Teaching Committee, the Spiritual
Assembly, and in charitable and scientific associations, women
share equally in all rights with men.
This translation may be found in *The Baha'i Faith in America, Volume
Two,* page 323. It was made by the Baha'i World Centre specially for
the book. The original translation by Ameen Fareed was made on July
29, 1909. This clearly is a tablet, not an oral instruction. An
original text must exist in Haifa. No doubt it would be useful to
this discussion for someone to request that text and type it out on
Talisman for all to see (any volunteers?).
Now, CONCLUSIONS:
1. The 1909 tablet, I would argue, clarifies the 1902 tablet and
allows us to conclude that its true meaning was (3), that is, "the"
House of Justice meant "Universal House of Justice" all along. Maybe
`Abdu'l-Baha tolerated the ambiguity because He did not feel the
Chicago community was ready for women to serve on its governing body.
Or maybe because of lack of translation He was entirely unaware of the
problems there.
If this is true, it would explain why Shoghi Effendi and his
secretaries frequently referred to the 1902 tablet as the proof that
women could not serve on the Universal House of Justice. Shoghi
Effendi knew "the" House of Justice meant "Universal" House of
Justice.
2. "Formal legislation of the House is called for": Why? Besides,
the House has alread said that women cannot serve on the House. And
those who do not like this conclusion have refused to accept it. If
the House were to reopen the matter and come to the conclusion again
they still wouldn't accept it.
Two other matters: I see no connection between the International
Baha'i Council and the House of Justice; we know they weren't the same
body, and the Council had a head who wasn't the Guardian whereas the
House has to have the Guardian as head, so I see no reason to push the
analogy very far and say if women served on the Council, they can
serve on the House. If this is true, Remey can be Guardian.
As for the tablet where Baha'u'llah *clearly* says local houses of
justice must choose the world language: I have not seen the tablet and
would need to study it to discuss it intelligently. But I see no
problem if `Abdu'l-Baha, in His broad powers of interpretation, says
"rajal" means only men in the case of the Universal House of Justice,
but *mutatis mutandis* rajal can be extended to women in other cases.
That's the creative power of `Abdu'l-Baha's interpretation. We may
not like it, and may not regard it as logical, but that is within His
power.
I'll respond to other comments about this thread as I read them.
Cheers to all.
-- Rob Stockman
From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduWed Aug 30 10:13:49 1995
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 21:16:34 -0600 (MDT)
From: gpoirier
To: Talisman
Subject: Pressure from the community
Juan wrote:
> Are
> you suggesting that public discussions of issues in Baha'i history and
> texts are somehow illegitimate?
This reminded me of a scene I saw in "Paint Your Wagon" on TV over the
weekend. A community discussion on a topic I will not bring up, was
taking place. Then the mayor said, "Let's put it to a vote!" and
one of the citizens says, "And any man who votes against it is a
traitor to his country!"
From richs@microsoft.comWed Aug 30 10:15:20 1995
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 95 20:24:45 PDT
From: Rick Schaut
To: jrcole@umich.edu, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: *Subverting the House*? (fwd)
Dear Juan and friends,
From: Juan R Cole
Date: Tuesday, August 29, 1995 7:37PM
>On Tue, 29 Aug 1995, Rick Schaut wrote:
[Deletia]
>> While I don't agree with Robert's characterization, I can understand
>> it.
>Dear Rick: I appreciate the moderate and measured tone of your message.
>However, I think there is a fairly serious misunderstanding here. No one
>is engaged in a political campaign of any sort here.
I'm beginning to wonder whether one of the vagaries of e-mail lists
isn't at the heart of this four-way difference in perceptions. It's possible
that Robert and I had been influenced by messages which Christopher
and Juan hadn't seen yet. I know that two messages I sent today
arrived in my mailbox in reverse order from that in which I sent them.
Juan, I can say that I didn't have any remarks of yours in mind when
I wrote the message to which you replied.
>Are you suggesting that public discussions of issues in Baha'i history
>and texts are somehow illegitimate?
No, and to be frank, I have absolutely no idea where that question
came from. It has all the same flavor as, "Have you stopped beating
your wife?" I don't think you intended to serve up such a dish, but
that's the way it tastes.
I've deleted the remainder of your remarks, Juan, because I agree
with them wholeheartedly. We _should_ discuss these things. I just
want the discussion to be _full_ and _completely_ open.
I don't think talk of a Baha'i public sphere answers my question. Lacking
an address of the Covenantiary issues, any discussion of the possibility
of women serving on the Universal House of Justice has as much
potential for harm as it has for good. If the discussion does address the
issues involving the Covenant, then no harm can come from the discussion.
Why, then, should we go through a discussion which doesn't address
the issues involving the Covenant? Why does the development of a
Baha'i public sphere have to accept such a half-hearted treatment of
one of the most controversial issues in the whole of the Baha'i Faith?
Warmest Regards,
Rick Schaut
From tan1@cornell.eduWed Aug 30 10:16:24 1995
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 00:01:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Timothy A. Nolan"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Women, Universal House of Justice
It seems to me extremely unlikely that the rule excluding women from
membership on the Universal House of Justice will be changed before the next
Manifestation of God appears. The primary reason I believe that is that
The Universal House of Justice, in its Constitution, states that the
authority of the writings of Abdu'l Baha and Shoghi Effendi is
"absolute and immutable" until such time as God sends a new Manifestation.
Since both Abdu'l Baha and Shoghi Effendi have clearly said that membership
on the Universal House of Justice is restricted to men, and since the
authority of those statements is absolute and immutable until the next
Manifestation, I see no reason the rule should be changed.
If the argument is raised that this rule is a matter of legislation,
which falls outside the Guardian's sphere of infalliblity, one response is
that no such restriction applies to Abdu'l Baha. The Master had the
authority to legislate, and His Will is evidence of this. He created a new
institution, the Secondary House of Justice (National Spiritual Assembly).
Creating a new administrative institution is certainly legislating, and no
one I know of has ever questioned the validity of National Spiritual
Assemblies. Besides, in the Guardian's statements, he isn't so much
legislating as he is explaining the meaning of statements of Abdu'l Baha.
This "explaining the meaning" is clearly within the Guardian's sphere
of expounding on the sacred text, so it is divine guidance. That is why I
don't think the rule should be or can be changed by anyone less than
a new Manifestation of God.
Tim Nolan tan1@cornell.edu
From tan1@cornell.eduWed Aug 30 10:16:51 1995
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 00:18:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Timothy A. Nolan"
To: sindiogi@NMSU.Edu, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women/UHJ
> This issue of no women on the UHJ.......
> However we cut, slice, or dice it, it is discrimination and it is against
> the Principles of our Faith. It can not stand.
I don't understand how statements from Abdu'l Baha and Shoghi Effendi
can possibly be "against the Principles of our Faith". This seems a
contradiction; after all the principles of the Baha'i Faith are defined,
not by us, but by the writings of Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l Baha, and Shoghi
Effendi. Whatever statements they wrote ARE the principles of our Faith.
As to whether the rule cannot stand....who are we to decide that?
We may not like the rule, we may not understand it, but those are not
sound reasons to discard or overthrow a rule given by the Head of the Faith.
The will of God is not determined by what we like or dislike.
I admit I don't understand the rule either. A response I have found useful
is to have faith God is doing what is best. God is, after all, the Source of
all knowledge and wisdom; I am not.
> My first question to a Bahai
> as a seeker was the number of women on the UHJ. The answer, coupled with
> the pseudo-teaching of parallel evolution, has delayed my becoming a
> Bahai for 5 years. I immensely regret that. Enough is said...
After I first learned about the Baha'i Faith, I delayed enrolling in the
Baha'i community for two years. This delay was because of my limitations,
not because of any flaw in the Cause of God. God's guidance may not be
what we want to hear, but it is always what is best for us.
Tim Nolan tan1@cornell.edu
From nima@unm.eduWed Aug 30 10:17:26 1995
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 23:21:51 -0600 (MDT)
From: Sadra
To: "Timothy A. Nolan"
Cc: sindiogi@NMSU.Edu, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Tertullian's Logic (Re: Women/UHJ)
> As to whether the rule cannot stand....who are we to decide that?
> ***We may not like the rule, we may not understand it, but those are not
> sound reasons to discard or overthrow a rule given by the Head of the
Faith***.
Dear Tim--
No offense intended, but wouldn't the above necessarily imply exactly the
same kind of illogical reasoning (and I'm NOT calling you illogical) used by
one of the most venomous religious fanatics in all history, namely
Tertullian (160-220 CE), in the notorious maxim "credo quia ineptum est"
(I believe because it's absurd) in justification of a literalist
interpretation of the Incarnation, the "Three-in-One" doctrine and
Bodily Resurrection? Just an observation.
I mean, given the evidence, the sound arguments we've witnessed in the last
few days right here on Talisman (some water-tight as far as I'm
concerned), why insist the matter a closed-and-shut case?
Warm regards,
Nima
---
O God, cause us to see things as they really are - Hadith
Strive to lead back the divine within you to the Divine in
the All - Plotinus (d. 270 AD)
From ahmada@acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.auWed Aug 30 10:26:34 1995
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 16:08:01 +1000
From: Ahmad Aniss
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: IBC / UHJ
Daer Friends,
Most of friends that have quoted the following writing by The Guardian
have omitted the last to paragraph (see below) that have extensive bearings
in regard to views of the Guardian on whom the members of the UHJ will
be and what the IBC represents for. The Guardian fully acknowledges
the law of Kitab-i-Agdas in the last paragraph. In addition, The Guardian
has clearly stated in the subsequent quotations below that the IBC was an
embryonic International Institution and not an embryonic International
House of Justice. Such Institutions will be under the governing body,
the UHJ.
This directive from the Guardian is well after those tables of Abdu'l-Baha
and as an interpreter of the Faith, must be considered authoritative.
If the nature of the tablets of Abdu'l-Baha are not clear for some, they
must consider this directive to have precedence to those tablets. Solely
because of chronologicality.
Directives from the Guardian (page 79-80)
"As regards your question concerning the membership of
the Universal House of Justice, there is a Tablet from Abdu'l-Baha
in which He definitely states that the membership of the
Universal House is confined to men and that the wisdom of it
will be fully revealed in the future. In the local, as well as the
National Houses of Justice, however, women have the full right
of membership. It is therefore, only to the International
House that they cannot be elected. The Baha'is should accept
this statement of the Master in a spirit of deep faith, confident
that there is a divine guidance and wisdom behind it, which
will be gradually unfolded to the eyes of the world."
"Regarding your question, the Master said the wisdom of
having no women on the International House of Justice, would
become manifest in the future. We have no other indication
than this."
"At present there are women on the International Council,
and this will continue as long as it exists, but when the International
House of Justice is elected, there will only be men on
it, as this is the law of the Aqdas."
Messages to the Baha'i World: 1950-1957 (pages 7-8)
"Nascent Institution now created is invested
with threefold function: first, to forge link with authorities of
newly emerged State; second, to assist me to discharge responsibilities
involved in erection of mighty superstructure of the Bab's Holy
Shrine; third, to conduct negotiations related to matters of personal
status with civil authorities. To these will be added further functions
in course of evolution of this first embryonic International Institution,
marking its development into officially recognized Baha'i
Court, its transformation into duly elected body, its efflorescence
into Universal House of Justice, and its final fruition through erection
of manifold auxiliary institutions constituting the World Administrative
Center destined to arise and function and remain permanently
established in close neighborhood of Twin Holy Shrines."
The above Guardian's message clearly indicates the nature of the role
IBC, (i.e. the three fold fuctions and as we know later functions), and
its difference to role of UHJ.
(page 149)
"The International Baha'i Council, comprising eight members,
charged with assisting in the manifold activities attendant upon the
rise of the World Administrative Center of the Faith, which must
pave the way for the formation of a Baha'i International Court and
the eventual emergence of the Universal House of Justice, the supreme
legislative body of the future Baha'i Commonwealth, has been
established, enlarged, and the functions of its members defined."
I like to say here that a few of friends have stated that such Court
was not established, before formation of UHJ. Perhaps not in
such form or name as they perceive. I would like to say that such
body was formed when the IBC was left with the unexpected
passing of the Guardian. IBC at that time was left with the
task of deciding who is the successor of the Faith and after
clarifying the situation in accordance to the written text took
the task of bringing the UHJ into formation. Hence IBC was
at that time acting as a international court.
With Baha'i, Love and Greetings,
Ahmad.
_______________________________________________________________________
^ ^
^ Dr. A.M. Aniss, Tel: Home [61(2)] 505 509 ^
^ Bio-Medical Engineer, Work [61(2)] 694 5915 ^
^ Neuropsychiatric Institute, Mobile 019 992020 ^
^ Prince Henry Hospital, Fax: Work [61(2)] 694 5747 ^
^ Little Bay, N.S.W. 2036, ^
^ Australia. Email: A.Aniss@unsw.edu.au ^
^_______________________________________________________________________^
From rstockman@usbnc.orgWed Aug 30 10:44:42 1995
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 95 07:00:13
From: "Stockman, Robert"
To: Juan R Cole , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: rijal/men and local houses of justice
Juan: How do you know the reference to "houses of justice" might not
refer to national houses of justice? Baha'u'llah, to my knowledge,
never mentioned the various levels of houses of justice explicitly,
but possibly one can infer them. I have never seen a clear reference
in the Baha'i writings to national houses of justice before
`Abdu'l-Baha's *Will and Testament,* but Hippolyte Dreyfus mentions
national Houses of Justice in *Essay on Bahaism* (Essaie sur le
Behaisme*) which was published in 1909. And pilgrims mention them.
So clearly `Abdu'l-Baha was talking about them, and maybe even
Baha'u'llah talked about them.
-- Rob
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: rijal/men and local houses of justice
Author: Juan R Cole at INTERNET
Date: 8/28/95 7:12 AM
More than one person has asked for a citation for Baha'u'llah's use of
"rijal/men" to refer to local houses of justice.
In Ishraq-Khavari, ed., Ganj-i Shayigan, p. 211, Baha'u'llahs says
"va hududat-i munzalih dar Kitab bih rijal-i buyut-i `adliyyih tafvid.
shudih."
loosely: "and the ordinances revealed in the Book have been delegated
[for their implementation] to the men of the houses of justice." This is
a gloss on the pharse in the Aqdas where he calls upon the ahl-i majalis,
or people of assemblies, to choose a universal language. Here he is
saying that these assemblies include not only parliaments but also houses
of justice.
So, in answer to Ahmad's question, no, this Tablet is not an address to a
de facto all-male consultative assembly in the Iran of the time. It is an
abstract discussion of future activities of houses of justice. As I said,
the plural demonstrates unequivocally that it is the local bodies that are
being spoken of and not the Universal House of Justice.
The reason this is important is that `Abdu'l-Baha' says in his 1902
letter to Corinne True that the *reason* women cannot serve on a house of
justice is that Baha'u'llah refered to their members as "men/rijal."
It is obvious to me that this line of reason would exclude women from all
houses of justice, local and universal. Yet in 1912 `Abdu'l-Baha
abruptly allowed women to serve on the Chicago local house of justice
(and by extension all others).
Ipso facto, Baha'u'llah's use of the word "rijal" to refer to members of
local houses of justice and of the universal house of justice does not
preclude women serving on those bodies, and this can be proven with
reference to `Abdu'l-Baha's 1912 ruling.
I am sorry, but I did not find Ahmad's message to have engaged the
arguments being presented. You can't dismiss a textual and logical argument
with the wave of your hand as an "interpolation" and expect that to settle
the issue.All I take away from your message is that your mind is made up;
you are not interested in any evidence that might prove upsetting to your
views. That is, of course, your prerogative; I don't think you will find
it a sort of argumentation that will succeed on Talisman.
As for John's invocation of the charismatic authority of the beloved
Guardian, he is certainly correct; and Shoghi Effendi is very dear to
us. However, the Guardian's secretary's quotation of the 1902 letter
cannot settle this issue.
It does matter to me whether women are on the House. I don't think a
House with women on it would have declared men the head of the household
in the absence of a clear scriptural text on the issue, for instance.
And besides, this is a soul-wrenching inconsistency in our religion.
So until someone can address my syllogisms, I remain convinced that there
is something strange going on hear; and the Universal House of Justice
has authority to rule in matters where the Text is inconsistent or unclear.
cheers JRIC
From rstockman@usbnc.orgWed Aug 30 10:45:10 1995
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 95 07:00:07
From: "Stockman, Robert"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re[2]: Women and Houses of Justice
Actually, the situation is even more complicated than Tony says. In
1911 `Abdu'l-Baha said to the Kenosha Baha'is "you have a spiritual
Assembly of men and you can establish a spiritual Assembly of women."
Note, `Abdu'l-Baha does not say you cannot establish a mixed assembly.
(This is quoted in my *World Order* article on women in the American
Baha'i community, and I think it is in *Baha'i Faith in America,
Volume Two,* but I couldn't fin it when I looked.) Again, we see Him
avoiding the direct question. And note this is two years after
`Abdu'l-Baha had written Corinne True saying women are excluded from
the Universal House of Justice only and can serve on the spiritual
assembly (I quoted this tablet earlier today). So we cannot take the
Kenosha letter and generalize about ther service of women on LSAs.
`Abdu'l-Baha had already said they could serve; but perhaps He felt it
wasn't yet best for Kenosha.
-- Rob Stockman
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Women and Houses of Justice
Author: Member1700@aol.com at INTERNET
Date: 8/26/95 8:31 PM
Saman's information from Susan Maneck's book is essentially correct. Except
that, even in 1911, 'Abdu'l-Baha was still insisting--in a Tablet to Kenosha
this time--that women should not be elected to local Houses of Justice. He
only changed things in 1912, when the Chicago "House" was dissolved and
reelected with women serving on it. Perhaps, this was after 'Abdu'l-Baha had
had a chance to see women functioning in Western society, or perhaps it was
for other reasons.
From rstockman@usbnc.orgWed Aug 30 10:47:50 1995
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 95 07:00:11
From: "Stockman, Robert"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: women and UHJ
I have never seen the Chicago governing body called the "Universal
House of Justice" or the "General House of Justice." In 1901, when it
was elected, the body decided to call itself "the Chicago House of
Justice" and `Abdu'l-Baha subsequently addressed them as the Chicago
"House of Justice." In the spring of 1902--within weeks of writing
the tablet to True saying women could not serve on "the House of
Justice"-- `Abdu'l-Baha wrote Mirza Asadu'llah and said the name of
the Chicago body should be changed to the "House of Spirituality." To
my knowledge a copy of the original of this tablet is not in Haifa;
all I have seen is the 1902 English translation. If `Abdu'l-Baha
changed the name before writing True this would greatly weaken the
argument that "the House of Justice" in the 1902 tablet to True refers
to Chicago. But since neither tablet bears a date, all we can say is
that both were written within a few weeks of each other.
Once the name was changed to "House of Spirituality" this was the term
used in Chicago. Interestingly, `Abdu'l-Baha always addressed it as
"spiritual assembly" (mahfil-i-rawhani). He never again called it a
"House of Justice" and I think only once used the term "House of
Spirituality" in passing. This also weakens Tony's argument that the
1909 tablet referring to the "House of Justice" must refer to Chicago;
if so, `Abdu'l-Baha was making a radical departure from his and
Chicago's existing vocabulary. When Ameen Fareed translated
"mahfil-i-rawhani" into English he used "spiritual meeting (House of
Spirituality)." I think he did this because "mahfil-i-rawhani" had
not yet become a specialized technical term; as I show in an appendix
to *Baha'i Faith in America, Volume Two,* in different tablets one can
find the term referring to an LSA, the committee of a group of Baha'is
(the "spiritual Assemblies" of the men and of the women in Kenosha;
the spiritual assembly of the Jewish Baha'is of Tehran), and what
today we would call a regular fireside. It was in 1910 or 1911, when
Hippolyte Dreyfus came through Chicago and read all the tablets they
had received, when the Baha'is there discovered that "spiritual
assembly" was the term `Abdu'l-Baha used for their governing body.
And it was about that year that the New York Baha'is began to use
"Spiritual Assembly" instead of "Board of Counsel" for the name of
their consultative body.
Oh, another comment about Tony's ideas: women were first elected to
the New York spiritual assembly in 1911. This is before `Abdu'l-Baha
arrived, thus showing His visit was not the trigger for the inclusion
of women. See *Baha'i Faith in America, Volume Two,* page 338.
As for using one tablet to establish a principle: it depends on the
tablet and the related tablets.
-- Rob Stockman
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Rob: granted that the 1909 tablet to True appears to refer to the
Universal House of Justice as we know it rather than the Chicago
House of Justice (which I think we must assume unless someone can
find an instance of the name 'Universal House of Justice' being used
in Chicago in 1908/9), is a single text to an individual believer
enough to establish a principle of law?
From rstockman@usbnc.orgWed Aug 30 10:49:20 1995
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 95 07:00:19
From: "Stockman, Robert"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re[2]: Women/UHJ
One believer wrote:
I am dead serious: the posting by Juan that not the last has been said
on the male-only UHJ was the best thing for me for months. It gave me
hope when I had lost it.
However we cut, slice, or dice it, it is discrimination and it is
against the Principles of our Faith. It can not stand.
I like to teach the Faith when possible. I am sure you all know how
the male-only UHJ makes everything so difficult. My first question to
a Bahai as a seeker was the number of women on the UHJ. The answer,
coupled with the pseudo-teaching of parallel evolution, has delayed my
becoming a Bahai for 5 years. I immensely regret that. Enough is
said...
My comment is:
I couldn't agree more, from an emotional point of view. I can't
figure this teaching out either. It doesn't seem to make any sense.
But Shoghi Effendi offers an answer to this feeling of despair as
well: in a letter he wrote through a secretary he said the exclusion
of women will not satisfy feminists, but the Baha'is just have to
accept it. I'm sorry I don't have the exact quote at my fingertips,
but will supply it if you want.
-- Rob Stockman
From Member1700@aol.comWed Aug 30 18:09:29 1995
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 12:50:36 -0400
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women on the House
Concerning the Tablet of `Abdu'l-Baha to Corinne True in 1909, it seems to me
that neither Rob Stockman or Richard Hollinger have sufficiently taken into
account later developments. Specifically, I am referring to `Abdu'l-Baha's
clear Tablet to Kenosha in 1911, in response to their clear questions, which
reaffirmed the policy of the exclusion of women from local Houses of Justice.
Will either Robert or Richard kindly explain to me how `Abdu'l-Baha could
have reversed his policy (or clarified his policy, if you prefer) in 1909 in
such a way as to allow (Rob says, command) the election of women to local
Houses of Justice--how he could have done that, and then in 1911 reaffirm the
previous policy of exclusion? That is quite nonsensical.
I will repeat that I do not think that it is possible to maintain
(historically) that the 1909 Tablet to Corinne True which mentions the
"universal" House of Justice represented a change of policy, because we have
the Kenosha events in 1911 to confirm the obvious. Nobody thought so at the
time (well, except Corinne True), and they were right.
Warmest,
Tony
From tan1@cornell.eduWed Aug 30 18:18:10 1995
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 13:56:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Timothy A. Nolan"
To: nima@unm.edu, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: Tertullian's Logic (Re: Women/UHJ)
Tim Nolan wrote:
tn>> As to whether the rule cannot stand....who are we to decide that?
tn>> ***We may not like the rule, we may not understand it, but those are
tn>> not sound reasons to discard or overthrow a rule given by the Head of
tn>> the Faith***.
The rule referred to above is the one which says only men may be members
of the Universal House of Justice.
Nima responded:
n> but wouldn't the above necessarily imply exactly
n> the same kind of illogical reasoning (and I'm NOT calling you illogical)
n> used by one of the most venomous religious fanatics in all history,
n> namely Tertullian (160-220 CE), in the notorious maxim "credo quia
n> ineptum est" (I believe because it's absurd) in justification of a
n> literalist interpretation of the Incarnation, the "Three-in-One"
n> doctrine and Bodily Resurrection?
I certainly do NOT advocate the principle of "I believe because it is
absurd". I think it is not possible to believe an idea that does not make
sense. Because, in order to believe, it is necessary first to have
some degree of understanding. I don't see how it is possible for me to understand
something that does not make sense to me, and if I can't understand it, at
least a little, then I cannot believe it. That same idea might make sense
to another person, and she might be able to believe it.
Now, as to the rule excluding women from membership on the Universal
House of Justice, it is true I don't understand the reason for this.
I submit that no one else does either since the reason is supposed
to become as obvious as the sun at mid-day. But what I do understand
is this:
1.Abdu'l Baha wrote that membership on the Universal House
of Justice is restricted to men.
2. Shoghi Effendi repeated and confirmed what Abdu'l Baha had
written.
3. The Universal House of Justice, in its Constitution,
said that the authority of the writings of Abdu'l Baha
and of Shoghi Effendi is "absolute and immutable" until
God sends the next Manifestation, who will do what She wishes.
The Universal House of Justice cannot change interpretations made by the
Master or the Guardian, and the House has said the authority of statements
from either Abdu'l Baha or Shoghi Effendi is "absolute and immutable".
It is true, of course, that the Universal House of Justice has the
authority to change or reverse its own decisions. But once they say
something is "absolute and immutable", how can they go back and change that?
It's difficult to change something which is "absolute and immutable".
"Immutable", after all, means "unchangeable".
Given the statements of the Master and the Guardian and the Universal House
of Justice, it is logical, not absurd to believe the rule is the will
of God, at least until the next Manifestation comes, which won't be for
at least 850 years.
> I mean, given the evidence, the sound arguments we've witnessed in the
> last few days right here on Talisman (some water-tight as far as I'm
> concerned), why insist the matter a closed-and-shut case?
It seems to me the rule will stand because of the statements of the Master,
the Guardian, and because the Universal House of Justice said the authority
of those statements is "absolute and immutable" until the next
Manifestation. All the arguments in the world will not change something
which has been described as "absolute and immutable" by
the divinely guided Universal House of Justice. I don't see any way to
change something which is "immutable". Of course, when the next
Manifestation of God comes, everything might be changed.
As for Tertullian, he did not have the benefit of a divinely guided,
unerring interpreter of God's revelation, as the Baha'is do have.
This is of the reasons the revelation of Baha'u'llah is more advanced
than that of Jesus. Note: It does NOT follow that Baha'is are more
advanced than Christians.
Tim Nolan tan1@cornell.edu
From KOLINSSM@hcl.chass.ncsu.eduWed Aug 30 22:04:14 1995
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 19:58:48 EDT
From: Steven Kolins
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: WOM-UHJ.B
> WOM-UHJ.B
> THE FIRST BAHA'I INSTITUTIONS
Indeed. I see reconsiling the examples of Tahirih and The Greatest
Holy Leaf as a most capticvating question to meditate on as concerns
understanding the role of women in this Faith.
:)
Steven
All I need is Freedom of spirit, Chastity of soul, and Purity of
heart. A pov is not even secondary.
From ahmada@acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.auWed Aug 30 22:13:39 1995
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 11:31:49 +1000
From: Ahmad Aniss
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: action of next Manifestation
Dear Talismanians,
Dear Derek, Sheila and Amin
In your posting you said:
>From owner-talisman@indiana.edu Wed Aug 30 08:38 EST 1995
>Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 14:56:28 -0700
>From: derekmc@ix.netcom.com (DEREK COCKSHUT )
>Subject: Women and the Universal House of Justice.
>To: talisman@indiana.edu
>
>>To: derekmc@ix.netcom.com (DEREK COCKSHUT )
>From: banani@humnet.ucla.edu (Amin Banani)
>Subject: Re: Fwd: Women and the Universal House of Justice.
>Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 13:03:39 +0800
>
>Dearest Derek,
> Bless you for holding up the Standard, calling out the troops and
>doing roll call (are you there, Baha'i men?)--we need men such as you to
>keep reminding other men (men tend not to 'hear' women when they speak
>about these things) they need to ENCOURAGE women. Encouragement
>requires paying attention to what women are trying to say and do. You are
>a defender and promoter of women and I am happy to know you.
Good for you Derek and others alike, but let me assure you that you are not
alone in your endeavours as Amin (Sheila) would like to think. Many others
are now there.
> As far as the absence of women's membership on the Universal House
>of Justice, did I ever tell you my "guess" as to why it is part of
>Baha'u'llah's laws? Of course women are to vote, even if they can't be
>voted for, and they are to continually advance in Baha'u'llah's
>Dispensation until they become fully recognized partners by men. This law
>(no women members on the highest elected administrative body) cannot be
>changed during Baha'u'llah's Dispensation
It is good to find that at least there is one person on Talisman whom accepts
the fact that such clear laws of baha'u'llah (i.e. no woman members on
UHJ) are not changeable by a legislation from UHJ. If it was possible
the UHJ would have indicated by now that at some stage in future this
will be done, depending on its wisdom.
> and, therefore, may represent an
>obvious reason (and perhaps the only one) to eventually need another
>Manifestation of God to enter the Baha'i Cycle, have the "right" to change
>a "social" law (remember, this is NOT an eternal "spiritual truth," that
>women not serve on the UHJ), and close Baha'u'llah's specific Dispensation.
>Otherwise, with all the "flexibility" which Baha'u'llah has built into the
>Administrative Order, one wonders what the conditions would have to be
>to require a NEW Manifestation of God--this is a Day which is not to be
>followed by Night, so we know the Covenant protects this evolving
>Dispensation of Baha'u'llah. But we also know that His laws are not to be
>changed during his Dispensation (not by the UHJ or anyone else) so,
>therefore, as with all religious "social" laws, some are "outlived" or in
>some way in need of change. This law of Baha'u'llah's Dispensation MAY be
>one of those laws which is NECESSARY to have in place in order to lead to
>the eventual REQUIREMENT for another Manifestation of God after one
>thousand or thousands of years. If this is true, which those in the future
>will be able to judge, then it will be obvious why we needed to have at
>least one such law from Baha'u'llah.
> You are welcome to post this on Talisman for me, since I've been
>off for over a couple of months.
>
>Love,
>Sheila
Does this mean that the woman in our society must await one thousand
or thousands of years, so to achieve equality with men? Is that much
time needed for achieving this objective? Is the allowing of women
to be the members of the UHJ the ultimate goal for establishment
of equality of men and women.
Wasn't Baha'u'llah that stated that equality of men and women is
established in this Dispensation(The Promulgation of Universal Peace,
page 455).
He establishes the equality of man and woman. This is peculiar
to the teachings of Baha'u'llah, for all other religions have placed
man above woman.
Wasn't Abdu'l-Baha that stated establishment of oneness of
mankind is dependent on the achievement of this equality
(The Promulgation of Universal Peace, page 77).
For the world of humanity consists of two parts or members.
one is woman; the other is man. Until these two members
are equal in strength, the oneness of humanity cannot be
established, and the happiness and felicity of mankind will
not be a reality. God willing, this is to be so.
Wasn't the Guardian that stated this equality is one of Baha'u'llah's
principles and will be established in world (God Passes By, page 281).
Perhaps there are laws in baha'u'llah's Dispensation that will require
a change by the time of the advent of the next manifestation of god,
and that this law may be one of them, which I clearly doubt (based
on my theory of the seed of creation), but I do not see the eventual
necessity of the advent of another manifestation of god in it.
Adu'l-Baha has stated in Some Answered Question page 145 which
I have enclosed that the sole purpose of the coming of these Holy
beings is to revive the human society, and align it with the guidance of God.
Holy Spirit is the mediator of the Holy Light from the
Sun of Reality, which it gives to the sanctified realities. It
is adorned with all the divine perfections. Every time it
appears, the world is renewed, and a new cycle is
founded. The body of the world of humanity puts on a
new garment. It can be compared to the spring; whenever
it comes, the world passes from one condition to another.
Through the advent of the season of spring the black earth
and the fields and wildernesses will become verdant and
blooming, and all sorts of flowers and sweet-scented herbs
will grow; the trees will have new life, and new fruits will
appear, and a new cycle is founded. The appearance of the
Holy Spirit is like this. Whenever it appears, it renews the
world of humanity and gives a new spirit to the human
realities: it arrays the world of existence in apraiseworthy
garment, dispels the darkness of ignorance, and causes the
radiation of the light of perfections."
So, again the question is: is it the inferiority / superiority or functionality?
As Abdu'l-Baha has stated in The Promulgation of Universal Peace,
page 374:
"When we look upon creation, we find the male and female
principle apparent in all phenomena of existence."
I think the hardened feminist will blast me but, I must say that, I believe
it is the functionality of the genders that differ. equality of men and
women will be established in this Dispensation and has no bearing on
why the Manifestations of God are all men and why the infallible body
of the UHJ is constituted by men only. In addition, I would like to quote
the following passage from Writings of Abdu'l-Baha pages 79-80:
Know thou, O handmaid, that in the sight of Baha,
women are accounted the same as men, and God hath
created all humankind in His own image, and after His own
likeness. That is, men and women alike are the revealers of
His names and attributes, and from the spiritual viewpoint
there is no difference between them. Whosoever draweth
nearer to God, that one is the most favoured, whether man
or woman. How many a handmaid, ardent and devoted,
hath, within the sheltering shade of Baha, proved superior
to the men, and surpassed the famous of the earth.
The House of Justice, however, according to the explicit
text of the Law of God, is confined to men; this for a
wisdom of the Lord God's, which will erelong be made
manifest as clearly as the sun at high noon.
With Baha'i Love and Fellowship,
Ahmad.
CC: banani@humnet.ucla.edu
_______________________________________________________________________
^ ^
^ Dr. A.M. Aniss, Tel: Home [61(2)] 505 509 ^
^ Bio-Medical Engineer, Work [61(2)] 694 5915 ^
^ Neuropsychiatric Institute, Mobile 019 992020 ^
^ Prince Henry Hospital, Fax: Work [61(2)] 694 5747 ^
^ Little Bay, N.S.W. 2036, ^
^ Australia. Email: A.Aniss@unsw.edu.au ^
^_______________________________________________________________________^
From ahmada@acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.auThu Aug 31 10:05:19 1995
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 15:02:12 +1000
From: Ahmad Aniss
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: re:actino of next Manifestation
Dear Talismanians,
The following E-mail was sent to me by Ms. Sheila Banai. As she has
requested I am posting it to you all.
With Baha'i Love and Greetings,
Ahmad.
[Her posting]
>From banani@humnet.ucla.edu Thu Aug 31 14:04 EST 1995
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 21:12:44 +0800
To: Ahmad Aniss
From: banani@humnet.ucla.edu (Amin Banani)
Subject: Re: action of next Manifestation
Dear Mr. Aniss:
I use the email address of my husband Amin, however he had nothing to
do with my comments regarding reasons for the next Manifestation of God in
the Baha'i Cycle posted on Talisman which were only from me (Sheila).
Derek had sent me a copy of comments he was posting on Talisman on the
subject of no women on the Universal House of Justice and, when I responded
to Derek, I said he could post them on Talisman. I invite you to do the
same with these comments now, from me, if you please since I am no longer
on Talisman due to a very heavy load of ABS conference work until
mid-October.
I understand the "fact" of the "equality" of men and women, which
is stated by the Central Figures of the Faith, to be one of the "spiritual"
laws or "truths" which is unchangeable from Manifestation to Manifestation.
Equality of women and men is an "eternal" truth and not a "social" law of
God. It is these "spiritual" truths which, when mentioned by each new
Manifestation of God, renews and revivifies human creation which tends to
"forget" (ignore) all or most of these eternal laws of God and needs
periodic "reminders" from the Mercy of God through His continuing
Ma