From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comWed Sep 6 23:18:05 1995 Date: Wed, 06 Sep 95 11:39:01 -0400 From: Ahang RabbaniTo: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: I'm back ... [This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII] Dear Friends, I'm pleased to be back on Talisman and look forward to learning and benefiting from your considered views. Hope you'll forgive me if I jump right in the discussion, so with your permission, I'll proceed. In a posting a few minutes ago, Juan wrote: > As for `Abdu'l-Baha being more than a "mubayyin" or Expounder > of Baha'u'llah's Writings, that is obvious ... A minor point, but there is a letter from the beloved Guardian to David Hoffman (quoted by Mr. Hoffman in his paper published in "The Vision of Shoghi Effendi") that the word "mubayyin" (from "tab`yin") should be translated and understood as "Interpreter" which is the function of the Master and his (ie. Shoghi Effendi's) function is that of Exposition, "Tashrih" ("shari`" = Expounder). The importance of this clarification by the beloved Guardian, in my view, is that it differentiates between the Interpretation of the Master and Expositions of the Guardian -- not in authority, but in *function*. > However, he was not endued with the authority to legislate > (shara`a) divine legislation (shari`ah); since such authority > depends on receiving Revelation (wahy), it is out of the > question. I'm sorry, my beloved brother, but I need a bit more convincing here. Firstly, Baha'u'llah gave the Master unlimited authority. Nowhere in the Writings of Baha'u'llah does He define the scope of the Master's function, and only extremely broad statements such as "Turn your faces towards Him", etc. Secondly, why do you say that authority to legislate depends on "wahy"? Surely, the House of Justice legislates and does not receive wahy, so why not the Master? (For that matter, every LSA legislates and only a few of them receive wahy. :-} ) If you mean Abdu'l-Baha was not authorized to start an *independent* shari'ah, implying a new Theophony, of course you're quite right. But certainly, He was authorized to augment (through His Interpretations) any aspect of Divine Law (and not just Baha'u'llah's, but *all* Revealed Laws!). As evidence I offer His Will and Testament where on numerous occasions He used His Office to *in effect* legislate: (1) manner of appointment of the Hands of the Cause, (2) manner of election of the House of Justice, (3) relationship between the Hands and the sitting Guardian, (4) formula for ratification of appointment of future Guardians, etc. Thirdly, it's important to keep in mind that both the Guardian and the House of Justice *together* are the Twin Successors of Abdu'l-Baha. If Abdu'l-Baha was not authorized to legislate, then how is that He could pass on this authority to the House of Justice? (Now, I understand that independent of the W&T, Baha'u'llah gives this authority to the House of Justice, but the Twin Successor bit can't be dismissed.) > Moreover, there are inconsistencies over time in his statements > on some issues (and between some of his statements and those of > the Guardian), and the question for contemporary Baha'is must > be how to decide to which of these to give the greatest > weight.... > The generality of American Baha'is appear to think that such > inconsistencies as I have mentioned do not exist... Juan, perhaps you be kind enough to give some examples of these "inconsistencies" that you're referring to, because this Persian Baha'i is just as ignorant of them as "the generality of American Baha'is". (I don't mean to start anything but remember in "Khatirat-i Nuh Salih" where Dr. Unis Khan recounts how the Master received "wahy" and tells of his experience of seeing the Master reading off from two celestial Tablets suspended in the air before Abdu'l-Baha's face. There are similar passages in Mirza Badi` Bushrui's memories, too. In other words, I think that when it comes to Abdu'l-Baha its difficult to classify it as "wahy" or "ilham". But of course, the beloved Guardian is yet another sweet melody and its clearly in the realm of ilham.) Again forgive me for jumping right in with both feet, but Talisman and swimming have a lot in common. much love, ahang. From jrcole@umich.eduThu Sep 7 10:58:12 1995 Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 23:13:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Juan R Cole To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: revelation and inspiration A hearty welcome back to our beloved friend and profound scholar Ahang Rabbani! I have often thought of the wonderful energy, enthusiasm and boundless love Ahang brought Talisman last winter and spring, and considered whether he wasn't a key ingredient to its growth and success; certainly some of the rough patches this summer might have been avoided if he had been here. Well, of course I could defer with regard to `Abdu'l-Baha to your profound knowledge, and would be right in doing so, but that wouldn't be any fun, would it? I am trying to build toward a Baha'i hermeneutics or science of interpretation that does not depend on folk wisdom or broad sweeps of assumed knowledge. Rather, I think the spirit of Baha'u'llah's warnings about hadiths is to guide us to depend primarily on texts. With regard to `Abdu'l-Baha, we cannot say he was the recipient of divine Revelation on the basis of what Baha'u'llah said about him. As far as I can tell, Baha'u'llah said very little in writing about `Abdu'l-Baha's functions. The main text with in this regard is the Aqdas: "refer ye whatsoever ye understand not in the Book to Him [`Abdu'l-Baha] Who hath branched from this mighty Stock." (K174). This is the basis for his tabyin or Interpretation. In the Kitab-i `Ahd Baha'u'llah urges the Baha'is to look to `Abdu'l-Baha for leadership, thus recognizing him as Head of the Faith. Does Baha'u'llah ever explicitly bestow more than these two specific functions upon `Abdu'l-Baha? Does the Master ever explicitly claim more than these two? In fact, `Abdu'l-Baha limits reception of divine Revelation/wahy to the Rasul or Messenger of God, and Brent posted a passage from the beloved Guardian also saying that with Baha'u'llah's ascension Revelation ceased for at least 1,000 years. Khatirat-i Nuh Salih is pilgrim's notes; no doubt many Iranian Baha'i attributed divine Revelation to `Abdu'l-Baha; American Baha'is made him into a Manifestation of God and the Return of Christ. This is not a basis on which we can soundly proceed in Baha'i hermeneutics. (Incidentally, don't I recall something from Khatirat-i Nuh Salih or Khatirat-i Habib about `Abdu'l-Baha saying that the Universal House of Justice is not infallible? This is a slippery slope.) As for divine Legislation (shari`ah), this is a prerogative of the Manifestation of God. What the Universal House of Justice has is contingent legislation (tashri`), which is suited to a particular situation and can be repealed. Baha'u'llah explicitly bestows contingent legislation on the House in Ishraq 8. He nowhere speaks of `Abdu'l-Baha as having the power of tashri`, nor am I aware that either `Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi attributed to the Master this authority. Tashri` is in any case not immutable. If any text can be produced to show I am wrong, I would be glad to reconsider. One example, which I gave in detail earlier, of disagreements among the Holy Figures over time, is that of Baha'i participation in politics. `Abdu'l-Baha at times allowed quite extensive Baha'i involvement in politics, and he always allowed much more than the Guardian did subsequently. As heirs of all these conflicting policies, which should we now choose as normative? The ordinary Baha'i answer is that the Guardian's stance is normative, but where a policy of the Guardian differs from one of Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha, should that really trump the others for all time? Why? Please note: the approach to interpretation or hermeneutics I am employing here assumes that traditional knowledge is suspect; that specific texts must be adduced to support specific propositions; that the whole corpus of concerned texts must be weighed against one another; and that historical context and change over time must form part of the analysis. I agree with Gadamer that this approach cannot produce absolutely objective knowledge, and that it is a tradition in its own right (a language game if you will). But it is for me a fruitful tradition, and this is the game I am playing. cheers Juan Cole, History, Univ. of Michigan From richs@microsoft.comThu Sep 7 11:05:36 1995 Date: Wed, 6 Sep 95 21:38:20 PDT From: Rick Schaut To: owner-talisman@indiana.edu, talisman@indiana.edu Subject: RE: revelation and inspiration Dear Juan and Friends, >From: Juan R Cole >I am trying to build toward a Baha'i hermeneutics or science of >interpretation that does not depend on folk wisdom or broad sweeps of >assumed knowledge. Rather, I think the spirit of Baha'u'llah's warnings >about hadiths is to guide us to depend primarily on texts. Juan, I think you've found the answer, but you've forgotten the question. I'll extend your example to put the question into the frame of reference which should resolve the problems we've encountered: >One example, which I gave in detail earlier, of disagreements among the >Holy Figures over time, is that of Baha'i participation in politics. >`Abdu'l-Baha at times allowed quite extensive Baha'i involvement in >politics, and he always allowed much more than the Guardian did >subsequently. As heirs of all these conflicting policies, which should >we now choose as normative? The ordinary Baha'i answer is that the >Guardian's stance is normative, but where a policy of the Guardian >differs from one of Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha, should that really >trump the others for all time? Why? What specific authority was Shoghi Effendi exercising when he banned participation in partisain politics? My guess is protection of the Faith, which would mean that the Universal House of Justice can cange the injunction whenever it is no longer pertinent to the protection of the Faith. I think you want to try to figure out what authority was being exercised in the writing of a given text. Once you figure that out, the rest of the questions are easy. I must confess that I don't have a rigorous way to determine this (hence my use of the word "guess" above). I was rather hoping that those Talizens trained in these techniques, particularly as they apply to the practice of law (Brent?), would be able to shed some light on this. Warmest Regards, Rick From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzThu Sep 7 11:06:30 1995 Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 16:46:56 +1200 From: Robert Johnston To: S&W Michael , talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: Women/UHJ - not over yet ... Dear Suzanne, RE: (And that is why earlier claims that certain >talismanians are trying to 'subvert' the House are utterly illogical, as I >don't believe anyone has stated that the House is wrong. They have stated >that the possibility exists in the future for the House to change.) It appears you -- and others -- think that there is a possibility that the House may change its mind on this matter. However, from my reading of the letter (to the NZ Baha'is) it would seem that this kind of speculation is effectively proscribed. The House wrote: "As mentioned earlier, the law regarding the membership of the Universal House of Justice is embedded in the Text and has been merely restated by the divinely appointed interpreters. It is therefore neither amenable to change nor subject to speculation about some possible future condition." I particularly draw your attention to the second sentence. IMV, then, believing the possibility exists does appear to mean disagreement with the House. Subversion of the status of the House, as the most excellent Burl Barer has pointed out, is rather impossible. However, in rather simple terms, I do not see much wisdom in generating and spreading false ideas. I don't know whether this whole matter falls into this category yet. But, I am most respectful of your wish that we be entirely reasonable in this matter. And I feel most strongly that some of the mud-slinging on the part of some of the advocates of the "House may or should reconsider" viewpoint has been entirely un-called for and not funny. Let's all stick to a consideration of the T[t]ext, and not impugn the motives of those who hold opposite views. I know this does not apply to you Suzanne, but I am alarmed at those who accuse me and others of sexism when it appears that our position is entirely consistent with that of the Faith. Certainly they do nothing to endear themselves to me. Robert. From 73613.2712@compuserve.comThu Sep 7 11:13:58 1995 Date: 07 Sep 95 03:29:30 EDT From: Steven Scholl <73613.2712@compuserve.com> To: Talisman Subject: Domains of Authority/Women on UHJ Dear Friends, It has been difficult for me to pick up all Talisman messages due to time and budget contraints, so perhaps someone has already addressed my question. Awhile back I posted what I see as the most likely path to service of women on the Universal House of Justice. My understanding of Baha'i law is that the Guardian's arena of "infallibility" lies in interpretation of the sacred texts while the Universal House of Justice is to pronounce authoritatively and "infallibly" on all matters of Baha'i legislation and administration that are not clear in the sacred texts. Broadly speaking, then, the Guardian is the Perfect Interpreter with the House of Justice as the Perfect Legislative body. As Sen and others have pointed out, Shoghi Effendi's statements re: the ban on women serving as elected members of the House of Justice are rather minimalist in nature, noting the existence of Abdu'l-Baha's tablet on the matter and how this will have to be something we learn to live with until its wisdom becomes clear (again a restatement of Abdu'l-Baha's words). My sense of the matter is that Shoghi Effendi did not go beyond this minimalist statement and simply let stand the status quo because (1) at the time there was no UHJ in existence and (2) he recognized that this was an area of concern that can only be definitively ruled on by the House of Justice as it is outside of the Guardian's realm of authoritative infallibility. This is my understanding of why Shoghi Effendi does not have the last word on the matter. What has been made clear via our discussions is that due to the all-encompassing, non-sexist definition of "rijal" given by Baha'u'llah, the sacred texts are not clear on this matter of Baha'i legislation. Thus, any statements from Shoghi Effendi on this unclear area of Baha'i legislation are vital but not definitive and that only the Universal House of Justice can "infallibly" rule on the matter. As several have noted, no one is saying that the House is wrong or that they do not have the final word. Indeed, as you can see, my point is that they do have the final word and they are in their full rights as the final authority on Baha'i legislation to reverse the current ban of women from service on the Supreme Body of the Baha'i Faith. I would appreciate if someone with greater knowledge and insight inthe area of Baha'i law and jursiprudence would speak to this line of argument. Rob Stockman, Frank Lewis, Juan Cole, John Walbridge, Brent Poirer, and Sen McGlinn are all better versed than I in this area of Baha'i studies. Any thoughts from the esteemed above mentioned or other Talizens will be deeply appreciated. Steve Scholl From burlb@bmi.netThu Sep 7 11:15:33 1995 Date: Thu, 7 Sep 95 00:35 PDT From: Burl Barer To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Ahmad's Theory/Dickie's Theory Dear Talismaniacs: The conversation regarding The Seed of Creation has many of us in Walla Walla, Washington mystified. Now, its not often that we take time from the pea harvest, Frontier Days, and the Classic Car Shine 'n' Show to ruminate on these topics, but I swear that the old boys sitting around Dickie's Barber Shop went through a case of Copenhagen chewing this one over. The general consensus is that our good buddy Ahmad Anise is sticking an infinite peg into a male hole. Painful to say, and uncomfortable to contemplate, but it seems that he is overlooking the essential, Biblical fact that women were never meant to be born. Now, don't get the boys at the barber shop wrong -- they're not saying that women shouldn't exist, or that they are inferior to men, they simply are reminding you that women were never meant to be born. It goes like this:Eve was made from Adam's rib. She wasn't born. God anesthetized (Anisethetized?) Adam, took out a rib bone, and fashioned Eve as his companion from that very rib. God would not have done that unless there was a darn good reason. Everyone at Dickie's Barber Shop agrees that God, despite doing some pretty weird stuff, has reasons we can't understand anymore than Milo at the Mobile Station understands fuel injection -- if it doesn't have a carburetor, Milo just tosses down his tools and lights another Lucky-- anyway, God obviously intended that each and every man would have his own custom crafted woman made from his very own rib. Even asleep, it probably hurt and took time to heal. So, back in our DNA memories we men know what it is like to have a new being come to life from our bodies, our selves. So, you may well ask: "Why are women born today instead of being made like God planned?" Because of sin. Pure and simple, if sin can be either pure or simple. Before the fall, God made each one from the man. Maybe God intended, over time, that men could sort of tell God exactly what attributes and such he wanted in his special ordered companion -- sort of like when you order one of those hand-made Avanti's from the folks who bought the rights from Studebaker. Each one is one of a kind, but just the way the owner wanted it. After the fall, God got peeved and thought up this real complex bit of aggravation where women get born instead of made. BUT in the beginning, women were never meant to be born. The boys over at Dickie's think that Ahmad Anise's Seed of Creation Theory is just another "chicken/egg = chicken salad" argument. It doesn't hold water any better than the little woman did when she was about to go into labor. Now, I don't want Mr. Anise or one of you other folks to get all worked up over this. I think the boys at Dickie's Barber Shop are entitled to their opinion, and besides all that, even Adam knew how to take a good ribbing. Burl (clean up the sideburns while your at it) Barer From Alethinos@aol.comThu Sep 7 11:23:57 1995 Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 04:49:17 -0400 From: Alethinos@aol.com To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: Women/UHJ - not over yet ... I am taking a HUGE risk here in stating this. The risk is that once again the list will be deluged with posts about the subject. For me this issue is crystal clear. Since I do believe in Baha'u'llah and the Covanant, and consequently in the conferred infallibility of the Universal House of Justice -(i.e. Its decisions) and since the House has stated, flatly, _with no apparent qualifications_ that women will not serve on the Universal House of Justice the *questioning* we have been seeing is essentially wasted energy. If we really do have faith in this Cause - in its Founder, Center of the Covenant, Guardian and Universal House of Justice than this really is _not_ an issue at all. While there has been some interesting speculations and interpretations, both historical and linguistic as well as cultural, the main point is still this: The Universal House of Justice has said, with no apparent reservations - "No" to this question. If, at some future date the Universal House of Justice says that women can serve as members, so be it . . . Insha'u'llah. None of us here will be storming the gates to make it so. And nothing we say here will *influence* the House - to believe otherwise would be to state that the House does NOT have infallibility. I trust that through its own maturity as an Institution, and the development of the auxilliary institutions which already exist or will exist around it in the future many amazing *announcements* will come. If the call comes for women to sit on the House, well than every Baha'i who follows, with instant, exact and complete obedience will embody the true meaning of this verse: Were He to decree as lawful the thing which from time immemorial had been forbidden, and forbid that which had, at all times, been regarded as lawful, to none is given the right to question His authority. (The Kitab-i-Aqdas, page 77) "He doeth whatsoever He willeth" (TB., p. 51) Jim Harrison Alethinos@aol.com From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlThu Sep 7 11:24:54 1995 Date: Thu, 7 Sep 95 11:23:16 EZT From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: glosses on translations A thousand thanks to Juan for more of the notes to the ode, and to those who offered glosses on the ShahIfa bayna 'l-haramayn. I trust the Tarjmunites will continue to cross-post everything for our benefit. I have a tireless hunger for glosses (and I'm putting them all neatly in order for the benefit of posterity). More please! Steve's 7 valleys includes the translation: >Ocean of the Divine Ipseity (bahr al-huwiya), while his red-dune gloss says: >the call of the letter "H" (al-ha' = huwiyya = the Manifestation of God?) Now Ipseity must mean something like being-in-itself (high school latin, long ago) which would be the unknowable unthinkable essence of God-in-Godself, right? And the Manifestation by definition is the manifestation of the kingdom of the names and attributes of God NOT the essence of God, right (or wrong, you tell me). So what's going on here? Also, who will gloss the donkey in the the ShahIfa bayna 'l-haramayn for me? please? Sen From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlThu Sep 7 11:25:59 1995 Date: Thu, 7 Sep 95 11:22:35 EZT From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Sonja: equality DisCLAIMER: from Sonja van Kerkhoff In response to Ahmad's arguments that functionality and equality can b e different from each other, I think that the basis of the discussion must be that there be equal opportunity (rights, if you like) in order for there to be any equality at all, and then from that a discussion on what functions the sexes could be developed/discussed. But if one says that different sexes have innately different functions (opportunities) then that is not equality. And equality is the main point of all the quotations that have been recently posted, where areas such as function and creation are mentioned as part of the argument for equality. I cannot see how you can separate equality from function. How can you have equality when some people are excluded from some spheres on the basis of their sex. Like men from motherhood? BTW this is meant as a rhetorical question, as I know a great man who is a wonderful mother. Re: emancipation: As I see it, things are not going to change very fast if women are still burdened with the full responsibility of mothering. When it is shared, then it's fun. When people choose to do this as a major job, then it is a choice. But the society we live in today tends to assume that a mother does most of the mothering and if she doesn't then she is some-how not 'good', or damaging her children, etc. Of course this is nonsense, there are lots of ways to mother children. But it's a bit scary when the "mother being the first educator" reference is used then to psychologically bind women to the home (and the private). In response to Derek: I think it is very important to discuss the lack or possible presence of women on the Universal House of Justice, because it is THE policy that runs against the principle of equality in the Bahai Faith. And it has direct implications on how women are valued - such as how the lack of the service of women is often used as a justification for arguing that equality is not the same as equal opportunity. Luckily it is the only inconsistently, but it is one that makes a Bahai claim of equality for all, hard to justify - and not only to non-Bahais or feminists but to myself. Suzanne has already posted about the danger of using labels because they are often used as a way to avoid dealing with difference, however I am proud of what feminism (in all it's wild and woolley guises (joke)) has done. arohanui Sonja From sw@solsys.ak.planet.gen.nzThu Sep 7 11:27:15 1995 Date: Thu, 7 Sep 95 22:48 NZST From: S&W Michael To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Women/UHJ Dear Friends Dear Robert I've had a disturbing evening pondering my "stuckness", but I think I've gotten unstuck ... I was disturbed because there appeared to be another implication of not "speculating", which was the issue of independent investigation ... The House surely is not saying we cannot investigate this issue ... So I think what the House is saying when it says this is not "subject to speculation" is that the House does not see there is anything to speculate about, and of course this is entirely consistent with the House's legislation on the issue of women and the House. I'm reminded of Ian Semple's talk recently serialised in our national newsletter in NZ where a young scholar kept asking the House for permission to read things written by covenant-breakers (for the purpose of some research project) and the House kept saying that it was better not to do this (or words to that effect - I can't remember the exact quote), and the young scholar wrote back and said, Yes, he knew it was better not to, but could the House please give its permission, to which the House replied that it was better not to do this. The House did not give its permission, neither did they say the young scholar must not read these works - Ian Semple's comment was that the House wished it wouldn't get these kinds of letters. The upshot of this is that I think the House clearly favours a mature response of taking personal responsibility for what one exposes oneself to, and therefore I don't think the House is making any kind of command that the Baha'is do not speculate, rather it's stating that it doesn't see (as I've said above) what such speculation will bring, because the House has stated its views on this (and legislated on this) very clearly. So - voila - I'm out of my corner! Suzanne Michael NZ From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzThu Sep 7 11:27:41 1995 Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 00:40:37 +1200 From: Robert Johnston To: S&W Michael , talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: Women/UHJ Dear Suzanne, >So - voila - I'm out of my corner! 1) I am reminded of the lover in the Valley of Knowledge. 2) Clearly Baha'is are permitted and encouraged to investigate matters such as the one we are dealing with. Clearly also, this will involve speculative thought. Clearly yet again, the purpose of investigation and consultation on matters such as the one we are dealing with is clarification and agreement -- the promotion of harmony. So: there is no need to burn candles or complain of darkness once the sun has risen. I do not think that anyone suggested that the House would inflict penalties on us if we mis-read the W[w]ritings. But I would suggest that if someone persisted in propagating a clearly wrong interpretation of the Writings -- such as the view that women may become members of the House during this Dispensation -- at places like Summer Schools and in literature, it would be most unlikely that some form of censure from an Assembly at least would not occur. [Just my viewpoint, I stress.] The letter to New Zealand from the House arose after someone presented a session at Summer School suggesting the abovementioned suggestion. Obviously it was not very well received in certain influential quarters.... 3) [I haven't heard from Alison on this yet...I seem to recall that she is very fond of the Semple story also. But I could be wrong.] Greetings also to your silent partner, William. [Did you read "Pictures" yet, W?] fondly, Robert. From rvh3@columbia.eduThu Sep 7 11:28:08 1995 Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 09:43:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Vernon Hollinger To: Alethinos@aol.com Cc: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: Women/UHJ - not over yet ... On Thu, 7 Sep 1995 Alethinos@aol.com wrote: > And nothing we say here will *influence* > the House - to believe otherwise would be to state that the House does NOT > have infallibility. I guess it all depends what you mean by infallibility. I tend to think this means that the UHJ is the final authority--not that their decisions are based on insitutional omniscience. If nothing anyone says will have an influence on the UHJ decisions, why should anyone communicate with that body except to ask questions? Why does the UHJ consult with counsellors, NSA's, and individual Baha'is, if their input will not have an effect on their decisions? Richard From frlw@midway.uchicago.eduThu Sep 7 11:35:36 1995 Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 10:18:42 -0500 (CDT) From: Frank Lewis To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: revelation, inspiration and textual bias Mythologically speaking, it seems to me that Abdu'l-Baha is, in Baha'i sacred history, the equivalent of `Ali. That is to say that, conceptually and emotionally "Abdu'l-Baha" or the image/concept we have of him, fulfills many of the same functions or roles that `Ali fulfills for Shi`ites--the primary model of behavior and an object of extreme personal devotion. Some Baha'is, at least during Abdu'l-Baha's lifetime, even demonstrated a devotion and attributed a station to the Master that is similar to extremist `Alid groups such as the `Aliullahis, who hold that `Ali was God. The Guardianship is mythologically equivalent to the Shiite imamate. As Moojan or Juan has pointed out, the term *Vali-ye amr allAh* [Guardian of the Cause of God] is also applied to the Shi`ite imams. Like the 6th Imam, Ja`far al-Sadiq, to whom is attributed the development of Shi`ite jurisprudence, Shoghi Effendi developed by administration, applied Baha'i laws and principles in a concrete way to the community and established the basis of Baha'i jurisprudence. The Bab and the Babis, especially those at Shaykh Tabarsi and Nayriz and Zanjan, represent (once again speaking mythologically), like the martyred Husayn and his companions, a righteous but politically hopeless attempt on the part of God's designated representatives on earth to take rightful control of worldly affairs. The Universal House of Justice, like the later Shi`i imams, is not directly connected by personal interaction with the Manifestation or with Abdu'l-Baha. Moojan has pointed out that in the Twelver Shi`ite tradition, the later Shi`ite Imams, who were too young at the time of the death of their fathers/preceeding Imams to have received religious instruction or family histories directly from them, were believed by Shi`ite theologians to have received "innate knowledge" that came to them "at the moment of death of the previous Imam." It strikes me that this belief is rather similar (or one might say structurally parallel) to the Baha'i belief that the UHJ is "infallible" and "inspired by God." In other respects, however, the House of Justice seems to be a direct descendant of the Qur'anic injunction (42:38, wa amruhum shuuraa baynahum) that the Muslim faithful should conduct their affairs by consultation and the Sunni theory of election of the Caliph. Although in practice (except for the first few Caliphs), the Caliphs were almost all dynastically appointed by their predecessor, in the elaborate theories worked out for the Caliphate, the believers were to elect the Caliph, who had to meet several conditions before being qualified to be Caliph. As for Juan's statement that "Whatever [Baha] told `Abdu'l-Baha can only be considered a hadith; it has no normative or legal force except to the extent that it is reflected in written texts." I would agree with this statement only insofar as Abdu'l-Baha's writings are included in this body of "written texts." Abdu'l-Baha writes, for example, that the intent of Baha's statement in the Aqdas about not marrying more than two wives, since it is contingent on the impossible condition of justice, is actually that Baha'is should take only one wife. Well, AB is supplying a written text here that points to a knowledge of Baha's intent, which AB may have received directly from an oral conversation with Baha, or which he may have intuited from Baha's other statements, or which he may have been guided to in the world of prayer. It is my understanding that it is not necessary for us to have a text directly from Baha to confirm AB's interpretation. Upon the jurisprudential principles that Juan has laid out (as I understand them), one could argue that if the UHJ, in codifying the tablets of Baha, 1) found a previously unknown text from Baha that was, let us say, revealed subsequent to the Aqdas and late in his life (thus establishing historically that Baha'u'llah had not changed his mind on the subject and abrogated an earlier law) 2) and that said Tablet clearly indicated that it was possible for some men to treat two wives justly, or if it simply said that Mr. X was a perfect example of the just treatment of two wives, 3) and that it could be shown that AB was unaware of this Tablet, 4) then the UHJ could over-ride AB's instruction and allow men to marry two wives. I don't think this is the case. For one thing, as I have argued, this is a textually over-determined view of the universe, where one text is assumed to trump another. It is also, it strikes me, a rather materialist or determinist view of religion, which ignores AB's or Shoghi Effendi's access to the noumenal sphere. That is to say, since we believe in the realm of prayer, if AB or SE prayed about the meaning of the teachings of Baha, even if they did not have access to all the Tablets, it seems difficult to me that we, who have not been granted the right to authoritative interpretation, could argue that their interpretation was incomplete because of lack of access to a certain text. In any case, I would argue that not every text of Baha has equal weight. Clearly some tablets (Kitab-i-Iqan) are more important than others (Kitab-i Badi`) in explaining his doctrines and outlook. Baha often repeated the themes he thought were most important and would obviously have had some idea of how widely a given letter to a given individual would or would not be distributed. If Baha wrote, on a single occasion to a single person, that X is the case, whereas he apparently said on many occasions to different individuals that Y is the case, where Y seems to be mutually exclusive of X, then one is faced with an interpretive problem that a purely textual view of the universe cannot solve. I have argued several months ago on Talisman that the meaning or interpretation of texts is not always self-evident, just as the "meaning" or realization of the written notes of a musical score are not self-evident. The meaning of texts can only become clear in performing them, or "translating" them into real-life, just as a conductor must translate the notes of Beethoven's 9th symphony into an actual performance, a "realization" of what the notes "mean." Does one follow Beethoven's metronome markings or not? Does one play on period instruments or on modern ones? How does one incorporate the scholarship that has been done on Beethoven's manuscripts (i.e., if there appears to the ear to be a mistake, does one assume that Beethoven has made the mistake or that he meant what he wrote and we just are not accustomed to hearing what he meant [this can be a real question in some of the later String Quartets])? If Beethoven gave instructions to his pupil(s) about how he wished one of his works to be performed, do we take that into consideration or not? Interpretation is essential to the meaning of any text. Personally, I feel that the distinctions that have been drawn between legislation and interpretation are rather weak. While it is true that there is a difference, one cannot be done without the other. It is not possible for me or anyone else to pick up a text and pass a law on the basis of that text without having interpreted the meaning of the text. Our interpretation of the meaning is conditioned by many factors--what we understand the genre of the text to be; what we know about its author and the author's other works; the context in which the text was created; the possible range of meanings (sometimes ambiguous) of individual words; the reader's cultural predispositions, personal psychology and life experience; the burning historical, political, cultural or other situations facing readers of the text at the particular point in history that they encounter and engage the text (obviously, this varies from generation to generation); the tradition in which the text is received (in the case of Baha's Tablets, this would include the understanding of AB and SE and the UHJ of said texts). I hope it is clear that I am not arguing for a cut-and-dried way to interpret texts. What I am saying is that the situation is much more complex for Baha'i jurisprudence, or Baha'i spirituality, or the interpretation of any text, than what Juan has described, and that it is impossible (or at least not very artful) to write equations or hard-and-fast rules for how texts must be interpreted. yours, Frank Lewis From MBOYER%UKANVM.BITNET@pucc.PRINCETON.EDUThu Sep 7 12:34:29 1995 Date: Tue, 05 Sep 95 12:11:35 CDT From: Milissa Boyer To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: MacEoin's book Hi Talismanians-- Recent discussion of MacEoin's book gives me this opportunity to ask a question about his book _Rituals_ and a statement found therein: "Abdu'l-Baha strongly deprecated the Western practice of women appearing in public with heads uncovered and enjoined the wearing of the charqad or scarf, which would surround the face on all sides and prevent men not of the family from seeing their hair. The face and hands alone may be uncovered. In practice, this injunction is far from being observed, whether by Western Baha'i women or emancipated Iranian women, and it is hard to see how it could be en- forced at the present time." ------pg. 68, his reference is _Amr_III, p. 341- 342. Well, you know uppity me! I had to find out about this. And what I found out was very interesting. My dear friend Golshah tracked down this reference and provided the following translation of MacEoin's reference: "In this dispensation, Hijab is superior than before. In Islam hijab(physical) had become so strict that women could not walk in the streets and market places They were like slaves. In order that they could engage in some occupation and be educated, showing their hands and faces should have been permitted in any era. In this era, however, there is no need for these matters. Maybe at some time the spiritual assembly would let women to wear the Persian women's charqad which would surround their face from all sides which would prevent men not of the family to see their hair, not like western women who go out with their hair shoulder, and hands showing........" later on 'Abdu'l-Baha adds: "Therefore, hijab was not like this in Islam (originally) and these restrictions were added to it later to a degree that they imprisoned women and prevented them from education and forced wome into supreme denigration. This was the reason that women in the East were prevented from any progress. But chastity is essential and there should be some guide- lines, but to a degree that does not prevent women from education. Education is essential." __________________ Well, needless to say I was pleased with this! Golshah emphasized that it was a rough translation, but one can get the gist of what 'Abdu'l-Baha was saying. My question is not about what 'Abdu'l-Baha thought about hijab, but rather WHERE ON EARTH DID MACEOIN GET HIS IDEA? From the translation I received, it appears that MacEoin obviously misrepresented what 'Abdu'l-Baha said. I don't like to think people would deliberatly mispresent 'Abdu'l-Baha but this one is hard to understand. Is Golshah's translation accurate enough? She gave me the translation for the reference MacEoin gave. Perhaps he really read this somewhere else? Thanks everyone for your thoughts on the matter! Sincerely, Milissa Boyer From JRuhl@tchmail01.tchden.orgThu Sep 7 12:56:36 1995 Date: Wed, 06 Sep 95 11:39:00 PDT From: "Ruhl, Jordis" To: 'talisman' Subject: Out of the Cyber Shadow Dear Talismanians and Taliswomanians (sorry -- in light of the latest postings I couldn't resist), Some of you I know and, after several months of lurking here, some of you I feel I know, and some of you I feel I may never know. But it's probably about time for you to know me. It was my brother, David, who linked me up to Talisman, and I've been trying my darndest since May just to keep up with the postings. I've wanted to introduce myself but (like many lurkers I suspect) I don't feel I have quite the intellect to join in. So why now? After all the postings on women it is clear to me I have both something to say and something to add. But first, an introduction. I am a 38-year-old married female working as a manager of communications for a children's hospital in Denver, Colorado. I have been a Baha'i since 1986, and have served on the LSA of Denver from '87-95, in every capacity except treasurer. (Is it just in the communities I'm familiar with, or does it hold true that most local treasurers are male? Hmm.) And yes, Ahmad, I am a feminist (eek!). Hardened? What an odd adjective to use with the term feminist. The three adjectives I've found that most often -- and most accurately -- modify the word are "closet," "committed" and "anti-." I first learned of the Faith at age 11 when my teenaged brothers came home bursting with the news of Baha'u'llah. My parents -- in retrospect very Baha'i-thinking folks who always encouraged, indeed insisted upon, the independent investigation of truth -- were open to the information but reserved. To me, the news that God is one and all religions are one rang in perfect harmony with my heart. It was that lesser organ, the brain, that took such a long time to understand the information fully. Soon after, my sister became a Baha'i as did my third brother. I waited for almost 19 years to become a Baha'i. As a writer and a reader, I'm fascinated by most topics discussed here. Those I'm not particularly interested in are usually simply over my head, but like playing tennis with someone better, I hope to learn from each of you. I'm particularly interested in discussing the Aqdas, Shoghi Effendi's writings and literature. Unlike my dear brother David, I'm not in least interested in discussing the National Spiritual Assembly or the Universal House of Justice and their motives, but I love listening to/reading him when he does. I agree with many, or perhaps all, of his observations on the current state of the Faith in the U.S., but I am too strongly a believer in the twins sisters of fate and free will to lend much worry or concern over particular actions or decisions. I'm also particularly interested in discussions relating to backbiting. When I open the front page of The Denver Post, page two begins with a column titled, "People." When did the gossip column lurch to such prominence? I'm barraged by gossip in all media, and the "grapevine" at work is mostly backbiting. It's tough enough to try to purge backbiting and gossip from my own personal relationships, but it's nearly impossible at work when it infuses the entire culture. I find that many Baha'is view backbiting as a less important topic for discussion and action than, say, administration, but it confronts me every day. Possibly this is a topic for further discussion here, or perhaps in a less scholarly arena. If any of you have stories or know of more obscure writings regarding backbiting (Brent, are you there?), please send them to me on the internet at jruhl@tchden.org. Happy to be online with you all. Jordis Langness Ruhl From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlThu Sep 7 18:10:35 1995 Date: Thu, 7 Sep 95 19:16:39 EZT From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: mutatis Dear Saman: that's an interesting theory. I've probably thrown a spanner in the works by comparing the laws only with the Bayanic laws, which could be considered Baha'i or 'previous dispensation' depending on how you're looking at it. Is a law found in the Bayan but not in any previous dispensation part of your group 3, or not? In any case, I think we need to take some specific laws and try to fill them in to the framework, and see how good the fit is. I've made a small start, I should have more time next week to look at this further Sen 1) Laws already CONTAINED in previous dispensations which treated men and women differently: Baha'u'llah explicitly ordains a change to the law that applies to men and women equally. Greeting formula (assuming Baha'u'llah approved the change) FIT? Infidelity FIT Divorce FIT 2) Laws which He affirms from previous dispensations, He applies them to males or females - in the same manner that they appeared in prior revelations Guardianship (imamate), male only: FIT (but not ordained by Baha'u'llah I think) Dowry PARTLY FIT (need a category 2a for laws retained, and still sex-specific, but very much softened, made optional etc.) Right to support during separation (?) 3) Laws unique to the Baha'i Faith: Baha'u'llah addresses them to males only - allowing Abdul Baha and Shoghi Effendi to interpret them to have broader meaning if and when necessary Inheritance FIT (interpretation in this case in the Q&A) House of Justice FIT 4) Laws specifically addressed to women which are cancelled Uncleanliness during menses ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sen McGlinn ph: 31-43-216854 Andre Severinweg 47 email: Sen.McGlinn@RL.RuLimburg.NL 6214 PL Maastricht, the Netherlands *** When, however, thou dost contemplate the innermost essence of things, and the individuality of each, thou wilt behold the signs of thy Lord's mercy . . ." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlThu Sep 7 18:12:31 1995 Date: Thu, 7 Sep 95 19:17:23 EZT From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: interpreter/expounder Ahang referred to: "a letter from the beloved Guardian to David Hoffman (quoted by Mr. Hoffman in his paper published in "The Vision of Shoghi Effendi") that the word "mubayyin" (from "tab`yin") should be translated and understood as "Interpreter" which is the function of the Master and his (ie. Shoghi Effendi's) function is that of Exposition, "Tashrih" ("shari`" = Expounder)." However I've checked Mr. Hoffman's essay in The Vision of Shoghi Effendi, and can't find this reference there. Perhaps I missed it, or perhaps our beloved Ahang was functioning with coffee up to his eyeballs at the time :-). In your absence, Ahang, someone else made the same distinction and it was discussed. I'd like to hear your comments. I'm copying my posts from then below [old hands hit DELETE]. The fact that useful distinctions in the original are lost or entirely mixed up in the English translations points to the need for scientific translations of the key texts: even orthologic translations which mechanically replace an Arabic word with the same English 'equivalent' would be useful. Sen ------------------------------------------------------------ The key text is from the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha: O my loving friends! After the passing away of this wronged one, it is incumbent upon the Aghsan...to turn unto Shoghi Effendi...as he is the sign of God, the chosen branch, the Guardian of the Cause of God,...the expounder of the words of God" ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ at least, that is the version on p 11 in the 1968 edition of the Will and Testament, published by the NSA of the USA and Canada, 1944, "from text received [from Shoghi Effendi] February 25 1922," but copyrighted 1944 (a small booklet format). But in the version available as e-text from the world centre and in the REFER programme we find: "O my loving friends! After the passing away of this wronged one, it is incumbent upon the &Aghsan ... to turn unto Shoghi Effendi ... as he is the sign of God, the chosen branch, the Guardian of the Cause of God, ... the Interpreter of the Word of God " ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Which is the same as Shoghi Effendi's other translation of this passage: "He is the Interpreter of the Word of God," Abdu'l-Baha, referring to the functions of the Guardian of the Faith, asserts, using in His Will the very term which He Himself had chosen when refuting the argument of the Covenant-breakers who had challenged His right to interpret the utterances of Baha'u'llah. (World Order of Baha'u'llah, pages 148-149) My guess is that an editor has decided to incorporate Shoghi Effendi's later translation back into the 1922 translation. It could also be that the NSA inserted the 'expounder' in their first edition, and it has now been removed, but it seems unlikely. Thus I agree that there is a difference in English between the terms, and will bow to Bijan's knowledge when he says that there is a difference between "Mubayyin" (Expounder) and "Mufassir" (Interpreter), but I doubt that our translations are sytematic enough to draw any conclusions based on English texts. Perhaps one could disregard early texts from Shoghi Effendi which use these terms, on the grounds that he became aware of the distinction between them only later. Equally, perhaps when he was writing the World Order letters he translated that short phrase from memory, and remembered the original incorrectly. I think that editors have no right to tidy it up - it should be left as Shoghi Effendi translated it on both occassions. [deleted long compaint about standard of textual hygiene in Baha'i publications, silent editorial amendments, general degeneracy of the younger generation etc.] ------------------------------------------------------ (from an earlier post) ... So I have checked this one out carefully using the sources I have available. Thus far, I must say that it doesn't fly at all (as Orville said). First of all, 'Abdu'l-Baha is also the Expounder: "... what appear to us to be the guiding principles underlying the World Order of Baha'u'llah, as amplified and enunciated by Abdu'l-Baha, the Center of His Covenant with all mankind and the appointed Interpreter and Expounder of His Word. (World Order of Baha'u'llah, page 35; the same term is used again at page 37; see also Baha'i Administration, page 191 or Bahiyyih Khanum, pages 36-37; God Passes By, page 325; Second, [reference to Will & Testament, see above] Third, although Shoghi Effendi himself clearly thought he was the Interpreter, this did not mean that he was 'the Interpeter' in the same sense (or in the same station) as 'Abdu'l-Baha: The fact that the Guardian has been specifically endowed with such power as he may need to reveal the purport and disclose the implications of the utterances of Baha'u'llah and of Abdu'l-Baha does not necessarily confer upon him a station co-equal with those Whose words he is called upon to *interpret*. He can exercise that right and discharge this obligation and yet remain infinitely inferior to both of them in rank and different in nature. (World Order of Baha'u'llah, page 151) So while there probably is a distinction between their interpretations, I don't see that the use of the words Interpreter or Expounder in a particular text gives us any clues at all. The meanings are not quite the same, but clearly both 'Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi are authorised interpreters and expounders. For your convenience, a very brief list of references follows [...] "the right of interpretation with which He has invested its Guardian" (God Passes By, page 326) "The hereditary authority which the Guardian of the Administrative Order is called upon to exercise, and the right of the interpretation of the Holy Writ solely conferred upon him.." (God Passes By, pages 326-327) "it is made indubitably clear and evident that the Guardian of the Faith has been made the Interpreter of the Word ... The interpretation of the Guardian, functioning within his own sphere, is as authoritative and binding as the enactments of the International House of Justice, " (World Order of Baha'u'llah, pages 149-150) "the Guardian of the Faith ... interprets what has been specifically revealed.. (World Order of Baha'u'llah, page 150) and from a secretary: He is the Guardian of the Cause in the very fullness of that term, and the appointed interpreter of its teachings... (Letters to Aust. and New Zealand, page 55) "The infallibility of the Guardian is confined to matters which are related strictly to the Cause and interpretation of the teachings... (Directives of the Guardian, pages 33-34) see also - Bahiyyih Khanum, pages 146-147; 153-154; 159; 160-161 --------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sen McGlinn ---------------- From s0a7254@tam2000.tamu.eduThu Sep 7 18:12:58 1995 Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 12:29:29 -0500 (CDT) From: Saman Ahmadi To: talisman Subject: Re: interpretation Dear Juan and All, While I would agree with you that a *group* composed of 9 Western professors in the Humanities would not have come up with the decision you cited, I don't think we can say that a *House of Justice* composed of the same men would have come up with a decision different than what the current House has ruled. By the same token we can not say that they would come up with the same decision either. (I realize I said something different in another posting but I think that the idea of not knowing the answer to this kind of hypothetical is valid.) On another note: in the Aqdas, Baha'u'llah writes that He had held back the Pen in the face of numerous letters from Baha'is asking for the revelation of Laws - is there a record of Baha'u'llah's individual responses to those whose request was not granted? regards, sAmAn From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlThu Sep 7 18:14:50 1995 Date: Thu, 7 Sep 95 19:15:41 EZT From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: women and UHJ Dear Suzanne Regarding your desire to see the question of possible future changes more widely discussed, I don't see the corner. The House says ...the law regarding the membership of the Universal House of Justice is ... neither amenable to change nor subject TO speculation about some possible future condition. They don't say it is not a subject FOR speculation. But we cannot expect our speculations to lead to a change. I would be strongly against any attempt to stir up agitation for change, too. As I've said before, I think the appropriate channel for change is the prayerful voting by National Spiritual Assembly members at the time of the international convention. So speculate away: if they had wanted to say it was not a subject for speculation or for discussion they could have done so. I think they would be horrified at the reading that they were trying to proscribe speculation. The Universal House of Justice just doesn't function like that! It is interesting that they say that the law is "embedded in the Text and has been merely restated by the divinely appointed interpreters." They are thus NOT reading the various Tablets of `Abdu'l-Baha and the letters from Shoghi Effendi's secretaries on this point as 'interpretations', which 'become part of the sacred text and cannot be changed'. This is a considerable step forwards. The exclusion then rests on the interpretation of the Universal House of Justice that the law is embedded in the Text (of the Aqdas presumably). Given that interpretation, they cannot make any change. If they change their interpretation, it's a whole new ball game. Steve (Hi!): yes your summing up seems to capsulize the situation well regarding the writings of the Guardian. This part of the question is not adequately dealt with in the paper 'The Service of Women' - it requires a more theological approach to the definition of the Guardian's authority (as he defined it himself) based on the Dispensation of Baha'u'llah, chapter on 'The Administrative Order'. I think the authors of 'The Service of Women' were more historically than theologically inclined. I have a paper on 'interpretative principles' submitted to the Baha'i Studies Review (advt.) One of the reviewers called the paper 'a theology of the Guardianship', and I think it does say something useful about the underlying principles. Regarding the Writings of `Abdu'l-Baha and Baha'u'llah, the Universal House of Justice will not make any legislation unless they are quite sure that this is not a matter which is explicitly provided for in the Text (so that it falls within their sphere). If they decide that what is in the text is open to various interpretations, their first legislation on the matter may well be negative, either because the needs of the community require it, or because their understanding of the most probable meaning of the texts is that they were intended to exclude women. But even negative legislation would be another step forward. BTW (acronym for your pleasure Suzanne), when I heard the paper 'The Service of Women' I also felt that the matter was now 'as clear as the noonday sun': that phrase actually came to mind when the reader (Jan Tilly) came to an end and the (thunderous) applause began. It was a momentous day for the Faith and an indescribable experience to be there in person. And in sharing this research with others over the years since, I have seen its healing effect on some very sincere and pained women. Sen PS I should say that I am not in any way connected with the Bahai Studies Review and the editors have not put me up to my advertisements for them in any way. I just think it's a good journal, with the right balance between academic form and discussing the things that really matter to the community. Also a relatively hassle-free and rapid-reaction place to submit papers, for anyone considering that. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sen McGlinn From richs@microsoft.comThu Sep 7 18:15:39 1995 Date: Thu, 7 Sep 95 10:42:08 PDT From: Rick Schaut To: owner-talisman@indiana.edu, talisman@indiana.edu Subject: RE: Domains of Authority/Women on UHJ Dear Steven and Friends, First, it's extremely difficult to base any claim to a lack of clarity on a perceived contradiction between two texts. How does one perceive a contradiction without interpreting one of the texts? When we ask this question in the context of Baha'i Law and the issue of women on the Universal House of Justice, the problem is made even more difficult by the existence of laws which accord rights and duties differently for men than they do for women and about which `Abdu'l-Baha made no statement whatsoever. Secondly, because Shoghi Effendi does nothing more than point to `Abdu'l-Baha's statement on the issue, the authoritative status of Shoghi Effendi's statements isn't probative. Rather, the authoritative status of `Abdu'l-Baha's statements is probative. I believe the only way to proceed on this issue is to an examination of the authoritative status of `Abdu'l-Baha's statements. I don't feel qualified to make such an examination, but I should point out that the authoritative status of one statement does not determine the status of another. To illustrate this, `Abdu'l-Baha may have banned women from serving on the Chicago House of Justice in an exercise of his authority as Head of the Faith. This does not mean that `Abdu'l-Baha's statement about the 8th Ishraq (is that the right text, Juan?) was also an exercise of his authority as Head of the Faith. This latter statement might have been an interpretation of the text. The two statements may inculcate conflicting policies, but the conflict would be resolved through a comparison of the authoritative status which devolves to the two statements. Warmest Regards, Rick From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduThu Sep 7 18:18:02 1995 Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 12:48:47 -0600 (MDT) From: "[G. Brent Poirier]" To: Rick Schaut Cc: owner-talisman@indiana.edu, talisman@indiana.edu Subject: RE: revelation and inspiration OK, I'll try to reply before heading out of town to the Glenwood Springs Conference , which I highly recommend. On Wed, 6 Sep 1995, Rick Schaut wrote: > What specific authority was Shoghi Effendi exercising when he > banned participation in partisain politics? My guess is protection > of the Faith, which would mean that the Universal House of Justice > can cange the injunction whenever it is no longer pertinent to the > protection of the Faith. It's not only an issue of protection; it's an aspect of the mirror principles that just as we expect our governments to not interfere in our religious activities (and this is the one area where we Baha'is are free to defy our governments, and in some cases, must do so to retain our administrative rights), likewise, we do not interfere in matters of state (not only not interfere in partisan politics). However, since Baha'u'llah endowed the House with authority over all "matters of state," this policy will change with the passage of time. Juan, you and Tony and Sen have a copy of the (1986, I think) letter from the House on politics, in which the House explicitly said this. Juan, I think that you feel that while the House can and should permit more Baha'i involvement in politics, you feel that there is a limit to that. That is, most US Baha'is feel that for today, the degree of political involvement is OK; but in future, the Baha'i institutions will *be* the political institutions. You argue for more involvement today, but a more restrained role in future, where the Baha'i religious institutions function alongside secular non-Baha'i institutions. > I must confess that I don't have a rigorous way to determine this (hence > my use of the word "guess" above). I was rather hoping that those > Talizens trained in these techniques, particularly as they apply to the > practice of law (Brent?), would be able to shed some light on this. Well, permit me a pointed, not-intended-to-be-critical analogy. Just as today's university environment is in some ways toxic to the development of Baha'i scholarship, a legal education and participation in today's legal system does not necessarily endow one with any particular capacities in the area of Baha'i law. We have to learn how to benefit from, yet be above, our environment (be "dry in the sea"). I have no hesitation in saying that Juan is far more knowledgeable in jurisprudence than I am. 'Course, that doesn't mean I agree with him lots of times. I quite agree that we are in the embryonic stages of not only Baha'i philosophy, but Baha'i jurisprudence, and it's fun to bounce ideas off of one another. One of the areas that interests me is the nature of the Guardian's statements. Which are interpretations? Which interpretations are identified as such? Which are comments on today's current events? PDC seems to be not only interpretive, but a discussion of the application of prophecy in Islam and the Baha'i Writings, to current events and social trends; and these were subject to change. The Guardian's statement on Hitler in "The Light of Divine Guidance" is made expressly conditional on future events and future information; unlike such comments on the trends in society, he never made interpretations with such conditions placed on them. I do not mean to imply that the Guardian was only infallible in interpretation; he expressly claimed infallibility in protection of the Faith (hence his title, "Guardian of the Cause of God.") ^^^^^^^^ As far as the statements in the Aqdas, Tablet of the Branch, and Kitab-i-Ahd about 'Abdu'l-Baha: While the statement of Baha'u'llah endowing the Master with the power of interpretation is brief ("refer ye whatsoever ye understand not in the Book to Him...") there are statements in Tablets and in public addresses by 'Abdu'l-Baha interpreting this verse, which expands considerably my understanding of the verse. Brent From TLCULHANE@aol.comThu Sep 7 18:19:26 1995 Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 15:47:33 -0400 From: TLCULHANE@aol.com To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: re:Interpretation and S. Destiny Dear Friends, What a treat to find Ahang's , Juan's and Frank's posts on this question . As in January when this issue came up it is all way over my head . I dont pretend to understand the nuances in the argumeny . Nevertheless I find it facsinating and mind stretching . I hope it will continue . For starters could someone explain to me the difference between Juans and Franks description . I am sure there is a difference of emphasis but I dont see it . They seemed to my untrained eye to be very similiar one expresssed in the language of a Literature Professor , the other in the language of a legal historian. Derek and others : It seems clear to me based on Baha'u'llah'a description ( and my personal experience ) that the Feminine is clearly an active force viz the Siyah Chal , an event I love to meditate upon . Jim H. I would love to discuss the Spiritual Destiny issue . For it ti have any expanatory power for me -- and I think others among the rank and file -- it will need to come down from the level of grand theory and address specific issues . Where we may disagree is in our reading of American history . I would argue that the Bahai Community is an heir to a long reformist tradition stretching back to the Puritans , the Jeffersonian democrats , the womens suffregists, abolitionists, the agrarian populists and peoples party(among my personal favorites with their call for a cooperative commonwealth), Debsian socialists , Catholic worker movement, M.L. king and the southern civil rights movement among others . If we plan to "wake up" America we are going to have to find themes that are understandable and build on those existing traditions. Presenting ourselves as an "alien" religion here to save a nation and culture that "sucks" or is old order is not going to get us very far. It sure has not to date. It also has the effect of cuttinf Baha'i's off from thosze sources within their own background which are identity forming and therefore are capable of sustaining a sense of mission . I think it would be helpful in this regard if we took a good look at wht M. L. King and the SCLC did in building on the culture of the AmericanSouth as well as the rural Black church and fashioned a movement that was successful . ( It problems later occurred in attempting to transplant that to a northern urban setting ) I will post what seem to me some of the convergences and the tradition to which we are heirs as the month rolls along. Right now I have this intriguing thought of Jonathan Edwards as a Shayk Ahmad of the West . Has anyone read his _Nature of True Virtue_ recently ? It reads a little like the Hidden Words in prose married to the Advent of Diviune Justice . OR his call for a redemptive commonwealth that would embrace the whole of humanity ? (he thought by the 20th century ) Not bad for a fellow writing in the 1740s. warm regards Terry From haukness@tenet.eduThu Sep 7 18:23:22 1995 Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 15:52:51 -0500 (CDT) From: John Haukness To: Alethinos@aol.com Cc: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: Women/UHJ - not over yet ... Allah-u-abha Friends: I think Jim's post very aptly speaks to the dilemma those of us (especially if we are male) have if we don't have problems with Bahaullah's writings, and for those of us who have wasted little, if any of our time, speculating on any problems within the station of Abdul Baha or Shoghi Effendi. My guess is that we can be perceived as ostriches or lemmings, which is ok with me. Politically, I was a hardened feminist before I became a Baha'i, and althought my loss of previously held beliefs surprised me at times, non the less the loss was a fast as the blink of an eye. Bahaullah, how can I thank you, for sending to us your son and great grandson, thankyou, thankyou, forever, thankyou! haukness@tenet.edu From haukness@tenet.eduThu Sep 7 18:24:15 1995 Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 16:13:47 -0500 (CDT) From: John Haukness To: Juan R Cole Cc: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: interpretation Allah-u-abha Friends: Ah, Juan, but I have seen many replys to the question of how can you not have women on the House and not be sexist. Posts as to it is a matter of role and function not a matter of sex, and another is that the House is a position of serving, not a position of power. So what you are saying to me, being you read them is that you don't accept them as sound, not that you haven't seen them. This is ok, some of us however see them as sound. I also want to say that repeatedly people have stated that obviously all this commotion means that it certainly cannot be clear as the noon day sun to anyone. This also is not true, I am not airing out that it is clear to me, but I will put forth that just because it seems wrong to a group of people does not mean that in this day 153BE is is not at least kind of clear to somepeople already. Again, as I have said before, I do not see this issue as predominant in keeping people away from the faith, obviously, Juan and many tali people do see it as predominate but I see many issues, such as chastity and alcohol etc, etc. as equal stumbling blocks to the senses. BTW Hand of the Cause Bahiyyih Khanum has frequently written that this issue is a non issue for her, in fact, I know of more women that it is a non issue than a detriment. Cheers and you all sleep well out there in cyberland. haukness@tenet.edu From burlb@bmi.netThu Sep 7 18:29:25 1995 Date: Thu, 7 Sep 95 14:37 PDT From: Burl Barer To: Juan R Cole Subject: Re: interpretation > > A House full of Western >university professors in the humanities would never have dreamed of >ordering a primary source such as Salmani's memoirs of Baha'u'llah to >be bowdlerized in English translation. > As English is the only language I am able to read, what am I missing in the original? Did they take out the hot parts or something? Burl > > From burlb@bmi.netThu Sep 7 18:29:55 1995 Date: Thu, 7 Sep 95 14:51 PDT From: Burl Barer To: H-C deFlerier deCourcelles <100735.2257@compuserve.com> Cc: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: I am that I am.. > Now if our Mr. Barer is none but Mr. Singh-Rathore coming back with a pen name..... Say it ain't so, Joe! I'm not Mr. Rathore, Basil Rathbone, Singh N. Endirain, Singh A. Poire, Nina Simone, Simon Schuster, Saman Ali Faithful, Mirza Awful Coffee, or Havha Tasti Wahful, so leggo my eggo (ego) and know for a fact that he who indentifies me with other than myself has misaprehended my reality.-- I am just plain ol' Burl Barer from Walla Walla, Washington who writes to Talisman instead of writing his book...oh yeah, any of you big city kids bought my latest one yet? I notice a lack of comments about its brilliance which I attribute to you all just being polite -- I did manage to browbeat about 40+ Baha'is to buy it at Bosch last week, thanks to the promotional efforts of Derek Cockshut. I bet it is the first work of its kind ever sold at Bosch. I made sure I signed all the copies so they couldn't be sent back :-) Burl > From 72110.2126@compuserve.comThu Sep 7 22:30:13 1995 Date: 07 Sep 95 18:43:25 EDT From: David Langness <72110.2126@compuserve.com> To: Talisman@indiana.edu Subject: A Woman's Place is on the House Dear Talismaniacs and Burl, too, Kudos to Burl for being the first on Talisman to mention Studebakers, a heavy academic interest of mine since I'm in the midst of building one in my garage... But, hey, Burl, they don't call it The Supreme Body for nothing, you know. I've often heard the argument that women shouldn't worry that they get excluded from the House of Justice because it really isn't where the power exists, that being at the grass roots. Such an argument has always seemed highly specious to me. Rather akin to the Mormons proclaiming that their (former) exclusion of blacks from the priesthood was no reflection on any lack of spiritual capacity, in a sense. Just a short tale to buttress several views heretofore expressed: Last year two friends from the Stanford area called and asked if I would send the Women on the House paper to a physicist who had recently declared and who was contemplating withdrawal, as she had just found out the little secret we don't discuss at firesides, namely the exclusion of women from the Supreme Body. I sent her the paper. She read it, drew some hope from it, and remains a Baha'i. Seems to me that's what we're discussing here, no? Just some way to keep hope alive. Love, David From derekmc@ix.netcom.comThu Sep 7 22:30:43 1995 Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 15:56:11 -0700 From: DEREK COCKSHUT To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re I am what I am or the secret life of Burl Barer. Gentle Talismanians,this week-end at the Bosch Baha'i School we witnessed a Master Author at work.After running through the hail of opened walnut shells from Wild Pete up above to the Book Shop Cafe, Burl showed ways of selling books that dazzled the mind.21 people were amazed to discover that they had co/wrote the book on the astral plane with Burl.That I was Burl evil twin,that everyone of the 41 purchasers were actually mentioned in the book, you only had to look hard with the inner perspective to see that.Burl was a direct ancestor of Richard the Lionheart,Gengis Khan,Marco Polo and Florence Nightingale and in addition has his hair cut at Dickie's in Walla Walla.Only one soul was brave enough to refuse to buy the Famous Book,he had been married for just 10 months Burl and I explained to his Bride the true story of his life before her.We were surprised to find that he slept outside their cabin that night no doubt to view the stars and guard his beloved.We have in the Bookshop, 702 and a half signed copies to sell priced at $19.95,I will be posting a review of this Masterpiece shortly.Kindest Regards< and rather overstocked >Derek Cockshut From M.C.Day@massey.ac.nzThu Sep 7 22:36:48 1995 Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 11:39:18 GMT=1200 From: Mary Day To: Juan R Cole Subject: Re: interpretation Dear Juan, Much as I hate to take a husband's side against a wife's having the hardened feminist attitudes that I don't, but although the prime minister of Pakistan is a woman the literacy rate for women in that country is 20% and falling. Mary From momen@northill.demon.co.ukThu Sep 7 22:40:50 1995 Date: Thu, 07 Sep 95 23:27:41 From: Wendi and Moojan Momen To: talisman@ucs.indiana.edu Subject: Re: Retranslation of SAQ Chapters In article: <9509041628.AA21880@superior> cbuck@ccs.carleton.ca writes: > > Keven Brown writes: > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Incidentally, the chapter on wahdat al-wujud in SAQ is very poorly > translated in my opinion. If I have time, I propose posting a revised > translation of it, or perhaps another of the esteemed contributors to > this forum may take on the task. > __________________ > Buck: > ^^^^ > Question: Is the World Centre planning on retranslating SAQ? > What of the missing text of SAQ? What is happening with that? Is the > Persian original available? I am very anxious to see the missing text! > > I think there ought to be two retranslated editions of SAQ: > (1) text only; (2) an edition with technical terms in parentheses for > academic use. > > I heartily endorse the idea of retranslations of chapters of > SAQ on Tarjuman! > > Christopher Buck AS far as I know, a retranslation of *Some Answered Questions* is proceeding under the auspices of Haifa, but on the North American continent. Several of those involved are on Talisman. So I would think that it would make sense for Keven to hold off on his retranslation. Moojan -- Wendi and Moojan Momen momen@northill.demon.co.uk From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzThu Sep 7 22:41:37 1995 Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 12:15:37 +1200 From: Robert Johnston To: David Langness <72110.2126@compuserve.com>, talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: A Woman's Place is on the House David "Papa Hemingway" Langness, having cleaned his sniper's rifle, poignantly wrote: >Last year two friends from the Stanford area called and asked if I would >send the Women on the House paper to a physicist who had recently declared >and who was contemplating withdrawal, as she had just found out the little >secret we don't discuss at firesides, namely the exclusion of women from >the Supreme Body. I sent her the paper. She read it, drew some hope from >it, and remains a Baha'i. > >Seems to me that's what we're discussing here, no? Just some way to keep >hope alive. Obviously finding the right balance is very hard to accomplish. This woman is a soul attracted to the Kingdom, and has the virtue of being a person of capacity, it would seem. However, I have strong reservations regarding the wisdom of keeping hope alive through use of a fallacy. This, bluntly put, reduces to the Faith to some kind of Cargo Cult status which it can't sustain. The only liars approved within the Faith [that I know of] are physicians in certain circumstances. Even lawyers shouldn't play John Frum. My own view is that there is a certain preciousness about bending over backwards to make things easy for believers in the over-indulged west. Generally I believe that the greatest opportunities for teaching the Faith lie among the less pampered. I feel certain that this viewpoint will get up someone's nose. But that's life, and fortunately I live a long way from Maastrecht (sp?) and Palmerston North and where ever it is that that sweet bloke called Derek hangs out. Robert. From mfoster@tyrell.netThu Sep 7 22:41:58 1995 Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 19:20:18 -0500 (EDT) From: "Mark A. Foster" To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: All-Male Guardianship To: talisman@indiana.edu Talismanians - Just a question (speculatory, of course): Had the line of Guardians continued, would we see here the same concern over the head of the Faith being male? IOW (in other words), would a case be made, considering 'Abdu'l-Baha's Will and other relevant documents, for why we could have a female Guardian, and how an all-male Guardianship is contrary to the principle of the unity of the sexes? Greetings, Mark From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comThu Sep 7 22:43:28 1995 Date: Thu, 07 Sep 95 18:59:01 -0400 From: Ahang Rabbani To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: The Guardian's letter to David Hoffman [This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII] Brother Sen wrote: > Ahang referred to: "a letter from the beloved Guardian to > David Hoffman (quoted by Mr. Hoffman in his paper published > in "The Vision of Shoghi Effendi") that the word "mubayyin" > (from "tab`yin") should be translated and understood as > "Interpreter" which is the function of the Master and his (ie. > Shoghi Effendi's) function is that of Exposition, "Tashrih" > ("shari`" = Expounder)." > However I've checked Mr. Hoffman's essay in The Vision of > Shoghi Effendi, and can't find this reference there. Perhaps I > missed it, or perhaps our beloved Ahang was functioning with > coffee up to his eyeballs at the time :-). In your absence, > Ahang, someone else made the same distinction and it was > discussed. I'd like to hear your comments. Well, Sen, I think you're right, I must of been drinking ... coffee, that is, ... because I gave the wrong reference. I stand busted. Let me this time quote from the *correct* reference. The following is an extract from Mr. David Hoffman's paper, "Shoghi Effendi: Expounder of the Word of God", presented at the 9th Annual Conference of Association for Baha'i Studies (actually, read by his daughter): Hoffman wrote: "We may dwell for a moment on the difference between interpretation and exposition. I am able to share with you the following extract from a letter received from the beloved Guardian himself, commenting on this very point. It is dated December 18th, 1937: 'The Master should be referred to as "Interpreter" of the Word and not "Expounder", the former being much more precise, and more faithful to the original Persian word used by Baha'u'llah.' "We may conclude from this, bearing in mind that the station and powers of `Abdu'l-Baha, that the Interpreter has authority to declare both the inner and outer meaning of the Sacred Text, to add to it, His Word being part of the Revelation itself, and unchangeable. "The Expounder does not add to the Revelation although his exposition and interpretation have the same validity as the text itself. It is clearly recognized that Shoghi Effendi made no changes and added nothing new to the Revelation. He disclosed to our astonished eyes and expounded what had already been enshrined in the Writings by the three Central Figures of our Faith." Ahang speaking again: As you asked for my view, I tend to fully agree with David Hoffman on this issue (and as a side point out that his paper was first reviewed by the House before it was presented at the Conf. -- however that is not to suggest that the views in the paper are necessarily those of the House). There are numerous examples where Abdu'l-Baha added to the Revelation. He was authorized to do so. He was even authorized to reverse Baha'u'llah, which He did again on a number of instances through His Interpretation. This is a unique aspect of His Office. As much as it deeply wounds me, I must disagree with my learned brother, Frank, in his analogy of Abdu'l-Baha using Imam Ali. Abdu'l-Baha and His Holiness Ali have a lot in common -- but the Office which Abdu'l-Baha occupied and His station are in many ways different from Imam Ali's. One such difference is the fact that Abdu'l-Baha, was the authorized Interpreter and Ali wasn't. Another, is that Abdu'l-Baha changed the Revelation (and Baha'u'llah wanted Him to do so) and Ali stuck very closely to the Text. (For that matter, Ali didn't even worry or fight that hard for the Text since when he was presented with the compiled Qur'an, he destroyed his own copy which apparently differed markedly with the Uthman's version. Can you picture Abdu'l-Baha doing this????) At any rate, I think all such comparisons between our Principle Luminaries (a term coined by Mr. Nakhjavani to refer to the Central Figures and Shoghi Effendi) are hopelessly invalid. This Dispensation stands supreme over all the previous Dispensations and as such all the Principle Luminaries occupy a unique stations never before experienced. May be I should stick with decaf tea ... with much love, ahang. From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzThu Sep 7 22:45:03 1995 Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 13:13:41 +1200 From: Robert Johnston To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: lack of grace... So: The postmodernist Derrida reckoned that the most important thing was style and as I translate what this means into my own psyche I say that the most important thing is grace. What I find most offensive of lack of grace. I am always stunned when I come across it, because I just don't expect it. It manifests itself in failure to give credit where credit is due and a kind of weird perversity towards authority. Failure to credit where credit is due is fundamentally oedipal... the siblings fighting for the good favours of the parent. Perversity towards authority is also oedipal ... the siblings wishing to usurp the authority of the parent. There is no limit to the ways in which these may operate, and when they become co-conspirators, as they do sometimes on Talisman, their effects are particularly devastating. Here the formula goes something like this: (1) problematise the Writings, (11) discourage the finding of straightforward solutions with letters written in the language of reasonableness but potent of heartfelt viciousness, (111) whinge when this viciousness becomes obvious and the standards of the Faith are upheld, (1V) invoke the list rules as a censoring mechanism. Such is the way of those who lack grace. Fortunately, the graceless are few. Robert. From M.C.Day@massey.ac.nzThu Sep 7 22:45:22 1995 Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 13:49:15 GMT=1200 From: Mary Day To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: A woman's place Dear Talismans, I wish to make it perfectly clear to all members of Talisman that I live in Palmerston North and I have not and never intend to express an opinion about whether the present position regarding the membership of the House will or will not change. I have made some very tentative suggestions as to the wisdom of this situation and that is all. I take strong exception to anybody attributing any other views to me. Mary From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comThu Sep 7 22:45:55 1995 Date: Thu, 07 Sep 95 20:32:01 -0400 From: Ahang Rabbani To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: interpreter/expounder [This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII] Dear Sen, One last thought which I forgot to include with the earlier posting.... Initially it seems that we are faced with some kind of dilemma: Shoghi Effendi in his 1937 letter to David Hoffman seems to emphasis the difference between Interpretation and Exposition and then goes right ahead and uses that term (interpretation) for himself. But perhaps a way out is what Rob Stockman proposed some months ago, that is, when the Guardian refers to himself as the interpreter, he is using small "i" and reserves capital "I" for Abdu'l-Baha. In reading the quotations which you posted, I know this doesn't hold 100%, but perhaps the publishers were editing his writings and capitalized where they weren't suppose to (just like adding all those titles and subtitles to his letters ...). The only way to find out for sure is to see Shoghi Effendi's original manuscript and see how he has capitalize things. Experience has shown that on such matters of details, English published Texts can't be trusted 100%. Incidentally, in light of 1937 letter of Shoghi Effendi, I think you're are right and the passage of the Will and Testament should be kept the way Shoghi Effendi had it back in 1922 and the revised version should be reverted back. But I'm sure the Research Dept had a pretty good reason for authorizing the change... It might be well worth asking ... regards, ahang. From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzFri Sep 8 10:43:55 1995 Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 16:16:31 +1200 From: Robert Johnston To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: A Woman's Place is on the House Dear Mary, Re: > >I feel certain that this viewpoint will get up someone's nose. My point is this: there are some people who, if I said, "The sky is blue," would say "No, it is the colour of a starling's egg." To almost everyone else they would be the most agreeable person in the world. I am born in the year of the Ox, and you waved a red flag before my eyes... Please do not overlook the possibility that my fundamental inclinations are not hostile. Just wary. I was not suggesting that you are infirm in the covenant. Robert. From Alethinos@aol.comFri Sep 8 10:58:09 1995 Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 01:16:35 -0400 From: Alethinos@aol.com To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: Interpretation and S. Destiny In a message dated 95-09-07 16:03:44 EDT, you write: >Jim H. I would love to discuss the Spiritual Destiny issue . For it >ti have any expanatory power for me -- and I think others among the rank and >file -- it will need to come down from the level of grand theory and address >specific issues . Where we may disagree is in our reading of American >history . I would argue that the Bahai Community is an heir to a long >reformist tradition stretching back to the Puritans , the Jeffersonian >democrats , the womens suffregists, abolitionists, the agrarian populists and >peoples party(among my personal favorites with their call for a cooperative >commonwealth), Debsian socialists , Catholic worker movement, M.L. king and >the southern civil rights movement among others . >> If we plan to "wake up" America we are going to have to find themes that are understandable and build on those existing traditions. Presenting ourselves as an "alien" religion here to save a nation and culture that "sucks" or is old order is not going to get us very far. It sure has not to date. It also has the effect of cuttinf Baha'i's off from thosze sources within their own background which are identity forming and therefore are capable of sustaining a sense of mission . I think it would be helpful in this regard if we took a good look at wht M. L. King and the SCLC did in building on the culture of the AmericanSouth as well as the rural Black church and fashioned a movement that was successful . ( It problems later occurred in attempting to transplant that to a northern urban setting )<<< Dear Terry: If by all this you mean that we should tap into the latent energy of *unrest* and *revolution* existing in Americans - well than yes I would agree with you. The Guardian must have seen this too - this being a country more malleable than most - so in one sense easier to stir up - and yet at the other end - the least likely to rise against its very materialisitic foundation. But I would most def. disagree with your chronology. We as Baha'is did not *inherit* these movements; nor are we some odd continuation of them. If they exist, they exist through the Hand of God to begin with - but we should not suggest that somehow we are an *extention* of them. We may call upon some of the concepts and spirit they themselves engendered - but the Faith is unique, as we have been told, repeatedly, in Its message and design. But hey, let's talk . . . jim harrison Alethinos@aol.com From burlb@bmi.netFri Sep 8 10:59:57 1995 Date: Thu, 7 Sep 95 22:29 PDT From: Burl Barer To: David Langness <72110.2126@compuserve.com> Cc: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: A Woman's Place is on the House David (if i were king) Langness wrote: >Kudos to Burl for being the first on Talisman to mention Studebakers, >a heavy academic interest of mine since I'm in the midst of building one >in my garage... I had a 1963 Gran Turismo Hawk, White with Red interior. I had wanted one since 1963, and getting one was not a manifestation of materialism, but rather the manifestation of that wonderful attribute of God called "Dominion." "The Supreme Body" was, in most people's opinion, the "lowboy". Those unfamiliar with Studebakers will not get this,but that's ok. The "grassroots" excuse you mentioned is not what I had in mind -- that is still the old ladder paradigm and, like most old paradigms, is worth about 20 cents. I think there is an important point that needs to be restated in a way better than I can say it, 'cause the way I say it is like this: The Baha'i Faith is a transformative religion. That does *not* mean that the Faith or its Covenant transforms to fit the mood, expectations, desires, or proclivities of those who would join it. It does mean that those who would join it are transformed by submission to the Will of God as revealed in the Text of that which has the same authority as "the Text itself." Baha'u'llah is the Messenger. The Message is not silly putty provided for the purpose of us permanently coloring it with today's temporary headlines -- the BIG ISSUE and challange for Baha'is used to be things such as not being able to be a Freemason and a Baha'i at the same time or not using Feast as the place for self-employed vacume cleaner sales agents to demonstrate their products. (yes, someone withdrew over that "If I can't sell vacume cleaners at Feast, well I quit!) As the Lobster said to the Crab: "It all boils down to this" Either Baha'u'llah is or He ain't .If he ain't, it don't matter. If He is, in Him let the trusting trust. This bit about "giving her hope" stikes me as ultimately bogus -- it is an adversarial relationship between her and the Source of All Good -- her "hope" being that the Source of All Good, Freed from all Error will finally see her position as more "advanced" or "correct" . This seems an unhealthy way for believers to regard that in which they believe. The only thing that kept me from declaring sooner than I did was my enthusiastic participation in substance boosted inter-dimensional half-astral travel. My concern was never women in the House, but Narcs in the motel. :-) Burl ------------------------- Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 01:44:43 -0400 To: jrcole@umich.edu Subject: Personal Good luck! I am, by the way, in utter despair over Talisman. We have been invaded and almost destroyed by idiots, with Robt Johnson leading the pack of wolves. I can hardly stand it, and I am so mad that I better not say anything for a while. ----------------------------- From ahmada@acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.auFri Sep 8 11:11:33 1995 Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 16:03:21 +1000 From: Ahmad Aniss To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: A reply "possibility of women on UHJ" Dear Talismanians, Dear Juan, In your previous posting you said the following statement, which to me implies that you beleive puting things into prespective and as you said, puting it into historical context and changes over time must form part of the analysis. >Please note: the approach to interpretation or hermeneutics I am >employing here assumes that traditional knowledge is suspect; that >specific texts must be adduced to support specific propositions; that the >whole corpus of concerned texts must be weighed against one another; and >that historical context and change over time must form part of the analysis. >I agree with Gadamer that this approach cannot produce absolutely >objective knowledge, and that it is a tradition in its own right (a >language game if you will). But it is for me a fruitful tradition, and >this is the game I am playing. Then you come up with this statement which realy make me confused of your motives: >As for the argument that Baha'u'llah said so, and we must simply accept >what He said, I have gone blue in the face trying to demonstrate that He >said no such thing; and that even though `Abdu'l-Baha at first thought He >did, even he changed his mind later on. > The fact is that the Universal House of Justice is the power >center of the Baha'i Faith. It makes policy, it legislates, it decides >cases. It is an executive, a legislature and a judiciary rolled into >one. And given the centralization of the Baha'i bureaucracy its >statements in all three spheres have enormous and immediate impact on all >Baha'i institutions and believers. With all those quotations that gone through Talisman the last two weeks, and specially the following statement by The UHJ in regard to the article `women's service', and in addition considering the stations of Abdu'l-Baha and The Guardian in our Faith, I must say that I do not see how can you say we must wait for a change and not a wisdom in regard to the statement of Abdu'l-Baha. I hope this is not a women that after reaching to the highest ranks (as Abdu`l-Baha sayes it is acheivable by women in this Faith), then thinks that by persuing such a line of argument and `game as you put it`, she would be able to bring about a change. "As mentioned earlier, the law regarding the membership of the Universal House of Justice is embedded in the Text and has been merely restated by the divinely appointed interpreters. It is therefore neither amenable to change nor subject to speculation about some possible future condition." > To exclude women permanently from >this body is to endow them with less power in the Baha'i community than >men. How did you come up with this conculssion. > As for those who maintain that the Universal House of Justice is >unaffected by the gender or culture of its members, this is patently >untrue. In a number of important decisions, its personnel clearly have >led it to see things one way and not another. A House full of Western >university professors in the humanities would never have dreamed of >ordering a primary source such as Salmani's memoirs of Baha'u'llah to >be bowdlerized in English translation. Perhaps the views of the UHJ will be in a men's prespective but, as the writings state we must still abide by them and not question them, as they will be guided by God and His Manifestation always and as such their delibrations will be guided. > With regard to the possibility of women on the House, it seems to me >that no one has answered Bill Garlington's challenging analogy. >Discrimination on the basis of sex is no different than discrimination on >the basis of race. Saying women cannot serve on the House is morally >equivalent to saying that, e.g., blacks cannot serve on the House. None >of us (I hope) would put up with the latter position. Why is the former >any different? Are women less human than blacks? Do they have fewer rights? As I have said it before functions of individuals do not make them superior or inferior in any way. There is no discrimination envolved. It is a function that they are performing. If women are able to give Life and men not doesn't that make men inferior to women in accordance to your argument. Comparing race with function of sexes is like the argument that oranges and apples are fruits and hence they must be considered equal and alike. Hence the answer is NO! women are not less human than blacks. they have no more rights than men have. In this instance based on form of Creation the men are performing a function and have no superiority over the female counterpart. > Moreover, if we look at the contemporary world, women have been >accepted in leadership positions in most countries; there have been >European women prime ministers, South Asian women prime ministers, Latin >American women prime ministers, etc. Being in a position of leadership is not the same as being infallibile and guided at all times via an interaction with the Manifestation of God through the Spiritual World. Among the two most backward areas >with regard to women's rights, however, are the Arab world and Iran. >Some sort of combination of Islam and cultural values has kept women >solidly out of leadership in both cultural spheres. The idea of a woman >leader in Iran, Egypt or Saudi Arabia is a joke, pure and simple. >(Women's literacy and numbers in the workforce in both are also low in >world terms; women typically have little status in the public sphere; the >Qur'an authorizes smacking one's wife when she gets out of hand; and >gender segregation often excludes women from professioanal and business >education and work opportunities). But all this is not only a matter of >Islam; Benazir Bhutto is prime minister of the Islamic Republic of >Pakistan (as my wife reminds me when she wishes to demonstrate how >backward Americans are). I could not put it better. Yes! this is the precise reason that the advent of Baha'u'llah occured in Iran. The advent of a Manifestion of God always occur in the most bleak of all places as Baha'u'llah Himself has stated this. I think you say the same thing in the next paragraph. > Now, the Baha'i Faith was born precisely in this area of Iran and >the Arab world; and it managed (gradually) to overcome a great deal of the >cultural baggage it inherited from those cultures. But it is suspicious to >me that it excludes women from the top leadership, just in precisely the >same way they are excluded from being head of state or prime minister in >Iran, Syria and Egypt. It is suspicious to you because you have not been able to put all the writings on this regard into their prespective position (I think), not because they are not. As you say these must contradict each other (i.e. equality in one direction and exclusion in another), then we must look for reasons and wisdoms and not rather try to force a change. > Saying we believe in the equality of women and men and yet >keeping them off the most powerful institution in our religion is bound >to be seen by the outside world as both hypocritical and sexist. But it >is also contradictory to Baha'i values themselves. Our function must be to try to convince other of the station of Baha'u'llah and not correctness of His laws. If individuals recognise his station every thing else will fit into its place. NO! it is not contradictory to Baha'i values. > I hear voices saying that no change is possible, things are set >in stone. Yet the promise of the Baha'i Faith was precisely of a >flexible religion, able to change with the times, having as little >immutable law as possible (Baha'u'llah, Ishraq 8). Flexibility yes, but not to an extend that it is a detriment to the laws that are embedded (see the above quote) in the writings of our Faith. > We are children of >the half-light, we do not yet see what the Faith may become. We think we >are pre-Vatican II Roman Catholics, or we think we are Shi`ites with >infallible Imams and an Exemplar who must be imitated, because those are the >only models we know for a universal religion with an infallible head. But >however appropriate they might have been to an earlier time, they are >wretched models for the third Millennium C.E. We need not banish reason; >we can do better. Who is trying to comapre this Dispensation`s structure with that of the passed structures. Ours is unique and has bases within our writings. To compare them is a mistake. So, I think you must go over the writings with a neutral view. Remove all inclinations from your heart (if there is any) and then after putting them into proper prespective, then look to see if your decissions stay the same. I hope Juan will not take this personally. With Baha'i Love and Fellowship, Ahmad. _______________________________________________________________________ ^ ^ ^ Dr. A.M. Aniss, _________________________^ From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzFri Sep 8 11:14:48 1995 Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 22:46:09 +1200 From: Robert Johnston To: Alison & Steve Marshall , talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: Getting up noses Dear Steve, > >You get up my nose too, Robert, Thank you for the admission Steve. I am very pleased to drag it all from the wood work. Then there is no pretense. I am perpetually open to reconciliation, but in the meantime please un-subscribe me from your list. Robert. From snoopy@skipper.physics.sunysb.eduFri Sep 8 11:20:39 1995 Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 10:18:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Stephen Johnson To: Juan R Cole Cc: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: interpretation On Thu, 7 Sep 1995, Juan R Cole wrote: > With regard to the possibility of women on the House, it seems to me > that no one has answered Bill Garlington's challenging analogy. > Discrimination on the basis of sex is no different than discrimination on > the basis of race. Saying women cannot serve on the House is morally > equivalent to saying that, e.g., blacks cannot serve on the House. Juan, I'm afraid that I must disagree with you on this analysis. Baha'u'llah, `Abdu'l-Baha,the Guardian and now the Universal House of Justice have all explained that all of the races and peoples of humanity are the same. They are treated the same, they hold the same power, they have the same right, they ...etc. However, men and women are *not* the same. By My Life! The names of handmaidens who are devoted to God are written and set down by the Pen of the Most High in the Crimson Book. They excel over men in the sight of God. How numerous are the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ heroes and knights in the field who are bereft of the True One and have no share in His recognition, but thou hast attained and received thy fill. -Baha'u'llah (CoC #2095) Women are to be educated first, they are to be the ones to bear children and partake of the bounties of motherhood, they are the ones who naturally will possess kind-heartedness (a Divine Attribute). And yet we sit and argue that women are not getting an equal chance in the sight of God while in the future, when men look with the eye of Divine Wisdom, they will instead see the true inner bounty of womanhood. I hate to be so cliche but we must continually remember that men and women are equal in their spiritual station, not in their function on this very brief physical plane. This position of Universal House of Justice does not guarantee a crown in the next life, nor does it confer upon these individuals any special privledge except when they collectively make a decision. Further, their position as men will not in any way weaken the position of women in Baha'u'llah's Divine Order since the Universal House of Justice has as one of its main precepts the equality of men with women. In this day no regard is paid to loftiness, or lowliness, to poverty or wealth, to nobility and lineage, to weakness or might. Whosoever recognizeth the incomparable Beloved is the possessor of true wealth and occupieth a divine station. Today, in the court of the True One, the queen of the world and her like are not worth a mustard seed, because although she may speak in the name of God, invoke the Lord of creation every day in the temple of her body, and spend large sums of earthly wealth for the development of her nation, she is deprived of recognition of the Sun of His Manifestation and is barred from the True One in Whose remembrance she is engaged... Baha'u'llah (CoC p.#2097) The Universal House of Justice has explained that this precept of no women on the Universal House of Justice is true and binding. According to the Writings their command, after all nine of them have consulted, is inspired by God. This is the Command of God and to follow is to follow Baha'u'llah -- to not follow is to not follow Baha'u'llah. We must begin to understand that although men and women are equal in spiritual station, they are not equal in function. Please believe in `Abdu'l-Baha that one day its reason will become as manifest as the noon day sun. God bless my dear friend, stephen johnson From snoopy@skipper.physics.sunysb.eduFri Sep 8 12:08:29 1995 Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 11:39:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Stephen Johnson To: Juan R Cole Subject: Re: interpretation Juan, Perhaps we are completely miscommunicating here...(email can be so limiting!). You said: > None of the women I know would sit still for it for a minute! All of the Baha'i women I have spoken with (quite a few) have no disagreement concerning women on the Universal House of Justice. Since I'm not sure if there is some major difference between all of the the women in our respective communities let's try to figure out what the difference is. Is your major arguement against the idea of having spiritually equal people who serve in different capacities? Why doesn't this fit with society? I really don't see the direct relation you draw between this topic and that of the Jim Crow laws -- could you elaborate some more? I'm not talk 'separate but equal'. Hopefully we can all solve this dilemma between us. Please help me understand what you mean...and thanks for all your input. I always enjoy your postings...(even if they ruffle my feathers :-) ) Good day, stephen johnson From jrcole@umich.eduFri Sep 8 12:09:18 1995 Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 11:41:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Juan R Cole To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: women and men the same `Abdu'l-Baha, "Talk to Federation of Women's Clubs, Hotel LaSalle, Chicago Illinois, 2 May 1912"; Promulgation of Universal Peace, pp. 75-76: "What, then, constitutes the inequality between man and woman? Both are human. In powers and function each is the complement of the other. AT most it is this: that woman has been denied the opportunities which man has so long enjoyed, especially the privilege of education. But even this is not always a shortcoming. Shall we consider it an imperfection and weakness in her nature that she is not proficient in the shcool of military tactics . . . ? . . . Yet be it known that if woman had been taught and trained in the military science of slaughter, she would have been the equivalent of man even in this accomplishment . . . When we consider the kingdoms of existence below man, we find no distinction or estimate of superiority and inferiority between male and female. Among the myriad organisms of the vegetable and animal kingdoms sex exists, but there is no differentiation whatever as to relative importance and value in the equation of life. If we investigate impartially, we may even find species in which the female is superior or preferable to the male . . . the male of the animal kingdom does not glory in its being male and superior to the female . . ." I take away from these passages that 1) gender hierarchies are not considered by `Abdu'l-Baha to be natural or properly based upon biological premises; and 2) women are thought by him to have a more pacific character owing primarily to their socialization by society, not because they are incapable of e.g. warfare. He also appears to believe that society benefits from not socializing women to warfare and wishes to keep it that way. In neither case does he suggest that there is anything "natural" or biological about the difference in orientation toward war. I do not find in this passage support for those who argue that women have "natural" "functions" that are a priori different from men; `Abdu'l-Baha appears to recognize gender roles as socially constructed (and in 1912 to have been badly socially constructed, as well). Remember that at the time he is speaking women did not have the vote in the United States, and were sorely oppressed in the Middle East. cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan From Alethinos@aol.comFri Sep 8 15:39:34 1995 Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 12:24:43 -0400 From: Alethinos@aol.com To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Changing the course of a Nation Terry had written that we need to be practical in our approach to moving America toward its spiritual destiny. I couldn't agree more. American's in general are about as far away from the intellectual forum of Plato and Socrates as is possible without falling off . . . And I do agree that we need to tap into those visionary elements in American history. This is why we had begun, several years ago, to distinguish those elements within American culture, but more importantly in the philosophical foundation upon which this country rests, that need to be attacked - by bringing the light of Reality to bear on these dark areas. We must be able to demonstrate, to explain that it is _not_ America that is *evil* or wrong. It is a series of foundational beliefs - ideas - that are the cause of so much pain and spiritual (as well as physical) destruction. It is, in most respects the same process (except on a mass scale) that we go through in our relationships with people newly come to the Faith. Helping them rid themselves of shortcomings while at the same time giving them a new understanding that to feel *guilty* about them - to take the Mea Culpa approach is counter-productive to spiritual growth - since it simply reaffirms, usually subconsciously that *I* am essentially flawed to the core. We have to seperate the people from the concepts, and help them recognize the wonderful elements of what it is to be an American and that in ridding ourselves of these faulty concepts is not to be ridding ourselves of what it is to be American. gotta go . . . jim harrison Alethinos@aol.com From TLCULHANE@aol.comFri Sep 8 16:20:51 1995 Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 12:53:58 -0400 From: TLCULHANE@aol.com To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: America Dear Jim and all , I do mean we should tap into the latent energy of these movements . In the same sense that Sen has referred to the "Enlightenment " as a proto Bahai movement I believe there are a number of movements in the North American continent which fall in the same category . By "heirs " I mean we are the legitimate successors or fulfillment of the hopes and dreams expessed in the movements I mentioned . No I dont think we are a simple linear extension of them, but then I dont accept the simple linear understanding of the idea of " progress " either . I believe we get ourselves into trouble when we stress the "uniqueness" of the Faith . Perhaps I should say when we stress that reality to the exclusion of our continuity with the deepest and profoundest threads of American spiritual history . This means of course that i view the womens suffrege movement as a spiritual event and not simply a political one . It is that recognition that constitutes our "redemptive" continuity with the aforementioned movement . Each of these movements was also unique in its own way , in their message and their design . yet they called on biblical and republican themes that were already exixting in America . Perhaps the best example of how to do this is Abdu'l Baha himself . It is this example that influences me . He wove the message of Baha'u'llah in such a way as to be recognizable to Americans and appealed to the best of that tradition and then found ways to demonstrate how the Faith of Baha'u'llah satisfied the deepest longings of all groups and causes . The historical origin of the European immagration to America was not in some materialist utopia . The Putitans came here believing they were going to establish a rightous "city on a hill " to use John Winthrops phrase . There was a notion of Covenant involved in this. There understanding was exculsionary to say the least . However to equate the errors or limitations with materialism as a foundation of America i do not think will get us anywhere . I most decidedly do not see materialism as the foundation of America . We assume that materialism is a bad thing. if i approach someone and suggest that the "foundation" of your existence and lived historical experience is materialist and this is a bad thing I have in advance created a condition in which two things happen : 1) I create a distance between myself and that person that breeds non receptivity to my message 2) I have dismissed that person as the "other ' . Neither case seems to me the example Abdu'l Baha presented in His many talks in North America . The materialism we both deplore has , in its current version , a history . Any critique of that materialism will have to be a critique of both its current manifestation and understanding of its history and presenting an alternative vision ehich entails an " interpretive framework" that draws on and is understandable to the intended audience . The current domination of materialism expresses itself institutionally in corporate capitalism and the claim that contractual market relations are normative for all human relationships. This paricular view was quite consciously promoted by Mark Hanna and his republican and Corporate companions in the 1890's. It was a powerful and concetec response to the rise of a biblical - republican movement in the South and Great Plains which began in the late 1870's and by the early 90's had over two million organized followers . What these agrarian populists lacked was the organizational structure and spiritual sustenance of the Faith of Baha'u'lah. They did not lack a critique of materialism and its domination economically and politically by powerful corporate intersests bent on reducing humans to market forces and thereby undermining the spiritual dignity of human beings . If I declare that the foundation of America is simply materialist and therefore "evil" how is this going to confirm my hearer in the value of their experience and redeem its limitations . I have watched this approach for my 24 years as a Baha'i and have not found it to be particularly successful . People resist having their lives dismised away in that fashion . And we are talking about real human beings . I am interested in building bridges that people can walk across into the promised land of the Bahai World Commonwealth. In so doing my critique of materialism dose not assume that the heart of America is materialist . It assumes that the heart of America has profound spiritual yearnings and experience which need re-awakening and a local community based network which extends around the planet and has spiritual authority and material power to use the Guardians reference to the institutions . My belief in the redemption of the American project includes learning from the experience of others . The genius , at least in part, of Martin Luther King was in tapping into the religiousity of Southern Black experience and affirming the best of the South that was shared by the non-black peoples who lived there . We should pay attention King did what Abdu'l Baha did , he drew on the lived experience of people , their hopes and sufferings and infused it with religious meaning . I am not suggesting our "methods can or shouls be the same . I am suggesting we can learn from the interpretive framework used by King and others . The Agrarian populists understood thier project to be creating a "Cooperative Commonwaelth " .. This Commonwaelth did not have anything to do with the consumer utopia passed off as the purpose of life and which is embedded in structures of corporate capitalism . They also were mosr assuredly not socialists .( It strikes me as an example of our impoverisehed sense of possibilities that critique of corporate capitalism assumes the only alternative is some form of bureaucratic socialism .) The populists had a "producer" ideology not a consumer one . They understood work to be worship and saw in the "wage slavery" of the factory system a development profoundly destructive to the human spirit . they also were decidedly non-partisan in their approach to politics, until the powers that be started to take the threat they presented seriously. It would do us good to read some of what these folks had to say before we assume too much Bahai uniqueness . I would recomment perusing Charles McCune's work on the "suntreasury plan as well as Harrry Tracy and Henry Loucks ( a South Dakota native like myself) on Cooperative Commonwealths, L. L. Polk on the dignity of labor and craftsmanship . The list goes on . We might find Abdu 'l Baha's remarks on the village storehouse echoed in some of their work and strangely enough fleshed out in greater detail . Somethinh the World Center could consider in its promotion of social -economic development. I will colse this overly ong piece with a favorite from a Kansas farmer in the !880's . I am sure you will find appropriate Baha'i echoes . " There never was, nor can there be, a more brutal , utterly selfish , and despicable doctrine than the Darwinian struggle for existence when applied to the social relations of man ." warm regards , Terry From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comFri Sep 8 16:24:24 1995 Date: Fri, 08 Sep 95 11:45:01 -0400 From: Ahang Rabbani To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: The Station of Quddus [This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII] Dear Ahmad: On Sept 7th, you wrote: > Dear Ahang, > A friend of mine mentioned that you have done extensive > research on Quddus. I have the following inquiry to make; > A friend of mine would like to fine a reference regarding > station of Quddus. He likes to fine a reference in the writings > that say if The Bab had not declared, Quddus would have > declared so to speak, Not that he would have, but showing his > station. This could be from Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha, or The > Guardian. So if you know about this reference please send it to > me. > Thank you, > Looking forward to your reply, > Ahmad. Hope all is well with you, Ahmad. I hope you don't mind if I put your query and my reply on Talisman because there are a number folks here that are far more knowledgeable about this sort of things than I can ever hope to be, and they may decide to share some insights with us. As to the question of whether such a Tablet exists which says to the effect: If the Bab had not declared, then Quddus would have. This questions was put to Dr. Muhammad Afnan and his brief reply is in one of the early issues of `Andalib. He says, no such Tablet exists. Technically, he is right. I myself have checked all the published Tablets and many unpublished manuscripts in search for this alleged Tablet to no vain. I have also carefully quizzed folks like Abu'l-Qasim Afnan, Hasan Afnan, Riaz Ghadimi, Nustratu'llah Muhammad-Husayni, etc., and none of them have ever seen this Tablet. So, where does this rumor come from that such a Tablet exists? Is is a baseless rumor? If so, then why is it that every Persian Baha'i over the age of 35 swore that he/she had heard about this Tablet? To make a long story short, I've traced the rumor to the Hand of the Cause of God, Fadil-i Mazandarani. Independent of each other, a number of his students have told me that Hadrat-i Fadil used to read a Tablet from Baha'u'llah to this effect. Unfortunately, none of these students (all in advanced ages now) can remember any more details. So, did a Tablet exists? Well, Fadil was perhaps the best and ablest researcher that Iran has produced (perhaps the Faith of Baha'u'llah has ever produced, but that's just my view ...). He was extremely meticulous with his sources and valued greatly publishing Tablets and original documents -- unlike many other Persian scholars, Fadil understood the importance of publishing primary documents. This Tablet, assuming that it ever existed, unfortunately, is not among the papers and documents that he left. But it should be pointed out, that during the last years of his life, he was pretty unpleased with the Administration in Iran (he even didn't tell Mr. Furutan or anyone else that he, that is, Fadil, was elevated to the rank of the Hand of the Cause much earlier than Furutan ... but I don't want to get into the politics of Persian NSA, etc.). He did not leave his papers and massive original documents that he had spent a tireless lifetime collecting, to the Faith. Instead he left them to one of his non-Baha'i sons. His Baha'i son lives right here in Houston and I've nurturing a relationship with him in hope of eventually finding access to these materials -- we'll if its the will of God. Anyway, this is a long way of saying that presently no such Tablet is in the possession of the Faith -- after all, only half of Baha'u'llah's Tablets are in our possession. But the are plenty of recollections that Fadil had a similar Tablet and frequently shared it with his class. I should point that all the credit in understanding the importance of the Quddus' station must go to Fadil. He was perhaps the first person that recognized the sublime station that Quddus occupies in this Dispensation. (Of course, the fact that Quddus was from the same region, Gilan (Babul) that Fadil himself was from, did fuel his interest, too.) In may ways, Fadil paved the way for our current understanding of the unique position that Quddus occupies. Indeed, together with Baha'u'llah and the Bab, He has the station of Manifestationhood ("mazhariyyat") as testified by Baha'u'llah Himself. That is, although, He was not authorized to inaugurate a new Theophony, He ranks as a Manifestation of God. Interesting enough, both Qur'an and Quddus' own Writings state exactly the same claim about Him too. Now, initially this sounds strange. How is it possible for Him to have such an exalted station? Well, stay toned, I'll try to deal with that question in the next posting. Interesting stuff, don't you think?? With much love, ahang. From derekmc@ix.netcom.comFri Sep 8 18:47:10 1995 Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 11:13:19 -0700 From: DEREK COCKSHUT To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Fwd: RE: Ahmad's theory,Dickie's theory and now The Kepare theory. ---- Begin Forwarded Message Return-Path: Received: from roatan.ucs.indiana.edu by ix2.ix.netcom.com (8.6.12/SMI-4.1/Netcom) id JAA03275; Fri, 8 Sep 1995 09:57:47 -0700 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by roatan.ucs.indiana.edu (8.7.Beta.11/8.7.Beta.13/1.10IUPO) id LAA03751 for talisman-outgoing; Fri, 8 Sep 1995 11:35:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from netmail2.microsoft.com (netmail2.microsoft.com [131.107.1.13]) by roatan.ucs.indiana.edu (8.7.Beta.11/8.7.Beta.13/1.10IUPO) with SMTP id LAA15846; Fri, 8 Sep 1995 11:35:51 -0500 (EST) Received: by netmail2.microsoft.com (5.65/25-eef) id AA27219; Fri, 8 Sep 95 10:29:57 -0700 Message-Id: <9509081729.AA27219@netmail2.microsoft.com> Received: by netmail2 using fxenixd 1.0 Fri, 08 Sep 95 10:29:56 PDT X-Msmail-Message-Id: 1E5D1DF3 X-Msmail-Conversation-Id: 1E5D1DF3 From: Rick Schaut To: owner-talisman@indiana.edu, talisman@indiana.edu Date: Fri, 8 Sep 95 09:33:14 PDT Subject: RE: Ahmad's theory,Dickie's theory and now The Kepare theory. X-Msxmtid: red-39-msg950908163016MTP[01.00.00]000000a6-43568 Sender: owner-talisman@indiana.edu Precedence: bulk >From: DEREK COCKSHUT >One of my wife's theories < she has several > and the Kepare >Hairdressers is that Men's only use is to get heavy items down from >high shelves and take out the Trash. I'm sorry, but I must take umbrage with this... I happen to be very good at scrubbing floors of all kinds. Warmest Regards, Rick PS The other day, my wife was doing the dishes. My daughter exclaimed, "Mommy can do dishes just like daddy does!" My dear Rick. My wife says that takes long hours of training to get a man trained to scrub floors properly for example with soap and water, or suitable cleaning material, of course the major area of non-srubbing is behind the ears .Your dear wife clearly is a saint to have continued your education in this area, by the way which of the various educational methods did she employ, naturally I will not be sharing that sort of Knowledge with my wife.By the way Burl's wife when he is sending messages to Talisman, thinks he is busy writing his next book, dont worry Burl I will not tell the Ladies at Kepare's. As far as washing dishes is concerned using the Dishwasher does not count, and apparently you do not rinse off with clean water after hand washing anyway we have the video evidence Schaut. Kindest Regards Derek Cockshut. From: molder@dnr.state.wi.us (Robert Moldenhauer) Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Shoghi Effendi and infallability Date: 5 Sep 1995 18:22:31 -0400 Organization: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Lines: 9 Sender: kalantar@cs.cornell.edu Approved: rdetweil@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (Richard Detweiler) Distribution: world In an ealier article Bruce Limber wrote that Shoghi Effendi's comment on nine religions was wrong. Juan Cole wrote that Shoghi's interpretation of the the Kitab-i-Aqdas statement on homosexuality was wrong and that the Universal House of Justice was wrong in including it in it's translation of the book. I had always thought that Shoghi Effendi was infallable when interpreting scripture, is this not true? Can we discard his interpretations that we don't like? ----- end appended message #1 of 4 ----- ----- appended message #2 of 4 ----- From: David Jensen Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: Shoghi Effendi and infallability Date: 6 Sep 1995 09:52:14 -0400 Organization: YukonNet Operating Society Lines: 23 Sender: kalantar@cs.cornell.edu Approved: rdetweil@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (Richard Detweiler) Distribution: world Im my own life, I treat the interpretation of Shoghi Effendi and the guidance of the Universal House of Justice in the same unquestioning manner that I regard the the writings of the Bab, Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha. I readily recognize the difference in each of their stations, but I also recognize that mystic unity that ties them all together. Personally I fail to see anything contradictory in the Guardian's translation of the passage's in the Aqdas, with the other sacred writ we have access to. We should keep in mind that Shoghi Effendi was not only guided by Baha'u'llah in his work, but he was also a master of Arabic and Farsi, not to mention his acute awareness of the mission of the Bab, Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha. Furthermore, we must bear in mind that the team of scholars of the Research Department of the House of Justice spent at least six years working on the translation of the Aqdas, that is the passages that the Guardian had not allready translated. For a mistake of such magnitude to escape this team of experts in Arabic and Farsi is almost unthinkable. Just a few thoughts... ----- end appended message #2 of 4 ----- ----- appended message #3 of 4 ----- From: mrranjba@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Michael Ranjbar) Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: Shoghi Effendi and infallability Date: 6 Sep 1995 14:27:39 -0400 Organization: Purdue University Lines: 67 Sender: kalantar@cs.cornell.edu Approved: rdetweil@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (Richard Detweiler) Distribution: world molder@dnr.state.wi.us (Robert Moldenhauer) writes: >In an ealier article Bruce Limber wrote that Shoghi Effendi's comment >on nine religions was wrong. Juan Cole wrote that Shoghi's interpretation >of the the Kitab-i-Aqdas statement on homosexuality was wrong and that >the Universal House of Justice was wrong in including it in it's translation >of the book. I had always thought that Shoghi Effendi was infallable when >interpreting scripture, is this not true? Can we discard his interpretations >that we don't like? Dear Baha'i Friend, I believe that a good book to read on this subject is written by Shoghi Effendi himself in a letter entitled "Dispensation of Baha'u'llah", compiled into the Book: World order of Baha'u'llah. In particular, from pages 148 onward. This book was written by Shoghi Effendi himself, with a clear and obvious knowledge of the english language. In this book, he not only translates what Abdu'l-Baha said in reference to Himself, but he is very careful in choosing the words to describe Himself. Take for example this quote which he translated into the book by Abdu'l-Baha in reference to Himself: "He is the Interpreter of the Word of God.", Abdu'l-Baha referring to the functions of the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith. Moreover, Shoghi Effendi relates another quote from Abdu'l-Baha: "It is incumbent upon the members of the House of Justice..etc..to show their obediance, submissiveness, and subordination unto the Guardian of the Cause of God." -p.149 Clearly, Shoghi Effendi went on to state that he should not be placed in a equal position to either the Bab, Baha'u'llah, or Abdu'l-Baha yet nevertheless, it does little to change his clear position or the validity of his interpretations. In regards to the question concerning Homosexuality within the Baha'i Faith, and Shoghi Effendi's translation of this "Law". I believe that If you consult older persians who were born and raised in Iranian culture, you will find that Shoghi Effendi's translation is very too the point. From what I have learned from my own father who is Iranian, and was raised in Iran, as well as other older persians, it was common practice to refer to a person of a Homosexual disposition as one who plays with boys. There was no official word for being Homosexual [as I understand it]. An analagous situation might be seen in the use of the word "gay" in modern english. Clearly, this word in it's strict application does not necessarily mean Homosexual, but rather "happy". Yet we see that in it's social application the word now carries other connotations with it. Should a foreigner study English, he might never realize the full meaning of this word in american society. Likewise, when a foreigner such as Dr. Cole, studies persian or Arabic, he does not necessarily learn all of the words in their "cultural context". As a result, He might mistakenly believe that a word or phrase has been mis-translated, or mis-interpreted. This is the ever-present danger of allowing individuals in the faith to take liberty with translations or translating Baha'i texts. And this is why, I believe that the House is very careful, when translating any Baha'i Text. In Friendship, Mike ----- end appended message #3 of 4 ----- ----- appended message #4 of 4 ----- From: "Richard Gurinsky" Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: Shoghi Effendi and infallibility Date: 6 Sep 1995 15:50:18 -0400 Organization: Alamogordo Branch Community College Lines: 85 Sender: kalantar@cs.cornell.edu Approved: rdetweil@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (Richard Detweiler) Distribution: world The foundation of the Baha'i Faith is the oneness of humanity. 'Abdu'l-Baha explained that in every age, the Revelation of God is focussed on one central theme, which is the fundamental need of the age in which it is revealed. Baha'u'llah wrote that the well-being, the peace and tranquillity of mankind, cannot be achieved unless and until its unity is firmly established. So the fundamental need of the age in which we live is unity. 'Abdu'l-Baha said that the Covenant of God in this age is to firmly establish the oneness of humanity and the unity of all peoples and nations. So the Baha'i Covenant is very firm and irrefutable. 'Abdu'l-Baha said that from the beginning of religious history there has never been a Covenant like the Covenant established by Baha'u'llah. He even stated that the first ray of Baha'u'llah's Revelation to dawn upon the world of humanity was the ray of the Covenant. He stated that without the Covenant, the Baha'i Faith, like all other previous religions, would split into many sects. But the power of the Covenant, as demonstrated by the events of the past 150 years, has kept the Baha'i Faith unified in one world-wide fellowship, and will continue to protect the Baha'i Faith from schism and division. Baha'u'llah stated that, in this age, God Himself has ordained that the power of the Covenant is so strong that it will withstand all the forces of enmity, opposition and denail that its ill-wishers may launch against it. In very clear and unequivocal language, Baha'u'llah told the Baha'is to turn to 'Abdu'l-Baha, and He conferred the necessary divine authority on 'Abdu'l-Baha to interpret His Word. 'Abdu'l-Baha, in His _Will and Testament_, appointed Shoghi Effendi as the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, and conferred upon him the necessary divine authority to interpret all the BAha'i writings. He clearly admonishes all the Baha'is to turn to Shoghi Effendi, stating that he is "the Sign of God on earth." 'Abdu'l-Baha also explained in His _Will and Testament_ that The Universal House of Justice, which had been created by Baha'u'llah, was infallible in its desisions, that it was under the unerring guidance and protection of both the Bab and Baha'u'llah, and that whatever it decided was the Will of God; and that all Baha'is must turn for guidance to The Universal House of Justice. Nowhere in any of the Baha'i writings does it say that we Baha'is may *pick and choose* what we want to follow, and what we want to dispute or ignore. There are some five billion people on the face of the earth. _IF_ every one of us has the right to pick and choose what to follow and what to dispute, then, as the cynics and fatalists are saying, humanity is doomed to self-destruction. _IF_ we all refuse to give up our *right* to pick and choose, how will we ever end conflicts such as the one raging in the former Yugoslavia? 'Abdu'l-Baha predicted that the Baha'i Faith would experience very severe attacks from its enemies and ill-wishers. He said that _every_ aspect of the Baha'i Faith would be relentlessly attacked, until it was proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that this Faith is of God, and that nothing has the power to defeat it or divide it. It is my understanding that when we see people questioning the infallibility of the Guardian's intepretations or translations, or the decisions of The Universal House of Justice, we need to turn to the Baha'i writings and investigate what the Baha'i writings tell us about this subject. Nowhere have I ever found any references which indicate that there is any doubt about the interpretations and translations of the Guardian, Shoghi Effendi, or the decisions of The Universal House of Justice. I once heard a Baha'i remark that we tend to become Baha'is because Baha'u''lah agrees with us; and that we spend the rest of our lives learning to agree with Baha'u'llah! Sincerely, Richard Gurinsky Richard Gurinsky hrg@nmsua.nmsu.edu 505-439-3766 (work) New Mexico State University at Alamogordo 505-437-0173 (home) PO Box 477, Alamogordo, NM 88310 ----- end appended message #4 of 4 ----- From TLCULHANE@aol.comFri Sep 8 19:14:54 1995 Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 16:09:07 -0400 From: TLCULHANE@aol.com To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: sex and race and Houses Dear Friends , I do not mean to be overly dense or argumentative ; I can't seem to figure out how it is that race and sex are the same. So I guess Bill G.'s argument does not persuade me . i know that all men of whatever race are still men and not women and that all women of whatever race are still women and not men . In neither case are all men or all women Asian or African or Caucasian . In many respects from what ,little I have read in physical anthropology a case can be made that there is only one race -- humans . Within that race there is a primary differentiation parallelled in other species as far back as bacteria that results in male and female; in reproduction the functions associated with this differentiation have become culturally gendered. From what I know a fairly universal form among humans . My problem is this . If sexual differentiation is a physical and cultural universal how is it that the exemption of women from the House is a Baha'i problem and not a problem associated with a specific culturally gendered perception ? In this case a social construction represented by an identifiable social class . Is the Baha'i Community not eligible to have its own understanding of gender as it grows out of the primary physical differentiation of male and female ? May not this understanding be different from the understandings of others ? I understand the argument from Locke about political and contractual rights . I am not convinved this is the controlling principle . I have already indicated I dont think the current understandings of equality exhausr the meaning of equality. I also think such an understanding implicitly rests on a notion of progress which I dont accept . That being that if it occurs more recently it must be superior to that which came earlier . Perhaps the varying expressions of gender thruout the world have something valuable to consider . There is also a distinction I believe between a voluntary religious community and its perception of gender functions eithin that community and the extension of Lockean contract rights in the civil society. I cant withdraw from civil society on a global scale . I am born into involuntarily and cant leave it . I can be born into the Bahai community and yet withdraw from it. Or I can enter it voluntarily as an adult and choose to withdraw from it . For this reason I am not convinced of the extension of the political rights argument from civil govermment to the Baha'i community. They are different spheres or domains . Seems to me extending the political argument to the religious domain would undermine the civil society which we want . Would this not be its own kind of fascism ? It sems that the argument may well be one of interpretive frameworks rather than one of pure logic . Different frameworks or paradigms select different questions and proofs. I suspect we could quote a lot of Abdu'l Baha statements bearing on the social relationships of men and women and come up with apicture that would resemble a current western understanding as well as ones with a more traditional resonance. I think it would be useful if someone could contextualize Abdu'l Baha's remarks by audience. I suspect his Tablets to a Persian audience emphasized different aspects of this issue than his comments to an American one . Any volunteers . I expect Juan and the other master logicians to find all the appropriate holes in this :) If so the I may find a way of of my quandry. warm regards, Terry From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comFri Sep 8 19:15:47 1995 Date: Fri, 08 Sep 95 13:31:01 -0400 From: Ahang Rabbani To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: The Station of Quddus -- continued [This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII] Dear Ahmad and other friends, With your kind permission, I continue our discussion on this thread ... The Station of Quddus is a mysterious one to be sure. In one of His Writings, Quddus Himself mentions that His station remains hidden from all men and that humanity remains unaware of His true Self. When one thinks about this, it is indeed the case. We all have a very limited understanding of His station. We know that He was the foremost disciple of the Bab, a fellow traveler with the Bab, together with Mulla Husayn He was the principle teacher of the Babi Dispensation, played a central role at the Badasht conference, the leader of the Letters of the Living and other defenders during the Fort Tabarsi period, but perhaps beyond these fragmentary pieces of information that is scattered throughout Nabil's immortal history, the Dawn-Breakers, not much more is known about Him by the community. Contrasted against this is the fact that, Quddus in one of His Writings says that "In all the Revelation of the past, His appearance was anticipated." Indeed this statement is literally true as He, together with Baha'u'llah and the Bab, are mentioned in all the Sacred Books of the past. (In a forthcoming book on the Life and Writings of Quddus, I've devoted a whole chapter to this topic. What follows is a very, very brief sampling/summary of that material.) For example, in the Jewish Scripture, the Book of Daniel, 12:5, we find a statement about the vision of Prophet Daniel of Quddus. In the Christian Scripture, the Book of Revelation, 11:11, St. John the Divine, refers to him as one the Two "Witnesses" -- one being the Bab the other Quddus. (See Abdu'l-Baha's commentary in Some Answered Question for details.) There are other references in Judeo-Christian Scriptures. In the Islamic Dispensation, there are several wonderful prophecies about Him in Qur'an. For example there is the verse of Qur'an that says: "Az arsalna alayhim athniyn. Fakazabuhuma. Fa azzna huma bi thalatha" (We sent unto you Two. You rejected them Both (literally: you considered Both liars). We graced you then with the Third.) For a long time, the early believers where puzzled by this verse. They could not figure out what it meant. Finally, during the Abdu'l-Baha's ministry, they wrote to Him saying, "The Master, we have found this prophecy in Qur'an about You. The first Two sent were, of course the Bab and Baha'u'llah, whom were rejected by humanity and now God has graced us with the "Third" which is You." Abdu'l-Baha wrote back, saying: not even close! He said that by the "Third" is meant Baha'u'llah! The first Two are the Bab and Quddus -- both of Whom were rejected by humanity, so God then honored us with Baha'u'llah. Now, this is Tablet of Abdu'l-Baha shows his incredible genius. He knew that if He was to leave it at that, then folks would say: "Gee, Abdu'l-Baha is doing "ta`ruf". This is really a reference to Him, but He is being humble and is Interpreting it this way to be modest." So, Abdu'l-Baha continued in the Tablet that He wrote on this subject by quoting from Baha'u'llah Himself where He (the Blessed Perfection) refers to Himself as the "Third". Thereby, the Master showed that this was not His Interpretation, but rather it was Baha'u'llah's. Anyway, my point is that there are a number of verses of Qur'an that seem to refer to Quddus. (Again there are lots of details that must wait for the publication of the book on Quddus.) In addition to the statements of Qur'an about Quddus, there are a number of oral statements from Prophet Muhammad -- the so called Hadith-i Nabavi. For example, there is this oral statement of Muhammad: "And when the Mihdi is made manifest, He shall lean His back against ka`bih and shall address to the 313 followers who will have grouped around Him, these words: 'The Baqiyyitu'llah will be best for you if ye are of those who believe.' " And of course Quddus fulfilled this prophecy upon His entry in Fort Tabarsi. (A few comments: 313 refers to the number of martyrs at the Fort, and not the participants. Baqiyyitu'llah is a code word used in Qur'an to refer to Baha'u'llah -- it is translated as "the remnant of God", God referring to the Bab, and Baha'u'llah is literally the only Babi leader Who survived, hence, the remnant.) Anyway, what is of interest is that this Hadith has to do with Mihdi, and yet it was fulfilled in Quddus. There are a number of other statements about Mihdi and yet find their their fulfillment in Quddus and not the Bab. Incidentally, this is a very important in understanding the station of Quddus -- that is, He is the very reflection/essence of the Bab. But more on this later ... Additionally, there are numerous traditions by the Imams about Him -- which quoting them just makes this posting even more boring than it already is. When one examines all these traditions by Imams (particularly the 6th Imam), one notes that the Islamic Dispensation was anticipating not just one Qa'im, but rather 3 Qa'ims. The first Qa'im is the "One Who will arise from the House of Muhammad", the second is the Qa'im-i Khurasani (Mulla Husayn) and the third is the Qa'im-i Gilani (the One Who will arise from Gilan (province where Quddus was born)). The early narrators of the Faith, refer to Quddus as Qa'im-i Gilani in their histories and this is how he was known by the Babi community. Anyway, the above sampling of the prophecies about Him is sufficient to give us a rudimentary understanding that the Person of Quddus was anticipated down the ages and Dispensations. Again, please understand that my knowledge is extremely limited on this subject and can only hope that others with much deeper understanding will grace us with their insights. (more to follow ...) lovingly, ahang. From jrcole@umich.eduFri Sep 8 19:16:28 1995 Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 16:26:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Juan R Cole To: Ahang Rabbani Cc: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: The Station of Quddus and Tahirih It may be interesting to note that after the Bab's and Quddus's deaths a group of Babis grew up known as Qurratis, who believed that Tahirih was the Manifestation after the BAB> CHEERS JUAN COLE< HISTORY UNIV OF MICHIGAN From Dave10018@aol.comFri Sep 8 19:16:43 1995 Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 16:16:30 -0400 From: Dave10018@aol.com To: robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz, TLCULHANE@aol.com, talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: a riff on grace but mostly on postmodernism and world order and love Robert, I like to think about grace myself, tying together as it does athletics and theology, rhythm and blues. But, to generalize, grace escapes the grumpy! Honest struggles to understand can,perhaps must, include complaints of pain and protestations along the lines of "Must this be? Is it unchangeable? I want to find a way to change it!" Indeed, I think perhaps this issue(women and the House) is so difficult because we, all of us, all of us, read too much into it. I see no text which suggests that women's exclusion from membership on the House(for whatever length of time)or from the Gaurdianship, for that matter, has anything whatever to do with women's capacities. Perhaps when that fact is established and obvious to all, reasons of a different order, pleasing to women, may emerge.Until then, and until every question of any kind of discrimination based on some putative incapacity of women has been defeated and banished from our thoughts, examining, questioning, even probing for a possibility of change may serve the process of understanding. If you find these lines of questioning ungraceful, Robert, why not be gentle in your remonstrances? More felicitous and more stimulating in my view your post of September first in reply to Terry on postmodernism to which I feel moved to add my 2 cents American. In a message dated 95-09-01 22:01:08 EDT, robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (Robert Johnston) writes: >Subj: postmodernism, gender... >Date: 95-09-01 22:01:08 EDT > >Dear Terry, > > re: >> >> The postmodernists and all sex is really gender and that is socially >>constructed. > >The association of postmodernism exclusively with social constructionism >limits too severely the scope of postmodernism, I think. Certainly writers who have taken a "postmodernist" stance have not based all their work on the importance of social construction of phenomena generally assumed to be "natural," but this has been one of their leading themes, especially as regards questions of gender, sexuality and indeed, mental illness and individual personality.Postmodernist skepticism tends to be so thoroughgoing as to question any project, leading,as Terry said, to a kind of quietism, as with, for example, Jean Boudrillard, but In extending radical critique to identity and subjectivity and assumptions hidden in our use of language itself, postmodern thought also embraces the desire to extend the modernist project of reforming society according to a search for equity, seeking to "deconstruct" systems which support racism, sexism, and, not insignificantly, "heterosexism", which is defined as institutional bias in favor of heterosexuality. It is with this desire that social activists, including feminists, have taken up the tools of linguistic and structural analysis(and "poststructuralism") to "decolonize" women, non-Western societies, and minorities, including "sexual minorities." Thus to the extent that there is an activist postmodernism it is an extention of the modernist project of reshaping society on a "rational" basis. Generally >speaking, I see postmodernism as a transitional period between the Old >World Order and the New. Here I must beg to differ. Speaking also quite generally, the period of crisis and transition is the entire modern period. The term "modern" came into use because of the recognition that the present age is qualitatively different not because of technological change alone but because traditional centers of authority have been losing their legitimacy. In traditional societies authority has been maintained through appeal to a glorious past. In modern societies the appeal is to an understanding of the needs of the present, or, sometimes, to a utopian future. Not only traditional authorities but all authority in modern society has proven more or less unstable. Radical attempts to resurrect authority have included Soviet Communism and the "new barbarism" of Naziism. (in the dialectic of decadence, the opposite of decadence is not moderation but barbarism.) It is sobering to realize that the proponents of these philosophies drew on the same theory of decadence found, for example, in Oswald Spengler's famous work, "The Decline of the West," as did Shoghi Effendi. In the modern age attempts to reconstruct authority by appeal to some rational understanding of human nature and "modern conditions" have always been opposed by, on the one hand, strident appeals to traditional authority(fundamentalisms and nationalisms), and, on the other, the kind of pessimism about reform identified with postmodernism. And the attempts to reconstruct authority have often been monstrous and had tragic results,and even moderate attempts at reform or even attempts to preserve the status-quo have had disastrous effects as well, but that doesn't mean that we can dismiss every contribution made over the last two hundred years. As we regard modern history we see it is shot through with postmodernism. (In art early postmodernists include the Dadaists, most especially Marcel Duchamp.) Also, we see, along with the naive exponents of imperialism and material wealth, many voices raised pointing to the tragic consequences of the loss of God, among them many agnostic and a-thiestic philosophers looking for a way to continue, such as Neitsche and Sartre. We see everything subjected to questioning and analysis. Modern American optimism survived as long as it did(It is definitely on the wane now!) because American traditions have been slow to collapse and Americans have thought of themselves, as a result, as a more rational and stable people than Europeans, but the internal contradictions of American society have been growing all along. The"cultural wars" for example, are nothing new, but show up clearly in the whole history of US immigration policy, in the struggle over prohibition, in the rise of Hollywood gossip and many other places. The Baha'i view that all things have been >invested with new meanings is being visited upon the world both as calamity >and opportunity. "Calamitous" is the deconstruction of the metaphysical >ontology of even positivist thought (Heidegger, Derrida) -- hence the >anti-essentialism of social constructionism; telling of "opportunity" is >the arrival and exploration of new liberating ways of being. Calamitous is the atomization of communities and the spread of distrust along with the spread of drugs, guns, random violence, terrorism. Calamitous is the fate of Yugoslavia. But, indeed, out of this calamity does grow shared experience which, finally, must play a role in welding humanity together, an experience ready to take on meaning as we find it meaningful through relating it to a story of human transformation with Baha'u'llah and His Divine Authority at its center. The result must be, in the long, long run, a newly stabilized society which, with faith in God allied to stable institutions, must have some features of traditional societies, but, with the appreciation of diversity, equality of the sexes and the relativity of progressive approximations of truth which are enshrined in the Revelation, must preserve many features of modern society as well, freed from the curses of war and hatred and the crippling anxiety of chronic instability. We recall that Christianity triumphed in Europe as the Roman empire fell, and that the Christians, in their zeal to recreate their world, failed, in Europe, to recognize much that was of value in their civilization and were not only unable to preserve it but actively destroyed much of the ancient civilization in their hands, contributing to the darkness of the age. Their artists, for example, rejected the realism of Greek and Roman art in favor of a flatter iconic style. The Renaissance represented the understanding that Christian themes and Pagan themes and styles could be reconciled. Our judgement of things matters. We do not want to be like the Christians of Imperial Rome. We want to be like the Christians of Byzantium. If we dismiss the terms in which our fellows understand the world and refuse to share with them, considering the relatively affluent too corrupt to become Baha'is, reject contemporary culture and seek out only the more obviously dispossessed, the minorities and native peoples we romanticize, we are waiting for the process of tragedy to progress until all are obviously dispossessed. The world is suffering and it is tragic that we appear deaf to all but the obvious suffering. Also, the world is filled with grace, with intuitions of hope and joy, and we need to hear that also, to recognize beauty and share love. Suffering and love are everywhere, and we must meet everyone on their own terms. Calamity, too, is relative. If we have the imagination to realize the calamity we are in now, it can be enough! Otherwise, it gets worse. "There shall suddenly appear that which shall cause the limbs of mankind to quake." Surely these words have already come true. Do we have to wait for another demonstration? At the heart >of the matter is, I think, a redefinition of the experience of subjectivity >entailing the incorporation into the centres [from the margins] of human >life of more inclusive, feminine attributes. Nationalism is a good symbol >for modernism, internationalism a good symbol for the telos of >postmodernism. The ecofeminism strikes me as being very positively >postmodern. > > >Robert. > Internationalism also grows out of modernism. "Workers of the world, unite!" wrote Marx and Engels in 1844. Localism, parochialism, anti-internationalism also grows out of modernism but so do they grow in postmodern soil. The unabomber is a postmodernist, for example.Postmodernist relativism has been used to repudiate human rights as a neocolonial imposition of Western vales. The point is not which ideology is most "advanced." Avant-gardism is a characteristic modernist attempt to generate an ideology with enough force to end the crisis of modernism, an appeal to a utopian future, whether of communism or anarchic liberation or whatever. All of these dreams have something to say for them. Eco-feminists are similar to many radical feminisms(radical meaning attempting to get the root of things,the same sense in which the faith is supposed to be radical.Please note i do not use this term as a derogatory epithet)As Marx proposed that the proletariat was the most oppressed class and thus had nothing to gain from oppression and thus stood outside the system of oppression and from this "standpoint" could see oppression clearly and could establish justice if the proletariat could hold power as a class, so some radical feminists have proposed that women are the true universally oppressed class and thus have attempted to build a universal standard of value on the "standpoint" of women. Much can be learned from such attempts. Ecofeminism is solidly within this tradition, an attempt to broaden the frame of reference by linking women to the earth through essentialist ideas. Yes, at the heart of the matter is a redefinition of our experience, an awareness of how much we share, of how we share, of how interdependent and bound up with each other we really are, of how difficult and beautiful it is to be human, and how to love the languages we all use, whether fancy or funny or "debased." i hope this wasn't too incoherent. i shared more than i expected to. Thankyou, Robert, for the occassion. David Taylor From burlb@bmi.netFri Sep 8 19:19:31 1995 Date: Fri, 8 Sep 95 14:40 PDT From: Burl Barer To: Juan R Cole Subject: Re: The Station of Quddus and Tahirih > >It may be interesting to note that after the Bab's and Quddus's deaths a >group of Babis grew up known as Qurratis, who believed that Tahirih was >the Manifestation after the BAB> > >CHEERS JUAN COLE< HISTORY UNIV OF MICHIGAN > >So, where do the hold their annual convention? From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comFri Sep 8 19:23:53 1995 Date: Fri, 08 Sep 95 15:09:01 -0400 From: Ahang Rabbani To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: more on the Station of Quddus [This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII] Beloved Friends, I hope that none of you are getting too tired with this thread, because I just think that it's an extremely fascinating and novel subject. So. please stay with me as we now want to look at some of the Writings of the Central Figures about Quddus -- this should give us an added measure of understanding of His stupendous station and unique rank in this Dispensation. So, here we go .... stay with me now and read carefully.... First, in my last post I meant to include a brief statement from Quddus but I forgot. Sorry. So, I do it now. In one of His Writings Quddus states: "I swear by God, I am the Promised One, Who has been mentioned in all the Heavenly Tablets. All the Divine Manifestations, both by allusion and outwardly, have anticipated Me. Therefore, I swear by God, if thou fail to recognize Me and believe in Me, verily thou have failed to believe in all the previous Manifestations and disbelieved in Them all." (Pretty neat statement, don't you think? Go back and read it again.) The Writings of the Bab are filled with references, in the most tender terms, to Quddus. The Bab has immortalized Him as Ismu'llahi'l-Akhir (The Last Name of God). The Bab in Qayyumu'l-Asma (His magnificent commentary on the Sura of Joseph) had adopted the title of Hadrat-i A`la (His Holiness the Exalted One) for Himself. This is the title that commonly you find in the Writings used to refer to the Bab. (For example see Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament where He refers to the "Exalted One", meaning the Bab.) Now, what is fascinating is that around the time of Badasht conference, the Bab instructed all believers to begin to refer to Quddus as Hadrat-i A`la. In other words, by giving Quddus His own title, the Bab made the association between Himself and Quddus very explicit one. But there is more, a lot more ... The Bab in the Persian Bayan extolled Quddus as the fellow-pilgrim and Habib (beloved) round Whom mirrors to the number of 8 vahids (152) revolve and one whose "detachment and the sincerity of whose devotion to God's will God prideth Himself amidst the Concourse on High." (I read the second "God" to be a reference to the Bab Himself. In numerous places, the Bab, Baha'u'llah and Quddus have used "God" as references to their inner/higher Self.) There are truly a large number of amazing statements about Quddus revealed by the Bab. For example there is a large Book, over 300 pages, by the Bab, found only very recently, where the whole thing is a eulogy in honor of Quddus and Mulla Husayn. (Very recently a very, very large body of the Writings of the Bab and other Figures was located across the globe.) There are some incredible statements in the Bab's Writings about Quddus the kernel of which is that Quddus is the reflection of the very essence of Himself. Unlike Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha, both the Bab and Shoghi Effendi have revealed very few Tablets of Visitations. One such Tablet of Visitation was revealed by the Bab in honor of Quddus which stands some 14 pages long. Baha'u'llah has revealed 3 Tablets of Visitation in honor of Quddus! The title of "Quddus" was conferred upon Him by the Bab during the Badasht Conference. The significant of this title lies in Islamic prophecies which anticipated that the appearance of Qa'im and return of Christ will be simultaneous. "Quddus" is a derivative of the Arabic "Ruhu'l-Quds" (The Holy Spirit) which has a clear Christian connotation. Therefore, through such a title, the believers recognized that the age-old prophecies about the appearance of Qa'im and return of Christ find their realization in the Bab and Quddus -- the Twin Luminaries of the Babi Dispensation. In numerous passages in His Writings, Quddus, identifies Himself with the spiritual return of Christ -- as was anticipated in earlier prophecies. He even began to refer to His sister as "Maryam". And much like Christ, He wore very simple clothing, the garment of dervish -- unlike the Bab and other Letters of Living which wore the clothing of the Divines. (In fact, people knew Him by His clothing which is how He was identified at Niyala (after Badasht conf) and received beating before Baha'u'llah came to His rescue and gave Quddus His own clothing so people won't recognize Him. Of course, some time earlier, in Shiraz, at the court of the Governor, again because of His clothing, He was initially ignored and only Mulla Sadiq Khurasani was rebuked and beaten -- later Quddus did receive severe beating.) Incidentally, the connection between Quddus and return of Christ is not lost on Baha'u'llah, as on a number of occasions when He recalls Quddus, He somehow evokes the association with Christ. For example, Baha'u'llah in one Tablet states: "No one has suffered more at the time of martyrdom than Quddus -- not even Christ." Again, if I was to relate the details of Quddus' martyrdom, how He was literally torn apart piece by piece, and then set on fire, you would fully agree with Baha'u'llah that no one, not even Christ, suffered at the hour of death the agonies which He endured. Getting back to the Badasht Conference, it was during that time that the believers collectively, for the first time perhaps, became acquainted with the Writings of Quddus. Before then, Quddus had kept His Writings to Himself and very few had seen them. Of course, in the summer of 1847, when at the instruction of the Bab, Mulla Husayn for the second time in his life had gone on the search for the "Hidden Treasure", upon seeing a single page of Quddus' Writings had become aware of the supreme nature of those verses and the recognized that their source is none other than Divine Fountainhead and that the Hidden Treasure as promised by the Bab is none other than Quddus. But now, at Badasht, Quddus' Writings were being read by all. So, what did Quddus say in His Writings during Badasht period? Any why are we placing such importance on them? The answer to this most fascinating question will be given in the next post.... stay toned... (Don't you absolutely love these stuff about Quddus?? I think they are positively thrilling ...) much love, ahang. ps. Please do let me know if you get tired of these things and I'll shut up ... From shastri@best.comFri Sep 8 22:43:07 1995 Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 16:50:56 -0700 From: Shastri Purushotma To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: The Station of Quddus Indeed, together with Baha'u'llah and the Bab, >He has the station of Manifestationhood ("mazhariyyat") as >testified by Baha'u'llah Himself. That is, although, He was not >authorized to inaugurate a new Theophony, He ranks as a >Manifestation of God. Interesting enough, both Qur'an and >Quddus' own Writings state exactly the same claim about Him too. Ahang, Welcome back... In some ways ... the above reminds me of a Tablet of Abdul Baha which says that (to paraphrase) although Jala-u-din Rumi was not a Manifestation,yet his Mathnavi is considered as a "Book" of Revealed Writings on an equal level to that which a Manifestation would reveal. Just in this case things are flip-flopped. Can you or someone else pls expound on the word "mazhariyyat"? Are there other words used for the concept of "Manifestation" or "Messenger" or "Prophet"(i.e "Rasul", "nabi" etc), If so in what contexts? What are the distinctions and implications of all these words? Pls keep up the postings Shastri From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzFri Sep 8 22:45:44 1995 Date: Sat, 9 Sep 1995 12:40:04 +1200 From: Robert Johnston To: Dave10018@aol.com, talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: a riff on grace but mostly on postmodernism and world order and love Dear Dave, I cannot do justice to your long and thought provoking letter. Last night I watched the video of "The Last of the Mohicans" and thought it a movie full of grace. But I am the sort of person that understands what happened to Nietzsche when he saw, by lightening flash, a shepherd slitting the throat of a sheep under a tree. [Do I have the story correct?] On my mother's side we are coal miners and had trodden and toiled in gloomy and perilous depths. On my father's side we are farmers and soldiers and known the smell of rich earth, blood and horse sweat and gun powder. Much of my life I have had to suppress who am am, but have come to live with the glory of thunder. Walt Whitman wrote, " I celebrate myself," and while he is reckoned to be a great poet, is it not strange that we do not lean how to celebrate ourselves? I make no apology for being myself because I know the love I carry in my heart. If those whom I converse with wish to turn aside, so be it. I care less about this than if they stay falsely. I told someone the other day that I thought my finest attribute was diplomacy. I explained this by stating that I was the third born in a family of six and had to learn the dynamics of care and caution. Is it not strange that I also acknowledge that I am probably the most "undiplomatic" current correspondent on Talisman? I would strongly suggest that the meaning of diplomacy -- along with femininity and masculinity -- is badly in need of revision. The Englishman Chamberlain who proclaimed "peace in our time" after visiting Hitler did not manifest my kind of diplomacy. Winston Churchill did. Ahh... but I do go on. I guess I am daunted by the prospect of answering your letter. I see no text which suggests that women's exclusion from >membership on the House(for whatever length of time)or from the Gaurdianship, >for that matter, has anything whatever to do with women's capacities. Agreed. Why not "functions"? I have a kind of post script to my letters on this topic. Mary wrote that she felt that while the wisdom of this decision would become clear in the future, the reason for it wouldn't. I do not accept this analysis because it presents the possibility of separating wisdom and reason. Knowledge was never value free, and values could not reach humans if there were no intellectual analysis. We believe that we know the reason why alcohol consumption is proscribed in the Faith, but the ultimate reason is this: it is set down in the Faith. Postmodernism.... You make a good point when you indicate that modernism proclaimed itself as a liberatory project. However, how do you square this proclamation with the view expressed by the Guardian and the House (and prefigured in the Writings of Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha) that the fortunes of humanity are approaching their lowest ebb? What happened to the promises of modernity? When I think of modernity I think of the Enlightenment and its two most prominent children liberal capitalism and communism. This whole historical movement, it seems to me, was like a theft of fire from the gods, because it became progressively atheistic, and its dreams turned to ashes. In Russia and and China, despite statements about gender equality, women are still severely marginalised. The French, despite their sense of fraternity, still explode bombs on the Pacific. American and European cities are plagued by violence, homelessness and disease. Africa is awash with famine and blood. Asia swealters under corruption. In my analysis the culprit is selfishness (the opposite of grace!) and the central trope of selfishness is the degenerate form of the Cartesian cogito -- the materialistic and secular forms of "I think therefore I am." This degenerate form is at the heart of all the modern evils (the three most virulent of which are nationalism, communism and racism, the Guardian said) , in my view. Derrida's analysis of rationality was premised by the view that God is dead. He -- following Heidegger -- traced the particular form of modern rationality (the cogito form of above) back to its theistic assumptions and on this basis -- and in view of modernity's failures -- was able to "announce" the overthrowing of civilisation as we know it (Jim). [Well: that's my version of what Derrida's about anyway. Maybe Dann Mayes or William Michael or Mary Day or Steve "Stan" Friberg are able to give a better version]. This analysis is good from a Baha'i perspective because (1) it highlights the connection between reason and the Logos, (11) it highlights the emptiness of our contemporary culture, and (111), it images-forth the death of the Old World Order. This analysis is bad from a Baha'i viewpoint because (1) it assumes the death of God, (11) it undermines the legitimate projects of reason, (111) it offers no obviously hopeful solution. Foucault's work is similarly good and bad, I think. Now to feminism. Feminists have mounted similar critiques to modernity to those of Foucault and Derrida. For this reason I state that feminism is postmodern, BUT do not confine postmodernity of the usual list of male figures, who -- really -- are the "Johnny-come-latelys" of postmodernity. But let me explain a bit. Feminists have [recently] taken on board lots of Derrida and Foucault but -- speaking generally (excuse me Mary) -- have different emphases, including: (1) the association of modernity with patriarchy (though Derrida did coin the term "phallogocentric"), (11) a wider discussion of the possibility of alternative forms of understanding including different versions of reasoning, (111) a more positive outlook concerning the future. Now, as Baha'is we know that this is the first Dispensation that has proclaimed the equality of men and women, so, logically, the breakdown of the Old World Order is bound to entail a massive re-arrangement of gender-power relations. If modernity has been characterised by the progressive exposure of the perversity (and death-bound nature) of exclusively male forms of subjectivity -- that is, versions of the degenerated cogito -- then postmodernity must surely entail the construction of new forms of subjectivity which (for those who see the outcome of history as the Most Great peace) incorporate the feminine functions that 'Abdu'l-Baha highlights. In my optimism I am a feminist second, Baha'i first. Dave. I'll read through your letter again to see if I have missed anything that I'd like to comment upon.. Reflecting on this letter, I think that our analyses of history are similar but perhaps I could be a little more generous with modernity... Goodness gracious, (was this mild enough?) Robert. From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comFri Sep 8 22:46:12 1995 Date: Fri, 08 Sep 95 19:44:01 -0400 From: Ahang Rabbani To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Mazhariyyat [This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII] Dear Shastri, Great to hear from you too. In regard to a discussion on the subject of "Mazhariyyat" (Manifestationshood), I think, we can do no better than turn to: "The Concept of Manifestation in the Baha'i Writings", Juan R. Cole, 1982, Baha'i Studies, vol 9, ABS Canada. And for those who like to read from right to left: "Mazhariyyat", Nader Saeidi, 1995, Persian Institute for Baha'i Studies, Canada. These two documents are *must* readings on this subject. Of course, if our dear Juan could take a few minutes and share some insights on this subject, then we'll all be better for it and very appreciative too. In addition, could we please ask Nima, Frank and John to tell us a bit more about Rumi's poetry and influence on Islam and Baha'i Dispensations -- and possibly suggest some further readings in English? regards, ahang. From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzFri Sep 8 22:46:57 1995 Date: Sat, 9 Sep 1995 13:53:10 +1200 From: Robert Johnston To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: interpretation >On Thu, 7 Sep 1995, Juan R Cole wrote: > >> With regard to the possibility of women on the House, it seems to me >> that no one has answered Bill Garlington's challenging analogy. >> Discrimination on the basis of sex is no different than discrimination on >> the basis of race. Saying women cannot serve on the House is morally >> equivalent to saying that, e.g., blacks cannot serve on the House. > Dear Juan, Would this mean that we would be impelled to have black wives of either (or any) gender? Is that too gnomic? Am I thick? Robert. From haukness@tenet.eduFri Sep 8 22:47:50 1995 Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 21:09:03 -0500 (CDT) From: John Haukness To: Burl Barer Cc: David Langness <72110.2126@compuserve.com>, talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: A Woman's Place is on the House Allah-u-abha Friends: Well I am sorry Burl, but I cannot agree with you more. I agree with the friends that this is a tought issue, I only disagree that it is the only tough issue, and for those who struggle with and against it, I hope I struggle with you but that doesn't mean that it is in the least an issue for me; will share briefly of a personal transformation story. When I declared 15 years ago the Grand Forks Baha'is were guarded that my radical political views would not be compatible with the faith and that my tenure with the faith could be brief and more problematic than fruitful. And political to the left I was, there fears that I would hoist Baha'i Holy writings on a banner and parade with my gay rights friends were aprehensions of much merit. But then Baha'is are not prepared for people to come into the faith through the sacred writings and not because we like the new age people, or liberal people. I became a Baha'i because of the Iqan and SAQ, sorry Baha'is you don't get the credit. So I had two letters written my first month as a Baha'i, to this so called House of Justice I new so little about, but I had heard that the Baha'is were convinced that homosexuality was not natural and that cannibus was also prohibited, and I was going to write my letters and try to straigten this House out as to the correct progressive truth. But then something happened along the way, I read from Bahaullah, and Abdul Baha, writings that clearly indicated that homosexuality was not natural and was prohibited (I know many tali's see this topic just as the women on the house topic, ie there must be a better way to interprit the writings because like I used to feel, homosexuality is natural, and that hemp too was prohibited. Well, that ended my letters to this House, I tore them up, and although my thoughts until then were some of my most sacred politically correct views, and I had won many a political battle in a number of universities, I just changed my mind, Bahaullah knew and I didn't, it was really very simple for me. I am sorry that it is not so simple for others but for me I'd rather be dead than doubt Bahaullah. haukness@tenet.edu From cbuck@ccs.carleton.caFri Sep 8 22:48:36 1995 Date: Fri, 8 Sep 95 22:37:53 EDT From: Christopher Buck To: talisman@indiana.edu Cc: Christopher Buck Subject: Is Quddus a Manifestation? Ahang's posts on Quddus reflect an exhaustive research effort incorporating some newly-discovered primary sources as well as other unpublished material. This is the cutting edge. Right before our eyes! However, I would advise Ahang to perhaps publish the prophecy material separately. I think it detracts from the importance of what he is doing. This is only my opinion. I offer it respectfully. I cannot pretend to know more than I do. So I publicly pose the question: What does all of this mean? Are Quddus's theophanic locutions simply ecstatic utterances representing an extension of the Bab's own revelation? Is Quddus the Babi *al-Hallaj*? Or are we to read the writings of Quddus--which the Bab referred to as *evident magic* or *palpable sorcery*--a little more literally? If read literally, especially in light of the praise the Central Figures of the Faith lavish on him, the writings of Quddus could be interpreted as revelation. Quddus proclaims himself a Manifestation. Quddus writes like a Manifestation. In the Master's interpretation [or, in one of his two interpretations] of the *Tale of the City* in the heart of the Qur'an, Quddus figures as an Apostle along with the Bab. So, Ahang, my question is this: We know Quddus is important. But why is he important? It would be a tautology to say Quddus is important because the Central Figures say so. The question remains: What is Quddus's role? What did he do that surpasses Mulla Husayn? Or are we simply to accept Quddus's importance as a matter of faith? Christopher Buck From cbuck@ccs.carleton.caFri Sep 8 23:45:39 1995 Date: Fri, 8 Sep 95 22:37:53 EDT From: Christopher Buck To: talisman@indiana.edu Cc: Christopher Buck Subject: Is Quddus a Manifestation? Ahang's posts on Quddus reflect an exhaustive research effort incorporating some newly-discovered primary sources as well as other unpublished material. This is the cutting edge. Right before our eyes! However, I would advise Ahang to perhaps publish the prophecy material separately. I think it detracts from the importance of what he is doing. This is only my opinion. I offer it respectfully. I cannot pretend to know more than I do. So I publicly pose the question: What does all of this mean? Are Quddus's theophanic locutions simply ecstatic utterances representing an extension of the Bab's own revelation? Is Quddus the Babi *al-Hallaj*? Or are we to read the writings of Quddus--which the Bab referred to as *evident magic* or *palpable sorcery*--a little more literally? If read literally, especially in light of the praise the Central Figures of the Faith lavish on him, the writings of Quddus could be interpreted as revelation. Quddus proclaims himself a Manifestation. Quddus writes like a Manifestation. In the Master's interpretation [or, in one of his two interpretations] of the *Tale of the City* in the heart of the Qur'an, Quddus figures as an Apostle along with the Bab. So, Ahang, my question is this: We know Quddus is important. But why is he important? It would be a tautology to say Quddus is important because the Central Figures say so. The question remains: What is Quddus's role? What did he do that surpasses Mulla Husayn? Or are we simply to accept Quddus's importance as a matter of faith? Christopher Buck Subject: Shoghi Effendi and infallability From: molder@dnr.state.wi.us (Robert Moldenhauer) Date: 5 Sep 1995 18:22:31 -0400 Message-ID: <42iij7$j4d@cloyd.cs.cornell.edu> In an ealier article Bruce Limber wrote that Shoghi Effendi's comment on nine religions was wrong. Juan Cole wrote that Shoghi's interpretation of the the Kitab-i-Aqdas statement on homosexuality was wrong and that the Universal House of Justice was wrong in including it in it's translation of the book. I had always thought that Shoghi Effendi was infallable when interpreting scripture, is this not true? Can we discard his interpretations that we don't like? ------------------------------------------------------ Subject: Re: Shoghi Effendi and infallability From: mrranjba@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Michael Ranjbar) Date: 6 Sep 1995 14:27:39 -0400 Message-ID: <42kp6r$a01@cloyd.cs.cornell.edu> Dear Baha'i Friend, I believe that a good book to read on this subject is written by Shoghi Effendi himself in a letter entitled "Dispensation of Baha'u'llah", compiled into the Book: World order of Baha'u'llah. In particular, from pages 148 onward. This book was written by Shoghi Effendi himself, with a clear and obvious knowledge of the english language. In this book, he not only translates what Abdu'l-Baha said in reference to Himself, but he is very careful in choosing the words to describe Himself. Take for example this quote which he translated into the book by Abdu'l-Baha in reference to Himself: "He is the Interpreter of the Word of God.", Abdu'l-Baha referring to the functions of the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith. Moreover, Shoghi Effendi relates another quote from Abdu'l-Baha: "It is incumbent upon the members of the House of Justice..etc..to show their obediance, submissiveness, and subordination unto the Guardian of the Cause of God." -p.149 Clearly, Shoghi Effendi went on to state that he should not be placed in a equal position to either the Bab, Baha'u'llah, or Abdu'l-Baha yet nevertheless, it does little to change his clear position or the validity of his interpretations. In regards to the question concerning Homosexuality within the Baha'i Faith, and Shoghi Effendi's translation of this "Law". I believe that If you consult older persians who were born and raised in Iranian culture, you will find that Shoghi Effendi's translation is very too the point. From what I have learned from my own father who is Iranian, and was raised in Iran, as well as other older persians, it was common practice to refer to a person of a Homosexual disposition as one who plays with boys. There was no official word for being Homosexual [as I understand it]. An analagous situation might be seen in the use of the word "gay" in modern english. Clearly, this word in it's strict application does not necessarily mean Homosexual, but rather "happy". Yet we see that in it's social application the word now carries other connotations with it. Should a foreigner study English, he might never realize the full meaning of this word in american society. Likewise, when a foreigner such as Dr. Cole, studies persian or Arabic, he does not necessarily learn all of the words in their "cultural context". As a result, He might mistakenly believe that a word or phrase has been mis-translated, or mis-interpreted. This is the ever-present danger of allowing individuals in the faith to take liberty with translations or translating Baha'i texts. And this is why, I believe that the House is very careful, when translating any Baha'i Text. In Friendship, Mike From nima@unm.eduSat Sep 9 00:06:54 1995 Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 21:32:15 -0600 (MDT) From: Sadra To: Christopher Buck Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: Is Quddus a Manifestation? Dear Chris-- What's going on?! You wrote *exactly* what I was thinking, especially the Quddus as the Babi Hallaj part. This is the second time this has happened in the last month (first with Juan, now with you) - are we all tapped into some common astral plane or something :-) I'd be lying if I didn't say I was more than a bit intrigued by this whole topic of Babi shathiyyat (words of ecstatsy) and Quddus as a silent Manifestation. OTOH, a case could also be made for Tahirih. Remember her dismissive remarks to Quddus at Badasht - she did say her maqAm (station) was higher than his. Btw, has anybody noticed how Isma'ili this whole Quddus/Tahirih phenomenon is. I'm thinking of the natiq/samit issue. Any thoughts? Nima --- From jrcole@umich.eduSat Sep 9 00:11:09 1995 Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 23:45:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Juan R Cole To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: women's rights in the Baha'i Faith Several correspondents have asked for clarification with regard to my equation of gender and race as bases for discrimination. The problem with civil rights thought from Locke through Jefferson is precisely that they prescribed *civil* rather than *human* rights. Civil rights are contractual and pertain to adult, free, propertied white males (in their unstated schema of social categorization). Other categories of human being--slaves, non-whites, women, laborers, and the property-less were not extended these rights because they lacked the civil standing for them in the eyes of the theorists (Locke actually somewhere writes as an example "Man is white"!) Although this Liberal tradition extended more rights to more people than was the case earlier on, these rights derived from certain statuses. *Human* rights is a nineteenth-century invention, in which it is argued that rights derive not from status but from basic humanity. Thus, women should have the right to vote because they are human; slavery is incompatible with the idea of human rights and the abolitionists fought it on that basis. I read `Abdu'l-Baha's statement, which Chris Buck quoted from PUP (9 June 1912), that the seventh principle of Baha'u'llah is equality of rights and that all humans are alike in the eyes of God--I read this statement as an endorsement of *human* rights. Now, we speak of "removing the voting rights" of a Baha'i for certain actions. We are saying that voting in Baha'i elections is a right. Clearly it would be wrong to deprive an adult Baha'i in good standing of the right to vote on the basis of sex, race, language, national origin, etc. Eligibility to serve on Baha'i institutions is also a right. No Baha'i has a right to serve per se, but every adult Baha'i in good standing has a right to be *eligible* to serve on every Baha'i institution but one. I see the exclusion of women from the Universal House of Justice as the denial to a class of human beings of a human right on the basis of an ascribed status (gender). I do not see in what way this exclusion is morally different from excluding a particular race, ethnic or linguistic group, or other category of persons from eligibility. How would most of those on Talisman feel if the constitutions of their countries denied to women the right to serve as president, prime minister, or on the cabinet? Let us say women had the vote, and could serve in the legislature and the judiciary, even be ambassadors. But they could not serve in the highest executive positions in the state. Would this be equitable? Could it be excused on the grounds that a particular people has the right to configure gender roles as they please? (Incidentally, the example is not absurd; this is essentially the case in contemporary Iran de jure, and de facto in the Arab world). Is such a situation compatible with `Abdu'l-Baha's identification in *Baha'u'llah's* writings of a Baha'i *principle* of "equality of rights"? "All humans are alike in the eyes of God. Their rights are one; no one has any superiority over others. All are under the divine Law." (PUP 182, my translation). A right of eligibility is different from a right to hold an office per se. But eligibility for office is a right, and in a community based upon consultation it ought to be a universal right. Whatever the origins of or reasons for the current system (and I myself think they are clearly rooted in Middle Eastern patriarchy and gender segregation), the results are discriminatory, and are contrary to the Seventh essential Principle of Baha'u'llah. Now, I anticipate some attempts to fog over the issues by denying that eligibility to serve on the Universal House of Justice is a right. Some will say it is a privilege, for instance. But then why is this privilege extended to some rather than others? The issue of fairness will not go away through verbal pyrotechnics. As for those who maintain that the Baha'i Faith is set in stone, and you just have to accept it all the way it is, I don't know *where* in the world they got that idea. Baha'u'llah's whole stated reason for instituting a Universal House of Justice was to allow the religion to change to meet new circumstances and avoid the rigidity of past religions. Human beings seem so set in their ways, though, that they are intent on recreating Orthodox Judaism or Ultramontane Catholicism or Shi`ite Islam under a Baha'i guise and throwing out Baha'u'llah's counsel of flexibility as inconceivable. If Corinne True had thought like some posters here, women might have been excluded from LSAs and NSAs, for heaven's sake. Baha'is are therefore caught between a Baha'i *principle* of equal human rights for all, and a set of contradictory and changing instructions from `Abdu'l-Baha regarding institutional specifics. Why is it that the principle (also enunciated by `Abdu'l-Baha, with far more consistency) does not have standing in this discussion? Is integrity or consistency in Baha'i law completely unimportant? `Abdu'l-Baha said that the wisdom of the exclusion would become clear to all in the future. However, logically speaking there are two possible sorts of reason that might become clear. One sort would justify continued exclusion of women (e.g. milk glands interfere with the reception of divine radio waves). But another sort would be contingent. For instance, we know that Shoghi Effendi did not have the Universal House of Justice elected in his lifetime because the communities in Soviet Central Asia would not have been able to vote. This points to a principle of corporate inclusion. What if it would have been unfair to have a House of Justice with women on it in `Abdu'l-Baha's lifetime because they largely lacked even the vote, were in world terms largely illiterate, and only a very small minority had the experience in public life to serve? What if it would only be fair for women to be eligible if they had a tradition of public service, the civil vote, and were on the whole educated? And what if in 50 years they will have in world terms crossed that crucial corporate-gender threshhold and become eligible? Until then, Eric Blair, a.k.a George Orwell, said it best. Some animals are more equal than others. cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan From shastri@best.comSat Sep 9 00:11:56 1995 Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 20:53:51 -0700 From: Shastri Purushotma To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Messengers with Imposture???????? " Quddus, immortalized by Him as Ismu'llahi'l-Akhir (the Last Name of God); on whom Baha'u'llah's Tablet of Kullu't-Ta'am later conferred the sublime appellation of Nuqtiy-i-Ukhra (the Last Point); whom He elevated, in another Tablet, to a rank second to none except that of the Herald of His Revelation; whom He identifies, in still another Tablet, with one of the "Messengers charged with imposture" mentioned in the Qur'an; whom the Persian Bayan extolled as that fellow-pilgrim round whom mirrors to the number of eight Vahids revolve; on whose "detachment and the sincerity of whose devotion to God's will God prideth Himself amidst the Concourse on high;" whom Abdu'l-Baha designated as the "Moon of Guidance;" and whose appearance the Revelation of St. John the Divine anticipated as one of the two "Witnesses" into whom, ere the "second woe is past," the "spirit of life from God" must enter - such a man had, in the full bloom of his youth, suffered, in the Sabzih-Maydan of Barfurush, a death which even Jesus Christ, as attested by Baha'u'llah, had not faced in the hour of His greatest agony. " (God Passes By, pages 49- 50) What does a "Messenger charged with imposture" mean???? I'll try to do cross referencing in Quran ... anyone have any other clues????? From brburl@mailbag.comSat Sep 9 16:26:27 1995 Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 23:34:10 -0500 From: Bruce Burrill To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Buddhist/Baha'i Unity Steven, Let me pick up on a few things here and there in your long msg to me. > "I do not think that unity of religions in the Baha'i writings means unity of doctrine or unity of belief." < I agree with that. When Baha'u'llah says, "uttering the same speech, and proclaiming the same Faith," this what I want to explore. What does this mean in terms of Buddhism and in terms of the Buddha, for example? > 'It does not do any good to say, "Buddhism teaches rebirth, Western religions do not. There can only be one right answer here. It is an either/or situation." What this does is stop the dialogue as both camps will fall back into their own traditions and holy books without having to go through any uncomfortable and messy matters such as change and growth. In a recent post, Juan nicely formulated one Baha'i approach to religious diversity: that religious truth is not an either/or affair and that for Baha'u'llah two different and apparently conflicting religous perspectives can both be true. I sense the Buddha smiling in agreement with Baha'u'llah on this point.' < Maybe. The fact of the matter, despite Hick's feel-good non-judgmental inclusivism, is that Buddhism does teach rebirth as being how the universe operates whereas the religions of the Book do not. Does that mean that we must determine that this is simply some sort of symbolic language, though that is hardly consistent with Buddhism, in order to talk with, in order to understand each other? I don't think so. > "Bruce, I still am not clear why this Baha'i view bothers you or seems inadequate." < One of the things that bothers me is popular level Baha'i on this subject. What interests me here that there is a more sophisticated and mature approach and understanding which I am willing to explore. > "You seem persistent on going to specific points of doctrinal difference and say that, thus, the Baha'i view of unity of religions is wrong." < Did I say wrong? Nope. The specific doctrinal differences, such as the Buddha's rejection of a creator god notion, points to the difficulty of the idea of unity. What is this unity? What does it look like? > "It also seems to me that you keep misstating the Baha'i teachings on unity of religions by going back to a reference from the Kitab-i Iqan on the unity of the *founders* of religions and interpreting it to say that it means that the historical religions must all be in conformity of belief." < I never said that, ever. But it is the lack of conformity that raises the question of what is this unity. > "what I hear you saying is that this quote from Baha'u'llah claims that there is unity of religious teachings across time and civilizations" < No. Again, "uttering the same speech, proclaiming the same Faith" has to mean something. And to be obnoxiously repetitive, what does this mean in terms of the differences, how are the differences to be understood? The Baha'i claim to unity is not at all obvious. > "We disagree with you that such differences mean that there is no basis for Baha'i-Buddhist dialogue or that there cannot be complete harmony between our faiths in the midst of our differences, including the question of rebirth." < I never said the difference meant there was no basis for dialogue. Harmony? What does that mean, what does that look like? > "Are you saying that you see no prospect for fruitful dialogue between Buddhism and Western religions? That is what I hear between the lines and I find this a frustrating position for a Buddhist to take! After all, the teachings on rebirth have not kept the Dalai Lama from entering into fruitful dialogue with theistic theologians of the West." < Do you think that the Dalai Lama would regard rebirth as mere symbolic speech, a sort of metaphor? Hardly, hardly, hardly. Understand that when I point to doctrines that differ markedly from Baha'i, it is for no other reason than to explore how this question of unity works. In the real world with real religions religious truth claims that are at great variance with each other are made. Also, I am doing no more than presenting basic Buddhist beliefs about what the Buddha taught and what the world looks like through his teachings. > "What interfaith dialogue requires is (1) a recognition of differences that may be threatening to my belief system; but (2) trust that these differences are not hostile in nature; (3) that a sincere engagement with another believer's differing religious worldview holds potential for expansion of horizons; (4) that to be honest to myself I must also present my beliefs to the dialogue that may confront my dialogue partner with a similar discomfort." < I certainly agree, and in presenting Buddhist beliefs as they are, I am not trying to be hostile. I think your four points are quite correct. > "And yet, (allow me to repeat myself) Buddhist teachings on rebirth seem as mythopoeic and unfounded as any Western teaching (Baha'i included) on the soul and afterlife. My argument is that both the teachings of the Buddha and Baha'u'llah on the soul are only differing ways at describing processes that are beyond verification and falsification. They are myths in the truest and most profound sense of the word myth. And they are not mutually exclusive." < Well, yes and no. Abdu'l Baha and Shogi Effendi both rejected rebirth/reincarnation as being not the way the universe works. Is it because rebirth and one life are beyond verification that you claim they are not mutually exclusive? If you are going to engage another's world view, is it appropriate to assume it is mythopoeic rather than a description of how things are? > "I will reiterate for emphasis: this account of the Buddhist teaching on rebirth is beyond verification or falsification as a religious teaching." < The Buddhist don't think so. > "This makes as much sense and non-sense to me as Western notions of where the hell our souls come from and where they go at death." < Despite the fact that you grant a profoundness to what you see as a mythic aspect to the Buddhist teaching of rebirth, you are in effect refusing to deal with the teaching of rebirth as Buddhist themselves belief and understand it. Do you see my criticism here? This is an important point. Before we start reducing things to a Hickian "linguistic pictures or maps" (or language games), we need to understand what it is that is being said, and as much as possible on term is it is being said. > "But Bruce, I still do not see how two differing religious myths of the afterlife/rebirth issue that are beyond falsification seem to you to be a matter for determining whether one tradition is true and another false." < Doing a Hicks on differing religious traditions may save us from determining that one tradition is true and the other false, but I have to wonder if then something gets lost. > "Juan and other Baha'is have noted that there is perhaps unity at the level of spiritual experience and mystical insight, to which you also seem skeptical." < Somewhat skeptical. Is it open to verification or falsification? > "I think that our unity of religious experiences may be rooted in our common humanity." < Certainly a lot of it in common humanity. > "Would it help if I posted excerpts from Izutsu's comparative studies on this point?" < Certainly. I don't know him, but sure, let's take a look. > "Which leads me to wonder, how can a Buddhist-Baha'i dialogue move along constructively? I would think an examiniation of specific teachings based on texts would be fruitful. Perhaps we could move the discussion along by posting specific texts and commentaries on rebirth or spiritual practices." < Moojan has posted a comparative look at the Four Noble Truths. That can be a good place to start. Please don't misunderstand my reluctance to see the harmony that you might see as being painfully obvious. For me it isn't obvious. Am I trying to make your task hard. Yep, I am a little bit, because an easily obtained harmony is all too often obtained at some unnecessary expense. Bruce From sbedin@gov.nt.caSat Sep 9 16:26:48 1995 Date: Fri, 08 Sep 1995 22:57:30 MDT From: Stephen R Bedingfield To: rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.com Cc: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Fadil-i Mazandarani (was The Station of Quddus) Ahang-jan, In a posting on Quddus you said, refering to Fadil-i Mazandarani: > To make a long story short, I've traced the rumor to the Hand of > the Cause of God, Fadil-i Mazandarani. and again: > (he even didn't tell Mr. Furutan > or anyone else that he, that is, Fadil, was elevated to the rank > of the Hand of the Cause much earlier than Furutan ... Pray tell, where are there references that Fadil-i Mazandarani was a Hand of the Cause. He is not on any of the listings that I have seen: Baha'i World Volume 13, Dhikru'llah Khadem's "Service at the Threshold" in "The Vision of Shoghi Effendi", and so on... stephen -- Stephen R Bedingfield From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comSat Sep 9 16:28:27 1995 Date: Fri, 08 Sep 95 18:53:01 -0400 From: Ahang Rabbani To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Quddus -- part 4 [This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII] Hello everyone, its me again and ready to do a bit more on the station of Quddus and some references to Him. I thought if there was an interest, after we've considered some Tablets by Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha about His rank, then we do a bit in terms of survey of His life. So far, we've kept the discussion pretty low-tech as its best not to let folks get bored with heavy-duty Text analysis stuff. OK, here we go... Previously, we noted that Quddus, much the same way as Baha'u'llah and the Bab, is a historic Figure that has been mentioned in all the previous Dispensations. He even said so Himself. (Homework for interested parties: What are some of the prophecies about Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi from the Sacred Scripture of the past? Very much interested in hearing your thoughts. There are amazing stuff out there about these Two Figures, too...) We then talked briefly about what the Bab said about Him. On purpose, we kept it short for now but when we talk about Quddus' life, perhaps we can dial in some more of such materials. Last thing we were talking about was the Writings of Quddus at Badasht. (How the heck did we get on that subject? Well, too late now, let's role with the punches ...) There is a Tablet from Baha'u'llah that very roughly says: Jinab-i Quddus, Wrote a number during our stay at Badasht and send them out. This servant was not involved with them. Of the things written, He foretold of this (Baha'u'llah's) wondrous Cause -- directly, not by allusions. Exalted be His utterance: 'When the Lord stealthily appears over the Horizon of Baha, on earth this brilliant and evident Countenance is manifest from the point of Baha. At that time, will raise new heavens with wondrous pens. This is Our command to dwellers of the most exalted Concourse (`Ama), those that have been enlightened.' These Tablets are now available and are all about this Cause in the most evident Words. What I understand out of this Tablet is that Baha'u'llah is referring to a number of Tablets from Quddus Written during the Badasht period (to be published in the forthcoming book on Quddus) which in a most direct manner tell about Baha'u'llah's eminent declaration -- by Name! What is also marvelous about this passage which Baha'u'llah quotes is Quddus' reference to "new heavens with wondrous pens", which I take to be an allusion to the true scholars of the Cause -- and please note that the language used in this regard is extremely close to what Baha'u'llah uses in the Kitab-i Aqdas when He refers to such scholars, "... stars of the heaven of understanding ...". I should mention, there are other statements that totally blow me away every time I read them which are characterizations of Baha'u'llah by Quddus. In a language totally on its own plane, Quddus talks about the Station of Baha'u'llah. Stuff one has never heard before!! Language so sublime, its really overwhelming; the most exciting things one has ever seen. These are the sort of things that confirms ones belief and enable us to reach new heights of appreciation for the exalted, nay, the supreme character of this Dispensation. We must have some of these Writings of Quddus about Baha'u'llah here on Talisman. But, all in good time ... And if you think that is amazing, wait till we have passages from Quddus about Abdu'l-Baha!! If you ever thought that Tablet of Branch or Tablet to the Land of Ba was incredible in what they said about the Master, well, folks, you ain't seen nothing yet! And Quddus wrote these things about Abdu'l-Baha when the Master must of been only about 2 or possibly 3 years old! In a little boy of that age, Quddus, with His Divine foresight, recognized the unique and wondrous station of the Master. Wait till we get to Quddus' travels to Tihran (after His pilgrimage) and then we'll have these passages. OK? Anyway, I really got off track in this posting. I meant to share some extracts from Baha'u'llah's Tablets about Quddus. To make it up to you, permit me to share a true jewel. This is an extract from Baha'u'llah commentary on the Light Verse in my extremely inadequate rendering: Know thou, the first One that we sent unto you is the One that appeared above the Horizon of Fars (ie. the Bab) and Revealed unto Him, under the shadow of spirits, from the Exalted and Resplendent Heaven. The Last One that we sent, was like Him. On the Concourse on High we called Him: Quddus. If thou art of those endowed with understanding. We have Graced Them Both with this Beauty (Baha'u'llah), Who appeared in truth and manifests above the Horizon of God's commands as an Omnipotent King. I think this passage is relatively straight forward. Let me just note that the reference to Quddus as the "Last One" recalls to mind the sweet melodies heard many years earlier from the Tablet of All Food when Baha'u'llah says: ... if the Last Point, the countenance of my beloved Quddus, was present, He would grieve over My condition and lament on what has befallen Me.... Of course, as everyone recalls, the appellations "Last Point" needs to be understood in contrast to the "Primal Point", the Bab. In other words, together They constitute the Alpha and Omega of the Babi Dispensation. OK, let's do one more quotation and then call it quits for tonight. Baha'u'llah in the long Fasting Prayer (which I don't believe is available in English), says to the effect: O My Lord, thy praise be upon Him Who is the Last One to be sent down, Whose essence is the same as His (the Bab's) essence, and His manifestation is the same as His manifestation, only that He acquired His radiance from Him and prostrated Himself before Him and testified to His own servitude... Unfortunately, the English language, or at least my poor command of it, does not allow us to fully appreciate the elegance of Baha'u'llah's majestic prose, but nonetheless we gain a glimpse that He is stating: Quddus and the Bab are of the same essence with Quddus operating under the shadow and the Will of the Bab, as the latter is the unquestioned Authority for His Dispensation -- all others are servants unto Him. Wow!! The significance of these passages, I think, is gradually beginning to sink in. Here we have this Figure, anticipated in all the past Dispensations and, in the words of Baha'u'llah, ranks as a Manifestation of God and yet operates under the shadow of the Bab! The point of all this, I believe, is to help us understand the exalted station of the Bab -- Who ranks so supreme that His chief disciple Himself has such an enormous station! I think in many ways, all of these statements about Quddus, are meant to underscore the incredible, the unthinkable station of the Bab! (more to follow) lovingly, ahang. ps. I just read Chris' perceptive question. Wish I had a good answer for him. He knows so much more about all of these. But tomorrow will do my best to offer a few comments. pss. I also read Nima's posting about Tahirih. Let me just say that all this stuff about a rife between Quddus and Tahirih at Badasht is as bogus as a $3. bill! I'll prove it based on the Writings of Tahirih and Quddus. Shoghi Effendi is absolutely right on this issue -- and MacEoin/Amanat dead wrong. Stay toned. Now we're getting to the interesting stuff... Oh, yes, we'll have some fun now ... From ahmada@acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.auSat Sep 9 16:34:19 1995 Date: Sat, 9 Sep 1995 17:05:45 +1000 (EST) From: Ahmad Aniss To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Ahang's postings on Quddus Dear Friends, Dear Ahang, Thank you for the information regarding my question. I am reading the postings of Ahang with great interest. Please continue to do so with permission from others. These postings show how important is our Faith and how noble this Dispensation is. With Baha'i Love, Ahmad. From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduSat Sep 9 16:37:43 1995 Date: Sat, 9 Sep 95 09:38:16 EWT From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: women on UHJ Dear Talismanians, John has forwarded me several postings from Talisman recently. I see the women on UHJ issue has heated up again and that there was a plea for more female voices on the issue. He also forwarded to me the message from the "feminist" from another Baha'i discussion group stating why she did not think it was important for women to be on the House. I will now sit on my hands for a few moments so as to prevent me from typing my reaction to this message. No doubt if I did tell my true thoughts, I would be receiving flames forevermore. I will just make one teeny comment: in every religious tradition women think their "priests" are "different" from other men. Catholic women love their priests and I commonly see Muslim women hanging on every word of their mullas or sheikhs. Women generally buy into their cultures no matter how much they are discriminated against. What else are they to do? I think I have heard all the arguments against women on the UHJ that could possibly be made. Women are tied to their childrearing duties and couldn't spare the time. Putting men and women together for such long periods of time would be too much sexual temptation. Women are emotional: hormones, don't you know? Never mind that by the time a person is deemed mature enough to serve on this body, they don't have roaring hormones and young children. Then, of course, there is the argument that in the M.E., Muslims couldn't bear to see women in powerful positions and this would cause the ire of the people. Oddly enough, just this past weekend I heard an Iraqi cleric chiding Shi'i women for not being at the forefront of issues, publicly speaking out, etc. While many factors hold back women in the M.E., I really don't think that riots would have occurred if women were serving on the UHJ. Besides, the UHJ is in Israel. What arguments are left? I have never heard one of them that sounded at all logical in view of what we know about the capabilities of men and women. O.k., so now you are all thinking about this latest study showing that men are more likely to be geniuses than are women. Well, is it a requirement that men on the UHJ be geniuses. I have never heard of any of them spoken of as such. So, what is left? The only thing left is an appeal to something outside of logic. We are admonished to have faith. No women on the House - this is the decision. Be content with it. Yet, even those who obediently follow on the basis of faith always seem to feel compelled to come up with some "reason." Time and again I find some rationalization of this decision, such as the comment that men on the UHJ are "different" from other men. (Good lord!) So, where do we go now? It might be assumed that in ten or twenty years men who are accustomed to having to deal with women on a more equal footing will be elected to the UHJ. From my experience, I would predict that they would feel ridiculous trying to justify keeping women off the UHJ. However, even they will have a problem. It is the one that I believe Sen raised - how on earth will they change the ruling without making their predecessors look foolish or worse? That, I think, is when the discussions on Talisman will come in very handy. I think it is well worthwhile to debate this issue. Perhaps in the future, if we do have men around that can't quite get why they are not sharing power with women, they will have at hand the ammunition needed to change this ruling. As for women who do not see this ruling as being oppressive and humiliating to women, I wish they would open their eyes to the world around them, read a little history, reflect a little bit on the condition of women in the world. Until we are in the highest positions of power, nothing substantial will ever be changed. If women had not been in the U.S. Senate and House of Reps., Bob Packwood would still be thrusting his fat tongue into his female aides' mouths and getting away with it. Again, though, women are so accustomed to having a secondary role in the world that it is difficult for many to see things in any other way. I am sorry if all this has been said before. John just told me that there were lots of postings on the issue and that he had not forwarded them to me. I just asked him to sign me on again. Linda From burlb@bmi.netSat Sep 9 16:38:15 1995 Date: Sat, 9 Sep 95 09:27 PDT From: Burl Barer To: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu Cc: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: women on UHJ L. Walbridge wrote: " Until we are in the highest positions of power....." This is the telling phrase. Highest position? Power? What are the motives of those who seek "high positions"? What are the motives of those who seek "power"? Perhaps I have misunderstood the teachings of the Baha'i Faith more than most, but I was always taught that there were no positions of "Power", let alone "Higher Positions of Power" in the Baha'i Faith. Especially not as 1/9th of One Mind submissive to God when that One Mind only exists between two prayers -- the opening prayer of the meeting and the closing prayer of the meeting. The Greatest Holy Leaf administered the affairs of the Cause -- one woman dedicated to the Faith who's will was submerged to that of the Blessed Perfection. I have yet to read anything of her delight in being in what someone must imagine to be "The Highest Position of Power." Ahmad Sohrab wanted a high position of power; Shoghi Effendi fled in despair to the mountains of Switzerland rather than accept the crushing burdon of the Guardianship. Sohrab wanted the "high position of power" he imagined occupied by Shoghi Effendi -- Abdul Baha never even used his bestowed worldly title of Sir Abbas Effendi -- his 'glory' was as Abdul-Baha. Our writings tell us that Kings and Queens will only accept the burdons of Royalty to serve God, and would rather not wear the crown. Baha'u'llah Himself confirms that had it been up to Him, he would never had even told anyone about His Revelation. Was Mirza Hussain Ali in the "highest position of power" in the Baha'i Faith, or was he courser than clay? Let's ask ourselves: Do I want to be elected to the Universal House of Justice? Do I want to be elected to the National Spritual Assembly? Do I want to be elected to the Local Spiritual Assembly Why? High position? Power? May God spare me from such desires. If you or I desire a High Position of Power -- be we male, female, or undecided -- we will *never* find it in the Baha'i Faith. One sincere believer, alone, with their heart on fire with love for Baha'ullah can prevail although all the world be against them. Why? What manner of "power" makes that possible? Just thoughts for thinking. Love, Burl From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comSat Sep 9 16:41:36 1995 Date: Sat, 09 Sep 95 13:05:01 -0400 From: Ahang Rabbani To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Rumi and a bit on Quddus ... [This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII] Beloved Everyone, Last night, our good friend Shastri wrote that he recalled some Tablet of the Master about Rumi to the effect that although Rumi wan't a Manifestation but his Mathnavi has the same effect as the Revealed Word. As I am not familiar with this Tablet, if anyone knows a reference, please .... In clearning up my directories this morning I noted that a similar issue was raised by Brent a few months back. Back then Brent was looking for the source of a Hadith reportedly quoted by Abdu'l-Baha which says because of Rumi the Islamic Dispensation instead of half day (500 years) survived for a full day (1000 years). In reply on Feb 5th I wrote: > Dear Brent: > Mirza Abu'l-Fadl in his masterpiece, "Far`id", quotes a Haidth > attributed to Muhammad, and as such known as Hadith-i-Nabavi. > (Science of Hadith is a fairly complex topic and among other > things seeks to categorize all the Traditions. Two categories > are of particular importance, Hadith-i Nabavi, which are sayings > of the Prophet and Hadith-i Qudsi, which are the statements of > God Revealed to Muhammad but are not part of Qur'an. An example > of the latter is the famous tradition, "I was a Hidden > Treasure...", which Abdu'l-Baha revealed His most incredible > commentary when He was between 12-14 years old -- others have > claimed that He was older when He revealed it, but this is not > so.) > This famous Hadith goes: "An salahat ummati filha yuman. Va > an fusadat filha nisfi yum". Translation: "If my people remain > righteous they will last one Day (1000 years) and if they become > degenerate will last one-half day (500 years). > So far we are on solid ground, as the authority of Mirza > Abu'l-Fadl (which if I recall correctly give his source anyway -- > I can check Far'id later) is beyond questioning. > Every Persian friend that you ever meet will tell you that they > have heard that Abdu'l-Baha has also quoted this Hadith, > presumably in one of His Talks, and has stated that despite the > condition of Muslims and because of the appearance of Jalalid-Din > Rumi, Islam was granted its full duration. > I have never been able to locate a pilgrim note that actually > captures this comment by the Master. > In my opinion, it's very likely that Abdu'l-Baha has said > something to this effect and that's why it has spread so widely > among Persian believers. There are other supportive evidences: > 1. Abdu'l-Baha was a great admirer of Rumi. So was Baha'u'llah. > 2. Abdu'l-Baha often quotes from Rumi in His Tablets. For > example, He was always heard repeating the famous lines "Ay Ishq > manam az to, sar kashtih vu gumrahi ...". This seems to be the > favorite poem of the Master. (Baha'u'llah also quotes this poem > in a Tablet to a certain Shaykh Isma'il.) > 3. The influence of Rumi on the moral and spiritual education of > Iran and that region is absolutely unique. No one else (I dare > say, not even Islam) has been able to bring about the spiritual > transformation in the character of Persians that Rumi was able > to. > 4. By far, the vast majority of Baha'is of Iran found their way > to the Faith through the poetry and influence of Rumi. (My own > grandfather, a firm Zoroastrian, accepted Baha'u'llah through the > statements found in "Divan Shaykh Tabriz". So I will eternally > remain grateful and in love with Rumi.) The Faith of Baha'u'llah > has not had a greater teacher than Rumi -- with the notable > exception of Abdu'l-Baha himself. > 5. One night, in the course of his table talks, the Guardian > discussed the countering influence of Sa'di and Rumi. Sa'di, in > words of Shoghi Effendi, was a person who did not understand the > importance of "staying true to the principles". He then quoted > Sa'di's famous line ("a durgh maslihat amiz, bih az rasti fitnih > angiz" -- a lie in good intention is better than a seditious > truth) and said that this one line destroyed the entire moral > fiber of the Persian society. He went on then and greatly > praised Rumi for his spiritual insights and ethical and moral > education of man. > So, Brent, I suppose this posting solved only half of the puzzle > and gave you the Hadith about half-day business. The second > half, namely, source for Abdu'l-Baha's comment, remains to be > unearthed. > lovingly, ahang. Also while deleting stuff this moring I came up this posting from Feb 6th (my birthday!) and because of its association with both Rumi and Quddus, decided to share it again. Hope you'll enjoy it again as much as you did the first time! > Dear Friends: > All this talk about Rumi made me think of a bit of trivia about > Rumi which I share for what's worth .... > As you remember, Quddus left Shiraz along with Mulla Sadiq > Khurasani after being severely beaten and persecuted. They > traveled South for a few days and then parted company. Mulla > Sadiq went towards Yazd and Quddus proceeded to Kirman. > Nabil hints that the purpose of Quddus' journey was to acquaint > Haj Karim Khan with the message of the Bab. No doubt this is > true. But I think Quddus had a plan "B" which was even more > important. The clever fellow that he was, he knew full well that > Haji Karim Khan (whom Baha'u'llah says is referred to 3 times in > Qur'an -- which gives him the unique distinction of being > mentioned negatively in 3 separate Dispensations!) would not > accept the Faith. > What his plan "B" was to win over Aqa Siyyid Javad Kirmani to the > Faith. This Siyyid Javad is actually a cousin of the Bab and was > the highest ranking Shi'ih clergy in Kirman. (The Bab had > another cousin, Mirzayi-Shirazi, which years later was elevated > to the highest rank of Shi'ih hierarchy and was also secretly a > believer in both the Bab and Baha'u'llah. Another relative of > the Bab, Aqa Mirza Aqa-yi Nur'd-Din had a long interview with him > and found out how for some 2 decades he has been stealthily > protecting Baha'is.) Aqa Siyyid Javad was not only a very > important religious figure, and an admirer of Shaykh Ahamd and > Siyyid Kazim, but was also politically a very powerful man. To > the point that Haj Karim Khan's father, the ruthless and vicious > Ibrahim Khan-i Zahiru'd-Dawlih, never messed with him. > Anyway, Siyyid Javad used to teach a course of study that was > extremely popular. Students from all regions of country would > come to his class. For example, Mulla Hadi Sabzivari who is one > the greatest philosophers of modern times, and mentioned by > Baha'u'llah in His Tablet of Wisdom, traveled on foot to Kirman > to attend his class. On hearing that the class was full, he > became a janitor for the school, married the daughter of the > custodian of the school, only so that he could hear the lectures > of Siyyid Javad!! > Siyyid Javad's course would run for 6 month. He would start on > the first day of the fall and conclude on the eve of NawRuz. > He would start his course, day one, with reading the first two > lines of Rumi's Mathnavi: > "Bishnu az nay chun hikayat mikunad, az judayiha shikayat mikunad > ..." > He would then spend this entire 6 months in explaining just the 2 > opening verses of Rumi -- and that's what made his course so > unique and special so that great scholars would come to learn > from him. > Incidentally, this cousin of the Bab, remained faithful to Him > and protected the believers of Kirman from Haj Karim Khan and > later of his son, Haj Muhammad Khan. He has a most fascinating > life. I've been able to piece together a fairly complete > biography of him. > While we are on trivia, here is another one: Baha'u'llah once > observed that Nabil has said more poetry than any other person, > including the author of Mathnavi (ie. Rumi). He then went on to > say that not only Nabil has surpassed Rumi in volume, but that > his influence would outshine Rumi's. > What I get out of this statement of Baha'u'llah is that > millenniums after Rumi has been reduced to just a footnote in > history books, Nabil's narrative would continue to edify and > inspire humanity. > Forgive me for taking your time with a bit of trivia .... > lovingly, ahang. Periodically, I get called upon to do various deepening classes and often I get assigned maybe 2 hours and they say: "tell us about the Writings of the Bab!" Or they give me 4 days at some summer school and say, "Talk about the Kitab-i Aqdas." At such times, I am reminded of the story of Siyyid Javad and how he would spend 6 months on the first 2 lines of Mathnavi, but in these days people expect to learn all there is about the Kitab-i Aqdas in 4 days! Or to master the Revelation of the Bab in 2 hours! It's interesting times that we live in ... best wishes, ahang. From haukness@tenet.eduSat Sep 9 16:42:14 1995 Date: Sat, 9 Sep 1995 14:34:05 -0500 (CDT) From: John Haukness To: Juan R Cole Cc: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: women's rights in the Baha'i Faith Allah-u-abha Friends: Juan's post is well written and I will try to produce a counter point worthy of his posting. I think the issue of different roles and functions of the genders comes across in the Aqdas concerning divorce and inheritance, in regards to divorce, I feel if men used the roles and functions are the same logic, then men would have a right to feel we are in need of a more clever interptitation to reverse what appears to be a male handicap. On this issue, I wonder if any would like to comment positively (I am sure negative rebuttals can be devised to match) that in the lives of Bahiyyuh Khanum, Abdul Baha and Shoghi Effendi, in the way they lived together and served their Father and mother, and the Faith together, we can get just a glimpse of these subtle differences of role and function, not of two sexes competing but of them as helpmates of the other. Has anyone else thought of this, just curious. haukness@tenet.edu From brburl@mailbag.comSat Sep 9 17:10:42 1995 Date: Sat, 9 Sep 1995 15:49:55 -0500 From: Bruce Burrill To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: Buddhist/Baha'i Unity At 03:03 PM 9/9/95 -0500, you wrote: >Allah-u-abha Friends: In her book The Chinese Religion and the Bahai >Faith, Lian Chew states"Longh agoe the Chinese peasants realized the >oneness of all beneath Heaven, nature as seen in the forests, the stars, >the ocean and humankind." She fakes a footnote from Chuang-tzu of the >"sage originates nothing; that is to say, they merely contemplate the >universe." She goes on to compare this with the Bahai notion of "all >beings are connected together." I hesitate to go into semantics of >deeper levels of philosphical differences, although I see no problem in >doing so, I see that going on in the writing world all the time, indeed >it seems to be the primus modis opperatus method of doing business now a >days. Never the less, Baha'is hardly have only one voice on complex >issues such as rebirth or unity, I hardly believe anyone can really >believe, as divirse of thought Buddhism has become in our era, that >people will advance that Buddhists thing this way or that about any >complex issue, instead what can say is the school of Buddhist thought on >an issue of rebirth leans more predominant to one way than another. When >we want to talk about differences between the Baha'i Faith and Buddhism I >continue to ask which Buddhism, which century, which school of thought, >the Dali Lama, the Hsiao-ching, Chung Yung, Mencius, Li chi, I Ching? I >don't think this can go anywhere, but then I don't think secular humanism >can go anywhere either. So why is the Buddhist era over, as I've said >because Buddha said so, can I prove this, well the problem is when one >posts that Buddha say's this or that about rebirth, or unity, they, like >me, to not have an original manuscript in hand, something we do have in >hand when talking about Bahaullah, which is something remarkable mankind >has never experienced before, so either the Baha'is are tricking people >with this play of convience, that we have the writings in His pen, in >hand, or Bahaullah is who He says he is, the return of Buddhism, of as >Abdul Baha states of Buddha and Confucius..."and their cycle is >completed." I am glad the hear that this is popular. Buenas Dias > > >haukness@tenet.edu > In reading through this msg, I have to ask if for you is English not your first language? > "I hardly believe anyone can really believe, as divirse of thought Buddhism has become in our era" < Buddhism is certainly diverse. If you have been following what I have said from the beginning you will see that I have limited the discussion of Buddhism to primarily that as represented by the Pali texts and Theravada, which is a reasonable thing to do. Just ask Moojan Momen. His book on Buddhism is so limited, but the interesting thing is that even among wide diversity of thought in the various Buddhist traditions, we can find a very marked unity as we follow the development and progression of ideas. > "So why is the Buddhist era over, as I've said because Buddha said so, can I prove this," < Please do, but then you were the one who referred to Baha'u'llah as the fifth Buddha, with the Gotama Buddha being the first Buddha, and when asked to discuss this fifth Buddha prophecy in detail you were unable to. But now you can prove that the Buddhist era is over? Goodness. > '...so either the Baha'is are tricking people with this play of convience, that we have the writings in His pen, in hand, or Bahaullah is who He says he is, the return of Buddhism, of as Abdul Baha states of Buddha and Confucius..."and their cycle is completed."' < Tricking people or true? Maybe they were just wrong. I appreciate your response here because it is what I have all too often run into in the Baha'i online world: fundamentalism, literalism and truimphalism. Hardly any room in all of that for dialogue; rather, I should just sit here with my hands in my lap and let you tell me what's what and what's true about Buddhism. Until _you_ can quote me the details of the fifth Buddha prophecy as it is found within Buddhism, and show that Baha'u'llah is the fifth Buddha referred to by it, spare me any further responses. You can discuss with other Baha'is here whether yours is path of openness and dialogue or something other. From jrcole@umich.eduSun Sep 10 13:54:25 1995 Date: Sat, 9 Sep 1995 17:08:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Juan R Cole To: Bruce Burrill Cc: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: Buddhist/Baha'i Unity Bruce: I admire your willingness to continue the dialogue in this setting, and hope you feel our good will toward you and desire to reach mutual understanding. You are only one person, and I know it must be sometimes hard to reply to four or five Baha'i posters. Let me try to forward the dialogue by making three remarks regarding things that have come up more than once: 1. You refer to the Baha'is as having a conception of a "creator-god." Actually, this is not quite true. The Baha'i scriptures teach that the universe has always existed and is eternal. There was never a time when it did not exist temporally. So the "creator-god" schema where there is a god and no universe, and then He creates the universe, is not part of Baha'i cosmology. The universe's existence, however, is not independent. It is contingent. I might not exist. It is ontologically secondary to and dependent upon another, higher reality, a necessarily existent Reality that is inconceivable and beyond all attributes. Thus, although the Baha'i scriptures often use language that sounds like that of the Abrahamic tradition with regard to God and his creation of the universe ex nihilo, the realities being refered to are quite different. God's pre-existence is ontological, not temporal. The Baha'i view is essentially Neoplatonic and close to the metaphysics of Avicenna. 2. You refer to reincarnation as a difference between Baha'i views and Buddhist ones. This subject, however, is more complex than it may seem. Baha'is accept a Shi`ite doctrine of "return" that probably is rooted in Hellenistic Gnosticism. Thus, Mulla Husayn was considered the "return" of the Prophet Muhammad. In Some Answered Questions, `Abdu'l- Baha explains that what "returns" is not the essence of the person but a complex of "personality attributes." I have long thought that this return of a complex of personality attributes sounds an awful lot like the return of skandhas in Buddhism. Now, of course, the idea that a human being consists of essence/soul on the one hand and personality-attributes on the other, and that the soul journeys on to higher spiritual worlds while the personality-attributes return, is not exactly like the Buddhist schema. But there are perhaps points of interest and similarity in the idea of "Return" (raj`ah). Quite apart from Baha'i/Buddhist issues, incidentally, I have as a historian long been convinced of the falsity of reincarnation in the Hindu sense. We know enough about the demographic history of the world now to know that there has been a steep curve for thousands of years, with exponential increases in the number of humans in each generation. There are already several times as many humans in the world at the end of the 20th century as at the beginning. They can't all be reincarnated from the small number of persons who existed in the past. Human beings are only 200,000 years old, and sentience may be only 40,000 years old, and the numbers were very small in the beginning. Some very large proportion of all people who ever lived are alive today. None of this makes mathematical sense for me if one believed in reincarnation. 3. You seem to me to begin with a "correspondence" theory of doctrines such as reincarnation. That is, reincarnation is referring to real processes and describing aspects of the world as it is. My reading of the approach of Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha to religious doctrine is that they do not see "correspondence," especially to empirical reality, as the purpose of religious doctrines. Rather, they see doctrine as a sort of metaphorical ladder that adherents can climb toward a truth that cannot be expressed in words. Thus, when people argue over doctrine it is like standing around arguing about whose ladder is painted a better color or is made of sturdier material, when if they would just get on the ladder and climb they would each reach the roof. It seems clear to me that reincarnation and karma as doctrines are aimed at convincing individuals to act morally, and function in South Asia just as heaven and hell do in Christian Europe. Strictly speaking, Baha'is do not believe in either one as any sort of rempirical reality. cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan From nima@unm.eduSun Sep 10 13:55:24 1995 Date: Sat, 9 Sep 1995 16:28:50 -0600 (MDT) From: Sadra To: Talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Mowlana Jalaledin Rumi Dear Talizens-- As the poet Jami's tribute to Rumi declares: man nemeegooyam keh oo peyghAmbar ast, valikan dArad ketAb! I do not say he is a Prophet, but he does have a Book (i.e. the Mathnavi)! and the famous: Masnavi-e Molavi-e Manavi hast Quran dar zabAn-e Pahlavi. Rumi's Mathnavi is the Quran in the Persian tongue. It is no exageration to say that no single poet/mystic in the entire Islamic world has exerted the influence of Hazrate Mowlana Jalaleddin Rumi and no single mystical work as widely read as his Mathnavi. Even those Sufi's who in their theoretical proclivities follow(ed) the school of Ibn al-`Arabi, one and all follow(ed) Rumi in their poetic insight - the two best examples of which are Fakhruddin `Araki (or `Iraqi) and Jami. From North Africa, Anatolia, Iran, Afghanistan and Central Asia to the Subcontinent and the furtherest reaches of Muslim South-East Asia, the "cry of the reed" has been/and is being heard and commented upon (the reed refers to the chief image in the opening line of the Mathnavi: "beshno az ney chon hekAyat meekonad, az jodAeehA shekAyat meekonad..." Listen to the reed how it tells its tale, complaining of separations..). Muslim and non-Muslim alike have been inspired by this monumental work - Annemarie Schimmel mentions Vedantists even studying it. And an entire aspect of the Iranian philosophical tradition has been devoted to it - Haj Mulla Hadi Sabzavari composed a philosophical commentary on the entire Mathnavi, for example. One could talk forever about Rumi and still not have exhausted the scope of his penetrating vision into the intricacies of life and existence. How should one summarize him? One word: Love! But as he himself says, Har che gooyam `ishq rA sharh o bayAn chon be-`ishq Ayam khejel bAsham az An gar che tafsir zabAn rowshangar ast leek `ishq bi-zabAn rowshantar ast! Whatever I say in explanation of Love, When I come to Love itself, I am ashamed of words. While words usually clarify matters, Nonetheless Love is clearer without words. As for suggestions on what to read: for secondary sources, hands down Annemarie Schimmel's _The Triumphal Sun: A Study of the Works of Jalaleddin Rumi_ SUNY (1993) & William Chittick's _The Sufi Path of Love: The Spiritual Teachings of Rumi_ SUNY (1983). Ecstatically yours, Nima --- From brburl@mailbag.comSun Sep 10 13:56:52 1995 Date: Sat, 9 Sep 1995 17:35:12 -0500 From: Bruce Burrill To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Buddhist/Baha'i Unity Juan, > "I admire your willingness to continue the dialogue in this setting, and hope you feel our good will toward you and desire to reach mutual understanding. You are only one person, and I know it must be sometimes hard to reply to four or five Baha'i posters." < I sometimes have time constraints that limits how much I can handle, and so sometimes things get lost. My only concern was being somewhat "abused" for an emphasis on doctrine, other than that I have been treated nicely. I am not too terribly worried about where this will go, because there is always something to learn, even if we don't reach a mutual understanding. > 'So the "creator-god" schema where there is a god and no universe, and then He creates the universe, is not part of Baha'i cosmology. The universe's existence, however, is not independent. It is contingent. I[t] might not exist. It is ontologically secondary to and dependent upon another, higher reality, a necessarily existent Reality that is inconceivable and beyond all attributes.' < I know, but as such, whether it is an out-of-nothing creation or an eternal contingency, if there were no god, then no universe. > "The Baha'i view is essentially Neoplatonic" < Once a Baha'i was going on about Baha'i metaphysics, and I said Oh, you are a Neoplatonist. He got rather put out. > 'In Some Answered Questions, `Abdu'l- Baha explains that what "returns" is not the essence of the person but a complex of "personality attributes."' < Interesting. Not having SAQ to look at, is this said to happen beyond the example you gave? > "I have long thought that this return of a complex of personality attributes sounds an awful lot like the return of skandhas in Buddhism." < Actually it isn't the skandhas that return. It is the karmic impulse. > "Quite apart from Baha'i/Buddhist issues, incidentally, I have as a historian long been convinced of the falsity of reincarnation in the Hindu sense. ..." < Also, the Buddhist sense. For both the Buddhist and the Hindu, the universe is eternal, populated with both invisible and visible beings with also many immaterial realms. Whether that satisfactorily answers your objection, I suppose depends upon your willingness accept as true what can't be seen. Buddhism does, however, offer something of an empirical response by saying that through cultivation of highly refined levels of consciousness, these realms can be seen. > 'My reading of the approach of Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha to religious doctrine is that they do not see "correspondence," especially to empirical reality, as the purpose of religious doctrines. Rather, they see doctrine as a sort of metaphorical ladder that adherents can climb toward a truth that cannot be expressed in words.' < I know, and from an insiders point of view it looks like an enlightened, tolerant approach, but as an outsider I then see my world view put in a one- down, lower rung position. > "It seems clear to me that reincarnation and karma as doctrines are aimed at convincing individuals to act morally" < But you don't see that that begs a questions or two that might be worth discussing? Bruce From sbedin@gov.nt.caSun Sep 10 13:57:13 1995 Date: Sat, 09 Sep 1995 17:20:05 MDT From: Stephen R Bedingfield To: Ahang Rabbani Cc: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: missing Hands... Thanks for the inspiring post on the "missing Hands", Ahang. We look forward to an article from you on this subject... > I don't know why the list of Hands available in various places > doesn't get modified in face of clear and irrefutable Texts. My > guess is that the House is waiting for certain individuals to pass > from the scene before making such modifications. Well, I guess you could put a precis together and ask the House. loving regards, stephen -- From ahmada@acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.auSun Sep 10 13:58:46 1995 Date: Sun, 10 Sep 1995 10:35:34 +1000 From: Ahmad Aniss To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: comply with a request Dear Talismanians, Dear Juan, Your wrote: >You have challenged me to look at the textual history dispassionately; >since you have not replied to the logical inconsistencies I have pointed >out earlier, I can only request the same of you. Let's start in 1873 and >work forward instead of starting in 1987 and working backward. It is >better history that way. In a brief form I would say what my understandings are about historical back ground to this: Baha'u'llah stated that memebrs of houses must be men. He did not clarify the situation. Because there was no need. He was in a men's world and that was the norm in His time. Women did not enter in such discussions at the time ( except of a handful such as Tahiereh). He knew that as time will pass Abdu'l-Baha and Guardian will expound on this. It is true that He said in this age women are considered to be as men. This to me is a general statement to the effect of saying men and women are equal in this Dispensation. But, a reversal of the argument does not hold (i.e. because He stated this statement, He ment that women can eventually be on the House, see below). Then we see that Abdu'l-Baha held the argument for all Houses (at a time where there was no National or International Houses) upto some time as you dated it to 1912. and then we see apparently a change in His rulling. To me this just indicates what the extigency of His time was. He did not change anything but he was waiting for the society to accept the role of women in administrations of the Faith. But, in His clarifications at the time (having the authority invested on Him by Baha'u'llah), He does say that this only apply to local and national Houses, and in case of the UHJ, it is confined to men only, and that it is God's will to be different and its wisdom will be apparent to all erelong. Then we see Guardian that held the statements of Abdu'l-Baha to its exact points (again being invested with such authority by Abdu'l-Baha). He is then followed by the Hands and now since 1963 to present time by UHJ which both bodies have stated the same thing. I think, This is the true historical background to it. Now let us look at your argument in a different point of view. I see your argument in this way; That Baha'u'llah stated men and women are equal but he used men in language of generality. Then you must say that He must have confused His arguments (as He does not do so in regard to many of His other laws). Then we come to Abdu'l-Baha, and find that accroding to your argument, He was confused did not have all the information and hence He made contredictory rullings (a holy personage that suppose to be infallibile, interpretor of all of Baha'u'llah's laws and so on). Then we come to our Guardian and again according to your arguments He did not have all the information, He followed His Grand father and he could not change things as He was not empowered to legislated and so on (a personage that was envested with interpretation power and the authority to role on desissions of any UHJ, and act as the head of that body according to the writings). Then we come to the members of the Council of Hands that decided that Adu'l-Baha's Will and Testement to be the future charter of our Faith and helped the Baha'i society to acheive its formation of a UHJ, (a group of distinguished followers of our Faith that according to you followed blindly the Will and Testement of Abdu'l-Baha to exact point), after all they where in a position to judge if women can be on the House at their time. Now we come up with a House that is been there since 1963 (32 years, with a number of members being changed since), which states that the law is embedded in the Holy Text, for what ever reason. And again you say they did not have all the informtion too. But, Hang on!!! in this line of argument from Baha'u'llah to the current members of the House every one got it wrong who has got it right, but YOU! You forgive me if I state the above so bluntly as I have. But, it looks like that you have hidden motives to follow the above arguments insistantly as any body with some insight will repudiates the arguments you are putting forward. Once again I must ask you to look at the information available whether it is historical or in the form of writings of our Faith in an unpassionate way and see if your views would not change. You also wrote: >From owner-talisman@indiana.edu Sat Sep 9 14:16 EST 1995 >Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 23:45:24 -0400 (EDT) >From: Juan R Cole >To: talisman@indiana.edu >Subject: women's rights in the Baha'i Faith > >Several correspondents have asked for clarification with regard to my >equation of gender and race as bases for discrimination. >........... >Now, we speak of "removing the voting rights" of a Baha'i for certain >actions. We are saying that voting in Baha'i elections is a right. >Clearly it would be wrong to deprive an adult Baha'i in good standing of >the right to vote on the basis of sex, race, language, national origin, etc. > >Eligibility to serve on Baha'i institutions is also a right. No Baha'i >has a right to serve per se, but every adult Baha'i in good standing has >a right to be *eligible* to serve on every Baha'i institution but one. > >I see the exclusion of women from the Universal House of Justice as the >denial to a class of human beings of a human right on the basis of an >ascribed status (gender). I do not see in what way this exclusion is >morally different from excluding a particular race, ethnic or linguistic >group, or other category of persons from eligibility. What you say in the last paragraph is your progative. But, you have to remember that there is limitations to the rights of each individual based on the laws of the Faith. If the Manifestation of God states that there is such a law and His succesors state that there is a wisdom behind it then these are the limitations to the right of the individual and as such they must be abided. >How would most of those on Talisman feel if the constitutions of their >countries denied to women the right to serve as president, prime >minister, or on the cabinet? Let us say women had the vote, and could >serve in the legislature and the judiciary, even be ambassadors. But >they could not serve in the highest executive positions in the state. >Would this be equitable? Could it be excused on the grounds that a >particular people has the right to configure gender roles as they please? >(Incidentally, the example is not absurd; this is essentially the case >in contemporary Iran de jure, and de facto in the Arab world). You are confusing leadership with being envested with infallibility. They are different in reality. One is to rule people, the other is to deliver guidence produced during an spiritual interaction with the beings from an spiritual world for the good of mankind in the physical world. >Is such a situation compatible with `Abdu'l-Baha's identification in >*Baha'u'llah's* writings of a Baha'i *principle* of "equality of rights"? " >All humans are alike in the eyes of God. Their rights are one; no one has any >superiority over others. All are under the divine Law." (PUP 182, my >translation). You said it! They are all under the divine Law. The divine Law says men can only be on that body, whatever the wisdom. >A right of eligibility is different from a right to hold an office per >se. But eligibility for office is a right, and in a community based upon >consultation it ought to be a universal right. Quite right, eligibility has been stated within the divine Law. So, right of no one is impinged on. >Whatever the origins of or reasons for the current system (and I myself >think they are clearly rooted in Middle Eastern patriarchy and gender >segregation), the results are discriminatory, and are contrary to the >Seventh essential Principle of Baha'u'llah. Hang on!! Accoring to this statement then Baha'u'llah is contridicting Himself. And His succesor are confused, see above argument. >Now, I anticipate some attempts to fog over the issues by denying that >eligibility to serve on the Universal House of Justice is a right. Some >will say it is a privilege, for instance. But then why is this privilege >extended to some rather than others? The issue of fairness will not go >away through verbal pyrotechnics. No! May be the issue will not go away but some facts will be cleared up If the wisdom is embedded in the structure in the Creation itself as I suggest Let it be, but, perhaps the wisdom that Abdu'l-Baha states will clear the air one day. > >As for those who maintain that the Baha'i Faith is set in stone, and you >just have to accept it all the way it is, I don't know *where* in the >world they got that idea. Baha'u'llah's whole stated reason for >instituting a Universal House of Justice was to allow the religion to >change to meet new circumstances and avoid the rigidity of past >religions. Human beings seem so set in their ways, though, that they are >intent on recreating Orthodox Judaism or Ultramontane Catholicism or >Shi`ite Islam under a Baha'i guise and throwing out Baha'u'llah's counsel >of flexibility as inconceivable. If Corinne True had thought like some >posters here, women might have been excluded from LSAs and NSAs, for >heaven's sake. Perhaps Corinne True did help in the emancipation of women but this does not mean that we have to be flexibale to an extend that we be able to change the Laws of our Faith just to convince others that we do mean equality of men and women. >Baha'is are therefore caught between a Baha'i *principle* of equal human >rights for all, and a set of contradictory and changing instructions from >`Abdu'l-Baha regarding institutional specifics. Why is it that the >principle (also enunciated by `Abdu'l-Baha, with far more consistency) >does not have standing in this discussion? Is integrity or consistency >in Baha'i law completely unimportant? It is your opinion that there is no consistency in the writings of Abdu'l-Baha. Many others do not agree with it (such as me). They see the apparent changes as the need of the time. Statements made by Abdu'l-Baha, Guardian The Hands, and current UHJ, clearly are consistent statements in this regard. >`Abdu'l-Baha said that the wisdom of the exclusion would become clear to >all in the future. However, logically speaking there are two possible >sorts of reason that might become clear. One sort would justify >continued exclusion of women (e.g. milk glands interfere with the >reception of divine radio waves). But another sort would be contingent. >For instance, we know that Shoghi Effendi did not have the Universal >House of Justice elected in his lifetime because the communities in >Soviet Central Asia would not have been able to vote. This points to a >principle of corporate inclusion. What if it would have been unfair to >have a House of Justice with women on it in `Abdu'l-Baha's lifetime >because they largely lacked even the vote, were in world terms largely >illiterate, and only a very small minority had the experience in public life >to serve? What if it would only be fair for women to be eligible if they had a >tradition of public service, the civil vote, and were on the whole educated? >And what if in 50 years they will have in world terms crossed that >crucial corporate-gender threshhold and become eligible? Abdu'l-Baha's writings as a whole state that it is education that has produced differences in equality between men and women. But, in most of His writings He states that this equality is established by Baha'u'llah and will come to pass in this Dispensation. However, he confines clearly the membership of the UHJ to men and He says the wisdom of it will be apparent in erelong, as such we Baha'i have to look at this way, whatever the wisdom. >Until then, Eric Blair, a.k.a George Orwell, said it best. Some animals are >more equal than others. they may be right after all, All Human Beings are a sort of animal! With Baha'i Love and Fellowship, Ahmad. _______________________________________________________________________ ^ ___________________________________^ From ahmada@acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.auSun Sep 10 13:59:19 1995 Date: Sun, 10 Sep 1995 10:36:26 +1000 From: Ahmad Aniss To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: reply to a friend Û¥- A friend has send the following private post to me I am sending it with modifications plus my replys to it in this posting. >Dear Ahmad, > >I am a silent reader of Talisman, and have been following this >discussion with interest. I am sending you this private note, sharing >my views on this subject,........ > >I believe that the issues of exclusion of women on the UHJ is one of the >most challenging principals for Baha'is, and seekers. As Baha'is, we >ultimately accept this issue on pure faith, and trust in Baha'u'llah, >and God's wisdom and love for humanity. However, all of us deeply yearn >for an "understanding" of this, as well as "accepting" it. There is no >logical and rational explanation for it in the writings, and in fact, >quite the opposite is true. All the writings of our central figures on >equality of sexes lead us to believe this exclusion to be "irrational". Not really this is not the most challenging issue at stack. The most challenging issue is to show to humanity that Baha'u'llah is the Manifestation of God for this age. To do so we do not need to prove way women are not on the UHJ at all. To some may be this will be important, but not to the generality of mankind. You say there is no logical or rational explanation in the writings in this regard. I will say that this is so because you are trying to look for a single statement in that regard. It is true that there is no single statement to justify it. But, I most say that it is like a jigso you must put the pieces together before you can get the whole picture. You will not find a single passage in writings. But, if you put all the appropriate writings in this regard together then you will come up to the same conclusion that I. >I believe that when Abdu'l-Baha says the wisdom would become clear, it >doesn't mean that everyone will come to understand it the same way. The >revelation of Baha'u'llah is also said to be clear as the sun, but it >didn't cause all the people of the world to see it. I do agree with you. This is a gradual process but the Faith of Baha will eventually cover the whole planet and its people so does this wisdom. >In one of your notes in response to Juan you wrote: > >>> Moreover, if we look at the contemporary world, women have been >>>accepted in leadership positions in most countries; there have been >>>European women prime ministers, South Asian women prime ministers, >>>Latine American women prime ministers, etc. >>>Being in a position of leadership is not the same as being infallible and >>>guided at all times via an interaction with the Manifestation of God >>>through the Spiritual World. > >Dear Ahmad, although I don't agree with Juan that membership of women on >the house is subject to change, I must say that this response of yours >blows me off! He is saying that women can be in position of leadership, >and you say, in effect, that they may be suitable for leadership, but >they aren't equipped to be "infallible and guided at all times via an >interaction with the Manifestation of God....". Wow! does this mean >that "men" are more equipped to be "infallible and guided at all >times..."??? Not at all I am saying is that only a handful of men (9) after being selected by human beings then they take a form of feminine role towards the Manifestation of our Faith and enter into an spiritual interaction which leads them to come up with legislation that is guided. It has noting to do with leadership. As to men being more equipped, I must say that is not so also. They being the giver of sperm in this physical world (functionally performing role of active force (God given function in Creation for reproduction purpose)) are potentially in a position to be selected for a functionally feminine role towards an spiritual being (which acts as the active force). You must put this into perspective. Not all men are chosen able in this respect. They are like seeds that stay dormant for ever, only a handful are able to go into fruition. > Universal House of Justice as an "institution" is >infallible. It has nothing to do with who sits on its seats. If >Baha'u'llah had ordained monkeys to be members of the house, instead of >humans, then the of nine monkeys who would make the UHJ (as a single >body) would be infallible, even though monkeys are totally unequipped to >be so. You are making a huge leap from taking a teaching of the faith, >to deciding what inherent qualities men and women are supposed to >posses, to give them different functions. Baha'u'llah selected men and not monkeys to do so. It is not nice or graceful to bring such a postulation forward. As such descriptions brings our respect for The House to lower standards. nevertheless, You are right to say that this is a unique institution given to humanity by God, and they act as a single body towards a spiritual entity (Manifestation of God). This is precisely the thing that I want to see other derive at. Yes, they are a single body. This body plays a feminine role in an spiritual interaction. They must be of men members, because this interaction is at boundaries of spiritual to physical worlds. Male is the giver of sperm in the physical world. Sperm interacts with the egg and life is produced. In the same way men of the House act as the egg and the spiritual sperm is given by the Holy Spirit to the egg and as result of this spiritual interaction law and order is formed. In the physical sense as Abdul'-Baha has stated (see previous postings of mine) male and female individuals act a function neither is superior or inferior, they are both complementary. However, you must note that in spiritual world there is no gender and only levels of existences exist and hence interaction is between an above level with a level below, through the spectrum. >Your understanding that this exclusion is due to difference of >"function" between men and women is simply a reversed logic to find a >reason for something you have accepted on faith. To back up your >argument, and maybe to justify your theory to yourself, you use the >analogy of "creation", or the function of giving birth by women. Well, >it is fine if you see these two things as analogous, but they certainly >don't seem to be, in any way or form, analogous to a lot of other >people. There are clear biological differences that support the reason >why men and women have different functions in creating a baby. Their >functions are a part of their "design". No one has granted them these >functions. No! I look at Creation as a whole and like Abdu'l-Baha, I see that the principle of male and female existences govern our physical world. Interaction of human male and female is only one part of the spectrum. even physical interactions of animals and plants do not have similarity, yet they are interactions governed by the above law of God. You are right to say their functions are a part of their "design". Exactly this the how the Creation, is created by God. The birth by women is a metaphor for understanding the parallel births in spiritual concepts. It is very logical to see it that way. If one do not understand a law of God and His manifestation says take it should be taken as granted then yes of course one must take it as granted, but yet if one can put logic to it based on His teachings then the need for taking it as granted will disappear and has no bearing on the argument. > A more logical analogy would be to claim that caring for >young children is the function of women (note, I didn't say babies, >since caring for babies IS a biological function of women because they >are the source of food for them). Now, this would be an acceptable >notion to a lot of people. It makes "sense" that women should care for >their children. But there is nothing in their biology that gives them >that function. It might be the natural order of things, and the most >convenient of arrangements, but if we accept this as their function, it >is because we have "decided" that it must be so. There are however some >understandable social, and maybe physical reasons why we might allocate >this function to women, and not men. Well as to the bearing of babies concerned it is a function but raising of a child is not a function it is an act that both parents of the child have responsibilities and I think men must participate in it greatly in this Dispensation. It could have been the natural order of thing before, but the world is changing and I don't think this will hold very long. Hence, it can't be the wisdom which we are waiting for. >On the other hand, there is NOTHING in the Writings to suggest that men >have certain properties that renders them the function of membership on >the House. The House is an organ in itself, and the makeup of its >members is totally irrelevant to the function that it must perform. In >fact, if we believe that there are some properties that the members of >the house should have, then the Writings make make it clear that those >properties are shared equally between men and women. On the contrary if you take all the relevant writings together you come up with the male and female principle of Abdu'l-Baha. As properties I am not aware of any except that they functionally have potential of acting a feminine role only if they are chosen. > The fact that >individual members of the house are not to be taken as different from >any other Baha'i (of course they must have possessed the qualities that >got them elected, but those aren't "male" qualities), suggests that >INDIVIDUAL function is not a determining factor in the membership of the >house. Yes they should not be taken as different individually, but collectively they embody an 'institution' or a 'single body' as you put it. However, you got it wrong in the sense that they must be men according to our writings before their other qualities become important. so function is a determining factor. Way? see the above argument. >The function of UHJ is totally independent from the function of >its members, otherwise, individual men would have to be infallible. Not quite true. Yes individually they are not infallible as they can not perform the function of the single body, that you have described. individually they can not become that feminine body that is needed in such a spiritual interaction. So you see you postulation in the above statement doesn't hold. >The difference in function (of men and women) that you believe in, is >because you have accepted this principal on faith (as other Baha'is do), >and you can't find any good reason for it, you conclude that it "must" >be their function. What else could it be? God says so, so it is true. >God doesn't give any obvious reason for it, but there must be one. What >could it then be, if not a difference in function?? On the contrary God gives reason for it. He says "I loved thy Creation, hence I Created thee". There was an interaction of God with pre-existence matter and this Creation was formed. There is a spiritual world and that world is in an interaction with this physical world, and so on. So God has given its reasons and one does not have to take it on faith. >Well, I can come up with a different theory all together. For example, >I think that humanity has been rapidly moving toward Humanism, and the >belief that human intellect is the ultimate source of knowledge. It is >quite manifest in our contemporary thinking. We believe that if >something doesn't sit right with our intellect, and we can't come up >with an acceptable and logical reason for it, then it is wrong. Baha'i >faith supports this notion to some degree, with the principal of harmony >of science and religion. Why not take this principle of Abdu'l-Baha as part of science and see its agreement with religion and my postulation as its derivative. > At the same time, we, as Baha'is are to >understand, that there is a higher source of wisdom and knowledge, and >as humans we must ultimately submit to its will and wisdom. So, in this >dispensation, in which, human intellect has and will grow to its utmost >station, the spiritual growth of man is achieved by a very strong >"test", which is to submit to the "will" of God, I don't think that I disagree with this part of your sentence but I do not see how you can come up with the second part of your sentence and base it on the first. despite its total >contradiction with man's intellectual understanding that men and women >are both equally equipped (as is supported in numerous writings on the >equality of spiritual and intellectual capacity of both sexes) to serve >on the UHJ. Where in the writings does say that because they are equal they can serve on the UHJ. Yes men and women are equal in spiritual and intellectual capacities, but as to their functions equality is based on the fact of their role being complementary and vital in an interaction. As to their functions there is difference but not in the sense of superiority or inferiority. In other words, men and women are both functionally equal >when it comes to this issue, but humanity needs to resist its >implementation for the sake of having the strongest reminder of its >powerlessness, and God's power! The "wisdom" that will be clear as the >daytime sun, could simply be our "need" for this test against our >overgrown intellectual faculty, in order to nurture our spiritual >essence, which is in the state of infancy, and in desperate need for >growth. You said it. Crazy but Plausible! > >Crazy? Plausible?! You might say I am way out of line, and this >doesn't make any sense. But I say that it makes at least as much sense >as your theory, that it is a matter of difference in function! If >anything, the writing support my speculation more than yours!! I can't >for the life of me find anything in Baha'i teachings that makes the >function of serving on the house a "male" thing, and I don't think you >can offer any either, can you? But I do see in a of our writings, the .notion that we have to examine our ego, constantly remind ourselves to >acknowledge our lack of wisdom (as in the daily short obligatory >prayer), and submit our will to God's. Accepting the fact that at times >God's will is different from what we "think" it should be, is the >greatest challenge for the modern man, and we have to face it until it >becomes our second nature. Exclusion of women on the House will be a >constant reminder for the humanity in the next several centuries, where >we should look for a guide to our salvation. And that place is not our >brains! By putting the above postulation you have not solved anything. You Merely say we must take it on faith in another way and noting more. This to me doesn't hold. Abdu'l-Baha says that there is a wisdom behind it and it will eventually be apparent to all. With above postulation there can be no time limit to such appearance, and hence again it doesn't hold. >The wisdom is truly in the eyes of beholder. The problem arises when >one beholder of "a" wisdom tries to convince others that his wisdom >is very clear, and should be clear to others. Well said, I can not agree with you more. However, as an eventuality there will be a time that if not all but majority of friends will see that wisdom what ever it entails. >Dear Ahmad, I hope that I haven't burdened you too much with this much- >longer-than-I-intended note! I truly enjoy reading your articles in >Talisman, and appreciate very much your calm and loving ways that you >express yourself. I did enjoy reading your posting and here is my reply I hope it is useful. I would like to send this to Talisman in a modified form so that others can share this discussion. With Baha'i Love and Fellowship, Ahmad. riting support my speculation more than yours!! I can't >for the life of me find anything in Baha'i teachings that makes the >function of serving on the house a "male" thing, and I don't think you >can offer any either, can you? But I do see in a of our writings, the .notion that we have to examine our ego, constantly remind ourselves to >acknowledge our lack of wisdom (as in the daily short obligatory >prayer), and submit our will to God's. € ^ ^ ^ Dr. A.M. Aniss, From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comSun Sep 10 14:00:14 1995 Date: Sat, 09 Sep 95 18:41:01 -0400 From: Ahang Rabbani To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: missing Hands... [This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII] Dear Stephen: > > I don't know why the list of Hands available in various places > > doesn't get modified in face of clear and irrefutable Texts. My > > guess is that the House is waiting for certain individuals to pass > > from the scene before making such modifications. > Well, I guess you could put a precis together and ask the House. Actually, I think its best to wait. On a number of occasions different members of the House explained that sometimes its best *not* to ask. Because, once you ask, then you're stuck with the answer. For example, if the authors of the "Service of Women" paper had kept things at a low key, continued with their research and along the way discussed the matter with the Research Dept and not gone public with it, then the House of Justice would have never been *forced* into making a pronouncement. From everything that I understand, they didn't want to make a statement and would have wished that the researchers kept things quite for a while til their findings reached a mature state -- which presently is no where near such a stage! -- and worked with the World Centre towards a better understanding of the issues by everyone, but, alas, ... Anyway, I understand the Encyclopedia folks approached the House on the question of the missing Hands and were told to stick to the 50 listed Hands. Thank God, no body tried to fight this decision and turn it into another impasse. So, in a few years time, perhaps this issue (with sufficient documentation) can be brought to the attention of the House. Incidentally, when two years ago I asked the Research Dept for some data on Abdu'llah Mutlaq and Jinab-i Fadil, they bent backwards to help out. My wife, Maryam, was visiting Haifa at the time and at a dinner party mentioned to Vahid Rafati that I was still missing a piece of documentation. The next day, she was handed the material. My point is that making a huge noise over issues and urging the faithfuls to storm the citadel, makes for entertaining postings on Talisman, but doesn't resolve anything. with best wishes, ahang. ps. dear Stephen, you realize that I'm using the Persian technique of "bi dar bego, ta divar bishnovih" (tell the door, so the wall would hear it.) Of course, everybody else is going: "What the hell does that mean??" From nima@unm.eduSun Sep 10 14:01:57 1995 Date: Sat, 9 Sep 1995 20:03:26 -0600 (MDT) From: Sadra To: Mary Day Cc: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: re: Female/male in the Sufi perspective Dear Mary-- Your questions are most welcome and I hope this will prove a productive inquiry. I must warn you, though, I am not at all well versed in the literature and terminologies of Women's/Feminist Studies. My approach is neither as a historian, anthropologist (Linda Walbridge can help you here) or sociologist but as an advocate of traditional metaphysics. So here goes... > QUESTION No 1: > > Where/are any of these mystics and philosophers women? There were/are many Sufi women the most famous being the ninth century Rabi'a al-Adawiyya - she's often compared to St Teresa of Avila. For information about Rabi'a, OneWorld publications recently re-printed Margaret Smith's classic _Rabi'a: The Life and Works of Rabi'a and other Women Mystics in Islam_ which, interestingly, also includes a chapter on Tahirih. Dr Javad Nurbakhsh's (the current head of the Nimatullahi Sufi Order) book _Sufi Women_ is also a valuable source of information about the history of women and Sufism. And, of course, there are the publications of the modern British Sufi, Irina Tweedie. But I highly recommend Sachiko Murata's _The Tao of Islam_ above all other sources currently available out there. Women have played a prominent role in the development of Sufism, but they were/are also often marginalized as well. Unfortunately, many a prominent Sufi, reflecting the ingrained sexism of the established order, held a very low opinion of women. Abu Hamid al-Ghazzali's views, for instance, are bordering on outright misogyny and Rumi did not have a very favorable view either, at least in some of the imagery he uses in his poetry. And if one believes in the authenticity of Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib's sermons, the Nahjul Balagha (The Peak of Eloquence), who is considered both the first Shi'ite Imam and the first sin qua non gnostic/`aref of Islam (the majority of Sufi Orders trace back their lineage to `Ali), then the position/view of women becomes even more problematic. `Ali made statements in the Nahjul Balagha about women that would make any sincere Feminist of good conscience cry "bloody murder": i.e. that women are inherently inferior to men and their testimonies not to be trusted, etc. Notwithstanding, women share(d) a much better position, albeit an ambivalent one, in Sufism than any of the official orthodoxies, be they Sunni or Shi'i. We do have testimonies, however, that many women attained stations of perfect mastery, some even attaining ranks within the cosmic/spritual hierarchy of nujaba and nuqaba (supports and helpers), and one of Muhyiddin Ibn al-`Arabi's first teachers was a 90+ year old woman, Nunah Fatimah bint ibn al-Muthanna (see RWJ Austin's translation, _Sufi's of Andalusia_ pp. 143-6) who the Shaykh thought to be among THE most advanced Sufi's of his generation. As for women philosophers in medieval Islamicate, I'm not aware of any. John or Juan..? > > Question no 2: > > what do you see as the importance of considering these sufi > conceptions? Do you think they have influenced Baha'u'llah's or Abdul > Baha's writings on the subject? Do you think they are still relevant > to our conceptualisation of male and femaleness within Bahai contexts? > The importance of considering these Sufi conceptions (including those in Tantra, Vedanta, the Tao, the Kabbalah, etc), for me at least, is to understand the symbolic nature and ultimate metaphysical root of everything in the contingent world, especially that of gender. All things in the cosmos are, in the final analysis, transparent in nature, but one must first understand the nature of the symbol in order to understand what is symbolizes and why. For me, male/female reflects, on one plane, the polar, but complimentary, nature within all things, which finally resolves into the Transcendent Unity of Being/Existence (wahdat al-wujud). Yes, given the milieu that the Baha'i Faith arose out of both Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha are obviously influenced by the sapiential perspective of Sufism and their Writings more than replete with its language and imageries. Therefore, their view of gender reflects, with certain important modifications of course, that of Sufism. However, the Babi-Baha'i Faith also adds new dimensions to the Sufi worldview. IMHO, the Baha'i Faith is nothing but Shi'ism and Sufism universalized. In other words, it has exotericized what was previously esoteric in Islam - this is a principle which I believe to be the hallmark of every Dispensation. I personally consider the sapiential view of gender to be a perennial truth. So, yes, I do consider it relevant to Baha'i contexts. The most important point to understand about the theoretical Sufism of someone like Ibn `Arabi and his school (as also in the Tantric and Vedantic perspectives) is that maleness and femaleness are primarily viewed as metaphysical principles underlying an ontological order and not necessarily persons - kind of like the anima/animus principle of Jung. All things share or participate in this activity/passivity principle in some manner by virtue of the very nature of al-Haqq (the Real/God). However, mysticism by definition, and Sufism in particular, at the same time transcends these qualifications of gender, and the symbolism thereof is utilized to express a Reality that is essentially far beyond all predications of form, dichotomy/polarity, limitation and so on. > > In the first half of the last chapter of his most widely read work, Fusus > al-Hikam (The Bezels of Wisdom) - The Wisdom of Singularity in the Logos > of Muhammad -, the Shaykh comments on the famous hadith of the Prophet, > "Three things do I cherish in this world: women, perfume and prayer," and > > Question no 3: > > Do you see any problems with this association of women with prayer, > and perfume in the sense that it objectifies women rather than gives > them status as people like men? > An emphatic, NO! First, I must object to your objection that this hadith objectifies women :-) An inherent weakness of most contemporary discourses about religion, IMHO, and particularly about mysticism, is that it constantly makes category mistakes of the first order. It is essentializing and literalizing something that can't be essentialized or literalized. I'm sorry, but to read "objectification" (a category that is culturally, i.e. Western, and historically, i.e. 20th century, bound) into this hadith is a serious failure of appreciating the dynamic context of the hadith itself (not to mention a bad value judgement), especially as glossed by someone like Ibn `Arabi. Btw, this very hadith is used by contemporary Muslim feminists like the Morrocan Fatima Mernissi to argue and present evidence against the sexist paradigm of the mainstream Islamic point of view on the status of women in an Islamic society (see her _The Veil & the Male Elite in Islam_). > gives a fascinating ta'wil (spiritual/mystical hermenuetic) on the nature > of the man/woman dichotomy; the dichotomy being the polar aspects of the > Real (al-Haqq, or God) which is in essence one. He characterizes this > relationship in terms that might at first seem patronizing to many modern > feminists, however, as with everything else, Ibn al-`Arabi envisages all > > Question 4: What exactly do you mean by this 'might at first seem > patronising to modern feminists'? Are you implying that if they > understood they wouldn't feel this way? Are you suggesting that > modern feminists don't have much to contribute to such questions? > Symbolisms of "activity" & "passivity" vis-a-vis gender are anathema to most feminists in any context. No? But, yes, if they, for a moment stepped, outside of their frameworks, without making skewed value judgements, they would understand. From the little I have read of contemporary Feminist discourse (namely Susan Faludi, Gloria Steinem and Mary Daly) I don't believe this approach can, or is capable - due to the nature of its own internal limitations - of contributing anything of significance to a mystical/metaphysical understanding of the question of gender. But, like I said, I'm in no way versed in the spectrum of Feminist thought. There very well could be schools of thought within Feminist perspective - and you can help me here - that would be more forthcoming to such an approach than the others. > things in existence, including gender, as principles or divine and > metaphyscial roots of higher significance indicating and symbolizing God: > i.e. femininity/masculinity and activity/passivity are considered Names and > Attributes of the Real. > > > Question 5: > Is the implication here that men=active and women=passive? Is this > the manner in which the masculine and feminine are characterised in > sufi thought? What other dichotomies like this do they use? Is there > any resistance by female mystics in sufi tradition or currently to > such characterisations? Like I said before, activity/passivity are symbolic principles and do NOT necessarily single out persons. But in the juristic-exoteric perspective of Islamic thought women have been characterized as such. As I mentioned in my previous post, Absoluteness and Infinity are some of the common dichotomies characterized, however the range of symbolism is vast - read Murata's _The Tao of Islam_. > > Before quoting from the Fusus itself, let me first briefly delineate what > the Shaykh's view on the matter is. Ibn `Arabi considers the structure of > reality to be symbolically circular. In its specific application to > gender, the Shaykh considers femininity to represent the center of a circle > and masculinity, the periphery - the circle, or the Divine nature, being > completed by the two aspects. Also, masculinity is seen to reflect > "...the Absolutness of the Divine" while femininity, "its Infintude. If > the Face of God towards the world is envisaged in masculine terms > [al-zahir/the Manifest], His inner infinitude is symbolized by the > feminine [al-batin/the Hidden] as are His Mercy [rahmat] and Wisdom > [hikmah]...(Seyyed Hossein Nasr, _Knowledge & the Sacred_, p. 177)." > > In the Fusus the Shaykh says, > > When man contemplates the Real [al-Haqq/God] in woman he beholds [Him] > in a passive aspect, while when he contemplates Him in himself, as being > that from which woman is manifest, he beholds Him in an active aspect. > When, however, he contemplates Him in himself, without any regard to what > has come from him, he beholds Him as passive to Himself directly. > However, his contemplation of the Real in woman is the most complete and > perfect, because in this way he contemplates the Real in both active and > passive mode, while by contemplating the Real only in himself, he beholds > Him in a passive mode particularly. > > Question 6: > > Can you clarify what is meant by active and passive in this context? Passivity in this context is the different modes the Real (God) manifests itself to the Cosmos and man in contemplation. > > > Because of this the Apostle of God loved women by reason of [the > possibility of] perfect contemplation of the Real in them. Comtemplation > of the Real without formal support is not possible, since God, in His > essence, is far beyond all need of the Cosmos. Since, therefore, some > form of support is necessary, the best and most perfect kind is the > contemplation of God in women, corresponding as it does to the turning of > God toward the one He has created in His own image, to make him His > vicegerent, so that He might behold Himself in him. Accordingly, he > shaped him, balanced him, and breathed His spirit into him, which is His > Breath, so that his outer aspect is creaturely, while his inner aspect is > divine. Because of this He describes it [the spirit] as being disposer of > this human structure by which God "disposes of things from the heaven," > which is elevation, "to the earth (Quran 32:5)," which is the lowest of > the low, being the lowest of the elements. > ....In relation to him they [women] are as the Universal Nature is to God > in which He revealed the forms of the Cosmos by directing toward it the > divine Will and Command, which, at the level of elemental forms, is > symbolized in conjugal union, spiritual concentration [himmah] in the > realm of luminous spirits, and the ordering of premises toward > conclusions [in the realm of thought], all of which correspond to the > consummation of the Primordial Singularity in all these aspects... > (Translated by RWJ Austin, Paulist Press, (New York: 1980), p. 275-6). > Question 7: > > How is this kind of conceptualisation of men and women played out in > sufi society or community? That is what is the role of men and women? > What are their relative positions? Do women have any role in mystic > and/or spiritual practices? What forms of inequality are prevalent in > their society? > Again, I recommend you read the books I mentioned. But let me relate from personal experience. The Sufi Orders function differently: some are highly rigid and orthodox, others not so rigid and orthodox. One of the Sufi khanaqah's I was attending here in Albuquerque, New Mexico - before getting kicked-out because the Pir found out I was a Baha'i - was heavily segregated during official functions, especially dhikr and salat: the women sat on the left side of the room and the men, the right side. However, the Shah Nimatullahi Sufi Order, which is also an Iranian-Shi'ite Order like the Shah Maghsoudi Order that I was previously attending, is very care-free and egalitarian: men and women mingle freely and sit together and chant dhikr together, even do the namaz together, and so on. Even more egalitarian are the local chapters of Inayat Khan's Sufi Orders of the West (who love the Baha'is btw and have apparently done dhikr to Allah-u-abha - how `bout that!) and the Chishtiyyah - the last time I attended a weekly dhikr at the Chishti Sufi Order a woman led namaz. Things are by no means ideal, but they are changing. However, I have noticed a certain "backlash" (to use Susan Faludi's term) lately amongst some of the more traditionally oriented men, and there are a few women that are not too far behind them either, interestingly enough. Unfortunately, you will find narrow-minded religious fundamentalists even among the Sufi's. > Question 8: > > What relevance do you see this as having to Baha'i principles of > equality and the masculine and feminine principles Abdul Baha talks > about? The relevance is that femininity/masculinity are principles within the Divine nature Itself and we must seek to understand this root paradigm of existence. I hope I have answered your questions. Warm regards, Nima From mfoster@tyrell.netSun Sep 10 14:02:35 1995 Date: Sat, 9 Sep 1995 21:28:15 -0500 (EDT) From: "Mark A. Foster" To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Terms of Discourse To: talisman@indiana.edu Talismanians - I hesitated before deciding to write this message, since I will be returning to a subject I introduced back in the spring, when I first joined Talisman, which, IMHO (in my humble opinion), led to considerable divisiveness and name-calling. However, I am hopeful that "the list" (possibly a reified category ) has matured since that time, and that this subject can be discussed in a manner which is respectful of the views of others. Although we see terms in Baha'i primary sources (the authorized texts of Baha'u'llah, the Bab, `Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi, and the Universal House of Justice) which may resemble, or even be borrowed from, those in common usage, the meaning (i.e., the spiritual reality pointed to by the revealed or inspired utterances) is not necessarily the same. IOW (in other words), if we wish to understand the meaning of a passage, especially the words of the three Central Figures, we need to look at it as a symbol vehicle or thought bridge for something beyond the realm of outward appearances, i.e., the spiritual Kingdom revealed. The example I used back in the spring was "science," which, I wrote, is defined by the Master as the independent investigation of reality (the essence of "justice," according to the second numbered verse of _The [Arabic] Hidden Words of Baha'u'llah_). Science can then be divided into the science of reality (a.k.a. the divine teachings, "the words He hath revealed, spiritual science, and divine science) and the material sciences ("bridges to reality"). As I argued, science/the scientific method (the independent investigation of reality) is, therefore, one of the keys to developing an understanding of the principle of the harmony of science and religion. Moreover, since both the science of reality (and divine civilization) and material scientific "progress" (and material civilization) result from the presence of the revealed Word in the Reality of the Messenger, these two sorts of knowledge are interdependent. Likewise, with the principle of the the equality of the sexes, while there are certain similarities between the various popular and academic forms of feminism and the Baha'i teachings on the equality, and unity in diversity, of the sexes, and these areas of convergence can and, IMV (in my view), should be explored to the enrichment of all parties, Baha'i approaches to this topic should not, IMO (in my opinion), actually depend on other definitions, or linguistic structurings, of gender relations. The narrative framework of sexual equality forms part of the Sacred Text and the interpretations or elucidations of the Master, the Guardian, and, the Universal House of Justice. A dialogical reading of, or reflection on, these texts, coupled with an appreciation for the contextualized use of analogical teaching, can, as I see it, result in a greater understanding of this important issue. Finally, the _ultimate_ meaning of equality, of science, of law, etc., and our expected "response" to the Prophetic "challenge," is, from my POV (point of view), given by the divine Manifestation and by those appointed to authoritatively speak for Him. That meaning (the Logos) exists in the spiritual Kingdom of God manifested (the Greater World of Prophethood) and, in this world, can, to a limited extent, be _seen_ on the empirico-rational levels as the Sacred Text (in the world of human reason) reveals the true significance of materiality (nature or the kingdom of names and attributes) as spiritual metaphor. With loving greetings, Mark From mfoster@tyrell.netSun Sep 10 14:03:07 1995 Date: Sat, 9 Sep 1995 21:59:46 -0500 (EDT) From: "Mark A. Foster" To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Gender and Sex To: talisman@indiana.edu Talismanians, A couple of days ago, one of the beloved posted a message which, as I read it, claimed that sex differences are purely a product of social construction. For those not familiar with the "nature vs. nature" debate, which was, to my surprise, explained quite well by U.S. talk show host, Phil Donahue, in his book, _The Human Animal_, it centers on whether human behavioral variation (including male-female differences) can be attributed to biology/genetics or socialization. Most researchers in this area, including many sociologists, now say that sex-typed behavior is apparently a mixture of nature (sex) and nurture (gender). While I would tend to emphasize the latter and would argue that humans do not have any _fixed_ instincts, it seems to me that some variation can be probably explained by sex (e.g., aggressiveness and endurance). As I see it, these sex differences are the evidence of the appearances of the names and attributes of God in females and males. `Abdu'l-Baha said: Ere long the days shall come when the men addressing the women, shall say: "Blessed are ye! Blessed are ye! Verily ye are worthy of every gift. Verily ye deserve to adorn your heads with the crown of everlasting glory, because in sciences and arts, in virtues and perfections ye shall become equal to man, and as regards tenderness of heart and the abundance of mercy and sympathy ye are superior." With loving regards, Mark _ From rlg0001@jove.acs.unt.eduSun Sep 10 14:03:18 1995 Date: Sat, 9 Sep 1995 23:45:39 -0500 (CDT) From: Robert Lee Green To: Burl Barer Cc: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu, talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: women on UHJ The highest position of power is one where one has submitted one's will to "God" at all times, not just between the sayings of prayer, but that institution is another story, :) From s0a7254@tam2000.tamu.eduSun Sep 10 14:03:30 1995 Date: Sun, 10 Sep 1995 00:00:08 -0500 (CDT) From: Saman Ahmadi To: talisman Subject: Re: reply to a friend Dear Ahmad and All, [some deletions] You wrote: > On the contrary God gives reason for it. He says "I loved thy Creation, > hence I Created thee". There was an interaction of God with pre-existence > matter and this Creation was formed. There is a spiritual world and that > world is in an interaction with this physical world, and so on. So God has > given its reasons and one does not have to take it on faith. > In the above you seem to suggest that God and the pre-existant matter are complimentary - have I misunderstood you? Creation came into being by the command of God - kun (BE); the process involved an attactive force and a recipient. regards, sAmAn From haukness@tenet.eduSun Sep 10 14:03:59 1995 Date: Sun, 10 Sep 1995 00:12:25 -0500 (CDT) From: John Haukness To: talisman Subject: It wasn't me. My pseudonym got on the computor today and confused Muhammad's name with Ali's martyrdom, he wasn't drinking coffee either he was drinking rum, a liter measure, anyway I constructed a story and had him finished off in a duel with Zorro so he's murdered, gone, finished . Anyway, as a representative of the most conservative, I forgot the new prefered term if it's a-historical, I want to welcome back Linda, who might represent our most liberal writer, in my eye, I wonder why we left and returned at the same time, anyway welcome back Linda. I want to attempt to put a perspective on our dilemma of who is the most tired on the women not on the House issue. I think that I understand, and to a degree sympathize with the sentiments expressed about not the gender issue, so let me write what tires me out, is that the writings are clear to me on this issue, (of course others have written about just that) and it can get hard for me to keep seeing the recreations of the writings in order to have women serve on the house, the English language, can sometimes be simple can they not, and Abdul Baha's elaborations can be clear sometimes can they not, as well as helpful. So here we are stuck. I can see that. OK, still I wish we all could sit down at my house and argue about the best tejas salsa. But I do want to ask one small favor in this and that is that I am fond that Bahaullah made some few decisions incorporating gender, and if you all are going to get the House to change it, will you at least consider my feelings and keep the one instance of a gender group alive. So please do not get a change in the House to be of mixed gender, that would be just to standard for me, you see I like my salsa hot. So please just get the change to be all women in the House, I am sure that Bahaullah could have designed it to be all women in the first place and if He would have it would have been great, better for me because then I would be in agreement with more of the Talisman intellect and could perceived as a more moderate kind of guy. So please, if you all want to have this legislation changed then go for it, but if I count for anything then tell the powers that be that there is this salsa guy who wants to see the gender issue stay alive in the change so instead of making the House mixed it could just be reversed from men to women. And as always, Muchas Gracias! haukness@tenet.edu From margreet@margreet.seanet.comSun Sep 10 14:04:34 1995 Date: Sat, 9 Sep 1995 22:13:37 -0700 From: "Marguerite K. Gipson" To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: women on UHJ Hello fellow Talismans.... It is said we women are exempt from serving on the Universal House of Justice. It is not a matter of our lack of anything to keep us from serving. It just is. What comes to mind with all this discussion, it shows not only a lack of respect to the House, but also a lack of spiritual maturity as well. Just take a look at the power of knowledge Baha'u'llah has unleased upon the world... yet we still act like_____________(insert whatever here) In the introduction of the Kitab-i Aqdas page 7 "Abdul Baha has stated in this Dispensation 'Equality of men and women, except in some negligible instances, has been fully and categorically announced.' " And evidently, women serving on the Universal House of Justice is just going to be one of those negligible instances. hey you hear that.... we are equal in all other cases... !! But, we are promised that the reason will be clear as the noon day sun. ( my paraphase) In the book Bahai Administration page 7 (Bahai Publishing Trust, 1968 edition) is part of Abdul'Baha's Will and Testament where He states that the Universal House of Justice is under the care and guidance of the Abha Beauty and goes on to say what happens when we disobey, rebell, oppose, contend with, dispute, disbelieve, deny, separate, and turn aside from what they say.... My one wish is for the members of the Universal House of Justice just once to make it thru one season of pilgrims without having been ask the one ol' question about women on the House, and when will it be implementated.... I am sure that when that happens we (goes for both men and women) will have reach spiritual maturity. And I do feel that no matter how many more times the Universal House of Justice is elected, that women will not ever be elected to it. Again, just a matter of "negligible instances." as stated by Abdul'Baha. Of course, my answer to the whole thing is if you want to serve the House, go get a Job at the World Center...... Hey, you never know.... What a blessing that has been bestowed upon us ladies! Wow! Margreet... PS. I am fully aware of the station Baha'u'llah has set for us women, and I am aware of the world goings on. I just heard on the news that the China conference is over and abortion is now a human right. Imagine that, murder is now a human right! ( and for those who do not know, Bahais feel that the soul is attached at the moment of conception, and it is at that stage a living being... therefore abortion would be killing.) From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comSun Sep 10 14:06:25 1995 Date: Sat, 09 Sep 95 16:13:01 -0400 From: Ahang Rabbani To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Quddus -- part 5 [This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII] Dearest Friends, Now I know that all day long you've been sitting front the terminal, chewing your nails, pulling your hair, asking "So, where is Ahang with his wonderful postings on Quddus? God, I can't wait! Want to know more!!" Well, despair no more, your prayers been answered! Doctor to rescue ... With your kind permission, instead of continuing with the theme on the unique Station of Quddus, I'm now going to switch to His Writings and say a few words about them. Of course a great deal more remains to be said about His Station, but we'll just intermix them as the theme warrants. So, here we go with everything you ever wanted to know about Quddus' Writings but were afraid to ask.... I think its best to initially give a survey of His Writings. I'll first give you a list of what we have and then comment on the items that He Wrote and are presently not in possession of the Faith. OK? As was mentioned yesterday, the credit for collecting and publishing some of the Writings of Quddus must go to the Hand of the Cause Fadil-i Mazandarani. He collected 6 items from Quddus and published them all in his "Tarikh Zuhuru'l-Haqq", vol. 3. Though none of them are dated, a cursory analysis indicates that He wrote all of them after His return back from Atabat. So that this comment would make sense for some of the younger members of Talisman, allow me to give a *very* brief outline of Quddus' life -- this should help in giving everyone a frame of reference for our discussion of His Writings. I emphasis that I like to keep it simple so that *everyone* benefit -- not just our renowned scholars! But I'll give enough new materials along the way so that even the most learned among us would say: "Gush, I didn't know that!" So, no one will be bored. Quddus was born two years after the Bab -- Baha'u'llah was two years older than the Bab, Who in turn was two years older than Quddus. (interesting, no?) It should be mentioned that various narratives such as Nuqtatu'l-Kaf, Tarikh-i Jadid, Nabil's narratives, etc., give varying years for His birth. But He Himself says in one of His Writings that He is "two years younger than My Lord (the Bab)". (Another triumph for Nabil!) Unlike the Bab and Baha'u'llah, He was born in very humble settings (in His words "poor and devoid of wealth") with His father, Aqa Muhammad Salih, being a poor farmer engaged in rice cultivation. From His mother side, His geneology can be traced to Imam Hasan -- and this is significant in light of a number of traditions about Him, (as an example see how Abdu'l-Baha in SAQ uses this fact and His name, Muhammad-Ali, to conclude that together with the Bab, They fulfilled St John's prophecy.) In fact, right before His martyrdom, there was a trial, (much like the Bab's trial), where He was questions by various divines in attendance. One of the issue raised against Him was accusation that He was not a Siyyid. (Technically, to be a Siyyid, one's *father* must be a descendent of the Prophet, otherwise, one receives the title of "Mirza" -- indicating, in most cases, one's mother is from the family of the Prophet.) Anyway, His clever response was: "How are the Imam Husyan and Hasan related to the Prophet?" Which of course the answer is through their mother, Fatimih! So, His Siyyidness remained in tact, but they killed Him immediately after the trail anyway. He spent the first 12 years of His life in His native town, today's Babul. There are many evidences available that indicates from early childhood He was truly exceptional and possessed of innate knowledge. His remarkable piety, devotion and brilliance was noted by His childhood teacher Mulla Muhammad Hamzih Shariatmadar. This man was one of the chief Islamic leaders of the area and played a very significant role in protecting Quddus during later years and Quddus shortly before His own martyrdom entrusted His Writings to this man. He is also the person that after Quddus' brutal martyrdom collected His remains (literally pieces of His body) and buried them in their present location. Shariatmadar has left us a very detailed narrative of Quddus' life. But far more importantly, very recently a 100 page autobiography of Quddus has been located, titled Kitabu'l-Quddus, which the manuscript is *probably* in His own hand. (I told you I'll have juicy stuff...) More on this later ... Anyway, at the age of 12, this bright youngster, was sent to a school nearby town of Sari. Sometime later He joined a small group of students in Mashhad, and enrolled in the school of Mulla Jafar where He spent some 6 years. Mulla Jafar, like Mulla Shariatmadar, was a Shaykhi and a number of future Letters of Living (e.g. Mulla Husayn) were his student. Again all accounts of this period, point to His extreme piety. He would, very much like the Bab in Bushihr, devote long hours of days to intense praying and meditation. His uprightness, devotion and attention to minute details of the Islamic law were truly exemplary. When one thinks about it, all the Holy Figures have spent some portion of their life in seclusion and intense meditation. This is indeed true of Quddus. Another important consideration is the careful attention They paid to details of religious laws. In case of Quddus, recall to mind the words of Aqay-i Kalim, who met Quddus in Tihran in early 1846. "The charm of his person, his extreme affability, combined with a dignity of bearing, appealed to even the most careless observer. Whoever was intimately associated with him was seized with an insatiable admiration for the charm of that youth. We watched him one day perform his ablutions, and were struck by the gracefulness which distinguished him from the rest of worshipers in the performance of so ordinary a rite. He seemed, in our eyes, to be the very incarnation of purity and grace." (A personal note: its too bad we stopped reading the Aqdas on Talisman. The laws are infinitely more important than all these other stuff we talk about ... But, heck, what do I know?! ...) At the age of 18, He moved to Attabat and enrolled in the classes of Siyyid Kazim Rashti and became one of the disciples of the Shaykhi leader. Nabil says that He studied there for 4 years, but, I figure only 3 years -- the math simply doesn't add up otherwise. Whatever the right figure might be, what is important is Quddus' behavior during this period. Several reports of this period indicates that He would be the last to arrive and the first to leave the lecture, never spoke during the classes and kept pretty much to Himself -- pretty much like the Bab Who spent about 9 months in Siyyid's classes and behaved the same way. But the main difference between the Two was that Quddus dressed as a dervish, was consumed with Sufi thoughts, and was extremely poor. Did the Bab and Quddus know each other in Attabat? Unfortunately, I don't know the answer. With neither of Them, do we know precisely when they were in Atabat, but we do have pretty good estimates. Given that, there seems that they must have overlapped for a while -- at least 2 months. Anyway, I haven't been able to resolve this issue. If anyone can help with this question, then in space of two days and two nights, should a capable amanuensis be found, I shall reveal verses the equivalent of thrice the Qur'an in thy honor! Getting back to our story, after Atabat, Quddus returned back to His native town Barfurush and remained there for one year til he heard of Siyyid's death. This one year at Barfurush was the beginning of very intense persecution that he would suffer later at the hand of chief religious leader of that region, the deplorable Sa'idu'l-Ulama. The cause of this persecution is very important since at a later stage the very root of the sever persecution of the Babis is based on this and it has to do with the tension between Usulis, Akhbaris and Shaykhi. As much ink has already flowed on this topic, I'll spear the good people of Talisland with ugly details. Which brings us to the Writings of Quddus. (You were saying, "Damn, that boy forgot all about the Writings and instead is giving us a history lesson!" Relax, there is a method to my madness...) Some of the Writings of Quddus that Fadil-i Mazandarani has published are from this period. Fadil implies that all 3 letters of Quddus (1. p 407-9, 2. p 409-14 and 3. p 414-18 of Zuhuru'l-Haqq, vol 3) are during this year of stay at Barfurush. Fadil doesn't really give a date for these letters, but strongly implies that they were from this period, which I must take an exception with Fadil on the second letter. In my view, the second letter is from the period of Quddus' return back from pilgrimage. At any rate, this is an insignificant point. Before I end this posting, let me say a word about Quddus' handwriting. Those of your that have suffered through MacEoin's Sources for the Babi Doctrinal and History, may remember that he blasts Quddus for his totally unreadable handwriting. In fact, MacEoin has nothing good to say about Quddus' Writings and point blank says how fortunate we are not to have more of His Writings. (I'll deal with this last point later and show you what an utterly stupid comment it is which goes to the quality of this so-called scholar!!) But for now, I just have one question for Dr. MacEoin. Where in God's Kingdom did you ever see the handwriting of Quddus? The answer, my friends, is that he hasn't! As with many other things in his book, he is just full of BS. The truth is there is only one piece of Writing that is confirmed to be in the hand of Quddus. I have a copy of it and MacEoin has never seen it. Its a single page letter. The quality of penmanship is the most exquisite that one has ever seen! Very much in the style of early Baha'u'llah's hand. A facsimile will adorn the opening page of the book on His life and Writings. Well guys, I said I'll be brief, but I wasn't. I said that I'll survey His Writings but I didn't. Hell, with so many lies, you can just call me "MacEoin". (But please don't. It'll ruin our friendship.) OK, so that you won't be too upset with me, I leave you with one last jewel. Remember earlier mention was made about Quddus' Writings about Abdu'l-Baha and how in the most wondrous and majestic language Quddus describes the Station of the Master? Well, guess how He refers to Abdu'l-Baha... He refers to Him as "sirru'llah" (The Mystery of God). That's right folks, you heard it first right here on Talisman! This wonderful appellation by which Baha'u'llah refers to the Master in the Tablet of Branch, has its roots in the Writings of Quddus. Don't you think that's the neatest thing? Absolutely amazing! What an incredible connection! Stay toned. More neat surprises to come ... lovingly, ahang. From cbuck@ccs.carleton.caSun Sep 10 14:07:07 1995 Date: Sun, 10 Sep 95 1:34:53 EDT From: Christopher Buck To: talisman@indiana.edu Cc: Christopher Buck Subject: Shi`ism Universalized? Nima writes: ^^^^^^^^^^^ IMHO, the Baha'i Faith is nothing but Shi'ism and Sufism universalized. ___________ Speaking for myself, I see the Baha'i Faith as an outright paradigm shift. To grossly oversimplify the shift: from *surrender* (including mystical notions of self-absorption in the Divine) to *unity*. Carryovers of Shi`i and Sufi images I interpret in light of what Wansbrough calls *symbolic transfer* and what I shall christen as *symbol transformation*. I also see elements, in the Faith, of overt rejection of certain Shi`ite excesses. I realize this is a radical posture I am taking. I am also keenly aware that Baha'is with training in Islamics tend to emphasize continuities over discontinuities. In terms of self-identification in matters of faith, I do not see myself as simply a warmed-over Shi`ite. As to Rumi, I believe the Mathnavi functioned as a second Qur'an precisely because it supplemented the Qur'an--complemented it, if you will--rather than extending it. I expect I'll take some flak for these views, but I firmly believe that Baha'u'llah's break from Islam and subsequent developments in the course of that break will prove to be far more significant than analysis in terms of renewal. I see Baha'u'llah's kerygma of renewal more as a rhetorical device than as a substantive assertion, although there is much that is substantive in that assertion. If Baha'is are warmed-over Shi`ites, then Denis MacEoin is right. In reference to Mary Day's post, this could mean that our grand-daughters will wear head scarves in compliance with the Tablet of `Abdu'l-Baha that MacEoin translates in *Rituals*. Christopher Buck From burlb@bmi.netSun Sep 10 14:10:49 1995 Date: Sun, 10 Sep 95 01:17 PDT From: Burl Barer To: "Marguerite K. Gipson" Cc: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: women on UHJ > Bahais feel >that the soul is attached at the moment of conception, and it is at that >stage a living being... therefore abortion would be killing.) > Hi Margee! According to the UHJ, there are situations and conditons under which abortion may be the thing to do, and the decision is left to the woman in consultation with her doctor. None of us individuals have a right to pass judgement on others, or to proclaim their medical treatments and/or decisions "murder" or "killing" -- also we must beware lest we offend the heart of any woman (or man for that matter) who lost a child due to abortion,. Burl > From rstockman@usbnc.orgSun Sep 10 14:12:48 1995 Date: Sun, 10 Sep 95 07:00:11 From: "Stockman, Robert" To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: General I am now back to Talisman after an absence of about 10 days, a period too long and with too many messages -- about 300 -- to allow me to read everything. You all write a lot! The trip to Yellowstone was marvelous. My best friend and I covered the 1500 miles in 26 hours, and after a long night's sleep to recover hiked the next day for five hours. The day after we hiked to the top of Mount Holmes; 19 miles round trip and 3000 vertical feet. The day after we rested, mostly, and drove around the park in the rain. Our last day in the park involved a mere 4-mile hike. Altogether we saw four black bears, a 200-head buffalo herd, several hundred elk, 1 deer, a couple dozen antelope, four or five moose, about three coyotes (hard to tell the number in the woods), and I was hit on the head by a flying squirrel (who quickly jumped off my head and scampered up into a nearby tree. It was a cute little thing). The 30-hour drive back to Chicago was highlighted by a six-hour lightning storm (the flashes were all around us, but NEVER within 10 miles of us. The storm, which lasted for almost 400 miles of driving, was extraordinary.) We also met a fascinating old man who told us of the time when two grizzly bear cubs walked into his cabin while he was shelacking the ceiling. He tried to shoo them out and in charged the mother bear, fierce to defend her cubs. He jumped back on his five-foot high platform--not much of a defense against a bear weighing 650 pounds and standing 8 feet on its hind legs! He hit her with a crowbar on the back and it just made her mad. She swung at him with her claws, missed, and knocked three "2 by 4" studds out of his new wall (he had just nailed them top and bottom, so they were not firmly in place). Desperate to defend himself, he poured the entire gallon bucket of shelack on the bear, blinding her. She dashed out of the cabin and was seen the rest of the summer, shiny as a mirror, as she walked the area with her cubs (I guess her eyesight recovered just fine). Now he doesn't go outside very far without bear repellant. Anyway, one of the reasons for my trip was a rite of passage, as it were, or a last moment of freedom; for as of Thursday I started my second job! I am now 3/4 time at the National Center Research Office until June, because I have now started a one-year appointment as a visiting Assistant Professor of Religious Studies at DePaul University in Chicago. I have been teaching part time at DePaul since 1990, and when the professor of Islamic Studies got a Fulbright to go to Morocco they asked me to consider the position until she returns. I spoke to people at the National Center and we all agreed that it strengthens the Research Office (and the Institute for Baha'i Studies, which we are slowly developing) if I have an Assistant Professorship on my resume. So I am now doing both jobs. This is not as difficult as it sounds because of my three classes at DePaul each quarter, two of them are Religion 100, "Introduction to World Religions," which I have already taught about 12 times at DePaul. I have one new course preparation this quarter and one next quarter; the spring quarter my third course, "Concepts of God in the Western Religions Traditions" I have also taught before. Furthermore, visiting professors do not advise students or have to serve on committees; that will save me time. I have already been working 60 hours a week, about 50 at the Center and 10 at DePaul; now I expect it will be about 40/20 National Center/DePaul. Nevertheless I expect to be extremely busy until June, when I will resume full-time work at the National Center and part-time teaching at DePaul. This means I will appear much more rarely on Talisman. I simply do not have the time to keep up. For those wishing to reach me, September-November I will be at DePaul Tuesdays and Thursdays and at the Baha'i National Center Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays (though not all of those days; when I drive in from Indiana I rarely reach the office before 10:30 a.m., and sometimes I have to leave early to get home for feast or LSA). I will be in South Bend weekends, and also working. My DePaul University phone has voice mail; its number is 312-325-7000, x1271. My DePaul e-mail account is rstockma@wppost.depaul.edu, and I should know how to access it in a week or so. January through June my DePaul teaching will fall on MWF mornings and early afternoons, so I will be at the National Center Tues/Thurs and some MWF late afternoons. I will also be driving from South Bend to Chicago (a 2 hour drive) at odd times, sometimes leaving as early as 6 a.m. Ugh. I ask for patience for those who need Research Office assistance; I may be slower in responding. But all of this should ultimately prove good for the Research Office; I will know religion better, and have more academic experience. The entire exhausting process will also have a fitting reward at the end; my wife and I just received permission to go on pilgrimage June 24-July 2, 1996. -- Rob Stockman From rstockman@usbnc.orgSun Sep 10 14:13:12 1995 Date: Sun, 10 Sep 95 07:00:04 From: "Stockman, Robert" To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: interpreter/expounder In a recent message it was noted: To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: RE: Is Quddus a Manifestation? [This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII] Dear Chris: I deeply appreciate your encouragement -- it shows that at least one person is reading the stuff, so perhaps it isn't a waste of time after all. I was beginning to wonder if *anyone* was reading, or were people just politely tolerating me. You aptly wrote: > What does all of this mean? Are Quddus's theophanic locutions > simply ecstatic utterances representing an extension of the > Bab's own revelation? Is Quddus the Babi *al-Hallaj*? > Or are we to read the writings of Quddus--which the Bab > referred to as *evident magic* or *palpable sorcery*--a little > more literally? If read literally, especially in light of the > praise the Central Figures of the Faith lavish on him, the > writings of Quddus could be interpreted as revelation. > Quddus proclaims himself a Manifestation. Quddus writes like a > Manifestation. In the Master's interpretation [or, in one of > his two interpretations] of the *Tale of the City* in the heart > of the Qur'an, Quddus figures as an Apostle along with the Bab. I fully agree with everything you said. There is absolutely no question that His Writings form part of the Babi Revelation and that He ranks as a Manifestation of God. To appreciate Quddus' caliber of discourse, one must turn to His Writings. Unfortunately, outside of the 6 short pieces that Fadil has published of them (which are *not* at all representative of His Writings), nothing else has been printed of Him. We'll have at least another 20 items by Quddus (and perhaps some of His utterances) published soon. Revelation, is Revelation. Nothing else compares to it. Mirza Abdu'l-Fadl in his masterpiece, Fara'id explains that when those endowed with understanding come upon the Revealed Word, they will immediately recognize it's potent and sublime character. So, to appreciate the nature of Quddus' Writings, the best we can do is to turn to them. Hence, my humble efforts to get His Writings published. Let the community see for itself what wondrous words He wrote. (BTW, in my view, this is the only way to neutralize the poisonous comments of MacEoin and Amanat -- individuals who had no allegiance to the Faith, hence utterly failed to understand the transcendent character of Quddus' Writings.) You saw what Baha'u'llah said about His Writings and how in the most direct language Quddus refers to this Dispensation. Abdu'l-Baha also had seen them -- in all probability in Baghdad as that's when they were all collected and transcribed. In a Tablet Abdu'l-Baha says: "Hadrat-i Quddus, ruhy lahu'l-fada, yik Kitab dar tafsir Samad nazil farmudand. Az unvan-i Kitab ta nahayatash Iny Ana'llah ast" (His Holiness Quddus, may My spirit be sacrificed for Him, Revealed a Book as commentary on Samad (Singleness). From the Title to the end utters: I am God.) Again, elsewhere Abdu'l-Baha states: His Holiness Quddus, may My spirit be sacrificed for Him, was the essence which manifested that (the Bab's) Sun of Truth. He was a brilliant Light, luminous Star, the essence of purity and quintessence of transcendence. And of course a hundred thousand 'I am God' was Revealed by His blessed Tongue. However, this incomparable Essence, tells that He knows none other than His Lord (the Bab) and that He is His wondrous Reflection and his faithful Servant. One could go on for quit a while and quote extensively from Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha about the nature and the wonder in the Quddus's Revealed Words. But I think through the few quotations that we've seen in the past 2 days, a clear picture is coming to focus. You further commented: > So, Ahang, my question is this: We know Quddus is important. > But why is he important? It would be a tautology to say Quddus > is important because the Central Figures say so. The question > remains: What is Quddus's role? What did he do that surpasses > Mulla Husayn? Or are we simply to accept Quddus's importance as > a matter of faith? This is an excellent question and really must be attempted by those much abler than I -- such as yourself. But now that people are tolerating my incoherent ramblings, let me try an answer. What the Principle Luminaries of our Faith (to include Shoghi Effendi) say about Quddus *is* important. For one thing, they serve as a guide for us to look for the right things. Abdu'l-Baha's characterization of Quddus' Writings help us to know what Quddus' literary signature was like -- it was the most luminous projection of Divine Attributes through His sayings of "I am God." And if nothing else, such statements by the Master has been of tremendous help in deciding what is by Quddus and what is possible forgery! Further, how are we to understand the station of Quddus? Through history? Hardly. He is Who He is! In rank and station a Manifestation of God Who appeared under the shadow of yet another. In fact the truly amazing thing about the Bab is that Two other Manifestations appeared with Him -- Baha'u'llah and Quddus. And that Both the Bab and Quddus had no other purpose than to pave the way and extol the Supreme Station of Baha'u'llah! (Amazing stuff! I tell you, we stand far too close to the towering shadow of the Founders of our Faith to be even able to gain a barest glimpse of their sublime station.) Now, having said this, you queried about Quddus' role. You asked "what did he do that surpassed Mulla Husayn?" I think you're looking for some kind of historical explanation. Again, we must turn to those on Talisman with proper training and expertise on such matters, but since I happen to be logged on the computer let me comment. A distinguishing feature of the Bab's and Baha'u'llah's Dispensations is that during the course of their Ministry, because of exiles, They were removed from their community. By mid point in the Bab's Ministry, this became a real practical problem. While He had given some initial instructions to His chief disciples to spread throughout the realm and execute various instructions (mostly about teaching the new born Faith), by the summer of 1847, the Bab realized that it was propitious to launch a more organized effort to propagate the Cause. At any rate, some of the Letters of the Living needed to be re-focused in their efforts. They needed on-going guidance. His problem was that He was banished to Mah-Ku and in effect cut from His community. For all practical purposes, the community had no leader to serve as a rallying point to provide daily management of the affairs. This is where, in God's inscrutable wisdom, Quddus came in. Quddus became a defacto leader of the Babi community in lieu of the Bab. He had the God-given spiritual capacities to serve this purpose. Now, remember from history, how when Mulla Husayn came on foot to Mah-Ku, the Bab instructed him to go back on foot and search for the "Hidden Treasure" in Mazandaran. It was for the next nearly two years that Quddus became the focus of all significant Babi activities. He was the principle teacher of the new Message in Mashhad, which the Bab lent his utmost support by issuing the call: Hasten to Khurasan. Quddus was the very reflection of the Bab and recall how the Bab even bestow upon Him, His own title! Quddus is the one that gave the title of Siyyid Ali to Mulla Husayn -- a few historians have reported this title came from the Bab, but there is good evidence to the contrary. And of course the final act of this divine drama was played out in Mazandaran and all the available Letters of the Living (11 of them) stood under the shadow of Quddus during that siege of Fort Tabarsi -- of which 10 fell as martyrs. Fort Tabarsi episode, to be sure, is the most significant single event of the Babi Dispensation, save the Bab's Night of Declaration. You asked: what did Quddus do that surpassed Mulla Husayn. The answer is given by Nabil. At the instruction of the Bab, Mulla Husayn had no trouble to recognize and instantly begin to obey Quddus -- remember what Baha'u'llah says in K1 of Kitab-i Aqdas! Anyway, from the fall of 1847 to March of 1849, til his last breath, Mulla Husayn served his newly found Lord, Quddus. Again, this is what the Bab wanted him to do -- to follow the commands of Quddus as if they were the Bab's own self. In the final analysis, the importance of Quddus lies in the importance of the Bab. Quddus is nothing more than a reflection of the glory of the Bab. He is the Moon which received its light from the Sun of Reality of the Bab. To understand Quddus, to approach His Writings in a prayful attitude, provide us a window to understand the Supreme Station of the Bab, which in turn will guide us to the Threshold of Baha'u'llah. with deepest love, ahang. From derekmc@ix.netcom.comSun Sep 10 14:43:09 1995 Date: Sun, 10 Sep 1995 10:52:39 -0700 From: DEREK COCKSHUT To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Abortion and the Baha'i Faith. In the letter of the Universal House of Justice of January 1993 on Violence and Sexual Abuse of Women and Children, the matter of rape is dealt with in a very direct manner.The victim is entitled to the full support and backing of her community in whatever action she may take , which the letter states includes if she decides after consulting her docter and considoring the Writings ,termination of the pregnancy.So not only can a woman have an abortion in those circumstances, she has to be supported by the community, in addtion to offering love and caring, by financial assistance if required, as I view this ruling.I have also regarded the Teachings on this matter as a prohibtion in respect of a form of Birth Control.In the final analyis we have to trust the judgement of the person intimately involved that they are following the Writings in the Faith.Abortion is a sad and intensely painful experience for a woman to have to undergo, Love is needed as I see it not calls to Judgement.Kindest Regards Derek Cockshut From mfoster@tyrell.netSun Sep 10 14:43:46 1995 Date: Sun, 10 Sep 1995 12:57:01 -0500 (EDT) From: "Mark A. Foster" To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Abortion To: talisman@indiana.edu Talismanians - Burl and Linda beat me to it, but I also wanted to comment on Margreet's reference to abortion: Margreet is a dear soul, and I doubt that she meant what she said literally. However, I will leave it to her to defend her comments (if she so chooses). As I read her comment, she stated that abortion is killing, which, if we assume that life starts at conception, is certainly the case. The issue is whether it is murder. That gets into the legal aspects of terminating a pregnancy. Questions such as these have been left to the Universal House of Justice, which, to my knowledge, has declined comment - except to say that a woman should not have an abortion "merely because she wants one" and that the final decision is in the hands of the woman and her physician. As I understand it, though I may be incorrect, the House is telling us that abortion is at least (?) permissible in cases of medical difficulties. However, the question of exactly what would constitute a medical difficulty has not, as far as I know, been established as policy by the Supreme Body. For instance, would it include psychological trauma? At least for now, the decision is an individual one. It seems to me that the present policy (or lack of one) is, given the volatility of this issue in many parts of the world, understandable. Blessings, Mark From brburl@mailbag.comSun Sep 10 14:44:32 1995 Date: Sun, 10 Sep 1995 13:05:08 -0500 From: Bruce Burrill To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Buddhist/Baha'i unity Moojan, Thank you for your posting on the similarities between the Buddhist Four Noble Truths and the Baha'i writings. This raises several questions. Do you feel that when we look at the fuller Buddhist context of the FNT and fuller Baha'i context of the Baha'i passages you quote that the similarities hold? Given that the FNT is a specific application of a general formula of the Buddhist notion of causality, _paticcasamuppada_, conditioned co-production, the claim that the Baha'i quotes are up to the same sort of process as found in the FNT seems less than cogent. > "The Fourth Noble Truth is the Path leading to the ending of suffering. It is the Noble Eightfold Path. All of the elements of this Path are also supported in the Baha'i writings." < Could you give us a detailed example with the first the Eightfold path, Right View/Understanding? Bruce From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduSun Sep 10 14:46:27 1995 Date: Sun, 10 Sep 95 11:56:01 EWT From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: abortion Dear Burl, thank you for your reasonable comments on abortion. I am appalled when I hear Baha'is discuss abortion in the same way that our fundamentalist Christian neighbors do. I will not comment further. I don't want to start a new war. But I do wish that Baha'is would look at difficult social issues in a braoder light and with a bit more compassion. Linda From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comSun Sep 10 14:46:58 1995 Date: Sun, 10 Sep 95 12:24:01 -0400 From: Ahang Rabbani To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: RE: Shi`ism Universalized? [This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII] Dear Chris, I just wanted to say that I appreciate your comments that while the Faith has preserved certain elements of Shi'ism, we would fail to accord Baha'u'llah and the Bab their rightful dues by reducing their Revelation simply to resurrection of Shi'ite theology and doctrine. I see such oversimplications in a number of places. You also wrote: > As to Rumi, I believe the Mathnavi functioned as a second > Qur'an precisely because it supplemented the > Qur'an--complemented it, if you will--rather than extending it. > I expect I'll take some flak for these views ... Yes, brother, you're about to. :-} Prophecy fulfilled. As important as Rumi is, we can't begin to exaggerate his import or attribute Divine Inspiration to him -- until and unless someone can show a Text from our Scripture to this effect. Certainly, the notion that Mathnavi is in some way supplementing and/or complementing the Qur'an, would have been foreign to Rumi. Now, I should explain, that I'm using the terms suppl. and compl. in the sense that the beloved Guardian used them to refer to the 10 supplementary Tablets of Baha'u'llah (Bisharat, Ishraqat, ...) and the Will and Testament of Abdu'l-Baha. It implies that there is something in the addition Text that the original lacked. And I don't think you meant to imply that Qur'an perhaps lacked certain things that Rumi came along and *added*. I think what Rumi, 'Attar, Jami, Hafiz, Abu-Sa'id Abu'l-Khayr, ... did was simply to restate the Qur'an. Because of their eloquence, their poetry happen to appeal to a large segment of the population. But it really is no more than that. Again, thanks for saying we are not "warmed-over" shi'ites. I could picture my grandfather, a former Zoroastrian, rolling over in his grave... lovingly, ahang. From sbedin@gov.nt.caSun Sep 10 16:27:54 1995 Date: Sun, 10 Sep 1995 12:58:53 MDT From: Stephen R Bedingfield To: rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.com Cc: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Approaching the House (was missing Hands...) Greetings Ahang-jan, Your posting about approaching the House on issues brings up some interesting points, especially concerning the intentions of those approaching ones. Storming the citadel, as you say, is clearly out of place. Ahang, you said (quoting me quoting you): > > > I don't know why the list of Hands available in various places > > > doesn't get modified in face of clear and irrefutable Texts. My > > > guess is that the House is waiting for certain individuals to pass > > > from the scene before making such modifications. > > > Well, I guess you could put a precis together and ask the House. > > Actually, I think its best to wait. On a number of occasions > different members of the House explained that sometimes its best > *not* to ask. Because, once you ask, then you're stuck with the > answer. Yes, I have heard this too though not from House members themselves. Is this line of reasoning not intimidating? I feel anyone can approach the House of Justice with any concerns, comments or recommendations. In the case of recommendations or seeking endorsement of a view, of course, you should have your impartial research completed, and, depending on the issue, have had the Research Dept collaboration/assistance on the issue. What does being "stuck with the answer" mean? Do you mean that the answer does not meet with the expectations/approval of the inquirer? I guess that is the inquirer's spiritual test. If being ""stuck with the answer" means that it then becomes unalterable, then this conclusion is unwarranted. For example, often the House will not comment on an issue because it is not timely; or the House will advise that it does not know because the references have not been found, or the research not undertaken, and it is unwilling to advise; or the inquiry is such that it demands an interpretation which the House will not make (is not able to make). An example on a non-legislative issue: a Knight of Baha'u'llah recently told me that "u" was quite surprised that the House of Justice was reviewing Shoghi Effendi's list of Crusade "virgin" territorries. But of course, even this, set by Shoghi Effendi himself, is not immutable as the designation of "virgin" goals was not interpretation but a directive as Head of the Faith. > For example, if the authors of the "Service of Women" paper had > kept things at a low key, continued with their research and along > the way discussed the matter with the Research Dept and not gone > public with it, then the House of Justice would have never been > *forced* into making a pronouncement. From everything that I > understand, they didn't want to make a statement and would have > wished that the researchers kept things quite for a while til > their findings reached a mature state -- which presently is no > where near such a stage! -- and worked with the World Centre > towards a better understanding of the issues by everyone, but, > alas, ... I agree that their "findings" were no where near a mature stage, though I am NOT one to talk as I have not even contributed one posting to Talisman's women / UHJ discussion. > Anyway, I understand the Encyclopedia folks approached the House > on the question of the missing Hands and were told to stick to > the 50 listed Hands. Thank God, no body tried to fight this > decision and turn it into another impasse. So, in a few years > time, perhaps this issue (with sufficient documentation) can be > brought to the attention of the House. > Yes, of course. Loving regards, my friend, Stephen From haukness@tenet.eduSun Sep 10 16:28:21 1995 Date: Sun, 10 Sep 1995 14:33:15 -0500 (CDT) From: John Haukness To: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu Cc: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: women Allah-u-abha Friends: So perhaps we have an extension of Islam here, the correlation between Fatima and the Greatest Holy Leaf (who I believe is the greatest heroine in any era, an appellation from no less source than her father, I think I might be correct on this, if not I can murder another of my pseudonym's) actually I think this topic may head into the painful for some catagory so I will try my best to stay clear of that, but the painful part I will at least have to identify, is that the tradition we are talking about fromFatima to Bahiyyih Khanum would be, what that they were very reserved women, I don't know what word to use except reserved. But when Linda mentions Mary M. what distinction are we talking about besides Mary M and Fatima? That is who effected society more? Do we know? Is this possibly to quantify? I guess I would surmise that the Greatest Holy Leaf affected society the most. But I enjoy Linda's question. Seems to me our other Khanum is a very effective outspoken women and she happens to be a Hand. Can we not be devotional to the Greatest Leaf though? Is our NSA chair a woman this year, or was it last, seems her and her husband rotate. Anyway let's get on with the elevation of women. Respecting Linda's thoughtful post. From haukness@tenet.eduSun Sep 10 16:28:37 1995 Date: Sun, 10 Sep 1995 14:41:44 -0500 (CDT) From: John Haukness To: Ahang Rabbani Cc: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: RE: Is Quddus a Manifestation? Allah-u-abha Friends: Of course Ahang we are all reading this stuff, some of us are too stunned to let you know. It's great! But as an aside, your comment that Quddus is a Manifestation, I am not convinced. so I have to be left out of the statement so of course we realize He was a Manifestation of God. Yes I am reading very slowly Abdul Baha's appellation of Quddus, did I miss something, I guess I want to read precisely those words in precisely that order from Bahaullah, the Bab, or Quddus, 'Quddus is a Manifestation of God' but I don't think I read it as precise as that. There always has to be a last to fall in line I guess. haukness@tenet.edu From nima@unm.eduSun Sep 10 16:29:11 1995 Date: Sun, 10 Sep 1995 13:48:22 -0600 (MDT) From: Sadra To: Ahang Rabbani Cc: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: RE: Shi`ism Universalized? > Certainly, the notion that Mathnavi is in some way supplementing > and/or complementing the Qur'an, would have been foreign to Rumi. Dear Ahang & Talizens-- My grandfather is currently using my Persian copy of the Mathnavi, so I don't have the text in front of me right now, but please read the Arabic prolegomena: "hadha kitabu'l Mathnavi wa huwa'l usul usul usul usul din..." This is the book of the Mathnavi and it is the kernel of the kernel of the kernel of the kernel of the religion (i.e. Islam)..." Although I believe this opening was added by his son Sultan Valad, I'm not completely sure on this, though, certainly Rumi himself thought his Mathnavi to be some kind of supreme ta'wil of the Quran, thus complementing it, as did Ibn `Arabi of his Futuhat al-Makkiyya. Regards, Nima From haukness@tenet.eduSun Sep 10 16:29:24 1995 Date: Sun, 10 Sep 1995 14:54:58 -0500 (CDT) From: John Haukness To: "Mark A. Foster" Cc: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: Abortion Allah-u-abha Friends: I did not see this in Marguerite's post that we annot have an abortion in terms of rape or medical problems and I'm wondering why others see that she did. I assumed she was talking about our present day use of abortion as a convenience and I find that from the writings she is correct. I am not arguing that the current practice of abortion for birth control is not a hard struggle for people and that compassion is essential for us, and support for all people involved. But it seems to me, in my opinion, from my reading of the writings, that Marg is correct, that we support the women's decision in cases of rape or medical complications but that Baha'is in birthcontrol decisions support the child. Are not we supposed to rely on House decisions? From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comSun Sep 10 16:29:34 1995 Date: Sun, 10 Sep 95 14:26:01 -0400 From: Ahang Rabbani To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: RE: Approaching the House (was missing Hands...) [This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII] Dearest Stephen: I think you're quite correct in your admonishment. I stand corrected. Thanks very much. Incidentally, I *really* appreciate your gentle and loving ways. You help in setting a fine example of how *Baha'i* consultation should take place. Thank you very much for that, too. lovingly, ahang. From Alethinos@aol.comSun Sep 10 16:36:04 1995 Date: Sun, 10 Sep 1995 16:16:19 -0400 From: Alethinos@aol.com To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: America Dear Terry: Somehow there continues to be a gross misunderstanding on the primary elements of this issue. Nowhere have I stated that in order to redeem America we have to blast it. That would indeed be completely counterproductive. Nowhere have I stated that in addressing a new vision of America to our general audience we should denegrate the land they were raised in and that they love. Socrates and Plato both loved Athens, and wanted desperately to help it to truly achieve greatness. This could not be done by simply praising all of its wonderful qualities while ignoring the very fundamental elements that had caused the weakening; nor could it be done by designing a whole host of euphemisitic terms and metaphors with the express purpose of avoiding *stepping on toes*. The method we need to use was, in general, laid out by the Gaurdian himself. While repeatedly pointing out the strengths and positive elements of America - illustrating where the Baha'i Faith and America have so much in common - he also showed the fundamental weaknesses that needed to be addressed. In order to successfully deliver the message we do indeed have to strike that resonanting patriotic cord within our listener. I have no problem with this because I too love this country. But the *problems* with this country do not lie in its strengths - so there is no point in waving the flag and trying to have everyone believe us when we say how much we love America if we are also trying to offer the healing medicine (which generally tastes terrible to the patient) - you know kids don't buy it when mom and dad try to convince them that the green stuff from the bottle REALLY DOES taste goooood. You suggest that we present corporate capitialism as the *bad guy* - the promoter of capitialism, alien to the true spirit of America. Unfortunately this approach won't work, and never has worked really. While there is a romantic notion of populism in America it has never really manifested itself efficiently. I think the reasons are many why this movement has never caught on. On the cultural level it has always been presented as a very sterile, spatan type of lifestyle - dull and boring to an America that views itself as fast-moving, alive, energetic. And it does harken back to the puritans - and all the most negative elements of that sub-culture. Your reference to the SCLC and the Movement of MLK would be a more successful approach. I will write more later - gotta take the kids swimming now . . . jim harrison Alethinos@aol.com From jrcole@umich.eduSun Sep 10 16:50:20 1995 Date: Sun, 10 Sep 1995 16:37:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Juan R Cole To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: women sufis Linda: I'm not sure exactly what you meant to say in suggesting that Rabi`ah was the only woman Sufi Nima could come up with. Medieval biographical dictionaries of Sufis often had a section at the back devoted entirely to women; this is true, e.g. of the Indian Safinat al-awliya'. It seems clear that in gender-segregated Muslim communities women threw up their own leaders, including mystical ones; in places like India such women often had cross-gender and cross-communal adherents. It is true that women Sufi leaders have been much less studied than the men; it is also true that their works and words (malfuzat) did not tend to get transmitted institutionally through Khanqahs, and so, in a manuscript culture, were lost in enormous numbers. But this is a problem of visibility to history and to us, and of the focus of historiography, which has until recently been male-oriented. But as for the reality of large numbers of women mystics of some importance in Islamic history, this does not seem to me to be in doubt. cheers Juan From jrcole@umich.eduSun Sep 10 22:34:34 1995 Date: Sun, 10 Sep 1995 16:49:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Juan R Cole To: Talisman@indiana.edu Subject: hidden motivations Ahmad: I'm sorry, but I still do not feel that you have engaged with my points in a thorough and intellectually cogent way. I also have to say that I am disappointed that you chose to suggest that I made these arguments out of hidden motives. I do not know what you meant by this exactly, but where I come from, them's fightin' words. They are also contrary to the spirit of Talisman discussion, where we assume everyone's good faith. Since you are new and may be unaware of this convention, I will not make a big deal out of it. But if I hear any more about hidden motives, I will have no choice but to do so. As for your premises, that `Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi were omniscient and propositions drawn from their statements always inerrant, I agree that this is a widespread belief in the Baha'i community. Had you been on Talisman earlier, you would have been presented with a good deal of textual evidence from the Writings that this point of view is simply unfounded. I am reluctant to repost all of it now, but perhaps you could contact Sen or Eric to see if either has it conveniently archived and can share it with you. Finally, you have not responded to my point about principle, i.e., that `Abdu'l-Baha says that equal human rights for all under the law is a key teaching of Baha'u'llah; it seems fairly obvious that for women to be excluded from some forms of administrative rights solely on the basis of their sex is for them to be denied a human right and is discriminatory. In what way is this compatible with Baha'i teachings over all? regards Juan Cole, History, Univ. of Michigan From Don_R._Calkins@commonlink.comSun Sep 10 22:34:56 1995 Date: 10 Sep 1995 15:31:54 GMT From: "Don R. Calkins" To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Baha'i Administration All - Why, in so many of the discussions here on the administration of the FAith, including the role of women, has there been so much emphasis on power? It appears to me that too much of the discussion has been based on the philosophies of an over-masculinized, authoritarian, paternalistic old world order. It seems to me that if we are to truly have a *new* world order, it will require abandoning power as the basis for *all* relationships, including between the individual and insitutions. For about the past 6000 years, civilization has been increasingly dominated by power. Since the formation of the Universal House of Justice completing the Baha'i Administrative Order, this pre-occupation with power seems to have been taken to the rediculous extreme. I'm beginning to wonder if this is part of the reason for women not being on the Universal House of Justice. Is it possible that humanity is being asked to develope to the point that equality can be attained without power? Don C He who believes himself spiritual proves he is not - The Cloud of Unknowing From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comSun Sep 10 22:35:24 1995 Date: Sun, 10 Sep 95 15:19:01 -0400 From: Ahang Rabbani To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Rumi [This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII] Nima jan: Of course you know infinitely more about Rumi and this sort of things than all the rest of us, but just to continue to learn from you let's pursue it a bit more... Even if the Mathnavi's introduction was written by Rumi, to say that Mathnavi contains the essence of Qur'an ("usul din"), is not a confirmation of the complementary aspect of Mathnavi. ("Asl"= the essence, seems to be a favorite word of Rumi in Divan-i Shams, no?) Now, what I'm hoping you will take a few minutes to share back with us is in what way does Mathnavi or Divan-i Shams *add* certain details to Qur'an? Let me offer an example of the sort of thing I'm looking for: the Qur'an anticipated appearance of the Bab and Baha'u'llah, but remained silent on many aspect of their Lives. But Rumi's Divan-i Shams does offer some *additional* (hence complementary!) information, such as the fact that the Bab will appear in Shiraz, will go on Pilgrimage, will be martyred in Tabriz, and that Baha'u'llah will be born in the realm of Nur (in Mazandaran), His Ministry will last 40 years, His son, Abbas, will success Him, many martyrs of this Dispensation, etc. I think if we're able to point to these sort of details that Rumi provides which are clearly absent in Qur'an then a credible case is made for his divine inspiration and the supplementary nature of his poetry. Does that make any sense? I really think this could be pretty interesting ... It could be a fairly major effort to search through Divan-i Shams (and Mathnavi) for references to the Babi and Baha'i Dispensations. But, what a great gift that would be ... And no one more capable than thy august self to tackle it! much love, ahang. From Member1700@aol.comSun Sep 10 22:52:33 1995 Date: Sun, 10 Sep 1995 20:18:33 -0400 From: Member1700@aol.com To: Talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: Abortion I must concur with Burl and with Linda on this issue. As I understand it, it is not only in circumstances of rape or incest (the ultimate horrors) that the decision concerning abortion is left to the woman involved, but under all circumstances. I think that we all understand that using abortion as a form of birth control is forbidden in the Faith. But, in the actual events, there are thousands of different circumstances that might lead a woman to seek an abortion as the right decision. And therefore, as the House of Justice has indicated, this decision must be left to the individual woman--with her taking into account the advise of doctors, the teachings of the Faith, and if necessary advise of the institutions of the Faith. Yet, still the decision is hers and no institutional decision can be enforced upon her. Under such circumstances, it seems to me that the proper position of the community is to extend compassion and support to anyone in such a painful, tragic situation. Regards, Tony From mfoster@tyrell.netSun Sep 10 22:53:56 1995 Date: Sun, 10 Sep 1995 19:19:20 -0500 (EDT) From: "Mark A. Foster" To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Univ. Shi`ism/Sufism To: talisman@indiana.edu Talismanians, As I see it, there is truth to what Nima wrote about the Baha'i Faith being a universalization of Shi'ism and Sufism. From my POV (point of view), each new Dispensation represents the dialectical synthesis of those that came before it. If, for instance, the essential message of Moses was obedience, and that of Jesus was individual love, then the central theme of Islam was loving obedience (or submission). Likewise, the mysteries of return in Hinduism, expressed as transmigration (or metempsychosis), which did not, as far as I know, clearly distinguish between humans and animals (much as the Tanakhian notion of nifish was applicable to both animals and humans), was resolved in the Buddhist concept of reincarnation which, IMV, affirmed the distinctiveness of the human species - much like the mysteries of return were, in the relationship between Elijah and John the Baptist, elucidated of the Christian Dispensation. The conflicts within and between the various chapters (Dispensations) of the book (religion) of God are resolved in future chapters. However, there are always new conflicts (mysteries) introduced by each of the divine Revelators which remain to be synthesized in future eras. Moreover, the ministry of each Manifestation, according to the Bab, is the resurrection (perfecting) of the previous religion, and the first to recognize the Manifestation of God is the greatest representative of the virtues called forth by the previous Messenger. I would not, myself, want to refer to the Baha'i Faith as a universalized form of Shi'ism or Sufism. However, it may be mostly a semantic matter. IMHO, the basic principle is sound. Blessings, Mark From Member1700@aol.comSun Sep 10 22:55:57 1995 Date: Sun, 10 Sep 1995 20:32:05 -0400 From: Member1700@aol.com To: Talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: Women, Saints, and Power If it will make anyone feel any better, Kalimat Press recently did include some of the prayers of the Greatest Holy Leaf in its most recent children's prayer book. It seemed to me that, since she had revealed prayers, she certainly intended them to be said by someone. We may have missed a few generations there, but I intend to start with this one to get things back on track. (Yes, I do plan more children's prayer books with her prayers in them.) As to equality having nothing to do with power, ha! (Forgive me, I really must laugh here.) I don't think that any impartial person would take that argument seriously for a second. A friend of mine attended a women's conference and spoke with some feminist delegates who were generally against religion. Their beliefs were that all religions were sexists and had teachings that reinforced patriarchy. (Of course, I don't agree, and neither did she, but that was the feminist line at the time.) Anyway, she tried to introduce them to the Baha'i Faith, explaining that one of the basic principles of the Faith was the equality of men and women. They were utterly unimpressed and replied that ALL religions claim that they teach the equality of men and women. They had only one question for her: "In this religion of yours, is there any possibility that the highest office [meaning, the head] of the community might be held by a woman?" They had heard all the Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. arguments--and this was their acid test. When she answered no, they were uninterested in hearing anything further. Warmest, Tony From brburl@mailbag.comSun Sep 10 22:56:36 1995 Date: Sun, 10 Sep 1995 20:31:11 -0500 From: Bruce Burrill To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: POV - before or after? Mark, > "From my POV (point of view), each new Dispensation represents the dialectical synthesis of those that came before it. ... Likewise, the mysteries of return in Hinduism, expressed as transmigration (or metempsychosis), which did not, as far as I know, clearly distinguish between humans and animals ..., was resolved in the Buddhist concept of reincarnation which, IMV, affirmed the distinctiveness of the human species...." < Would you say that your POV is what came to light as a result of a careful study of the supposed "dialectical synthesis" of the supposed dispensations, or could it be that the supposed "dialectical synthesis" is just a back-reading of your POV? Hinduism (or what we generally understand as Hinduism) is essentially a post-Buddha phenomenon, an amalgam of the Brahmanical Vedic traditions with the non-Brahmanic (non-Vedic) forest traditions, of which Buddhism was a major player. Reincarnation/rebirth was _not_ the coin of the realm, and within pre-Buddha Brahmanism it was only one of a number of possibilities considered. It was only with the muscular influences of Buddhism, Jainism and yoga, did Brahmanism adopt reincarnation as part and parcel of its world view. The Bhagavad Gita illustrates this very nicely. Buddhism regards being a human as a precious and rare thing. It is something that can be lost by over-reaching oneself and becoming a god, or it can be lost in the other direction. It is not so much that the man wills, but that the will mans. Bruce From burlb@bmi.netSun Sep 10 22:57:18 1995 Date: Sun, 10 Sep 95 19:32 PDT From: Burl Barer To: Member1700@aol.com Cc: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: Women, Saints, and Power Tony told the story: >. When she answered no.... Why did she answer no? The answer is YES! Being a member of the Universal House of Justice is *not* the highest station in the Baha'i Faith -- not even close. Not even in the stadium, let alone the ballpark! The absolute "Highest Station" is not available to any of us -- the station of Prophet of God. But for the rest of us, Abdul Baha delineates the ones that are open to us: "The *rank and station*, the pleasure and peace, of an individual have never consisted in his personal wealth, but rather in his excellent character, his high resolve, the breadth of his learning, and his ability to solve difficult problems." Abdul-Baha 1. The highest station, the supreme sphere, the noblest, most sublime position in creation, whether visible or invisible, whether alpha or omega, is that of the Prophets of God, notwithstanding the fact that for the most part they have to outward seeming been possessed of nothing but their own poverty. 2. In the same way, ineffable glory is set apart for the Holy Ones and those who are nearest to the Threshold of God, although such as these have never for a moment concerned themselves with material gain. 3. Then comes the station of those just kings whose fame as protectors of the people and dispensers of Divine justice has filled the world, whose name as powerful champions of the people's rights has echoed through creation. These give no thought to amassing enormous fortunes for themselves; they believe, rather, that their own wealth lies in enriching their subjects. To them, if every individual citizen has affluence and ease, the royal coffers are full. They take no pride in gold and silver, but rather in their enlightenment and their determination to achieve the universal good. 4. Next in rank are those eminent and honorable ministers of state and representatives, who place the will of God above their own, and whose administrative skill and wisdom in the conduct of their office raises the science of government to new heights of perfection. They shine in the learned world like lamps of knowledge; their thinking, their attitudes and their acts demonstrate their patriotism and their concern for the country's advancement. Content with a modest stipend, they consecrate their days and nights to the execution of important duties and the devising of methods to insure the progress of the people. Through the effectiveness of their wise counsel, the soundness of their judgment, they have ever caused their government to become an example to be followed by all the governments of the world. They have made their capital city a focal center of great world undertakings, they have won distinction, attaining a supreme degree of personal eminence, and reaching the loftiest heights of repute and character. 5. those famed and accomplished of learning, possessed of praiseworthy qualities and vast erudition,... In the mirror of their minds the forms of transcendent realities are reflected, and the lamp of their inner vision derives its light from the sun of universal knowledge. They are busy by night and by day with meticulous research into such sciences as are profitable to mankind, and they devote themselves to the training of students of capacity. It is certain that to their discerning taste, the proffered treasures of kings would not compare with a single drop of the waters of knowledge, and mountains of gold and silver could not outweigh the successful solution of a difficult problem. To them, the delights that lie outside their work are only toys for children, and the cumbersome load of unnecessary possessions is only good for the ignorant and base. Content, like the birds, they give thanks for a handful of seeds, and the song of their wisdom dazzles the minds of the world's most wise. 6. sagacious leaders among the people and influential personalities throughout the country, who constitute the pillars of state. Their rank and station and success depend on their being the well-wishers of the people and in their seeking out such means as will improve the nation and will increase the wealth and comfort of the citizens. What can be regarded as honor, abiding happiness, rank and station, whether in the here or the hereafter? ...a diligent attention to truth and righteousness... dedication and resolve and devotion to the good pleasure of God (Secret of Divine Civilization, pages 20-24) What is the Spiritual Station of a Hand of the Cause of God? Knight of Baha'u'llah? Martyr? Educator? Scientist? One who defends the Faith in their writings? A worker for world peace? A champion of race unity? What is The Highest Station to which a woman or man can aspire within the Baha'i Faith? It is certainly NOT being on the UHJ, a position to which aspiration itself would be anthema. Burl > > From burlb@bmi.netSun Sep 10 23:30:47 1995 Date: Sun, 10 Sep 95 19:32 PDT From: Burl Barer To: Member1700@aol.com Cc: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: Women, Saints, and Power Tony told the story: >. When she answered no.... Why did she answer no? The answer is YES! Being a member of the Universal House of Justice is *not* the highest station in the Baha'i Faith -- not even close. Not even in the stadium, let alone the ballpark! The absolute "Highest Station" is not available to any of us -- the station of Prophet of God. But for the rest of us, Abdul Baha delineates the ones that are open to us: "The *rank and station*, the pleasure and peace, of an individual have never consisted in his personal wealth, but rather in his excellent character, his high resolve, the breadth of his learning, and his ability to solve difficult problems." Abdul-Baha 1. The highest station, the supreme sphere, the noblest, most sublime position in creation, whether visible or invisible, whether alpha or omega, is that of the Prophets of God, notwithstanding the fact that for the most part they have to outward seeming been possessed of nothing but their own poverty. 2. In the same way, ineffable glory is set apart for the Holy Ones and those who are nearest to the Threshold of God, although such as these have never for a moment concerned themselves with material gain. 3. Then comes the station of those just kings whose fame as protectors of the people and dispensers of Divine justice has filled the world, whose name as powerful champions of the people's rights has echoed through creation. These give no thought to amassing enormous fortunes for themselves; they believe, rather, that their own wealth lies in enriching their subjects. To them, if every individual citizen has affluence and ease, the royal coffers are full. They take no pride in gold and silver, but rather in their enlightenment and their determination to achieve the universal good. 4. Next in rank are those eminent and honorable ministers of state and representatives, who place the will of God above their own, and whose administrative skill and wisdom in the conduct of their office raises the science of government to new heights of perfection. They shine in the learned world like lamps of knowledge; their thinking, their attitudes and their acts demonstrate their patriotism and their concern for the country's advancement. Content with a modest stipend, they consecrate their days and nights to the execution of important duties and the devising of methods to insure the progress of the people. Through the effectiveness of their wise counsel, the soundness of their judgment, they have ever caused their government to become an example to be followed by all the governments of the world. They have made their capital city a focal center of great world undertakings, they have won distinction, attaining a supreme degree of personal eminence, and reaching the loftiest heights of repute and character. 5. those famed and accomplished of learning, possessed of praiseworthy qualities and vast erudition,... In the mirror of their minds the forms of transcendent realities are reflected, and the lamp of their inner vision derives its light from the sun of universal knowledge. They are busy by night and by day with meticulous research into such sciences as are profitable to mankind, and they devote themselves to the training of students of capacity. It is certain that to their discerning taste, the proffered treasures of kings would not compare with a single drop of the waters of knowledge, and mountains of gold and silver could not outweigh the successful solution of a difficult problem. To them, the delights that lie outside their work are only toys for children, and the cumbersome load of unnecessary possessions is only good for the ignorant and base. Content, like the birds, they give thanks for a handful of seeds, and the song of their wisdom dazzles the minds of the world's most wise. 6. sagacious leaders among the people and influential personalities throughout the country, who constitute the pillars of state. Their rank and station and success depend on their being the well-wishers of the people and in their seeking out such means as will improve the nation and will increase the wealth and comfort of the citizens. What can be regarded as honor, abiding happiness, rank and station, whether in the here or the hereafter? ...a diligent attention to truth and righteousness... dedication and resolve and devotion to the good pleasure of God (Secret of Divine Civilization, pages 20-24) What is the Spiritual Station of a Hand of the Cause of God? Knight of Baha'u'llah? Martyr? Educator? Scientist? One who defends the Faith in their writings? A worker for world peace? A champion of race unity? What is The Highest Station to which a woman or man can aspire within the Baha'i Faith? It is certainly NOT being on the UHJ, a position to which aspiration itself would be anthema. Burl > > From sw@solsys.ak.planet.gen.nzSun Sep 10 23:31:18 1995 Date: Mon, 11 Sep 95 15:08 NZST From: S&W Michael To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: women on UHJ Dear Marguerite Your message re the UHJ is somewhat unfair. I am quite convinced that there is no one in this discussion that has 'disobeyed, rebelled, opposed or contended with the House, disputed with or disbelieved in the House, etc etc... WE HAVE BEEN ASKING QUESTIONS ... (ie. investigating, etc. etc. - quite permissible, and indeed encouraged, within our Faith) Indeed, as I have said several times (and others have too) because the House of Justice is the House of Justice, then we all (I think all) accept that the House is completely and utterly right in the decision that it has made regarding the status of women on the House. And further that as long as the House continues to legislate against women being on the House, that it will be right!! I think it's very important to be aware of subtle, and not so subtle, distinctions like these in our discussions. To fill in the 'gap' you've left, I think we're acting like mature, inquiring, scholarly, Baha'is. Kind regards Suzanne Michael From jrcole@umich.eduSun Sep 10 23:33:41 1995 Date: Sun, 10 Sep 1995 23:30:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Juan R Cole To: Burl Barer Cc: Member1700@aol.com, talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: Women, Saints, and Power Burl: You seem to me to have missed the point o Tony's story. *All* the world religions told those women that women could attain the highest spiritual stations in the religion. But there cannot be a female Pope, mufti, Dalai Lama, etc. Ultimate power and decision-making authority rests in male hands in the world religions, which is the definition of patriarchy. The Baha'i Faith is in this regard no different from the others, unfortunately, even though the attitudes toward women in its scriptures are more "feminist" in general than is the case with most other religions. The women were saying that all religions are patriarchies in the final analysis, and they were not interested in joining a patriarchy. I don't blame them. (Feminist theory typically extends the anthropological notion of patriarchy, which has to do with descent being counted in the male line, property being inherited mainly by males, the eldest male in the household being the decision-maker, etc., to *any* system in which final power and authority can rest only in male hands). Now, Baha'is could argue that at the level of local and national communities, the Baha'i Faith is not in principle a patriarchy. I think that is potentially true. But so is it true that many Catholic communities, given the shortage of priests, are increasingly actually being run by women. The Catholic Church is nevertheless a patriarchy, as is Islam, where gender segregation often ironically creates a fairly independent sphere of action for women in the form of women-only meetings and organizations. The German sociologist Max Weber defined authority as the likelihood that a given command would be obeyed. In the Baha'i Faith ultimate authority clearly rests with the Universal House of Justice, both ideally and in the real world. And women do not partake of that authority. I can understand Baha'is arguing that we are stuck with a "Patriarchy-in-the-Last-Analysis" on textual grounds and must simply therefore accept that these are the rules of the game if one wants to be a Baha'i. I don't agree with this stance, but I can respect it. I cannot understand, however, why anyone would deny that we *have* a patriarchy-in-the-last-analysis. That just seems to me an instance of wishing away uncomfortable realities. cheers, Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan