From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comWed Sep 6 23:18:05 1995
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 95 11:39:01 -0400
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: 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 wr
