Date: 7 Nov 95 23:07:17 U
From: Dan Orey <dan_orey@qmbridge.ccs.csus.edu>
To: jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: Re: Re: News from the Front
Reply to: RE>Re: News from the Front
Yes, just pray he keeps his job - Dan'l
--------------------------------------
Date: 11/7/95 6:15 PM
To: Dan Orey
From: Juan R Cole
Received: by qmbridge.csus.edu (2.01/GatorMail-Q); 7 Nov 95 18:15:44 U
Received: from galaga.rs.itd.umich.edu by csus.edu with SMTP id AA18757
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <dan_orey@qmbridge.ccs.csus.edu>); Tue, 7 Nov 1995
07:45:07 -0800
Received: from galaga.rs.itd.umich.edu by galaga.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.1/2.2)
with SMTP id KAA17183; Tue, 7 Nov 1995 10:45:04 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 10:44:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
X-Sender: jrcole@galaga.rs.itd.umich.edu
To: Dan Orey <dan_orey@qmbridge.ccs.csus.edu>
Subject: Re: News from the Front
In-Reply-To: <199511070709.CAA18208@truelies.rs.itd.umich.edu>
Message-Id: <Pine.SOL.3.91.951107104438.16829A-100000@galaga.rs.itd.umich.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Birkland really is quite impressive. Good luck!
cheers JRIC
From barazanf@dg-rtp.dg.comWed Nov 8 15:25:36 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 11:30:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Farzin Barazandeh <barazanf@dg-rtp.dg.com>
To: Talisman <talisman@indiana.edu>
Subject: infallibility
I never understood what infallibility means and
how to dance with its stiffness.
But thanks God, I understand hierarchy and authority and the
necessity of courtesy towards them and even how to bow before them.
But what I desire is to feel true admiration and respect for the
ones I must bow before.
And these admiration and respect are beyond any pious improvisation;
they must be earned and not demanded by myself or any other.
And of course, there are two players in this story,
and none can hide behind the holy mountain of "infallibility".
Farzin
From Don_R._Calkins@commonlink.comWed Nov 8 15:25:55 1995
Date: 08 Nov 1995 10:02:52 GMT
From: "Don R. Calkins" <Don_R._Calkins@commonlink.com>
To: rstockman@usbnc.org
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Re: "New scholarly paradigms"
Rob said
> Perhaps paradigm is a bit misleading
I don't think so. A paradigm is not merely a point of view or perspective
but all that went into bringing about that perspective and the underpinings
that support its maintainance. Because a paradigm is more than a
perspective, there may be many paradigms that have points in common. Baha'i
scholarship, from this perspective then, is a distinct paradigm tho' it may
have many points in common with non-Baha'i scholarship.
On another level, each of us represent a particular paradigm that includes
not only our devotion to Baha'u'llah, but our past experiences. The Writings
constitute a meta-paradigm. It is our responsibility to make them operational
in our personal lives; and the collective of individuals involved in this
process define the current Baha'i paradigm. Because this paradigm involves
individual experiences, it can only roughly approximate the meta-paradigm of
the Writings. But each successive generation incorporates the experiences of
the previous one; only thru' this process of successive approximations will
we attain the maturity of the Golden Age. And only then will we understand
the potential of the meta-paradigm presented in the Writings.
Don C
- sent via an evaluation copy of BulkRate (unregistered).
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comWed Nov 8 15:27:31 1995
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 95 09:57:01 -0500
From: Ahang Rabbani <rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: review and Encyclopedia project
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
One of the suggestion that has been made regarding the present
Baha'i review system is to replace it with a peer review system,
similar to those in professional societies and academia. In a
recent article, ("Storming the barricades", New Scientist, 17
June 1995), the author argues in favor of no-review and
no-journal system where everyone can post their findings,
articles, etc, directly on internet via World Wide Web. He
points out to several advantages, including:
1. eliminating inept refereeing where often results in pointless
delays benefiting no one;
2. dealing with long-standing complains that peer review (or any
review) is a way of settling old scores and burying new research;
3. with a strict "no withdrawal" policy (on articles posted on
WWW), serious contributors will think twice about posting
off-the-cuff ideas or immature research;
4. changes the review by a couple of specialists to a collective
review where many have to think about the implications of the
article;
5. eliminates the need for printed journals as everything is
accessible via WWW.
The article has a number of other good points which I won't
attempt to summarize.
I am excited about this prospect. As such I like to put forth
the idea (actually credit belongs to a fellow Talismanian), that:
a. the entire Baha'i Encyclopedia be put on WWW for a
"collective" review. This is perfectly legitimate under the
existing Baha'i review rules which allows distribution of
work-in-progress;
b. a special file be placed on the same WWW location where the
readers (believers and scholars from both within and outside of
the community) will post their comments;
c. after passage of some time (2 years?), these comments be
compiled by the project Board and adjustments be made to certain
articles, if necessary;
d. then, based on such a *community* and *collective* review,
the (potentially) revised Encyclopedia by submitted to the World
Centre for approval of the printed version.
I think this proposal has a number of advantages: it breaks
through the current impasse on this project; allows for a
collective review; leaves the project in the hand of the current
Board; and, assist the Administration in better gauging the
community's reaction.
I think this last advantage is particularly important because so
often in presenting projects/proposal to the Administration of
the Faith, we neglect to provide them with data on potential
community's reaction/effect and expect them to somehow magically
gauge it. Well, I think we owe them a more mature presentation
and they deserve better from us. As such, I suggest put the
entire Encyclopedia project on WWW and collect some feedback over
a period of time so that the World Centre, in the course of their
ultimate decision making, will have the benefit of this
information as well -- which undoubtedly they'll be pleased to
have.
regards, ahang.
From burlb@bmi.netWed Nov 8 15:27:51 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 95 09:31 PST
From: Burl Barer <burlb@bmi.net>
To: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: the vocally impaired
Lions roaring in the forests of knowledge is preferable to pussies meowing
under the couch.
Burl (I'm sure that's a quote from someone, somewhere) Barer
*******************************************************
Order MAN OVERBOARD, the new book by Burl Barer today!
*******************************************************
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comWed Nov 8 15:28:28 1995
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 95 11:53:01 -0500
From: Ahang Rabbani <rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: North Texas teaching projects
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
As some of you may be aware, based on the extremely successful
mass teaching efforts in Houston (Jun-Aug 1995), a number of
other communities in the United States organized themselves
similarly and with Sa'id Khadivian's essential help have launched
entry by troops processes, though of a more moderate scale.
The attached note, posted on our Texas list, from one of the
friends in Dallas/Fort Worth area (north Texas) gives some
additional details which some of you will find of interest. The
author's email address is: FraninTX@aol.com
I should also point to one important correction in the attached
note: To their credit, the National Spiritual Assembly, on 2
November 1995, instructed the 12 LSAs in the Houston area to
continue full force with the entry by troops process and *not*
disassemble the existing organizational structure (IACTs). For
our efforts, this is an extremely important ruling from the NSA,
for which we are all very grateful.
Enjoy. ahang.
*****************************
Hi Lee Ann and others in the hut (Lee Ann asked about the Houston teaching
project, asking if I was in that area. I wrote such a good response :)) I
decided to share it with you all:
I'm in the Dallas - Ft. Worth area (IACT#5) and we are just starting our
Inter Assembly Committee for Teaching.
We have 5 groups or IACTs each has 5-7 Assemblies. Each has rented a center,
per our mandate the Centers were to be located centrally for all the LSA's
involved and to be within the budget of those areas, with all assemblies
contributing. We meet each Sunday evening, the mandate calls for each
Assembly to send 3 representatives to each meeting in a rotation so as not to
burden everyone and for those representatives to report back to their
Assembly and community.
THe major population centers, Dallas, Ft. Worth and Arlington have each
decided to not participate in this effort. It has been interesting to watch
how that affects each area. Our group of 7 LSAs (Carrollton, Lewisville,
Flower Mound, Denton, The Colony, Coppell and Addison) did not have any of
those Assemblies as part of it. Those IACTs that had them as part seem to be
functioning well and enthusiasm is running high. Interestingly enough
Houston is no longer a part of the IACT in that area,( Houston is in south
TX. we are in the North central area).
We are recreating the original plan as we progress. We rented a Center in
Lewisville, 10 miles north of Dallas and central to the geographical area of
our IACT group. We will have our first teacher training for all 5 IACTs the
weekend of Nov.17-19. According to the mandate we were to have acquired at
least 2 full time teachers, places for them to live, and have other plans in
place for this first teacher training. Houston kind of tapped out the full
time teacher market for now and it has been noted that one of the problems in
the Houston area has stemmed from insufficient funds to keep the ball
rolling.
Well we are taking baby steps and not overextending until we have a surer
sense of where we are going, so we are going to rely on local part time
teachers, and are encouraging all Assembly and community members to
participate in the teacher training.
Each IACT sends a representative to a liaison meeting once a week so each is
apprised of the plans of the other and ideas are shared that might be useful
to others.
The original mandate also calls for a coordinator's office, a paid full time
postition to eventually take over the liaison role. This hasn't happened
yet.
We had our first neighborhood outreach last Saturday, 4 teams representing 6
of the 7 LSA's in our IACT went out in the immediate neighborhood and
introduced themselves to the businesses, extending an invitation to an open
house and informational meeting about the Faith.They also collected business
cards from each for a Grand Opening mailing that will take place in December.
Their reception was cordial, with a few warm and only one cool. Several said
they might attend. We had 24 people there that evening, 2 seekers but none
from the immediate neighborhood.
The wonderful energy that is shared at our Sunday meetings is very special to
all of us. There are usually 25-30 people attending and each attendee has a
vote in how we will proceed.
There will be a notice in the American Baha'i encouraging any youth attending
the Conference here in December who can come early or stay late to let us
know and we will plan for their use in the teaching.
The fact that there are now 5 centers in what we call the Metroplex, areas
including and between Dallas and Ft. Worth we feel is miraculous. The
commitment and willingness to share is incredible. It was interesting to us
that each Assembly that chose to not participate already has a center, and
the largest Baha'i population in it's area. The message we got is that they
each had their teaching plan in place and felt they wanted to proceed with
that plan. There has been little discussion and no whining that I have
observed about this. Those in those IACTs are proceeding with great energy.
So you can see we are all busy.. and commited and praying like crazy.. put us
on the 19th list.
If there are any specific questions let me know. I don't have time to post
at length often but will try to keep you apprised if you are interested.
Love and light from Fran in Flower Mound, TX
From Member1700@aol.comWed Nov 8 15:30:12 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 13:27:00 -0500
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Discussing the Covenant
I am certainly grateful to Stephen Friberg for his reply to my posting
concerning the discourse on Talisman. I would say that his response is a
wonderful example of the kind of reasonable and respectful exchange of ideas
that we should be trying to achieve in this forum. And since exchange of
ideas is what Talisman is all about (despite periodic calls that we should
all get together and DO something, calls which I believe are quite futile),
anyway, since an intelligent exchange of ideas is all that we can (or should)
hope to accomplish, posts like the one that Stephen has give us are to be
celebrated.
That is not to say that I agree with him. In fact, I could not disagree
more. And I find his point of view on this matter quite incomprehesible and
potentially destructive. I do not, however, feel the need to call for his
silence.
But to the point, I must say that I find the opinion being expressed here
that any call for freedom of expression must logically and of necessity also
include the right to personally attack those you disagree with to be . . .
well, bizarre. It certainly does not include such a right, and I do not know
any responsible person who would argue that--either within or outside the
Baha'i community. It is universally understood in discussions of
ideas--including controversial ideas--that speakers should make a distinction
between the ideas that they may agree or disagree with and the people
expressing them. And attack on ideas is, of course, acceptable and to be
expected. And attack on the persons expressing those ideas is not. This is
really basic stuff, guys. I think I learned it in junior high school or
something. It is quite surprising to me that such a distinction would be
lost is Baha'i discourse.
In fact, in the process of consultation--any consultation--Baha'is are
called upon to do precisely this. To make a distinction between the ideas
being presented and the person presenting them. To detach the one from the
other is a basic prerequisite of consultation. And, indeed, no civilized
discussion can take place without it. While it is true that some of us on
Talisman have proven ourselves to be incapable of civilized discussion, but
Stephen is hardly in that category. So it is a puzzle to me why he should be
insisting that any call for an uncensored expression of ideas must also
include the right to make ad hominem arguments, accuse others of thought
crimes, and attack speakers whom you disagree with.
To Stephen's other point that the presentation of a shocking idea is
tantamount to a personal attack on those who disagree with it, I also find
such a position bizarre and unacceptable. It would (if you think about it
for even a minute) make the presentation of any new idea impossible, because
someone could always claim that s/he was shocked and had been (therefore)
personally attacked. I guess my position is that there are really no such
things as shocking ideas, there are only shocked people. If someone finds
himself shocked or offended by and idea, then I believe it is that person's
duty to deal with it as best can be, and to reply with a better idea. I
certainly do not support the right of the "shockee" to turn around and attack
the faith and the motives of the "shocker." Ugh!
Anyway, these are rules that are universally acknowledged in
intellectual discussions of all kinds, and I don't quite understand why we
are having such a hard time with them. Is it so difficult to simply assume
that everyone here who claims to be a Baha'i actually is one--and that
despite differences of opinion, each of us has the best interests of the
Faith as our highest purpose?
Certainly, I do not think that anyone here should deliberately present
ideas in a way that is "calculated to provoke [unless you mean provoke
discussion], stir up outrage, and generate distrust." But this most
certainly is NOT the same thing as presenting a controversial idea, because
it is focussed on the motives of the speaker, and not on the content of the
speech. And while the individual should do whatever possible to purify the
motives of his discourse, this is fundamentally a private matter which is not
available for the scrutiny and evaluation of others. It is our duty, rather,
simply to assume that the speaker has done the best job possible at the
moment to purify whatever motives lie behind the ideas, and to respond gently
and lovingly accordingly. It's not that difficult, folks! Not that we will
succeed every time, of course. But surely we should be able to agree that is
the goal. Not limits on the exchange of ideas.
Warmest,
Tony
From belove@sover.netWed Nov 8 15:31:27 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 95 08:38:32 PST
From: belove@sover.net
To: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>,
talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: almost/probable-failure-unto-death-of-the-list
On Wed, 8 Nov 1995 12:55:10 +1300 (NZDT) Robert Johnston wrote:
>
>
> John's letter, in my
>view, belongs with a bunch of other letters which reflect a painfully
>skewed relationship with the House, and reflect also -- I a believe -- an
>almost/probable-failure-unto-death-of-the-list to address this relationship
>appropriately. It is not as though John can be unaware of the offence that
>is caused by such statements, so I am left wondering... Read the
letter
>for yourself. (It is reprinted below).
>
>
>I don't understand the phenomenon I am witnessing. I just don't.
>
>Robert.
>
>>My concern with tone is the following: I honestly believe that I
see a
>>trend in Baha'i institutions, most alarmingly the House of Justice,
of
>>criticizing the tone of interlocutors at the expense of responding
to issues.
>>When I came in on the Faith, Baha'i institutions, particularly the
House
>>of Justice, could be counted on to respond lovingly to any sort of
>>comment or criticism. I have in the last few years seen a number
of
>>cases where someone has offered criticism or comment in good faith,
and
>>has had his or her good faith attacked by the institution in reply.
>>
>>I find this deeply troubling because it seems to me such behavior
>>undermines the legitimacy of the institutions and the loyalty of
those
>>at the receiving end of such letters.
>>
>>john walbridge
Dear Robert and others,
I'm on the other side of the table from you on this one. But I'm new
to this Faith so maybe I really don't understand.
I felt John's comments to be a clear expression of my own sentiments.
I have some strong feelings about this issue.
I'm in this Faith despite some genuinely unpleasant, maybe even nasty
encounters with some people who, I think, are fairly deepened.
But I'm at the frontier of my certainty here. I think I have been
dealt with by people in the name of the Faith in ways that have sure
felt to me like abuse, hypocrisy, disrespect, selfishness. But like
so many abused people I'm not sure.
On the one shoulder I'm saying to myself: Maybe I deserved it? Maybe
I'm over reacting? Maybe I haven't been a Bahai long enough to
understand?" On the other shoulder I'm saying to myself "If it looks
like a duckling and walks like duckling and talks like a duckling and
sounds like a duckling, then maybe that's close to what it is."
The second shoulder gets supported by the Hidden Words: "Justice is
my gift to you. By its aid you shall know with your own knowing and
not through that of another." or something like that.
So down inside, I'm saying to myself, "Hey, doesn't this feel like
I'm being mistreated." And on the outside I hear words like, "When
you've been a Bahai as long as I have, you'll understand it
differently."
Back and forth. Yes, I would like to be so deepened that I understand
this differently. But another part says, "If this is what being a
Bahai means, I'm not sure it's good for me."
So I support John's side of this debate.
The tone of John's comment sounds respectful and contained.
I wonder about the tone of my message. I have to acknowledge that I
am speaking to you from a part of me that is in deep searing pain. I
don't think I'm acting out that pain.
But I have thrown my prayer book across the room more than once.
I've tried to be good humored about this. I tell my friends, "Don't
tell God, but I'm so angry I've stopped praying, as if to pray would
be to support and injustice and to acknowledge that it was really
okay.
I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to be angry with God.
And, It does seem to me that if some one really does already
understand these matters, then, like God, they ought to be able to
handle some of the pain and anger. that inevitably will come through
in the tone
And if we don't have tolerance for those deep passions -- the
outrages that comes from deeply felt intuitions of injustice -- then
what are we representing here?
>
>
>Maybe Juan is right. Maybe Talisman IS a subculture. Maybe -- as
he told
>me right at the beginning -- it is not for me.
-------------------------------------
Name: Philip Belove
E-mail: belove@sover.net
Date: 11/08/95
Time: 08:38:32
This message was sent by Chameleon
-------------------------------------
Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler -- A.
Einstein
From Member1700@aol.comWed Nov 8 15:31:55 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 13:56:31 -0500
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: review and Encyclopedia project
Ahang, what a brilliant idea! Let's do it.
Tony
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comWed Nov 8 15:32:33 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 11:07:35 -0800
From: DEREK COCKSHUT <derekmc@ix.netcom.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Fwd: Re: the vocally impaired
---- Begin Forwarded Message
7/1.10IUPO) id MAA11814 for talisman-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 1995 12:40:34
-0500 (EST)
Received: from belize.ucs.indiana.edu (belize.ucs.indiana.edu
[129.79.1.64]) by roatan.ucs.indiana.edu (8.7/8.7/1.10IUPO) with ESMTP
id MAA10778 for <talisman@majordomo.ucs.indiana.edu>; Wed, 8 Nov 1995
12:40:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from bmi.bmi.net (root@ns.bmi.net [204.57.191.1]) by
belize.ucs.indiana.edu (8.7/8.7/1.10IUPO) with SMTP id MAA18332 for
<talisman@indiana.edu>; Wed, 8 Nov 1995 12:38:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from nb-209.bmi.net by bmi.bmi.net with smtp
(Smail3.1.29.1 #1) id m0tDEL2-0002obC; Wed, 8 Nov 95 09:31 PST
Message-Id: <m0tDEL2-0002obC@bmi.bmi.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 95 09:31 PST
X-Sender: burlb@bmi.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
From: burlb@bmi.net (Burl Barer)
Subject: Re: the vocally impaired
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Sender: owner-talisman@indiana.edu
Precedence: bulk
Dear Talismanians
I would point out that Cats <pussies > sleep on the Couch . Linda being
a Doggy person has her dog under the couch on the floor and does not
know these fine points . Burl "powerful and important Baha'i "sources
tell me if Linda does not get the information on the TV program our
esteemed List Owner forgot to record for her . He will be sleeping with
the dog on the floor , under the Couch . I believe we should start a '
SAVE JOHN WALBRIDGE FROM THE FLOOR WITH THE DOG CAMPAIGN 'If we all
flood Linda's inbox with pleas to forgive John do you think it would
work ?
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut
Lions roaring in the forests of knowledge is preferable to pussies
meowing
under the couch.
Burl (I'm sure that's a quote from someone, somewhere) Barer
*******************************************************
Order MAN OVERBOARD, the new book by Burl Barer today!
*******************************************************
From burlb@bmi.netWed Nov 8 15:33:10 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 95 11:01 PST
From: Burl Barer <burlb@bmi.net>
To: Ahang Rabbani <rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.com>
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: review and Encyclopedia project
Dear Ahang:
I appreciate your recent suggestions, however I have an "old concern" which
I believe is brought up by the UHJ in their Individual Right and Freedoms
letter. Long standing and inveterate enemies of the Baha'i Faith are
ever-ready to sieze upon any mis-statement, tentative position, or erronious
conclusion to discredit and hold the Faith and its adherents up to ridicule.
I am, frankly, surprised that anti-Baha'i activists have not yet taken full
advantage of the WWW. I quick search of the word "Talmud" on your net
browser will instantly connect you to not only some fine Judaic research and
commentary, but also to STORMFRONT -- the neo-nazi anti-semitic homepage
with links to all manner of disgusting material -- holocaust denial,
assertions of an international zionist conspiracy, etc. These swastica
brandishing whackos are not browsed under "Whacko" but under "Talmud,"
"Jewish Studies" and other such reputable titles. Placing the entire
encylopedia in progress on the WWW is the same as sending a copy of this
unfinished and important project to the home address of each and every
avowed enemy of the Baha'i Faith.
Call me paranoid, if you like, but I think we must be prudent and not naive.
Whatcha think?
Burl
*******************************************************
Order MAN OVERBOARD, the new book by Burl Barer today!
*******************************************************
From richs@microsoft.comWed Nov 8 16:07:41 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 10:58:05 -0800
From: assistant to the Auxiliary Board
To: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
Subject: RE: RE: Re: NSA & Appeals
Juan,
From: Juan R Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu]
>Pete denies having actually talked to anyone in the canteen. The city
>council alleges that he did. I can't know which is correct.
I would contend that you cannot know whether an injustice has
occurred without knowing who is correct. In that sense, the only
appropriate way to deal with the problem is through appeal. I'll
endeavor to elaborate on this below.
>But what is outrageous, regardless of whether Pete did or did not, is
>that he should be put in jail for "backbiting" and that the person(s) who
>put him there are the backbitten.
>This last point seems not to be one I am able to get you to think about.
I believe I understand precisely what you're trying to get me to think
about: that a refusal to recuse oneself from a case in which one has
a personal interest is, a priori, an injustice. I thought I had adequately
answered this in my response to one of your hypothetical situations.
Apparently not.
The question is whether or not this idea conforms to the principles of
Baha'i Administration, and I contend that it does not. Among other
things, we have the specific statement that members of institutions
are _not_ required to recuse themselves from deliberations involving
even their own administrative rights. (The source is quoted in
_Developing Distinctive Baha'i Communities_. I don't have it on hand,
but I can find it once I get home.)
>What "law" did Pete break,
>even assuming his protestations of innocence are false?
I can't believe you aren't aware of the Kitab-i-Aqdas, paragraph
19 which explicitly forbids backbiting. If you aren't willing to stipulate
the existence of this law, then you've consigned your hypothetical
example to the realm of irrelevance in terms of Baha'i Administration.
It is the very existence of this law which has given rise to the
situations we've discussed. Without the existence of this law, it
would be possible to raise whatsoever public objections one would
want to raise about the personal conduct of any individual be they
members of institutions or not.
>If he did break a law, is it really right that he be sentenced
>by someone with a grudge against him?
The answer to this question is dependent upon more information
than we presently have available. First, we don't know whether or
not the Mayor and the City Council really do bear a grudge. We
do know that Pete has done something which might lead them to
bear a grudge, but there is insufficient evidence to establish this
as a fact.
Secondly, there are a number of situations under which an
Assembly can make horrendous decisions, and I'm not
convinced that the likelihood of unjust decisions merely due
to a personal interest of one of the Assembly's members is
significantly greater than any of these other circumstances.
Regardless of the issues being considered, Assembly's have a
very clearly defined decision-making procedure (Baha'i
Consultation). A failure to adhere to that process on any issue
is likely to produce faulty results.
The bottom line, I suppose, is that it just isn't so clear to me
that these hypothetical circumstances are as unjust as you
believe. I'm not saying that injustices can't occur. I'm only
saying that such cases don't appear to be so a priori
outrageous as to warrant a significant change in the structure
of the Administrative Order at this time.
If the change is warranted, any attempt to raise the issue
with the Universal House of Justice will have to have a
greater grounding in the writings than it has at present. In
particular, the issue of recusal will need to be addressed
via specific references to the Writings and not just a vague
sense of Justice.
Does that make sense? And, more importantly, do I
understand your position as well as you think I should?
Warmest Regards,
From briann@cruzio.comWed Nov 8 16:08:10 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 95 11:32:52 PST
From: Brian and Ann Miller <briann@cruzio.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: rstockman@usbnc.org
Subject: Rob's tribe
Dear Rob,
Can I join your tribe Rob? I hope it doesn't involve rites of passage
including unusual acts with flying squirrels. I would like to echo Juan's
appreciation for Rob Stockman. I too have found him kind, fair, judicious and
very helpful in his capacity as a member or our beloved institutions. His
work not only in the Research Office, but also for the Association for Baha'i
Studies has encouraged many young scholars and those of us who no long fit
that description.
I also want to thank you all, Juan,Bev, Linda,John,Quanta, Tony, Robert J., Derek, Brent, for
helping us get back on track with our discussions. The near flame war was
very painful to read and reminds me of Abdu'l-Baha'is warning that when we are
in contention, we are all wrong. the light gets obscured by smoke and the
insights are clouded by pain.
Warm regards,
Brian briann@cruzio.com
.
--
From shastri@best.comWed Nov 8 16:08:35 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 19:42:56 GMT
From: Shastri Purushotma <shastri@best.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: the vocally impaired
>Lions roaring in the forests of knowledge is preferable to pussies meowing
>under the couch.
Dear friends,
For the sake of unity of thought I'd like to make
something VERY VERY CLEAR.
I do not believe in naming names because everyone on this list is a
good person and has contributed incredible things and we are
all human and make lots of mistakes,
but one simple concept must be clear...
A LION ROARING IS EXCELLENT. A LION THAT GETS FOOD FOR THE GROUP
AND / OR DEFENDS THE GROUP AGAINST ATTACKS OF KILLER ELEPHANTS
IS EVEN BETTER.
HOWEVER WHENEVER A LION STARTS TO GO FUNNY AND TRIES TO BITE
OFF THE LEG OF THE LION KING THAT IS A VERY VERY DIFFERENT
SITUATION .. FOR GODS SAKE DONT TWIST THINGS AND CONFUSE
THE TWO SITUATIONS.
IT IS ONLY NATURAL THAT OTHER LIONS, CUBS AND WHO KNOWS
PROBABLY EVEN THE KITTENS WILL DO EVERYTHING THEY CAN TO
SAY: "BUDDY, CHILL OUT, GO FOR THE ZEBRA, YOU ARE MAKING
A FOOL OF YOURSELF DOING THIS!!!"
I think we are all intelligent enough to understand
the difference, and after reading the Will and Testament
know what actions are meritorious and
useful, and what are just plain dumb uses of the gift of having
"Lions teeth".
Love
Shastri
From osborndo@pilot.msu.eduWed Nov 8 16:08:54 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 14:59:29 -0500 (EST)
From: Donald Zhang Osborn <osborndo@pilot.msu.edu>
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Righteousness
Bev, Allah'u'abha! Thanks for your (American Heritage) dictionary search on
righteousness and other terms...
> ..................................................... An interesting note
> is that the word "Righteousness" refers to a "holier-than-thou" attitude. I
> couldn't call up the actual work of righteousness. All I got was
>
> holier-than-thou
>
> holier-than-thou (ho=B4l=EA-er-then-thou=B9) adjective
> Exhibiting an attitude of superior virtue; self-righteously pious.
[deleted]
> It seems inconceivable that Baha'u'llah would exhort us to be
> "holier-than-thou". Therefore, it might be worth considering what he really
> did mean by these words. I suspect some of us are using the same words with
> quite different intent...and perhaps not the intent which Baha'u'llah had in
> mind.
I'd be interested in knowing more about the Arabic or Persian terms used
in the original. As far as the English goes, I suspect that the translation
intended "righteous" (as your computer dictionary defines below) ...
> righteous (r=EC=B9ches) adjective
> 1. Morally upright; without guilt or sin: a righteous woman.
> 2. In accordance with virtue or morality: a righteous judgment.
> 3. Morally justifiable: righteous anger. See Synonyms at moral.
... plus the suffix "-ness": "state; quality; condition; degree" (from
the 2nd [print] ed. of American Heritage Dictionary).
In my experience,* dictionaries tend not to repeat the meanings obviously
derived from the root term. So the 2nd Am. Her. dictionary lists
"righteously, adv." and "righteousness, n." after the gloss for "righteous."
However, your computer based 3rd ed. has evidently picked up a meaning that
has become attached in common usage to the derived term, "righteousness."
(which is iteslf an interesting comment on the state of religion in
contemporary American society). I was not aware of this, but since you've
pointed it out I guess we should be careful when speaking of "righteousness"
etc., lest those who hear us think of that "holier-than-thou" sense in which
the word is sometimes (increasingly??) used in American English.
Nevertheless, the original meaning of "righteousness" (i.e. state or quality
of being morally upright...) would seem to still be current and valid.
(Actually, a trip to the Oxford English Dictionary might also be
instructive.)
Don Osborn osborndo@pilot.msu.edu
* I had a bout of lexicography a few years ago, which happily ended in
publication of a Fulfulde-English-French lexicon in 1993. I in no way,
however, claim to be an expert on dictionaries or lexicography.
--
From dpeden@imul.comWed Nov 8 16:09:01 1995
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 95 05:26:14+100
From: Don Peden <dpeden@imul.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Pussycats
Didn't the Bible say something about lions and lambs laying together? How
about lions and pussycats?
Love,
Bev.
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comWed Nov 8 16:11:36 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 12:49:12 -0800
From: DEREK COCKSHUT <derekmc@ix.netcom.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re:Joining Rob's Tribe! also Award for Talismanian Rob.
I consulted with my friend Burl . We are Rob's Agents as he is a
sercret "powerful and important Baha'i". You have to purchase 6 copies
of both of Rob's Books from the Bosch Bookstore and 10 copies of Burl's
Book 'Man Overboard'. For this outlay you receive an autographed copy
of Rob holding his latest book on his head at the ABS Conference and a
photograph of Sherman . Rob also has been awarded this week the station
of C. G. S. P. and can now place those after his name . Talismanians
will remember that my dear friend Juan Richardo Cole was given this
illustrious title last week . In case Richard Hollinger is worried we
do have copies of all titles available for those who wish to join good
old "Rob's Tribe"in the Bookshop . < Richard you never mention how
grateful you are for me always availing your fears on the book matters>
KIndest Regards
Derek Cockshut
From PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.eduWed Nov 8 16:19:37 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 13:06:49 PST8PDT
From: "Eric D. Pierce" <PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu>
To: jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: Juan's Thread - infallibility
Greetings Dr. Cole,
Thought you might appreciate this note of encouragement.
Talisman is getting better this week, as usual I find
your messages utterly brilliant!
Bye,
Eric D. Pierce
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date sent: Tue, 07 Nov 1995 10:59:58 -0800
From: Ron Somerby <RSomerby@smtp1.cdfa.ca.gov>
To: Pierceed@csus.edu
Subject: Juan's Thread - infallibility
Dear Eric: I've been making a paper record of your forwarded threads,
very time consuming! An electronic archieve would be easier, but the
volume would still make it difficult. I am coming to a better
understanding of the diversity of views "out there", wow! Yes I am
interested in Juan's thread on infallibility. I thought you might
send my comments the other day into the arena. As confirmation, I
received a comment on my view about "facts". Clearly, the subject is
quite complex because, in part, it deals with knowledge, truth,
language, certainly one's worldview.
I warmly sympathize with Juan's views. I feel his dialogue is
desparately needed to stimultate thought about our most basic
assumptions. I appreciate diversity tempering the overemphasis of
homogenity of belief.
Cheers, Ron
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comWed Nov 8 16:20:34 1995
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 95 13:25:01 -0500
From: Ahang Rabbani <rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.com>
To: burlb@bmi.net, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: review and Encyclopedia project
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
Dear Burl,
I agree that we must be prudent and not naive and we certainly
don't want to put a "kick me" sign on our collective back.
But, I think it would be equally unwise to minimize the excellent
overall quality of the Encyclopedia. Now, I know that the
quality of a few articles (less than 2% ?? John, please confirm)
has been questioned, but I believe judging the quality of Board's
membership, Administration's extensive involvement and the
credential of the contributors, that as a whole, the project is
of exceptionally good quality. Now, I could be wrong. After all
I have not seen any articles other than was was posted on
Talisman, but knowing the caliber of some of the authors, I would
say that the vast majority of articles are in a very good shape
as far as accuracy is concerned. Hence, I don't fear that we'll
come under attack based on the content of these articles.
Invariably, once the Faith becomes more broadly established on
the WWW world, I'm sure some nasty things will be posted against
it. These things tantamount to nothing but electronic graffities
which we need not fear. This sort of thing will happen
eventually regardless of what we put on WWW. We can have the
Gleanings there and then have some half-wit posting ugly
comments. So what? Who cares? Attacks will come, that's
guaranteed -- with or without Encyclopedia articles on WWW.
I believe if the editorial Boards feels strongly that what they
have produced is worthy of publication, (and obviously they think
so as they sent the whole thing to Haifa for final approval), and
the contributors are indeed the best and ablest that the Faith
has to offer today, then they should have no fear and proceed
with putting it on WWW. As Dan Orey just wrote in a private
note, turn it into a living document on a living, growing Faith!
much love, ahang.
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comWed Nov 8 16:25:45 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 12:33:29 -0800
From: DEREK COCKSHUT <derekmc@ix.netcom.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE. Review and the Encylopedia.
My dear Ahang and Tony
How do you propose obtaining all the papers for the 'Talismanian '
review when they are not the property of this informal list?. As Rob
and myself posted the matter is back with the House of Justice lets
wait and see what happens . The project has been so long in development
a few more months is not going to harm anyone . I also agree with Burl
this is not an exclusive List a little caution is advisable . I do
think exploring more what John posted on what is Scholarship and the
follow-up post by Stephen is the right way to go lets not be hidebound
in our approach that there must be only this way or this way to
Academic Work on the Faith.
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshit
From dhouse@cinsight.comWed Nov 8 17:43:08 1995
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 1995 13:04:30 -0800
From: "David W. House" <dhouse@cinsight.com>
To: Talisman <talisman@indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: "New scholarly paradigms"
Farzin,
>I do not think we would have anybody at the Fort Tabarsi or
>Badasht if they were trying to do too much balancing.
Was not Quddus, although besieged within the fort of Shaykh Tabarsi by the
battalions and fire of a relentless enemy, engaged, both in the daytime and
in the night-season, in the completion of his eulogy of Baha'u'llah--that
immortal commentary on the Sad of Samad which had already assumed
the dimensions of five hundred thousand verses?
Dawnbreakers, p 70-71
Whilst their enemies were preparing for yet another and still fiercer
attack upon their stronghold, the companions of Quddus, utterly indifferent
to the gnawing distress that it afflicted them, acclaimed with joy and
gratitude the approach of Naw-Ruz. In the course of that festival, they
gave free vent to their feelings of thanksgiving and praise in return for
the manifold blessings which the Almighty had bestowed upon them. Though
oppressed with hunger, they indulged in songs and merriment, utterly
disdaining the danger with which they were beset. The fort resounded with
the ascriptions of glory and praise which, both in the daytime and in the
night-season, ascended from the hearts of that joyous band. The verse,
"Holy, holy, the Lord our God, the Lord of the angels and the spirit,"
issued unceasingly from their lips, heightened their enthusiasm, and
reanimated their courage.
Dawnbreakers, p 389
I guess I'm not sure what you mean...
d.
David William House (dhouse@cinsight.com)
Computer Insight
23022 Yeary Lane N.E.
Aurora, OR 97002-0167 USA
(503) 678-1085 voice
(503) 678-1030 fax
"Well is it with the doers of great deeds." Abdu'l-Baha
From DAWNLIQU@fllab.chass.ncsu.eduWed Nov 8 17:44:24 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 16:26:59 EST
From: QUANTA DAWNLIGHT <DAWNLIQU@fllab.chass.ncsu.edu>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Darkness of past/Brightness of future
Dear Friends,
"When I live in the darkness of the past, I can't build a bright
future"- Quanta
"Expression and appreciation are twin processes in the psychological development
of the individual and the community"-Quanta
I joined Talisman at the encouragement of a Talismanian who
saw my postings at another discussion group regarding materialism.
My first exposure on talisman was the article by Jim Harrison
on "Axiology" as related to materialism in the West (to the
best of my recollection). I was ecstatic that this subject which is
also dear to my heart was given consideration by our scholars.
Then, I got distracted from the issue due to emotional involvement
in the discourse among talismanians and my own
countless failures to keep focused, which are known to God.
I read Jim's last posting and quiet honestly I think
he does have some very truthful statements about the state of affairs
in our community. But, one thing I also believe is that Talisman
have provided the opportunity for "diverse (victims of injustice, those
whose issues are not considered seriously by their respective
community's, those who feel unheard, those who claim ownership of the
Cause, etc. etc.) shades of thought, temperament and character" come
together and hash things out in temperatures varying from iceberg to volcanic
conditions. Quite frankly, I think it is better to be engaged in some
conversation than not having one at all as it's been the case in many
communitites in U.S. This is the first step, dialogue!
But, at some point things have to come together under a
collective umbrella by a unified vision, goal and objectives
without feeling a loss of personal freedom of thought and
special interests in serving humanity.
How can people whose interest are as diverse as the Covenant,
Unity, Review, Materialism, Community Development, Environment,
Institutional Development, Human Relations, Gender equality,
Deepening in Holy Writings, etc. etc. etc. come together whose
thoughts, temperaments and characters are as diverse as the issues themselves?
Well, I have no bright ideas, but hope to hear some thoughts and
suggestions for us coming together. Of course, you are free to ignore
all together what most of us seem to be looking for in the long run.
Please! three things to keep in mind especially for our Western friends
and those who acquired their ways; beware of these in your heart.
1) I want instant gratification of my desires
2) I want instant disposal of what is used for #1
3) I will instantly delete you out of my life with the tip of my
fingers.
Happy contemplations!!
lovingly,
Quanta Dawn-Light...(*_*)
========================================================
"When diverse shades of thought, temperament and character
are brought together under the power and influence of one
agency, then will the glory of human perfections be made manifest"
-Advent of Divine Justice, p.55 1988 pocket Ed.
===========================================================
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzWed Nov 8 17:46:56 1995
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 10:36:14 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
To: Burl Barer <burlb@bmi.net>, talisman@indiana.edu, Member1700@aol.com
Subject: roaring/masculinist mask/Juarez
(1) Dear Burl,
Re:
>Lions roaring in the forests of knowledge is preferable to pussies meowing
>under the couch.
>
>Burl (I'm sure that's a quote from someone, somewhere) Barer
As well as Baha'i allusions, I think there may be couple (at least) of
William Blake "Proverbs from Hell" tied into this senor. Let's see...
There's one that goes something like "The lion's roar...the strarry floor
is given thee till break of day", and another that goes something like "The
lions/tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction." (David
Taylor knows these things.) Another link between Blake and the Faith.
Chris Buck's recent letter on this slipped by me, hardly read. Before I
heard of the Faith, Blake "Proverbs from Hell" provided me with a
philosophy.
(2) Let's make this really simple Tony. Hearts are united through the love
of God, as mediated through the Covenant. The Covenant clearly establishes
the the House and our relationship to it. That which undermines our
relationship with the House, and challenges its integrity, runs contrary to
the Covenant, and, as the love of God dies in hearts, the reign of disunity
prevails. Ad hominem as used here is simply a masculinist mask -- the mask
of materialistic (in contrast with metaphysical) rationality. Let's get
real... ;-}
(3) The water at the US Consulate in Juarez must have been very, very good.
Robert ("proven incapable of civilized discussion") Johnston
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzWed Nov 8 17:50:01 1995
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 11:24:52 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
To: DEREK COCKSHUT <derekmc@ix.netcom.com>, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: RE. Review and the Encylopedia.
Dear Derek,
I noice you signed yourself
> Derek Cockshit
I must apologise for getting wrong before.
Robert ("who cares") Johnston
From shastri@best.comWed Nov 8 17:50:28 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 22:29:51 GMT
From: Shastri Purushotma <shastri@best.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Mr. Furutan Watch Analogy
Dear all,
Sorry to beat a dead horse but this has been a very
nagging horse so...
Another hillarious analogy I heard a very esteemed person
say Mr Furutan uses for helping understanding this
phenomenon:
(Just imagine this analogy being told Mr Furutan style!):
" When you have no watch, then you have the right to walk
around and ask people what time it is ....
when you do have a watch, you look like a real fool if you
walk around and ask people what time it is!"
(I guess unless in doing that you are admitting you don't think
your watch is capable which is a different matter -- why pretend to
wear the watch then??).
Likewise ... when you are searching for the Truth and don't
know about the Faith, you have the right to question with intense
skepticism the authority of the Writings and the Covenant ...
but once you have decided
to buy the watch and wear it ... you have accepted the Faith...
why do you now go and deny what you have found????
It's like the guy with a perfectly good watch walking the streets
asking people what the time is????? Go figure????
From osborndo@pilot.msu.eduWed Nov 8 17:51:03 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 17:33:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Donald Zhang Osborn <osborndo@pilot.msu.edu>
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Animal analogies (was re: vocally impaired)
Allah'u'abha!
Can we move beyond the lion vs. pussy-cat stuff? No creature among the
animals, after all, is better than any other, and it is not very helpful to
use the different creatures as proxies for whomever or whatever we do or do
not value in this list.
Nor is it very helpful to hold up growling and roaring--which are merely
territorial and aggressive vocalizations--as exemplifying something positive.
Nor for that matter does contrasting roaring with meowing (a false dichotomy
anyway) enlighten our discussion.
A lion is a powerful symbol, indeed, and in its milieu it is a fearsome
beast. But out of its milieu it is both dangerous and pathetic. And
increasingly within the wilds it "rules" it is being endangered by an even
more powerful creature.
None among the animals can manifest (as I understand it) more than one of
the divine virtues. Only humans have that potential. And only by education
can we achieve that potential. And part of that training deals with the
use of language & words. And yes, Baha'u'llah says that the wise should
speak primarily with "words as mild as milk." This does not mean meowing,
and it does not mean (as I interpret it) that strong (but well chosen!!)
words are not sometimes necessary.
We indeed hold within us many of the characteristics of what Abdu'l-Baha
calls the "animal kingdom." Yet it is not in these (chest-beating, roaring,
meowing, barking, or whatever) that we can achieve our highest.
Why should this have to be pointed out?
Don Osborn osborndo@pilot.msu.edu
--
From mfoster@tyrell.netWed Nov 8 18:07:11 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 16:34:29 -0600 (CST)
From: "Mark A. Foster" <mfoster@tyrell.net>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Theology and Science
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Dear Steven (Phelps), Steve (Friberg), and other Talismanians -
First, Steven, thank you for posting those excepts from the recent
compilation by the House of Justice on Baha'i scholarship. When I said
in a recent posting (right before my mail system temporarily shut down;
so I do not know what, if any, discussion ensued) that if we want to
know what *is* Baha'i scholarship, we need to read the words of the
Guardian, the House, etc., the passages you quoted were most of the ones
I had in mind.
IMHO, there is no *essential* fault with historical critical
scholarship. The problems are, as John Walbridge referenced, in its
"secular humanist" applications. The critical approach is one that I
personally, as a "neo-neo-Marxist" <g>, structuralist, and critical
sociologist, respect a great deal.
From my POV, it is unlikely that the statement made by the House,
which, according to John, referred to historical criticism as
"methodological agnosticism," was ever intended to dismiss this approach
wholesale. Rather, I suspect that the Supreme Body has been repeatedly
calling upon all of us to seek out creative and innovative styles of
applying Baha'i principles (many of which they included in the
compilation) to scientific and other scholarly researches. IOW, I think
that the House is more concerned about issues of tone and content than
of method.
One of the things to which I have objected previously are the
sweeping generalizations made about what Baha'i scholars think, feel,
and do - as if there is a general mold out of which all those who deeply
study a particular application of the faith (my *basic* definition of
Baha'i scholarship) are shaped. It seems obvious to me, especially from
reading the postings on this list over the past eight or nine months,
that there is no evidence whatsoever to support this position.
I have periodically seen some Talismanians complain that a criticism
of their own positions is an indictment of Baha'i intellectuals or of
intellectual thought in general. Recently, one of the beloved made a
posting which directly stated that people who oppose the views which
this individual expresses are anti-intellectual. Moreover, mentions of
anti-intellectual intellectuals strike me as exclusionary and
territorial and not as scholarly and receptive. To me, these views also
suffer from a degree of provincialism and, possibly, solipsism and
reflect a perspective on Baha'i scholarship which, IMHO, is contrary to
the standards called for by the House.
Steve, you wrote:
F >Mark and Sen are telling us that just because the old guys
F >(scientists and historical-critical analyticians of the
F >past) adhere to certain methodologies, that it "ain't
F >necessarily so" that it is the only way to go. Maybe we
F >ought to ask them to elaborate a bit more!
Hey, Steve! I don't know about Sen, but I *never* use the word
"ain't." It just ain't proper. ;-) (Actually, it is proper in some
usages, but who cares <g>.)
Well, I have already elaborated a bit. Actually, I see nothing wrong
with historical criticism. Historical method and historiography were the
basis of my Ph.D. minor in history. Also, since my minor professor used
this method in his own books, the two of us had long conversations about
it, and I ended up incorporating many of his methodological suggestions
into my dissertation (1984) which used both historical critical and
survey techniques to study the American pentecostal-charismatic movement.
Again, I do not regard the problem as one requiring a change in one's
methodological moorings but, perhaps, as one calling for a modification
in some of the metatheoretical (assumptive) foundations of most, if not
all, contemporary methods in the human sciences. I became a community
college professor (and here we are all professors since we have an
unranked system) so that I did not have to deal with the pressures of
publishing what is seen as value-neutral sociology, and I recognize the
challenges involved in getting papers published which do not conform to
present materialistic (IMV) academic paradigms.
From my perspective, true Baha'i scholarship will be a part of
Baha'i culture. Since we have not yet developed to that point, what we
now have is, at best, Baha'i scholarship in seed form. That is why I
think it is so important that we study the compilation from the World
Centre. To me, what we have in that document is the resurrected body
(Cause) of the Twin Manifestations guiding us to a true standard of
Baha'i scholarship - one which is based on the foundation of revealed
reality. All the material sciences then become what the Master called
"bridges to reality."
With loving greetings,
Mark
From osborndo@pilot.msu.eduWed Nov 8 19:00:31 1995
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 13:39:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Donald Zhang Osborn <osborndo@pilot.msu.edu>
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Tolerant vs. Righteous on Talisman?
Allah'u'abha!
When Baha'u'llah mentions tolerance, He also mentions
righteousness. This is one instance in the Writings where concepts
we are not used to seeing together are linked. In the past I have
thought it worthwhile to point out this particular instance to the
Friends who are discussing some divisive contemporary social issues,
as it often seems that one side calls for tolerance and the other
for righteousness, but in the ensuing debates, neither side is
either tolerant or righteous. I am dismayed now to see elements of
this old world order pattern in some of the recent discussions here
on Talisman: some people call for academic freedom (search for
truth) and others stress obedience to institutions (the Covenant),
yet it somehow degenerates into (what seems to this servant to be)
willfulness, judgementalism, and the most unhappy choices of words.
This on a nominally Baha'i list!
In addition to reflecting on how we choose to express ideas &
opinions, I would suggest that it might be helpful for all to
observe both principles of tolerance and righteousness in our
discussions. A "both-and" rather than an "either-or" approach to
these two principles seems to me to be one of the things that
should distinguish Baha'i methods of treating potentially divisive
issues from those methods prevalent in the old world order.
"... The heaven of true understanding shineth resplendent with
the light of two luminaries: tolerance and righteousness.
"O my friend! Vast oceans lie enshrined within this
brief saying. Blessed are they who appreciate its value,
drink deep therefrom and grasp its meaning, and woe betide the
heedless." Lawh-i-Maqsud (Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 170)
"This Wronged One exhorteth the peoples of the world to
observe tolerance and righteousness, which are two lights
amidst the darkness of the world and two educators for the
edification of mankind. Happy are they who have attained
thereto and woe betide the heedless." Tarazat (Tablets of
Baha'u'llah, p. 36)
Don Osborn osborndo@pilot.msu.edu
Dept. of Resource Development (Ph.D. student)
Michigan State University
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzWed Nov 8 19:05:27 1995
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 11:59:36 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
To: belove@sover.net, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: confinement, Kafka, chameleon [was: almost/probable]
My dear Philip,
I don't know that we get over soon enough this incredible sense of
confinement that we experience when we join the Faith. Just as modern
women have been learning/giving themselves permission to express their
anger, Baha'is too need to learn to let it (or "something" anyway) out in
order to move forwards to individuation. Community can only develop when we
move beyond excessively communitarian "cheek-by-jowl" models, which more
resemble sickly enmeshed families than anything else. I firmly believe
that individuation -- including finding one's "work", and what Khanum
calls giving yourself permission to be "yourself" -- is vital for community
health. I guess the path is lonely, but what is the alternative? Those
who stayed at home never found anything much (I can heard David Taylor cite
Kafka and Blake to the contrary...but I digress).
I think is fatally wrong to deny our own considerations/views of matters,
no matter how shoddily we believe they (the considerations/views) have been
sourced. And it is OK to act on our own behalf. So, it is also OK if we
move away a bit sometimes. This is not being unloving, necessarily. It
may simply be recognizing that we are not God, and the seeking of that
company that is right for us... Some time later we may find that those
things/people/events we don't like have -- perhaps like Lincoln's father --
improved in the meantime!
I think all this can be done without saying that 'Abdu'l-Baha was confused
or that the House made a silly decision. If we find ourselves saying
things like that then we really must give ourselves a good talking to,
don't you think?.
Robert ("talking across the table") Johnston
PS: see how influential Burl is?
PPS: At the bottom of your letters is written "This message was sent by
Chameleon." This morning, earlier, I was thinking of connections between
certain conceptions of language games and polyvocality, and the activities
of the chameleon. Coincidence perhaps.
From nima@unm.eduWed Nov 8 19:05:38 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 16:22:36 -0700 (MST)
From: Sadra <nima@unm.edu>
To: Ahang Rabbani <rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.com>
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: review and Encyclopedia project
Ahang jan--
You have a brilliant idea here. I say let's go for it! The motion is
third"ed" - is there such a word?!
Nima
---
O God, cause us to see things as they really are - Hadith
From sindiogi@NMSU.EduWed Nov 8 19:11:30 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 17:01:30 -0700 (MST)
From: "S. Indiogine" <sindiogi@NMSU.Edu>
To: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: reforms and apologies
Thank you for your answer. I should have answered you sooner but being
an Engineering student it is not that easy.
On Fri, 3 Nov 1995, Juan R Cole wrote:
> The passage in the Aqdas merely says that Baha'u'llah is embarrassed to
> speak about the custom of a slave-owner taking a slave-boy (ghulam) as
> his concubine.
Yes.
> The passage does not address the contemporary institution of same-sex
> marriage, since that did not exist in the Middle East.
Yes.
> There is another passage condemning "lavatih," by Baha'u'llah, which is
> probably a reference to married men carrying on with boys.
> I know of no passage in Baha'u'llah's writings addressing lesbianism.
Indeed, as far as the Writings of Bahaullah goes there is no ambiguity on
the issue. As far as I know, al-Bab and Abdul-Baha do not address this issue.
> The general Baha'i views of these things derive from Shoghi Effendi, who,
> however, did not have authority to legislate.
Here it gets complicated. What I have heard is that indeed SE does not
legislate but interpret. By his statement that KIA 107 refers to all
sorts of homosexual relations the prohibition would not only refer
to pederastry but to homosexuality in general.
What avenues are now open?
1. the interpretation is conditioned by SE's info, i.e. the medical opinion
of that time?
2. the interpretation is conditional since it is pertaining to
legislation and thus the eventual competence of the UHJ?
If we base our analysis on Bahaullah's statements I can manage to reach a
conclusion. The fact that SE dealt with the issue makes it much more
complex for me.
Any comments?
P.S. If you feel appropriate, I have nothing against posting this on
Talisman.
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 Ladiri@aol.comWed Nov 8 23:15:49 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 18:56:51 -0500
From: Ladiri@aol.com
To: dpeden@imul.com, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Sacrificing Children
Dear Bev,
Thank you for making this good point about the needs of children as pioneers.
As a child of pioneers and also being married to one, my husband and I have
never felt anything but appreciation to our parents for making this glorious
sacrifice and commitment. If this was always a bad idea for children, would
it have been a central part of our Faith? I think not.
Dear Friends, ask any child of pioneers and you will find that for the most
part their experience is positive, if not wonderful.
With Warm Baha'i Love,
Ladan Cockshut-Miller
P.S. Please forgive me if I'm covering old ground, I've only been able to get
to this posting 'til today.
From jrcole@umich.eduWed Nov 8 23:16:19 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 19:00:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
To: Donald Zhang Osborn <osborndo@pilot.msu.edu>
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Tolerant vs. Righteous on Talisman?
Donald:
with regard to Tarazat 2, Baha'u'llah counsels "tolerance" and
"righteousness," as you say.
The Persian is burdbari, which is defined by my dictionary as "patience,
forebearance, fortitude"; and nikukari, which means literally "doing good."
While forebearance is desirable in most situations, however, Baha'u'llah
and `Abdu'l-Baha were quite intolerant of injustice and denounced it in
the most intemperate language more than once. In SAQ `Abdu'l-Baha even
says that anger is good if it is directed against tyranny. It is not
even entirely clear to me how one can "do good" while countenancing
injustices.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpWed Nov 8 23:16:31 1995
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 95 9:23:41 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg" <friberg@will.brl.ntt.jp>
To: Burl Barer <burlb@bmi.net>
Cc: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: the vocally impaired
Dear Linda:
No worries about lions roaring in the Forest of Knowledge. It is
snacking on the Friends that concerns me! If you were the proud
mother of a wonderful young gazelle, wouldn't you be a bit concerned.
Yours, Steve
From KOLINSSM@hcl.chass.ncsu.eduWed Nov 8 23:16:57 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 19:10:16 EST
From: Steven Kolins <KOLINSSM@hcl.chass.ncsu.edu>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: rabin the martyr
...
> I am in agreement and sympathy of your grief over this event.
> I do have a question regarding your heart-felt response where
> you are mentioning names of groups and politicians.
> Considering the transitory nature of individuals and groups,
> is it adviseable for us to be involved in this way?
My first thoughts were to view the pattern happening in this world.
In Japan the Om Shim Rikieo (sp?) situation, i am lead to beleive, is
a profound shame to the Japanese comparable to the Israeli response
to this event - and even more remarkable considering the act of an
orthodox Jew a year ago to a Mosque full of Muslims. Then we have the
American version with everything from child-disappearences to the
Oklahoma bombing.
Each event has shaken some comfortzone rafters.
It all boils down to the fundamental unity of humanity. Of late i
have framed it thus: toleration puts people on reservations and makes
them glad to be put there. In light of the above events i might offer
the adaptation of Jesus' warning of a beam in one's own eye to any
apply to a culture, and therein note the position of the pupil.
We have a great deal to work on. Everywhere.
:)
Steven
All I need is Freedom of spirit, Chastity of soul, and Purity of
heart. A pov is not even secondary.
From JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduWed Nov 8 23:19:50 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 95 20:02:51 EWT
From: JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Observations apropos of this and that
1) As a Baha'i, I am a product of mass teaching. This should perhaps
induce some caution in any of you wishing to emulate the Houston model.
2) My pilgrimage group (Africans and Italians mostly) waltzed in the
House of `Abdu'llah Pasha. This horrified the custodian, but my old
friend Vahid Rafati of the Research Department later told me that
he knew of nothing in the writings prohibiting waltzing in the House
of `Abdu'llah Pasha.
3) Meanwhile on the left, there is a tendency in contemporary academics
to undermine on ideological grounds the prohibition against ad hominem attacks. The Marxists started it, and it has been carried on by feminists
and various sorts of post-modernists. I do not approve.
4) At the risk of disappointing Burl, the encyclopedia is a mind-numbing
mass of details on exceptions to ablutions rules, obscure Babi
martyrs, short-time pioneers to semi-inhabitated South Sea isles, and
the like. Enemies of the Faith would doubtless find it far more
convenient to collect damaging facts and factoids from such sources
as the works of William Miller, where they are lovingly gathered and
given the least flattering possible slant.
5) With respect to Ahmad Aniss' posting of Peter Khan's comments on
Baha'i scholarship: I was very struck by them because last night I attended
a lecture on 17th century English philosophy. This was the transition
between the Reformation and the Enlightenment. The particular position
that Dr. Khan advocates is that then held by the more extreme Calvinists
and Lutherans: that scripture is the standard of truth. (The alternatives were
the tradition of the church, Catholics; inspiration, the Enthusiasts; and
reason, Anglicans.) It is also the position of modern Islamist groups like
Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. I do not agree with it, since I think
that Baha'u'llah quite often appeals to reason and other sorts of evidence
as support for the plausibility of revealed teachings. I think it is not
an adequate basis of modern scholarship, Baha'i or otherwise, since I
do not think that all questions can be answered by deduction from the
Baha'i writings nor can the Writings themselves be correctly
understood without reference to objective rational evidence.
6) I cite another incident, at a seminar two nights ago.
We were reading one of St. Augustine's early works ("Against the
Academicians, late 4th cent.) In it there was an allusion to the belief
that Greek philosophy had a Jewish origin. One of the participants
observed that this idea had a long history, being cited as late as the
Reformation. Not wishing to appear foolish, I confined myself to
observing that it was cited by "certain modernist groups emerging from
Islam." This, the relative old-timers will recall, is the subject about
which I said `Abdu'-Baha was "confused" (although specifically with
respect to confusing Socrates with Empedocles, which could happen
to any of us).
7) With regard to the watch analogy, I think that what we have is not a
new watch but something more akin to a new computer. Its functioning
and possible uses are not always completely obvious and therefore
are well worth investigating and discussing with others
8) Dr. Khan's comments, for whatever it is worth, seem a fair reflection
of the thinking of the House as shown in recent letters and compilations.
I don't think that these views are particularly well founded, however.
Consider: "the community has a non-adversarial attitude towards acquisition
of knowledge which is oriented to service of the Faith." This seems to
imply that it has an adversarial relation to knowledge that *is not*
oriented towards service of the Faith. Now, if all this means is that
the scholar's heart ought to be pure and devoted to the service of God,
well and good. It seems to me, however, that this statement can also be
read as giving scholarship a purely instrumental function in the
Faith--it should *only* be done to serve the practical interests of the
Faith. I think such an interpretation is pernicious because it is contrary
to the principle of independent investigation of truth and is a constant
temptation to abuse. This is why American universities developed the
tenure system.
9) The particular criticisms of modern scholarship
quoted by Steven Phelps--the spiritual dangers of scholarly objectivity,
the problems caused by the specialization of disciplines, etc.--seem to
me to echo various popular criticisms of scholarship originated by
fundamentalist groups in the United States. Unfortunately, I think
the way that the House has phrased these criticisms--particularly in
the context of the particular issues that provoked these letters--reflect a lack of understanding of how modern scholarship works.
Finally, let us remember the old story about the circus that had an
exhibit of a lion lying down with a lamb. Some local asked the keeper
how they managed it. "It isn't hard," said the keeper, "You just need a
new lamb every day."
john walbridge
From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduWed Nov 8 23:20:01 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 95 20:54:37 EWT
From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: meows and roars
Derek, is Sherman going to take Don Osborne's comments lying down? Get him off
the couch and show him what is on the screen. I want to know his reaction.
Linda
From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpWed Nov 8 23:21:22 1995
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 95 11:16:17 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg" <friberg@will.brl.ntt.jp>
To: Member1700@aol.com, friberg@will.brl.ntt.jp
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Discussing the Covenant
Dear Tony:
Thanks for the compliments.
I am sorry that I did not make it clear that I was employing the
Socratic method of argument. What I was trying to bring out was
the implications of your words to the effect that anything was
allowed. Clearly you don't believe that!
Next, I tried to show by logical argument (sorry if I muddled it)
that if you accept the need for restrictions about discourse (i.e.,
no ad hominen attacks, no backbiting, etc), then there should be discussion
and agreement about what those limits are. You and I have our own
ideas about what those limits are, and others have their own ideas
too.
What I tried to say if we try to impose limits, it is not different
than someone else trying to impose limits. The differences are in
what those limits are.
For example: I might say, you can't talk about racial issues in the
community, because it is divisive to do so. (I give this as an
example of some limits that someone may wish to impose.) Another
person might say: "we shouldn't spend so much time talking about
issues except those concerning how to overcome our community's
racial problem." Now, even though both points of view are
diametrically opposed, both are the same in that both *operate*
to impose limits on the discussion.
(I'm sorry if this seems unnecessarily complex, but scientists tend
to analyze problems this way, and I am a scientist.)
So, what I tried to say next is that on Talisman there are differences
of opinion on what those limits are, and that 1), we should recognize
the legitimacy of those differences, and 2) arbitrary imposition of
standards, be they whatever, is arbitrary imposition of
standards. From the *operational* point of view, there is no
difference. Both operate as a coercive mechanism. The only way to
break out is by consultation.
So, if I try to impose some standards, and you try to impose some
standards, then we are both doing the same thing. What those
standards are is immaterial from this point of view. Now, there is
some subterfuge to what I am saying here. Let me bring it out into
the open. What I am saying, in effect, is that from this viewpoint
what you and the others are doing is exactly the same thing.
Your words are different, your reasons are different, operationally
the results are the same.
This is not to say that you are wrong, and the others right. Or that
you are right and the others wrong. Wrong or right is a judgement
call, a moral claim.
Now, here is the other part of my subterfuge: I am trying to cast the
issue into the framework of modern "Western" scholarship, historico-
critical analysis if you will. From this "objective" perspective,
I am saying that you are doing exactly the same thing that your
protagonists are doing.
I notice that you don't like it when I do this, "in fact (you) could not
diagree more. (you) find (my) point of view on this matter quite
incomprehesible and potentially destructive." Not only do you not
understand what I am trying to say, but you react very negatively
against it. Now think! How is this different than what your
protagonists are doing?
Probably this is still confusing, so lets go on with this discussion
a bit more. As you might see, I am trying to show that your reactions to
events on Talisman are very similar to other peoples reactions, the
ones you don't like. And you don't like my Socratic, analytic style
where value-judgements are put aside when it is applied to ideas you
hold dear. (Let me assure you, I hold those ideas dear too!)
Does this cast any light on the nature of the opposition on Talisman?
Yours sincerely,
Stephen R. Friberg
From dhouse@cinsight.comWed Nov 8 23:21:39 1995
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 1995 18:28:09 -0800
From: "David W. House" <dhouse@cinsight.com>
To: Talisman <talisman@indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: infallibility
Friends,
>I never understood what infallibility means and
>how to dance with its stiffness.
My thought is that error is a human characteristic, since it is a necessary
aspect of the ability to choose. Infallibility would seem to encompass the
ability to choose, and imply beyond that either or both the knowledge and
power of the Creator; i.e., the choices made are "perfect" because they
derive in some manner from perfect knowledge, or because they are creative.
"No thing prevents Him from being occupied with any other thing."
"He hath only to say Be and it is."
As far as "stiffness", this would seem largely interpretive. The universe
itself does not seem "stiff", and infallibility, regardless of whatever else
might be said about it, would clearly be in complete harmony with the universe.
d.
David William House (dhouse@cinsight.com)
Computer Insight
23022 Yeary Lane N.E.
Aurora, OR 97002-0167 USA
(503) 678-1085 voice
(503) 678-1030 fax
"Well is it with the doers of great deeds." Abdu'l-Baha
From mfoster@tyrell.netWed Nov 8 23:22:34 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 20:56:13 -0600 (CST)
From: "Mark A. Foster" <mfoster@tyrell.net>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Science and Religion
To: talisman@indiana.edu
John Walbridge wrote to talisman@indiana.edu:
J>The particular position that Dr. Khan advocates is that then held by
J>the more extreme Calvinists and Lutherans: that scripture is the
J>standard of truth.... I think it is not an adequate basis of modern
J>scholarship, Baha'i or otherwise, since I do not think that all
J> questions can be answered by deduction from the Baha'i writings nor
J>can the Writings themselves be correctly understood without reference
J>to objective rational evidence.
John,
That was not my understanding of Peter Khan's comments. I have
spoken with him privately on a couple of occasions and have also
listened to him speak publicly several times and never had the
impression that he believed that the Sacred Texts and the words of the
Master and the Guardian could be used in an insular fashion.
For example, he was reported as having said:
As Baha'is we have accepted the authority of Baha'u'llah
through our independent investigation of His Message and
His Station. This means that we accept His Teachings as
Truth. This is the basis of Baha'i scholarship. Baha'i
scholars are, therefore, believers in Baha'u'llah. Thus
they write as believers.
To me, he states the obvious - that Baha'i scholars must write about
the Baha'i Faith *as believers*. He later said that Baha'i scholars
would not be honest if they failed to acknowledge that they *were*
believers.
He was also quoted as saying:
This does not mean that they are objective in the way
they search for and present facts. If belief in Baha'u'llah
is considered to make us biased scholars, so be it.
So, Khan is arguing for an objective presentation of facts. IOW, as I
understand what he said, we do not distort the data, but we also use
revealed truth as the basis for our assumptions.
Later, he apparently said:
In the past religious scholars have perused [sic.?] the
study of their religion in two extreme directions. Some
have blindly followed the letter of the Revelation without
a searching attitude. This has lead to fanaticism. Others
have doubted and questioned everything, even the Revelation
itself. Baha'i scholarship must avoid these extremes. Baha'i
scholars display a combination of loyalty to their Faith and
its institutions, and search for truth.
Therefore, Khan does not appear to be advocating a literal understanding
of texts. Everytime I heard him speak (when he was the ABM where I was
was living at the time on Long Island, New York), I was always impressed
with the depth of his knowledge and with his ability to transcend the
letter.
Using the revealed words as foundational to one's understanding of
reality does not mean that one must be attached to the literal meaning
of passages. It does mean, IMO, that one starts out with an assumption
of the truth of the teachings and engages in both spiritual scientific
(textual) and material scientific research with the goal of
understanding the meaning of the Revelation - which shines its light on
all areas of knowledge.
Blessings,
Mark
From dhouse@cinsight.comWed Nov 8 23:22:55 1995
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 1995 19:19:09 -0800
From: "David W. House" <dhouse@cinsight.com>
To: Talisman <talisman@indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Righteousness
Bev, Donald, friends,
Righteousness appears to be used in the two primary meanings in Scripture.
Self-righteousness:
Luke 5v32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance...
Luke 18v9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves
that they were righteous, and despised others...
Along with a good many other references regarding righteousness as holiness,
such as:
2Thessv5 Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye
may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer...
d.
David William House (dhouse@cinsight.com)
Computer Insight
23022 Yeary Lane N.E.
Aurora, OR 97002-0167 USA
(503) 678-1085 voice
(503) 678-1030 fax
"Well is it with the doers of great deeds." Abdu'l-Baha
From ahmada@acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.auWed Nov 8 23:23:13 1995
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 14:30:55 +1100
From: Ahmad Aniss <ahmada@acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.au>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Lions and pussies
Dear Talismanians,
Dear Burl,
You wrote:
> To: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
> From: burlb@bmi.net (Burl Barer)
> Subject: Re: the vocally impaired
> Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
>
>
>Lions roaring in the forests of knowledge is preferable to pussies meowing
>under the couch.
>
>Burl (I'm sure that's a quote from someone, somewhere) Barer
Yes! Lions and meowing pussies are both part of the animal Kingdom, and so
wolves, hyenas and vultures, but yet these later ones are from the dark-side of that
Kingdom. Isn't that so?
With regards,
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 gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduWed Nov 8 23:24:29 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 20:55:07 -0700 (MST)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]" <gpoirier@acca.nmsu.edu>
To: Member1700@aol.com
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Covenant
On Tue, 7 Nov 1995 Member1700@aol.com wrote:
> Brent, what an excellent insight into the nature of the institution of the
> House of Justice as 'Abdu'l-Baha envisioned it! I had never put things
> together quite that way, but your argument was very convincing. I can't wait
> to see the whole article that you are contributing to DEEPEN. Do you suppose
> that you can post the whole thing on Talisman?
Sure, if there is interest.
I can revise the article from WP 5.1 for DinOSaurs and move all the
footnotes into [brackets in the text]. I had thought particularly of
asking you to look it over for readability, Tony, since reviewing the
writing of others is your profession.
I would appreciate the comments of others, as well, as it is presently
scheduled for the January issue, so there is time to revise it.
Many thanks
Brent
From dpeden@imul.comWed Nov 8 23:24:48 1995
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 95 14:02:16+100
From: Don Peden <dpeden@imul.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Valley of Knowledge
Dear Friends:
This mornings readings brought me to this, and I thought I'd share it. You
all know it, so it is just a breeze through our discourse...a throwing open
of the windows and breathing deep of the dawn.
"...he will enter THE VALLEY OF KNOWLEDGE and come out of doubt into
certitude, and turn from the darkness of illusion to the guiding light of
the fear of God. His inner eyes will open and he will privily converse with
his Beloved; he will set ajar the gate of truth and piety, and shut the
doors of vain imaginings. He in this station is content with the decree of
God, and seeth war as peace, and findeth in death the secrets of everlasting
life. With inward and outward eyes he witnesseth the mysteries of
resurrection in the realms of creation and the souls of men, and with a pure
heart apprehendeth the divine wisdom in the endless Manifestations of God.
In the ocean he findeth a drop, in a drop he beholdeth the secrets of the sea.
"Split the atom's heart, and lo!
Within it thou wilt find a sun"
The wayfarer in this Valley seeth in the fashionings of the True One nothing
save clear providence, and at every moment saith: "No defect canst thou see
in the creation of the God of Mercy; Repeat the gaze: Seest thou a single
flaw?" He beholdeth justice in injustice, and in justice, grace. In
ignorance he findeth many a knowledge hidden, and in knowledge a myriad
wisdoms manifest. He breaketh the cage of the body and the passions, and
consorteth with the people of the immortal realm. He mounteth on the
ladders of inner truth and hasteneth to the heaven of inner significance.
He rideth in the ark of "we shall show them our signs in the regions and in
themselves." and journeyeth over the sea of "until it become plain to them
that (this Book) is the truth." And if he meeteth with injustice he shall
have patience, and if he cometh upon wrath he shall manifest love."
Here in Kampala, the sun is rising over green vines still dusty with the
night shades. The sky glows pink and orange as the sun rises out of Lake
Victoria. The mist of the morning joins the rising sun in its ascendancy
like attendants to the king. Birds warble their welcome to each other and
busy themselves with the first morning's blessings before the heat of risen
sun burns us all with its intensity.
Life will continue, today will bring opportunities...what will we do with them?
Love,
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzWed Nov 8 23:25:24 1995
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 17:10:42 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
To: JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Observations apropos of this and that
Dear John,
Re:
[1] >ad hominem attacks
When I was growing up an ad hominem attack went something like, "You
wouldn't know anything because you haven't blown your nose and your
father's fat." Of course that is a foolish way to argue. In the context
of Talisman ad hominem attacks go more like this: "You said the sky is
purple, therefore you are a jerk." Of course that is a foolish way to
argue too. But are these really worse forms of argumentation than the one
which includes the possibility of 'Abdu'l-Baha being confused or the House
being silly? I am suggesting that this too is a kind of covert ad hominem
argument -- one which really goes like this: "Because I am cleverer than
your father, I am right, and you are a jerk." But, please, are you able to
explain more fully what you mean by ad hominem? ;-)
[2] >In it there was an allusion to the belief that Greek philosophy had a
Jewish origin.
In this matter at least, it would seem that Baha'i intellectuals will trail
the field, but it won't be because they weren't well instructed. Strange
how the ruling caste suppresses truth, generally speaking... ;-} (sigh!)
[3] >With regard to the watch analogy, I think that what we have is not a
>new watch but something more akin to a new computer. Its functioning
>and possible uses are not always completely obvious and therefore
>are well worth investigating and discussing with others
But wouldn't it be damned infuriating if there were an essential programme
on the computer which we were prevented from examining because the owner
was arguing that the computer was really a horse, and therefore in need of
hay and water and not electricity and human intelligence? :-}
Robert.
From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduWed Nov 8 23:25:48 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 21:16:21 -0700 (MST)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]" <gpoirier@acca.nmsu.edu>
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Reverent criticism
On Sun, 29 Oct 1995, Timothy A. Nolan wrote:
> ...criticism should
> be done in such a way that it shows respect for the institution,
> that it does not undermine the authority and prestige which are
> the right of the institutions, that criticism not consist of
> imputation of base motives to members of these institutions [etc.]
This quote from the Guardian fairly leaped off of the page and I felt
that it expressed somewhat of a wry humor as well:
"We must always remember that ... some of those who make the worst
nuisances of themselves to their National Bodies are often very loyal
believers, who think they are protecting the true interests of their Faith
by attacking N.S.A. decisions!"
>From a letter on behalf of the Guardian to the NSA of India dated May 8,
1948; Lights of guidance, 2nd Ed., p. 185. Portion deleted....
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzWed Nov 8 23:25:57 1995
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 17:19:52 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
To: Ahmad Aniss <ahmada@acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.au>, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Lions and pussies
Our good friend Ahmad wrote with obvious approval:
>Yes! Lions and meowing pussies are both part of the animal Kingdom,
Am I rather too Freudian, but does not this sound like another version of
the active-passive argument? As I have said, Heidegger reckoned each of us
has only one idea, or something like that!
Robert.
From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduThu Nov 9 01:16:34 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 21:32:30 -0700 (MST)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]" <gpoirier@acca.nmsu.edu>
To: Don Calkins <drc@commonlink.com>
Cc: Baha'i Discuss <Bahai-Discuss@BCCA.Org>, Talisman <talisman@indiana.edu>
Subject: Washington DC
On Sun, 29 Oct 1995, Don Calkins commented on:
> The attached is a file from alt.folklore.urban regarding the claim that
> someone said that because new inventions were decreasing, the U.S. >
> patent office might as well close....
I'd like to address something that I came across more than a decade ago
in the book "239 Days." In the chapter on Washington DC, there
is a quote from a newspaper editorial writer that when the Master came to
Washington DC he entered the White House like He owned it; and that in His
Honor the US Supreme Court and the US Congress adjourned for the day!
A couple of us set to work looking through the Congressional Record: No
reference to this event.
I wrote to the US Supreme Court, and their archivist checked the archives
for the days that the Master was in DC; and somewhat snootily responded
that there was no such reference to the Court adjourning.
Presidential records are much harder to trace, as the White House archives
are not kept in one place. They are distributed through many university
libraries, and more recently, retained at individual Presidential
Libraries. The US Archivist said that from available materials, there
was no such reference for the dates I inquired of.
In any case, I soon realized that these events had not occurred, and that
if they had, they would have been of such an unprecedented nature that
they would have received wide press coverage. Then, in the early 1980's,
while working as Cook'o'llah, I happened to pass through the office while
Molly King was speaking to the book's author. I told him that I had
investigated, and that these claims did not appear to be true. He said
that he was sure that they were *not* true. I asked why he had included
them, quoting without critical commentary from the newspaper article. He
said that he thought it was of historical interest that that the reporter
had even written it (which is true, but I would have preferred a footnote
to that effect.) I don't know if anybody else came across this, but I
thought I'd take this opportunity to make this point on this interesting
quotation.
Brent
From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduThu Nov 9 01:16:51 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 21:55:53 -0700 (MST)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]" <gpoirier@acca.nmsu.edu>
To: "Don R. Calkins" <Don_R._Calkins@commonlink.com>
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Ruhiyyih Khanum
On 29 Oct 1995, Don R. Calkins wrote:
> This discussion of Ruhiyyih Khanum brings up a question I have had for many
> years - what is the significance of the title 'Amatu'l-Baha'? I tho't I read
> that Shoghi Effendi told her that she did not receive the title until she
> deserved it but I can't find such a statement any more. Am I correct that it
> can be translated 'Maid-servant of Baha'?
It is the feminine equivalent of 'Abdu'l-Baha.
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzThu Nov 9 11:48:25 1995
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 21:09:57 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
To: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: new paradigm
Juan,
>But I personally think Baha'i scholarship needs a trench, and that it can
>only get one for the moment by borrowing the technology of Western
>academia, and that if the Prophet Muhammad can get in and dig, so can I.
Sounds more like a grave than a trench.
Robert.
From dpeden@imul.comThu Nov 9 11:48:46 1995
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 95 18:15:58+100
From: Don Peden <dpeden@imul.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Lions
Just thought I would give you all a realistic picture of lions (having had
personal experience of them in the wild).
Lions don't usually roar in the day...only at night, and it is either to
call a mate or to declare territory.
Lions are notoriously lazy. Males rarely hunt...only if reaaalllly pressed.
They prefer to recline in the shade and let the females of the pride hunt.
You do not usually see lions hunting...it is a rare and exciting thing when
it happens. Mostly, they all lay around in bushes, four feet to the air, in
total relaxation. They don't seem to mind tourists viewing them in repose,
so long as the tourists stay in their vehicles. They also occasionally find
a nice big fig tree and hang around there, draped in the branches like wet
spagetti. These are the famous tree climbing lions.
Lions do not hunt or take the best of their prey. They usually isolate a
weak, young or old speciman, one who can be isolated and brought down by the
pride. The kill is then dragged back to the pride, although if it is large,
the pride will come to the kill, where papa has first go, lionesses and cubs
last.
Male lions do appreciate a harem, and do not appreciate interlopers. When
young male lions reach sexual maturity and are any threat to the dominant
male, one of them will have to go. The ousted lion will wander off and
either hunt alone (one of those occasions when they have to hunt) and will
pick on the easiest prey they can find, including humans on bicycles, or
humans otherwise available (read "Lunatic Express" which is the history of
the building of the railway in East Africa, and yes, it is true) or find a
new harem if they are able. Sometimes some of the females will leave with
the outsed male if the pride is too big. When a lion is cornered, it can be
a formidible enemy. Lions are usually playful and patient with their cubs.
But if a youngster angers the male, it is possible he will kill the cub.
Still want to use the lion as an analogy?
As far as pussycats go, well, I'm a dog person myself. The closest I have
come to a cat was Sylvester, a huge black and white tom cat who lived with
us, and who use to like to wrestle with our two BIG dogs, and taught Shadow
(the dumber of the two) how to hunt mice. Sylvester was too lazy to hunt,
and so trained the dog to do his job. Shadow learned well.
Lots of love and laughs,
Bev.
From burlb@bmi.netThu Nov 9 11:49:58 1995
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 95 00:13 PST
From: Burl Barer <burlb@bmi.net>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Progressive Revelation (by the back door)
I have been quiet of late on Talisman (is that a world-wide sigh of relief?)
because I have been busy "doing" instead of discussing -- but I did manage
to squeak out a post to my other favorite discussion listserv,
Dorothyl@kentvm.kent.edu. While the list has *nothing* to do with religion
and everything to do with mystery and crime writing/reading, I do find
subtle ways of sneaking in fragments of Baha'i concepts. For those of you
who have missed the pleasure of postings from such a "powerful" and
"influential" Baha'i such as myself, allow me to share a well received post
on the topic of book signings.
****
SIGNINGS: Historically, signings have *not* gone well. Even post signing
responses are iffy at best. Consider Moses. He went to a private autograph
party on a mountain, brought back a signed limited edition, and his pals
couldn't have cared less. Now, perhaps it was the economy of style that put
them off, or the obtrusive nature of the commanding narrative voice, but be
it form (I doubt they were waiting for it to come out in paperback), or
content (too complex to internalize quickly) the initial response was not
one to encourage sequels. Fame and acceptance were a slow building process
-- there were eventual addendums, the inclusion of poetic praises, and it is
claimed by millions that the same author penned several sequels known by
diverse titles from different publishers (Gospels, Qur'an, Bayan, Aqdas) and
apparent prequels (ZendAvesta, Gita, Sutras). The real tragedy is, from an
authors standpoint, not only were the signings unsuccessful, the initial
readership was low, and the eventual wide-spread international accliam
occured prior to 1900 and the advent of copyright laws. But, just as that
never-ending author continues to issue new releases every 500-1,000 years to
an unreceptive audience and negative reviews, so I continue to trapse off to
WaldenBooks, Media Play, and the loving independents. I show up at readings
to face empty chairs, smile over snacks as browsers leave bean-dip
fingerprints on the glossy dust jackets, and insist aloud that I would not
have written the book if it weren't good -- I shout that buying my book is
the opportunity of a lunch-time, a chance to own one of the most prestigious
book-ends of the 20th Century, an affirmation of their support of literacy
in America, a testimony to their love of literature, a chance to give two
gifts for the price of one -- the joy of reading, the treasure of an
autographed first edition -- and they look at me as if I just interrupted
their meaningful communion with a golden calf. I follow them as they snork
their way over to the self-help section ("You don't need help," I yelp, "you
need an astonishing story of fraud, deception, trickery, lies, and fine
prime rib!"), They cast dark glances over their puffy polyesther shoulders;
I'm stalking them down the aisle of positive affirmations, snapping at
their heels like an inbred pomeranian, a carnival barker guesing the weight
of their wallets and the firmness of their sales resistance. They buy The
Horse Whisperer or a Far Side calender and go home. I go outside, smoke an
Old Gold, buy a Whopper, and drive home. Fame. I love it.
***
Now, with all that said, imagine the signing tour for the Baha'i
Encyclopedia.. a tram packed with testy terrestials, bracketing their
footnotes from one end of the Baha'i world to the other, snapping at each
other over orders of eggplant and sides of beef from Houston to Haifa and back.
Oh...are any of you in Philadelphia? I am going to Philly on Friday for one
of my rare personal appearances and wonder if anyone is celebrating
Baha'u'llah's Birthday on Saturday night in Phillly. I will be at the
Independence Hall (Mall?) Holiday Inn and speaking on a panel re: "inside
the criminal mind" on Sunday morning.
Burl
PS: Does Sherman's spiritual station make him "Paws of the Cause"?
or "Claws of the Cause"?
*******************************************************
Order MAN OVERBOARD, the new book by Burl Barer today!
*******************************************************
From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpThu Nov 9 11:51:51 1995
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 95 18:15:08 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg" <friberg@will.brl.ntt.jp>
To: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>, friberg@will.brl.ntt.jp
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: new paradigm
Dear Juan:
I liked your reply to Steven, encouraging him in his studies of Arabic
and Persion trenches! I agree with much of what you say. What's more,
I think that our discussions are getting back on track.
Where I disagree, and the disagreement is one of emphasis and perhaps
not of substance, is in the emphasis that you place on the *Western
Academic* mode of scholarship. It is plenty apparent to me, and I
think it should be to everybody else too, that the *Western Academic*
mode of scholarship is not under attack by any responsible authorities
as being unacceptable *unless* it seems to be too ruthlessly agnostic.
Indeed, our authorities, many of whom are Persian, recoil from some
of what they see as Western scholarly excess. No surprises there!
The problem then, as you and John have outlined, is the flexibility
of this "too ruthlessly agnostic" business. Somebody is making a
judgement call, and "they" are calling the judgement different than
you.
Now, there are several ways to get out of such an impasse. One way,
clearly, would be to respond obediently to what "their" suggestions
seem to be. If "they" are the House of Justice, that doesn't seem
such a bad idea (after a couple of exchanges of letters back and forth
to clarify things). But clearly, there are practical difficulties.
The other way to go is to continue to do scholarship in the best way
that you know how. You can call is "western academic" or "tertiary
perpendicularic" or whatever you want, but the truth is that it is
simply your way of doing scholarship, and it is strongly influenced
by a number of factors, perhaps one the all-around major one being
the Baha'i Faith, with Mirza Abu Fad'l (sp) a close second.
Now, when we look at it this way we find that indeed, Juan Cole, and
Chris Buck, and John Walbridge and others have already started to make
this leap from agnostic secular scholarship to a more universal style
that accepts the validity of all religions and and all revelations.
Do others see that? Apparently not very clearly (by the way, I'm very
sympathetic to the thinking of engineers and scientists, and sometimes
I can even understand it. An interesting discussion later, perhaps?)
Apparently, this lack of insight has surfaced with regards to the
Encyclopedia. Personally, I feel that it is not well understood
how far you and others have moved towards what they want, simply
because there is little awareness of the norms of academic western
scholarly discourse. We see all the time on Talisman the lack of
awareness of these norms!
I can't say that you have tried to help "them" see that. Your main
intent, if I judge correctly from what I see on Talisman, is to make
them as angry as possible, and goad them into attack. So much for
the diplomatic touch! No wonder this issue is getting nowhere!
I could rant and rave about this for quite a while, I am so furious
about it! Why don't you give yourself and your friends a chance?
Why do you have to present scholarship in the worst possible light?
(Linda is encouraging me to rant and rave, "put it on the table" is
what she says.)
For me, it is very easy to see where the major difficulties are.
Think of the blow-up on Talisman and imagine it happening over a
period of years and years, with distrust building on both sides.
Then you can easily see what I see.
Clearly, something must be done to clear away the distrust. The
poison must be cleared from the atmosphere. But the mountain is
not going to move just for you!
Anyway, enough ranting and raving for now.
Yours respectfully,
Stephen R. Friberg
From dpeden@imul.comThu Nov 9 11:52:06 1995
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 95 21:15:56+100
From: Don Peden <dpeden@imul.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: more about lions
Did I forget to mention that when lions mate, they copulate up to 60 or 70
times a day until the female is impregnated? Feel up to it, all you lions
out there? I really think you better look for a more appropriate analogy.
More love and laughs,
Bev.
From CMathenge@aol.comThu Nov 9 11:52:54 1995
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 09:33:08 -0500
From: CMathenge@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Context vs. the Writings
Dear Talispersons,
I don't think anyone is suggesting that Baha'is should be forbidden to use
Lights of Guidance as a reference; however, I would have to agree with Tony
and Terry that Shoghi Effendi's letters as quoted in that book can sometimes
be misleading if a letter that was apparently intended for a specific context
of time and place is taken as a general rule.
A case in point: It is my understanding (based on hearsay, however, and
perhaps incorrect) that some years ago the Los Angeles LSA asked the L.A.
Baha'i Youth Workshop not to hold its rehearsals at the Baha'i Center, due to
a letter in Lights of Guidance in which the Guardian forbade dancing in a
Baha'i Center in another country, and perhaps 40 years earlier. It is my
guess, which may again of course be completely erroneous, that the Guardian
did this in the context that in that particular remote part of the world at
that particular time, dancing was interpreted as irreverent or irreligious by
the general population or by certain factions, and he did not wish the
Baha'is to offend. He very probably did not intend this letter to be taken
as a general rule applying to all Baha'i Centers throughout the world for all
time.
While I certainly think Lights of Guidance is a valuable compilation and have
no desire to see it banned, I see no harm in pointing out the possibility
that care needs to be taken in using it as a general guideline in situations
in which an entirely different context may apply.
Peace,
Carmen
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
Carmen Mathenge
Los Angeles, California, USA
Contact me for expert word processing, copy editing, and
English assistance. International students/scholars welcome.
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
From Don_R._Calkins@commonlink.comThu Nov 9 11:57:23 1995
Date: 09 Nov 1995 07:45:40 GMT
From: "Don R. Calkins" <Don_R._Calkins@commonlink.com>
To: gpoirier@acca.nmsu.edu
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Ruhiyyih Khanum
> It is the feminine equivalent of 'Abdu'l-Baha.
OK, but is there some station involved here? It was my understanding that
this title is one which could be given to the wife of the Guardian. It's
also intereting that she reports that Shoghi Effendi said that he would not
have married her if her mother had not been May Maxwell. And, so far as I
know, they are the only family where mother, father and child were Hands of
the Cause.
Don C
- sent via an evaluation copy of BulkRate (unregistered).
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comThu Nov 9 12:00:20 1995
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 95 08:59:01 -0500
From: Ahang Rabbani <rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: "five hundred thousand verses"
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
In a recent posting, David House drew our attention to a passage
from the Dawnbreakers, p 70-1 where its quoted:
"Was not Quddus, although besieged within the fort of Shaykh
Tabarsi by the battalions and fire of a relentless enemy,
engaged, both in the daytime and in the night-season, in the
completion of his eulogy of Baha'u'llah -- that immortal
commentary on the Sad of Samad which had already assumed the
dimensions of five hundred thousand verses?"
The question of how large this commentary of Quddus was, is
actually dealt with in two different ways in the Dawnbreakers:
in a couple places is mentioned that was "five hundred thousand
verses" but other places in the same book its mentioned as 6
times the size of Qur'an.
Unless somebody sets me straight, I think there is a discrepancy
between these two estimates. Qur'an is generally considered
around 6,600 verses (plus of minus a little depending how you
count certain passages), by comparison the Kitab-i Aqdas is 478
verses. Anyway, 500,000 verses makes this commentary of Quddus
nearly 76 times the Qur'an and not 6 times as reported also by
Nabil. Of course unless Nabil was using a different definition
of "verse" which I don't think so as the Bab in the Persian Bayan
had defined "verse".
My guess is that Nabil somehow got his notes on Quddus and the
Bab mixed on this issue. It is the Bab who in the Persian Bayan
gives an estimate of the size of His Writings as 500,000 verses,
and I think Nabil had this in mind but also somehow transported
it to Quddus -- a not uncommon mistake!
I would welcome pleasantly worded rebuttals of this theory.
One of the challenges in studying the life and writings of Quddus
is to try to separate what reference relate to the Bab and which
ones to Quddus, as the past narrators certainly have confused the
Two on many instances.
love, ahang.
From JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduThu Nov 9 12:02:41 1995
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 95 10:42:00 EWT
From: JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Scholarly paradigms
It is true, as Stephen Friberg warns, that the picture of a blowup
over scholarship taking place over a number of years is not a pretty
one. Unfortunately, that is exactly what has happened, with more
and more people marginalized as it has gone on over the last 15 years.
A brief chronology of events. Juan can perhaps correct some dates:
ca. 1980: MacEoin's withdrawal from the Faith following a series of
disagreements with the British NSA and House of Justice over
scholarly issues.
the Research Department's memo on scholarship
early 1980s: the flap over the West Los Angeles Study Group newsletter
extensive review problems with regard to Kalimat's academic
books, notably the Babi and Baha'i History series.
flap over Juan Cole's article on the Tablet of Wisdom
mid-80s: the suppression of Kalimat's edition and translation of Salmani's
memoirs of Baha'u'llah. (It was finally published in a bowdlerized
form.)
late 80s: the dialogue affair
the letter on Rights and Freedom reaffirming
review and central control of discourse
90s: the Baha'i encyclopedias troubles
insistence by the House on inappropriateness of Western academic
methods
These are public events. There are also numerous smaller incidents, most
involving individuals. There has also been some progress: Rob Stockman's
appointment as research director in Wilmette with immediate improvement
in the quality of review in the US, the progress made by ABS, the
Newcastle seminars in Britain, etc.
Part of the problem is generational. There are a batch of younger people
who are now in mid-career and wish to get on with their scholarly work
and are not particularly impressed by the current policies.
I can't speak for other people, though I suspect their experiences are often
similar to mine. I started out in good faith and actually rather
expected to spend most of my career in Haifa. My first big professional
shock came when I was on the Executive Committee of the Association
for Baha'i Studies and things were done over my objections that seemed
to me to be wrong morally and in content and procedure. I got over
that, being a good Baha'i, ignored the rather odd experience of an attempt
by the World Center to recruit me, and went on to organize the Baha'i
encyclopedia. That turned out to be endless heartaches, during my
tenure as editor mostly because individuals were treated badly. (I am
*not* referring to myself, although I could.) Simply put, I thought it
was wrong to, in effect, tell people that they had been chosen as
sacrifices for the good of the Cause. Eventually my tolerance and good
will ran out (I can tell you the exact moment: it was a weekend on
which I received a major NSA decision about the encyclopedia on which
I had not been consulted and also received the so-called "Rights and
Freedom" letter.) At that point, I had had enough. I eventually found
another job where I was treated with respect and was not accused of being
a bad Baha'i if I objected to something or other. This is why I now
think about letters from the House rather than just accept them at
face value.
I have seen other people go through similar experiences, not just in
scholarship but also in the arts, teaching, administration, etc. Treating
people in such a way has a very heavy opportunity cost. Talented,
energetic people want to be allowed to work. If you interfere with
them all the time, sooner or later they will get disgusted and go away,
as I have seen many, many good Baha'is do.
I am reminded of the Confederate soldier who was called unpatriotic for
complaining. "Sure I love my country," he said, "but if I get out of this
alive, I am never going to love another one."
john walbridge
From barazanf@dg-rtp.dg.comThu Nov 9 12:05:34 1995
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 11:38:08 -0500 (EST)
From: Farzin Barazandeh <barazanf@dg-rtp.dg.com>
To: Talisman <talisman@indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Mr. Furutan Watch Analogy
Yes. Another point of unity between all religions!
We all think we have a watch and it is foolish to synchronize with others.
I thinks we should send this "Watch Analogy" to our
brethren in Qum and Lynchburg they would love it!
Farzin
From jrcole@umich.eduThu Nov 9 12:12:41 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 15:21:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
To: Burl Barer <burlb@bmi.net>
Subject: Re: reforms and solutions
Burl: bless your soul. cheers Juan
From jrcole@umich.eduThu Nov 9 12:12:41 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 15:28:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
To: an assistant to the auxiliary board
Subject: RE: election turnover
Oh, you are absolutely right about subjectivity/objectivity issues. The
only thing is, they cannot be escaped (Americans inevitably feel
differently even about something so old as the War of 1812 than
Britishers do. Did not stop my colleague Brad Perkins from writing about
it). Nor do I see that as thinking, spiritual human beings we are in a
position always to suspend judgment.
Perhaps because I am known to believe in human rights, and known not to
be an insider, fair numbers of Baha'is have begun sending me documents.
I am entirely aware that one has to be careful about people with axes to
grind; about getting both (or all four or five) sides. But some of the
documents are indisputably genuine and indisputably reflect very badly on
the state of human rights within the Baha'i community. I do not
understand how it is that we can stand idly by while our own community
suffers (and commits) injustices. I admit that my heroes are Gandhi and
King.
cheers Juan
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 1995 09:10:28 -0800
From: David W. House <dhouse@cinsight.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: reforms and solutions
Juan, friends,
At 01:10 AM 11/1/95 -0500, you wrote:
>A. Problem 1: Lack of civil society; the lack print space for frank and
>open discourse; censorship practices.
>
>Solution 1: In my view, if Review is abolished, everything else can follow.
> ...
>[discussions take place,] But for it to flourish, the governing institutions
>must withdraw from censorship practices and agree to press freedom,
>uncensored stage plays, and so forth.
I'm not sure who would do this, given that such reviews were established at
the behest of the Guardian. If anyone is not aware of this, I will offer the
requisite quotes. In any case, evidence offered by this forum does not lead
me to believe that uncensored is better.
>B. Problem 2: Derailing of the Baha'i [Encyclopedia] for silly reasons...
Forgive me for being so ignorant of this issue, but I am not aware of the
history. From discussions which I have seen, however, I thought this was a
decision of the Universal House of Justice. If so, then following a logical
syllogism, it would seem that what is being said... well, I will not
specify. It should be clear.
>Solution 3: Why not just be open with the Baha'i community and
>publish the details of NSA salaries and perks?
If such information would inspire more such discussion, I would suggest that
we never be offered the opportunity. Far better for us to be sheep than
wolves, if that is our only choice. What is clear, at present, judging by
the level and nature of discourse on Talisman, is that we are not mature
enough to properly integrate this information. As Americans, we clearly
mistrust our institutions, and that mistrust has exacerbated the problems of
the Institutions of the Faith in this country immensely, profoundly, deeply.
Beyond this, many implications unfold from the reality that Baha'i
Institutions do not have a constituency. The fact of the matter is that the
NSA is not bound to provide this information, and while we might, with the
greatest deference and humility, request it (although I, for one, cannot
imagine that it is of any significance to us), the National Spiritual
Assembly of the United States may choose not to offer it. If we cannot
accept that, we have accused ourselves of immaturity, demonstrating the
initial point.
>Problem 4: Widespread disgruntlement with the NSA
>judging cases where it or its members are interested >parties.
This is presumptive, in the sense that no evidence of this is provided. I
hesitate, however, to point this out, since it would seem to be a request
for such information, and I can assure you that I do not want it.
The generic point is that such issues are the exclusive perview of the
Institutions, and the only possible outcome of raising it publicly is to
diminish the general level of understanding that such is the case, and to
provide grist for the mill that would grind up the Faith, if it could. That
is, in response, as these words are in response, we begin to discuss the
pros and cons of this as if we had either some right to do so (and if we do,
it would have to be a *much* more civil and indeed more in the form of a
deepening, discussing the implications of various quotes), or more
pertinently, as if we had some power to choose or change, which we clearly
do not.
>E. Problem 5: Baha'i individuals who have their rights removed do
>not have the right to see the evidence against them; do not have the
>right to confront their accusers; and, indeed, have no rights at all
>except that of appeal (which the NSA insists be done through it!).
Sigh. See response above...
>Solution 5: A bill of rights for Baha'i individuals needs to be
>devised and appended to the NSA by-laws.
A th roughly American solution, no doubt. Have we forgotten that the by-laws
of the NSA were approved by the Guardian? If the thought is that these
by-laws have a fundamental flaw, then what is being said about the Guardian,
and indeed the Covenant? How often, in the past, have calls which appeal to
an incompletely realized understanding of the Covenant led to mischief and
suffering? A reading of the history of the Cause should cause us to fear for
the life of our very souls, should we determine to do battle with the
Institutions of the Faith.
>Problem 6: The Baha'i electoral system does not work very well
>and tends to produce a sort of elective dictatorship. All criticism of
>policy is cast as "negative campaigning," leading to a virtual ban on
>creative thinking.
It may also be that valid responses to such comments have not yet been
addressed. So far, I have not seen even a modest fiction of an analysis
which would demonstrate that there is an iota of truth in the assertions
being made. As I previously pointed out, statistical analyses of the past
are interesting, but not predictive, and thus cannot provide proof of the
assertion. Was any other evidence provided? If so, my apologies, for I
missed it. Apparently it bears repeating that when we say that we believe
errors which are glaring, fundamental, structural, and of long history exist
in the NSA and its workings, then we are necessarily saying that the
Universal House of Justice cannot or does not or will not address these errors.
The system being criticized was established through the workings of the
Covenant, and it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the Covenant is
therefore under attack, although my profound hope and current assumption is
that this is not the motive.
I for one feel drained, aghast, shaken, and stunned as if I had been bitten
by a snake. I am not being pejorative, truly; I am rather trying to share
something of my emotional state, and the response which my cells provide to
me, in order to offer some insight into any intemperance my words might reveal.
Beyond this, if such discourse, with such a tone and so wounding to the body
of the Cause continues, I intend to recommend, as one member of the
Community of the Most Great Name, that the National Spiritual Assembly
consider closing down this forum.
[I cannot as yet imagine the response that will get... Batten the hatches!
The smoking lamp is out! Dive, Dive! Ahhhooogahhh! Ahhhooogahhh! Torpedoes
incoming!]
I do not intend to offer this as a threat and I apologize if, in context, it
might seem as such. I very much enjoy discussion, and look forward to
reading the latest on Talisman. Indeed, since joining I have spent far too
much time reading and writing; and it has been, for the most part, a source
of considerable enjoyment to me. But friends, let's face it: if we continue
on this course, it will not matter if we request it ourselves, for it will
be done in any case.
Freedom of any sort implies commensurate responsibility. We cannot insist on
our rights without being passionate about our responsibilities, and I
believe we are too ready, in some instances, to do the former without
undertaking the latter. When the balance has been too greatly ignored, it is
no longer a personal issue: it becomes a community issue, and requires that
the community act to protect itself.
If I found the content merely offensive, I would simply quietly slip away.
But this, for me, is becoming a Covenant issue, and I feel about attacks on
the Covenant like I feel about attacks on my children. I must fight to
retain a sense of balance and to make appropriate responses. Absent the
Covenant, mankind will certainly plunge into irredeemable darkness, and my
children, and my children's children, will certainly suffer. If I must
choose between my suffering and theirs, I will choose mine.
As such, although it would clearly be unjust, and would cause difficulties
for some, if we cannot discover our proper boundaries then I cannot see that
such discourse serves the community, and some of us must suffer the
dissolution of this forum as the price of our inability to police ourselves.
I would also suggest that many of the painful decisions (painful for either
them or us) made by the Institutions have this sort of damned if you do and
damned if you don't quality. I think of Solomon offering to cut the child in
half for the two disputing women. In the end, however, that scene is
instructive, for the two women (the ruled), by their insistence on their own
position, provided Solomon (the ruler) with no better choice. Our own
misdeeds, ignorances, immaturities, and refusals to change our course when
offered gentler advice will also lead to similar consequences.
And if we blame the Institutions, we are far too cavalier regarding our own
part in the problems.
d.
David William House (dhouse@cinsight.com)
Computer Insight
23022 Yeary Lane N.E.
Aurora, OR 97002-0167 USA
(503) 678-1085 voice
(503) 678-1030 fax
"Well is it with the doers of great deeds." Abdu'l-Baha
From jrcole@umich.eduThu Nov 9 12:12:42 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 15:53:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
To: "David W. House" <dhouse@cinsight.com>
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: reforms and solutions
Dear David:
I am sorry that my post so upset you. It was meant to be constructive.
If it did leave you shaken, then I can only suggest that Talisman may not
be your cup of tea. This is not meant in a mean-spirited way, as a "love
it or leave it" sentiment. It is heartfelt. Talisman is a subculture,
and is not for everyone. Why upset yourself?
I am sorry you chose not to reason with my points, but to engage in a
litany of "you cannot say that." I can hardly reply, having been
forestalled by being silenced. There is no argument for me to engage.
In some instances you admitted you knew nothing about the issues
involved, and did not want to know. So you will excuse my inability to
respond to your points; it is not meant as a slight.
I find your invoking of the Covenant in order to silence me deplorable.
(Have you, by the way, ever risked your life for the Covenant?)
But it is good in a way for us all to be reminded of this ultra-Right
political culture that has such sway in the American Baha'i community.
What a wonderful New World Order, where we are all dictated to and if
anyone raises a peep, she can be shouted down by the word "Covenant." I
sigh, I weep. Please read Orwell and think again.
As for the threat to "have Talisman closed down," this is also deplorable
and unacceptable. I can understand and respect your saying "I want no
part of this." But to take it upon yourself to decide what discourse the
rest of us can engage in is arrogant and authoritarian. I am
unimpressed, by the way. When I was pioneering in war-torn Beirut, I was
working for a newspaper and had occasional problems with the Syrian
censor. Now, the Syrian government slaughtered 10,000 of its own
citizens in Hama just three years later. So I have been censored by the
best. These stiff-necked American Baha'is cannot measure up to Hafez
al-Asad, however fearsome they think they are.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From jrcole@umich.eduThu Nov 9 12:12:43 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 18:57:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
To: an assistant to the auxiliary board
Subject: RE: election turnover
Rick: Thank you for your level-headed post.
I'm not really concerned with the misbehavior of individuals, and really
have no idea what their motives for it may be.
I am concerned that certain structures allow or even encourage certain
sorts of improprieties. The structures we now have are embryonic. What
is wrong, when we see them malfunctioning, with trying to fix them? What
is wrong with cyber-consultation as a vehicle to that?
I am afraid that the reduction of Counsellors' terms to five years has
rendered them relatively less powerful vis-a-vis the elective
institutions. They worry about being reappointed if they make waves.
Moreover, some of them are so imbricated in the system that they simply
cannot see its flaws. Birkland is a very good man, but he is therefore
out on a limb all the time.
I respect very much the Way that you have worked out and your attempt to
ground yourself in the Writings. I guess I just ground myself in
different Writings. I think of `Abdu'l-Baha, an exile and prisoner in
Akka in 1875, hated by both the Ottoman and Persian government, sitting
down and writing Secret of Divine Civilization, full of proscribed and
illegal ideas; and of his cheek in actually having it published in
British Bombay, away from the censorship laws of the Middle East; and
having it smuggled into Iran as contraband, circulating it widely among
the Friends and the reformers. What astonishing courage, what
high-minded aspiration! How good to strive to be like our Exemplar.
cheers Juan
From jrcole@umich.eduThu Nov 9 12:12:43 1995
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 00:20:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: PRAYERS FOR PAKISTAN (fwd)
FYI JRIC
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 1995 11:29:00 +1000
From: Abbas Hooshmand (06) 268 4947 <Abbas.Hooshmand@caa.gov.au>
To: Baha'i Announce <Bahai-Announce@BCCA.Org>
Subject: PRAYERS FOR PAKISTAN
Allah'u'abha
Speaking with the secretary of the National Spiritual Assembly of Pakistan
on the phone last night, I enquired about the way Pakistani resident Baha'is
of Karachi cope with the turmoil in Karachi.
I was given re-assurance that the Pakistani resident Baha'is were okay and
content with God's will, whatever it is. But he asked me to say prayers for
the 1200 Persian Baha'i refugees in Pakistan, many of them suffering dire
adversity. Having spoken with some refugee arrivals in Australia before, I
became aware that quite sadly a great proportion of the Baha'i refugees in
Pakistan are suffering from severe financial hardship since the U.N. is not
as receptive as it used to be in the past. Quite a large number of them are
refused U.N. assistance and God knows how they are coping with life and day
to day necessities. The situation is very depressing.
If we can't do anything for them at least we can pray.
God bless you all.
***********************************
abbas.hooshmand@caa.gov.au
Abbas Hooshmand
Canberra: Capital of Australia.
Baha'i' population around 150
Fax: Australia 6 2684332
Ph: Australia 6 2684947W 2531929H
*************************************
From jrcole@umich.eduThu Nov 9 12:12:44 1995
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 01:47:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: reforms and apologies
David House has been very big in his further comments, and it is only
right for me to say also that I probably over-reacted in my post to his.
E-mail is a very hot medium. It comes directly from the screen into the
subconscious (which is what explains the appeal of cyberpunk sf).
Writing for this medium is in many ways exactly the opposite of writing
fiction. In a novel, you have to *exaggerate* the distinctive traits and
behaviors of characters, or else they simply do not shine through. In
e-mail, you have to tone everything down or it shouts. Sorry, David, if
I shouted.
But aside from matters of tone and etiquette, it is not useful, it seems
to me, for us to paper over real differences. I have come to believe
that the Baha'i faith is in many ways very badly administered,
*especially* when it comes to matters of the intellect. Being an
intellectual, this annoys me. And I am afraid that the Baha'i
institutions have demystified themselves for me. I recognize that the
NSA and the Universal House of Justice are the ultimate authorities and
their rulings are the law. I just don't think much of some of their
rulings, and want to see them overturned by future, wiser successors.
And I don't think we will get real change by being silent. (We may not
get it by talking, either; but Baha'u'llah advises us that "utterance"
(bayan) has great power, and it is, in fact, the equivalent in the Baha'i
Faith to the Muslim and Babi swords). So I don't think utterance/bayan
is necessarily fruitless, either.
It is no secret that I and many other Baha'i intellectuals are furious
about the House's suppression of the Baha'i Encyclopaedia. And this
affair is one of the things driving my suggestions for reform.
I am a pluralist. I support the right of everyone to develop their own
discourse, assuming that discourse does not pose a real and present
danger to anyone (you can't yell "fire!" in a theater, you can't incite a
crowd to beat up a Jew or Muslim or Baha'i, etc.), and assuming the
discourse does not aim at gaining power so as to silence other discourses
(as with Fascist and Communist political movements). In fact, discourses
aimed at silencing people through power rather than through argument
rather anger me. So I don't care if Baha'is want to believe in ether and
dispute Darwinian biology and think the sneezes of people in Haifa are
infallible and fear the evaporation of US cities tomorrow and assert that
a Baha'i theocracy will find a way to treat religious minorities
equitably. I don't believe any of these things, and won't be made to. I
will argue against them if they are put to me. But it is fine with me if
these beliefs exist and are expressed for the subcultures that believe in
them.
But many Baha'is are not pluralists. Their understanding of the Covenant
is such that they will admit of only one discourse. They consider Baha'i
subcultures illegitimate. And so they attempt to ban the subcultural
discourse of Baha'i intellectuals. I have seen this happen over and over
again in my Baha'i life--the LA study class notes, some Kalimat projects,
including Salmani, *Dialogue* magazine, and now the Encyclopaedia. There
is a frankly totalitarian edge to all this banning and concern with what
discourse the Covenant allows, and it frightens me to death. Until the
Baha'is resolve this problem, they will never be more than an
insignificant, exotic outlier in US religion (and until they resolve it I
hope they never are more than that).
It should not be mysterious what the reasons are, for this conflict.
Those with more education, especially in the liberal arts, are less
likely to believe in miracles, Catastrophes, scriptural inerrancy, and so
forth. In US Protestantism, the denomination system allows educational
segregation among believers. The educationally backward South produces
Southern Baptists, while the affluent and educated Northeast produces
Unitarians and Episcopalians, etc. Of course, these things are
never neat, and cross-cutting cleavages exist. There are Engineering
Ph.D.s who never learned how to read a text contextually, and who are
therefore fundamentalists. There are anti-intellectual intellectuals,
etc. But by and large the correlation I have proposed between religious
"liberalism" and high levels of (liberal arts) education holds true.
Now, in the Baha'i faith we do not have the luxury of separating into
denominations. The highly educated equivalent of the Unitarians are in
the same congregations with the minimally educated equivalents of the
Southern Baptists. And what I see is that the equivalent of the Baha'i
Southern Baptists, instead of being tolerant toward the Baha'i
"Unitarians," have attempted to ban or control the latter's discourse.
THIS IS SIMPLY NOT FAIR. Although the national and international
Institutions have a fair number of highly educated persons on them, they
have adopted a policy of the lowest common denominator. Any discourse
that offends the lowest common denominator is banned; essentially,
scriptural literalists are given the veto over Baha'i intellectuals.
This policy was openly admitted to the LA Study Class in the early 1980s
by a member of the NSA.
Many on Talisman are intellectuals who have been suppressed over and over
again all their lives, and we're just not putting up with it any longer.
It is fine with me if someone wants to believe in the virgin birth of
Jesus of Nazareth. I'm sure that is a very meaningful belief to some
people. But I don't believe in it. It is scientifically as close to
impossible as any phenomenon I know of (women have two X chromosomes and
lack the "Y" for a boy; parthenogenesis could only produce a daughter).
And I think my lack of belief in it is plausibly grounded in the Baha'i
principle of the unity of science and religion. Shall this conclusion be
silenced by the scriptural inerrancy crowd? Or can't we learn to live
together in a pluralist Baha'i society, tolerating many discourses?
Tolerating even a Baha'i Encyclopaedia?
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From jrcole@umich.eduThu Nov 9 12:12:48 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 01:08:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: reforms, unapologetically
David: It is not your fault, but many of the points you make were made by
others a year ago, and we fought them out for months, and for the most
part I just do not have the energy to do it all over again. My archives
of Talisman are also on diskette by month and retrieving things is
laborious, so I can't just download the past discussions to you (though
for anything since May Eric Pierce can do so if you ask him). But it is
not fair to you, since you want a dialogue, not to respond at all. So I
will sacrifice working on my book to reply to you tonight.
David House quoted:
"First regarding the birth of Jesus Christ. In the light of what
Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha have stated concerning this subject it
is evident that Jesus came into this world through the direct
intervention of the Holy Spirit, and that consequently His birth was
quite miraculous. This is an established fact, and the friends need not
feel at all surprised, as the belief in the possibility of miracles has
never been rejected in the Teachings. Their importance, however, has been
minimized."
(From a letter dated December 31, 1937 written on behalf of the Guardian
to an individual believer) LofG #1637
JC: I agree that the Guardian's secretary wrote this passage. I also
know of a Persian Tablet by `Abdu'l-Baha that rather ridicules Western
scientists who do not accept Jesus's virgin birth.
But I just don't go to `Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi for my science.
Very little was known yet about genetics when they were alive, and even
DNA's discovery is only from the 50's. Science can only reveal to us
probabilities, not absolute certainties, of course. But the probability
of a virgin birth is so low in my view that it can be safely dismissed as
historical fact. Since, in addition, both `Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi
Effendi thought miracles did not prove anything, I'm not sure why it
matters. In *Miracles and Metaphors* Mirza Abu'l-Fadl has an amusing
argument for the inconsequentiality of miracles as proof of anything.
The fact is that Jesus is given contradictory genealogies in the NT, and
probably the writers of them had no idea about his parentage; but one
line does imply descent through his father, Joseph.
In other words, my stance takes seriously the principle that when
religion contradicts science it is superstition. I would not be so harsh
to the virgin birth (or this one, since so many have been alleged of
god-men in history) as to call it superstition. But it is myth, in the
sense of a meaningful story, the meaning of which does not depend on its
historical facticity. As a late 20th-century thinker, I cannot find this
sort of myth meaningful in a primary way, though I can perhaps glimpse
what it must mean to believers in it, from a distance. I don't think I
am missing anything crucial.
David House continues:
>I would also like to demonstrate my lack of wisdom by continuing the
>discussion:
> It is incumbent upon them who are in authority to
> exercise moderation in all things. Whatsoever passeth
> beyond the limits of moderation will cease to exert a
> beneficial influence. Consider for instance such things
> as liberty, civilization and the like. However much
> men of understanding may favorably regard them,
> they will, if carried to excess, exercise a pernicious
> influence upon men. Please God, the peoples of the
> world may be led, as the result of the high endeavors
> exerted by their rulers and the wise and learned
> amongst men, to recognize their best interests.
Gleanings p 216
This and the others you post are very nice passages, favorites of mine,
but I suspect I do not think they mean what you think they mean. They
also have to be balanced by other passages:
First of all, when Baha'u'llah criticizes "liberty" he is using the word
hurriyyah. I have demonstrated that hurriyyah in the 19th century meant
both license (immorality, libertinism) and political liberty
(democracy). Baha'u'llah condemns libertinism and loose morals, of
course. But then he goes on to say that he approves of liberty in
certain regards; since he advocated British-style parliamentarism, it is
clear that he approved of liberty in the sense of democratic liberty.
I'll go on to quote from things that I've written that have apposite
citations from the Writings in them:
In his chronicle of the Babi and Baha'i movements, `Abdu'l-
Baha deplored the religious persecution practiced in nineteenth-
century Iran, writing, "[To ensure] freedom of conscience (azadigi-yi
vujdan) and tranquillity of heart and soul is one of the duties and
functions of government, and is in all ages the cause of progress in
development and ascendency over other lands."1 This passage
emphasizes that to ensure freedom of freedom of conscience is a duty of
the state.
1`Abdu'l-Baha, Maqalih-'i Shakhs-i Sayyah/Traveller's Narrative, 1:193;
2:158.
Already by 1875 `Abdu'l-Baha was arguing to Iranian conservatives
with regard to European conceptions that "This liberty (hurriyyat) in
the universal rights of individuals (huquq-i `umumiyyih-'i afrad) " is
not "contrary to prosperity and success." ( `Abdu'l-Baha, Risalih-'i
madaniyyih (Hofheim-Langenhain: Baha'i-
Verlag, 1984), p. 19; my translation, for technical purposes.)
Of the European Crusades and Wars of Religion `Abdu'l-Baha says in
Traveller's Narrative:
"The principles and essentials of the happiness of
the human race were in abeyance; the supports of
kingly authority were shaken; but the influence and
power of the *heads of religion and of the monks*
were in all parts complete.
But when they removed these differences,
persecutions, and bigotries out of their midst,
and proclaimed the equal rights of all subjects
and the liberty of men's consciences, the lights
of glory and power arose and shone from the
horizons of that kingdom in such wise that
those countries made progress in every
direction . . . These are effectual and sufficient
proofs that the conscience of man is sacred
and to be respected; and that liberty thereof
produces widening of ideas, amendment of
morals, improvement of conduct, disclosure of
the secrets of creation, and manifestation of
the hidden verities of the contingent world."
(`Abdu'l-Baha, Traveller's Narrative, Wilmette edn., p. 91).
[JC: The last phrase of the Master's pretty clearly refers to science
and the need for it to be unfettered from religious dogma in order to
thrive. I underline his disdain for a society controlled by the
ecclesiastical authorities.)
In later years `Abdu'l-Baha preached these ideals in the West. He
greatly appreciated the American constitution. At the Central
Congregational Church in Brooklyn on 16 June 1912, he said: "Just as
in the world of politics there is need for free thought, likewise in the
world of religion there should be the right of unrestricted individual
belief. Consider what a vast difference exists between modern
democracy and the old forms of despotism. Under an autocratic
government the opinions of men are not free, and development is
stifled, whereas in a democracy, because thought and speech are not
restricted, the greatest progress is witnessed. It is likewise true in the
world of religion. When freedom of conscience, liberty of thought and
right of speech prevail--that is to say, when every man according to his
own idealization may give expression to his beliefs--development and
growth are inevitable." (PUP 197).
At the Universalist Church Washington, D.C.
on 6 Nov. 1912, he said: "Praise be to God! The standard of liberty is
held aloft in this land. You enjoy political liberty; you enjoy liberty of
thought and speech, religious liberty, racial and personal liberty."
(PUP).
Some of this appreciation of American democracy was a reaction
against the royal absolutism of Qajar Iran. `Abdu'l-Baha had
complained in 1875 that in Iran, "Not a soul could speak out, because
the governor was in absolute control."(SDC 101).
Shoghi Effendi denounced
persecution of the Baha'i Faith in Iraq as contrary to the constitution
and organic laws of that country, which, he noted with approval,
"expressly provided for the unfettered freedom of conscience."(Baha'i
Admin., p. 176).
In another context, he expressed his pleasure that "almighty Providence"
had "conferred" on the U.S. Baha'is, with their first amendment rights,
"the inestimable benefits of religious toleration and freedom." (Baha'i
Administration, p. 134).
>David wrote:
>Therefore, the question cannot be whether it is right to have discourse
>restrained: it must either be done by us or for us. There is no third
>alternative. The only question, in either eventuality, is what are the
>limits? Where is it, in discourse, that liberty becomes sedition?
The above quotes demonstrate quite the opposite, that freedom of
conscience and freedom of expression are inalienable rights in the Baha'i
Faith. Your last question is a leading one. Liberty in the sense of
democratic liberties never becomes sedition in Baha'u'llah's thought; it
is only libertinism and immorality that do. This passage has nothing
whatsoever to do with freedom of speech, as a perusal of the original
makes clear.
Then you quote a long list of passages; I presume the page numbers are to
*Lights of Guidance.* I really wish we could ban this acontextual and
overly schematic book from our community discourse. I have not checked,
but I suspect it leaves out Secret of Divine Civilization, Traveller's
Narrative, and the more progressive passages in Promulgation of Universal
Peace altogether.
David, if you will simply stand back from quoting chapter and verse, and
engage with me intellectually, I will ask you a question. In the Baha'i
system, what happens when the elected institutions commit a grave
injustice? It has been proposed that we all just sit about like
fatalistic peasants, accepting that we have a hard row to hoe. That
simply will not fly with me, nor with anyone I know or care to know.
Others propose to me that one take it up with the Counsellors. But ever
since they were reduced to 5-year terms, the counsellors themselves
strike me as in a difficult position when they make waves. And, of
course, we are supposed to write letters to the House. But what if the
House is unresponsive (or, worse, the perpetrator of the injustice, as
with the censoring of Salmani)?
In essence, the current Baha'i system reduces all Baha'is to mere
individual voices, which the institutions can slap down one by one. All
Baha'is are reduced to humble petitioners dependent on the mercy of their
elected superiors. It is, in fine, a dictator's dream. It does not work.
Maybe it worked when we had small face-to-face communities. Maybe it
worked when we had a Guardian. But it does not work now. And my
criteria for it not working is that it does not produce the sort of open
society that `Abdu'l-Baha envisaged, and for which he risked his life and
sacrificed his years in exile.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From jrcole@umich.eduThu Nov 9 12:12:49 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 12:00:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: a Baha'i bill of rights
Over the past year, a number of horror stories have been told by various
Talismanians about their experiences with the Baha'i administration.
These have included what is now very old news such as the Dialogue
affair, but other incidents much more recent. The nature of current Baha'i
discourse is such that I am reluctant to go into details. But suffice it
to say that it seems to me clear that injustices have been done; and that
appeal to the Universal House of Justice is increasingly unsatisfactory
as a mechanism of redress for 6 million persons, since so few appeals can
be dealt with. Finally, it seems clear also that many of the abuses
could be prevented through legal and institutional changes, which have
not come about. So let me get down to brass tacks.
I would like to propose for your consideration a draft of possible
amendments to the By-Laws of the National Spiritual Assemblies. As Ahang
notes, one should think of this in world terms. I am not a lawyer,
however, and drafting legal language is not easy. So all I can do is
present some ideas and maybe the lawyers can get the language right later.
The most recent Baha'i World volume I have at home is 1976-79, and it
gives a standard version of NSA By-Laws on pp. 340-345. The last article
to be included is this:
Article XII
These By-Laws may be amended by a majority vote of the National Spiritual
Assembly at any of its regular or special meetings, provided that at
least fourteen days prior to the date fixed for the said meeting a copy
of the proposed amendment or amendments is mailed to each member of the
Assembly by the Secretary.
[Note that this procedure strikes me as very dangerous. Article VI
defines a quorum as 5 members of the NSA, and says a majority of a quorum
can make decisions. This implies that 3 NSA members could conceivably
amend the By-Laws, which are the Constitution of the Baha'i community!]
In any case, given that the By-Laws are susceptible of amendment, I want
to propose amendments; for now, it is just a matter of talking points.
Article XIII
Each National Spiritual Assembly must establish a National Baha'i Court,
to consist of a panel of three justices. These justices shall be
appointed by the National Spiritual Assembly and shall serve until 70
years of age. Once appointed, a justice cannot be removed except for
the commission of civil or Baha'i crimes. Where a judge is accused of
such a crime, he or she shall be tried by the Universal House of Justice
and if found guilty may be removed from office by the Universal House of
Justice. The National Baha'i Court shall have jurisdiction over Baha'i
personal status law cases appealed from Local Spiritual Assembly
decisions. It shall also have jurisdiction over all charges against a
Baha'i of campaigning for Baha'i office or of negatively campaigning
against a sitting Local or National Spiritual Assembly. The decisions of
the court are final and may not be appealed.
Article XIV
Section 1. In the determination of their rights and obligations and of
any charge against them of having contravened Baha'i law, all
Baha'is are entitled in full equality to a fair hearing by an independent
and impartial tribunal. Should they so request in writing, such a hearing
must be held in public.
Section 2. No person charged with violating Baha'i law shall be
compelled to witness against himself or herself. No person may have his
or her administrative rights put in jeopardy twice for the same offense.
No person shall be deprived of his or her administrative rights without
due process of law. Nor shall any Baha'i's private property, including
intellectual property, be taken for the use of Baha'i institutions,
without just compensation.
Section 3. Baha'is prosecuted by a Baha'i institution for contravening
Baha'i law have the right to a speedy trial, and to a public one if they
so desire. They have the right to be confronted with the witnesses
against them. They have the right to have compulsory process for
obtaining witnesses in their favor. They have a right to see the
evidence presented against them. They have a right to the assistance of
Counsel if they so desire.
Section 4. Excessive fines and punishments shall not be imposed.
Section 5. National Spiritual Assemblies shall be considered impartial
tribunals except where they level a charge, of campaigning for office or
of negative campaigning, against an individual eligible to serve on them.
Such cases may not be tried by the National Spiritual Assembly, but must
instead be tried by the national Baha'i Court.
Section 6. Campaigning for Baha'i office and negative campaigning
against sitting members of Baha'i elected institutions shall be defined
as engaging in a concerted, coordinated and public campaign. Stray
remarks in private conversation shall not be considered evidence of
campaigning. Criticism of the policies of an elected institution, where
no vilification of individuals is involved, shall not be considered
negative campaigning.
Well, folks, this is a start. Such provisions would have prevented the
miscarriage of justice against the editors of Dialogue in the late 1980s,
and would address continuing problems.
Since the need for all this may be difficult to appreciate in a complete
abstract vacuum, let me just give an example. An NSA somewhere in the
world took away the administrative rights of a certain Baha'i for having
raised questions about that NSA's financial practices. The accused does
not appear to have made the charges publicly. The NSA called up the
accused's friends and interrogated them about his private conversations.
The accused was never allowed to confront his accusers; nor was he
allowed ever to see any of the putative evidence against him. He
repeatedly requested the evidence.
A letter from that NSA dated July 27, 1995 reads:
"Dear X:
In response to your letter of July 13, 1995, the National Spiritual
Assembly has instructed us to convey to you that your request for
additional information has been denied. The National Assembly feels that
it has explained to you the reasons for the removal of your
administrative rights and that you are already in possession of
sufficient information to enable you to prepare your appeal.
With loving Baha'i greetings . . ."
This individual had been told only the charges against him (which he
denied), not the shadowy corners from which they emanated.
I ask you all whether any of you really would like to be in this
situation; you could be; thousands of Baha'is have had their rights
removed, some in this arbitrary way. And remember, the NSA that tried
this individual was *not* an impartial tribunal in this instance, since
it felt maligned by the accused.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From jrcole@umich.eduThu Nov 9 12:12:51 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 15:25:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
To: "S. Indiogine" <sindiogi@NMSU.Edu>
Subject: Re: reforms and apologies
Eric: I have always enjoyed your postings and intelligent comments.
The passage in the Aqdas merely says that Baha'u'llah is embarrassed to
speak about the custom of a slave-owner taking a slave-boy (ghulam) as
his concubine.
The passage does not address the contemporary institution of same-sex
marriage, since that did not exist in the Middle East.
There is another passage condemning "lavatih," by Baha'u'llah, which is
probably a reference to married men carrying on with boys.
I know of no passage in Baha'u'llah's writings addressing lesbianism.
The general Baha'i views of these things derive from Shoghi Effendi, who,
however, did not have authority to legislate.
cheers Juan
From jrcole@umich.eduThu Nov 9 12:12:51 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 15:28:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
To: "Marguerite K. Gipson" <margreet@margreet.seanet.com>
Subject: Re: reforms, unapologetically
Marguerite: Allah'u'Abha.
Well, the Cause of God is vast, probably it can deal with flotsam like
yours truly.
"Lights of Guidance" can be a useful book. But it has an unconscious
rightwing bias; and it is used as a Bible by the Baha'i Right. It is
mostly the latter I object to.
As for writing a book of my own . . . I am. And no doubt it will
attract much criticism. C'est la vie - Juan :-)
From jrcole@umich.eduThu Nov 9 12:12:52 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 23:26:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
To: rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.com
Subject: Re: a Baha'i bill of rights
Ahang: This thing needs *a lot* of work, and your comments are very good
indeed.
You say:
1. You wrote:
> Article XII
> These By-Laws may be amended by a majority vote of the National Spiritual
> Assembly at any of its regular or special meetings, provided that at
> least fourteen days prior to the date fixed for the said meeting a copy
> of the proposed amendment or amendments is mailed to each member of the
> Assembly by the Secretary.
> [Note that this procedure strikes me as very dangerous. Article VI
> defines a quorum as 5 members of the NSA, and says a majority of a quorum
> can make decisions. This implies that 3 NSA members could conceivably
> amend the By-Laws, which are the Constitution of the Baha'i community!]
>I think the wording of Article XII is sufficiently clear: "a majority
>vote of the *National Spiritual Assembly* ..." is called for -- that's
>a minimum of 5 votes. It doesn't say the majority votes of those
>present.
I maintain that the wording is still unclear, since when a majority vote
of the quorum decides something, that has been defined as an NSA decision
in Article VI. But I'm not happy about 5 NSA members being able to amend
the By-Laws, either. I'd rather it be a 2/3s majority of the National
Convention delegates.
>2. Under the proposed Article XIII, I have problem with life
>appointment (even with a retirement age defined). No other office in
>the Faith, with the exception of the Custodianship of the House of the
>Bab in Shiraz and burial place of the martyrs in Abadih is life
>appointment -- and these two are because Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha
>said so respectively. I suggest 5 yrs terms to make it consistent
>with other similar senior responsibilities.
Ahang, the appointment either has to be for life or it has to be made by
a body other than the NSA. You can't expose these people to retaliation
for ruling against the NSA.
>3. Also under proposed Article XIII, have problems with lack of
>appeal procedure. Why not? Certainly Shoghi Effendi envisioned a
>Baha'i International Court. Wouldn't that be the right body for cases
>to be appealed to, or in absence of it, the Universal House of Justice
>as the last arbitrator?
Very good point, about the Baha'i International Court; but wasn't it
supposed to evolve into the UHJ? I did not want to include an appeal to
the House because they tend to back the NSAs. But this can be thought
about.
>4. I would also add a sentence to Art. 13, stating "If a justice is
>elected to a Baha'i office, must choose service between the two." Or
>words to this effect.
Excellent point.
>5. I am sorry for saying this, but I just don't like the proposed Art
>14, as currently drafted. I think (a) its too colored by a few
>person's experience, (b) is too much modeled after the current US law
>system, (c) excessively focused on campaigning issues. Section 4 of
>this Art. seems like a tautology.
Actually, section 1 is from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
which the House has endorsed as a foundation for world peace. The rest
are found in the constitutions of most countries, not just the U.S.
(sorry, not in Iran's :-) )
Since the Dialogue editors were prosecuted for negative campaigning for
simply drawing up some reform points, section 4 is rather necessary.
>I think what would help me to better understand the proposed Article
>14 is for you to educate us on underlying principles from the Writings
>on each one of these rights. After all, elements of a *Baha'i* bill
>of rights must have their roots firmly planted in the Scripture of the
>Cause. Yes?
This is a perfectly reasonable request, and I hope everyone will help me
with grounding all this in Baha'i texts and principles.
Thanks again, Ahang. I'm going to try to get people to work on this
seriously.
cheers Juan
From jrcole@umich.eduThu Nov 9 12:12:52 1995
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 23:43:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: America---the Great!
I know a celebration of the US does not go over very well abroad, given
the realities of US imperialism.
But actually, as a young radical, it was living abroad that caused me to
realize how wonderful aspects of the US are. People in the Middle East
have no rights of all, and 10,000 of them can just be bulldozed into a
mass grave with impunity. I am not blind to my society's faults; but one
should not be blind to its virtues, either. All the Dialogue editors
realized when they were prosecuted that even the US justice system would
have treated them *far* more fairly than Baha'i procedures did.
As for [X], he is developing a very powerful message that sacralizes
the US for American Baha'is; as long as this remains in the domain of
sane and healthy patriotism, it is a very good thing. The refrain of
"America is terrible" does not go over very well as a teaching platform . . . So please give him encouragement.
cheers Juan
From jrcole@umich.eduThu Nov 9 12:12:53 1995
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 00:12:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: A Baha'i Bill of Rights
Thanks very much for the good comments, .
I think that the believer should have the right to a public hearing if he
or she so desires. The point is that this would deter the NSA from
putting people on trial just because they annoyed it (which happens)--the
gaze of the community would be upon them. I worded it as a I did, such
that they could request this or not, because clearly some people are
guilty of drinking or gambling, etc., and would not want the hearing to
be public.
Seeing the deposition comes under the provision of evidence. I think if
someone is brave enough to make an accusation, they should be brave
enough to do it to one's face.
I *love* the preamble idea.
It is far too soon to think about tabling. Let's talk this over for a
few months and get it pokhteh first.
very warmest regards Juan
From jrcole@umich.eduThu Nov 9 12:12:53 1995
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 13:44:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
To: "David W. House" <dhouse@cinsight.com>
Subject: Re: Enough
Oh, David, don't talk like that; spiritual insights are equally
distributed and we can all learn from one another through consultation.
There is no sense of superiority on Talisman.
cheers Juan
From jrcole@umich.eduThu Nov 9 12:12:54 1995
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 14:28:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
To: "Timothy A. Nolan" <tan1@cornell.edu>
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Covenant
Timothy:
I deeply appreciate the spirit and tone of your message, and agree with
much of what you say. As you can imagine, I think I can show that my
position is more spiritually and intellectually consistent than you
suggest; in particular, I think that in a post-Guardian situation
Baha'u'llah's Ishraq 8 is probably a better grounding for our view of the
international house of justice than `Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament,
which assumes the presence on the House of a living Guardian as
Interpreter and Chairman. In short, `Abdu'l-Baha was talking about a
different sort of institution than we now have, whereas Baha'u'llah
appears to have been talking about *precisely* the sort of institution we
now have. In short, I believe that without a living Guardian the
Universal House of Justice is still the ultimate authority in the Baha'i
faith, but I do not believe it is either "infallible" in the Roman
Catholic sense nor that its decisions are necessarily beyond reproach,
nor that it is impossible for believers to analyze and discuss these
decisions (which are after all reversible by the House itself and its
successors). In some ways, I think I have a *stronger* belief in the
Universal House of Justice than many Baha'is, insofar as I think it
should start independently legislating matters of Baha'i law that were
only dealt with in a hasty and informal way by the beloved Guardian (who
steadfastly denied his authority to legislate). The rules that worked
for 5,000 American Baha'is in 1944 do not necessarily work for 120,000 in
1995, nor for 2 million Indian Baha'is in 1995, either.
*But*, having said that, I really hope we can focus on my suggestions for
a constructive solution of some of the problems I see, especially my
proposed bill of rights, rather than going off on yet another long
discussion of infallibility & etc. This strikes me as like the medieval
scholastics talking about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
I only bring it up to give you some sense of how it is I can disagree
strongly, both with the statement on individual rights (which I think
runs contrary to explicit statements of `Abdu'l-Baha, and which is not
legislation and so not strictly the purview of the House, anyway), and
with the recent decision to suppress the Encyclopaedia.
I think the problem is really that intellectuals and nonconformists run
smack into the most repressive aspects of the current Baha'i
administration, but that most ordinary Baha'is can live an entire life
without be challenged to think about these issues, and without having
them affect them personally.
My problem is that I have seen over the past 15 years what I think of as
a large number of decisions taken to repress intellectuals and
intellectual projects which have been wrong-headed and unjust. Some of
these decisions were taken by the US NSA, and then backed by the
international house of justice, and in some instances it was the other
way around. In each of these instances, there has been no possibility of
redress; appeals have been harshly rebuffed; and no changes of any
structural sort have been forthcoming.
I can sympathize that many Baha'is, who have not suffered from these
problems themselves (except in the sense that they have few good books to
read and have a national newspaper full of pablum), and who have been
brought up in a Baha'i political culture that demands absolute, blind
obedience, and forbids the slightest dissent from decisions made on high--
I can sympathize that they must view my statements as highly distasteful.
But they are simply killing the messenger.
I recently had a letter from a very interesting old-time Baha'i, who had
been involved in working for human rights inside the US Baha'i community
and had suffered some ostracism for it, but who was ultimately backed by
the beloved Guardian.
In his letter, this Baha'i mentioned that he had not too long ago brought up
the issue of human rights with a prominent Baha'i staffer at an NSA
headquarters. The staffer replied, "Who cares about human rights? The
power of the Institutions is all that matters."
This staffer, incidentally, has since been fired and now
feels differently about human rights inside the Faith.
So, you can look at me as wrong-headed. Or you can look at me as a
miner's canary. And I'm telling you, I'm on the verge of fainting.
cheers Juan
From jrcole@umich.eduThu Nov 9 12:12:54 1995
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 14:50:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
To: Burl Barer <burlb@bmi.net>
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: NSA & Appeals
Burl:
I am not sure we are talking about the same sort of situation. Let's
concretize things.
Let us say that Pete is a janitor in a city hall, and that Danforth
is the mayor. And let's say that Danforth does something affecting the
city that is incompetent and even to an outsider might look like
malfeasance. And let us say that Pete, the lowly janitor, drops a note
to Danforth the mayor, saying, "Gee, mayor, your activity affects me
negatively and somehow it does not look on the up and up." And let's say
Pete even made similar remarks at the canteen in private conversations
with the other janitors.
So Mayor Danforth, angry about these charges, abruptly orders Pete put in
jail. No trial, no impartial tribunal. The mayor's just mad about the
charges. The mayor muzzles the press, refusing to allow it to report
the case. Nobody knows Pete is in jail.
Now, Pete is jail. The mayor won't let him out. He is told he can appeal
to the governor. But he has to do it through Mayor Danforth, who can put
any spin he likes on the case as he passes it up. Pete has no right to
see the evidence against him, in preparing his appeal. And the
governor, an old friend of Mayor Danforth, does not have to take the
appeal; he can simply return it to the mayor.
If you would like to be Pete, raise your hand. If you would like to live
in a town where Mayor Danforth can behave this way, raise two hands.
Those of you who raise two hands are eligible for a raffle; the prize is
a free one-way ticket to Iraq.
cheers, Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From jrcole@umich.eduThu Nov 9 12:12:55 1995
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 13:32:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
To: "David W. House" <dhouse@cinsight.com>
Subject: Re: Enough
David:
Thank you so much for your warm message. I think we are both people who
can discuss matters critically without making it a matter of ego or hurt
feelings (at least not for very long).
I would be the first to admit that I am a) attempting to find a new way
to be a Baha'i that is not like the 1940s way that is the model for most
Americans; b) attempting to find a new diction and discourse to express
that way and c) attempting to find a way to fix what I see as huge,
overwhelming problems with the structure and method of Baha'i
administration. I say "I" here, but of course many, unknown to one
another, are involved in the same effort.
And as with any experiment, I no doubt make mistakes--quite serious ones,
on occasion. I think, however, that cyber-discourse is self-correcting;
if someone posts in a way that is completely out of line, it does not
start a thread; no one connects with it. And while it may be
embarrassing to watch me actually in the process of constructing this new
path, and making all these errors, I can live with the embarrassment
because I never thought much of myself to begin with and a little egg on
my face time to time is a small price to pay for bettering things.
I am sorry you find my comments cavalier. I guess I don't approve of the
essentially "royalist" diction that Baha'is have borrowed from Qajar and
Pahlevi Iran. But the comments are not cavalier. I have been a Baha'i
for 23 years, been a pioneer, travelled extensively, learned the original
languages, and studied a great deal of history. Over this time I have
come to feel increasingly that there are structural things wrong with the
way we Baha'is do things. And I do not accept the idea that I should
just sit silently by while injustice after injustice is perpetrated. How
do you get change around here? This is not a problem for someone who is
satisfied with the status quo (I can't believe you or anybody else really
is), of course. But it is a problem for those who have developed a
critique of the system.
As for my leaving the Faith, this has never occurred to me. I am a
Baha'i, I was formed by the Baha'i Faith, and I shall be a Baha'i till I
die, *no matter what happens.* I simply do not agree with you that
having a critical perspective on some actions of some institutions, and
seeking structural ways of improving things, necessarily weakens one's
faith or that of others. People are stronger than that, David. No other
religion, even of similar size, has the sort of clampdown on speech that
we have (a clampdown that is contrary to the explicit principles and
texts of our own Scriptures), yet other religions are doing just fine.
I appreciate your good wishes, and send you mine. I hope we can end up
with a community both of us are proud of, and one that mirrors the wishes
of Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha for open-mindedness, democratic values,
and justice.
warmest Baha'i regards, Juan
From jrcole@umich.eduThu Nov 9 12:12:55 1995
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 16:40:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: reply to open letter
Ahang is a very beloved friend and I value his counsel. If he wants
things toned down, by all means let's tone them down.
As I said, I want to do nothing to detract from the bill of rights idea,
which I hope we'll have more response to, and a revised form of which I
will post, taking into account Chris's and Ahang's comments. And the
reason the ante got raised is that some insisted that *no change is
possible* on ideological grounds. If we can agree that change is
possible, then it is not necessary to go off on other tangents, examining
the bases of that ideology.
Someday, however, we will have to have the postponed conversation.
I am distressed only by the suggestion now made for a third time of my
holding in the future some sort of Baha'i office. Since campaigning is a
crime in the Baha'i administrative structure, this is not funny, even as
a joke. And it is besides a silly idea. Don't you think by now I'd have
high negatives? And I have stressed that my personal life would not
permit me such a step. So, please, guys, cut it out.
There is an Arabic proverb, sharr al-`ulama' man zar al-umara', the worst
of the learned are those who visit the powerful. There is a place in the
faith for thinking persons who eschew personal power, after all.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From jrcole@umich.eduThu Nov 9 12:12:56 1995
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 00:30:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Aqdas passage
Ishraq 8 is not a problem, it is just badly translated. There,
what is given to the House is not "affairs of state" (the word "state" is
wholly absent from the Persian) but simply, "siyasat," which here I think
means "policy" or possibly "policy relating to enactment and imposition
of punishments." Siyasat nowadays means "politics" but it was a far more
ambiguous word in premodern times.
If you substitute "policy" for "affairs of state," you get a literal and
perfectly good reading of the Persian.
Also, the House is not put over the "affairs of the people" but rather
over the "affairs of the millet," which is to say, of the Baha'i
community. "millat" always means a bounded community; in the 19th
century Ottoman Empire it referred to religious communities. The verse
does not indicate universal authority.
As for WOB 6-7, I don't think there is any escape from the conclusion
that Shoghi Effendi had a theocratic vision of the far future. However,
he admitted to not being omniscient; some of his other predictions can be
demonstrated not to have come true; and there is no support for this idea
of a far-future theocracy in the Scriptures. I know this is not a
satisfactory way of dealing with this issue from a mainstream Baha'i
perspective, but that's how I see it.
cheers Juan
From jrcole@umich.eduThu Nov 9 12:12:57 1995
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 11:44:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
To: Stephen Johnson <snoopy@skipper.physics.sunysb.edu>
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: KI pp. 7-9
Since this passage from the Iqan brings up Noah and mentions his nearly
millennium-long life, I thought it might be worthwhile to point to Mirza
Abu'l-Fadl Gulpaygani's *Miracles and Metaphors,* pp. 7-16, which treats
this issue.
Mirza Abu'l-Fadl was asked about the 950-years-long life of Noah by
Shaykh Nuru'd-Din, the second head of the Ahmadiyyah movement. He
replied that there were two views of such matters, the religious and the
scientific.
The religious, he says, hold that one must accept the validity of
whatever is in the Qur'an. In this view, reason cannot prove that Noah
did not live so long, and therefore we must accept the word of the Qur'an.
The scientific or rational view, he says, would focus on the original
sources of the statement. Such a person would point out that
Chinese/Buddhist, Hindu, Zoroastrian and Hebrew Biblical historical
traditions all exist about the ancient world, and that Noah is not
mentioned in the first three. All four traditions, moreover, are tinged
by myth and by stories of the ancients enjoying great longevity. The
source for the Muslim belief in Noah's long life is the Hebrew Bible,
which is uncorroborated by other ancient traditions.
Mirza Abu'l-Fadl clearly adheres to the second view. He then writes:
"The Prophet Muhammad said, `We, the concourse of Prophets, were sent to
address people according to the capacity of their minds.' And likewise,
`Speak to the people of that with which they are familiar; do you wish
God and His Messenger to be called liars?' Thus was it related by the
learned judge Averroes of Spain in his book *Exposition on Methods of
Evidence concerning the Doctrines of the Muslim Community,* citing
al-Bukhari. Therefore, given this situation, it is impermissible for the
scholarly investigator to depend on the verses of the Qur'an and the
traditions of the Prophet in historical questions.
It is clear that the prophets and Manifestations of the Cause of God
were sent to guide the nations, to improve their characters, and to bring
the people nearer to their Source and ultimate Goal. They were not sent
as historians, astronomers, philosophers, or natural scientists . . .
A rational human being will therefore have no doubt that those
things mentioned in the Holy Qur'an such as how the creation commenced,
the debate of the angels, the stories of Adam, of Satan, and of Noah and
the flood, are all realities. These speak of repeated promises to renew
the world and refer to the appointed times for the expiration . . . of
the terms allotted to the nations. But, from the point of view of
science, it is impermissible for the historian to depend on the literal
meaning of these verses."
Mirza Abu'l-Fadl is my hero (I hope this doesn't tarnish his reputation).
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From jrcole@umich.eduThu Nov 9 12:12:58 1995
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 18:49:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
To: an assistant to the auxiliary board
Subject: RE: Re: NSA & Appeals
My hypothetical was badly worded. Pete not only sent a message querying
the practices to the entire city council, he sent one to the governor as
well.
Pete denies having actually talked to anyone in the canteen. The city
council alleges that he did. I can't know which is correct.
But what is outrageous, regardless of whether Pete did or did not, is
that he should be put in jail for "backbiting" and that the person(s) who
put him there are the backbitten.
This last point seems not to be one I am able to get you to think about.
The procedure is personalistic and arbitrary. What "law" did Pete break,
even assuming his protestations of innocence are false? Where is it
codified? If he did break a law, is it really right that he be sentenced
by someone with a grudge against him?
These sorts of goings-on, where they to occur in a civil mayorlty's
office, would be considered an example of the corruption of the Old World
Order and a departure from justice, by Baha'is. Why should they be
tolerated within the Faith?
cheers Juan
From jrcole@umich.eduThu Nov 9 12:12:58 1995
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 19:05:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
To: "Stockman, Robert" <rstockman@usbnc.org>
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: US Baha'i Research Office
I just wanted to assure Rob Stockman that the Research Office and he as
director have been absolute blessings for all Baha'i scholars everywhere,
and that nothing said about the problems Baha'i intellectuals face in any
way reflects up him or his office. I, and many others, have found Rob
gracious, bright, energetic, efficient and perceptive. And I appreciate
that he is there doing what he is doing because the US NSA understood the
need for such an office. In some very large part Rob had solved the most
pressing problems facing Baha'i scholars attempting to work within the
administrative framework of the Faith. We have already heard Christopher
Buck's testimony that Rob helped see that his important book was published.
Things are much better now, with Rob around, than they were a decade and
more ago, here in the U.S. This proves that progress can be made, the
Institutions can adapt, and there is a place for committed intellectuals
like Rob.
However, I do think it took a crisis or two for the NSA to come to the
realization that this particular sort of Research Office was needed, and
I'm not sure its genesis was in the quietude of back-channel communications.
Unfortunately, not everywhere in the Baha'i world do we have a Rob
Stockman with his fairness and problem-solving abilities. If God favors
us, his tribe will multiply.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From jrcole@umich.eduThu Nov 9 12:12:58 1995
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 01:39:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
To: "David W. House" <dhouse@cinsight.com>
Subject: Re: Enough
All of us have our favorite passages, our special corners of the faith.
Among mine is `Abdu'l-Baha's saying that from the spark of conflicting
opinions the truth emerges. I don't want you to stay upset; on the other
hand, your presence on Talisman is very welcome. It's no fun to have a
dialogue if everyone believes exactly the same things.
And, of course, spiritual maturity should be added to the list of
desiderata; though one would *really* have to believe in miracles like
the Virgin Birth to hope for spiritual maturity in the likes of yours
truly :-)
be well Juan
From jrcole@umich.eduThu Nov 9 12:12:58 1995
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 01:54:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: conversation with a House member, 1981
I was going through my papers the other day, and I found a little memoir
I had written, of a conversation I had when I was 28 with a member of the
Universal House of Justice. I thought it revealing of some of the issues
that lie behind the derailing (yes, it is a derailing) of the
Walbridge/Momen Baha'i Encyclopaedia, since it gives some insight into a
longstanding conviction in Haifa that Western academic scholarly style is
in essence incompatible with the Baha'i Faith (and yes, that is the
primary issue, not the "quality" of the articles). I stress that this
was a conversation with an individual, not with the House, and that it is
my recollection of it, written when I got home that night. I have
altered it only by disguising the names of the persons involved and
making very minor editorial changes.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
March 18, 1981
Juan R. Cole
Los Angeles
Tonight I met with L. at the V's. Apparently Mr. L. had asked T. to
invite me over. He seemed very positive about my work. He said,
"This article that you wrote about the Tablet of Wisdom was very
deep" or words to that effect, and pointed out that my suggestions for
improvements in the translation were being incorporated into the
second edition of the book. I was embarrassed by this warmth, and
could only mumble thanks for his kind words.
He added, "You are very young."
I could only say, "What I am writing now is very elementary."
He replied . . . He was very kind. I am always at a loss for
words when presented with compliments . . . I could only say, "You
are being very generous."
. . . In regard to the Tablet of Wisdom issue, L. took the view
that when Baha'u'llah wrote, He was not writing history per se. He
gave the example of the Kitab-i-Iqan passage in which it is said that
Noah lived 950 years. He also cited the incident of the believer in
Yazd who said his own eyewitness account of events there
contradicted that of `Abdu'l-Baha. He noted that the Guardian said
that `Abdu'l-Baha's accounts were based on information reaching him
from the believers, and that this individual should forward his own
account to the World Centre. He finally noted that the Guardian had
indicated that new information would be unearthed in the future which
would require a revision of the accounts given in *God Passes By.*
I pointed out to him that some important Baha'is in North
America did not share such a view, and that they went around the
country telling the Baha'is that if anyone questions one word of *God
Passes By* he is denying the infallibility of the Guardian.
He replied that the infallibility of the Guardian was only an
interpretive one, that *God Passes By* is the *meaning* of history.
I said that when I voiced the very same view to such Baha'i
leaders here, they rejected it.
"Well," he said. "It seems you have had some [bad]
experiences." He said there is still a lot of intolerance in the Baha'i
community. But then, he said, there are intolerant people in any group
. . .
Later . . . when W. joined us, [L.] brought up Review,
pointing out that it is temporary and only necessary for us at the very
beginnings of the formative age. Since he brought it up, I felt justified
in pursuing the matter. I started out by saying that recently P. had
called me up to ask for titles of scholarly books which contained
accounts of the treatment of the Iranian Baha'i community in this
century. I continued that I was only able to name a few, and these
have very limited references in them. P. wanted these for a friend or
relative at the Baha'i International Community who was working on a
report to the U.N., and needed creditable scholarly references. I said I
thought it very important that an article detailing the treatment of the
Baha'is in Iran since the Revolution be submitted to an academic
journal like *Middle East Journal.* I added that such an article would
wield and influence and provide information for non-Baha'i scholars
writing about modern Iran, information they have no access to.
L. replied that there are many archival sources at the World
Centre for the writing of such pieces, including the notes of the
National Spiritual Assembly of Iran. He added that recently many
documents, including government orders that pensions be cut off and
fatwas against the Baha'is had been collected in Iran and sent to Haifa.
He said these were being used as the basis of a white paper being
prepared by the Baha'i International Community for submission to the
United Nations.
T. interjected here that it is important to realize that an article
or book published by an assistant professor at Yale would have more
impact among the academic community than a detailed white paper
issued from the highest administrative levels of the Baha'i Faith.
I affirmed this, pointing to the cult of credentials, and the
official-seeming aspect of a book published, by, say, Harvard
University Press, by a university professor. I emphasized that scholars
tend to write for other scholars, and to only put trust in footnoted
pieces by other academics.
W. noted that K. had recently told her that a poll conducted by
the PR firm hired by the NSA showed that of all the sectors of the
population, intellectuals were least likely to have heard of the Baha'i
Faith, or know anything accurate about it. She asked rhetorically why
this was.
I replied that it was because no academic work on the faith had
appeared since E.G. Browne and academics tend only to read other
academics. I emphasized that academics often [do] popularize, and
complained that no drugstore paperback on comparative religion,
which has a large potential audience, mentions the Faith, or if it does,
gets its facts straight. This, I said, is owing to the lack of academic
works. I said Review puts two obstacles in the way of such academic
work: One is that it slows down its appearance considerably, and the
other is that should the fact that the scholar's work was reviewed by
the NSA become generally known, it would ruin the credibility of the
work.
L. replied that it should be possible to waive any extended
reviewing process for an article such as the one I proposed, which
used materials provided by the World Centre, and was intended for
publication in a journal such as the *Middle East Journal.*
I insisted on the second point, about review becoming widely
known.
L. said that there was no reason that the work should betray
the fact that it had been reviewed or that the reviewing process should
become widely known.
I pointed out that there were former Baha'is who were scholars
and who might spill the beans.
He finally said that he did not know what we could do about
these problems. One could not sacrifice the interests of the generality
of the believers so a handful of Baha'i scholars could have complete
freedom.
I said that at the moment, my only concern was that review of
specialized academic articles on the Faith be conducted by academic
specialists.
He said that was very reasonable, and that the House itself
sometimes sent things to T. because they were technical.
I pointed out that . . . [an] edited book of scholarly articles was
sent by . . . [a] press to the NSA a year and a half ago; that a year
passed without their hearing anything; and that finally they got a phone
call from National saying that reviewers found the tone disrespectful. I
said there was no evidence that the volume had been submitted to
academic specialists.
He said he wasn't surprised to hear this, if true, and that there
were still many inefficiencies in review and in the Publishing Trust
itself. He said we shouldn't give up or be discouraged by these. He
insisted again that the advantages of review outweighed its
disadvantages. He said that if a recognized Baha'i scholar wrote a
wrong interpretation of the Faith, this could be cited by enemies like
Miller, and could give credibility to his attacks. He was concerned
about ordinary Baha'is or seekers who might encounter Miller's works.
I replied that Miller was a liar and had no respect in the
scholarly community. I said if a Baha'i scholar wrote something
wrong, other Baha'i scholars would write articles correcting it--that
scholarship is a self-correcting process.
He was unconvinced. He also complained that the style of
Western scholarship is unsuited to discussing the verities of the Faith
and is indeed disrespectful. He said he could not imagine Persian
Baha'i scholars writing about the Faith in the same tone as Muhit-i
Tabataba'i [a popular historian who had attacked the Baha'i Faith in
print].
I said the proper analogy would be to Zarrinkoob, not to
Tabataba'i, and I saw nothing wrong with writing about the Faith the
way Zarrinkoob might [Zarrinkoob is an eminent historian of Sufism in
Iran who is also a bona fide academic].
He said we should not compromise--`Abdu'l-Baha went to the
synagogues and defended Jesus and Muhammad.
I replied that Baha'u'llah wrote to the Zoroastrians in pure
Persian, avoiding Arabic words, in order to reach His audience.
He said this was a matter of form, not substance.
I said the issue in . . . [the book that had been delayed by
Review], for the NSA, seemed to be one of form, not substance.
At this point Dr. J. began telling jokes and anecdotes, and the
discussion moved to other subjects. I thanked L. for sharing his views
with me, and tried to make clear to him that I was not *objecting* so
much as sounding him out.
He said he didn't mind even if I objected.
I assured him that was not my intent.
(He had stressed several times that the scholar's attitude was
the important thing. He had also quite openly admitted that there was
much intolerance among the Baha'i community at this stage.)
I was extremely impressed with him, and could communicate
with him on a level I found impossible with Amoz Gibson, e.g. But his
attitude seemed to be that scholars will just have to fight for their right
to publish, and that the House couldn't do much to help.
From jrcole@umich.eduThu Nov 9 12:13:00 1995
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 11:28:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
To: TLCULHANE@aol.com
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: re: conversations with . . .
Terry:
I can only speculate about the reasons for which some powerful Baha'is
believe that the style and approach of Western scholarship are
incompatible with the Baha'i Faith.
I would say first of all that this perception of incompatibility pains
me. I have said before that I am a pluralist. All sorts of discourse
exist in the Baha'i Faith. Baha'is of Hindu background call Baha'u'llah
"Bhagawan Baha" (Lord Baha') and imagine him as a sort of cosmic god,
the tenth Avatar of Vishnu. Baha'is of Iranian background are diverse in
their approaches to the Faith, as anthropologist Michael Fischer has
demonstrated. Fischer also sees many American Baha'is as essentially a
form of conservative Protestantism. I think such polyvocality
(multiplicity of voices and discourses) is inevitable in a world
religion, and, indeed, to be welcomed. Although I have been quite
unjustly accused here on Talisman of promoting a hegemonic, domineering
form of Western male discourse, what I have said time and again is that I
am engaged in a particular language game, a game that I believe has
advantages for humanity, but which I recognize is not and should not be
the only game in town. Let a hundred flowers bloom.
So why should Western Baha'i intellectuals be second-class
citizens on the Crimson Ark, their discourse presumed to be a
priori illegitimate, everything they write monitored, and why
should they be prepped to be the first to be thrown overboard when the
ballast needs lightening?
I think one clue is in the approval with which the form and tone
(not the conclusions) of my article on the Tablet of Wisdom was met.
That article was written as academic theology. I had done a religion
degree as an undergraduate at Northwestern, and had read a great deal of
Tillich, Jaspers, Kung, Niebuhr, etc., all *theologians*. I was trying
my wings, attempting to find a modern academic theological discourse
compatible with the Faith. Academic theology, which is full of
belief-affirmations, appears to be all right.
At the same time, Denis MacEoin at Cambridge was writing Babi
*history* and had put forward Peter Berger's (a conservative Lutheran)
idea of value-free discourse being necessary to scientific and academic
researches. A sociologist studying early Christianity could not come to
any solid conclusions if he or she began by assuming all the miracle
stories of the early saints and martyrs were true, since sociology aimed
at deriving middle-level or large-scale generalizations and so had to
assume that the world was consistent. The academic discourse rooted in
the Enlightenment was suspicious of breathless triumphalism, of open
statements of the author's beliefs, and, quite frankly, of the whole idea
of Revelation. The great Scottish Islamicist, W. Montgomery Watt, noted
that Muslims say "God said" when quoting the Qur'an, while Western
scholars say "Muhammad said." He proposed a compromise, using "the
Qur'an said" and leaving the Authorship of the Qur'an open as a
question. I read MacEoin as having started insisting on the Baha'i
equivalent, "Baha'u'llah said," and of being unwilling to find Watt-type
compromises.
Since disavowing one's faith is such a big crime in the Baha'i
Faith, it seems to me that the threat that Baha'i academics might write
about the Faith in such a way that one could not tell that they were
believing Baha'is alarmed some Baha'is, including the person to whom I spoke.
This is a very complex issue. It is true that one cannot write
academic history in the same style that one writes academic theology. On
the other hand, the Berger/MacEoin argument for "value-free" "scientific"
discourse, while still powerful in sociology and political science, would
not be taken at all seriously by anthropologists or most historians any
longer. Postmodernism has radically interrogated Enlightenment
assumptions of neutrality and universal validity. Feminist anthropology
has opened spaces for the expression of the author's personal views and
feelings.
I don't think any of my colleagues have any doubt whatsoever what
my beliefs are when they read something like my 1992 Centenary (:-) )
article in the International Journal of Middle East Studies. The referee
who complained that the article was "a sophisticated defense of the
Baha'i Faith" was the *journal's* referee, by the way, not a Baha'i one.
The editor published it anyway. But I have no doubt that this article
would be seen as insufficiently cheerleading in tone by many Baha'is. To
make it more cheerleading would have been to make it unpublishable or to
lose my academic audience, which seems undesirable.
Of course, there are many academics who write in a sympathetic
manner about religion. But sympathy seems not to be enough for some
Baha'is. They want triumphalist affirmation. If you want my opinion,
were John Dominic Crossan to learn Arabic and Persian and to write a
biography of Baha'u'llah using the same assumptions and methodologies as
he did in his biography of Jesus, the result would a) never be allowed to
be published or b) if it were published, would result in his being
lynched by the Baha'is.
I fear that I think the wholesale declaration of the illegitimacy
of Western academic scholarship as a way for Baha'is to approach their
own religion is a form of intolerance.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From jrcole@umich.eduThu Nov 9 12:13:01 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 00:50:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Mirza Abu-l Fadl
Sorry for not answering--it's the commons problem, one assumes others
might have.
Mirza Abu'l-Fadl never met Baha'u'llah. He met `Abdu'l-Baha for the
first time soon after the latter began his ministry, and an account of
the meeting is in *Letters and Essays.*
cheers Juan
PS No communication from you would ever be considered pestering at all!
In fact, I imagine for anyone on Talisman it is I who am the pesterer :-)
From jrcole@umich.eduThu Nov 9 12:13:01 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 00:59:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Middle East Peace Process
Allah'u'Abha.
I deeply appreciate your sentiments.
I do indeed think of myself as attempting to accomplish something
positive for the Cause. We'll see :-)
cheers Juan
From jrcole@umich.eduThu Nov 9 12:13:01 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 01:10:02 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
To: "[G. Brent Poirier]" <gpoirier@acca.nmsu.edu>
Cc: "Timothy A. Nolan" <tan1@cornell.edu>, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Covenant (short)
Just to express my profoundest gratitude to Brent Poirier for his
well-reasoned and cogent posting, and for the evident restraint it
demonstrated. Even after only cursorily studying it, I am willing to
admit that it is a very serious challenge to the view I earlier suggested.
Brent, as we all know, has very great devotion and very strong feelings
on these issues, which I admire. If he can nevertheless express himself
with this moderation on them, then surely everyone can. And this way
something can get accomplished.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From jrcole@umich.eduThu Nov 9 12:13:01 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 01:53:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: hello again
How wonderful to hear from you! . . . I envy
you--my French is getting rusty. I still regale Baha'is with the story
you told me when you got back from France in the summer of '72, about the
little old lady who kept telling Baha'i teachers "ma religion sufie" and
they kept telling her about the Seven Valleys in response :-)
I appreciate your wanting to know what is going on, on Talisman,
before making any judgments. Of course, the problem is that all sorts of
things are going on at once.
I would say that Baha'i intellectuals generally, Baha'i academics
specifically, and Baha'is in Middle East Studies most specifically of
all, have run into a number of obstacles to our accomplishing anything,
and Talisman is one response to that.
1. We can't get hold of or publish primary sources about the early
history of the Faith. We started to do this in the early 1980s, when
Kalimat Press managed to track down a manuscript of Muhammad `Ali
Salmani's memoirs of Baha'u'llah. Kalimat got permission from the House
to publish the memoirs in Persian, with an English translation by Marzieh
Gail. The translation and calligraphed Persian text went to the printer
in late spring 1982, as I remember. Suddenly, Kalimat gets an urgent
telegram from the NSA saying they must cease publication, on order of the
House. Then they get this packet of pages of the Persian text from Haifa
with orders that they delete sentences and passages throughout, before
proceeding with printing.
Well, I know it is very hard for Baha'is to hear this, but I was
absolutely appalled at what happened. First of all, the House went back
on its word to Kalimat that it could publish Salmani. It was very clear
that someone powerful had heard about the project and had lobbied the
House successfully to intervene. Second, as a historian I take a dim
view indeed of tampering with primary sources, suppressing passages, and
so forth. What they wanted taken out was not even obviously
important--stories about Salmani bothering Azal by nicking his candy or
putting onions in this food, or a statement by a peasant that he thought
Baha'u'llah God. I wrote heartfelt letters to the House and to
individual members about it all, but to no effect. (In fact, I am afraid
my response caused them to drop me from the ranks of translators to whom
they sent things.)
2. At the same time, we had a study class in Los Angeles, and sometimes
people missed meetings, so someone started taking notes and typing them
up. Other Baha'i intellectuals far from LA started asking for these
notes. It was not a large number. Abruptly, the NSA came down on us and
demanded that the notes of our discussions be Reviewed in Wilmette or
that their distribution cease.
3. Once the distribution of the notes ceased, some study class members
got the bright idea of starting a magazine, called Dialogue, which would
deal with Baha'is' views of current thought and events. After a couple
years, one of the editors came up with a set of suggestions for improving
the functioning of the community, called "A Modest Proposal." Steve
Scholl is related to the Nelsons, and shared it with them, and they were
enthusiastic. So Steve calls up Wilmette and offers to provide
prepublication copies to the delegates if they would like to discuss the
proposals at National Convention. (The proposals included things like
term limits for NSA members.)
Somehow Steve's message got garbled and the Secretary of the NSA
misunderstood him to be threatening to distribute the Modest Proposal.
He and another member of the NSA cabled the House that the Dialogue
editors were involved in negative campaigning (apparently some NSA
members thought the term limits proposal was aimed at them personally).
The House, without doing any independent investigation, sent back a cable
condemning the Dialogue editors, which was copied off and put on all the
delegates' chairs. Firuz spent about 20 minutes attacking the Dialogue
folks by name. Then he read out portions of the letters they had written
to the House protesting the NSA's interpretation of their actions.
Obviously, the House had passed these (impassioned and intemperate)
letters straight over to the NSA. The end of the story is confusing.
They appear never to have been actually found guilty of doing anything
wrong. At one point they appeared to have reason to believe that their
right to go on pilgrimage had been revoked, but the House now denies
this. They did not have their administrative rights removed. But as a
result of all the brouhaha, the magazine, Dialogue, closed.
These quite mistaken charges, of negative campaigning have made us
sensitive to other, more recent incidents, in which the NSA appears to be
able to remove persons' administrative rights a) merely for private
comments they made questioning some financial snafus, b) despite the fact
that they felt maligned and were therefore not impartial judges, and c)
while refusing to share with the accused the evidence that supposedly
existed against them, as a basis for the accused's appeal to the House.
In other words, there are some rather serious problems with the human
rights of Baha'is vis-a-vis their own institutions.
4. In the mid-80s John Walbridge, a Harvard Ph.D. in Islamics, convinced
the NSA to allow him to put together an ambitious Baha'i Encyclopaedia.
He worked on it till about 1990, when he got a job editing the
Encyclopaedia Iranica. The NSA had never interfered intellectually in
the project, but keep shrinking it and being fickle about financial and
administrative details. Moojan Momen then took over the editorship and
brought the project to a good conclusion in two volumes, about a year and
a half ago. Then abruptly the House asked to see some articles. They
called the project to Haifa. They have now apparently forbidden the
Encyclopaedia's publication as an Encyclopaedia (meaning that we all
wasted our time and effort, as well as $700,000)! . . .
5. Forum, a nice little Baha'i magazine put out in New Zealand, closed
this summer, and the editors cited as one major reason the hassles they
experienced with Baha'i Review.
6. The work of publishing new translations of the Writings is at a
virtual standstill because the House won't put enough resources into the
Research Department so that it can efficiently review such translations.
Since translation is an aid to scholarship, this bottleneck in turn slows
the development of scholarship.
7. The system of prepublication Review set up by the House in 1971 or so
demands that even academics must have their writing about the Faith
vetted, which rather sets up a conundrum for us professional historians, e.g. The House steadfastly refuses to reconsider this policy, and has started being rude to people who protest it to them, however politely they do so.
The over-all pattern is that, basically, Baha'i intellectual life,
academic progress, and serious in-print discussions have been virtually
crippled. I myself find the system overly centralized at the very
least. And the problem is that the Baha'i ethos is that you are not
supposed even to bring up that there is, uh, this rather big problem
here; and if a problem cannot be broached, it cannot be resolved.
So Talisman was set up to discuss such problems and be a forum where
Baha'i intellectuals could interact seriously. I understand that the
House seriously considered trying to shut it down last Winter, but in the
end decided that it was a form of private conversation and so did not
fall under Review requirements.
. . . forgive me for writing in so much detail and with my by now famous
bluntness. We are old friends and I felt I could be honest with you. If
this is more honesty than you wanted, sorry; let me know.
I hope you will join in the discussions . . .
cheers Juan
From jrcole@umich.eduThu Nov 9 12:13:02 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 16:07:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
To: an assistant to the auxiliary board
Subject: RE: RE: Re: NSA & Appeals
My hypothetical situation is in fact much milder than the evidence would
warrant, and gives the mayor and city council a benefit of the doubt that
the documentation does not necessarily warrant.
I agree that backbiting is condemned in the writings. So is drinking
alcohol. And so is smoking. The problem is that "condemned" is a vague
word. The question is, is backbiting an offense for which administrative
rights can and should be removed? Is it like drinking or like smoking?
We are commanded to be generous. What if someone isn't? Should their
administrative rights be removed?
Now, one response might be that whether backbiting is a "crime" would
depend on the circumstances. But then the law would be extremely vague,
ad hoc, ad hominem, etc., which is highly undesirable.
Another response is that backbiting is a crime only if directed against
an LSA or NSA. But then we would have a problem in distinguishing
between backbiting and legitimate criticism. Nor is the NSA the very
best body to make that distinction. (In the case of Dialogue magazine it
seems clear to me that they made a very bad decision in this regard, and
that it was bad because they were too involved to be objective.)
The fact is that the NSA employed very bad judgment (which it has more or
less admitted) in trying to create a monopoly travel arrangement for the
world congress, through an agency that charged in many cases twice what
other agencies were offering. The exorbitant prices raised questions in
the minds of many as to where the extra money was going. After talking
to insiders, I am convinced that the money went to the travel agency and
that the NSA and the believers were simply fleeced. But I do not
blame others for wondering out loud what in the world was going on. And
I think that for the NSA to take away the administrative rights of those
who wondered out loud is vindictive, dictatorial, and an abuse of their
human rights under articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(which was endorsed by the House in their Peace Statement), guaranteeing
trial by impartial tribunal and freedom of speech.
. . . you have been very patient with me, and I appreciate your
willingness to engage what must be for you a strange mindset. But I
think it is very clear that Shoghi Effendi disclaimed any prerogative of
legislation, and that the administrative practices we now have are
susceptible of change. I think for a small face to face community
recusal might not be the best path. But for a huge community of 120,000,
it is absolutely necessary if we are to trust one another.
Sadly, too, I am afraid that I would not at all like to live in a system
where powerful members of institutions who feel themselves maligned (they
have demanded a personal apology) are not required to recuse, nor in a
system wherein criticism of policy is equated with backbiting and is a
punishable offense. I study professionally similar systems, and they
have names like the Baath Party.
cheers Juan
From jrcole@umich.eduThu Nov 9 12:13:03 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 19:00:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
To: Donald Zhang Osborn <osborndo@pilot.msu.edu>
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Tolerant vs. Righteous on Talisman?
Donald:
with regard to Tarazat 2, Baha'u'llah counsels "tolerance" and
"righteousness," as you say.
The Persian is burdbari, which is defined by my dictionary as "patience,
forebearance, fortitude"; and nikukari, which means literally "doing good."
While forebearance is desirable in most situations, however, Baha'u'llah
and `Abdu'l-Baha were quite intolerant of injustice and denounced it in
the most intemperate language more than once. In SAQ `Abdu'l-Baha even
says that anger is good if it is directed against tyranny. It is not
even entirely clear to me how one can "do good" while countenancing
injustices.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From jrcole@umich.eduThu Nov 9 12:13:03 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 19:11:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: reforms and apologies
I agree that the Baha'i community has not yet come to terms with how
exactly to deal with Shoghi Effendi's legacy. My own view is that it
must be historically contextualized, place alongside other key texts, and
seen in the context of a Guardian functioning without a legislative House
at his side. In matters such as homosexuality, it was the prerogative of
the Guardian to give voice to his feelings with regard to the values
involved. But it is certainly the case that the House has the sole
prerogative of deciding on whether being gay is an administratively
punishable offense, and what the punishment should be. My own view is
that Baha'u'llah's diction in the Aqdas suggests that He did not see it
as a punishable offense, since he did not specify that any punishment
should be meted out for it. In short, our best hope, given what the
Guardian said, is to see it treated like smoking. But that will take 100
years.
I think things have been rancorous on Talisman lately, and it is better
to keep focused on the issue of a bill of rights, which is after all
pertinent in the long run.
cheers Juan
From jrcole@umich.eduThu Nov 9 12:13:04 1995
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 01:13:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: new paradigm
I wanted to welcome Steven Phelps to Talisman. His posting was very
welcome; Steven is another physicist who also studies Arabic! If
anyone wants a miracle, I should think the image
of tens of American intellectuals studying classical Arabic would
suffice, and it is all owing to Baha'u'llah.
I have two suggestions for going forward on the very valuable ground
Steven sketched out. First, (and this is less important), I think it
necessary to point out that many of the quotes he instances from the
compilation on scholarship come, not from the Universal House of Justice,
but from a statement prepared by the Research Department.
In a letter to me dated October 8, 1980, the Universal House of Justice
explained,
"Concerning the statement on Baha'i scholarship issued by the Research
Department, and the second article based upon it which was prepared for
publication in "The Baha'i World," the House of Justice has instructed us
to explain that it had these documents written by the Research Department
and circulated in this form precisely because it did not wish the
statement to appear to be a binding pronouncement on the matter . . . It
was unfortunate that the article was published in the "Baha'i News" and
"The American Baha'i" as if it were a statement by the House of Justice
itself, and the attention of the National Spiritual Assembly has been
drawn to this error. In any case the Universal House of Justice asks us
to point out that no commentary on the Sacred Texts made by anyone other
than the Authorized Interpreters can constitute authoritative
interpretation."
I take the last sentence to mean, incidentally, that even the House could
not have promulgated a binding Interpretation of the Scripture with
regard to Baha'i scholarship, much less the Research Department!
As I said before, the circa 1980 letter from the Research Department
appears mainly to have been aimed at Denis MacEoin's advocacy of
methodological agnosticism a la Peter Berger, and also, perhaps, against
his neo-Weberian interpretation of the Babi faith as an outbreak of
charismatic religious authority in Shi`ism that was subsequently
routinized. Since Denis also went about disparaging other Baha'i writers
as producers of nonsense (he even once lamented the quality of work done
at American state universities; *ahem*!), he was upsetting the others,
and this was another problem. Once these passages are situated as the
*Research Department's* reply to MacEoin, they become more susceptible to
discussion and even critique. Who was on the Research Department in
1979-80, anyway? Ahang, do you know?
The *second* problem is that neither the Research Department's statement;
nor various passages from House members or from the House itself
subsequently, have ever acknowledged the affirmation in the Baha'i
Scriptures of an *autonomous* realm of rational knowledge, known through
the human intellect, and separate from scriptural knowledge altogether.
Precisely the reason that 19th century Iranian Shi`ites rejected so much
of Western science and thought was that it was seen by them as absent
from and often contradictory to the Qur'an and hadith, and therefore as
unacceptable. `Abdu'l-Baha wrote Secret of Divine Civilization to defend
the autonomy and goodness of human reason, and *on that basis* to argue
for the adoption of modernity in Iran.
Look at SDC p. 1: "Praise and thanksgiving be unto Providence that out
of all the realities in existence He has chosen the reality of man and
has honored it with intellect and wisdom [or "philosophy"], the two most
luminous lights in either world. Through the agency of this great
endowment, He has in every epoch cast on the mirror of creation new and
wonderful configurations."
In Traveller's Narrative, `Abdu'l-Baha positively *celebrates* the
freeing of science from the shackles of religious orthodoxy.
`Abdu'l-Baha speaks of the opposition in Iran to the Reason of
modernity: "Some say that these are newfangled methods and foregn isms,
quite unrelated to the present needs and the time-honored customs of
Persia. Others have rallied the helpless masses, who know nothing of
religion or its laws and basic principles and therefore have no power of
discrimination--and tell them that these modern methods are the practices
of heathen peoples, and are contrary to the venerated canons of the true
faith, and they add the saying [hadith], "He who imitates a people is one
of them." (SDC 12)
`Abdu'l-Baha points out that at the Battle of the Confederates, the
Prophet Muhammad borrowed the technique of digging a trench against the
Meccan cavalry from the Persian, Salman. "Did that Wellspring of
universal wisdom, that Mine of divine knowledge say in reply that this
was a custom current among idolatrous, fire-worshipping Magians and could
therefore hardly be adopted by monotheists? Or did He rather imemdiately
direct His followers to set about digging a tranch? He even, in His Own
blessed person, took hold of the tools and went to work beside them."
(SDC p. 27).
As for new methodologies, there were plenty of Iranians who argued that
rather than simply adopting the tools of the Western Enlightenment, they
should develop indigenous, Iranian Shi`ite means of accomplishing the
same purposes. `Abdu'l-Baha thought this insistence on reinventing the
wheel quite ridiculous (SDC p. 32). Someday Baha'is may contribute
something new to scholarship (though not until they get rid of Review,
which stifles free thought), but it is utopian to think that the US
Baha'i community, with its handful of academics, is going to
come up with something that 500,000 American university professors have
not already thought of (especially since most Baha'is do not bother to
read this production and so cannot benefit from its strengths).
Moreover, despite the very large numbers of educated Christians and
Muslims I cannot think of anything "Christian" or "Muslim" scholarship
has contributed to contemporary academia of any interest or
significance. The best "Christian" scholarship is simply that which
accepts academic methodologies and norms. What is produced
at fundamentalist seminaries is arrant nonsense. If Christians and
Muslims, with their billions, cannot develop a distinctive and
recognizably useful alternative to contemporary academic approaches, then
what chance does a small group like the Baha'is stand? Moreover, academic
scholarship has much to teach us about our own religion that we do not
now know and that we cannot find out with the old traditional methods.
Christopher Buck's book on the *Iqan* is a case in point.
It seems to me that the Research Department, for all the subsequent talk
of moderation and non-binding pronouncements, fell into the same
xenophobic trap that the Qajar Iranians had, and which `Abdu'l-Baha urged
us to avoid. The Master was a pragmatist. He thought that if something
worked, it should be adopted; you did not need a warrant of scripture.
And it did not even matter if the originator believed in God--read the
Master's letter to Forel.
Finally, `Abdu'l-Baha thought that scientists and other thinkers should
be respected and should be left alone by the religious classes to engage
in their expertise. We should "lay hold of whatsoever will further
civilization . . . that we may profit by the wisdom of scholars and
philosophers . . ." He even wants to, like the Saint-Simonians,
establish a body of scientific experts (SDC 37). One of the things
that always disturbed me about the Research Department's quixotic
charge at MacEoin was that they seem clearly not to have contacted
Alessandro Bausani, professor of Persian at the University of Rome
and chairman of the Italian NSA; or Heshmet Moayyad or Amin
Banani, or any of a number of other eminent Baha'i academics
and asked their advice in drawing up a statement. These laymen
charged right in, determined to set Cambridge right and armed only
with a literalist reading of some Baha'i texts. Had any of them so
much as had a graduate seminar in historical methodology, so that
they would know what it was they were attacking? Note that the most
enthusiastic supporters of the Research Department point of view are
not themselves Ph.D.s in History or Literature; they are engineers and
hard scientists who do not themselves produce scholarship on Baha'i
history and so do not understand the practical problems involved.
My problem, then, with the Research Department view is that it
strikes me as essentially fundamentalist in that it disallows the
epistemological autonomy of reason, which `Abdu'l-Baha in numerous
places upholds, desiring to subordinate Reason to ecclesiastical
authority (a practice `Abdu'l-Baha roundly condemned).
As for not judging the Book by the sciences current among us, Baha'u'llah
was warning the Muslim clergy not to reject Him and His message because of
their scholastic disciplines. He was not suggesting that the Baha'i
Learned could not study the Baha'i Faith with the tools of Reason. In
fact, in His commentary on the Surah of the Sun, Baha'u'llah explicitly
endorses such procedures, which He calls zahiri or exoteric approaches,
as long as, he says, the batin or inner meaning is not lost.
I am quite sure that `Abdu'l-Baha would not have stopped a Baha'i
Encyclopaedia from being published, even if its authors had lamentably
adopted the heathen techniques of the godless West. If the problem is
that the authorities worried it would seem official, and did not want
that, then this problem is easily fixed. Call it an "Unofficial
Dictionary of the Baha'i Faith" or something and let Kalimat publish it.
Banning its publication altogether is unnecessary to make this point (which
is all that my now-famous remark about silliness meant).
But I personally think Baha'i scholarship needs a trench, and that it can
only get one for the moment by borrowing the technology of Western
academia, and that if the Prophet Muhammad can get in and dig, so can I.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan