Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 18:10:01 -0700
From: Gordon M <M@upanet.uleth.ca>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Reading for Friday December 22, 1995
>Actually, the quote posted today is incorrectly attributed to Abdu'l-Baha.
>If memory serves, it was produced by Mirza Ahmad Sohrab, a secretary of
>Abdu'l-Baha who later broke the Covenant sometime after his passing.
(Interesting, how can we know that Mirza Ahmad Sorhab broke the conventant
after his passing? Is that possible, do we really get a second chance to
goof up? :-)
I would like to have some confirmation on the authorship of this quote. I
have frequently heard this quote attributed to Abdu'l Baha. It is used at
the beginning of all three booklets in the "Power of the Coventant" series
compiled by Dr. Jane Faily, Dr. Peter Khan and Douglas Martin in 1976, and
published by Baha'i Canada Publications. The source of the quote is given
only as "The Covenant of Baha'u'llah, pg. 70" Evidently there were a
number of books and compilations published prior to 1976 with that title.
While I'm at it, would someone be able to inform me of the actual source of
another "so called tablet" which has frequently been attributed to Abdu'l
Baha - that is the ever popular "At the gate of the garden" poster quote
that goes on about those who stand at the gate and look, those who enter,
enjoy and leave, and those who stay to tend the garden. Years ago, in my
pre-Baha'i life I encountered this piece in Mabel Logan's scrapbook and it
was attributed to "anon".
Gord.
**********************************************************
Justice is like the kingdom of God: it is not without us as a fact; it is
within us as a great yearning. George Elliot.
**********************************************************
This so-called Tablet was listed in a memorandum issued by the Research
>Department as unauthentic. I stand to be corrected.
>
>Loving regards,
>
>stephen
>
>> "There is a power in this Cause, a mysterious power, far far far
>> away from the ken of men and angels.
>>
>> That invisible power is the cause of all these outward activities.
>>
>> It moves the hearts.
>> It rends the mountains.
>> It administers the complicated affairs of the Cause.
>> It inspires the friends.
>> It dashes into a thosand pieces all the forces of opposition.
>> It creates new spiritual world.
>>
>> This is the mystery of the Kingdom of God."
>>
>> -'Abdu'l-Baha'-
>> =====================================================================
>>
>> (The quote, above, is taken from a talk delivered by the Hand of the
>> Cause Zikrullah Khadim, in Ireland in 1981 (?).
>>
>> Regards,
>> Noorbakhsh.
>> =============================================================
---
Gordon M e-mail: M@upanet.uleth.ca
Public Access Internet
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzFri Dec 29 14:48:16 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 15:52:35 +1300
From: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
To: Sadra <nima@unm.edu>, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: `ulama=administration? Not!
Nima,
Re:
Would someone please be kind enough to point out this little
>"trivial" detail to our stubborn-as-a-mule friend from down-under. Many
>thanks in advance!
Tsk Tsk... Obviously one of the learned in Baha here.
R.
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzFri Dec 29 14:48:17 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 15:56:42 +1300
From: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
To: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Learned in Baha
Looks like Juan has promoted himself to some like a Hand of the Cause. ..
Watch out: next it will be Guardian... So much for anti-elitism...
R
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzFri Dec 29 14:48:17 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 15:56:42 +1300
From: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
To: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Learned in Baha
Looks like Juan has promoted himself to some like a Hand of the Cause. ..
Watch out: next it will be Guardian... So much for anti-elitism...
R
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comFri Dec 29 14:48:17 1995
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 20:50:59 -0800
From: DEREK COCKSHUT <derekmc@ix.netcom.com>
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE. Back to Baha'u'llah.
Dear Talismanians.
If we go back to anything it is back to God.Unto Him we shall all
return .
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzFri Dec 29 14:48:17 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 17:58:03 +1300
From: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Talismanic Community...
Talismanians,
I have walked with the Talismanian folk for a year now, and it is time to
figure whether I will continue or not. I must say that I have been
disappointed with the general level of Baha'i scholarship here. Many of
the scholars, once they move away from their particular worldly discipline,
seem to get utterly lost, being almost entirely unable to engage in
rational argumentation. The reason for this, it seems to me, is what has
been termed their luke-warm faith. This has been particularly obvious in
the endless disputation about the House and the Guardianship, and also
regarding the stations of 'Abdu'l-Baha and Baha'u'llah. Unless Baha'i
thinkers get past their rather puerile quarrel with these institutions
(etc), then no real result can be achieved. Without a stable foundation of
commonly held assumptions, discourse flounders. Baha'is have been
provided, gratis, with strong intellectual foundations, but here the ruling
voices have inevitably sought to build elsewhere, repeatedly asserting
their scholarly independence from the institutions of the Faith. This has
assumed grotesque forms. One writer, for instance, set himself up as loyal
opposition to the House; another wrote that 'Abdu'l-Baha was confused.
Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha have been reduced to learned gentlemen. I was
particularly disappointed with the response to the Socrates letter from the
Research Department. In this letter the Writings were cited giving clear
and obvious support to views different to those who are supposed to be
among our leading scholars. One of these scholars referred to the letter
briefly twice in an extremely partial way; another ignored it altogether.
Yet we/they had argued these very issues for months. Now: silence.
Latterly one of these thinkers has promoted himself to being one of the
learned in Baha like a Hand of the Cause, yet has gathered to himself a
bunch of heedless persons who are simultaneously proclaiming his/their
anti-elitism...
So much for the best scholarship that America can produce. To me severe
difficulties for the American community are pre-figured in this situation.
Unless this element is freed of its darkness, or eliminated from the
community altogether, I cannot but see it will severely limit the progress
of the Faith in that part of the world. The American community has been
told of ills by the House, but -- of course -- these intellectuals do not
think the House knows about that which it is talking, in this matter (as in
other matters also).
These are a number of shining/dazzling lights in the Talismanic community.
But, at the moment, their light is being eclipsed by the kind of forces of
which I write. I don't know that I can continue here. To mix with fools
is to become foolish, and blameworthy before God.. Over this holiday break
I shall ponder the matter.
Robert.
From margreet@margreet.seanet.comFri Dec 29 14:48:17 1995
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 21:48:46 -0800
From: "Marguerite K. Gipson" <margreet@margreet.seanet.com>
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Engagement
Hello all, and gee the lights of the season are truely beautiful... Been
to the Mall lately... Nobody is really happy. Did you notice???
Well all I can say about engagement is what I learned last spring in my
Marriage Seminar given by a Bahai lady. She stated that there are lots of
people now finding first-time mates later in life.. like 30's and on. And
she continued if that is the case in finally finding this *compatible
special person* after all this time, why wait several more years or even one
year more was too long, in having the wedding? There have been men in my
life who have marriage in their vocabulary, except not 95 days from the time
*we* decide marriage is the next step in the relationship. So, having them
not being *ready* I just move on.... to someone who is.
If you spend the time in the courtship in getting to know the 6 areas of
compatibility, and the actual next step is the marriage portion, (the
physical relationship) then why wait and really torture one's self. My
feeling is if you wait because you have something in the way of the actual
marriage, not the parents consent piece, then truely you are *not ready* for
marriage. (just stating what the counselor stated) For example, if you are
in College working on your PHD in something, and you find your *compatible
mate, and you have 4 more years of school... but you hold out on Marriage
until Graduation... Marriage is not placed very high in your priorties...
even though this is truely what you really want. And you have stated that
Marriage has top priorty. As always, things will take care of themselves.
Go ahead with the Marriage, and just adjust. And live Happy and Joyful.
Go do it!
One more thing for some added humor.... I live in a rather large county-King
County, with Seattle being the city, knowing most of the Bahais, numbering
close to 400 or so. And over the years Bahais at Weddings and such have
stated to me that on *MY* Wedding they will do such and such... all for a
small price, and each year that goes by that price goes down... Funny...
Well, now it is down to a price I can afford. LOL LOL...
Now there is just one minor little problem....
LOL LOL
Margreet
From peaston@worf.uwsp.eduFri Dec 29 14:48:17 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 00:01:05 -0600 (CST)
From: Paul Easton <peaston@worf.uwsp.edu>
To: Saman Ahmadi <s0a7254@tam2000.tamu.edu>
Cc: talisman <talisman@indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: `ulama=administration? Not!
On Fri, 22 Dec 1995, Saman Ahmadi wrote:
>
> For the visitors to Haifa in the next century, I think
> the concept will be much clearer: if one faces the
> Seat of the Universal House of Justice, on the left is
> the International Teaching Centre and on the right is
> the Centre for the Study of the Sacred Text.
>
> regards,
> sAmAn
>
Well put. God's holy arc has more than one compartment in order to
accommodate all the peoples of the world. When the rains come pouring,
will we be climbing into that arc or slinging mud at one another?
Just a midnight thought, with love,
_____________________________________________________________________________
Paul C. Easton
_____________________________________________________________________________
HOME || WORK
________________________________________||___________________________________
2321 Jersey Street || UW-Stevens Point
Stevens Point, WI 54481 || International Programs
|| Stevens Point, WI 54481-3897
PHONE: (715) 344-4174 || PHONE: (715) 346-2717
E-MAIL: peaston@worf.uwsp.edu || FAX: (715) 346-3591
________________________________________||___________________________________
O Lord! make us firm in Thy love and cause us to be loving toward the
whole of mankind. Confirm us in service to the world of humanity, so
that we may become the servants of Thy servants, that we may love all Thy
creatures and become compassionate to all Thy people. -`Abdu'l-Baha'
From sbedin@gov.nt.caFri Dec 29 14:48:17 1995
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 23:23:30 MST
From: Stephen Bedingfield <sbedin@gov.nt.ca>
To: M@upanet.uleth.ca
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Reading for Friday December 22, 1995
Dear and Friends,
wrote on Dec-22-95:
> >Actually, the quote posted today is incorrectly attributed to Abdu'l-Baha.
> >If memory serves, it was produced by Mirza Ahmad Sohrab, a secretary of
> >Abdu'l-Baha who later broke the Covenant sometime after his passing.
> (Interesting, how can we know that Mirza Ahmad Sorhab broke the conventant
> after his passing? Is that possible, do we really get a second chance to
> goof up? :-)
>
> I would like to have some confirmation on the authorship of this quote. I
> have frequently heard this quote attributed to Abdu'l Baha. It is used at
> the beginning of all three booklets in the "Power of the Coventant" series
> compiled by Dr. Jane Faily, Dr. Peter Khan and Douglas Martin in 1976, and
> published by Baha'i Canada Publications. The source of the quote is given
> only as "The Covenant of Baha'u'llah, pg. 70" Evidently there were a
> number of books and compilations published prior to 1976 with that title.
Gladly. I answered at the office earlier today and don't carry all my
files with me :-)
The following is extracted from *The American Baha'i* dated Sept 27, 1992
quoting the Research Department of the House of Justice:
'"There is a power in this cause, a mysterious power, far, far beyond
the ken of men and angels. ..." This passage is from Ahmad Sohrab's
diary and should be considered as interesting material, but not as
scripture.'
The article in question lists several other commonly-circulating so-called
tablets.
> While I'm at it, would someone be able to inform me of the actual source of
> another "so called tablet" which has frequently been attributed to Abdu'l
> Baha - that is the ever popular "At the gate of the garden" poster quote
> that goes on about those who stand at the gate and look, those who enter,
> enjoy and leave, and those who stay to tend the garden. Years ago, in my
> pre-Baha'i life I encountered this piece in Mabel Logan's scrapbook and it
> was attributed to "anon".
Sorry Gordo, this tablet was not listed in the article I mentioned above.
Why don't you write the House about it?
I hope the weather in Lethbridge is a tad warmer than here!
Loving regards,
stephen
--
Stephen Bedingfield | "We desire but
Box 115, Cambridge Bay NT X0E 0C0 | the good of the world and
Canada (403) 983-2123 | the happiness of the nations"
email: sbedin@inukshuk.gov.nt.ca | - Baha'u'llah
From nima@unm.eduFri Dec 29 14:48:17 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 01:15:49 -0700 (MST)
From: Sadra <nima@unm.edu>
To: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
Cc: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Learned in Baha
On Sat, 23 Dec 1995, Robert Johnston wrote:
> Looks like Juan has promoted himself to some like a Hand of the Cause. ..
> Watch out: next it will be Guardian... So much for anti-elitism...
>
> R
Do I detect some jealousy here, perhaps?! As the saying goes, all great men
have been met with violent opposition from mediocre minds. Never where
truer words spoken...Amen
Nima
---
O God, cause us to see things as they really are - Hadith
"In the mirror of their minds, the forms of transcendent realities are
reflected, and the lamp of their inner vision derives its light from the
Sun of Universal Knowledge" - Secret of Divine Civilization
From nima@unm.eduFri Dec 29 14:48:17 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 01:15:49 -0700 (MST)
From: Sadra <nima@unm.edu>
To: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
Cc: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Learned in Baha
On Sat, 23 Dec 1995, Robert Johnston wrote:
> Looks like Juan has promoted himself to some like a Hand of the Cause. ..
> Watch out: next it will be Guardian... So much for anti-elitism...
>
> R
Do I detect some jealousy here, perhaps?! As the saying goes, all great men
have been met with violent opposition from mediocre minds. Never where
truer words spoken...Amen
Nima
---
O God, cause us to see things as they really are - Hadith
"In the mirror of their minds, the forms of transcendent realities are
reflected, and the lamp of their inner vision derives its light from the
Sun of Universal Knowledge" - Secret of Divine Civilization
From cbuck@ccs.carleton.caFri Dec 29 14:48:17 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 95 3:17:19 EST
From: Christopher Buck <cbuck@ccs.carleton.ca>
To: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
Cc: jrcole@umich.edu, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Learned in Baha
Robert Johnston writes:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Looks like Juan has promoted himself to some like a Hand of the Cause. ..
Watch out: next it will be Guardian... So much for anti-elitism...
______________________
RESPONSE
This is public backbiting. Darkness upon darkness.
Beyond passing judgment on another soul, which is the prerogative of
God alone, it is baseless defamation, shameless baiting, and unacceptable
behavior on Talisman.
As for the *Learned in Baha'*, it is both institutional and
individual. In His commentary on K173, the Master includes scholars as the
final category of the *Learned in Baha'*.
The statement by the Master quoted in Note 183 (Aqdas, p. 245) is,
technically, not a commentary on the Aqdas verse, but rather a gloss on a
similar verse in Baha'u'llah's *The Book of My Covenant*.
It so happens that the beloved Master did not include scholars in
this statement. But in His commentary on the Aqdas verse, He does (viz.,
[1] the Hands of the Cause of God and those under their shadow; [2] Baha'i
teachers; [3] Baha'i scholars).
Therefore it is quite conceivable that Juan is one of the *Learned
in Baha'*, in which case Baha'u'llah requires respect be shown to such an
individual. But this is not for any one of us to judge.
Considering that the Universal House of Justice has called upon
Juan to translate Baha'i sacred texts, any defamation of Juan's character
reflects somewhat poorly on the House's gift of *discernment of
spirits*--to use a Pauline term. I think the House is a better judge of
character.
Juan has given the Baha'i world two volumes of translations from
one of the *Learned in Baha'*: Mirza Abu'l-Fadl. Recently, at ABS in San
Francisco, Juan presented a paper on the Baha'i Faith and human rights.
Juan has boldly published studies on Baha'u'llah in academic journals,
which few others can.
Juan has been a pioneer in the Middle East, and now he is a pioneer in
the Academy. Is there no honor for pioneers, for translators, for
scholars, for writers? Forget honor. What of courtesy? Humility?
Others may privately judge for themselves whether or not
Baha'u'llah would consider Juan to be learned. But if Juan is not one of
the learned, God help us all.
-- Christopher Buck
**********************************************************************
* * * * * *
* * * Christopher Buck Invenire ducere est.
* * * Carleton University * * *
* * * Internet: CBuck@CCS.Carleton.CA * * *
* * * P O Box 77077 * Ottawa, Ontario * K1S 5N2 Canada * * *
* * * * * *
**********************************************************************
From sdphelps@phoenix.Princeton.EDUFri Dec 29 14:48:17 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 03:28:15 -0500 (EST)
From: "Steven D. Phelps" <sdphelps@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: lines in the sand
Dear friends,
Recently the discussion seems to have become more polarized than ever. My
impression these past weeks is that a line has been drawn and people are
taking sides. What good can this possibly bring about? What can the
fruit of such division and discord be?
Most of us on this list are Baha'is. We love the Faith dearly, are deeply
concerned about its best interests, and are doing whatever is in our power
to promote them. If it is not within our reach at this time to reconcile
our differences, can we not, at the very least, set aside the divisive
manner in which these differences are often expressed, and proceed,
united in our love for Baha'u'llah?
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzFri Dec 29 14:48:17 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 22:22:11 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
To: Christopher Buck <cbuck@ccs.carleton.ca>, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Learned in Baha
Christopher Buck wrote:
> Darkness upon darkness.
I have no alternative but to leave these people to themselves.
Goodbye.
Robert.
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzFri Dec 29 14:48:17 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 22:29:08 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: majordomo@indiana.edu
unsubscribe talisman
From sos062@bangor.ac.ukFri Dec 29 14:48:17 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 11:31:35 +0000 (GMT)
From: Robert Parry <sos062@bangor.ac.uk>
To: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: your mail (fwd)
diolch yn fawr
robert
On Fri, 22 Dec 1995, Juan R Cole wrote:
>
> Robert:
>
> this is it:
>
>
>
> >
> > you probably can't get unsubscribed unless you send a message to
> >
> > majordomo@indiana.edu
> >
> > It should be:
> >
> >
> > unsubscribe talisman
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > cheers Juan
> >
>
From Kavikpakak@aol.comFri Dec 29 14:48:17 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 08:14:20 -0500
From: Kavikpakak@aol.com
To: sdphelps@phoenix.Princeton.EDU, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: lines in the sand
Isn't all this part of the process prophesied for thousands of years? These
are the mental tests promised to us to prepare us for the coming events.
The recent talk by Peter Khan speaks of this most eloquently. When we see
all this disagreement around us, and within us, an appropriate response might
be <and certainly one that I cling to> to say that, by golly, this sure is
what we were told about and promised, and a further proper resonse would
appear to be to embrace the process of the mental tests, while realizing that
we cannot allow them to separate us from each other. The great victory of
this Faith is that it will triumph even while we are so crippled from the
spiritual sewer in which we have to live, and the time of the triumph will be
affected by our ability to recognize and overcome those toxic behaviors that
cause us to want us to separate ourselves from each other and from our most
remarkable institutions. Pakak
From wp.loehndorf@essen.netsurf.deFri Dec 29 14:48:17 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 15:56:00 +0100
From: Peter Loehndorf <wp.loehndorf@essen.netsurf.de>
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: New Book: *Brilliant Proof*
[The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set]
[Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set]
[Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]
Dear all,
Juan R. Cole has encouraged me to post this information on Talisman:
In 1981 Francesco Ficicchia ( = F.) published a book on (or better: against)
the Bahai Faith in one of the greatest Protestant owned publishing houses of
Germany. Its title *Baha’ism - The World Religion of the Future? - History,
Teachings and Organization - A Critical Inquiry*, 475 p.
This publishing house has also been publishing a monthly newsletter on
sects, cults, and other forms of religious organizations. After World War 2
this newsletter has made several negative publications on the Faith. In this
context F. was their long awaited author on the Faith, however this time not
in form of a short newsletter but in form of a thick book, which had been
announced throughout the country a *the long awaited scientific
reference-book on the Bahai-Faith which is to set standards for the coming
decades*.
To say it in a nutshell: F’s book is a quarry out of which virtually every
possible text negative against the Faith had been broken. In 1907 Edwin
Fis(c)her, a German-American dentist, brought the Faith to Stuttgart. In
1911 the first Ph. D. thesis was published titled *The Babi-Behai* (sic!), a
thesis which collected most of the traditional material of E. G. Browne his
partial support of the Azalis. In a foreword to this book the author
(Hermann Roemer) tells us that *this book had been written in order to stem
the growing propaganda of the Bahais*. F’s book is based on Roemer, Browne,
unpublished Azali literature, and the whole bunch of literature which is
critical to the Will and Testament of the Master (Ruth White and here in
Germany Hermann Zimmer a party-liner of Wilhelm Herrigel, a prominent Bahai
at that time and founder of the Bahai Publishing Trust of Germany.)
In the early ‘70 F. declared himself as a Bahai. Barely some two years later
he had a lengthy dispute with the Universal House which ended up with the
fact that F. had to be declared as a covenant-breaker. After some months or
so he repented and expressed his wish to belong to the Faith again. A few
weeks later in an open letter he then denounced the Members of the House as
an ‘oppressive clique’ and vowed to do everything in his powers to fight
against the Bahais whenever there is the opportunity. (The essential parts
of F’s letters have been published in the new book for the first time.
This motivation stands in obvious contrast to the ones announced by the
Protestant publishing house i. e. his sincerity and truth-loving scholarly
approach to the subject.
Re: *scholarly approach*: F. himself is a social worker based in Zurich
(born 1948). He is not able to speak Persian, Arabic or even English. But
when you open his book you can get the impression that a scholar of world
reputation is at work. Three quarters of his bibliography contains books in
their original languages, you see tables of transliteration and
transcription. (A few Bahai boos are mentioned in the part called
*apologetical literature*). So obviously the readers and the staff of the
publishing house must have helped him a good deal.
I cannot help but calling F.’s book *perfidious*. One example out of
literally thousands: We all know Shoghi Effendis distinction between the
different ages, i. e. the formative age, the iron age, the golden age, etc.
F. derives from the material the capture: *The iron age of Sauqi Efendi
(sic!)* only to hint that the Guardian reigned with an iron hand...
F.’s book attacks literally everything not only The Master’s Testament, the
Bahai Community itself, which outwardly appears as naive-freethinking but
inwardly is strongly regulated by *the Headquaters* (The Bahai World Centre)
denying every form of freedom as a form of opposition; but little wonder:
Had not Baha’u’lláh himself strongly opposed personal freedom? (Cf.
Gleanings!) Etc. Etc.
The NSA of Germany decided at that time not to respond to this book. In the
meantime F.’s book was reviewed e. g. by an Belgian Orientalist as *critical
but true*. Other positive reaction followed and out of a sudden F. became
the most wanted *scholar* of Baha’ism in German speaking Europe. He has
worked for several major encyclopedia which deal with
*Religions-Wissenschaft* (The Science of Religion).
In 1988 an LSA of Berlin was denied street-teaching in their city out of the
reason that after careful study of F’s renowned and generally respected book
the magistrate came to the conclusion, that the Bahai Faith had a dangerous
codex of moral behavior, their members were denied every form of democratic
expression and that the political implications of the Faith were *opposed to
the constitutional rights of the Federal Republic of Germany and therefore
represented a danger for the country*.
Three authors were found to write the ‘refutatio’ the **brilliant** result
of which was released some 4 weeks ago:
Udo Schaefer, Nicola Towfigh, Ulrich Gollmer: Desinformation als Methode
(Misinformation as Method, - Die Baha’ismus-Monographie des F. Ficicchia,
Georg Olms Verlag, Hildesheim - Zurich - New York, 1995, ISBN 3-487-10041-X,
685 pages, hardcover, 75,00 DeutschMarks. ( 1 US$ = 1,43 DM) You can order
it via the German Bahai Publishing Trust: Bahai Verlag GmbH, Fax
+49-6192-992999 or via the Net: <BAHAI@GEOD.GeoNet.de>, which is the Email
address of the NSA-Germany. (I hope our *National Headquaters* will not put
me in jail because I took the *liberty* of announcing *their* Email-address
publicly...)
I like this book very much, not only because of Udo Schaefer's style of
writing. It not only deals with F. but also with the whole theological
critical anti-Bahai literature in Germany from the beginning on. So for the
first time we have in Germany a truly scholarly written Bahai book which
will set standards to future critical publications. It has been published in
one of Germany’s most distinguished academic (and theological) publishing
houses, so an appropriate distribution throughout the country (and beyond)
seems to be somehow guaranteed. I personally think that the *academic
career* of Mr. F. will now come to a sudden close...
As to the publishing House of the Protestant Church which published F.’s
Book: In the meantime the overall tone has become more friendly and it had
conceded that Mr. F. had been an overall-mistake which today they won’t make
again.
Dr. Nicola Towfigh (Oriental Studies) did much of the E. G. Browne part,
Ulrich Gollmer, managing director of Bahai Verlag, did e. g. the part on the
political implications of the Bahai Faith (as some kind of a *part* of his
doctoral thesis *Weltgestaltung und Gottesreich*) and U. Schaefer did the
sections Right, Community, Teaching (mission), Ethics, theological
argumentation etc., etc. etc. A good part of it consists of new results
which have not been published hitherto. All three authors unmasked F.’s
utterly unscholarly approach to his subject, his strinking lack of any
academic education at all, his arbitrary dealing with the bulk of
reference-material to his own ends, and his somewhat irrational *academic*
conclusions which are based upon his vowed lifelong and hateful opposition
against Haifa. Various other theological critics of the faith in Germany are
also dealt with. - Interesting also the way how F. quoted tendentiously from
Udo Schaefer’s doctoral thesis and Schaefer’s replies.
So if you always wanted to learn German: Now you have a good reason.
To sum it up: We now have an apologia which disqualifies some important
critics of the past, and which will demand from our future critics to deal
scholary with the faith.
Greetings:
Peter
Fax +49-2803-8209
From l.droege@genie.comFri Dec 29 14:48:18 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 95 16:41:00 UTC 0000
From: l.droege@genie.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: LEARNED, ELITISM, ETC.
[The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set]
[Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set]
[Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]
Hey, gang, do you suppose we could raise the level of this discussion a
little? It's degenerating into a rather childish "Am not! Are too!" mode...
My understanding (admittedly from the "layperson's" viewpoint), is that to
be "learned ïkin Baha" not only involves knowing stuff but also in evincing
a certain level of spirituality, self-sacrifice, humility, etc. Frankly I'm
not seeing much of that. I subscribed to this list in search of "scholarly
discussion." Some of what's on here is fascinating (Salmani, evolution,
homosexuality, etc., and especially provisional translations and info on
historic sources), but one has to wade through a lot of crap right now to
get it (and since I'm running at only 2400bps, that takes time...)
ÿûThanks, Leigh
From Geocitizen@aol.comFri Dec 29 14:48:18 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 11:51:58 -0500
From: Geocitizen@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: sad irony & collective responsibility
Esteemed Talisman Personages,
It is with some sadness that I reflect upon recent events on this list.
There is definite irony in what has happened: the vast majority of Talisman
participants agree that freedom of expression and a diversity of voices is
vitally important to the progress of the Cause and the health of society, but
we have just succeeded in silencing a voice of persistent dissent.
I say "we" because I consider it counterproductive to fix blame for this
event, except in the most general sense of reconsidering how we all interact,
both here and elsewhere. It is more important to consider the mechanisms by
which we achieve the silencing of dissent, rather than to blame individual
persons for having been more direct instruments for the application of those
mechanisms.
Phrasing the situation in such carefully neutral words leaves me with a
distinct impression of coldness, so I will be more direct. The loss of
Robert Johnston as a Talisman participant is something we should all regret,
even those of us who may have deeply disagreed with his ideas and his way of
expressing them. It is precisely by transcending such differences and
incorporating them into our community of thought that we can most effectively
increase the growth of our general community's intellectual life. With the
exception of actual covenant-breakers and avowed enemies of the Faith, there
is no one we can afford to lightly discard, nor can we afford to take it
lightly when anyone chooses self-exile.
Even if the self-imposed exile was the inevitable result of some character
flaw in the person who has left (a theory I do not embrace in regards to
Robert Johnston, but I suppose some here might) we must still deeply examine
our interactions when this occurs.
If we who seek to champion freedom and diversity of intellectual expression
are capable of casually silencing dissent without regrets, why should we be
surprised when the community as a whole acts similarly? Only be beginning
with the causes of this problem in ourselves can we begin to tear out its
roots in the larger community.
Could this problem be spiritual in its roots? And if so, how can we
collectively heal?
I submit these questions for your earnest consideration.
Deepest regards,
Kevin Haines
<Geocitizen@aol.com>
From cbuck@ccs.carleton.caFri Dec 29 14:48:18 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 95 13:56:20 EST
From: Christopher Buck <cbuck@ccs.carleton.ca>
To: Geocitizen@aol.com
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: sad irony & collective responsibility
Keven Haines writes: 23 December 1995
___________________
With the exception of actual covenant-breakers and avowed enemies of
the Faith, there is no one we can afford to lightly discard, nor can we
afford to take it lightly when anyone chooses self-exile.
___________________
RESPONSE
Agreed.
But saying or implying that Cole or anyone else on Talisman is a
potential Covenant-Breaker (and this is not the first time this kind of
accusation has been made on Talisman) exceeds the limits of acceptable
discourse. This is not an issue of intellectual tolerance. It is a moral
issue.
I welcome Robert Johnston back online, so long as we all (myself
included) agree that questioning anyone's fidelity to the Covenant is
off-limits. I fail to see how this is merely an element of someone's
offbeat *style* of self-expression, or an issue of tolerance.
Surely Keven is not condoning the act of suggesting that Juan or
anyone else is on the verge of being a Covenant Breaker. If I am wrong in
stating that such is unacceptable behavior, I will stand corrected. But
let's at least identify the real issue at hand.
I will publicly say that I respect Robert Johnston as a fellow writer,
and that I know his heart is in the right place. (I think it is good to
give credit where credit is due, and that to praise the virtues of fellow
Baha'is [short of vacuous flattery] is a good thing). I appreciate
Robert's humor (most of the time). And Robert is a very keen *devil's
advocate* in the rhetorical sense of the term and in the finest tradition
of thrust and parry.
Before Talisman became *public*, I myself was delisted for having
violated one of the List-Rules (I was new to the Internet at that time).
So participating in a public forum like this requires that one know what
the limits are of acceptable discourse.
I apologize if my language was too strong (viz. *darkness upon
darkness*). I will forward this message to Robert. I simply ask that we
all agree that casting aspersions on any Talismanian's fidelity to the
Covenant is off-limits. Is there a consensus on this? And that praising
someone's virtues is not aggrandizing anyone. It is simply a form of
Baha'i discourse that the beloved Master encouraged. I invite Robert to
single out one or two of Juan's virtues, as I have done with respect to
Robert.
I'll close with an excerpt from one of my unpublished books, *Iodine
Tear*:
THE RELIGION OF COFFEE
The swift shadow of a bluejay slid
Into our own leaves which tumble
To quack after heels that surprise
A stallion, snatching pasture
Leagues from the soft-steel sea
As westward shrunk the bluejay's sun
Skies away from trains and wolves
That wail where dynasties of light
Fall where we breathe cedar
To become one day more wise.
The religion of coffee over campfire
Cowboy-style in creekwater baptism
Where logic topples into purple
Fire under a tin pan in a golden moment.
Coffee invents you anew
As you tip your mug, breathe steam
Precisely why you are the sky
Beside my coffee inside my eyes.
The heart of autumn is this ritual.
Tar-dark obsidian paints our faces
In mystic steam and obsidian sheen
Multiplies our smiles on the coffee vision
By hills which dive into each other
Or into a sparrohawk's eye.
Sanity, the salute of beauty.
-- Christopher Buck
**********************************************************************
* * * * * *
* * * Christopher Buck Invenire ducere est.
* * * Carleton University * * *
* * * Internet: CBuck@CCS.Carleton.CA * * *
* * * P O Box 77077 * Ottawa, Ontario * K1S 5N2 Canada * * *
* * * * * *
**********************************************************************
From cbuck@ccs.carleton.caFri Dec 29 14:48:18 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 95 13:59:43 EST
From: Christopher Buck <cbuck@ccs.carleton.ca>
To: ou004135@galadriel.otago.ac.nz
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: sad irony & collective responsibility (fwd)
Christopher Buck writes:
> From owner-talisman@indiana.edu Sat Dec 23 13:57:05 1995
> From: cbuck@ccs.carleton.ca (Christopher Buck)
> Message-Id: <9512231856.AA18075@superior>
> Subject: Re: sad irony & collective responsibility
> To: Geocitizen@aol.com
> Date: Sat, 23 Dec 95 13:56:20 EST
> Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
> In-Reply-To: <951223115156_78018520@emout04.mail.aol.com>; from "Geocitizen@aol.com" at Dec 23, 95 11:51 am
> X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
> Sender: owner-talisman@indiana.edu
> Precedence: bulk
>
> Keven Haines writes: 23 December 1995
> ___________________
> With the exception of actual covenant-breakers and avowed enemies of
> the Faith, there is no one we can afford to lightly discard, nor can we
> afford to take it lightly when anyone chooses self-exile.
> ___________________
> RESPONSE
> Agreed.
>
> But saying or implying that Cole or anyone else on Talisman is a
> potential Covenant-Breaker (and this is not the first time this kind of
> accusation has been made on Talisman) exceeds the limits of acceptable
> discourse. This is not an issue of intellectual tolerance. It is a moral
> issue.
>
> I welcome Robert Johnston back online, so long as we all (myself
> included) agree that questioning anyone's fidelity to the Covenant is
> off-limits. I fail to see how this is merely an element of someone's
> offbeat *style* of self-expression, or an issue of tolerance.
>
> Surely Keven is not condoning the act of suggesting that Juan or
> anyone else is on the verge of being a Covenant Breaker. If I am wrong in
> stating that such is unacceptable behavior, I will stand corrected. But
> let's at least identify the real issue at hand.
>
> I will publicly say that I respect Robert Johnston as a fellow writer,
> and that I know his heart is in the right place. (I think it is good to
> give credit where credit is due, and that to praise the virtues of fellow
> Baha'is [short of vacuous flattery] is a good thing). I appreciate
> Robert's humor (most of the time). And Robert is a very keen *devil's
> advocate* in the rhetorical sense of the term and in the finest tradition
> of thrust and parry.
>
> Before Talisman became *public*, I myself was delisted for having
> violated one of the List-Rules (I was new to the Internet at that time).
> So participating in a public forum like this requires that one know what
> the limits are of acceptable discourse.
>
> I apologize if my language was too strong (viz. *darkness upon
> darkness*). I will forward this message to Robert. I simply ask that we
> all agree that casting aspersions on any Talismanian's fidelity to the
> Covenant is off-limits. Is there a consensus on this? And that praising
> someone's virtues is not aggrandizing anyone. It is simply a form of
> Baha'i discourse that the beloved Master encouraged. I invite Robert to
> single out one or two of Juan's virtues, as I have done with respect to
> Robert.
>
> I'll close with an excerpt from one of my unpublished books, *Iodine
> Tear*:
>
> THE RELIGION OF COFFEE
>
> The swift shadow of a bluejay slid
> Into our own leaves which tumble
> To quack after heels that surprise
> A stallion, snatching pasture
> Leagues from the soft-steel sea
> As westward shrunk the bluejay's sun
> Skies away from trains and wolves
> That wail where dynasties of light
> Fall where we breathe cedar
> To become one day more wise.
>
> The religion of coffee over campfire
> Cowboy-style in creekwater baptism
> Where logic topples into purple
> Fire under a tin pan in a golden moment.
> Coffee invents you anew
> As you tip your mug, breathe steam
> Precisely why you are the sky
> Beside my coffee inside my eyes.
>
> The heart of autumn is this ritual.
> Tar-dark obsidian paints our faces
> In mystic steam and obsidian sheen
> Multiplies our smiles on the coffee vision
> By hills which dive into each other
> Or into a sparrohawk's eye.
> Sanity, the salute of beauty.
>
> -- Christopher Buck
>
> **********************************************************************
> * * * * * *
> * * * Christopher Buck Invenire ducere est.
> * * * Carleton University * * *
> * * * Internet: CBuck@CCS.Carleton.CA * * *
> * * * P O Box 77077 * Ottawa, Ontario * K1S 5N2 Canada * * *
> * * * * * *
> **********************************************************************
>
>
**********************************************************************
* * * * * *
* * * Christopher Buck Invenire ducere est.
* * * Carleton University * * *
* * * Internet: CBuck@CCS.Carleton.CA * * *
* * * P O Box 77077 * Ottawa, Ontario * K1S 5N2 Canada * * *
* * * * * *
**********************************************************************
From Member1700@aol.comFri Dec 29 14:48:18 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 14:01:26 -0500
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Gone for a few days
I will have to be off Talisman for a few days, as the family will be out of
town.
Everybody be good. And try not to say anything TOO interesting before I get
back.
:-)
Tony
From s0a7254@tam2000.tamu.eduFri Dec 29 14:48:18 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 13:36:16 -0600 (CST)
From: Saman Ahmadi <s0a7254@tam2000.tamu.edu>
To: talisman <talisman@indiana.edu>
Subject: sad irony
It seems to me, in the eyes of Robert J., charaterizing
Abdul Baha as confused is on par with accusing a person
of having luke-warm faith - name-calling begetts name-calling.
I for one think that if we can swallow one, we should be able to
swallow the other. Ofcourse that would mean that we are a
heck of a way from Baha'i discourse.
BTW where were protests when Juan and Robert Stockman were
"just talking" [my parent's euphumism(sp) ;-)] ?
If this is an open forum, then it is an open forum. That would
mean that my own frequent verbal indescretions should be tolerated.
Now if we want something else, that's a whole other story.
it's probably warmer in Cambridge Bay right now,
sAmAn
From belove@sover.netFri Dec 29 14:48:18 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 95 10:52:02 PST
From: belove@sover.net
To: Sadra <nima@unm.edu>, talisman@indiana.edu,
Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
Subject: Re: Learned in Baha
On Sat, 23 Dec 1995 01:15:49 -0700 (MST) Sadra wrote:
>Do I detect some jealousy here, perhaps?! As the saying goes, all
great men
>have been met with violent opposition from mediocre minds. Never
where
>truer words spoken...Amen
>
>Nima
>---
Nima,
You imply that Robert has a mediocre mind. I think this is no more
acceptable than Robert's attacks on Juan and others of us.
I agree with you that I have great difficulty accepting the style of
Robert's argument -- and I would add that I have a lot of trouble
discerning the substance because, to me, so much of what he says is
tone and tone only.
But still, it is some kind of a loss for us to have Robert withdraw.
And I have enough respect for his thinking to wonder what it was that
he was trying to say to us.
What was the deeper current of this thread?
Philip
-------------------------------------
Name: Philip Belove
E-mail: belove@sover.net
Date: 12/23/95
Time: 10:52:02
This message was sent by Chameleon
-------------------------------------
Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler -- A.
Einstein
From forumbahai@es.co.nzFri Dec 29 14:48:18 1995
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 95 11:29 GMT+1300
From: Alison & Steve Marshall <forumbahai@es.co.nz>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: justice - was learned in Baha
> Surely Keven is not condoning the act of suggesting that Juan or
> anyone else is on the verge of being a Covenant Breaker. If I am wrong in
> stating that such is unacceptable behavior, I will stand corrected. But
> let's at least identify the real issue at hand.
I agree with Christopher Buck that we need to sort out what the issue is. As
I see it, it was a clear violation of the list rule that prohibits ad
hominem attacks. Juan explained about the historical context of the concept
of 'learned in Baha', and Robert accused Juan of harbouring a desire to be a
Hand of the Cause. Those are the facts.
Christopher suggested that this is an issue of morality. I agree, but would
go further and say that this is an issue of justice. One person has argued
that name-calling promotes name-calling. But I believe that this is
irrelevant. Does Robert have the defence of provoation available to him?
Even if he did, there was no provocation.
What Robert said suggests to me that he believes that Juan does not deserve
to be protected by the list rules because Juan's status as regards the
covenant is considered, by Robert, to be dubious. This is fallacious.
Some might put forward what I will call the 'argument of unity': we should
all just forgive and forget and be unified. I have seen this argument often
used to divert attention away from an injustice perpetrated by one Baha'i to
another. It is often used in situations of family violence. But this ignores
that the fact Baha'u'llah states that unity is dependent on justice. "The
purpose of justice is the appearance of unity among men". It also ignores
Baha'u'llah's exhortation that our unity should not be one that leads to
disunity (Tablets of Baha'u'llah p167).
I believe that Baha'is often get the justice, unity and covenant issues
mixed up. What is often an issue of justice is slanted by issues of who is
seen to be deserving of justice in light of their position as regards the
covenant, and also by idealistic notions of unity.
I conclude that, based on the principle that unity on this list will be
promoted by clear and just action, Robert should be removed from the list.
It is not relevant that he has voluntarily done so for a time.
Alison
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alison and Steve Marshall
Email: forumbahai@es.co.nz
90 Blacks Road, Opoho, Dunedin/Otepoti, Aotearoa/New Zealand
--------------------------------------------------------------
From TLCULHANE@aol.comFri Dec 29 14:48:18 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 18:03:14 -0500
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
To: nima@unm.edu
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re:Native Amer: Bahai Vision
Nima :
Glad you posted Tims poem /story .. I like it I wonder how long it
would take to read / recite it at the Bosch conference . I will time it and
see . If it is too long the audience will probably get lost . It is poetic
prose storytelling which lends itself to a reading better than does a loooong
piece of straight poetry . The narrative allows peoples attention to be
refocused on the theme/story . I do like it ! Then my mytho-poetic side gets
to go rummaging around all the symbol/ images created in the poem . A I say
in the Baha Maiden Dialogue piece quoting Reat and Perry from their _A World
Theology _ a symbol is that which " .. points beyond itself to a larger
reality in which it participates and whose larger dimensions
it makes known to us . " Please convey my appreciation to your friend Tim
and tell him it has provided me with a rich set of symbols to use exploring
the truth of Bahau llahs statement from the Tablet of Vision " . .that thou
mayest thereby behold the luminous world within this gloomy world , know of a
certainty that manifold are the worlds We do possess within this world . ."
Then I long for the day when this world will be arranged it such a
fashion that every soul will have the opportunity to experience that grace
as a part of normal waking consciouness. As far as I am concerned that is an
Irfan Republic . And that is why I think Baha u llah suffered exile and
imprisonment for forty years .
much love to you and Tim ,
Terry
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzFri Dec 29 14:48:18 1995
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 1995 13:48:25 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Outrage..
Talismans,
While I did send an unsubscribe message to majordomo it seems I am still
here, but if I am not, I know this will pass through the veil and reach you
all...
Coming in today to download my email, my intuition told me that there was
outrage on Talisman over what has happened...and yes, there is. Alison's
letter represents the extremity of that outrage...
I wish to explain why I said what I did. I do not think that what I am
about to say will be understood. But here goes.
The things that have disturbed me most in the Talismanic community most
have been the prepetual quarrel with the House and the Guardianship (etc),
and the desire to separate scholarship from the constaints of religion.
These are related, and tell of a Faustian intellectual disposition. In the
context of the the Faith, the construction of intellectual worlds apart
from religion entails a kind of co-partnership with God, of which
Baha'u'llah Wrote. Now co-partnership with God is simply this: the
empowerment of my will and the denial of Thy Will. Covenant Breaking is
the extreme form of this, but every day each of us puts our will before
that of God, to some extent. This is a fact: Baha'u'llah says we are all
sinners.
Now to the apparently extremely offensive letter I wrote. Yes it was
indelicate and -- from a purist viewpoint -- wrong. That I have found
myself saying such such things has been the reason for my deciding to quit
Talisman. But the essential points that I wished to make still hold true
for me. These points are, (1) It ill-becomes Baha'i particular Baha'i
scholars to appropriate too themselves the station of "the learned in
Baha". Sure, some scholars may be, but not all, surely. And who is a
Baha'i scholar anyway? I think it is best that such stations be accorded
not by one's self or by one's peers, but ...well...by the House perhaps,
but ultimately by Baha'u'llah and God. The Writings make it clear that all
genuine human stations are stations of servitude, and not of personal
exaltation. (2) In the context of a policy of separation of scholarship
from religion and of the appropriation of stations of distinction, there is
-- logically -- progressive movement towards ever darker manifestations
of co-partnership with God. This was the trend which I wished to indicate.
Really, I was being rhetorical and provocative in saying that Juan would
next be after the Guardianship. In my heart, I feel that this cannot be
literally true. But, I failed to make this clear enough for those who do
not share my colourful imagination, so I guess I owe an apology to anyone
who has been unjustly offended by my words. But it would be unfortunate if
the moderate essence of what I was attempting to say was lost as the
enraged mob clamoured for my neck.
And before I finish, let me say something this enraged mob. Where were
they when the House and Guardiansip and 'Abdu'l-Baha and Baha'u'llah
Himself were being rudely challenged? This is my lasting and enduring
pain. A pain which I know I shall carry into the realm of eternity.. I
have begged God to allow me to leave Talisman, because to the presence of
these things.. But my heart would not let me... Every day I poured out the
contents of my mind and heart into Talisman. I wrote to the House
regarding American Manifestations and Socrates and was massed scholars who
had argued tooth and nail against the positions, then retreated into
complete silence. One or two raised their voices again. One loundly
disagreed with the information, but when challenged by myself, he again
retreated into silence. Another twice attempted to obscure the intent of
the letter...
I have endured real and unjust personal vilification here. Especially,
from Sonja, but also from Terry, Nima and Chris. After the letters from
the Research Dept. -- after it was shown that Talisman was wearing no
clothes -- it was only a matter of time before the forces of perversity
would encircle me and and seek to slay me with their envious swords. Now
we have reached this situation. I am departing and there's Alison throwing
rocks at my back. How could not not but bring her endless and enduring
shame? What has she contributed? So little. So very little. And now
this. May God forgive her, and the others, and me also.
Robert.
From michelem@s2.sonnet.comFri Dec 29 14:48:18 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 19:53:09 -0800
From: michelem@s2.sonnet.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: intro,lay Bahai's and others.
Hello Talismanians,
After lurking for early two weeks, I have decided to introduce myself.
My name is Michelle. I occasionally contribute to the soc.religion.bahai
newsgroup, and boy was I surprised to see myself quoted here even before I
joined Talisman!
I am not a Baha'i, but I do believe in Baha'u'llah. I have some problems
with the way the Faith is being administered. I'm seeing the development of
a clergy--the Counsellors--you might call them something else, but from my
point of view, they're a clergy. I also see the UHJ interpreting scripture,
which was a duty reserved for the Guardian. If the Administration cannot
stay within the bounds set by the writings of Baha'u'llah and the Guardians,
how can they expect to be infallible?
The argument about "Lay Baha'i" vs. "learned Baha'i" seems rather silly and
I'm surprised how vitriolic it became. No amount of book learning can give
you spiritual understanding, and neither can titles bestowed upon you by
institutions. But taking the time and effort to learn a language well
enough to translate is hard work, and gives a person new viewpoints on the
world that they might not have had otherwise. Baha'u'llah said that work is
a form of prayer. People that work for no pay and no perks are engaging in
a higher form of prayer, IHMO, than people who do so just for money. We
should respect people who undertake such work. That does not mean that they
understand the scriptures better than someone else--I'm not sure than any of
the "elite" in the UHJ or the Counsellors can either.
I think that before accusations of Covenant breaking are made, that we
should remember that Shoghi said that Covenant breakers are spiritually
diseased, and only the Guardian can determine those people who are in that
spiritually diseased condition. I certainly don't think the average Joe on
the street has any right to even hint that someone else is a Covenant
breaker, just because his understanding of the Faith is at a different level
than someone else's (and who is to say whose understanding is higher?)
Michelle
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzFri Dec 29 14:48:18 1995
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 1995 17:29:33 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
To: Alison & Steve Marshall <forumbahai@es.co.nz>, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: justice - was learned in Baha
A final comment...
I have always welcomed well-reasoned arguments wherever I have found them.
Unfortunately, such arguments were rare on Talisman, for reasons I have
already indicated. Alison's letter is in instance of very poor reasoning.
In her letter she gave my offence:
"I agree with Christopher Buck that we need to sort out what the issue is. As
I see it, it was a clear violation of the list rule that prohibits ad
hominem attacks."
After giving reasons for my need for punishment she suggested a sentence.
The sentence went:
"I conclude that, based on the principle that unity on this list will be
promoted by clear and just action, Robert should be removed from the list.
It is not relevant that he has voluntarily done so for a time."
I say this was not a well-reasoned argument because it displays obvious
partiality and prejudice -- this dispite the fact that I have,for no
personal gain, helped Steve and Alison out innumerable times, particularly
in relation to their now defunct commercial publication "Forum". The
partiality is apparent in the fact that she made no similar pronouncement
when her husband Steve launched an ad hominem attack on me on Talisman, or
when other attacks (See sample below. The first two are obvious, the
second is covert) were made. Given the obvious partiality, Alison's
accusation that I am *the cause of disunity* on Talisman is not sustained
by her letter.
Another element in the letter warrants attention. Alison wrote:
>I agree with Christopher Buck that we need to sort out what the issue is. As
>I see it, it was a clear violation of the list rule that prohibits ad
>hominem attacks. Juan explained about the historical context of the concept
>of 'learned in Baha', and Robert accused Juan of harbouring a desire to be a
>Hand of the Cause. Those are the facts.
What I actually did was -- in my own way -- question Juan's statement that
Baha'i scholars (presumably all) were to be included among the learned in
Baha. There was more to the situation than the above quotation suggests.
Of course, the best instance that we have of the learned in Baha are the
Hands. Juan himself was placing scholars on the same level as Hands. It
was not something that I dreamed up.
Alison might well re-title the letter "justice". God overlooks no
injustice, no even when it is administered by the hands of former friends.
I feel very strongly that I have been unjustly treated. This will take a
very long time to heal, if ever.
That's it,
Robert.
PS: I have never called anyone a Covenant Breaker. If certain persons wish
to suggest that I have, then that is up to them. If I have something to
say, I say it
>From Eric Pierce:
>I hope it is obvious that the main point of my original message
>was to condemn Robert J.'s (of NZ) attempt at labeling John L,
>Juan, Nima and Terry as elitists. For better or worse, let's
>be honest, they would be more properly labeled as counter-elitists
>(and I hope damn proud of it!). I see no unsurmountable problem
>with honestly mapping out the full diversity of values, cultural
>characteristics, ideological foundations and so on in the
>community.
>
>I just can't bring myself to tolerate the establishmentarian,
>conformist, mainstream elitist paradigm that has sapped the
>vitality of the community and permitted the acceptance of an
>atmosphere in which the fundamentalist and dominant elements of
>the community are allowed to rampage around as if they have a
>right to "own" the "right way" of being Baha'i and bully everybody
>else into submission.
>
>It seems inevitable that the "bad karma" accumulated during the
>purges of progressive elements in the (american) community in
>the 1920's and 1930's would be revisited on the community in the
>wake of the generally unsuccessful integration of the values of
>the influx of liberal/countercultural youth into the community
>during the 60's and 70's. The lack of subtlety that characterised
>the process of thought control within the community of that
>period should clearly have been understood to neccessarily give
>rise to some sort of rebellion, or at least a long series of
>skirmishes, between the progressive and traditionalist elements
>in the community. The mirroring of the tension in the general
>society over control of values between elites and counter-elites
>in the american Baha'i community doesn't seem to follow the model
>that Abdu'l-Baha and the Guardian tried to get us to build the
>community and administration around. The trick is, how to build
>trust. I don't see it happening by an insistence on the superiority
>of a majority conformist agenda.
>
>If the Robert Johnston's of the world want to deplore the way some
>of the intellectual dissidents in the community wrap themselves in
>the cloak of scholarship and also want to yammer about the supposed
>counter-elitist tendencies of the dissidents, then they ought to
>shut up when it is pointed out that the majority from the beginning
>has sought to wrap itself in the supposedly legitimizing reverse
>cloak of majority opinion, orthodoxy and (gasp, I'm saying it!)
>administrative authority.
>
>From Nima Hazini:
>Evidently our outspoken friend from New Zealand doesn't know how to
>distinguish between the Central Figures. The last time I checked,
>Baha'u'llah was still "supposed to be" THE Central Figure of this Faith and
>its Manifestation -- or maybe I've been mistaken all this time??? Please
>clarify this crucial matter for this confused soul. I did say the
>_Writings of Baha'u'llah_, did I not, and not those of the Buddha or Lao
>Tzu? Would someone please be kind enough to point out this little
>"trivial" detail to our stubborn-as-a-mule friend from down-under. Many
>thanks in advance!
>From Juan Cole:
>It is, of course, by now an old and well-tried dirty trick of Baha'i
>ultraconservatives to identify their position with that of the Head of
>the Faith and to accuse anyone who departs from literalism of
>disloyalty to the Institutions. Also to constantly mutter `Judas' and
>something about a covenant in the presence of any Baha'i with whom they
>disagree.
>
>Ben Johnson said it well on April 7, 1775: "Patriotism is the last
>refuge of a scoundrel." Likewise Baha'i ultramontanism.
>
>Can someone please provide any documentation for the notion that the
>Universal House of Justice was intended by Baha'u'llah to be the arbiter
>of ancient history? I can provide lots of documentation that it was not.
From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduFri Dec 29 14:48:18 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 21:46:00 -0700 (MST)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]" <gpoirier@acca.nmsu.edu>
To: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
Cc: Talisman <talisman@indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: "Scholarship"
On Wed, 20 Dec 1995, Juan R Cole wrote:
> Baha'i-Wissenschaft in this sense must be distinguished from technical,
> applied fields such as Baha'i agriculture or Baha'i radio management, which
> are in themselves of the utmost importance, but contain a practical
> element involving doing more than writing books.
>
> Baha'i-Wissenschaft must also be distinguished from non-academic study of
> the Faith, which *is not* less valuable, and of course constitutes the
> vast majority of the study of the Faith that actually occurs.
>
> Is there any real reason, however, that these three approaches to Baha'i
> studies cannot co-exist, flourish, and enrich each other?
I see this analagous to science and mathematics, where some engage in the
study of "pure" mathematics and some in applied sciences, but none could
do without the other.
From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduFri Dec 29 14:48:19 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 21:47:40 -0700 (MST)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]" <gpoirier@acca.nmsu.edu>
To: AGhosh@uh.edu
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: re:engagement law
On Wed, 20 Dec 1995 AGhosh@uh.edu wrote:
> I also would like to know what exactly constitutes an engagement, I am
> afraid again it would be national policy.
I've always thought of it as when you asked for parental consent. Before
that time you don't know if you can marry; when you've asked the folks,
you're serious.
From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduFri Dec 29 14:48:19 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 22:43:49 -0700 (MST)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]" <gpoirier@acca.nmsu.edu>
To: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
Cc: Talisman <talisman@indiana.edu>
Subject: unsubscribing
By way of information and not of encouragement, to unsubscribe from
Talisman -- folks please take note so that John doesn't need to do it
manually for us
send the message:
unsubscribe talisman
to:
majordomo@majordomo.indiana.edu
I think that's the ticket.
Love
Brent
From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduFri Dec 29 14:48:19 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 22:45:13 -0700 (MST)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]" <gpoirier@acca.nmsu.edu>
To: michelem@s2.sonnet.com
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: House interpreting the Text
Michelle, please give an example of where you feel that the House has
interpreted the sacred Text.
Thanks
Brent
From nima@unm.eduFri Dec 29 14:48:19 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 23:50:46 -0700 (MST)
From: Sadra <nima@unm.edu>
To: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RJ's Crocodile Tears (Re: Outrage..)
Robert, what's this victim-martyr act your playing now? You sent your
message to Talisman itself with the subject heading to "majordomo" and
not an unsubscribe message to majordomo. What kind of nincompoops do you
take us for? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the 4th time
(February, June, September and now) that you've decided to unsubscribe
from Talisman in "self"-righteous indignation, only to come back a few
weeks, or a few days, later, making tacit apologies and pleading for
moderation, only to jump back in and resume your acrimonious vitriolics
again with full force. Come on, man! Grow up! We weren't born yesterday,
you know! Unfortunately it seems some of our new subscribers have bought
into Robert's story hook-line-and-sinker. People, for the love of God,
stop being such gullible push-overs.
You, Robert, constantly hold peoples loyalty to the Baha'i Faith
contemptuously in question, insinuating in the strongest possible terms
that they're Covenant Breakers etc., imposing your arrogant
self-righteous views on everybody on the list, and then turn around with
this proverbial song and dance and have the gaul to say that you didn't
mean it that way. vAghe'an keh yA Abu'l-Fazl! What way _did_ you mean it
exactly? Shall I bring out the violins for your solliloqouy (sp?) ??? ;-)
And stop playing the victim, for God sakes; it doesn't suit your
personality, you cheapen yourself in the eyes of any sensible person of
any intelligence and it is, to say the very least, highly, highly
unflattering of you.
You wanted frank and honesty, you got it!!! And don't waste your time with
any renewed antics, `cause "frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" ([c] Gone
With the Wind). Consider this my last ever communication with you on any
level. I am disgusted...
Nima (calling Robert's bluff)
p.s. There's saying in EST (a.k.a. The Forum), "The Truth will set you
free, but first it'll p*** you off." Take heed!
---
O God, cause us to see things as they really are - Hadith
"In the mirror of their minds, the forms of transcendent realities are
reflected, and the lamp of their inner vision derives its light from the
Sun of Universal Knowledge" - Secret of Divine Civilization
From margreet@margreet.seanet.comFri Dec 29 14:48:19 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 23:32:13 -0800
From: "Marguerite K. Gipson" <margreet@margreet.seanet.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: RJ's Crocodile Tears (Re: Outrage..)
Sounds like we need hip waders too... not just violins.
Will all this matter in 100 years... I think not.
Margreet, who will spend Christmas reading all of Talisman to understand
all this....
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comFri Dec 29 14:48:19 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 23:35:47 -0800
From: DEREK COCKSHUT <derekmc@ix.netcom.com>
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Talisman Rules .????
Dear Talismanians .
Taking a short break from the session I am involved in at Bosch to
discover warfare has broken out on our esteemed List . Please a liitle
more kindness a little less anger . The only person who has the right
to take a person off Talisman other than the person themselves , is the
List owner John Walbridge , Talisman is not a democracy . We are all
supposed to behave as intelligent human beings with a sense of decorum
and not insult each other .
Please go gentle with Love in your hearts for the Twin Blessed Ones .
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut
From M@upanet.uleth.caFri Dec 29 14:48:19 1995
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 1995 02:18:37 -0700
From: M <M@upanet.uleth.ca>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: unsubscribing
Brent wrote:
>By way of information and not of encouragement, to unsubscribe from
>Talisman -- folks please take note so that John doesn't need to do it
>manually for us
>send the message:
>unsubscribe talisman
>to:
>majordomo@majordomo.indiana.edu
>I think that's the ticket.
A better ticket seems to be to send the message to . . .
Majordomo@majordomo.ucs.indiana.edu
I have subscribed and unsubscribed on several occasions with out much delay
time and without having had the message posted to all list members. I
haven't got a clue what the "ucs" is for but it seems to hasten the process.
While I'm here I wish to add
1. That while I think it's unfortunate anyone would feel as though they were
being attacked or invited to leave this list by other members, it seems to
me that the so called controversy which has our friend R.J. (who's postings,
for the most part, I rather enjoy reading) hesitatingly standing at the exit
with the door wide open and the cold air pouring in, has been blown out of
all proportion. I have become accustomed to more "hostile" debate during 14
years of assembly service than I have seen here on Talisman. Please Robert,
make up your mind one way or the other and shut the door. I't cold in here.
2. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that this list is
owned and operated by John Walbridge and that it's John W. who, from time to
time, reminds us of the rules. It seems innappropriate to me that any one
other than John Walbridge should suggest that another member, (guest) should
be delisted. I don't buy this "impersonality of cyberspace" business and
feel that the same rules of common curtesy should apply here as elsewhere.
3. As for actual or inferred ad hominem attacks, sometimes perhaps the best
and most effective response is no response. Retaliation = escalation.
4. And thanks to all of you! My time on Talisman is time well spent and it
has proven to be a valuable tool in deepening my understanding of the Faith.
(Learned in Blah Blah) M.
---
M e-mail: M@upanet.uleth.ca
Public Access Internet
From Geocitizen@aol.comFri Dec 29 14:48:19 1995
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 1995 05:14:26 -0500
From: Geocitizen@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: reply from a "gullible push-over"
In what I can only assume is an honest, yet sadly, a self-defeating effort to
curb the resurgence of "acrimonious vitriolics" on Talisman, Nima wrote the
following words (among many others) to Robert Johnston and the list as a
whole:
"Come on, man! Grow up! We weren't born yesterday, you know!
Unfortunately it seems some of our new subscribers have bought
into Robert's story hook-line-and-sinker. People, for the love of God,
stop being such gullible push-overs."
Although Nima generously refrained from referring to me by name, I am the
only one who has posted a message failing to explicitly condemn Robert's
actions since his recent announcement of his intention to withdraw from
Talisman. This seems to bestow upon me the dubious honor of being the most
prominent representative of the gullible push-overs whose existence Nima
posits.
I suppose I should take very seriously the responsibilities that accompany
this position -- and I am sure the participants of Talisman will make every
effort to keep these exalted duties from inflating my ego. :)
But seriously, there is a fatal flaw in this theory, and I hope Nima will
read very carefully what I write next. The issues I am attempting to dredge
out of this mess entirely transcend the issue of Robert Johnston's true
character and motives. Even if the sinister picture Nima has painted is
completely accurate in its depiction of Robert's aims and methods, I consider
that to be, quite frankly, none of my damn business.
Nowhere in the Writings of this Faith have I found a single word even
suggesting that I could ever know the true spiritual worth of Robert as a
person, much less anything telling me that I am entitled to turn my back on
his ideas and exile him from the community of thought in which I participate.
I am the first to admit that I lack deep scholarship in the Writings.
Nevertheless, I am confident in my conviction that none of them contain
words that might be paraphrased like this: "... of course, the commandments
that we love one another and overlook one another's faults are merely general
statements of an unattainable ideal. If you have tried really, really hard
for a really, really long time to