From rstockman@usbnc.orgWed Sep 13 22:17:27 1995
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 95 10:26:02
From: "Stockman, Robert"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: How Many Baha'i Principles Are There?
(1) In this post, I wish to draw a distinction between Baha'i
principles and Baha'i teachings. The two are usually classed together,
and thought of as synonymous.
Chris, I wonder whether the distinction between a teaching and a
principle really is necessary. Shouldn't one argue, for example, that
even if obligatory prayer isn't listed as a "Baha'i principle" in
`Abdu'l-Baha's talks, that it is indeed a principle? On the other
hand, maybe there is a distinction to be maintained between a
principle and a law. But I'm not even sure of that.
-- Rob Stockman
From c@ Wed Sep 13 22:18:21 1995
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 95 09:08:35 TZ
From: "CER"
To: frlw@midway.uchicago.edu, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: The gender of hermaphrodites
I am not altogether clear on certain points being raised in the current
discussions as they relate to gender. Are the often quoted passages on
Universal House of Justice membership translated as referring to
biological sex which I define at the cellular level or to gender which
I define as a social construct? I have been assuming that they apply to
biological sex (specifically to the sex of a child at birth) and that
an individual who has undergone sexual reassignment surgery would be a
special case and thus require the highest level of legislation and
consultation. The likelihood of such an occurrence is probably
extremely small in the foreseeable future.
Also, transvestites, as I understand the syndrome, are part of a much
broader grouping of persons who are known as gender-dysphoric. That
grouping includes: transsexuals who are profoundly convinced that their
gender identity does not match their biological characteristics and
their syndrome is independent of their sexual preferences--they are
persons who typically seek surgical remedies; transvestites,
cross-dressers, fetishists, etc. who seek physical satisfaction from
their practices (note: this sub-grouping is totally irrelevant to our
discussion); and transgendered persons who are unable to take surgical
steps to alter their appearance and characteristics but choose to live
the appearance and perceived lifestyle of their opposite biological sex.
I'm mentioning this topic because it's of immediate personal importance
to me. My closest friend who is also a professional colleague at work,
has begun a long and difficult path of gender reassignment. It's a
serious topic and a particularly difficult one for him as he is the
single, custodial parent of two young children. I've shared with him a
number of excerpts from this discussion as well as discussions of
gender from the Intuition Network Baha'i subgroup. This has been
because I'm teaching him about the Baha'i Faith, of course. It's a way
to relate his deepest personal and spiritual concerns to the Baha'i
Faith. However, it also seems to me that our Faith is the only one that
discusses gender and possible future directions of the (Western) gender
constructs with intelligence and depth. My friend (whose identity and
confidentiality I need to respect) has in turn shared the excerpts with
his therapist. She, in turn, has shared them with other psychotherapists.
I've intentionally not included discussions of the membership of the
Universal House of Justice in what I've shared because my friend
doesn't have enough knowledge of the Faith or the Administrative Order
to be aware of it. I'm more interested in a spiritual and intellectual
approach in this case. Finally, my point isn't to speculate on what
person requires which parts or chromosome pairs to qualify for
membership on the House but merely to reinforce that gender is an
extraordinarily complicated and profound topic. I honestly don't think
that discussion of gender-dysphoric persons in regard to the topic of
House membership is relevant, useful or solvable in our time.
However, in my opinion, the spiritually-based discussion of gender
constructs, gender futures, and gender definitions is very enlightening
and fascinating.
Just a few thoughts,
C
----------
| From: "Frank Lewis"
| To:
| Subject: The gender of hermaphrodites
| Date: Wednesday, 13 September, 1995 00:24PM
|
| For those who may doubt that gender is a construct, I would recommend
| the book *Gender: An Ethnomethodological Approach* by Suzanne J. Kessler and
| Wendy McKenna (Univ of Chicago Press, 1978). The book made me quite angry
| while I read it, but I left it with the understanding that there is not
| necessarily a direct correspondence between one's biological sex and one's
| *gender,* the latter being in large part a cultural construct. There are
| cases (transvestites) in which one's gender is not acculturated or
| socialized in accordance with one's biology and, indeed, there are cases in
| which people are born with both female and male sex organs, or have
| abnormal concentrations of the opposite sex hormone. In such cases, a
| determination is often made early on to medically and surgically
| differentiate the sex of the child as either male or female and to construct
| a gender identity that corresponds with that sex.
| So, let me pose a hypothetical question. Should a hermaphrodite, a
| person who possessed both male and female genitalia, be eligible to serve on
| the UHJ? Are the categories of [men] and [women], for the purpose of
| determining eligibility for the UHJ, defined on the basis of biology or on
| the basis of gender (meaning something that has a biological basis but is
| also a social construct)? If the latter, will human beings evolve to the
| point where the social construct [woman] no longer corresponds to the
| concept of [woman] as reflected in the writings of AB and Baha? In other
| words, are gender categories essential and permanent or primarily cultural
| and in flux?
| yours, Frank Lewis
|
From rstockman@usbnc.orgWed Sep 13 22:18:58 1995
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 95 10:54:10
From: "Stockman, Robert"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Quddus
What fascinates me about Ahang's postings about Quddus is that I had
heard about the "station-inflation" that characterized Babism; that
is, more and more Letters of the Living were claiming higher and high
status, right up to the status of mazhariyyat (Manifestationhood).
Now, much to my surprise, I find some of the "station-inflation"
apparently endorsed by the Baha'i writings, and therefore made a part
of Baha'i belief. This comes as a bit of a shock. So we now have
Manifestations that start religions and Manifestations who are in the
shadows of others and do not start their own religions.
Extending this trend backward in time a bit, we are told that Muhammad
is the seal of the prophets (nabi) and somewhere apparently He is even
called the "seal of the messengers" (rasul). Thus Baha'is find that
neither the Bab nor Baha'u'llah can be adequately described by the
terms nabi and rasul anymore; we have to use mazhar (Manifestation) or
zohur (theophany) instead. Of course, the Muslims were not altogether
satisfied with calling Muhammad a nabi and stressed the term rasul
instead, perhaps partly because it wasn't biblical (correct me,
someone, if I am wrong). The Bible used nabi for Old Testament
figures, Moses and Abraham included, because there was no distinction
yet made in the language then as to the station of lesser and greater
Prophets.
So the question I have is: what will we call the next One? Will even
mazhar and zuhur become obsolete because they become applied to too
many people? Will we have to start calling the next One "God" and
replace the word "God" with "Essence" when we want to refer to the
sender of the One? I don't know. Maybe this sounds silly. But I
wonder.
This also reminds me of the titles of Iranian clerics. In the 19th
century "mujtahid" was a big title, but so many people used it it lost
its meaning and was replaced by 'ayatullah." Now a lot of people call
themselves "ayatollah." This is what I understand happened. What
next?
-- Rob Stockman
From rstockman@usbnc.orgWed Sep 13 22:19:51 1995
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 95 10:40:30
From: "Stockman, Robert"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Can Our Faith Change?
<>
I think there is a distinction to be maintained between changes in
policy and changes in principle. Shoghi Effendi has said we must be
careful to maintain our principles absolutely but must be flexible on
other details. Thus, for example, the teporary policy of discouraging
social and economic deveopment projects ended in the early 1980s. But
when in the 1930s the Muslim authorities order the Tarbiyat School to
remain open on Baha'i holy days Shoghi Effendi said that was
unacceptable; and the Tarbiyat school has been closed ever since.
With one stroke of a pen the Iranian government wiped out an entire
private educational system, one that by the late 1970s might have
rivaled the U.S. Catholic system in size and sophistication, all
because of nine holy days per year.
That is adherence to principle. It's a bit shocking in that
particular case, but it shows you what we must do. The Baha'i
writings themselves say women are equal to men "except in one or two
negligible cases." The House of Justice's all-male constitution is a
"negligible" example? Sounds strange, but apparently that is the
Baha'i position. How can anyone change the Baha'i writings? And
based on whose logic? The Baha'i revelation, I would maintain, can
not be construed as some simplistically logical and consistent
framework. It is complicated, it has exceptions, and it is
occasionally untidy, as any framework that deals with human beings has
to be. (Yet it is still more logical than the systems of the other
traditions; that is why I feel comfortable, in a different language
game, referring tothr Faith as "logical.")
And if one starts to change the Baha'i teachings based on outside
criteria, how are we different from wishy-washy liberal Protestant
denominations who want to offend no one and in consequence tend to
stand for as few offensive moral positions as possible?
-- Rob Stockman
From quinn@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.eduWed Sep 13 22:20:05 1995
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 13:17:02 EDT
From: quinn@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
To: TALISMAN@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: The gender of hermaphrodites
Ohio University Electronic Communication
Date: 13-Sep-1995 01:16pm EST
To: Remote Addressee ( _MX%"talisman@indiana.edu" )
From: Sholeh Quinn Dept: History
QUINN Tel No:
Subject: Re: The gender of hermaphrodites
For those interested in this topic in the Islamic context, there is a relevant
article:
Paula Sanders, "Gendering the Ungendered Body: Hermaphrodites in Medieval
Islamic Law," in *Women in Middle Eastern History: Shifting Boundaries in Sex
and Gender,* ed. Nikki R. Keddie and Beth Baron.
Best wishes,
Sholeh
Received: 13-Sep-1995 01:16pm
From richs@microsoft.comWed Sep 13 22:22:01 1995
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 95 10:55:25 PDT
From: Rick Schaut
To: owner-talisman@indiana.edu, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: Burl's menstrual cycle, etc.
Dear Lind and Friends,
----------
>While there are those who are annoyed or even angry with those of us who seem
>to be belaboring the issue of women on the UHJ and women's issues in
general, I
>would like to point out that perhaps the reason for this "harping" is
that, for
>some of us this is a deeply felt issue. I am sure if I were a man, I would
>grow very tired of hearing about discrimination against women. Indeed,
at times
>I do too because I do have other interests.
As a man, le me say that I'm not annoyed at this discussion. I am
deeply saddened by it. I'll attempt to explain why forthwith.
>No matter how much one struggles
>to accept the exclusion of women from the UHJ, there is always the nagging
>question, why? And when there are no good answers, and when good
>arguments are made suggesting that this ruling can be changed, then the
>movitation to cease the discussion is lacking. Linda
First of all, the "good" argument is specious. With all due respect to
Sen and Juan, the argument fails in one _absolutely_ critical area:
covenantal authority. I've raised the question, and, yet, it has yet to
be adequately addressed.
The fact remains that `Abdu'l-Baha, in his second tablet to Corrine True,
was, if anything more than simply stating what the Law says, stating an
authoritative interpretation of that Law. Shoghi Effendi thought so when
he said that the friends must just accept this with a deep sense of faith,
and the Universal House of Justice seems to think so when it says that
the issue is not open to speculation. Even if we could conclude that
`Abdu'l-Baha intended to remove this restriction in the future, we cannot
make that an _authoritative_ conclusion without stating an _authoritative_
interpretation of `Abdu'l-Baha's Tablet.
Seeing well-educated and thoughtful people buying a specious
argument weighs so heavily on my heart that words cannot
adequately express what I feel. There are _many_ things to be
learned from asking that nagging question to which you refer, and above
all is the examination of one's own role in achieving the equality of
men and women. I see this specious argument as a means by which
people might feel less pressed to engage in the self-examination
that is necessary if we are to realize the equality of men and women
in anything more than the most superficial ways.
In the light of careful analysis of the principles of Baha'i Administration,
the membership of the Universal House of Justice is one of the most
superficial arenas for such a princple to be manifest.
1) No individual in the Baha'i Faith has any power. Power is possed
solely by the institution. The institution is also thought to be more
than just the sum of its constitutent members.
2) The proper functioning of any consulatative institution is dependant
upon the extent to which the body's constituent members set asside their
own selves and egos (as has been pointed out in other discussions on
Talisman). To borrow a term from Bahiyyih Nakhjavani, membership
on the Universal House of Justice constitutes the ultimate form of
personal "erasure".
3) Women can, and do participate in the consultative portion of the
decision-making process of the Universal House of Justice. Indeed,
their ideas can have as much impact on a decision as the ideas of
the members themselves.
4) Ideas don't have gender, and neither do decisions. The Baha'i
consultative process is the very embodiment of the principle that the
validity of an idea is independant of the status of the person who
expresses it. If we claim that women must serve in the Unversal
House of Justice in order for women to be adequately represented,
then we are denying the very fact that equality can even exist.
These four points combined serve to reduce, significantly, the impact
of this restriction on the realization of the equality of men and women.
When you combine them with an examination of the necessary
change in attitudes, of both men and women, which must devolve
if we are to achieve true equality, this restriction falls into the "neglible"
category stated by `Abdu'l-Baha.
At this point, I am far more interested in coping with the fact that my
neighbor's four year old son doesn't think girls should be interested
in motorcycles. I have a four year old daughter to raise. I know that
the vestiges of a sexist society colour my perceptions of women.
How do those vestiges affect the way I am raising my daughter?
There is a book called, _How to Father a Successful Daughter_,
by Nicky Marone. That book should have been written by a Baha'i.
It wasn't. When will we get past this question? When will we begin
to exercise that deep sense of Faith that Shoghi Effendi raised?
When will we stop banging on this superficial, though highly visible,
issue and start dealing with the _real_ problems? When will _Baha'I_
women start helping me raise my daughter in light of the principle
of the equality of men and women?
Warmest Regards,
Rick Schaut
From pjohnson@leo.vsla.eduWed Sep 13 22:22:38 1995
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 95 14:37:05 EDT
From: "K. Paul Johnson"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: "Theosophy and the Baha'is"
Last night I got a call from a member of the Washington, D.C.
lodge of the Theosophical Society, telling me that the date I
thought I'd be speaking there this fall had already been booked
by someone else. So I took the following Sunday, which is--
November 12, Baha'u'llah's birthday. At 3 PM I'll speak on
"Theosophy and the Baha'is" at the TS center on 14th St.
My talk will present my research on Theosophy/Baha'i
connections as reported in Initiates of Theosophical Masters.
When, some time ago, I mentioned the possibility of such a
program, some Baha'is here seemed interested. Ideally, I'd
like to invite a Baha'i representative and hope for some
Baha'is in the audience. I could give up say 15 minutes of my
usual 45, and share the q&a period. If the Baha'i in question were
the right sort, it'd go wonderfully; I do fine at sharing the
podium with people of diverse views.
Problem is, the two Baha'is from DC I've encountered online
have been of the ultraorthodox variety, and someone like that
could easily ruin what I have in mind. So I'm asking Talisman
for advice. How could I make an invitation for a co-speaker
that would insure we get a friendly one, not someone out to
refute me as an enemy? (I'd give a copy of my book to the
person so he/she would know the gist of my views). Would
anyone even be available on a Holy Day? It might be a good
time for such a proclamation opportunity. If anyone on
Talisman can suggest a person I might contact without going
through administrative channels (yuck)-- all the better. What
an LSA might consider an appropriate person and approach to
share a program with an ex-Baha'i of heretical views, would
probably be far more combative than I want to deal with.
All suggestions welcome.
From kseiden@casbah.acns.nwu.eduWed Sep 13 22:23:49 1995
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 14:36:23 -0500 (CDT)
From: kseiden@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: the gender of hermaphrodites (a monkey wrench....)
Greetings to all,
I just wanted to toss in another potentially relevant tidbit in the discussion
of gender. The brain is sexually dimorphic; which is a fancy term for the
fact that there are certain regions of the brain which different in XX
chromosome (female) vs XY (male) chromosome-based genders. These differences may (probably) have
an effect on mental function which is perhaps where attention should be
focused in terms of any relevant differences between males and females. This
having been said, it should be fully acknowledged that gender is a social
construct as well as a biological one.
Warmest Regards,
Ken
From PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.eduWed Sep 13 22:25:41 1995
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 13:46:46 PST8PDT
From: Male Chauvinist Pig
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Spin Doctoring (again), was RE: Burl's menstrual cycle, etc.
Greetings,
re:
> From: Rick Schaut
> To: owner-talisman@indiana.edu, talisman@indiana.edu
> Date sent: Wed, 13 Sep 95 10:55:25 PDT
> Subject: RE: Burl's menstrual cycle, etc.
> Dear Lind and Friends,
...
> As a man, le me say that I'm not annoyed at this discussion. I am
> deeply saddened by it.
That reminded me of my own sadness (and irritation) caused by
all the absurd, grotesque, and misinformed rationalizations of
the exclusionary rule that I have had to listen to over the
years, including some really creative ones on talisman lately
(I am not criticising brother Shaut's message here, although
I am intrigued by his peculiar linking of this discussion to
the hinderance of the development of equality in the community).
There seem to be two extreme opposed viewpoints that ~may~ be
"vain imaginings" or "idle fancies":
#1 absurd (usually traditional, male and probably cowardly)
rationalizations of the exclusionary rule.
#2 speculation about possible ways of overturning the rule.
I propose that anyone is sad/upset/etc about #2 think about
#1 to keep things in balance.
Why has it been "ok" to spread speculative rationalizations (#1) for
years, but not #2?
I agree with brother Shaut that if there isn't a clearly thought
out way of dealing with the issues of authoritative interpretation,
(Covenant etc.), given the murky chronology involved in the
analysis of what is said in the writings about the "noon day sun"
issue, then we are hard pressed by the "speculation" statement in
the 1989(?) UHJ letter that is a response to the "Service of Women"
paper. There seems to be little or no wiggle room at this time, but
at least we can say that our scholars have tried to explore and
"push the envelope" as far as possible on this issue and we needn't
rely on the usual bizzare rationalizations anymore.
I was amazed to find one of the esteemed members mentioning
something I also recently thought about: what would the situation be
if there was/were Guardian(s) after Shoghi? Would there be a point
where advocates of a female Guardian would be teetering on the horns
of the same dilema?
As someone probably mentioned already, is the enterprise of doing
further collaborative ~research~ on this stuff really "speculation",
or does the UHJ simply advise us to avoid coming to premature
conclusions (and arguing about them) given the state of knowledge as
of 1989(?).
Hooray to all the uppity folks (delightful women or otherwise) out
there that are trying to struggle to get healed on this. To the
others: why not try some patience, compassion and understanding?
Thanks,
EP
(PierceED@csus.edu)
From M.C.Day@massey.ac.nzWed Sep 13 22:26:02 1995
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 09:18:47 GMT=1200
From: Mary Day
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Assembly membership
Dear Talismans,
I was very interested in Rick's point here.
"4) Ideas don't have gender, and neither do decisions. The Baha'i
consultative process is the very embodiment of the principle that the
validity of an idea is independant of the status of the person who
expresses it. If we claim that women must serve in the Unversal
House of Justice in order for women to be adequately represented,
then we are denying the very fact that equality can even exist."
I could spend hours discussing this very point but unfortunately I
have calculus assignments to mark, I hope to get back to it. But it
does raise a question for me that will be easily answered by someone.
In the case of tied votes for local and national elections, the
member of an ethnic minority is elected. Does the same apply to
elections of the House of Justice?
Thanks
Mary
From richs@microsoft.comWed Sep 13 22:30:46 1995
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 95 16:01:54 PDT
From: Rick Schaut
To: M.C.Day@massey.ac.nz, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: Assembly membership
>From: Mary Day
[Rick wrote:]
>"4) Ideas don't have gender, and neither do decisions. The Baha'i
>consultative process is the very embodiment of the principle that the
>validity of an idea is independant of the status of the person who
>expresses it. If we claim that women must serve in the Unversal
>House of Justice in order for women to be adequately represented,
>then we are denying the very fact that equality can even exist."
[Mary Day wrote:]
>In the case of tied votes for local and national elections, the
>member of an ethnic minority is elected. Does the same apply to
>elections of the House of Justice?
I don't know the answer, but I do believe that the purpose is not
an issue of equality. Rather it is both an expression of and a way
to develop unity in diversity. The point is harmony.
I can dig up some quotes if the friends would like, but the US
NSA's _Guidelines for Local Spiritual Assemblies_ covers the
topic extensively.
Warmest Regards,
Rick Schaut
From S.N.Lambden@newcastle.ac.ukWed Sep 13 22:31:21 1995
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 00:41:27 +0100
From: Stephen Lambden
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re:Is Quddus a Manifestation?
Dear Ahang and Talismanians,
I too have thoroughly enjoyed reading Ahang's postings regarding
Quddus. Like Tahira and other Babis Quddus claimed (secondary) Divinity.
In Babi-Baha'i theology the advent of the new eschatological age was the
commencement of the Day of God. For the Bab this meant that he could utter
the cry -- and he did this innumerable times -- "I verily am God'. In
making this claim he never meant to identify himself with the transcendent
unknowable Essence. He likewise predicted that the Babi messiah * Man
yuzhiruhu'llah* would utter the same cry of Divinity. It was in this light
Baha'u'llah also frequently claimed (secondary) Divinity.
The Bab in fact conferred a host of elevated titles and (secondary)
Divinity on a veritable *pleroma* of Babis. This does not mean, however,
that they were Manifestations of God in the sense of founding new religious
cycles and revealing a new law, etc.
Baha'u'llah discussus aspects of these issues in various of his
Tablets including the *Lawh-i Sarraj* (c. 1867 CE). At one point in this
Tablet he cites the following passage from a prayer of the Bab,
"Say:` O my God thou verily art doubly Divine of the doubly Divine
(ilahAn al-ilahayn) in order that Thou might confer Divinity on whomsoever
Thou willeth."
The same is stated in this prayer of the Bab in terms of "Lordship"
(rububiyya). (see Ma'ida 7:64).
This prayer may indicate that God is "doubly Divine" in the sense
that He conferred His Divinity on the Bab. The Bab is also "doubly Divine"
in the sense that He conferred it on others. Hence God is "the doubly
Divine of the doubly Divine (ilahAn al-ilahayn)". God is Divine and Lord
in a twofold sense for His Single Divinity is made Twofold in the sense of
being conferred on the Bab and others.
Baha'u'llah specifically comments that "Divinity" (uluhiyya) and
"Lordship" (rububiyya) are "the greatest of stations" (a`zam-i maqamat).
They were, he says, bestowed by the Bab "upon any soul that he desired" (se
MA 7:64).
Baha'u'llah also notes that the Bab gave his disciple Sayyid Jawad
various exalted titles including *`ilat-i awwaliyya* ("Primal Cause").
Baha'u'llah staes that this title is beyond "all the names" -- not even
accorded the Prophet Muhammad! He also cites the Bab as stating "We,
verily, made him [Sayyid Jawad] a *nabi* ("prophet") unto all the worlds"
(Ma'ida 7:86).
Without going into details it seems to me that the Bab claimed
Divinity many times and conferred this (secondary) Divinity on various
leading Babis who in turn stated this in their writings. This was a sign of
the onset of the Day of God. This, is seems to me, is the kind of light in
which Quddus' claim to Divinity is to be understood.
Well it is late and I hope I have'nt confused matters further.
Forgive the typos.
Salutations,
Steve
Stephen N. Lambden
44 Queens Road, Jesmond,
Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 2PQ
England. U.K.
Voice/Fax. +44 [0] 91. 2818597
Email S.N.Lambden@ncl.ac.uk
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comWed Sep 13 22:31:41 1995
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 95 18:10:01 -0400
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: Assembly membership
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
Dear Mary,
You wrote:
> In the case of tied votes for local and national elections, the
> member of an ethnic minority is elected. Does the same apply to
> elections of the House of Justice?
I don't have an answer -- only speculation. Since defining
ethnic minority on the world scale is difficult, if not indeed
impossible, then it seems to require a decision by the sitting
House of Justice on how to break the tie. An important point
that often is overlooked is that after the election, the report
of the tellers is *ratified* by the sitting House of Justice and
then announced. In other words, in every election a final
decision is required by the House anyway -- part of that could be
how to break the tie. Of course, the statistical probability of
tie votes at the International Convention is *extremely* small.
regards, ahang.
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comWed Sep 13 22:33:23 1995
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 17:53:20 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu.The.postings.continue.on.the.subject.of.Women.on.the.House.of.Justice
Subject: Women and the Universal House of Justice.
I do notice that no-
body wants to take up the thorny challenge of improving the station of
women in the present
day Baha'i Community. I do believe as I stated in a previous posting it
is much easier to pos-
ture ones commitment to equality than to live it.
1.Juan has made several postings on the subject ,one aspect of his
augment being to attempt to
show a progressive change in the application and understanding of the
principle of the equality
of men and women especially in the case of the Master.2.Tony has felt
it relates directly to
discrimination and has pointed to the example of how the reasons given
or put forward are in
the same vein as the excuses given to preclude minorities from having
the same rights as whites
in the USA.3. Linda and others have pointed out that from a feminine
perspective there has to
be the nagging question of'why 'at the back of ones mind.4. One posting
asserted that certain
female members of the NSA have avowed they only vote for men who are
commited to the
principle that women should be on the Universal House of Justice if it
can be proved they
should or can be.5.Others have wondered and stated if exclusion from
the highest level of the
Baha'i Administration actually keeps women in an inferior role.
!: Part of Juan's augment relates to the meaning of the original
language of Scripture as this
falls directly into the precise role of the Master. I find it difficult
to accept the idea that we can
conveniently ignore the ruling because it does not fit in, with how one
might currently feel the
Baha'i Community should be. Another side of the same point is that as
the Master became more
influenced by Western thought and ideas it reshaped His philosophical
concept of the Faith in
terms of its applications especially in the West. This I have heard
advanced as a theory in
several areas not only for women's equality. It can only hold true as a
valid conjecture if there
was no< or virtually no > real contact or dialogue with the West prior
to the Western visits of
Abdul-Baha. However there is historical evidence of meaningful contact
as early as 1888 onwards. It
could well be once we start really looking , of finding dialogue even
prior to then. I do not
believe that the Master developed the theology that relates to how we
should base our belief in
Baha'u'llah in a vacuum. Surely though the greatest Teacher and
influence on him was the
Blessed Beauty Himself. Many Baha'is point to the Master ruling that
the law of Marriage in
the Faith is one wife for each man, whilst Baha'u'llah had stated two
but to be treated with
equality.The Master said that means one, do we argue about that, I do
not hear nowadays much
discussion to change that ruling . I do remember, 25years ago ,people
saying of course in
times of problems < for example disappearance of most the men on Earth
due to war or
disease> that ruling of the Master would be changed to allow for men to
have more than one
wife thus enabling the Human Race to survive and other such ideas.
There are more things to
consider about that ruling , all of the children of Baha'u'llah
practiced monogamy in an envi
ronment of legal polygamy , Under Baha'i Law women would have
been entitled to
have two husbands just as a man could have two wives , mutatis mutandis
applying in such cases
but for the Master's ruling or interpretation. The tangled web of
Baha'i Family life to have
emerged would have made interesting case studies for many Academics. I
personally look to
the example of the children of Baha'u'llah and see the ruling already
in active form during the
lifetime of the Blessed Beauty without any supposed imput from Western
thought. In other
words Baha'u'llah said two wives but as it is obvious you can not treat
two people the same, so
His children whom He educated showed that by their example. That fact
applies to all the
children male and female , faithful and covenant- breakers alike. The
Master ruling I would
therefore suggest came from the education He received from Baha'u'llah
Himself. On that ba
sis one could argue the no women on the House of Justice falls in the
same classification. how
ever I find that to simplistic for consideration although it could be
correct, solutions are fre-
quently the obvious and simple. In the Faith women have guaranteed
equality but not in the
present politically correct format.As we all know there is no gender of
the Soul, yet Ba-
ha'u'llah has given women privileges in recognition of their biological
responsibilities. To name
a few, exemptions from obligatory prayer, from fasting and pilgrimage
all of which relate to
or stem from biological responsibilities. From the Writings I would
propose these ex
emptions place women in a superior position to men in terms of
spirituality not in an inferior
position. This is in direct contrast to the normal outside world view
that a woman's biology is a burden on her
and society in general and accordingly must therefore make her inferior
to Man.I am not
suggesting that men are inferior to women just that men do not have the
same exemptions
from the obligations placed upon us by Baha'u'llah as women do. I have
always viewed the situation over
the House of Justice in the same light, that it is an exemption for
women not an exclusion
.
2. As far as discrimination is concerned I believe Tony hypothesis is
flawed in that not only
were minorities precluded from being elected in the USA they were not
allowed to vote and
were disenfranchised in a whole multitude of ways that make the mind
boggle.Other countries
have shaped their society to not allow different groups into the
central control of things , in
England the working class was not allowed to be part of running the
Country on the grounds
that their capacity to use their brains was strictly limited In
England the Glorious Revolution
of 1689 produced a Bill of Rights with 13 Articles but not votes for
all the people , the Re
form Act of 1832 doubled the Electorate to 400,00 out of a population
of 24 million, the sec
ond Reform Act of 1867 only created 2 million voters in a country of 30
million., secret ballot
coming in 1872.It took until 1914 for all male suffrage to occur and
the UK I believe was the
first country with that. 1918 saw women over 30 or married over 21 or
with a degree having the
vote. 1928 saw all women over 21 having the vote , the USA because of a
whole variety of
discriminative laws and practices has only since the sixties had full
voting potential for people,
the Faith had full voting potential from the start. The Will and
Testament of the Master was
written in the time period 1901 to 1908 as 3 separate wills in that
document is the voting pro
cedure for the House of Justice If a woman is elected to a NSA by the
terms of the Masters
Will she is part of a Body who have to cast their individual votes to
elect the new Universal
House of Justice. She is not able to vote for her self or another woman
but she is able to vote
and therefore is not excluded because of her gender from that role
which is the primary role. In
Baha'i Elections it is not the result that counts but the spiritual
commitment of the person who
voted , your vote is a connection between yourself Baha'u'llah and
God, I am always saddened
when I see my fellow believers trying to equate modern day Politics to
the Faith , we really
miss the whole point when we do that. I am not saying that in some ways
the Baha'i Community
does not reflect the problems that face the World out there, because it
does and the sooner it
doesn't the better for the Baha'is and more importantly the Human Race
and the Planet
3.I think 'Why' is a legitimate question, we are supposed to have
informed submission to the
Will of God not blind Faith. But I believe the real why should be more
directed at the wider
issue of why are we not showing the equality in our communities, why do
we not run programs
more geared towards women , why are women's issues regarded as not a
real concern of men. I
attended the Women's conference at Louhelen Baha'i School last year
accidentally. I was out
there to help them set up their own Bookshop/Cafe. Due the illness of
one of the presenters
I was asked to run a session,two things I noted ,apart from excellent
and thoughtful questions,
less than 40 women were there and apart from myself only one man.< Now
you might think
lucky him and you would not be far wrong he did seem to be getting
rather spoilt.> But the sad
fact is that Louhelen Baha'i School wants men to attend this Conference
and they appear not to
want to come. The Conference has been running for a few years with
relatively few women
coming and virtually no men that I see as food for thought. I ask why
are we not arranging
scholarships for women to go and study , why do we not provide
scholarships for' third
world' young Baha'i women so they can be educated. Linda mentioned that
women do most of
the work yet receive little of the financial rewards. The figures from
the UN are 80% of the
work for 1% of the assets world-wide. Small wonder women as a gender
regard words as
pleasantries but they want I think you will discover a little more
action. There is no point to
going on about changing the format of the Universal House of Justice
when we have not even
started to change the manner in which the Baha'i community sees women,
having the symbolic
4.5 women on the House of Justice is totally irrelevant if the rights
and respect due to women
is not put into place in our everyday lives. There is not, to repeat
myself from a previous
posting,going to be a neat papering job,such as not only do we believe
in the equality of the
sexes we even have one on the Universal House Of Justice . Baha'i Men
are going to have to
work very hard to show the teaching and principle of sexual equality
in action in the Baha'i
Community. Strangely enough I think that it is this paradox that will
force us as a community to
become the trailblazers in women's rights we should be.
4.I find that assertion hard to believe , that female members of the
NSA have a litmus test for
who they vote for based on possible future membership by women on the
Universal House of
Justice. The NSA of the USA does not control the voting patterns of the
International Con-
vention and it is odd to some how imply it or that there is a possible
conspiracy to keep women
off the Body.
5. I believe that only by including women at the highest levels can the
development of Hu
manity move forward in an balanced way. An interesting example of how
the needs of women
are not considered is in the way that Public Restrooms are built. In
general more restrooms are
available for men than women even in new construction normally they are
built equally. Yet
there are more women than men,and women for a wide range of reasons
that do not apply to men
need to use such facilities more frequently. At conferences , concerts
,sports games etc long
lines of women queue for the use of this facilities , does anyone care
obvious not. In the
future structure of the Faith there is one Body as yet unformed which
could have as I see it the
responsibility for the detailed allocation of resources and
implantation of policy. Such a body
would be at international level from the Will and Testament of the
Master and I see no con-
tradiction for similar bodies at national /secondary and local. Women
would be able to serve
on those bodies also on the Baha'i Courts. The Religious Judiciary
Officer or office of a Local
house of Justice is open to women. So the way the World will be put
together women will have
full imput at International, national and local levels being a complete
part of the decision making
roles. Of course I do not think that having more restrooms mean that
the equality of the sexes
has arrived I point out that if such a simple and basic human need can
not be addressed in
countries that are 'advanced thinkers' small wonder the World is out of
balance.
One final point Linda made the correct observation that women are
required to provide sex on
demand in just about every society either secular or religious for
their husbands. In the Faith
that is not so,again in the Letter I refereed to regarding Abortion the
House of Justice makes the
point that a woman can be raped by her husband and that sex is a
mutually agreed to activity.
Kindest Regards Derek Cockshut
From glenz@reed.eduWed Sep 13 22:33:53 1995
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 18:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gabriel Salman Lenz
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Assembly membership
On Thu, 14 Sep 1995, Mary Day wrote:
> Dear Talismans,
>
> I was very interested in Rick's point here.
>
> "4) Ideas don't have gender, and neither do decisions. The Baha'i
> consultative process is the very embodiment of the principle that the
> validity of an idea is independant of the status of the person who
> expresses it.
I think that there is a little confusion here. The Baha'i consultative
process, as one person described it, is a dialectic of perspectives not
personalities. This is an ideal that we are supposed to achieve in Baha'i
consulation, to remove our personalities. However it may
never be entirely possible. It also seems clear in the writings that
some ideas to have gender or our more associated with one gender than
another. A great example of this is 'Abdu'l-Baha's statment that if
women had a greater role in politics war would not be so prevalent.
There is no question that we are supposed to remove our personalities
from consultation, but that does not mean it is entirely possible or that
Baha'u'llah counted on the fact that we would be able to remove them.
Another conclusion of the proposition that ideas do not have gender is
that there would be no reason for their to be women on the house (or men
in that case). So it is kind of self-refuting.
gabriel
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzWed Sep 13 22:34:33 1995
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 12:55:17 +1200
From: Robert Johnston
To: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: slick & those women
Dear Linda,
I came in this morning with the thought in mind that I wanted to
added a footnote to the "slick" letter I sent yesterday to Dave (& etc).
Dave thought that it was possible that good art could be produced by
scoundrels. Well, maybe this is right. But I think it is only so if we
include the
"rude-and-lonely-artist-who-has-several-women-and-doesn't-pay-his-taxes-and-
maybe-dies-of-the-pox" in the category of "scoundrels". The real
scoundrels, though, are the MEN (yes, I said it) who lead nations to war
and who construct oppressive political systems. They don't produce much
art. And when one thinks of the civilising projects (art included) as a
whole, I am inclined to think -- with the Greeks -- that the best works
are produced by the most virtuous.
Then I read your letter. And I laughed/giggled/chortled. Isn't Linda
funny, I thought. And I was charmed: I have long thought that the capacity
to make someone laugh is a great and precious gift. (Now let the fatman
off my chest!)
Generally speaking I think my reading of history is more optimistic than
yours. Real gains have been made on gender issues, but -- given that
sexual equality is a new impulse in the world, and the unwilling nature of
homo sapiens -- I think that it is rather (sadly) unrealistic to assume
that humanity could have reached the goal by now.
So far as babies and the rearing of children are concerned, I feel certain
that the real shift (towards recognition of the paramount importance of
these persons and activities) will only occur when both women and men
address the issues involved together. ....but I cannot help it if I have
neither a womb, nor milk-producing breasts...(and nor will men in the time
of the Most Great Peace)...
Re:
Actually, what
>some of us had in mind was serving on some sort of committee or being a part of
>some institution where we could sort of arrange things the way we'd like them.
>I'm talking world scale here. I envision sitting on some august body making
>decisions that are going to affect the way people organize themselves in
>groups, maybe make some decisions on issues of morality. You get the idea. I
>have a dream. But, don't worry. It's just a dream. It can't be reality. We
>women aren't able to fulfill this dream.
I have no doubt whatsoever that this is a noble dream and -- having studied
dreams -- I feel equally certain that it will be fulfilled, though perhaps
not quite in the way that you envision.
Robert.
From Don_R._Calkins@commonlink.comWed Sep 13 22:34:43 1995
Date: 13 Sep 1995 20:44:42 GMT
From: "Don R. Calkins"
To: rstockman@usbnc.org
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Re: How Many Baha'i Principles Are There?
> maybe there is a distinction to be maintained between a
> principle and a law.
I think so. I see a law as setting the limit of acceptable behavior and a
principle as a statement of the ideal behavior.
We tend to think that obedience to the law is sufficient, but in the message
initiating the Three Year Plan, the Universal House of Justice calls us to
obey the principles of the Faith. I think that this was the first time in a
general messge that this has been done.
Don C
- sent via an evaluation copy of BulkRate (unregistered).
From cbuck@ccs.carleton.caWed Sep 13 22:35:06 1995
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 95 22:00:46 EDT
From: Christopher Buck
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: Christopher Buck
Subject: "Theosophy and the Baha'is"
Dear Paul: 13 September 1995
For a co-speaker or respondent, I'd commend a couple of
Baha'is from nearby Alexandria, Virginia, a commuter suburb of
Washington, D.C. These individuals are: (1) William Collins; and (2)
Chris Filstrup. Both have an extensive background in Baha'i
scholarship, if I may say so.
They are both librarians by profession. Bill works for the Library
of Congress and Chris for George Washington University in Washington, D.C.
Bill Collins has done extensive research on Latter Day Saints and
other NRMs. (BTW, the Year of Service for Baha'i youth was a concept that
was perhaps modelled on Mormon missionary service required of all male
youth past the age of eighteen. I won't comment any further as to HOW
the House might have been inspired to inaugurate this wonderful
opportunity for our Baha'i youth!)
Chris Filstrup was a Ph.D. student some years ago at Harvard's
Center for the Study of World Religions. Chris reads Arabic and
Persian, which he picked up at Harvard and became fluent while in the
Middle East.
My family and I were guests of the Filstrups in June when I
gave a paper at Syriac Symposium II and another paper at the First
International Symposium on Syriac Computing in Washington, D.C. I can
personally vouch for the personal as well as academic merits of these
two individuals.
Chris is a fellow Talismanian. If you wish Paul, please
privately email me and I'll send you Chris's email address so that you
can contact him and/or Bill Collins.
Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to publicly
thank you for sending me a copy of your new book, *Initiates of the
Theosophical Masters*, and for mentioning my small contribution in the
Acknowledgements. Of interest to Talismanians might be Paul's Dedication:
*Dedicated to the cyberspace communities of theos-l, Talisman,
alt.religion.eckankar, and misc.writing.*
Christopher Buck
From Alethinos@aol.comWed Sep 13 23:23:21 1995
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 11:26:44 -0400
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: When the Question has been answered
Due to a number of personal responses referring to my short query to Sen
there is, it would seem, some need to explain further why I had asked,
"whence the confusion?"
I find it an interesting example of political correctness having wormed
its way into the Faith that one is insensitive, uncaring, confused, etc.,
because one has accepted the ruling of the supreme governing body of this
Faith. How odd that one can be castigated for questioning the questioning of
those brothers and sisters who, in the guise of being scholarly continue to
ask, aggressively, (and in this suggest) that the supreme governing body to
which they have sworn loyalty is _in some manner_ mistaken?
We have heard cries when this is suggested that there is no lack of
loyalty here, "We are simply exploring the issue, asking questions . . ."
This response would be perfectly fine had the Universal House of Justice not
already stated, clearly, that there will be no women serving on the House and
that the subject is _not open to speculation_.
So again it needs to be asked - what part of that answer was not
understood??
Do not try and suggest that in asking this question insensitivity is being
displayed. I do know how difficult a question this is - I have been a Baha'i
for well over twenty years and I have seen the paradox this creates in the
hearts of my sisters in this Faith. And frankly I don't understand _why_ this
is either, nor do I particularly like it.
But then I did not join the Faith because I thought it was malleable to
_my_ wants.
Haifa is not Rome. While I firmly believe in asking questions, tough
questions (and I have certainly gotten into enough hot water doing so) when
the _answer_ is given, then I will adhere to the answer and there is only
danger in continuing to insist that the answer *I* have received does not
satisfy *me*.
I am sorry that this stand on women has caused so much pain and confusion.
But we are not here to be apologists for the Faith. There is a significant
difference between questioning the course of our community, wondering out
loud if we are fulfilling our potential as best we can - if we are living up
to the vision given us - even to the point of appealing a ruling by a local
or even national body to the House - there is a very great difference between
this and what has occurred here for this past month.
I am a huge advocate of asking questions, esp. of those in authority. Our
history, esp. in the West teaches us to do this - and it is this history and
the assumptions that go with it that the Universal House of Justice has
itself called into question. In the _Individual Rights and Freedoms_ letter
written by the House in 1988 they stated clearly the boundaries that exist
within the Faith in the matter of questioning, i.e. the responsibility both
the individual and the Adminstrative Order.
I think this continual series of complaint we have seen here in Talisman
is far from mature speculation. I say this not with an eye toward the content
of many of the posts which have been very well done - but rather in light
of, again, the _answer_ we have rec. from the House.
The answer was definitive, clear-cut, unambigious. To continue to
*question* the answer then is not a pursuit of some scholarly goal. It is at
best a waste of time and energy and at worst dangerous.
It _is_ dangerous to continue, in the face of an answer from the supreme
respresentation of Baha'u'llah on this plane of existence to insist that the
answer is *unsatisfactory* or *still open to specualtion*. It is dangerous to
try and twist and warp the meaning of the answer itself in order to fulfill
one's own ego-drive. It is dangerous when such actions are called into
question to turn on those questioners and hurl accusations that are too
familiar to the secular west - accusations of supression, prejudice, sexism
etc. It is dangerous because there is no proof - but it does indeed fan the
flames of emotion. And what does it serve??
Do we expect the Universal House of Justice to glance over at us, listen
to this incessant bickering and walk back upstairs and say "Gee, perhaps
they're all right and we're the one's - in our divinely guided consultations,
that are wrong."?
This is unlikely. So it would seem that each of us are faced with a
question. Do we accept the answer given by the Universal House of Justice on
this matter, unequivocally and go on, hoping that in time we will see the
wisdom in it, or do we begin the long slow desent into doubt, confusion,
bitterness, feelings of betrayal because the Faith has not lived up to _our_
standards, passed _our_ litmus tests, cannot be made to bend to _our_ vision
of a perfect world?
There are some black and white matters in this world. Obedience to the
answer from the Universal House of Justice would seem to be one of these. We
do not have to like it, be happy with it, or understand it. But, if we claim
undying loyalty to Baha'u'llah we have to accept it and go on. Unless anyone
has an alternative?
jim harrison
Alethinos@aol.com
From briann@cruzio.comWed Sep 13 23:27:10 1995
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 95 14:28:06 PDT
From: Brian and Ann Miller
To: Rick Schaut
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE Women and the House; Rick: Thank you
Dear friends, Well I finally make my first entry to the talisman
discussions. I wish to express my deep appreciation to Rick S. for his well
argued, sensitive response to the discussion of the subject of women on our
beloved Universal House of Justice. It reminds me of how I felt on the campus
of U.C. Berkeley during the anti-apartheid demonstrations. I sympathized
greatly with the views of my fellow students, but I couldn't help wondering
why nobody was protesting the racism in this country, the racist oppression on
our own campus. South Africa made uch an easy target. No one had to take any
responsibility for the issue in their own hearts, in their own lives.
Our discussions are quite different and the fundamental issues differ,
but might we not concern ourselves with the wrenching issues that Rick
raises. Or perhaps for me, how do I work for equality in my own household, in
my marriage. How do I support, encourage, and respect my dear wife Ann and
all she aspires to achieve?
Juan, I was appalled by your declaration that the ruling on the
membership of the House of Justice represents a fundamental hypocrisy or
contradiction that will never permit the full equality of men and women in the
Baha'i community until this decision is reversed. If I have overstated your
views, please correct me.
Notes to others:
Rob: How delightful to hear your travelogue. I was wondering, since you
have identified your trip as a rite of passage [congratulations on your
appointment, by the way] could the flying squirrel be your totemic animal?
Have you consulted a shaman to interpret this obviously spiritual event?
Ann suggest that it simply means that you spend to much time with you head in
the clouds.
Rich: Write me!
Sadra: I love you mind! I will add entries on Rumi, Hafiz, and others--one
asheq to others entranced by the splendors of their talents and insights.
Allah'u'abha,friends. Brian [briann@cruzio.com]
--
From sw@solsys.ak.planet.gen.nzWed Sep 13 23:27:31 1995
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 95 15:05 NZST
From: S&W Michael
To: Alethinos@aol.com
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: When the Question has been answered
Dear Jim and Dear Friends
I think I've said this about four times in the last week or so ...
The issue, as I see it, is NOT that people are questioning the House's
judgement or refusing to accept the House's decision as the right one.
The issue is to consider whether the possibility exists that in the future
the House can legislate to change this decision.
In saying "no speculation", I believe the House is stating that it does not
see what there is to speculate about - there is a difference between this
statement and an instruction not to speculate. I don't believe the House
would tell the Baha'is not to speculate as this undermines the principle of
independent investigation of the truth.
If we cannot all understand these subtleties then we will continue to
discuss this issue at cross-purposes.
Cheers,
Suzanne Michael
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comWed Sep 13 23:28:29 1995
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 95 21:36:01 -0400
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: tarjuman@umich.edu
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Martyrs of Manshad -- part 2
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
Martyrs of Manshad
(By: Siyyid Muhammad Tabib-i Manshadi)
The upheaval of Manshad which resulted in the persecution of
the Baha'i community there and in the surrounding areas
started on Saturday, June 26, 1903, or 61 BE.
During that year, the renowned and much-esteemed Baha'i
teacher, Jinab-i Ibn-i Abhar, traveled from Tihran to Yazd
for the purpose of visiting and encouraging the believers.
The Baha'is of Manshad, learning of his sojourn to Yazd,
invited this beloved soul to their town so that he may teach
the Faith and meet the friends. Ibn-Abhar readily accepted
this invitation and during the Ridvan festivities journeyed
to Manshad. The news of his arrival brought much joy to the
believers and cheered their spirit, all the while flaming
the jealousy and hatred of the fanatical populous of town.
Ibn-Abhar remained in Manshad for four days and on the fifth
day, via the village of Taft, he returned back to Yazd,
where he stayed for a few more days before going back to
Tihran.
During this time, Mirza Ibrahim, the Imam-Jum`ih, returned
to Yazd from a brief trip to Isfahan on Saturday, 16
Rabi'u'l-Avval, 1321 H, (June 12, 1903). The people of Yazd
wasted no time informing him of the activities of Baha'is,
their new vigor and enthusiasm and gatherings for the dawn-
prayers. His overgrown ego and lust for leadership
inflamed, he issued an order for unprecedented pogrom
against the Baha'is. The town's people, having now received
the Imam Jum`ih's blessings to eliminate the Baha'is, set
out to implement their accursed and evil plot.
The next morning, some of these mischievous people, gathered
around the shop of Aqa Muhammad Attar (son of Hajji `Aziz
Khan) and stoned the front entrance. Then they captured
this shopkeeper and took him to the Imam, requesting
permission to kill him. A few individuals who were
acquainted with Aqa Muhammad's goodly character, however,
intervened and assisted with his release.
On the third day, June 14, three hours after sunrise, in the
middle of Yazd's bazaar, one of the Baha'is, Hajji Mirza-yi
Halabisaz, was stabbed and killed by the axe of Hasan Ibn-i
Rasul, a great enemy of the Faith. Prince Husayn Mirza, the
Jallalu-d-Dawlih, (son of Prince Mas'ud, the Zillu's-Sultan)
who was the governor of Yazd, quickly dispatched his aides
on the receipt of this news to calm the people and stop
further rioting and killings.
When the tragic news of Hajji Mirza's martyrdom reached the
Baha'is of Manshad, they mourn his death and held a memorial
service for that much-loved believer. The entire Baha'i
community was present in that assemblage, engaged in prayer
and supplications. The news of this gathering and the
apparent sorrow of the friends further flamed the hatred and
jealousy of the people, who took every opportunity to
threaten the friends and pour salt in the wounds of a
broken-hearted community.
The believers of Manshad, apprehensive of their lives,
informed the governor of their dire condition. In response,
he dispatched ten soldiers headed by a man named `Isa Khan
to Manshad with orders to protect the believers and prevent
further upheavel. When `Isa Khan and his men arrived in
Manshad, they stayed in the house of Muhammad-i Kalantar,
where ther remained for four days.
On Friday June 25, the last day of his stay, a Governor's
messenger arrived late in the afternoon and presented a
sealed package to `Isa Khan. This servant was present in
that gathering when the official papers were handed to him.
On reading the letter, he was much perturbed. I asked him
about the contents of the papers, which had visibly
disturbed him, but he did not reply, so deep was he in
contemplation. Later that same night `Isa Khan asked my
opinion: "Without a guide, would I be able to go to Yazd,
via the village of Mihrijard, this very night?" I advised
him, since it was quite dark and having never traveled
through those country hills before, it would be an arduous
journey. I also suggested he should take a guide with him.
Accepting this, `Isa Khan, accompanied by a Manshadi guide
and two of his soldiers, headed for Yazd.
The following morning, three hours after sunrise, I was home
when Shattir Hasan, the baker, and Aqa `Ali-Akbar (sons of
the late Aqa Mirza Ibrahim), came to me in state of
bewilderment. I asked them what was troubling them. They
replied: "News is circulating in Manshad that people of
Yazd have caused much disturbance and have put to death
several of the believers." I inquired if they know who had
brought this news and if there was any validity to it. They
responded that this news was brought by one Muhammad-Sadiq
Na'im-Abady and assured me that they would ascertain its
truth.
When they left my house Aqa Ali-Akbar returned to his shop
and Shattir Hasan set out to investigate the matter. On his
way, at the Manshad cemetery, he came upon the source of the
news, Muhammad-Sadiq Na'im-Abady, who he asked about the
events in Yazd and reported killings of Baha'is. The wicked
Muhammad-Sadiq, overcome with anger, severely struck
Shattir-Hasan in head, opening a wound from which a fountain
of blood poured forth. Muhammad-Sadiq, not satisfied with
this treaturous act, then cried out for the people to gather
about the baker. When a large group was formed, he told
them of the events in Yazd and incited his listeners to
perpetuate the same in Manshad. Shattir-Hasan, with his
bloody head and face, left the crowd and returned to the
company of his brother Aqa Ali-Akbar, to whom he recounted
the events which has passed -- including the report of the
inflammatory cries of Muhammad-Sadiq to the populous. No
sooner had the news reached the Baha'is of the town that, in
fear for their lives, a number retreated into hiding in
neighboring villages and mountains.
(to be continued)
From jrcole@umich.eduWed Sep 13 23:31:40 1995
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 23:22:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: consultation and maturity
Allah'u'Abha, dear friends. One thing that struck me as a I read the
thoughtful messages on Talisman today is how much we have grown as a
community together, Baha'is and non-Baha'is and how a very positive new
discourse has developed in this cybervillage.
Baha'is are very largely first-generation converts, except in the Middle
East. I think there were only 5,000 Baha'is in the U.S. as late as the
1950s (am I right, Rob?); if we indeed number anything like 120,000 now
in this country, it is obvious that a lot of us embraced the Faith on our
own. We are also extremely diverse in our social origins, education and
ideas.
Perhaps for this reason, we are often loathe to discuss with other
Baha'is what we really think and believe. We prefer to hide behind a
facade of assumed agreement, under the broad umbrella of our basic
principles (not spelled out too carefully). Also, many of us are shy and
would not dream of standing up at Feast and complaining about this or
that aspect of the Faith. This facade of agreement and reluctance to
speak of what is really in our breasts is not healthy and is not good for
the Faith. And we often have been reluctant to have interested friends
who are not declared Baha'is see us as we are or to engage them at the
deepest level.
And this is why I welcome the openness of the discussion on Talisman.
Many of the women, for instance, who have spoken out recently, have been
suffering in silence for years. Intellectuals generally have had little
voice in the Faith, and have on occasion been silenced in other media. A
number of minority viewpoints have been expressed here that we are
unlikely to see in other media, including, in some cases, conservative
voices. How privileged we have been to have an extended and serious
engagement with a Theosophist viewpoint from Paul Johnson, a major author
and historian of that tradition, and with a Buddhist viewpoint from Bruce
Burrill, who knows Pali and teaches the subject.
And the Baha'i expertise here has been astounding. Think of Susan
Brill, an important feminist/Wittgensteinian literary critic, or Connie
Chen, whose writing on Asian-American women touched us all; or young
persons such as Arash and Nima, whose acuity gives such hope for the
future of Baha'i thought; or Stephen Lambden, among the foremost academic
scholars of the Faith (and here the list is very large and distinguished
and I dare not try to list lest I leave a dear friend out inadvertently);
or the deeply learned heirs to the profound scholarly tradition of Iran--
Ahang Rabbani, Habib Riazati, Bijan Masumian, and many others. It has
sometimes struck me that if we were wise about the use of our time and
resources we might just sit back and ask questions of Lambden, Rabbani,
and others amongst our Learned (Sen, who has a mind like a steel trap,
does more of this than I, and it is to his credit).
I celebrate these discussions, I welcome them. I know much better who my
coreligionists are (despite the small "n") than I did three years ago.
And I know a great deal more about the Baha'i Faith.
And we have accomplished many things. We have deepened together,
inshallah, and shall more. We have explored issues to their end instead
of being content with one-word answers. A conference on mysticism has
been planned as a result of our discussions; these discussions are
affecting Baha'i scholarship; the Omaha, Nebraska community, indeed,
appears to have undertaken a number of important initiatives in tandem
with us (how are the Sunday meetings going, Terry?)
On any particular issue, some have been happy with the status quo while
others have wanted change. As a community of faith and hope, dedicated
to justice (the best-beloved of our Best-Beloved), what is important is
that those who want change are willing to be patient (if not silent)
while those who are satisfied are willing to be tolerant of others'
tests. Baha'u'llah had great confidence in "baya:n" or discourse as a
means of changing the world, and substituted it for the sword of Islam
and the Babi Faith. Our baya:n is therefore not for naught, even if not
all changes or reforms any of us wants is accomplished soon or ever.
So I say to our dear friend Jim Harrison, who has posted such valuable
messages on the Faith and the American Destiny (and to which I hope the
discussion can soon return), that a question like "what part of X do you
not understand?" is perhaps a wrong turning, implying as it does that the
truth is crystal clear, that some of us see it unerringly, and that those
who do not are blind, perverse or unintelligent. A great man once said
that the truth emerges from the spark of conflicting opinions. Jim's
voice and that of all on Talisman are essential as flint; but unless
flint strikes flint the truth will remain imprisoned in mineral.
Thanks to Jim and to everyone else for so enriching us all with their
postings.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comThu Sep 14 10:30:16 1995
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 21:18:16 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: Juan R Cole
Subject: Re: consultation and maturity
My dear Juan
What a truly wonderful deep and inspired posting.
May the Twin Blessed Ones shower your days with Love.
Kindest Regards Derek
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzThu Sep 14 10:30:41 1995
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 15:36:31 +1200
From: Robert Johnston
To: S&W Michael , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: The Quest...
Responding to Suzanne:
When the House said the matter was not subject to speculation it would seem
that -- to the House -- the intent of the matter was as unequivocally clear
as -- say -- the correctness of Shoghi Effendi's appointment as Guardian of
the Faith, or the legitimacy of the House itself. Of course Suzanne -- or
anyone else -- is free speculate to her heart's content or until the cows
come home or until hell freezes over or whenever. Whether anyone continues
to listen or care is another matter. I am certain that there are things
that I mull over in the wee still hours of the night that are genuinely
totally boring to other people. But this present matter would still seem
to fall outside this category of speculations. Yet. At least.
Further thoughts:
1) My own speculations carve the following line of thought: if the object
of speculation is certitude of being, and if certitude of being is
dependent upon steadfastness of Faith, then the decision of the the House
(etc) can only to confirmed in the mind of the speculative and sincere
Baha'i....anyway.
2) Again, my speculations concerning this matter centre on "why" rather
than "why not". I'd much rather try to understand the ruling better than
to seek ways to overcome it or to criticise it as sexist, or whatever...
3) Eric-the-ever-so-witty wrote:
"Hooray to all the uppity folks (delightful women or otherwise) out
there that are trying to struggle to get healed on this. To the
others: why not try some patience, compassion and understanding?"
Point taken Eric.
Robert.
From GreyOlorin@aol.comThu Sep 14 10:31:35 1995
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 02:05:30 -0400
From: GreyOlorin@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Women & UHJ
My thanks to Sonja for (it seems) responding to something I wrote earlier.
Sonja wrote the following:
++
Like, Linda, I am quite amazed at the various arguments that have been
put forth, with some thought, arguing for a justification for the
exclusion of women. Such as claiming super-human status for the
members of The House (that is, The Members are not influenced by
their backgrounds or gender).
++
Obviously, I need to clarify what I was trying to say.
First, when I mentioned something along these lines, I did not in any way
conceive of it as a "justification" for the exclusion of women. I don't
pretend knowledge of any fact or theory that explains *why* women cannot
serve on the Universal House of Justice. Coming up with such theories (such
as those claiming women are "unfit" to serve because they menstruate, and
other such nonsense) seems to me a clear example of "vain imaginings" which
are not only a waste of time, but are positively harmful to the process of
achieving true equality of the sexes within the Baha'i community.
The concept Sonja refers to above is instead an attempt to explain why the
ineligibility of women from service on the Universal House of Justice should
perhaps be considered a "negligible instance" of inequality, to borrow the
words attributed to 'Abdu'l-Baha.
Now to clarify the concept itself. There is no claim of "super-human" status
for the *members* of the House, at least not in my understanding. It is only
the Institution itself, and only when meeting as the Supreme Body, that
functions in a way one might call "super-human" because it is the recipient
of divine guidance. It is only under this divine guidance that the
Institution as a whole overcomes the limitations of its members resulting
from gender and culture. Under this guidance, the House of Justice arrives
at decisions that are infallible, and therefore cannot discriminate against
any of the genders and cultures within or outside the Baha'i community.
This is no mere theoretical claim, as I stated before. I am firmly convinced
that the most thorough study of the decisions of the Universal House of
Justice would reveal no bias against women, and would in fact reveal a more
steadfast defense of the rights and status of women than could be found in
any other institution on this planet.
In my opinion, this would be a step toward refuting all the accusations of
hypocrisy that have been hurled at the Baha'i community because of the
ineligibility of women to serve on the Universal House of Justice.
Hoping this has clarified my ideas,
Kevin Haines
From GreyOlorin@aol.comThu Sep 14 10:32:24 1995
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 02:05:38 -0400
From: GreyOlorin@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Baha'i rights
In a message dated 95-09-1, jrcole@umich.edu (Juan Ricardo Cole) wrote:
>Incidentally, could someone please post the full text of the message from
>the House that makes men the head of Baha'i households? What exactly
>does it mean for a man to be the head of the household, if it does not
>imply certain patriarchal decision-making or property privileges inhering
>in maleness?
Most of this message seems to be included in the compilation entitled "Family
Life," which I found in _The Compilation of Compilations, Vol I._ (1991,
Baha'i Publications Australia). This message begins on page 413 of that
volume, and the selection is numbered 916. It is several pages long, so I
don't have time at the moment to type in all of it, but here is the pertinent
sentence:
++
The Research Department has not come across any statements which specifically
name the father as responsible for the "security, progress and unity of the
family" as is stated in Bahiyyih Nakhjavani's book, but it can be inferred
from a number of the responsibilities placed upon him, that the father can be
regarded as the "head" of the family.
++
In the rest of the message the House of Justice makes it clear that this does
not grant the father greater power in family decision making, but rather
refers to the economic responsibilities placed on the father by such
provisions as the laws of inheritance in the Aqdas. On the subject of
decision making, later in this same message the House explicitly states that
there are "times when a wife should defer to her husband, and times when a
husband should defer to his wife, but neither should ever unjustly dominate
the other."
Should anyone be unable to obtain a copy of this message by other means,
please let me know and I will post its full text to Talisman when I have
enough time.
Regards,
Kevin Haines
From sbedin@gov.nt.caThu Sep 14 10:32:52 1995
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 0:06:34 MDT
From: Stephen R Bedingfield
To: M.C.Day@massey.ac.nz
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Assembly membership
Greetings Friends,
Mary Day wrote:
> In the case of tied votes for local and national elections, the
> member of an ethnic minority is elected. Does the same apply to
> elections of the House of Justice?
In the case of tied votes at the local or national level the ethnic minority
is elected, and in case it is unclear if the minority is in fact a minority
(or perhaps if two minorities are tied such as an Inuk and a French-Canadian
in Canadian Baha'i elections) then additonal balloting on the tied individuals
should occur.
This is current practice in order to enhance the disadvantaged minorities
within the pale of our Faith. I suspect that in the future (far future) that
this practice will cease and all tied votes will be resolved by additional
balloting. MOO (My Opinion Only).
In the case of tied votes for membership of the Universal House of Justice
the Constitution of the UHJ states:
By-Laws V.1.(i).:
In case by reason of a tie vote or votes the full membership of
the Universal House of Justice is not determined on the first
ballot, then one or more additional ballots shall be held on the
persons tied until all members are elected. The electors in the
case of additional ballots shall be the members of National
Spiritual Assemblies in office at the time each subsequent vote
is taken.
Loving regards, stephen
--
Stephen R Bedingfield /\ "We desire but
Box 115, Cambridge Bay NT X0E 0C0 \/ the good of the world and
Canada (403) 983-2123 /\ the happiness of the nations"
email: sbedin@inukshuk.gov.nt.ca \/ - Baha'u'llah
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzThu Sep 14 10:33:05 1995
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 18:11:37 +1200
From: Robert Johnston
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: negligible instances
Kevin Haines wrote:
>The concept Sonja refers to above is instead an attempt to explain why the
>ineligibility of women from service on the Universal House of Justice should
>perhaps be considered a "negligible instance" of inequality, to borrow the
>words attributed to 'Abdu'l-Baha.
>
Is anyone able to confirm the view presented in the above statement that
the Master's negligible instances pertain to (1) membership of the house,
(11) men.
That is: is it possible that the stated negligible inequality tilts in
favour of ...women? [I am inclined to think that this is the case, but am
content to be corrected].
Robert
From cbuck@ccs.carleton.caThu Sep 14 10:34:12 1995
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 95 3:29:16 EDT
From: Christopher Buck
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: Christopher Buck
Subject: Abstract of ABS Paper
I invite responses from my fellow and sister Talismanians on
the abstract below.--CB
____________________________________
A SYMBOL PROFILE OF THE BAHA'I FAITH
by Christopher Buck
ABSTRACT
The Persian roots of the Baha'i Faith are well-known. In my Master's
thesis, Symbol and Secret: Qur'an Commentary in Baha'u'llah's
Kitab-i-Iqan. Studies in the Babi and Baha'i Religions, vol. 7 (Los
Angeles: Kalimat Press, 1995), I have explored some of the Islamic
sources of Baha'i thought. For my doctoral work, I decided to dig even
deeper into the Persian symbolic landscape, this time going back to
Persian Christianity. This paper is a chapter from my dissertation in
progress: Symbol Transformation in "Persian" Religions: Early Syriac
Christianity and the Baha'i Faith as Responses to Late Antiquity and
Modernity.
Source analysis is not necessarily productive of historical
conclusions. The paradigmatic value of what I term a "symbol profile"
of the Baha'i Faith resides in the structural features which a study
of Baha'i imagery discloses. When paired with Baha'i principles (theme
and motif), Baha'u'llah's kerygma (proclamation) is partly analyzable,
not as a product of history, but as a reponse to it (modernity). In
terms of possible Christian "roots" of the Baha'i Faith, certain "root
metaphors" (thought-orientations) and "key scenarios" (strategies for
action) are common to both the Baha'i Faith and early Syriac
Christianity. Taking Ninian Smart's dimensional model of religion, and
pairing it with Sherry Ortner's "Key Symbols" paradigm, the following
"symbol profile" of the writings of Baha'u'llah may be proposed. For
comparative purposes, it will be placed alongside key symbols found in
the writings of Ephrem the Syrian (d. 373) and Aphrahat the Persian
Sage (fl. 337-345), the pre-schismatic founders of Persian Christianity:
A SYMBOL PROFILE OF EARLY SYRIAC CHRISTIANITY AND THE BAHA'I FAITH
Religious Key Scenario Key Scenario Root Metaphor Root Metaphor
Dimension Syriac Baha'i Syriac Baha'i
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________
Doctrinal The Way Sun Physician Physician
Ritual Robe of Glory Light Medicine*Life Wine/Water*Life
Ethical Sons*Covenant Covenant Mirror/Pearl Mirror/Gems
Experiential Wedding Feast Lover/Beloved The Pearl The Journey
Mythical Harrowing*Hell Maid of Heaven Tree/Vine*Life LoteTree/Sinai
Social Noah's Ark/ Crimson Ark/ Paradise Paradise
Mariner Mariner
________________Note: Where asterisk [*] occurs above, read "of".__________
Verificatory of the above symbol identifications, entire works of
Baha'u'llah correspond to these six dimensions, in which the above
symbols, as well as others, are salient:
DIMENSION TEXT KEY SCENARIO ROOT METAPHOR
Doctrinal The Book of Certitude Sun Physician
Ritual The Most Holy Book Light Wine/Water of Life
Ethical The Hidden Words Covenant Mirror/Gems
Experiential The Seven Valleys Lover/Beloved The Journey
Mythical Tablet of the Maiden Maid of Heaven Lote Tree/Sinai
Social The Holy Mariner Crimson Ark/ Paradise
Mariner
In this formal comparison, we move from historical data to
interpretive structure. Salvation history is, in a sense, mythic. Myth
is the "message" of history. Although both Syriac Christianity and the
Baha'i Faith instantiate the historicization of eschatological
imagery, the Baha'i Faith presents a horizontal soteriology in inverse
relation to the vertical salvific vision of Syriac Christianity. As
represented in the exemplars above, the Baha'i symbol constellation is
structured on a paradigm of world unity, whereas the Syriac paradigm
is modelled on a mystical union with Christ (theosis) in the context
of a retroflexive nostalgia for prelapsarian Eden. These symbolic
structures are fairly explicit. Overlapping themes exhibit a possible
symbolic transfer, arguable on the basis of coherence rather than
strict correspondence, in which we may presume continuity. In
conclusion, this symbol profile of the Baha'i Faith is a form of
worldview analysis that takes one beyond the discursive into a virtual
world of images that inspire and structure the symbolic universe of
Baha'i spirituality.
Christopher Buck
From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlThu Sep 14 10:35:33 1995
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 95 10:08:29 EZT
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: lists of principles
Here is a starter's list, by no means complete no doubt. I will leave the
collation and analysis to Chris
A Persian Tablet of Baha'u'llah, Khadimu'llah lists 4:
1. abolition of holy war
2. no further manifestation for 1,000 years
3. recreation of all things at time of Manifestation - ie abolition of ritual
impurity
4. whatever people are mentioned before the Face, whether living or dead have
attained
by virtue of being mentioned by the King of Preexistence
Glad-tidings Tablets of Baha'u''lah p 21f:
1. abolition of holy war
2. permits association (ie abolition of impurity), tolerance
3. universal language
4. aid for any ruler who protects Baha'is
5. obedience to government
6. lesser peace
7. abolition of rules of dress
8. abolition of monasticism
9. abolition of confession of sins
10. abolition of laws prescribing destruction of books
11. abolition of laws proscribing study of science
12. outlawing mendicacy (everyone to have trade, work = worship)
13. House of Justice to legislate according to needs of day
14. abolition of pilgrimmages to shrines of saints
15. advocating constitutional monarchy
Tarazat (TB p33f)
1. self-knowledge
2. association, tolerance, (abolition impurity?)
3. good character
4. trustworthiness
5. justice (respect for workers?)
6. duty to acquire useful knowledge
Tajalliyat
1. knowledge (?'irfan?) of God via Manifestation
2. firmness in Covenant
3. duty to acquire useful sciences
4. capacity to recognize manifestation
Kalimat-i-firdawsiyyih (Words of Paradise) TB p57f
1. fear of God
2. need for religion to maintain good governance
3. do unto others
4. high station of kingship (civil government?)
5. wisdom (+ reward and punishment)
6. justice to lead to unity
7. unity of nations
8.a universal education
8.b House of justice to legislate according to the needs of the day
8.c universal language
9. world unity to prevent calamity
10. abolition of monasticism
11. avoiding strife
Lawh-i-Dunya (TB 89f)
1. lesser peace
2. universal language
3. unity among peoples
4. universal education
5. special regard for agriculture (really first principle)
Ishraq (125f)
1. religion as source of order
2. Most great peace
3. obedience to law (reward & punishment), government by consultation
4. against corruption of government and civil servants
5. unity of peoples, universal language,
6. universal education
7. House of Justice to legislate according to the needs of the day
8. religion should be cause of order, governments to promote religion
------------------------------------------------
>From `Abdu'l-Baha:
`Abdu'l-Baha in London p27
1. independent investigation of truth
2. oneness of humanity
3. religion to be the cause of unity
4. religion and science are intertwined
5. oneness of reality of religions
6. brotherhood on basis of rights and justice
7. abolition of extremes of wealth and poverty
8. most great peace (world court)
9. need for Holy Spirit
Paris talks 129f
1. independent investigation of truth
2. oneness of humanity
3. religion should be cause of unity
4. unity of science and religion (religion not contrary to science)
5. end of prejudices
6. equal economic opportunity
7. equality before the law
8. supreme tribunal (international peace)
9. separation of religion and politics
10. equal rights and education for women
11. need for Holy Spirit
Paris talks p135f
1. independent investigation of truth
2. unity of mankind
3. [shows that the numbering system here, and concept of a set of
'principles'
in a certain order, may derive from the translator/editor]
4. religion and science
5. abolition of prejudice
6. right to economic justice
7. equality before the law
8. universal peace (supreme tribunal)
9. separation of religion and politics
10. equality of sexes
11. need for the holy spirit
Promulgation of Universal Peace 62f:
1. independent investigation of truth
2. oneness of humanity
3. religion and science in agreement
PUP 105f
1. independent investigation of truth
1b. oneness of religions
2. oneness of humanity
3. oneness of religion and science
4. economic equity
5. abandonment of prejudice
6. equality of sexes
PUP 127f
1. oneness of humanity
2. independent investigation of truth
3. religion and science
4. religion should be cause of unity
PUP 169f
1. independent investigation of truth
2. oneness of humanity
3. religion must be cause of unity
3b. science and religion
4. equality of sexes
5. need for the Holy Spirit
PUP 180f
1. independent investigation of truth
2. oneness of humanity
3. religion must be cause of unity
4. science and religion
5. abolition of prejudice
6. economic equity
7. human rights (equality before law)
8. universal education
9. universal language
10. equality of sexes
(11) need for holy spirit
PUP 314f
1. independent investigation of truth
2. oneness of humanity
3. religion must be cause of unity
4. science and religion
5. abolition of prejudice
6. need for holy spirit
7. universal education
8. supreme tribunal (world peace)
9. equality of sexes
10. equality before law (human rights)
11. universal language
PUP 341f
1. oneness of humanity
2. independent investigation of truth
3. oneness of religions
PUP 372f
1. independent investigation of truth
2. oneness of humanity
3. world peace
(4) religion should be cause of unity
(5) religion and science
(6) equality of sexes
(7) need for religion
PUP 433f
1. independent investigation of truth
2. oneness of humanity
(3) religion and science
(4) religion should be cause of unity
(5) abolition of prejudices
(6) equality of sexes
(7) universal language
(8) universal education
(9) everyone to work (work = worship)
Selections from the Writings of `Abdu'l-Baha, p. 32f (7 candles)
1. political unity
2. unity in world undertakings
3. unity in freedom (human rights, end to colonialism?)
4. unity in religion
5. unity of nations
6. unity of races
7. universal language
SWAB p 107f
1. independent investigation of truth,
2. oneness of humanity
3. universal peace
4. conformity between science and divine revelation
5. abandonment of racial, religious, worldly and political prejudices
6. righteousness and justice,
7. the betterment of morals and heavenly education,
8. equality of the sexes
9. the diffusion of knowledge and education
10. economic questions
SWAB p 248f
1. independent investigation of truth,
2. oneness of humanity
3. religion should be the cause of unity
(4) abolition of prejudice
(5) world peace, supreme tribunal
6. equality of sexes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen McGlinn
-------------------_
From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlThu Sep 14 10:36:23 1995
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 95 10:10:44 EZT
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: woman & UHJ
Dear Kevin,
I think your idea has some merit: the lack of rationality in
the exclusion of women from the UHJ, and the apparently
accidental way it got enshrined as principle, means that the
equality of men and women will be an itch we can never
stop scratching. And who knows, perhaps that will prove to
be a good thing in the long run.
Yes, the present situation in better than one in which we
could proudly say 'women can be elected to the highest
body in the Baha'i world' but the actual proportion elected
to Baha'i National Assemblies was at the pathetic level of
women's representation in most parliaments of the West (let
alone the East).
On the other hand, the fact of the exclusion does serve as a
support for the most peculiar justifications of oppressive
gender relations and prejudices concerning women. If the
last straw was taken away, would the community perhaps
commit itself more wholeheartedly to the process of
transformation? Who can tell? Perhaps that will be our
reward when we have earned it?
Along the 'my calamity is my wisdom' line, I wonder if the
announcement of the French Tests might in the long run
actually accelerate the end to all testing (since Chiraq has
promised to sign the test ban treaty, which will leave China
alone) and also the end of colonial relationships, which the
Universal House of Justice said was one of the conditions
for the lesser peace [mind you, that's their interpretation
:-)]. Another example of our general inability to see the end
in the beginning.
Thank-you, Kevin. You have my permission to stay up late
again tonight.
Sen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen McGlinn
------------------------------------_
From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlThu Sep 14 10:40:07 1995
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 95 15:32:32 EZT
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: confusion & traps
Dear Jim
I did not respond to your short post concerning confusion
because:
1. it was not polite, and I ignore such things as a matter of
policy (flame wars occur not because someone shoots from
the lip, which is forgivable on occasion, but because other
people respond ad infinitum)
2. it was addressed to me but referred to a posting from
Sonja.
Re your longer explanation today (thanks), I think the
crunch is that you think the House said the matter "is _not
open to speculation_." But, if you check the text, they
didn't.
In both cases, reading exactly rather than skimming for
content was required.
Thanks to Juan for the nicest compliment since my first employer
wrote "any employer who can get Sen to work for him will be very
fortunate indeed." I assume the trap in question is 1) all jaw,
and 2) only effective when open. I shall bear your admonitions
in mind.
Sen.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen McGlinn
-----------------------------------_
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comThu Sep 14 10:47:14 1995
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 95 20:34:01 -0400
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: tarjuman@umich.edu
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Martyrs of Manshad -- part 1
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
Dear Friends:
Recently, I've been making a study of the pogrom of 1903 in Yazd
and its environs and have decided to translate an eyewitness report
of the persecution of the Baha'i community of Manshad (pronounced
Man-shAd). The report in question is "Sharh Shahadat-i Shuhaday-i
Manshad" (Account of Martyrdom of Manshad's Martyrs), by Siyyid
Muhammad Tabib-i Manshadi.
My interest is translating this primary historical document is
chiefly to introduce, in a language admittedly inadequate, a brief
account of the heroic deeds of our brothers and sisters in the
Cradle of the Faith to the Baha'i communities of the West so that
they may draw fresh inspirations from these deeds of sacrifice.
It is particularly surprising that the story of the massive
1903 holocaust of the Baha'i community of Yazd and its neighboring
region has not been narrated in the English literature of the
Cause. After the translation of this document, I intend to share
an abridge translation of Haj Muhammad-Tahir Malmiri's "Tarikh-i
Shuhaday-i Yazd" (History of Yazd's Martyrs).
The events surrounding the martyrdom of so many of the friends in
the small town of Manshad is told both by Tabib-i Manshadi and
Malmiri. It is particularly noteworthy that both books use almost
the same language, and in many places verbatim, to narrate the
events. I suspect that since Tabib-i Manshadi was an eyewitness
and participant in the Manshad's events, Malmiri used his account
in his own book, starting page 432. As such, in absence of other
evidence, I consider Manshadi's account to be the primary source
with Malmiri utilizing it in his own book. However, it should be
pointed out that in a few places, Malmiri does add a few additional
pieces of information which helps with placing the events in
perspective. I intend to use these additional pieces of
information as footnotes.
I'll be most grateful for any and all comments which the
translators on Tarjuman wish to share. Such assistance will be
properly recognized at the time of publishing.
Since participants on Talisman discussion group have in the past
expressed an interest to receive copies of provisional
translations, I intend to "cc" Talisman with these postings with a
request *not* to forward to anyone.
Everyday, I'll post a few pages of this translation and expect to
complete the whole thing in about a week. What follows in this
posting is a brief "Forward" and author's biography. Starting with
the next posting, the actual translation will commence.
With appreciations, ahang.
The Martyrs of Manshad
By: Siyyid Muhammad Tabib-i Manshadi
Translator's Forward:
The Tree of Faith is nourished by the blood of the martyrs.
What follows is the story of a band of selfless, dedicated,
love-intoxicated followers of Baha'u'llah who sacrificed the
most precious of all things in His service -- life itself.
The momentous events associated with the birth and
development of the Dispensation of Baha'u'llah find their
origin in the Cradle of His Faith, Iran. Such glorious
events have been contrasted by the bitter persecution of a
defenseless community which knows no other purpose than to
unite the world under the banner of brotherhood and peace.
In a number of Tablets, Abdu'l-Baha quotes a well-known
poem: "nuk-i khari nist, kaz khun-i shahidan surkh nist"
(there is not a spike whose tip is not tinged with the blood
of the martyrs). The implications of this line, although
far-reaching, find no greater significance than in the city
of Yazd and its environs. This area has seen what none
other has since the inception of the Faith, when such heroes
as the immortal Vahid, Mulla `Aly-i Sabzivari and thousands
of others, time and again, stood firm in the face of the
onslaught of a vicious enemy and offered life and limb as
the greatest testimony of the truth and validity of
Baha'u'llah's Cause. In words of the beloved Master, "the
martyrs of the land of Ya [Yazd] drank their fill with
relish from the draught of glorious martyrdom."
The Baha'i community of Manshad, a small town in the
neighborhood of Yazd, stood as a shining example, a
community which would ultimately win the immortal crown of
fidelity by withstanding the onslaught of a fierce enemies.
The heinous events that culminated in the martyrdom of so
many of the friends in that blackest of all days started on
June 26, 1903.
The story of that pogrom and the events leading up to it is
immortalized by the pen of Siyyid Muhammad Tabib-i Manshadi,
an eyewitness to many of the episodes. For some of the
details, he later closely interviewed all the remaining
survivors and thereby completed his brief narration which
was made available some 25 years ago, (127 BE), under the
title of "Sharh Shahadat-i Shuhady-i Manshad" (Account of
Martyrdom of Manshad's Martyrs). The same details and based
on the information of the same narrator is also captured by
Haj Muhammad-Tahir Malmiri in his immortal "Tarikh Shuhaday-i
Yazd", starting on page 432.
The events of Manshad, which will be recounted in this
narrative are part and parcel of a much larger and truly
massive Baha'i holocaust of 1903 in Yazd and its surrounding
towns. It is hoped that in a near future, the full story of
Yazd's martyrs and events be also made available in English
so that the Baha'i communities everywhere are inspired by
the brilliant example of their brothers and sisters at the
Cradle of the Faith.
the translator
Author's autobiography:
Aqa Siyyid Muhammad Tabib-i Manshadi, (1863-1918), was a son
of Aqa Siyyid Abdu'l-Ghani and Sakinih Khanum. Born in
Yazd, he spent his early childhood in that city, completing
his early education. Pursuant to a career in medicine, he
moved eventually to Tihran where after his concluding his
studies, he emerged as a well-trained and knowledgeable
medical Doctor (hence the name, Tabib). Returning back to
his native land of Yazd, he commenced his medical practice,
and it was then that he learned about the Faith of
Baha'u'llah and embraced it as a believer.
Around 1886, some five years before the upheaval of Yazd
which resulted in bloodshed of the Seven Martyrs of Yazd,
Aqa `Ali-Akbar, the martyr, requested Aqa Siyyid Muhammad to
settle in Manshad and continue his medical practice in that
town. Having accepted this invitation, Aqa Siyyid Muhammad
pioneered to Manshad and made that town his home. For a
while he resided with his host, Aqa `Ali-Akbar, (whose house
presently serves as the Baha'i Center of Manshad's
community) and then moved to a house near the Husayniyyih of
Manshad, next door to a mosque.
Shortly thereafter, Aqa Siyyid Muhammad married
Bibi-Rubabih, a daughter of late Haj Siyyid Husayn-i
Banadaki; a union which resulted in two children.
During his life time, Aqa Siyyid Muhammad witnessed several
episodes of persecution of the community, the most gruesome
of which was the great upheaval of Manshad and Yazd in the
year 1321 H, (1903). Many Baha'is during this period drank
from the chalice of martyrdom. Miraculously, Aqa Siyyid
Muhammad, though well-known as a Baha'i and residing in
Manshad, escaped the hands of his persecutors, later,
committing to paper his recollections and remembrances of
other survivors of that dark period. In addition to his
narratives, others by Aqa Siyyid Abu'l-Qasim-i Bayda and Haj
Muhammad Tahir-i Malmiri ("Tarikh-i Shuhaday-i Yazd" --
History of Yazd's Martyrs) attest to the selfsame horrors
characteristic of the period.
Aqa Siyyid Muhammad died at the age of 56 in the year 1336 H
having remained faithful his entire life. Serving the
community of Manshad -- where he had pioneered so many years
earlier -- was his greatest desire. He is now buried in a
cemetery of that city.
The beloved Master has revealed a magnificent Tablet in his
honor which will stand for all time as the testimony to his
faith and zeal. May the Grace of Baha'u'llah continue to
surround him in all the worlds of God.
(to be continued)
From Alethinos@aol.comThu Sep 14 12:14:59 1995
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 11:38:47 -0400
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: A kind slap with a gloved anvil . . .
Sen and Juan:
Thank you both for your responses. I would ask, if it is not too much
trouble, to have posted the actual response from the House on this subject
that I had refered to - I had it but can't find it right now.
And after it is posted I suggest we call in the finest legal scholars from
across this great land of ours. Let's put this out there for real
specualtion. There is a thriving industry after all of constitutional
analysts, pundits of the U.S. Supreme Court and we could use them to really
get to the *real* meaning of what the House had said.
Then we can branch off into two good-natured but bitter parties. Those who
wish to follow the spirit of the House utterences and those who follow the
letter of the *law*. We can have our strict constructionalists, our legal
positivists our advocates of natural law, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseam.
After all this is where this discussion is heading is it not? Come on you
two! I have great respect for one of you and (smiling here) grudging respect
for the other. But what _is_ going on??
This is not a matter of pretense on my part at *knowing* the truth - or that
everything is *crystal clear*. The issue here actually is NOT about women and
the House at all.
It IS about acceptence of the decision of the House - period. I do not see
this claim of "We _accept_ the decision of the House, of course . . . but
really, why can't there be women on the House?!" followed by any number of
baseless suggestions about the *motivations* of the House members, cultural
biases etc., as some form of *legimate* scholarly pursuit. This is more the
behavior of a number of professors who just can't stomach the decision of the
university adminstration and so keep the rumbling going, under the holy flag
of *scholarly speculation*.]
Except this is _not_ a university. No one here on this list is in a position
to constantly cast *doubt* on the decisions of the Universal House of
Justice. If we begin the precedent here, on this issue, where does it stop??
For you Juan, and you Sen, the next instance where someone wishes to keep
*questioning* an issue that has been decided may be *crystal clear*. You will
both stand up here in the list and insist that the decision that our House
has made is *final*. And then you both will be accused of supression,
prejudice, etc, etc.
As the power of the healing message of the Faith grows in the conciousness of
the world; as the prestige of the Universal House of Justice grows and
consequently attacks on it for various positions held (including this one)
occur the last thing the world needs to see within this community is simply a
glossy new version of the same old tired Western liberal democratic practices
and principles.
We all have every right to question and probe and wonder and discourse and
debate and consult. But our unity and strength comes from being obedient to
the Covenant. If this means that any of us, in order to preserve the unity
and strength of the Cause have to, (due to our acceptence of Baha'u'llah)
accept a decision from the House we are not personally pleased with - then
this is what we must do. Continuing to mew about it does _not_ serve the best
interests of the Faith. If non-Baha'is question our stand on various issues
and point an accusing finger (as some feminists have) that the Baha'i women
should not accept such supposed unequality so be it - we are not here to
apologize to the world for the Faith. We are here to teach the healing
message to them, to help open their spiritual eyes and ears, not explain away
our Faith.
AS usual I offer this in good faith - there is no bitterness or anger on my
part - and if some of my "shooting from the lip" is upsetting, I am sorry - a
little wit and humor I would hope would ease the tension . . . but then again
maybne not.
jim harrison
Alethinos@aol.com
From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduThu Sep 14 12:16:02 1995
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 95 10:53:18 EWT
From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: what if women...?
Like Juan, I too found messages this morning to be very thoughtful.
I would just like to briefly make a couple of comments. First, to say that
women have a privileged position because of exemptions from religious duties
has no basis in reality. Muslim women don't "have" to go to mosque for Friday
prayers. The result has been that most Muslim women in the world aren't
allowed to go to mosque on Friday and rarely go any other time. Exeptions too
easily lead to exclusions. If women take these exemptions, they will find
locked doors should they change their minds.
While applaud the men on Talisman concerned with the education of their
daugthers - and I believe that they are truly sincere - and argue that it is in the everyday spheres of life that girls learn to deal with the world, I still believe that the message of excluding women from the Faith is a larger one that you are willing to admit. A girl can grow up believing she can do nearly everything. She can be prepared to take on the world. But, when she grows up and find that important positions of - yes, guys - POWER are denied her, she has to start doubting herself and her the capacities of her gender. The truth is most girls don't grow up feeling that secure anyway. Their sense of inferiority is then reinforced by this exclusion.
I am wonder if, in the future, exclusion from the UHJ won't be taken as
justification for exclusion from other forms of leadership, especially
political leadership. I can hear the "No's" ringing out now, but I would like
some serious consideration of that matter.
Now, what if only women could be on the UHJ. My educated guess is that we
would have but a handful of men in the Baha'i Faith. The Baha'i Faith would be
a "women's religion" - icky! Just as men shun meetings on women, they would
shun this religion too. Sorry. Linda
From Member1700@aol.comThu Sep 14 12:55:41 1995
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 12:36:57 -0400
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Clocks and Dates
Thanks to John for his excellent research. Yes, such things have come up
before--especially with regard to the correct date for the martyrdom of the
Bab, which all non-Baha'i sources insist took place on the 8th of July and
not the 9th of July.
But, I am afraid that a lot more research needs to be done in this area
before we can come to any firm conclusions. And, dates being fairly
arbitrary anyway--I am not sure what difference it makes. Suppose the Bab
was born on October 21? Which is certainly a possibility, given the
information that John had presented. I do not think that automatically means
that we should change the observance of the Holy Day. It is only a
remembrance, after all.
It reminds me of one of Shoghi Effendi's instructions to the Baha'is of
Iran. They had tried for many years to purchase the business offices of the
Bab in Shiraz as a place of pilgrimage, but failed. Finally, the Guardian
told them to purchase another building in the same neighborhood and remodel
and furnish it exactly as the Bab's offices. They could use this as a place
of pilgrimage, since the place is only a remembrance of the Bab.
I like that.
Tony
From Member1700@aol.comThu Sep 14 18:38:24 1995
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 12:46:31 -0400
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: IUS Question
Re: Ghaznavi's book, Sexuality, Relationships, and Spiritual Growth--I
personally found its depictions and assumptions concerning heterosexual
relationships to be misleading, repugnant, and destructive. Its approach to
homosexual issues is hardly worth discussing. I just wrote it off as another
poorly written, ill-conceived Baha'i book--and I haven't thought about it
since.
I would urge Dan to respond to the dear friend in Florida by telling her
that there are good Baha'i books and bad ones--and that is one of the bad
ones. He should also be open about the fact that there is a wide variety of
opinion within the Baha'i community on gay and lesbian issues, not a united
front. Perhaps the dear lady will join us in our efforts to move the
community in the direction of greater tolerance and acceptance of all people.
In the meantime, she should know that not every Baha'i books was written
in heaven.
Warmest,
Tony
From jrcole@umich.eduThu Sep 14 18:43:09 1995
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 12:54:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: Alethinos@aol.com
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Principle and the Law
Jim: I really cannot understand why you make your stand on the 1987
letter of the Universal House of Justice that came in some ways as a
response to the "Service of Women" paper and the New Zealand events.
A number of commentators have made the point that the groundwork was not
complete on this issue at that time and that it was unfortunate that the
issue went to the House prematurely.
The House, as far as I can understand, reviewed the main texts, decided
that this was not an issue on which they were at liberty to legislate,
and urged the friends to accept the texts.
But there are several reasons for which that letter does not preclude
further discussion.
1) The Universal House of Justice bases its decision on available
evidence (including, I would argue, available lines of reasoning).
Neither the evidence nor the reasoning was at anything more than a
preliminary stage in 1987.
2) the House is empowered to review and repeal its own findings, decisions,
and legislation. What can be wrong with a Baha'i hoping that such a
repeal will occur in the future on any particular issue? The beloved
Guardian was careful to say that elected representatives in the Faith are
beholden to their consciences rather than their constituents. But he
also said that the Faith has an "inclination to democratic methods in the
administration of its affairs." (WOB 154). Now, communicative
rationality is according to Habermas the essence of such democratic
methods. And I would argue that democracies derive their stability in
some part from the very fact that they allow individuals who feel
defeated or unrepresented to hope that in the future this will change.
I think those Baha'is who wish to forestall such hopes and discussion of
such hopes are departing from a democratic inclination, and from a model
of ongoing community consultation, and adopting a model of Absolutism.
3) No one is challenging that fact that the Universal House of Justice
made the best decision it could on this issue in 1987. (Although a
number of us found it unfortunate that the 1902 letter from the Master
continued to be quoted without any context as though it were probative in
an unproblematic way). Nor is anyone challenging the fact that the
House's ruling is the law of the community.
4) What people are doing is exploring further information and lines of
reasoning that might be a basis someday for a reconsideration of the
issue by a future House. The model I have in mind is that of Law
journals in the U.S. A supreme court ruling in the U.S. is the law of
the land as long as the justices continue to uphold it. Lots of legal
scholars publish journal articles in law reviews examining decisions and
putting forward alternative evidence and lines of reasoning. Sometimes
such journal articles become influential and even form the basis for
Court decisions that overturn previous ones. The Supreme Court justices
do not regard these journal articles as seditious; and a large percentage of
the articles never end up being more than hot air. But some have an
impact and go on to underpin legal rulings or even executive policies.
5. At the moment there are very few Baha'is with a serious understanding
of jurisprudence and of the Middle Eastern languages and historical
contexts of Baha'i texts. We do not have so much as a single journal
article attempting to define Baha'i jurisprudence. It simply is not the
case that the relevant legal texts in the Baha'i corpus are
uncomplicated, straightforward, and internally consistent. One needs a
set of jurisprudential principles to reconcile them, and we do not have
any such thing (though I have suggested a few). For instance, Rob
declared that the Faith does not have to be consistent. This position
would suggest that specific irregularities always outweigh competing
general principles. But what does this idea mean for the unity of
science and religion? And is this really the way the Holy Figures
have proceeded? The inheritance schema in the Aqdas excludes non-Baha'i
spouses from inheritance. When the beloved Guardian was asked about this
by a Baha'i, he said that it would be unfair for an individual to
disinherit his or her non-Baha'i spouse. So the general principle of
fairness here outweighs the specific law of the Aqdas. General principles
where attested in the Scriptures are therefore apposite. The general
principle that women and men have absolutely equal rights under the law
cannot therefore be dismissed as irrelevant to the women-on-the-House
discussion.
The thing that disturbs me about your position is not that you think you
are right and others wrong--that is true of any of us who is not
wishy-washy. It is that you seem to wish to define for others what they
may or may not say publicly, to brand an entire thread on Talisman as
illegitimate. We already have rules on this list, and the only
illegitimate discourses are rude and abusive ones (which, thankfully,
have been largely absent in recent weeks).
It is, incidentally, the papacy that ultramontane Catholics have put
forward as infallible and unchanging. Baha'u'llah designed the Universal
House of Justice precisely for the purpose of having a flexible and
responsive leadership and legislature.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From rvh3@columbia.eduThu Sep 14 18:49:56 1995
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 13:18:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Richard Vernon Hollinger
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown (fwd)
On Wed, 13 Sep 1995, DEREK COCKSHUT wrote:
> But I believe the real why should be more
> directed at the wider
> issue of why are we not showing the equality in our communities, why do
> we not run programs
> more geared towards women , why are women's issues regarded as not a
> real concern of men.
In my experience, Derek, Baha'i men do take the issue of gender equality
seriously, they simply may view the issues differently than women. IMHO,
the problem is not that there are not enough Baha'i activities geared
towards women (there are, after all, women's conferences, Baha'i school
sessions for women and about women's issues, and a Baha'i electronic
discussion group from which men are excluded [undoubtedly the the wisdom
of the exclusion will be seen in the future ]). Rather, the
activities relating to gender equality have been not been sufficiently
geared for participation by men. To begin with the titles of such
events usually make them sound like a women's event, at which men's
full participation is not really welcomed. For example, I remember
receiving a flyer about a women's conference in this area that invited men
to come to do child care and other chores, so that women could
participate--I had the impression that men were not allowed (or
at least, were not welcome) at the sessions. If there were a men's
conference held in this manner, how many women do you suppose would attend?
[BTW, the only Baha'i men's events that I know of have not been held
under the auspices of any Baha'i institutions. This is not true of
women's events, which often have been intiated and/or supported by Baha'i
institutions.]
The point I am trying to make is that in our community events and
discussions the principle of gender equality has been so shaped by the
experiences, views, and discourse of women that men don't feel like they
"own" the issue. The crux of the problem is that women have been discussing
issues
among themselves for a long time--both inside and outside of the Baha'i
community--and men have not been included in these discussions in any
meaningful way. Now one
often encounters the (usually unstated) attitude that men really have
nothing to say about gender equality; their role is simply to listen and
change in accordance with the enlightened views of women. But men have
different experiences from women and therefore have their own insights into
the the meaning of gender equality. The role of men is not simply to
listen to what women have to say, but also to find their own voice and
speak. It is time that we began to have true inter-gender dialogue
on this subject within the Baha'i community.
There was a weekend session at Green Acre some months back that
was geared to do just that [I have forgotten the title of the event, but
it was about "gender" not "women's" issues.] It was well attended by men
(though women, I think were in the majority),
and there were meaningful discussions that drew on both men's and women's
experiences. The program, incidentally, was planned by a Baha'i women's
group. So...Derek, why don't you try something like that at Bosch?
Richard
From Member1700@aol.comThu Sep 14 18:53:55 1995
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 13:59:03 -0400
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women on the House
I was deeply touched by Juan's reflections on the maturity, and the value,
and the uniqueness of our recent discussions on Talisman. I could not agree
more heartily with his assessments and with his sentiments. We have
succeeded in creating something truly precious and exciting. It is good to
step back and appreciate that from time to time.
As to the question of the possibility of the future election of women to
the Universal House of Justice, I have a very hard time understanding the
Talismanians who repeatedly express exhasperation and alarm that we are
talking about this at all. Is the point that we should just turn off our
minds and repeat the party line over and over? It seems to me that this is a
misunderstanding of both the role of the House of Justice and the role of
thought and scholarship in the revelation.
A letter from the House of Justice is NOT an occasion to stop research,
to end questioning, or to refrain from proposing alternate ideas or avenues
of action. Indeed, it seems to me that it should be an occasion for just the
opposite! When I have acted on my assumption--at least with regard to
publishing, there have been concrete and positive results.
The rest of this post will be a bit specific and detailed with regard to
historical questions, so if you are sick of the whole debate, please stop
reading now:
There appears to be some lack of clarity among those who support the
present exclusion of women from election to the House of Justice (as I most
certainly do not) over whether we are maintaining this exclusion in obedience
to Tablets of 'Abdu'l-Baha (1902 and 1909), in obedience to Shoghi Effendi's
letters making reference to these Tablets, or in obedience to a recent
decision of the Universal House of Justice itself. In any case, I have no
problem with our current obedience--especially to the House's ruling. I just
think that the ruling can be changed.
With regard to the Master's Tablets, even the House of Justice itself
has (implicitly) conceded that the 1902 Tablet (the one that says that women
cannot serve on the House of Justice and that the wisdom of all this will
become as clear as the noonday sun in the future) refers to the Chicago House
of Spirituality. There really can be very little question about that. It
was written in response to Corinne True's question about the Chicago House.
When the Tablet was received it was universally understood to refer to that
body--and to all local Houses of Justice. That was the understanding of all
the Persian teachers in America, and all of the American Baha'is, including
True herself. The 1902 Tablet excludes women from all Houses of Justice.
They remained excluded for another ten years in America, and for another
fifty years in Iran.
I have argued that the 1909 Tablet, which refers to the "Universal" or
general House of Justice (baytu'l-adl ummumi) also refers to the Chicago
Assembly. I think that it would be very difficult to believe otherwise on
rational grounds. The letter was written in response to the same controversy
over election of women to local Houses of Justice. When it was received, it
was universally understood by the Persian translators, by the Chicago House
of Spirituality, and by everyone else that this was 'Abdu'l-Baha's intention.
When Corinne True questioned this interpretation, the Chicago House wrote
immediately to 'Abdu'l-Baha for a clarification. He did not indicate that
their understanding was incorrect.
Furthermore, internal evidence from the Tablet itself indicates that the
reference is to the local Assembly. 'Abdu'l-Baha says quite clearly--in
response to a direct question by Corinne True about women's service on the
local body--that women may serve on the committees of the House of Justice,
but not on the general (ummumi) body. He even lists the committees! It is
really not possible--again on rational grounds--to believe that he is
suddenly talking about a future International House of Justice, failing to
mention the local House, and listing the local committees in Chicago, and
thereby ignoring the question altogether.
Beyond this, we have the evidence from Kenosha in 1911, in which in
response to a similar controversy in that city, 'Abdu'l-Baha refused to allow
the election of women to the Kenosha House of Justice, even though the men
were willing to dissolve their local House and elect a gender-integrated one.
This Tablet indicates quite irrefutably that 'Abdu'l-Baha's policy had not
changed by 1911.
And, if the policy been changed in 1909, and it had been
'Abdu'l-Baha's intention to have women elected to the Chicago House at that
time--he must have known that this was not done, and that his Tablet was
understood to say precisely the opposite by the Chicago House itself (and
everyone else). Why didn't he clarify the matter? Especially in response to
Chicago's specific request for a clarification? Really, this argument makes
no sense at all.
As to Shoghi Effendi's letters, they all refer to the 1902 letter.
None of them make reference to the 1909 letter, and it is not clear to me
that the beloved Guardian had ever even seen that Tablet of 'Abdu'l-Baha,
which only came to light when it was uncovered by the House of Justice a few
years ago in the midst of the current controversy. I do not believe that the
Guardian intended to "interpret" the 1902 Tablet, and I think that he would
have been shocked at the suggestion that he had done so. (I would like to
say more about interpretation, but this post is now way too long.)
With regard to the recent ruling of the House of Justice, no one has
suggested that this decision be disobeyed. How would we do that anyway? We
are simply discussing the possibility that, at some appropriate time in the
future, the House of Justice might reverse its decision. This is done all
the time, and is really not a big deal. I have had the House reverse a
number of decisions just with regard to Kalimat Press. The Will and
Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha explicitly gives them that power. It seems to me
quite possible, and even likely, that with regard to this issue they will do
the same somewhere down the line. (Just my opinion. But, I think that we
can all agree that, if they do reverse themselves, they have the right to do
so.) As someone said earlier, we would just like to provide some of the
intellectual foundations for such a reversal.
With apologies for going on and on . . . and on . . .
Tony
From richs@microsoft.comThu Sep 14 18:54:53 1995
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 95 10:48:47 PDT
From: Rick Schaut
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: what if women...?
Dear Talizens,
On raising daughters:
I was rather hoping that we could explore this in a more scholarly
manner. We have dug deeply, with the best scholarly tools available
to us, into the status of the Tablets of `Abdu'l-Baha and women on
the Universal House of Justice. Can we apply the same effort to
women's every day lives?
And there is, actually, very fertile ground for such scholarly inquiry.
The book I mentioned, _How to Father a Successful Daughter_, presents
a very good argument to support the conclusion that the behavior
of fathers in raising their daughters--habits most men don't even
think about regardless their beliefs about the equality of men and
women--outweighs any other factor in the development of a girl's
self-esteem.
On the impact of the exclusionary rule on girls' self-esteem given
notions of power:
The question, for me, isn't whether there is some negative effect which
can arise from the exclusionary rule. The question is in terms of the
_relative_
effects, and I expect that its effect would be greatly lessened by imparting
a deeper understanding of the principles of Baha'i Administration.
This whole discussion has had a very mixed-up sense of proportion. In
the, nearly, 24 hours since I asked when Baha'i women would help me
raise my daughter in light of the principle of equality of men and women,
only one person has sent me any message on the topic. And that person
was a man. We have reams of messages on the topic of women on
the Universal House of Justice. Why can't the effects of parental
attitudes be subject to the same scholarly analysis? How about
relationships within the family? Why so many messages about
something we cannot change, at least not in the near future, and so
few messages about the things we can change here and now?
On what would have happened to the Faith if only women were
allowed to serve on the Universal House of Justice:
Is there _any_ reason to believe that most men's faith in Baha'u'llah
would be conditioned any differently than the faith of women under
the present circumstances?
Warmest Regards,
Rick Schaut
From rvh3@columbia.eduThu Sep 14 18:57:30 1995
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 15:12:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Richard Vernon Hollinger
To: Alethinos@aol.com
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: A kind slap with a gloved anvil . . .
On Thu, 14 Sep 1995 Alethinos@aol.com wrote:
> It IS about acceptence of the decision of the House - period. I do not see
> this claim of "We _accept_ the decision of the House, of course . . . but
> really, why can't there be women on the House?!"
If I am not mistaken, the House of Just