From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzSun Sep 17 12:39:17 1995
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 15:36:25 +1200
From: Robert Johnston
To: Juan R Cole , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: The Arabic tongue
Juan,
I stand to be corrected, but I had the feeling that Brent was simply
making a case for learning the original languages of the Holy Writ. (Which
served as a bit of an admonition to me after I wrote, somewhat
exaggeratedly, that [Talismanic] translations left me cold.) However, your
note added a further interesting dimension (for me).
Robert.
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzSun Sep 17 12:39:58 1995
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 16:05:14 +1200
From: Robert Johnston
To: Juan R Cole , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: women's service on the House
Dear Juan,
>`Abdu'l-Baha's interpretations on this issue are so murky and apparently
>inconsistent,
The House does not seem to think so. [Perhaps the House needs lessons in
historiography!] This sounds a bit like the statement that I once read here
which had 'Abdu'l-Baha "confused". Where resides the murk and
inconsistency I wonder? Perhaps we need lessons in projection as much as
we need them in historiography. Is it standard practice among historians
to not captialise 'Abdu'l-Baha's "Interpretations"?
For those
>who are uncomfortable with the unsettled nature of historiography, tant
>pis; welcome to the real world.
The real world??? Are you not appropriating a little too much territory
here, senor? Please let me know when you have acquired certitude. Until
then, I'll stick to my real world.
>`Abdu'l-Baha, on the other hand, urged us not to think of ourselves as
>having any personal enemies. This is not a state of mind I can always
>attain, but it seems to me a good one to strive for.
So you still have personal enemies? I AM surprised!
Robert.
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comSun Sep 17 12:41:29 1995
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 23:24:15 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Book Review: Sexuality , Relationships and Spiritual Growth.by Agnes Ghaznavi
Review : Sexuality , Relationships and Spiritual Growth
by Agnes Ghaznavi .
Published by George Ronald. 12.95.
Agnes Ghaznavi is an American -born Baha'i living in
Switzerland she is a trained psychiatrist working as a
psycho- therapist.The book is a non-academic work
written clearly for Baha'is although a non-Baha'i would
find it readable and understandable. Drawing from case
studies she has been involved with, explores how the
Writings of the Faith can provide a foundation for creat
ing a successful lifestyle.
I find the work is written with a definite bias towards
the female viewpoint. in discussing sexual molestation
she points out that according to the UN around 170 mil
lion children each year are subject to sexual abuse and
90% of the victims are girls. The World Heath Organi
zation studies she quotes:as up to 1/3rd of the adult fe
male population and 1/5 of the adult male population has
experienced some form of sexual abuse. In the case of
Canada Ghaznavi points to a report showing: one out of
every two women has been sexual abused and of that
80% is in the form of incest. In the USA the figures
quoted are one in four women has been sexual abused
before adulthood. This statistical information gives a
platform to her proposition that because of the way hu
man society has evolved women have never been given
the possibility to develop into full human beings. She
makes the touching and telling point: 'Incest and past
abuse is devastating to healthy sexuality and cripples re
lationship. Can it be imagined that abuse , and most of
all incest at an early age where the abuser is a parent or a
sibling, can produce human beings who are healthy and
not maimed ?----'
The chapter of the book that offered an interesting view
point was the one headed 'Qualities and attitudes neces
sary in equality' Ghaznavi points out the fact that sexu
ality is a true barometer of reciprocity, that sexuality is a
bodily expression of many spiritual principles. Then she
shows that need to have a balanced relationship which is
manifested in reciprocity is not obvious in modern day
life. The sub- section on Tenderness is enlightening for
men as well as women, the writer opens up the feelings a
woman has towards her children and the rite of passage that
those feelings imply.The sub-section on Chastity deals
with the interesting approach of learning to control ones
desires rather than surpressing them. Repression leading
to untold damage in terms of the person being able to
grow with the strong sexual emotions that become so
dominant following puberty. The Author suggests assist
ing young people to create their own control mechanisms
will allow Chastity to be a beneficial influence in allow
ing natural good relationships between the genders with
out the need for sex outside marriage. She also makes
the historical comment that women used Chastity as a
protection against the exploitation of their bodies by
men. This she feels actually stunted the growth of
women , and is not what is intended in the Baha'i Writ
ings by the implementation of Chastity as a positive sin
gle lifestyle for both sexes.
In the chapter on pain and development she writes about
the suppressed nature of female sexuality and the misun
derstood need for tenderness and caring.But picking up
the thread from a previous mentioned chapter regarding
maternal feelings , she makes the telling observation: '
Voluptuous fullness often comes as a surprise to a
woman when she feels her baby growing inside her, its
total helplessness and beautiful vulnerability making her
feel responsible, ---------, making her feel sensual in a
way she has never experienced before.---' '----The pain
of childbirth is something everyone knows about. Do
women ever dare to talk about the other side of it--not
only the elation of giving birth to another human being ,
but the sensual feelings in her pelvis and the feeling of
power when she experiences all these mysterious happen
ings in herself -' '- Then , is there any tenderness from a
man to compare with the natural , fondling, cuddly ten
derness that flows to a woman from her infant or the
toddler nesting in the curves of her motherly body? how
could a woman explain to a man that this tenderness is
bliss itself,---'
The chapter on Sexual development offers guidelines to
Parents in dealing in a non-threatening way the develop
ing sexuality of their children.. The chapter on Choosing
a Partner for Life offers good practical advice to avoid
some of the pitfalls.
Ghaznavi as a Therapist believes that the growth of
Homosexuality is a by product of the type of society that
we find today and as such believes it is curable. She uses
the term Latent Homosexuality to describe the growth
aspect of male and female homosexuality. , the subject is
dealt with as part of a chapter on Immature and degrad-
ing relationships under the sub- heading Perversions and
the fear of it. Homosexuality being mentioned as part of
that section.I felt the simplistic portrayal of the rapid
conversion of a seventeen year old girl from a homosex-
ual lifestyle to a heterosexual one as lacking in credibil-
ity. It would have been better have dealt the perversion
and fetishism aspects and had homosexuality as a sepa-
rate topic or chapter or indeed not have included it.The
Writer does end that section by pointing out from the
Baha'i Writings that we all whatever our sexual gender
or orientation are beset with the inner feelings that can
take us away from God. I take that as a very definite call
for tolerance.
I do not think that much new ground has been broken
but the sections that deal directly with the inner work-
ings of the feminine gender are worthy of study by men
and women alike.
Definitely a good book for young people looking for
ways of applying the Writings of Baha'u'llah in their
lives.
Kindest Regards Derek Cockshut.
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzSun Sep 17 12:42:11 1995
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 17:23:21 +1200
From: Robert Johnston
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: talismanic
Ffolks,
The reason I have felt it very important to argue vigorously is
because ideas lie at the root of activities and actions. Communism, for
instance, flowed directly from the head and pen of Karl Marx. Wrong ideas
can infect communities and cause considerable actually disharmony -- the
breaking-up of the lives of what Juan might call "real" people. I do not
think all things can be justified in the name of scholarhip. 'Abdu'l-Baha
[SOW] wrote that in the future friends who prove false will be visited by
madness, and if falseness expresses itself centrally in language
(Certitude) I think we can discern the need for certain limitations on
discussion. Where writers insistently, yet with considerable slyness,
challenge the decisions of the House, I feel that the list manager has a
responsibility to exercise a restraining influence, and those who feel so
moved have an obligation to make their oppositional views known. An excess
of liberty is the source many evils. I did not know until a few days ago
that the source of this women in the House bamboozlement in New Zealand was
an article written by a current member (or members) of Talisman. I
heartily disagree with Ahang when he suggests that the matter went to the
House too soon. No: the matter went too late in my opinion. Damage had
already been done. Who can count the cost of the spreading of false views
in the community? Because while some will argue that they are merely
ideas-in-progress or working notes, clearly they are need received like
that. Their entire life-force is embedded in subversion. In brief, I
think that if more respect for a decision of the House is not shown in this
forum, it will disintegrate.
I am not at all enemoured when writers write of "the beloved Guardian" and
then challenge his authority, interposing their historiography (or
whatever) between humanity and the Covenant. I am not at all enamoured
when 'Abdu'l-Baha is said to be muddled and confused. I am not at all
enamoured when the House has given an unequivocal statement and the dogs of
sedition start barking for a reversal of that decision. I really think
that it is time for Talisman to grow up and accept responsibility -- or
simply disappear.
And, no Terry, I am not standing anywhere except on my own two feet.
Robert.
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comSun Sep 17 12:48:10 1995
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 95 07:51:01 -0400
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: tarjuman@umich.edu
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Martyrs of Manshad -- part 5
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
On the first day of the troubles, a group of Baha'is had
taken refuge in the nearby mountains on the eastern side of
the town. A certain Rajab-Ali who previously frequented the
Baha'i gatherings and on occasions expressed his allegiance
to the Faith and been friendly towards the believers,
learned of their hiding place in the mountains. He
immediately went to visit them and, as the believers trusted
him, inquired about the events of recent days, asking
further about the friends who had been murdered, their
families and their own household and relatives who were left
behind. Rajab-Ali told the Baha'is about the martyrdoms and
the general disastrous condition of the believers in town.
When the group asked what was to come, Rajab-Ali told them
that on that day a group of gunmen had entered the town for
the purpose of massacring the Baha'is and plundering their
possessions. He also mentioned that is was anticipated that
the following day, a few hundred townspeople will circle
this hill, killing all the Baha'is who had taken refuge
there.
On hearing this, since they trusted this man, the believers
became greatly perturbed. These refugees decided that in
the middle of the night, they will descend from the hill and
each traveling in a separate direction. Little did they
know that Rajab-Ali was void of any spiritual qualities and
was totally insincere. When they dispersed in the dead of
the night, Aqa Ali-Akbar had a bad fall and broke his leg.
Shattir-Hasan was also severely injured when a rock rolled
over his foot. As a result, these two brothers were obliged
to remain in the hills and could not disperse with others.
Meanwhile, Rajab-Ali upon leaving the group, went directly
to the home of the notorious Muhammad-i Kalantar, giving him
a complete report of the plans of the Baha'is and the
condition of the two brothers.
The next morning, on the third day of the massacres,
Muhammad-i Kalantar dispatched a several gunmen to the hills
with instructions to find and kill the two brothers. A very
large number of bloodthirsty enemies of the Faith also
accompanied these evil men. Meanwhile, Shattir-Hasan,
despite of his injuries, had came down the hill early at
dawn to fetch some water for his brother who was in great
pain. He was by a small stream when spotted by the mob.
Circling him, they ascertained whereabouts of his brother.
Shattir Hasan was forced to tell the group that last night
while running a rock had fallen on him and cut his foot
which was bleeding badly and if they follow the bloodtrail
it would lead to his brother, Aqa Ali-Akbar.
A number remained with him to ensure that he would not go
anywhere. The rest followed the blood trail until they
reached the top of the hill and saw Aqa Ali-Akbar who was
very weak and could not move. When he was spotted, one of
the gunmen shot him, only to be followed by a volley of
subsequent bullets.
After killing him, they left the body and came back down to
join the rest by the water. Shattir-Hasan had some sugar
candy with him which he distributed among the mob and
assassins. Then he took off his outer garments and divided
them among the mob. Having as such prepared himself for his
martyrdom, asked if he could drink some water before they
killed him. Granting him permission, Shattir Hasan replied:
"Though I know you won't allow me time to drink, but I will
make an attempt." As soon as he had taken a few steps
towards the stream, seventeen of the gunmen shot him in the
back. This was followed by round after round. In all,
three volleys of shots, for a total of fifty-one bullets,
pierced his beloved body. After the martyrdom, his body was
left laying there by the water. Later that evening, a few
of the friends placed his body in a wooden coffin and,
bringing it back to Manshad, they hid the coffin in his own
home for four months until it was safe to bury it in a
nearby place. He was sixty years old at the time of
martyrdom.
Forty days after the martyrdom of Aqa Ali-Akbar, nine of the
believers returned to the hills and located his body. They
also placed his body in a casket and buried it in his own
home in Manshad. He was Fifty-six years old at the time of
his martyrdom.
On Tuesday, the mob learned of the hiding place of Ali-Akbar
Ibn-i Hasan, who had taken refuge in the house of his
son-in-law, Ghulam-Rida. About one hour before noon, the
mob rushed to the house, located Jinab-i Ali-Akbar and
dragged him outside to the streets. As everyone watched and
cheered, one of the gunmen shot him. This was followed by a
sever blow to the head with a heavy club -- carried by one
of them for this very purpose -- rendering him unconscious.
The rest of the crowd at that time set upon him, stoning,
clubbing and firing at him. His body then was thrown over a
nearby bridge to the underpassing river and until that
evening remained floating in the water when a few of the
believers pulled his body out and buried him in a nearby
place. Jinab-i Ali-Akbar was fifty years old at the time of
martyrdom.
The next morning, the crowd had learned of yet another
Baha'i in hiding. This time it was Aqa Mirza Husayn, who
had been hiding in the northern hills, known as Mountains of
Murghistan. Around noon time, two men went up to the hills,
locating and capturing Mirza Husayn. It was two hours
before noon when he was brought back to Manshad and taken to
the home of Muhammad-Rabi'. After asking for water, the
afromentioned Muhammad-Sadiq Na`im-Abadi unsheathed a large
knife, and saying: "Drink this," he then stabbed Mirza
Husayn with his knife. The man then turned to the mob
gathered around them saying: "O people, I had vowed to
drink the blood of these Babis. Now watch me fulfill my
vow." He then pulled the knife out of the body, licking all
the blood off the knife. He then signaled the mob to shoot
Aqa Mirza Husayn which the crazed gunmen were happy to
obliged. Not being satisfied with that, the mob then
circled his remains and stoned and clubbed him. After
killing him in that fashion, his feet were tied by a rope
and dragged in the streets of Manshad until they reached the
martyr's home and there they deposited his remains. That
evening, his wife took the body and quietly buried it in a
nearby garden belonging to Aqa Mirza Husayn, where it
remains to this day. He was sixty years old at the time of
martyrdom.
(to be continued)
From JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduSun Sep 17 12:52:50 1995
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 95 10:20:51 EWT
From: JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Note from the List Owner
I am a little concerned that the "Women and the House" discussion is
bogging down in repetitious restatements of well-known positions.
I would suggest moving on to more productive areas of discussion
before revisiting the Women/house embroglio. Promising areas would
seem to me to be:
1) Areas relating to women or administration that might be
open to House legislation.
2) Relevant background to the issue: i.e., 19th century
Middle Eastern discussions of the role of women in government,
additional relevant texts, particularly from Baha'u'llah, etc. New
evidence generally helps to resolve issues.
3) Principles of Baha'i jurisprudence.
I will also take the opportunity to repost the list rules.
John Walbridge
List Owner
******
TALISMAN is an unmoderated forum for discussion of issues
related to the Babi and Baha'i Faiths: history, theology, social issues, etc.
Content can include discussion of relevant issues, queries, announcements,
advertisements of books of interest to the members, etc. The list owner is
John Walbridge, Professor of Near Eastern Languages and of Philosophy,
Indiana University, Bloomington.
1. The service is provided through the University Computer Center of
Indiana University. Participants are reminded that this service is paid for
by the taxpayers of the state of Indiana, that the fundamental purpose of
this list is scholarly, and that discussion should thus be conducted on the
basis of evidence and rational argument. The list is open to anyone
approved by the list owner.
2. The list is actually an automatic forwarding device. The list owner does
not moderate content, nor does he wish to do so. Participants are free to
argue for whatever views they wish, provided they do so courteously and
on the basis of evidence and sound reasoning.
3. Any mail addressed to the list--TALISMAN@INDIANA.EDU--will be
automatically forwarded as e-mail to all members of the list.
4. Participants are reminded that they are on the list as guests of the list
owner. Violations of decorum will be punished by being dropped from the
list. This sanction is solely at the discretion of the list owner and is not
subject to appeal.
5. The list owner being a Midwesterner of philosophic temperament,
participants are requested to refrain from abusive language, discourtesy, ad
hominem arguments, accusations of heresy, and other forms of fallacious
argumentation. On the other hand, this is an argumentative list, and
members should be willing to defend their expressed opinions against
spirited attack without taking it personally.
6. Please remember that all postings go out to all members. Sophomoric,
overly long, irrelevant, and badly thought out postings waste everybody's
time and someone's money.
7. Please refrain from unnecessarily including the text of the message you
are replying to or passages therefrom in your postings. These clutter up
the system and are a needless expense for those who personally pay for
connect time.
8. No archive of messages is available, nor is there a list of participants.
9. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to
MAJORDOMO@INDIANA.EDU.
Subj.: none
The body should contain only the command:
subscribe talisman
or:
unsubscribe talisman
10. To contact the listowner privately, e-mail to jwalbrid@indiana.edu.
11. A custom has developed on this list--based, it seems, on Maori
etiquette--that new participants should introduce themselves at some
point with a brief biography.
From JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduSun Sep 17 12:53:34 1995
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 95 10:37:26 EWT
From: JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Principles of jurisprudence 1
Apropos of my suggestion, let me point out that someone recently
commented that in Baha'i jurisprudence:
P1. An exception takes precedence over a general principle when both
are stated in authoritative texts, even if the exception is stated in a
text of lesser authority.
Examples (deliberately avoiding the question of the equality of men and
women):
a) the delay in implementing particular laws at the instruction of
`Abdu'l-Baha and/or the Guardian: the dowery or the celebration of
certain Holy Days according to the lunar calendar;
b) the Guardian's statement that it is only right to provide for non-
Baha'i heirs in one's will
c) the various exceptions that the House has allowed to the rule
of parental permission for marriage.
Is this principle generally valid? If not, how is it to be limited?
john walbridge
From Don_R._Calkins@commonlink.comSun Sep 17 13:10:42 1995
Date: 17 Sep 1995 10:25:25 GMT
From: "Don R. Calkins"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Politicizing the Faith
Jim Harrison said -
> Contrary to the desire by many American Baha'is to feel that there
> is some type of power flow from the masses to the top, i.e. that
> those in the administrative positions receive their *mandate* from
> the People - this is simply not the case in the Faith.
Hear, Hear.
We have Baha'is who have read about the right to express one's opinion, and
disregard the prohibition on insisting on one's own views. They combine
these views with the 'mandate' view of the Baha'i administration and
virtually take over Feast consultation with their own agendas, try to
organize support for their ideas at district conventions, go to the national
convention to 'discuss matters' with the delegates, and engage in other
activities typical of the American partisan political system.
L Abdo wrote -
> Bahai thinking on the woman question got fossilised about 1925
Interesting idea. I think there are indications that progress on the race
issue also stalled about the same time.
One of the things going on in the Faith at that time was oppostion to the
development of the Administration. There was a significant number of
Baha'is, many from, broadly speaking, a Theosophist background, who believed
that a religion could only be maintained on a spiritual basis determined by
the individual and that any attempt to establish administrative authority
would diminish the spiritual basis of religion. This ultimately led to a
group under the leadership of Ruth White being declared covenant-breakers for
claiming that Shoghi Effendi did not really have ultimate authority over
them. In the past 5-10 years I have seen a rise in versions of these same
ideas, including the idea that the Learned are the true leaders of the Faith,
and the elected institutions little more than power-hungry beaurocrats. In
the 30's teaching and growth virtually stopped; contributions for the
construction of the Temple dried up. I see the same thing happening today.
In a letter to the India and Burma, Shoghi Effendi says that administrative
and doctrinal unity are essential to the progress of the Cause. I do not see
this on a grass roots level in the U. S. The Writings state that the
physical is subservient to the spiritual, and yet most of what I hear Baha'is
discussing are a variety of contemporary social issues.
Am I over-reacting? Only time will tell. But I can't help thinking of the
last talk that Abdu'l-Baha gave to the first group of western pilgrims as
recorded by May Maxwell. He noted that 'great mercy and blessings are
promised' to us; but if we fail to achieve unity, they will be deferred.
Unfortunately, it appears to me that many Baha'is believe this unity should
revolve around their own beliefs, and they are willing to do whatever is
necessary to achive it.
Don C
- sent via an evaluation copy of BulkRate (unregistered).
From jrcole@umich.eduSun Sep 17 16:04:47 1995
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 14:04:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: `Abdu'l-Baha on women; censorship
John has called for new texts, though it seems to me the problem is that
we have not really understood or digested the ones we have. Nevertheless,
I offer a provisional translation of a passage from `Abdu'l-Baha in
Ma'idih-yi Asmani, vol. 9, p. 7:
"O handmaiden of God: In past eras no female, however much she might
come forward in rendering services or traverse the wilderness of the love
of God, could be reckoned in the ranks of men. For "Men are the managers
of the affairs of women" [Qur'an 4:38] had been stipulated. Now, in this
wondrous age the work (?ka:r) of women has advanced. These fetters have
been thrown off. Anyone who steps forward will receive the reward . . .
whether man or woman, whether male of female. O Lord, the mistress of
the women's quarters has suprassed the males and triumphed over the
amassed army, and raised the standards of superiority in the arena of
[spiritual] ecstasy and joy."
Sorry to be an utter dunce, but how is the current situation congruent
with the abrogation of Qur'an 4:38 and how is it exactly that "women are
considered as men" in the Baha'i community?
I welcome Lil Abdo's thoughtful and incisive remarks, and her defense of
"difference" feminism as one resolution of the problem. Lil, you surely
understand that "difference" feminism is not the only sort; that even
some "difference" feminists such as my colleague Catherine MacKinnon
would not be tolerant of patriarchy or exclusion of women from positions
of power; and that your dismissal of concerns about equal rights and
equal treatment under the law as a relic of 70's second wave feminism
comes from a particular ideological corner of the movement (were the
equivalence of gender and race discrimination to be erased in Federal
antidiscrimination statutes, all of women's advances during the past 25
years could well be wiped out in this country. Indeed there are some in
the new Congress who no doubt have such an agenda). And, Lil, while I
agree with you that Mrs. Thatcher was not particularly good for women in
Britain, I do not agree that universally-valid conclusions can be drawn
from that. I think it extremely important for South Asian women that
they have had strong women prime ministers, even though they nevertheless
remain among the most repressed women in the world. And are you
suggesting that there is nothing wrong with the argument, put forward by
the Islamic Right in Pakistan, that women are ineligible for high
political office? That it simply would not matter had General Zia gone
on taking one right after another from Pakistani women?
Finally, with regard to a number of postings from friends who call for
limits on discourse, who imply that blasphemy has been committed, or who
just don't want to hear any new thoughts, I fear I must say the
following. Talisman is not necessary for repetitions of stale party line
platitudes. Bahai-discuss and SRB already exist and would be perfectly
good vehicles for such an enterprise. Talisman was set up by
intellectuals for intellectual discussion. It was set up because many of
us feel that US Baha'i culture has slid toward a frankly totalitarian
mindset that disallows a Baha'i civil society, public opinion, or serious
thinking really of any sort. Talisman is not for everyone, and those who
find postings here upsetting are welcome not to receive them. Everyone
is welcome to express their opinions. But the opinion that "you can't
say that and no one should be allowed to say that" is not a useful
opinion to express here. First of all, there is no way to prevent a line
of argument from being presented. Second of all, it is not an
intellectual argument, simply a call for self-censorship. No
intellectual minds being refuted; but none would put up with being
censored. My problem is that I have recently seen far more calls for
censorship, self-imposed or otherwise, than I have serious engagement
with and refutations of controversial postings. I am most of all
disappointed in one recent posting that sounded nothing less than
McCarthyite to me.
So I say to Jim Harrison that he would do us more good by making some
positive contribution, on e.g. how we can better teach the Faith in the
U.S. by finding resonances between it and US history, than he would by
continuing to attempt to silence people. The top-down model of
communication he apparently has is incompatible with Baha'i values and is
exactly what is wrong with the Baha'i community. That top-down and
exclusivist model, by the way, was pioneered by Mason Remey.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From tan1@cornell.eduSun Sep 17 16:05:55 1995
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 14:15:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Timothy A. Nolan"
To: jrcole@umich.edu, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: the Arabic tongue
Dear Juan,
Thank you for that illuminating and valuable explanation about
Baha'u'llah's statement regarding Arabic, as compared with Persian.
In the quote originally sent to Talisman, it certainly appeared that
Baha'u'llah was saying Arabic is better than *any* other language,...
a statement of universal implications. Your putting the quote in context
was very helpful. This is an example of the immensely valuable service
that serious scholars such as you can render the Faith.
Tim Nolan, who, at his age, doesn't want to have to learn to read and write
from right to left.
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comSun Sep 17 16:07:18 1995
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 95 13:31:01 -0400
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: Juan R Cole
Subject: Re: The Hidden Words
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
Thank you so kindly, Juan. Knowing that you have Mulla Muhsin
Fayd's, is good enough for now. I might impose on you later on.
I deeply appreciate your valiant efforts on "women & UHJ" issue.
You've been heroic and most creative; yet treated very unfairly
by many on Talisman. Its very sad indeed. But I am thrilled
that you keep your enthusiasm and keep pressing ahead. Hang in
there.
love, ahang.
From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduSun Sep 17 16:09:26 1995
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 95 14:11:01 EWT
From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: cats, women, whatever
Thanks to Derek for putting our problems in perspective. How easily we can get
boddged down in our own narrow lives when such incredible dramas such as
Sherman's are being enacted all around us! If only I could help!
Kevin, I appreciate your thoughtful words on my recent postings. I certainly
agree with you that nurturning hope and confidence in the lives of girls on an
everyday basis is extremely important. However, I must say that when I see
women - even the likes of Margaret Thatcher - involved in the highest level of
decision making in the world, I feel a sort of thrill. Kevin, the vast
majority of men in this world do not think like you do. Most are only too
happy to see women "in their place." Witness the joy at the Citadel when
Shannon Falker quit. Any excuse to limit women will be used by a vast majority
of men in the world.
I see that my husband is urging us to shut down the discussion of "Women on the
House." Well, for the moment - and only the moment - I will defer to his wish.
But I would like to make another comment on a more general matter.
Last night we entertained a lovely Baha'i woman from Ishqabad who is a visiting
scholar here at Indiana U. We had a very long, intense conversation and I was
thoroughly taken with her. She told us that, though she is a Baha'i, and has
been for about 5 years, she believes in reincarnation, has psychic powers,
considers herself a Christian, as she discovered Christ recently, etc., etc.
The Baha'i Faith to her (and I had the feeling, to many other new Baha'is in
her area) was an extremely syncretistic religion.
I bring this matter up because I am so concerned by the narrow perspective that
is commonly found among some Baha'is on Talisman. I don't really mind except
that the message that these individuals send is that we should all view the
Baha'i Faith in that same light or there is something seriously and dangerously
wrong with us. Now, perhaps our new friend from Turkmanistan is a danger as
well. However, I am not sure how anyone is ever going to shut her up. If we
try, she and countless others are just going to walk away and find something
else that suits their spiritual needs. It is not because they are not "firm in
the Covenant". It is because they know that the world needs openness,
understand, and love more than narrow theology. Linda
From mfoster@tyrell.netSun Sep 17 16:10:17 1995
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 14:19:17 -0500 (EDT)
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Up-Down and All Around
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Talismanians,
With regard to the issue of whether the Baha'i community is
organized from top to down or the other way around, I would offer my
perspective that it is actually both.
As I understand it, the guidance and direction comes from the top,
but the incentive to carry out that guidance must come from the bottom,
i.e, from grassroots action. I would also say that the emphasis on
grassroots initiative has been increased in recent years.
For example, the Universal House of Justice, in the current phase of
the "Lesser Plan of God," has left most of the specifics of goal
development to national communities. Here in the United States, with the
essential elimination of district teaching committees two years ago,
more responsibility has been taken from national committees and given to
the local spiritual assembly.
Likewise, there has, in the last dozen or so years, been greater
stress placed on individual teaching - without always having to wait for
the direction of a local spiritual assembly. I remember when I was a new
believer a quarter century ago , I did not think that
individuals could schedule their own firesides. I assumed that they all
needed to be sponsored or approved by the LSA, and, from my
observations, this was also the operating assumption (incorrect of
course) of the local assembly where I then lived. Certainly, we are in a
continual growing process.
While guidance and direction comes from the elected institutions, I
suspect that this role will be continually modified as we discover the
"secret of divine civilization" and increasingly internalize spiritual
virtues in our lives. Certainly, when the Master distinguished between
material and divine civilization, He was, at least on one level I think,
doing so based on the relative degree of inner-directedness.
Loving greetings,
Mark
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Sociologist of Religion *
From brburl@mailbag.comSun Sep 17 16:11:58 1995
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 14:49:13 -0500
From: Bruce Burrill
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Miller/Baha'is&Buddhism
I have found the discussion of Miller interesting.
Derek Cockshut states: > "My opinion is that Millers book both versions are
badly written attempts under the guise of puesdo-Academic information to
vilify my religion." <
Miller, being a Christian, is obviously writing from an exclusivistic stand
point, which is what is probably to be expected. So the question of his
intellectual honesty, is he accurately presenting Baha'i, is an important
question.
When the tables are turned and a Baha'i is writing a book on, just to pick a
"random" example, Buddhism, we certainly will not expect an exclustivistic
stance; rather, we will likely see the flip side, an inclusivism, or more
accurately, a subsumptionism.
So when a Baha'i writes about Buddhism we need to ask if the presentation
of Buddhism is accurate, is it something that Buddhists would recognize with
assent? If not then we can ask what is going here?
With Jamshed Fozdar's two books we clearly see a distortion of Buddhism
and a vilification of those who present Buddhism in a way he disagrees with.
Though I can't say what has motivated Fozdar in what is essentially an attack
on traditional Buddhism, Moojan Momen's BUDDHISM AND THE BAHA'I
FAITH comes across as being sympathetic to his subject, but unfortunately
not less problematic. Momen presents Buddhism with only as much detail that
is needed to for him to draw the parallels he feels are important to presenting
Buddhism and the Buddha as being consistent with the Baha'i notions of
progressive revelation and unity of religions. Virtually every Buddhist
passage he uses, particularly from Chapter 2 onwards, is not without
problems in that they are either incomplete, given an unwarranted spin, or the
fuller context is ignored.
If Baha'is take umbrage at Miller's mishandling of Baha'i because of his
exclusivistic stance, then Baha'is should not be surprised if Buddhists (or
whomever), being so treated from a subsumptive stance that ignores or
misinterprets what is unique to their religion, take strong exception.
Miller seems to be a good negative role model that any Baha'i who going
write about another religion should study carefully.
Bruce Burrill
From Member1700@aol.comSun Sep 17 22:23:18 1995
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 17:42:46 -0400
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women and the House
Richard is quite right, that 'Abdu'l-Baha in most cases showed no interest in
whether local Baha'i committees and organizations were made up of men or
women, or both. However, in the case of the three local bodies that were
originally organized as Houses of Justice--in New York, Chicago, and
Kenosha--he seems to have had a different attitude.
It would be quite useful for someone to do further research on this
point. It would make an excellent paper.
Tony
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comSun Sep 17 22:24:52 1995
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 16:11:42 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re Miller/Baha''i& Buddhism
My dear Bruce
I have followed with interest the many and varied
postings you have done on Buddhism and Baha'i.
It is true that , for many Baha'is living in a West-
ern environment their knowledge of Buddhism is
colored by their original background which is
normal Quasi Christian < that is meant with no
offense> as the majority of Baha'is are first gen-
eration. It is difficult for someone who has a ru-
dimentary knowledge of their original religious
background and trying to comprehend the belief
they have embraced to be accurate about the vari-
ous religious which they are taught they belief in.
For many Baha'is their first encounter with the
Buddha is after they have become Baha'is. I am
not excusing their lack of knowledge but pointing
out that it is not because of any lack of belief in
Buddha but rather an adjustment to a different
way of looking at things. For most new Baha'is
they have a difficult time trying to gain an un
derstanding of what Baha'u'llah teaches of that
Unknowable Essence, for many they are only
comfortable with a Semitic religion style of God.
Baha'is do tell Buddhists that the Buddha must
have taught that concept of God, however there is
nothing in the Baha'i Wrings to justify that state-
ment
One of the things that we have done at Bosch in
our Book shop is to get books in for sale on other
religions written by people who belong to that
religion. I personally believe the only way to
learn of another person's beliefs is to read what
they say. We shortly will be expanding the Book
shop and I intend to offer even more books on
different religions ,I would welcome a list from
you of titles we should stock. We do already have
Buddhist titles in, which sell very well and I am
more than happy to continue that.
I do not believe that Baha'i writers should attack
other peoples beliefs , you should remember that
Fozdar was not writing for a USA Baha'i/ Bud
dhist audience and his book'Buddha Maitrya-
Amitabha has Appeared ' was written in 1976. He
has a new book due out in Jan 1996 that is being
published in Italy, again on buddhist prophecies. I
spoke to him on the phone last week. He tells me
it is 750 pages long so it is a massive work and he
said he had updated much of his thinking. He did
not elaborate on what aspects he had updated.
Your idea that Millers book is an example of
what not to do, I am in full agreement. There is no
point talking about tolerance and understanding
and doing exactly the opposite . Baha'is should be
inclusive and not exclusive there is nothing in
our Faith that is exclusive , in fact if we are true
to the basic Scripture the Faith of Baha'u'llah and
the Bab , belongs to the Whole of Humanity not
the Baha'is. Baha'is are people who have accepted
the responsibility of being a Baha'i , that does not
make this expression of Spiritual Truth any less
your Spiritual birthright than mine whether you
wish to take advantage or not. So being exclusive
I do not see as part of Baha'i belief , the only
problem I have with the book is the very point
that John Walbridge made it is a deliberate at-
tempt on the grounds of being academic to attack
the Faith by misrepresentation of the facts. I do
not personally regard it as worthy of discussion
or consideration just as I am sure you would re
garded a baseless attack on Buddhism..
Kindest Regards Derek Cockshut.
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzSun Sep 17 22:25:07 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 10:06:20 +1200
From: Robert Johnston
To: Juan R Cole , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: censorship
Dear Juan,
Re:
Talisman was set up by
>intellectuals for intellectual discussion.
Talisman is not for everyone,
Can I take from this that you are threatening to withdraw?
Robert.
From Alethinos@aol.comSun Sep 17 22:30:40 1995
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 19:13:00 -0400
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Censorship and standing toe to toe
My dear Prof. Cole:
I had to laugh when reading your note directed to me. I can only wonder how
many covenant-breakers you have faced down in your day. Shall I tell you how
many I faced, once, for five days - in a place little known and about which
there is no *record*?
These were the descendents of Mr. Remey. Specifically I and a couple of
others, in order to protect a Native American conference, had to guard a
large peninsula that jutted out into the Misssouri river in the Dakatos. The
wonderful *top* down Administrative Order you seem to think I am such an
advocate of had not planned on this problem - and when it sprang up in their
faces they finally came to us - after we offered assistence and were told in
no uncertain terms that our help was not needed.
This wonderful *top/down* set of b-crats now needed help. So a few of us
spent that entire first night guarding the camp and the sacred tent which
held many holy objects of the various tribes that had come. There was a
terrible thunderstorm and while two of us (later to become six full time)
stood watch (the other fellow and I actually ran security operations for a
number of organizations but had not come prepared for such a thing at this
conference) with no protection from the rain and lightening our blessed
*top/down* folk would occasionally drive by in their rented Ford Taurus
cars, asking if all was calm. When we would mention that we had fended off
one knife-wielding fellow, who was buck naked and thought he was, alternately
a 14th century squire and an extra from the set of *Apocalypse Now* they
would nod, look concerned and roll up the windows quickly so as not to get
wet.
We faced, by that morning, nearly twenty coveant-breakers - armed. The
peninsula we guarded was half a mile long and nearly the same in width. They
set up camp just beyond the entrance and there was nothing we could do (state
property they had a *right* to be there ya know.) They had an assortment of
guns, knives, and a sword (and let me tell you it _was_ sharp!)
Well sir, they tried every concievable way of getting in. We would catch them
nearly a mile away trying to get around us. And they kept up their chants and
their hatred and their ugly stupid posters. And when this didn't work they
began to get desperate. Finally a young indian girl was grabbed and held at
knifepoint for a time. Fortunately we were able to end that with no
bloodshed.
And when it became apparent to our *top/down* brothers and sisters that being
in security (which had gained the attention of the Counselors, etc., visits,
saying nice things about us etc) had advantages why on the third day they all
volunteered. Of course most fell asleep by 2 am and we had to go on (a small
group of these Cbs loved to operate between midnight and dawn) but by golly
those *top/down* folk were _there_!
You see I have faced, literally face-to-face covenant breakers for hours and
days on end. And the Master was right when asked how you could tell if a
covenant-breaker were near - "How can you tell if a mule is near?" He is
reported to have said, and then, "you can _smell_ them!"
So I know exactly what a covenant-breaker smells like Prof. Cole. That is why
I have not labeled anyone here, nor _suggested_ that anyone here is one.
Furthermore, since you do not know me, or of me, I again had to laugh at
being associated with the current state of the Adminstrative Order here in
the US. Anyone who does know me knows I am and have been for a long time,
struggling to change the excessive heavy-handedness we experience here in the
US. I believe it is the chief factor in the stagnation of the Cause in this
country, at least the chief visible cause. I have been in this struggle since
1987 at least. That was when the *youth movement* died due to strangulation.
That was also the last time we actually saw a viable opportnity to really
shake things out of their current orbit and move the Cause to a whole new
level of activity in this country - the likes of which it had never seen.
So know professor that I am no *conservative*.
And for the record professor I _did_ try to re-open the discussion about
America's spiritual destiny. This is something that is certainly still open
for debate - something the Universal House of Justice has not closed
discussion on. It is certainly more critical at this time, in the scheme of
things, at this last hour of the twentieth century than whether women will
ever serve on the House. I say this because again the House _*has made its
decision*_ on the matter, case closed. So let us move on to those things we
_can_ do something about.
I wonder if you really recognize true censorship?
Explain this: what is censotorial about saying "Hey, they've called the shot,
let's move on to the next game."?
jim harrison
Alethinos@aol.com
From Alethinos@aol.comSun Sep 17 22:31:43 1995
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 19:36:25 -0400
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Principles of jurisprudence 1
This is a very interesting point. We could even expand this to include the
fact that much of Platonic natural law is to be found, it would seem, in the
reasoning of the Faith toward all sorts of matters, e.g. practices and
procedures of Asssemblies, consultation, but most certainly as is suggested
here the *flow of justice*.
So I am ready for this. And I am sure Juan would like nothing more than to
jump all over . . .m . . . it . . . and Nima, we could use help from
Plotinus, Brent if you could set down that third helping of Bryers Moca ice
cream and move to the keyboard, and . . . geee I wish Susan Brill were still
here (she is over on Phil-Lit out of Johns Hopkins - good list) and Linda
"I'll-defer-to-my-husband-just-this-once" (talk about precedence!), and the
ever diplomatic Mr. Haines. And Mr. Johnson and Ahmad, and Suzan Michael who
is certain it seems that I am from the nether regions and Tim Nolan and
Margreet, etc, etc, etc.
And then when we have gotten sick of discussing something which we can't beat
ourselves silly over we can start talking about . . . what . . . fat-free vs.
gooooood choclate chip cookies, (now there is a bruiser of a fight just
waiting to happen!)
jim harrison
Alethinos@aol.com
From s0a7254@tam2000.tamu.eduSun Sep 17 22:37:21 1995
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 19:39:32 -0500 (CDT)
From: Saman Ahmadi
To: talisman
Subject: limits of discourse
Dear Juan,
I have a sincere non-rhetorical question:
What is gained by characterizing Abdul Baha's words as
"murky and inconsistent"?
sAmAn
From brburl@mailbag.comSun Sep 17 22:50:46 1995
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 20:52:38 -0500
From: Bruce Burrill
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Miller/Baha'i&Buddhism
Derek,
Thank you for your response.
It is difficult for someone who has a rudimentary knowledge of their original
religious background and trying to comprehend the belief they have embraced
to be accurate about the various religious which they are taught they belief
in. For many Baha'is their first encounter with the Buddha is after they have
become Baha'is." <
I understand that. I guess it would be nice that if a Baha'i is going to write
a book about Buddhism, that such a book be written with the idea that it
going accurately portray what it is the Buddha taught, what it is that
Buddhism is. It serves no purpose to give Buddhism a slant or spin that will
make it easily fit with preconceived ideas of how religions are. Basically,
understanding another religion takes work. A good comparison can be
invaluable in helping one learn about both traditions.
> "Baha'is do tell Buddhists that the Buddha must have taught that concept
of God, however there is nothing in the Baha'i Wrings to justify that
statement" <
I have been told this by Baha'is _almost_ incessantly. Even Moojan Momen
states: "Although the Buddha speaks of the 'Unborn, Unoriginated' and
Baha'u'llah speaks of 'God', it is clear from the above quotes that they are
referring to the same entity...." But it isn't clear that that is what is
going at
all, but it is very, very common to see it done, but I have to see a Baha'i
actually handle with some skill (any skill) the texts in question. Understand
I don't mean to be picking on poor Moojan, but I just got and read it and was
disappointed to much of the same old stuff.
> "One of the things that we have done at Bosch in our Book shop is to get
books in for sale on other religions written by people who belong to that
religion. ... I would welcome a list from you of titles we should stock." <
Tell me a little more about your store and that should give me an idea of
what titles to recommend. I'd be delighted to do this.
> "I do not believe that Baha'i writers should attack other peoples beliefs"<
This raises an interesting question. It is one thing to attack a belief by
saying
and arguing that it is wrong, but it could also be seen as an attack, a form of
imperialism, to have one's beliefs subsumed, which one is more likely to find
with Baha'i writers. Baha'is seem to have a fine line to walk between a
subsumption of another religion and showing the truth of the unity of
religions. It is a fine line, I suspect, and it is a fine line that I really
have not
seen defined or discussed anywhere.
> "you should remember that Fozdar was not writing for a USA Baha'i/ Bud
dhist audience and his book'Buddha Maitrya-Amitabha has Appeared ' was
written in 1976." <
Who was he writing this book for? It really is an appalling work that distorts
Buddhism. In part because he passes off as Buddhist texts material that
clearly is not.
> "He has a new book due out in Jan 1996 that is being
published in Italy, again on buddhist prophecies. I
spoke to him on the phone last week. He tells me
it is 750 pages long so it is a massive work and he
said he had updated much of his thinking." <
I can only groan. I cannot think of anyone more unqualified to do this.
> "Baha'is should be inclusive and not exclusive there is nothing in
our Faith that is exclusive" <
Yes, but inclusivity should not be at all costs. Sometime it seem the unity at
all costs is a Baha'i virtue. I don't mean this as a put down, just an
observation.
> "the only
problem I have with the book [by Miller] is the very point
that John Walbridge made it is a deliberate at-
tempt on the grounds of being academic to attack
the Faith by misrepresentation of the facts. I do
not personally regard it as worthy of discussion
or consideration just as I am sure you would re
garded a baseless attack on Buddhism." <
Well, I suspect Miller's book has been looked at carefully in detail from a
Baha'i standpoint somewhere along the line. Looking carefully at such a book
can be useful.
Again, thanks for your msg,
Bruce
From MBOYER%UKANVM.BitNet@pucc.PRINCETON.EDUSun Sep 17 22:51:40 1995
From cbuck@ccs.carleton.caSun Sep 17 23:26:01 1995
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 95 23:09:18 EDT
From: Christopher Buck
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: Christopher Buck
Subject: The Phoenix (Persian HW #1)
RE: *...and O immortal phoenix! (Va ay `anqay-i baqa!)*
___________________________________________________
Am I correct in assuming that *`anqa* is the Simurgh of
`Attar's *Seven Valleys*? Reference to *the mount of faithfulness*
(Qaf-i baqa) would seem to validate this reading as a specific
literary allusion rather than a general mythological one.
Not wishing to read a literary allusion into a text where a
general mythology was intended, nevertheless I'll assume the
allusion is specific.
Perhaps I state the obvious when I observe that `Attar's Phoenix
serves as a symbol for the higher Self, wholly identified with the Self
of God (for Baha'is, the Manifestation of God). On the term *Simurgh*
(Phoenix), Annemarie Schimmel regards `Attar's word play on *Simurgh*
to be the most brilliant and dramatic pun in Persian literature. Thus,
the *thirty birds* (si murgh) who finally reach Mount Qaf (somewhere
in the Caucausus presumably) at last attain the presence of the
Simurgh, which turns into a mirror, in which each of the thirty birds
beholds itself. Thus, for `Attar, *Simurgh* = *si murgh*!
The world's foremost Baha'i authority on the symbolism of Persian
literary birds is, in my opinion, none other than Frank Lewis, who I'm
sure would defer to his former supervisor at the Chicago Oriental
Institute, Prof. Heshmat Moayyad. Why do I say this?
Once, around a year ago, I had asked Frank about the identity and
symbolism of the *Gunjishk* (sparrow) in Baha'u'llah's *Seven
Valleys*. The answer I got back was brilliant. In effect, Frank said
that he wasn't sure about the identity of Baha'u'llah's sparrow, but
in the process, Frank delivered the most fascinating discussion of
what sparrows represent in Persian mystical literature.
Christopher Buck
From jrcole@umich.eduSun Sep 17 23:35:59 1995
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 23:25:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Miller's book
Speaking as a professional historian, I can only say that William
Miller's writings about the Baha'i Faith are outrageously scurrilous and
flawed from top to bottom. (Incidentally, Miller and I are possibly from
the same Scottish clan; his middle name resembles that of my maternal
grandfather: McIlwee).
Good history draws on all available documentary sources pertinent to the
subject; it weights those sources for reliability, deciding which are
primary and which are secondary (primary sources issue from eyewitnesses
and are preferably written soon after the events); it contextualizes
those documents in a wider social and historical setting; and it tries to
explain why things happened as they did.
Miller gives the greatest weight to documents issuing from Jalal
Azal, Azal's descendent; But Jalal Azal is a third-rate source for
nineteenth-century history, and Miller uses this source to over-rule
*primary* sources. And, of course, Azal's family enmity would be taken
into account by a good historian. Miller does not do so. There are vast
numbers of Arabic and Persian primary sources on the history of the
Baha'i Faith, many of them available at Cambridge and the British
Library, so that dependence on Jalal Azal is neither necessary nor
desirable. Miller's reading in Baha'i sources is very cursory. He is
not able to offer an account of the movement's social context in the
19th-century Middle East, having no mind for social or cultural history.
And his explanatory apparatus never rises much beyond the attribution to
actors of crafty plotting.
Miller's book belongs to a genre of Western missionary and imperialist
writing on Middle Eastern society known as Orientalism. Edward Said's
book, *Orientalism*, is an excellent dissection of this genre, and
everyone on Talisman could profit from reading it. Miller's book is the
polemic of a narrow-minded Christian fundamentalist missionary who was
embittered by the Presbyterians' loss to the Baha'is in gaining
converts. (Only a few hundred Iranians ever became Presbyterians;
hundreds of thousands became Baha'is).
Baha'is have not in fact very much dissected Miller's book in print. I'm
glad Doug Martin wrote something, because I certainly have better things to
do with my time. Carl Sagan complains somewhere about having had to spend
hours doing the math to refute Vellikovsky, as the price of popularizing
science. I haven't yet, aside from Talisman, ventured into the area of
popular history. In fact, I think the best response to Miller is solid
academic writing about the Faith such as is found in Kalimat's series,
*Studies in Babi and Baha'i History* and in Abbas Amanat's book on Babism.
I do not think it fair to bring up Fozdar's and Momen's books on Buddhism
in this context. Fozdar was writing in a Middle Eastern genre called the
"istidlaliyyih" or "seeking of proof," the purpose of which is to create
common ground with another tradition for the purposes of gaining converts
from it. Buddhist authors have done this to Hindus, and to the Chinese
and Japanese traditions. Such religious competition is a fact of human
life. But an "istidlaliyyih" is not a polemic, the purpose of which is
to discredit another religious tradition in order to gain a convert on
the rebound. Polemics are forbidden to Baha'is, but apologia are not.
As for Moojan's book, I should have thought it fairly obvious that it was
intended to be used in proselytizing for the Baha'i faith among Southeast
Asian Buddhists, or at least in gaining friends for the Faith in those
cultures. There were, the last I knew, some 100,000 Baha'is of Buddhist
background in Vietnam, 10,000 in Thailand, and several hundred in Japan
(there are more but I haven't seen numbers). The Baha'i Faith is a
missionary religion.
So far there have been to my knowledge no academic Baha'i writings about
the possible dialogue between Baha'is and Buddhists, and our Talisman
discussions with Bruce Burrill may be a harbinger here. Obviously, the
genres of inter-religious dialogue, and of the academic study of religion
would require Baha'is to take a very different approach than any so far
tried. But the approaches so far tried have not been polemical or
mean-spirited in the way Miller's book is with regard to the Baha'i Faith.
No Baha'i wants to convince Buddhists that the Buddha was actually a
horrible person. Some Baha'is may want to convince Buddhists that their
religion is ultimately fulfilled in the Baha'i Faith. The latter will be
objectionable to some Buddhists, but the distinctions at least should be
recognized.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From cbuck@ccs.carleton.caSun Sep 17 23:36:33 1995
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 95 23:26:08 EDT
From: Christopher Buck
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: Christopher Buck
Subject: Is *Sorush* Gabriel or Baha'u'llah? (PHW #1)
RE: *The first call of the Beloved is this:*
(Avval surush-i dust in-ast:)
NOTE: I've altered Nima's transliteration slightly.
BUCK: Is Baha'u'llah being Zoroastrian here (Sorush as a Zoroastrian
archangel) or Neoplatonic (Sorush representing the First
Intellect) or referring to Gabriel (= Sorush) or is
Baha'u'llah simply using Sorush as a circumlocution?
In any event, how do we get from *Sorush* to *Beloved* in
translation? Was the Guardian simply circumventing any
literary confusion that would surely result in a literal
translation?
Christopher Buck
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comMon Sep 18 11:30:23 1995
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 21:06:35 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: Juan R Cole
Subject: Re: Miller's book
Brillant reponse.
Warmest Regards Derek
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzMon Sep 18 11:31:12 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 15:19:58 +1200
From: Robert Johnston
To: Juan R Cole , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: censorship
Dear Juan,
You wrote:
>Talisman is not necessary for repetitions of stale party line
>platitudes.
This sentence calls to mind the question concerning whether history is
progress or repetition. As Baha'is, we know it is both, with the Most
Great Peace being an ultimate purpose of all the upwards spiralling. It is
arguable that all growth in the human sphere follows a similar
pattern...spiralling upwards towards fulfilment. However, as we know, we
sometimes lapse into the less fortunate ways of the past. Here's an
instance of that -- from your stinging attack of Jim's views:
I am most of all
>disappointed in one recent posting that sounded nothing less than
>McCarthyite to me.
I thought we [Talismanians] had agreed to abandon prejorative
"party-political/Old Worldish" labelling. Is it not rather ironic that a
call for progress should be couched in the language of regression?
The transparent naivety of your argument against censorship militates
against the need for serious response at this point. But I am testing the
breeze for the smell of ass.
Robert.
From cbuck@ccs.carleton.caMon Sep 18 11:31:44 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 95 0:40:00 EDT
From: Christopher Buck
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: Christopher Buck
Subject: The Sea of the Friend (Persian HW #2)
RE: *the billowing seas of the Most High*
(amvaj-i bahr-i rafiq-i a`la)
NOTE: I've added *bahr* (sea) to the transliteration here.
BUCK: If literally read as *waves of the sea of the Exalted Friend*,
we see here an allusion to Baha'u'llah himself, certified by the
reference to the *Effulgent Horizon* (ufuq-i abha). *Abha* is linked
with the *Friend* (*the Most High*).
Considering that the Hidden Words was first revealed for the
Babi community in exile, this Hidden Word seems to me to be a veiled
proclamation by Baha'u'llah, who is here the *divine presence*, or,
literally, the *flowers of nearness* (gul-ha-yi qurb).
It would be helpful if someone like Frank Lewis were to post
the major topoi or motifs of the Persian allegorical garden. Then the
stock imagery becomes more familiar. That's why an understanding of
the *Most High* as the *Exalted Friend* is perhaps a more Sufistic
gloss.
Perhaps one day we will see Persian allegorical imagery--in
particular, the recurrent genitive metaphors--lexicalized, so that we
can better begin to decode the Hidden Words, beginning with it general
symbolism in order to discover its intersection in Babi/Baha'i history.
Christopher Buck
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 14:04:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
X-Sender: jrcole@seawolf.rs.itd.umich.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: `Abdu'l-Baha on women; censorship
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-talisman@indiana.edu
Precedence: bulk
John has called for new texts, though it seems to me the problem is that
we have not really understood or digested the ones we have. Nevertheless,
I offer a provisional translation of a passage from `Abdu'l-Baha in
Ma'idih-yi Asmani, vol. 9, p. 7:
"O handmaiden of God: In past eras no female, however much she might
come forward in rendering services or traverse the wilderness of the love
of God, could be reckoned in the ranks of men. For "Men are the managers
of the affairs of women" [Qur'an 4:38] had been stipulated. Now, in this
wondrous age the work (?ka:r) of women has advanced. These fetters have
been thrown off. Anyone who steps forward will receive the reward . . .
whether man or woman, whether male of female. O Lord, the mistress of
the women's quarters has suprassed the males and triumphed over the
amassed army, and raised the standards of superiority in the arena of
[spiritual] ecstasy and joy."
Sorry to be an utter dunce, but how is the current situation congruent
with the abrogation of Qur'an 4:38 and how is it exactly that "women are
considered as men" in the Baha'i community?
I welcome Lil Abdo's thoughtful and incisive remarks, and her defense of
"difference" feminism as one resolution of the problem. Lil, you surely
understand that "difference" feminism is not the only sort; that even
some "difference" feminists such as my colleague Catherine MacKinnon
would not be tolerant of patriarchy or exclusion of women from positions
of power; and that your dismissal of concerns about equal rights and
equal treatment under the law as a relic of 70's second wave feminism
comes from a particular ideological corner of the movement (were the
equivalence of gender and race discrimination to be erased in Federal
antidiscrimination statutes, all of women's advances during the past 25
years could well be wiped out in this country. Indeed there are some in
the new Congress who no doubt have such an agenda). And, Lil, while I
agree with you that Mrs. Thatcher was not particularly good for women in
Britain, I do not agree that universally-valid conclusions can be drawn
from that. I think it extremely important for South Asian women that
they have had strong women prime ministers, even though they nevertheless
remain among the most repressed women in the world. And are you
suggesting that there is nothing wrong with the argument, put forward by
the Islamic Right in Pakistan, that women are ineligible for high
political office? That it simply would not matter had General Zia gone
on taking one right after another from Pakistani women?
Finally, with regard to a number of postings from friends who call for
limits on discourse, who imply that blasphemy has been committed, or who
just don't want to hear any new thoughts, I fear I must say the
following. Talisman is not necessary for repetitions of stale party line
platitudes. Bahai-discuss and SRB already exist and would be perfectly
good vehicles for such an enterprise. Talisman was set up by
intellectuals for intellectual discussion. It was set up because many of
us feel that US Baha'i culture has slid toward a frankly totalitarian
mindset that disallows a Baha'i civil society, public opinion, or serious
thinking really of any sort. Talisman is not for everyone, and those who
find postings here upsetting are welcome not to receive them. Everyone
is welcome to express their opinions. But the opinion that "you can't
say that and no one should be allowed to say that" is not a useful
opinion to express here. First of all, there is no way to prevent a line
of argument from being presented. Second of all, it is not an
intellectual argument, simply a call for self-censorship. No
intellectual minds being refuted; but none would put up with being
censored. My problem is that I have recently seen far more calls for
censorship, self-imposed or otherwise, than I have serious engagement
with and refutations of controversial postings. I am most of all
disappointed in one recent posting that sounded nothing less than
McCarthyite to me.
So I say to Jim Harrison that he would do us more good by making some
positive contribution, on e.g. how we can better teach the Faith in the
U.S. by finding resonances between it and US history, than he would by
continuing to attempt to silence people. The top-down model of
communication he apparently has is incompatible with Baha'i values and is
exactly what is wrong with the Baha'i community. That top-down and
exclusivist model, by the way, was pioneered by Mason Remey.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From TLCULHANE@aol.comMon Sep 18 11:39:07 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 01:05:22 -0400
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: styles and Bahai history
Dear Friends,
In the closing decade of the 19th century and first two decades of the
20th century there was an extended public debate in the U. S. that seems to
re-play itself in the American Bahai community and at times the discussions
on talisman .
In the American context it was a debate about immigration with all of its
Bahai overtones of the Oneness of Humankind . The debate involved positions
characterized as exclusivism , assimilation and pluralism. the first argued
for a particularly American form of what I would call "ritual purity". It was
represented by certain religious persuasions as well as the aristocratic
remainder of Anglo-American society . It called for a nation that would
sharply limit admission to citizenship to only those of a certain
ethnic-linguistic background. It also tied this admission to those capable of
thinking in certain ways. it was essentially elitist . As we know Baha u llah
abolished ritual purity in the Kitab-i-Aqdas , presumably with all of its
right thinking and the who is in and who is out perspectives .
The assimilationists, represented by no less an ardent anti-racist than
Franz Boas, brought us the "melting pot" . Boas , among others, would argue
for assimilation -the merging of differences- because of their horror over
the tryannies of particularism . In short what the posrmodernists would call
the perennial human tendency to create the *other*.
The pluralists among whose adherents we could count John Dewey and Josiah
Royce , Mary Parker Follet. they would argue for a vibrant democracy open to
all and champoined , each in different ways, a defense of particularism or
what we know call diversity . This meant of course that various culural
groups should be allowed their respective heritage and perspectives . The
argument continued that in a democracy the creation of many smaller publice
was necessary to teach responsibility , character formation and provide
opportunities for participation . They would tend to say that the love of
the whole was born first for the love of particulars -e.g. families ,
neighborhoods , ethnic groupings and regions .
it was from this love of our particular diverse origins that , in a
democracy , one could learn to extend that love or at least respect to the
larger body of the nation . In our case as Baha'i's to humankind as a whole
.
Part and parcel of this debate was a companion one having to do with the
democratization of culture. here the argument centered around whether or not
the masses of humanity could learn and appreciate the "higher culture " . Did
they really have the capacity for participating in the governing processes
of society , could they transcend thier particularistic origins and be
capable of imbibing high culture e.g. European high culture .
Along with this was an issue of democratizing work or democratizing
consumption as the purpose of life and America . The winners in the debate
have tended to be those who argued culture cannot be democratized , therefore
it is pointless to democratize work - a human capacity issue . It left us
with democratrizing consumption - - the rule of the marketplace as normative
of human relationships .
Why i find this germane to the American Bahai community and potentially
discussion on talisman is this : If culture cannot be democratized and work
cannot be democratized only the market place can then how are Bahai
arguments if they reflect exclusivist and anti- democratic assumptions going
to give us a society any different than the one we have dominated by
contractual market relationships ? This is not a rhetorical question . i do
not have an answer. I am concerned however .Personal piety is not enough.
As I look at earlt American Bahai history i see the exclusivist argument
at work. I also see the assimilationist argument in Bahai form . Does anyone
remember the ritualized hoops to be jumped through in the 40's and 50's to
become a Bahai with its top down forms of control both of acting and
thinking. I struck me when i heard about it as 'ritual purity' .The
assimilationist credo assumed there was only one version of the Faith or at
least only one version that any right thinking Bahai would speak about. We
know, of course, that this approach and perspective grew the American Bahai
community in the first three generations of existence in this country from
2000 to 6000 people . Richard or Rob could correct my numbers for Bahai
membership from turn of the century to the election of the Universal House of
Justice. What changed to cause the rapid growth from 1963 to 1975 ? Why has
it been so difficult to maintain that growth and as important consolidate the
gains made in that early 60's to mid 70's period ? Somehow we seem to be
tracking not trancending the dominant patterns of American life.
As an quick thought here is my reservation about some of current
multi-culturalism . Quite a few large corporations have been quite taken by
multi-culturalism . The rationale is not a love of cultural diversity or
human beings for that matter . It has to do with the fact that all people are
potentiallly consumers . The rule of the marketplace as normative again . If
multi-cultural can mean not making judgements about "culture" this leaves us
once again quite conveniently, with market relationships as the focus of
human life. One does not discriminate on the basis of values , only on price
and selection as a consumer. It is insidious . Having been selected to
assist in this process, presumably because of my background as a civil rights
investigator for the State of South Dakota, the training sessions are tinged
with the reality of humans are potential consumers. What does the Bahai Faith
as a religious community have to say about this from a structural standpoint
and not simple from a perspective of personal piety? At times it is though
the very system of which i am apart steals virtue and sells it to sell .
warm regards ,
terry
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comMon Sep 18 11:39:27 1995
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 95 21:49:01 -0400
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: tarjuman@umich.edu
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Martyrs of Manshad -- part 6
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
That same day, Muhammad-i Kalantar sent some of his men to
arrest Aqa Yadullah, who was a son of Aqa Mirza Husayn. The
boy, who was no more than twelve years old, was taken to the
home of the Kalantar so he may also be put to death. In the
ensuing gathering which this servant was also present, I
told Muhammad-i Kalantar that the boy is a minor and
religious laws are not applicable to him. In order to
ensure his freedom, I suggested to the Kalantar to collect
some money as a price for his liberty. He accepted my
request, and the mother of the child was called. Upon
collecting a sum, he allowed the boy to leave.
Again on that same day, the mob after killing Mirza Husayn,
went to another neighborhood in the outskirts of Manshad
known as Kuzh. At that time one of the believers, Aqa Ali-
Muhammad, was hiding from the hands of the bloodthirsty
crowd in the home of another Baha'i. Four men entered the
house, located Aqa Ali-Muhammad and took him outside. One
of the gunmen aimed his gun toward Aqa Ali-Muhammad's head
and fired. He immediately fell to the ground at which time
the rest of the crowd stoned him to death. At that moment,
severely injured and breathing his last breath, a man
approached him. This heartless individual opened Aqa Ali-
Muhammad's mouth, filled it with sand and soil, then kicked
him until he was dead. A rope was tied to his feet and he
was dragged and paraded to the front door of Shattir-Hasan's
home, the believer who was killed earlier at the hand of the
same people. His body was left there until night time, when
one of the believers gathered his remains and buried it in
backyard of the same house where it remains to this day.
Aqa Ali-Muhammad was forty-five years old at the time of
martyrdom.
The next day, Thursday, two hours before noon, four men
entered the home of Khadijih-Sultan, an elderly Baha'i
woman, mother of the martyr Aqa Ghulam-Rida. They took her
to the home of Muhammad-i Kalantar and requested his
permission to kill her. He instructed them to take her
away, thereby signalling his consent. The men took her to
the top of a building in the town's center and pushed her
off from the roof. The women of Manshad gathered around her
body and first removed her chador and vale, after which her
remains was stoned by men and women alike. Khadijih-Sultan,
who was later buried in her own home, was sixty-five years
old at time of her death.
The next day, Aqa Siyyid Javad, who had taken refuge in his
home. One of the men from the killing mob learned of his
whereabouts and went to his house, capturing Aqa Siyyid
Javad and brought him out. His three young daughters who
were only nine, seven and five years old, began to weep and
plea with the man to leave their father alone. They even
begged to be killed in place of their father. The
daughters, tears pouring from their eyes, were circling the
man and holding tight to their dear father. Determined to
take Aqa Javad's life, the man ignored all the children's
pleas and cries and used his club and kicks to separate the
daughters from their father and with violently slapping them
hard he forced them to let go of their father. An eager
crowd having gathered and watching the whole incident, Aqa
Siyyid Javad was dragged outside, tied with a rope, and with
bare feet and head was taken to the home of Muhammad-i
Kalantar. At that moment, when they brought Aqa Siyyid
Javad, I happen to be visiting the Kalantar. Aqa Javad's
countenance seemed to glow with joy and extreme happiness
and certitude. He was radiating a heavenly smile as he
entered the room. He was not speaking with anyone and
seemed immersed in the ecstasy of his eminent martyrdom and
eternal union with his Beloved. The crowd told the Kalantar
that they had captured this Baha'i and with the wave of his
hand the Kalantar signaled his approval for him to be taken
away and be killed. The mob paraded the Siyyid to the town
square. One of them fired a bullet whose immense pressure
destroyed his head. Others join in by firing their guns at
him and engaging in their ritual stoning, cursing and
defaming of the body. Later, his remains was dropped into a
well. It was an hour before noon when Aqa Siyyid Javad
drank the cup of martyrdom. He was forty years old.
(to be continued)
From burlb@bmi.netMon Sep 18 11:40:20 1995
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 95 22:06 PDT
From: Burl Barer
To: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: cats, women, whatever
Linda siad:
the world needs openness,
>understand, and love more than narrow theology.
And The Guardian said that the world neither wants nor needs preaching and
rules, the world cries for love and unity.
AND the theology of the Revelation of Baha'u'llah is not narrow -- a door is
open wider than earth and heaven, but superstition cannot enter the door
above which is placed the Greatest Name (one of Abdul-Baha's many clever
lines).
The Cause of God does not exist as a syncretic clearing house for a
hodgepodge of mumbo-jumbo, nuevo-psuedo-neo-nonsense, table rappers and
trumpet blasters, pretended occultists and pay-by-the card Tarot readers.
This is a Divine Revelation,heralded in the Scriptures of the Past, which
has infused new life into all created things. This is not a toy, a
diversion, a picnic for the pretentious, nor a past-life beer-blast for the
terminally regressed. Reincarnation is milk from dead cows and we should be
sinking our teeth into nuts and grains -- this Faith has enough nuts going
against the grain as it is (I am often used as an example of that!). I would
offer that Linda's freind who found the missing Jesus, beleives in
reincarnation, has developed her psychic powers, etc. probably is clueless
regarding the Faith of which she is supposedly an ardent adherent. When I
decided to become a Baha'i , I found myself sitting in front of a wise and
compassionate LSA that regarded me as does a chef when confronting a
particularly juicy catfish -- they didn't know whether to filet and fry me
or baste me and bake me. But they did ascertain if * I knew what I was
doing* -- they went through the declaration card line by line. It is not
fair to the individual nor the Faith to enlist people who don't know what
they have joined, why, and what it means. I was also told that it was my
responsibility, after teaching someone the Faith, that I must deepen them to
the point where they can teach on their own -- give a fireside, etc. It was
similar to the duty of a parent to a child.
Its the millenia -- do you know where your kids are tonight.
Daddy Burl
>
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzMon Sep 18 11:43:13 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 16:24:57 +1200
From: Robert Johnston
To: Juan R Cole , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Miller's book
Dear Juan:
Re:
>Good history draws on all available documentary sources pertinent to the
>subject;
If you had the opportunity to interview a Covenant breaker for the purposes
of historical investigation, would you take it?
Robert.
From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduMon Sep 18 11:43:45 1995
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 23:32:29 -0600 (MDT)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
To: Member1700@aol.com
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Chairman of the House
On Sat, 16 Sep 1995 Tony Lee Member1700@aol.com wrote:
> The reference to the chairman of the House is curious, but I do not think
> that this refers to the Guardianship. First of all, if 'Abdu'l-Baha is
> making reference to the laws of Baha'u'llah (as he appears to be doing), what
> would he be referring to?
Based on internal evidence in the Will, the Master wrote the first part of
His Will and Testament when Shoghi Effendi was a child of 7, at the time
of the first Commission of Inquiry in 1904. If memory serves correctly,
He had therefore written in the first part of His Will -- though had not
yet divulged publicly -- that the Chairman of the Universal House of
Justice would be the Guardian of the Cause, some years prior to the 1909
Tablet under discussion.
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comMon Sep 18 11:44:12 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 95 00:01:01 -0400
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: HW(p)-2
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
Dear Chris,
Which printing of the Persian Hidden Words are you using? The 3
printings that I have, none have the word "bahr (sea)" in the
last sentence of the 2nd Hidden Words in them. Of course, my
copies are rather old and perhaps you're using a more accurate
printing. Curious ...
I also would very much like to hear a more detailed explanation
of the last sentence of this HWs. The beloved Guardian's
translation makes reference to seas of "Most High", and
"effulgent horizon". Why "effulgent horizon" not capitalized?
It seems that the seas of the "Most High" (a`ala) could also be
understood as a reference to the Bab and His Dispensation --
using the Bab's title, Hadrat-i A`ala (The Exalted One). In
other words, Baha'u'llah implies that majority have rejected the
Twin Manifestations.
regards, ahang.
From cbuck@ccs.carleton.caMon Sep 18 11:44:44 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 95 2:03:17 EDT
From: Christopher Buck
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: Christopher Buck
Subject: Moderating Offensive Language
The following was just posted on Talisman:
_________________
*The transparent naivety of your argument against censorship militates
against the need for serious response at this point. But I am testing the
breeze for the smell of ass.*
________________
Dear Talismanians, Dear Moderator:
A couple of weeks ago, I unsuccessfully prevailed upon our
esteemed moderator to intervene in the case of an offensive posting in
which it was intimated that one of our prominent Talismanians was a CB.
The offending party was, thereafter, vociferously and pontifically
*unrepentant*.
To what gutter of discourse must Talisman stoop before our
moderator intervenes? This is not simply a case of *children fighting*
as was suggested after a long weekend.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but would the beloved Master approve of
such discourse? Barring that, how would *Netiquette* countenance such
language on a mailgroup? Far worse happens on newsgroups, but that's chaos.
Christopher Buck
From mfoster@tyrell.netMon Sep 18 11:47:06 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 01:09:05 -0500 (EDT)
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Hidden Words, #3 (Persia
To: talisman@indiana.edu
N >O Friend!
N >
N >In the garden of thy heart plant naught but the rose of love, and from
N >the nightingale of affection and desire loosen not thy hold. Treasure the
N >companionship of the righteous and eschew all fellowship with the ungodly.
Some more brief comments:
1. O Friend: Baha'u'llah, I think, is addressing this verse to those
who trust/have faith in God - as friends trust and can rely on one other.
2. In the garden of thy heart plant naught but the rose of love:
IMHO, it is a reference to the attachment (in love) of one's human
spirit (the power of rational accomplishment or intellect) to the
spiritual Kingdom, i.e., to react to events as a spiritual being.
3. Treasure the companionship of the righteous: Seek out those who
are just (who have the biblical gift of discerning of spirits), i.e.,
who independently investigate reality - free of attachment to the things
of this world.
4. Eschew all fellowship with the ungodly: I believe that the
Guardian interprets "ungodly" as a reference to those who are wayward.
As I see it, those who engage in unspiritual behavior, and do not
respond to the spiritual teachings, might not be among those whom one
desire want to fellowship with. Certainly, one can, under certain
circumstances, be kind to such a soul, love that one who is unlovable,
and pray for the person's progress in the worlds of God, while devoting
one's time to those who are receptive. By the same token, the Master,
with His finely tuned sense of inner vision, often saw receptivity in a
soul where many of us would, perhaps, have given up.
Loving greetings,
Mark
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Sociologist of Religion *
___
* UniQWK #2141* Structuralists Know the Lingo ;-)
From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduMon Sep 18 11:48:28 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 00:15:03 -0600 (MDT)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
To: Juan R Cole
Subject: courtesy
Private to you Juan. I have written to Robert Johnston privately and
suggested he tone down. Hope it helps. Your approach is good, not
viewing others as personal enemies.
Brent
From sw@solsys.ak.planet.gen.nzMon Sep 18 11:50:03 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 95 18:18 NZST
From: S&W Michael
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Censorship
Dear Friends
I must add my support to Juan's statements re an apparent drive for
censorship on the one hand (apparently on the grounds of Juan's - and
others - supposed lack of acceptance of the authority of the House -
balloney!) and, on the other hand, that this constant 'harping on'
contributes nothing to intellectual debate.
Please keep talisman a forum for serious intellectual debate - if the
particular debate under discussion is of no interest, one is under no
obligation to even read those postings, let alone contribute.
I have nothing new to add to the debate in question at this time, however I
continue to follow proceedings on this very important issue, and I hope to
see the discussion continue.
Suzanne Michael
New Zealand
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comMon Sep 18 11:50:23 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 95 00:38:01 -0400
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: HW(p)-1
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
Dear Chris,
It seems that Shoghi Effendi has translated "surush" as "call"
which is pretty close to its literal translation.
In Zoroastrian, as you well know, Surush is one of the Gods or
archangel who on the day of resurrection will keep everyone's
accounts of good and bad deeds.
In Sufi/mystical literature, (not to get on Nima's turf :-} ),
"surush" is often the call from the beyond, as in this poem:
Cheh guyamit kih bi maykhanih dush mast u kharab,
Surush `alam ghaybam cheh muzhdiha dadih-ast
What to tell of night's [spiritual] drunkenness,
the call from the invisible realm brought glad-tidings.
(lousy translation, but its 1 a.m.! the fact that i could
remember the poem at this hour by itself is a miracle!)
I think it is in this last sense, that is its Sufi/mystical, that
Baha'u'llah is using this term -- its a "call from the invisible
realm".
regards, ahang.
From TLCULHANE@aol.comMon Sep 18 11:59:42 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 02:49:55 -0400
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: re: Moderating language
I would like to add a second to Chris's request to us all and to the list
owner. The "ass" comment is unecessary and vulgar . Disagree if we will
but as Bahau llah reminds us in the the Tablet of Maqsud words have power
and they do effect the soul . And all of us have souls. Enough is enough .
Terry
From cbuck@ccs.carleton.caMon Sep 18 12:00:14 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 95 3:01:51 EDT
From: Christopher Buck
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: Christopher Buck
Subject: *Sorush* as *Call*
Ahang is perfectly correct. *Dust* is *Beloved*.
I posted too hastily and make a blunder of a very simple
genitive metaphor in Persian by transfixing on the occurrence of
*Sorush* in the text.
I love Baha'u'llah's Zoroastrian references (Ahrimans, etc.)
But it was late at night and my eagerness to raise the question of
*Sorush* on Talisman betrayed my carelessness. I'll be much more
circumspect in posting in the future.
As to the presence of *bahr* (sea) in Persian Hidden Word #2,
Ahang has just informed me that this word does not appear in any of
his three editions of the Hidden Words. It appears in my 1929 edition
but not in my 1983 edition.
So I hoped I've partially redeemed myself by raising this
question of the accuracy of printed (and calligraphed) editions
of Baha'i scriptures. I have since found out about numerous variants
among authenticated Iqan manuscripts.
Perhaps Shahrooz Tedjarati or Juan Cole or Stephen Lambden or
others might comment on the need for *critical editions* of Baha'i texts!
Thank you, Ahang, for an enlightening commentary on *sorush*
as *Call*. So why not *Caller* of the Beloved?
Christopher Buck
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzMon Sep 18 12:00:39 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 17:56:52 +1200
From: Robert Johnston
To: Christopher Buck , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Moderating Offensive Language
Mr Buck assumes some kind of unwarranted privileged moral position in his
intemperate letter of today. He cites -- unadorned with commentary -- a
section of a letter which I wrote and assumes that everyone -- including
myself -- is able to discern exactly what it is that he is grizzling about,
and then goes on to launch a tirade against me. I ask him to give a
coherent explanation of his conduct or else retract and apologise. I fear
that others will follow my lead and become unconvinced of worthiness of
this gentleman's opinions. If he cannot instruct, perhaps he should try to
entertain. In the theatre of the bizarre, perhaps.
Robert.
From nima@unm.eduMon Sep 18 12:00:55 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 01:25:20 -0600 (MDT)
From: Sadra
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: re: Moderating language
Dearest Talizens--
I'd like to third Chris's recommendation. Please, "can we all get along"
([c] Rodney King, 1992).
Nima
---
O God, cause us to see things as they really are - Hadith
Strive to lead back the divine within you to the Divine in
the All - Plotinus (d. 270 AD)
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzMon Sep 18 12:01:12 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 18:40:30 +1200
From: Robert Johnston
To: TLCULHANE@aol.com, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: ASS!
An ass is a four-legged animal with long ears, rather like a horse. It
seems that certain persons, for obscure and probably perverse reasons,
thought I meant to refer to the human backside. My dear sirs: if I mean't
to say arse I would have written it. Now get of my back please. I am not
the vehicle for your ample buttocks. The prudery of these letters is
sickening.
Robert.
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzMon Sep 18 12:01:35 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 19:14:57 +1200
From: Robert Johnston
To: Christopher Buck , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Moderating Offensive Language
Chris wrote:
>which it was intimated that one of our prominent Talismanians was a CB.
In my innocence, I have just worked out what this gentleman meant here:
COVENANT BREAKER! That I have ever made such an intimation is a lie. I
see no Covenant breakers: perhaps they exist in Chris' eye. [supply
evidence or begone!]
If he looked in the mirror I am sure that Chris would find that he has only
two legs and relatively short ears. But my nose still tests the breeze...!
[for my own poetic reasons]
I am delighted to see that Terry and Nima have arisen to Chris'
support.(Antwerp would expect such).
Hmm, the night is quiet out. No dogs barking...here...
Robert.
From sw@solsys.ak.planet.gen.nzMon Sep 18 12:02:34 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 95 20:21 NZST
From: S&W Michael
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Baha'i Jurisprudence
Dear Friends
1. Just to take this discussion back a step or two, I think some
definition of jurisprudence is important, and an explanation of what we
mean when we talk about developing a Baha'i jurisprudence.
First of all, jurisprudence is the philosophy or science of law. In
developing a Baha'i jurisprudence one is attempting to clarify some
principles with which Baha'i law - ie. the Aqdas - can be practically
applied. So in other words, it is the APPLICATION of the law which is
important, but such application must be based on PRINCIPLES of application.
2. My second question is: do we ALREADY have a Baha'i jurisprudence, or
are we in fact, as I've suggested, trying to DEVELOP one. I don't think we
do have an already developed jurisprudence, at least not one that has been
recognised. Although we certainly have a great body of information
regarding the application of Baha'i law to date, and we certainly have many
precedents of the application of various laws, to my knowledge a clear
SCIENCE of Baha'i law hasn't been developed.
3. In John's posting re various exceptions to various Baha'i laws, he has
asked: is this principle valid? And John has identified the principle as
being that an exception takes precedence over a general principle when both
are stated in authoritative texts, even if the exception is stated in a
text of lesser authority.
I think the principle is incorrectly stated. What John has described as
the principle is in fact a particular application of an unidentified
principle. So I'd like to state what I think is the actual principle here:
Let's say that a Baha'i law is based on a particular principle - we may not
be clear on what that principle is in all cases, but in some cases we are,
for example, with regard to the 'parental-permission-for-marriage' law, we
know that this law is based on maintaining the unity of the families. If
some exceptions have been given by the House of Justice to this law, then
it is probably because a) the principle of unity was not an issue for some
reason; or b) the application of the law in fact undermined the principle
of unity in that instance.
So to put that another way: if the application of a law undermines the
principle which has defined that law in the first place, then exceptions
can be created to the, let's say, 'black-and-white application' of that
law. In secular law we may see exceptions to the law being made all the
time because it would be unfair to apply the law in its strictest sense.
For example, if someone's starving and they steal some food, in most
Western countries at any rate, exception would be granted to the normal
application of punishment for theft.
So the JURISPRUDENTIAL PRINCIPLE behind the existence of 'exceptions' is
that the application of the law would have been unfair, or would have in
fact undermined the (divine) principle for which that law was created. The
Guardian's statement regarding inheritance laws and one's non-Baha'i heirs
or spouse is probably a similar example here.
What John has stated as the 'principle' is, I think, more correctly
described as the 'application' of the principle.
4. This immediately raised for me the consideration of the application of
the law regarding women on the House of Justice - does this law undermine a
Baha'i principle - and if it does, can an exception be made?
Well, at first glance No, because if an exception were made to this law, we
wouldn't actually be making an 'exception to the law' - we'd be reversing
the whole law, and it seems as though by definition an 'exception' is a
different thing from reversing the law altogether.
But then, if one considers the Guardian's statement regarding non-Baha'i
heirs, then this is not so much an 'exception', but in fact a complete
reversal of the law - non-Baha'is either get something or they don't - if
they do, then this reverses the law.
So, I'll finish with two questions (and those not interested in discussing
the women/UHJ issue should ignore the first one):
ONE) Can the complete reversal of laws in the Aqdas be considered
precedent for the reversal of the law regarding women and the House?
TWO) How do we separate an 'exception to' from a 'reversal of' a
particular law, and what jurisprudential principles govern our
consideration of the application of these two different things?
Suzanne Michael
From M.C.Day@massey.ac.nzMon Sep 18 12:03:03 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 20:47:40 GMT=1200
From: Mary Day
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Belief and declaration
Dear Burl and other Talismans,
I would like to present a different view of the process of belief and
declaration from that expressed by Burl. I have lived and travel
taught in the Pacific and observed quite a different process of
declaration than those occurring in the West. At first I found it
quite strange that people could declare their Faith when they
appeared to know so little about the Teachings. I know of one person
who the moment they heard that donations to the fund were
confidential and voluntary, they declared. The only other thing they
seemed to know was the name of Baha'u'llah and that the Faith was
about the oneness of mankind. I will not go on with more examples.
But it didn't seem to me that these people knew what they were doing.
Often they would declare and then carry on with their lives as
before. In Kiribati, the country with the biggest proportion of the
population Baha'i, there were many instances of this. At one point
there was a big drive to track all these people who had declared and
find out whether they considered themselves Baha'i or not, a drive to
clean up the books so to speak. It was a big surprise to some people
that all though these people did not appear to participate as Bahai's
or identify with the Baha'i community, many of them did not want
their names removed.
There seemed to be a process that needed to happen and at various
stages of this process certain individuals and families would become
what we would describe as active. In a society such as this Pacific
Island, everybody belongs to a religion (there are some very rare
exceptions). If you don't belong to a religion you don't have a
social life because that revolves around your religion. The other
thing you never have to do is try to convince these people that God
exists or that the soul lives on after death. Some individuals and
families become Baha'is and very quickly develop a Baha'i identity.
Others wait and continue there allegiances with their churches until
there is enough community life to enable them to make the switch.
What constitutes enough varies from individual to individual and
family to family. I haven't expressed this as well as Ruhhiyh Khanum
[apologies for the spelling]
does in 'Manual for Pioneers' but I hope you get my drift.
What you see as unfair, Burl and I can understand your concern, is not
at all unfair in my opinion. We become Bahais because we believe in
Baha'u'llah. For some that is a rational decision and for others some other
mysterious process occurs, but none of us really knows what the faith
is all about do we? This friend Of Linda's has as much right as
anyone of us to explore and cling to and let go of any beliefs as she
like the rest of us aligns herself with the Faith. It isn't what it
says on the card, it is what is written in her heart that makes her a
follower of the light. You don't have to look further than this list
to see what weird beliefs some people have, but there's none so
strange as you or me.
with love
Mary.
Burl said:
"I would
offer that Linda's freind who found the missing Jesus, beleives in
reincarnation, has developed her psychic powers, etc. probably is clueless
regarding the Faith of which she is supposedly an ardent adherent.
But they did ascertain if * I knew what I was
doing* -- they went through the declaration card line by line. It is not
fair to the individual nor the Faith to enlist people who don't know what
they have joined, why, and what it means. I was also told that it was my
responsibility, after teaching someone the Faith, that I must deepen them to
the point where they can teach on their own -- give a fireside, etc. It was
similar to the duty of a parent to a child."
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzMon Sep 18 12:03:40 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 20:17:55 +1200
From: Robert Johnston
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: While I laugh
Ffolks,
While I laugh at the attempts of Chris, and Terry and Nima and some others
to have turfed out of Talisman [ffolks I don't really care THAT much if I
am!], I nonetheless take their accusations seriously. I did not hear their
voices cry out in protest when the decisions of the House were being
criticised, or when the the Guardian was being belittled, or when the
Master was being denigrated, or when Baha'u'llah Himself was being
relegated to a humanist creature of history, or when Jim's views were being
suggestively compared with those of Mason Remey. I have to thank God for
opening my eyes wide to the true nature of these people. I am now loathe
to engage in any kind of personal correspondence with them. I leave them
to themselves. But really, even more serious is the fact that they are
mere pawns in a larger game, the dimensions of which I am just beginning to
discern.
There: I've said my bit, and unless anyone else wishes to gratuitously tear
hunks out of me, I am prepared to leave it at that.
Yes, senor Buck,
Unrepentant and resplendent,
Robert.
From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlMon Sep 18 12:03:58 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 95 11:29:09 EZT
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: diversity and unity
on unity without diversity (for Allison esp.)
I think I would have to say that the lack of diversity is an
impossible condition :-). If you look at the most homogenous
human organizations - or at least those that make the greatest
efforts to achieve homogeneity - such as an army whose
induction programme is designed to suppress individuality and
mould recruits to fit a function, it is notable that these
organizations diversify themselves by appointing some of those
recruits as second lieutenants and so on up to 4-star generals or
whatever. And they do this in order to preserve their unity-in-
action. It seems obvious that unity is not possible without
diversity - leaving aside the fact the humans are incorrigibly
diverse anyway. Unity without diversity could not be based on
either authority or complementarity, so what would keep it
together?
Grains of sand and omoebas have no diversity (except for some
negligible instances), but a bunch of sand or omoebas is a
plurality, not a unity.
On the other hand, an assembly which is all male might have a
degree of unity despite being homogenous in one respect: but you
had better hope that it has sufficient diversity in other respects.
Gender is only one of many dimensions: what about age, social
class, religious background, education, heart/mind balance...
Sen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen McGlinn
From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlMon Sep 18 12:06:02 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 95 11:26:35 EZT
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Ahmed's parody of Women & UHJ research
Sorry if this is too late to be relevant -
we lost our emial connection over the weekend.
The reference is to something Ahmad posted about
thursday last week.
Dear Ahmad,
You assume, I think, that the facts concerning the law
permitting polygyny are so self-evident that it can be used
as a reductio ad absurdum argument to parody the research
on the law excluding women from the (or a) House of
Justice. What your parody was saying, to me at least, was
that the same sort of textual and historical research as has
been applied here could be used to make a case that the
Baha'i law formally permits polygyny, and this is so absurd
that we must see there is something wrong with that
method of argument. But is it absurd? The question of
polygyny has been discussed here before, and I don't want
to rehash all of that material, but I need to call up some
quotations by way of background. (Old hands skip 2 pages
or so.).
Solid scholarly research of the sort that has been done in
the case of the exclusion of women has to be based on
historical context and all of the materials available. In the
case of polygyny, this means considering not only the
Tablet in the notes to the Aqdas on this subject (n89):
1. "Know thou that polygamy is not permitted
under the law of God, for contentment with one
wife hath been clearly stipulated. Taking a second
wife is made dependent upon equity and justice
being upheld between the two wives, under all
condition. However, observance of justice and
equity towards two wives is utterly impossible. The
fact that bigamy has been made dependent upon an
impossible condition is clear proof of its absolute
prohibition. Therefore it is not permissible for a
man to have more than one wife."
but also these:
2. "Concerning a third wife, under no condition
whatsoever is this lawful. It is prohibited
completely, even if the two wives should prove to
be unacceptable, and leaving [or divorcing] be
impossible. (This is also true) in case they should
have no children and no reason may be found (to
leave or divorce them). Even in regard to a second
wife, this is preconditioned on justice and justice is
very difficult (to achieve). Happy is he, who is
capable of that." [Amr wa Khalq 4: 173]
3. "You asked about polygamy. According to the
text (nass) of the Divine Book the right of having
two wives is lawful and legal (ja'iz). This was never
(abadan) prohibited, but it is legitimate and allowed
(halal wa mubah). You should therefore not be
unhappy, but take justice into your consideration so
that you may be as just as possible. What has been
said was that since justice is very difficult (to
achieve), therefore tranquillity (calls for) one wife.
But in your case, you should not be unhappy." [Amr
wa Khalq 4: 174]
4. "Concerning bigamy [the number of wives], this
has been promulgated, and no one must abrogate it
(mansusast nasikhi nadarad). 'Abdu'l-Baha has not
abrogated this law. These are false accusations and
lies (muftariyat-i-rufaqast) (spread by) the friends
[i.e, covenant-breakers?]. What I have said is that
He (i.e., Baha'u'llah) has made bigamy bound on a
precondition. As long as someone does not attain
certitude regarding the capability to practice justice
and his heart is not at rest that he can practice
justice, he should not be intent upon a second
marriage. But if he should be sure and attain
certitude that he would practice justice on all levels
(and conditions) (dar jami'-i maratib), then a second
marriage is lawful. Just as has been the case in the
Holy Land (Ardi-i Maqsud): the Baha'i friends
wished to marry a second wife, accepting this
precondition, and this servant - (i.e., 'Abdu'l-Baha) -
never abstained (from giving permission), but
insisted that justice should be considered, and
justice actually means here self-restraint (daraji-i
imtina'); but they said, that they will practice justice
and wished to marry a second wife. Such false
accusations (concerning 'Abdu'l- Baha's prohibition
of bigamy) are the slanderous whisperings
(zamzamih) of those who wish to spread doubts (in
people's hearts) - and to what degree they already
succeed in making matters ambiguous! (Our)
purpose was to state that bigamy without justice is
not lawful and that justice is very difficult (to
achieve)." [Amr wa Khalq 4: 175-6]
(Translations from Amr wa Khalq based on
provisional translations by Dr Kamran Eqbal, which
I have updated in the light of comments on
Talisman)
It is interesting that the first tablet above refers to the
condition of equity, but does not refer to the Aqdas,
presumably because the permission to take two wives in the
Aqdas is NOT conditional on equity (or anything else). But
the permission for polygamy in the Qur'an is conditional:
"In the Koran the word has been revealed "and if ye
fear that ye cannot do justice (to so many) then one
(only)...", indicating that in the presence of God the
acceptable judgement is monogamy." [Amr wa
Khalq 174f].
'Abdu'l-Baha seems to be referring to Qur'an 4:3:
"And if ye fear that ye will not deal fairly by the
orphans, marry of the women, who seem good to
you, two or three or four; and if ye fear that ye
cannot do justice (to so many) then one (only) ..."
This makes me think that the Tablet cited in n89 may be a
letter addressed to a Muslim enquirer, asking for his
understanding of the Quranic law (which was much
discussed by Muslim modernists at the time, I gather)
rather than being addressed to a Baha'i. On the other hand,
it could also be evidence that Baha'u'llah HAD made
polygyny conditional on justice, and this was so well
known to the audience that `Abdu'l-Baha could assume they
would know that the 'law of God' referred to this statement
or tablet by Baha'u'llah. Or perhaps it is evidence that
portions of the Qur'an which have not been abrogated still
have legal effect as Baha'i law?
In any case, `Abdu'l-Baha interprets Quranic law as
effectively requiring monogamy, but acknowledges that the
Aqdas law permits bigamy (or polygyny, following the
mutatis mutandis principle, which does apply I think).
However he says, above, "[Baha'u'llah]...has made bigamy
bound on a precondition." (this would presumably be an
oral transmission to `Abdu'l-Baha, unless someone knows
of a text in which Baha'u'llah says this?) "As long as
someone does not attain certitude regarding the capability
to practice justice and his heart is not at rest that he can
practice justice, he should not be intent upon a second
marriage. But if he should be sure and attain certitude that
he would practice justice on all levels (and conditions) (dar
jami'-i maratib), then a second marriage is lawful."
And by his own account second marriages were in
fact permitted by `Abdu'l-Baha. The way I make sense of
this is that 'justice' is not an absolute measure, but relative
to a society and personal situation (as well as individuals
having differing capacities to achieve justice). The level of
justice which can be expected of us rises (we hope), and
the point is reached at which no-one could possible deliver
that degree of justice, so polygyny becomes effectively
impossible, although still technical permissable.
Could the level of required justice ever go down? I
think so: consider a situation such as Bangladesh after the
civil war, with hundreds of thousands of women who had
been raped by soldiers and who were thus dishonoured and
disowned by their families. Many were pregnant or had
young babies. The social organization lacked the capacity
to provide care for them adequately, or with dignity -
indeed, the only position they could have which would
provide them with dignity in the community was that of
wife. In such a situation the level of 'justice' required in
bigamous marriages must I think go down, or if you like
greater needs for justice must prevail. Providing such
people with housing and food, but not with dignity and a
place in the community, is quite inadequate. One woman
who was able might take such a woman into her home, but
a man who did so would only increase the indignity, unless
he married her. Were I asked for a fatwa, I would say that
the National Assembly could in such a case recognize such
marriages, on a case-by-case basis.
Ahmad also suggested that individuals' capacity to
deliver justice to multiple spouses might increase, as we all
learn to implement justice between men and women on a
society level. Excuse me if I chew on that one for a bit
before seeing where it leads.
Anyway, this is something of a side-line. The point I was
trying to make is that everything looks very simple when
you do not have enough information. And usually not so
clear when more facts have been gathered. And Talisman is
a wonderful way to gather all the bits together and to chew
and digest them. In the case of the exclusion of women from
the Universal House of Justice, Ahmad refers to "the
historical tablets of Abdu'l-Baha regarding to UHJ matter to
Ms Corrine True." But of course the question is, do those
tablets refer to what we now know as the Universal House
of Justice, or to the Chicago House as the local supreme
administrative organ, or perhaps to the Chicago House as a
prototype National organ (in 1912)? If they referred to a
local institution, they may well have been over-ruled by
`Abdu'l-Baha himself, when he instructed the Chicago
assembly to be dissolved and re-elected with women on it.
(Just as he MAY have over-ruled his earlier interpretations
in the case of the law on polygyny - but we need to date
the tablets there.) If the 1912 tablet referred to the national
organ, on the other hand, how can we have women on
National Spiritual Assemblies? (I joke not: have you
thought that one conclusion of further historical research
might be that the 1912 tablet was intended to exclude
women from National Spiritual Assemblies?).
I guess what I'm saying is that the rhetorical equivalent of
waving arms in the air does not help at all. Maybe I'm
taking Ahmad's parody too seriously (it was rather funny),
but then I'm a stodgy plodder by nature. Finding things out,
and trying (hopelessly) to 'get it right' is serious hard work,
and a long-term commitment. It is perfectly natural, when
you find one piece of the puzzle, to jump around joyfully
announcing that you have the answer. It is then necessary
to put it back beside all the other pieces and try to see
where it fits in the big picture. Sometimes it belongs
somewhere else, and sometimes you find you were holding
it upside down. Most often you never do find out. One
thing I do know - distrust any feeling of certitude, it
probably indicates you missed the question.
I praise the amputee's iambic doubting gait,
faulted, fractured, and unsure of grace,
every step a questioning
of gravity's faithfulness.
BTW, on a much lighter note, Ahmad said that the
maximum family unit would be four individuals, two wives
and two husbands. But there is no maximum. If the
numbers are men, and the letters are women, you get this:
A B C D E F G
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
and a simple question like: "where shall we celebrate Naw
Ruz, dears, with your folks or with mine?" would require
calling on the combined decision-making capacity of the
United Nations and Nato (and quite possibly Brussels as
well, since they would be involved on my wife's other
husband's second wife's in-laws' side).
On the plus side, we'd all be one big family!
Sen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen McGlinn --------------------_
From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlMon Sep 18 12:08:24 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 95 11:32:14 EZT
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: literalism & legalism
Dear Jim, in response to your letter of thursday or friday last,
I appreciate that the issue really does seem crystal clear to you.
Fine. One difference perhaps is that you feel that the 'spirit of the
House utterances' is clear. I've battled with this one for years,
since May 1988 in fact, because although the letter was
addressed to the NZ Baha'i community I took it to be pointed
rather sharply at me. Could I read between the lines to see what
the House was really saying? The problem was that, especially
when I was more depressed about the whole process we were
going through with the institutions at the ti+me, what I read
between the lines in UHJ letters (there were others before this
one) was pretty unpalatable. Liberal, loving and understanding
sentiments, but were there veiled threats behind them? Or was
that my paranoia? They were saying 'this should not be published
under Baha'i auspices' (not an exact quote), but did they mean
"we don't want this published?" They were saying, we're
encouraging scholarship, but the mechanisms looked like means
to suppress investigation. On the other hand when the sun was
shining and breakfast was under my belt, I could laugh the
shadows away. And it would be possible to 'read between the
lines' of some recent messages and see them doing their best to
move the Faith forward against internal reactionary forces.
I'm no slouch at reading between the lines: I make my living
as an academic editor from a talent for guessing what people
really mean. But I concluded in the end that I at least had no
way at all of guessing what the Universal House of Justice 'really
meant', so I should take them rather quite literally at their word.
If they did not expressely forbid something, it is permitted, etc.
"We all have every right to question and probe and wonder and
discourse and debate and consult" as you say, and if that was not
what the House really wanted they would have to say so
explicitly in so many words. They could not expect me to
understand hints - perhaps they were not expecting anyone to do
so. How would we know? In my case, at least, I found that any
attempt to guess what they might really mean came down to
doubting their sincerity, and that way lies madness.
That's been my approach since. I appreciate it must read
rather legalistic, but I don't see any way for the present of getting
enough understanding of the House's agenda to be able to flesh
out the bare bones of what they actually say.
Perhaps the legalistic approach has some redeeming features - in
fact perhaps it is inevitable for a people under law. Certainly
there is a lot to be said for "Western liberal democratic practices
and principles", which I certainly hope can be retained within the
larger framework of the Baha'i Faith. Secret of Divine
Civilization seems to be advocating that, at any rate. An industry
of constitutional (covenental) lawyers doesn't strike me as a bad
idea, actually...
You say: "The issue here actually is NOT about women and the
House at all. It IS about acceptence of the decision of the House
- period." Well I did accept their decision, which meant halving a
very promising book which could have been the basis for a nice
little publishing enterprise. Total change of where I thought my
life was going, abandonment of a cherished dream, and so on.
Not that it hasn't turned out roses, but that didn't make it any
easier at the time. I had put 18 months of work and what was,
for me, quite a bit of money into that project, and there were
also several other contributors to the book who were negatively
affected, and for whom I felt responsible. But I did accept it, and
if there have been "baseless suggestions about the *motivations*
of the House members, cultural biases etc.," they haven't been
coming from me.
For me the issues are quite specific: how did this policy evolve,
what were the circumstances etc, given these texts what can we
make of them, and so on. And behind these a vaguer issue: are
questions really welcome? tolerated even? I don't know. But I'm
doing my best from where I am at.
Sen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen McGlinn
------------------------------------------------------------------------_
From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlMon Sep 18 12:08:39 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 95 11:30:26 EZT
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: lists of principles
more principles:
Japan will turn ablaze: p35f
1. independent investigation of truth
(2) oneness of humanity
(3) religion must be the cause of concord
(4) science and reason
(5) religion must be a factor of progress
(6) religion must be free from blind imitations.
(7) all prejudices are destructive
(8) equality of men and women
(9) universalization of knowledge (education)
(10) universal language;
(11) justice and righteousness;
(12) economic facilities among mankind;
(13) need of the Holy Spirit;
(14) universal peace;
(15) the Supreme Court of Arbitration;
(16) the freedom and equality of all
(17) the brotherhood of the world of humanity,
PUP 174f:
(1) oneness of humanity
(2) equality of sexes
(3) universal education
(4) oneness of religion
(5) science and religion
PUP 230f:
1. oneness of humanity
(2) religion and science
(3) religion must the the cause of unity
(4) abolition of prejudice
(5) universal language
(6) world peace
(7) equality of men and women
(8) an inter-religious tribunal
PUP 286f:
1. oneness of humanity
(2) oneness of religion
(3) religion must be cause of unity
(4) religion and science
(5) abolition of prejudice
(6) world peace
(7) need for holy spirit
PUP 297f:
(1) oneness of humanity & abolition of prejudice
(2) religion must be cause of unity
(3) science and religion
(4) abolition of prejudice & oneness of religion
(5) universal education
(6) equality of sexes
(7) universal language
(8) world peace
PUP 354f:
(1) need for peace
(2) oneness of religions
(3) oneness of humanity
PUP 393f:
(1) oneness of humanity, oneness of religions
(2) religion should be cause of unity
(3) religion and science
(4) equality of sexes
PUP 454f:
(1) oneness of humanity
(2) independent investigation of truth
(3) oneness of religion
(4) religion should be the cause of unity
(5) science and religion
(6) equality of men and women
(7) abolition of prejedice
(8) world peace
(9) universal education
(10) economic remedy
(11) house of justice (blending of church and state)
(12) centre of Covenant
SWAB 297f:
(1) universal peace
(2) independent investigation of truth
(3) oneness of humanity
(4) religion should be cause of unity
(5) religion and science
(5) abolition of prejudice
(6) universal language
(7) equality of sexes
(8) voluntary sharing
(9) freedom (from need?)
(10) religion necessary for order
(11) need for divine civilization (Holy Spirit)
(12) universal education
(13) justice and right (human rights, equality before law?)
... this one goes on, but it loses the character of a list of teachings about
this point.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen McGlinn
From M.C.Day@massey.ac.nzMon Sep 18 12:09:46 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 22:03:11 GMT=1200
From: Mary Day
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: educating daughters
Dear Rick and other talismans,
Last Thursday Rick wrote:
"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."
I am aware that your comments here arose out of your feeling of
frustration and I sympathise with that but I felt a bit miffed.
You asked women to do something and they didn't do it within 24
hours and you got upset. Well I will resist the temptation to be
sarcastic except to say, I don't need to get a Mac to get a life, I
have got more than one life running concurrently right now and I
can't always drop everything! Ironically one of the very 24 hours you
mentioned was spent by my husband and me, meeting with my daughters
teacher in an attempt to get our daughter on the teacher's agenda which in
this particular class is dominated by the boys. It's a long story. So
I am giving you a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket before I
address your very important question. How can a father educate his
daughter?
I assume that you love her so I don't need to expand on "ALL she
needs is love". So here are some things to think about. This
discussion is about girls and equality not just education in general.
1: What she needs most from you is your time. High quality time, low
quality time, as much as you have got and more. When you want to
write and read Talisman and she wants you, she should get you. She is
going to be gone before you login. From 4 to 18 takes about 2 blinks
of a cursor.
2: Reading that book was a great step. Read more widely about what
happens to girls in their education but it is probably not worth
reading much before about 1989 because things have changed a lot.
Girls now do better than boys in all subject areas including
mathematics right through to postgraduate levels - but don't forget
they need to, to get as far as boys. Participation rates are not so
good. In the US the number of women in engineering and science is
dropping. While reading keep in mind the words of the House of
Justice in the peace message that there is no moral, practical or
biological reason to deny women education and opportunity and that
the harmful attitudes of men arising from a denial of the spiritual
principle of the equality of women and men, flow into all aspects of
life.ESPECIALLY and including education. So reject any theories that
blame girls, is a good rule of thumb.
3: This self esteem thing is not the biggest issue. It can be a bit
of a girl blamer. There is something wrong with girls it is their slf
esteem kind of argument. There are
structural problems and outright and overt discrimination to
overcome. IF you don't believe me consider the resources devoted to
boys vs girls sport in US high schools. There is also debate in the
literature about this whole self esteem thing, but I have limited
time here.
4: Encourage your daughter to particpate in vigorous physical
activity eg sports gymnastics aerobics little league basketball
hockey whatever she is attracted to. The physical
strength of girls can be imporved in one generation by increasing the
physical activity of girls in early and middle childhood. Ripped and
muddy dresses are OK but better still dress her in cycle shorts and
tights and tee shirts and stuff like that. Save best dresses for
special occasions. If she is in to 'pretty' buy her pretty shorts!
5: Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Girls stuff is good
too! Pretty dresses have their time and place. Playing with dolls is
great! She has to earn to mother and nurture and all that good stuff.
But be a little bit clever, at the same time you buy her a Barbie
doll for her birthday buy her something which you knwo will foster
her other interests or talents, eg sports gear, art gear, science
equipment, music stuff. You could find Barbie at the bottom of the
toy box in next to no time.
6: Keep her safe from all forms of abuse. Walk away if you get too
angry - I know what 4 year olds can be like!!!
7: Go in to bat for her. My children's school have cricket teams
that play on Saturday mornings and are supposed to include boys and
girls. The girls were allowed to play but only the boys got invited to
so of course the girls didn't. I checked out the human rights law and
would have taken it all the way if necessary {We don't need expensive
lawyers to do that in NZ] And my husband and I went to see the
principal. In places where girls/women are discriminated against
mothers opinions don't get taken seriously so we always do this sort
of stuff together. Anyway to cut a long story short the girsl were
invited and my daughter and most of her friends joined up. Then we
got a school newsletter saying how wonderful the school was for
having so many girls playing. You have to laugh sometimes. The
important point here is not the playing of the cricket but the effect
this had on my daughter and her friends, all of whom knew what we had
done. I made it very public to prevent reneging. The girls themselves
were very empowered. They now knew they had rights and that we
thought they were worth fighting for and we won! It can feel pretty
uncomfortable and you put yourself out on a limb but it was worth it
for these girls and the boys learned something too. They are proud of
their girls.
8: Get involved in your child's school. Join the parents association
help with fundraising or what ever you do in the US. Put your money
where your mouth is. This tells your child education is important and
gives you more credibility with the staff when you need to stick up
for her. It makes you not just another whining parent. {I told you
you might not have much time for talisman}
9: Get involved with her homework and stuff like that. Include her in
your interests and hobbies. Encourage her to nontraditional stuff
like hammering but also encourage traditional girls stuff.
10: Please please keep her doing maths for as long as she can or it
becomes obvious it is not going to be her thing. The US has a strange
system of maths education in my opinion where they seem to let people
take soft options and then not get the maths they need. Don't let her
do this if at all possible. I have to point out this is my research
area, I know a lot about it [not intending to brag]. This is vitally
important because maths is the critical filter to many prestigious,
well paid, interesting careers that are of great value to humanity.
Maths is also taken as an indication of intelligence where IQ tests
have been discredited. Encourage enthuse entertain, keep that maths
going. Little children LOVE big numbers. Have lots of fun with those.
11: Tell her and discuss with her in age appropriate ways the
principle of the equality of women and men and the discrimination she
may have to overcome. It is better to know about it and push back the
barriers than be held back by something you can't identify. Girls can
do anything but some people may try to stop them and that ain't
right! Lots of girls relish the challenge, "I'll show them what I can
do"
12: Women learn a lot about mothering by talking to other women. When
mothers get together thay are more likely to talk about their children
than talk about men. Stick your neck out, talk to men about it, most
fathers love their children and want what is best for them. Solo
fathers are a great source of information they have no choice but
find out and learn and they have a lot to share. Keep talking till
you find some other interested men.
13: When it comes time for career advice find out about things
yourself. Research has shown that the most frequently used source of
information for teenagers about careers is their mums and dads. So
make sure that the information you give is correct and up to date. Do
not assume that school career advisors don't give sexist advice
anymore they do, they do, they do.
14: My daughter is 9, in a class of 9, 10, 11 year olds. I notice that
gender issues are much more prevalent now than they have been up to
now. It is like we have struck the frontier now. Others confirm this
with me. Stuff like girls playing quietly, doing pretty work while
the boys create mayhem and grab all the attention.
15: What does she need most? You, your love, your time. Kids don't
need perfect parents they need good enough ones, ones that do their
best.
I hope that helps
Mary
From sw@solsys.ak.planet.gen.nzMon Sep 18 12:12:39 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 95 22:24 NZST
From: S&W Michael
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Human rights
(from William Michael)
I understand the convention on Talisman is for participants to introduce
themselves when they join, and this includes giving some biographical data.
Let's see: I am in my mid-thirties and I have lived in New Zealand all my
life. If this was in the Maori style I'd give you my whole geneology, but
I think it is sufficent to say that my ancestory is Irish, Scotish, English
and Danish. I have been a Baha'i since 1977. I have a B.A. in philosophy
and an LLB (hons) in law. Right now I am doing postgraduate study in law
at Auckland University, trying to get the measure of a fairly new social
phenomena: large-scale organisations. At the same time I assist my wife to
run a small medical supply company. Business is a new world for me. I see
it as an exercise in practical ethics. We have a child on the way due in
December - fatherhood ready or not. Well that's me. Now I'd like to put
my ten cents worth in.
Juan Cole brought up the issue of human rights. As far as I am aware not a
lot has been said on it, but I think the topic is important, if only
because it is such a central idea in our moral and political culture. And
in talking of "our" culture I don't think I am being parochial. The us of
"our", I think, does include members of those cultures in which human
rights is a foreign ideal, because the notion is part of a powerful
spiritual conception of the self backed by the material, political, and
military might of the West. But perhaps I am being Eurocentric here and
exhibiting my failure to acheive the full world consciousness asked of me
by Baha'u'llah. In any case human rights is at least important for us
Baha'is in the West.
I must say that for my part I have my doubts about the existence of such a
thing as human rights. A year ago I would have claimed the sceptic's
position more emphatically, perhaps quoting with approval Jeremy Bentham's
well-known remark that the idea of human rights was "nonsense on stilts".
Now I am not so settled in my position. It is again a live issue for me.
Still, a more-sceptical-than-not voice on Talisman might be good for the
consultation. Not everybody accepts the existence of human rights or
associates their assertion with the high moral ground.
My thinking to the sceptical position went something like this. First I
asked, Where should the burden of proof in the debate lie? Should I assume
human rights exist unless good reason can be advanced against them, or
should I assume they don't exist unless there is good reason for them? It
seemed to me the latter because that there are human rights is a very
strong claim. That there are rights people have just in virtue of their
humanity - which is what a human right is - is an awfully strong claim.
Once I had decided where the burden of proof lay, then I asked, Why believe
in human rights? What could I say to a sceptic that did not beg the
question? I couldn't find any good reason to believe. I mean, where are
these human rights? I am looking for them but I can't see them. What
property possesed by all human beings generates or entails them? I
couldn't even imagine an adequate answer to these questions.
Then I turned to the Writings to see if there was anything there to
dislodge my scepticism. Nothing I found changed my view.
I did however find in the Lawh-I-Dunya, this sentence (Tablets of
Baha'u'llah revealed after the KI, p. 85): "They that perpetrate tyranny
in the world have usurped the rights of the peoples and kindreds of the
earth and are sedulously pursuing their selfish inclinations." I thought
it unlikly the "rights" mentioned here were conferred by Persian law, and
if they were not legal rights and I didn't believe in human rights, that
left me without an explanation of the meaning of "rights" in this sentence.
But one sentence was not enough to change my mind.
In sum then: 1. The existence of human rights is a strong claim; 2. Strong
claims need good justification; 3. There is no good justification for
human rights, either in natural reason or the Writings; therefore 4. Don't
believe in human rights.
That's the clear part of my thinking. The rest is a bit less clear.
As I said, now I am not so sure about my reasoning. Three reasons why:
First, I now think my search for human rights was ontologically naive
(ontology being the topic defined by the question, "What is there?" and the
answer, "Everything".) What was I expecting to discover? Some previously
unknown part of the brain - the "human rights centre" - which conferred
human rights.
Second, my thinking was relatively uninformed by linguistic usage. I was
just looking at the surface grammar of the expression "human rights". What
do people mean when they assert human rights? How is the expression used?
Third, perhaps I had missed the point. The real heat over human rights
comes not with the assertion of their existence, but (i) in claims about
what rights are human rights; (ii) the relation of human rights to legal
systems, especially where they conflict; (iii) the priority or lack of
priority of human rights over goods: under what conditions if any ought
human rights to be set aside; and so on.
Still, I am not convinced Baha'is should commit themselves to human rights
- not without some more consultation anyway.
William Michael
From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpMon Sep 18 12:13:39 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 95 20:57:58 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Defending Johnston:
Dear Erudite Friends:
I find no pleasure in the less than subtle insinuations that my
dear and highly regarded friend Robert Johnston makes occasionally.
Why he does so seems to me not so simple to understand, although
he does have an unfortunate tendency to try to explain why.
What I wonder at is why he flirts so with the powers that be.
Are they bulls to be tempted into charging? Is it his wish to
deconstruct into plain speech the fancy talk of academic
back-stabbing? Or does he grow weary of the old masculine
argumentation thing: I'm right and so you must be wrong!
But I also find unpleasant the public calls of condemnation. Isn't
this the sort of things we are not supposed to do? (It reminds
me of public stonings!) An error multiplied does not a virtue make!
But my real reason for writing this letter is to express the
appreciation that I feel for the gems of insight and the truly
marvelous words that he sometimes writes when he tires of
feuding. From them, I hear a distinct, unique voice without
which Talisman would be impoverished.
Only from his letters do I see an appreciation of what the coming
of feminine mores means to discourse. And he is a man! So much
else on Talisman is this kind of "My argument is bigger than your
argument" type of nonsense.
What ever happened to the idea that one should reserve judgement
and carefully consider all points of view? Robert, when
not dueling, holds to higher standard than many of us in this regard.
Should we not consider with a sin-concealing eye and believe that
even his duels are against pretentiousness and intellectual
arrogance? Or don't we have any of that on Talisman.
I truly love his comments on postmodernism, and the replies
they elicit. I would miss that. So, kind gentle folk, and
dearest Robert Johnston, please lets stop this talk of throwing out
and discussions of posteriorities.
Please do it for this lover of words well written.
Yours respectfully,
Stephen R. Friberg
From brburl@mailbag.comMon Sep 18 12:17:54 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 10:38:04 -0500
From: Bruce Burrill
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Miller/Baha'i&Buddhism
Juan,
Thank you for your msg. As always, I have learned from it.
> "Speaking as a professional historian, I can only say that William
Miller's writings about the Baha'i Faith are outrageously scurrilous and
flawed from top to bottom." <
It was years ago that I tried reading Miller, but opted not to finish his book
because there was no way I could check out the sources of what was saying,
but sadly no Baha'i could point me towards a careful analysis of the obvious
problematics of the work. In light of Miller's bad handling of Baha'i you
state:
> "I do not think it fair to bring up Fozdar's and Momen's books on
Buddhism in this context." <
Whereas one can be hostilely exclusive, I think it is quite possible to be
equally
hostilely inclusive, subsumptive, and I think this is so of Fozdar, though not
of Momen. Fozdar "argues" in his prophecy chapter in BUDDHA
MAITRYA [sic], and elsewhere in that book, that Buddhists have lost the
true meaning and understanding of Buddhism, and he does this in terms that
can only be called insulting to Buddhists, and this is so particularly in the
context of Fozdar's scholastic incompetency. This is a man who in at least 27
instances quoted as Buddhist texts material that he had know wasn't. Of the
prophecy text, the Anagatavamsa, Fozdar states that this is the "oldest
passage" relating the decline of the Dhamma and the advent of Maitreya
"which can be attributed with any certainty to Siddharta [sic] Himself."
(BMA 250, 282) The source for this claim? It can only be Fozdar's own
inventiveness, and certainly not any extant scholarship which attributes this
work to a man named Kassapa around the end of the 12th Century CE.
Fozdar's whole approach to Buddhist texts has nothing to do with traditional
exegesis, it has often nothing to do with the traditional meanings of technical
terminology, and in one very central issue, Fozdar's approach has nothing to
do with the grammar of the passage in question.
On page 177 of BMA he quotes from the Anagatavamsa with the addition of
"of the Perfect Buddha": "At the time when the Dispensation of the Perfect
Buddha is falling into oblivion, ... a 'miracle' like the Twin-miracle will
teach the Dharma." (The deletion and ellipsis are Fozdar's.) Fozdar
comments on this, "The sense is clear: the Dharma will be taught be taught
not by a single 'miracle' (Avatar), nor by two _separate_ 'miracles' ... but
by the 'Twin-miracle...." Fozdar states that "the contemporaneous appearance
of Two Avatars," the Twin-miracle, will prevent false claim to Buddhahood,
and by being so unusual, it will demand our full attention. Fozdar spends the
whole of chapters 10, 11, 12, and 13 to establish that, as announced by the
title of chap 14, the Twin-miracle is manifest in the persons of the Bab and
Baha'u'llah.
The full sentence from the Anagatavamsa which Fozdar does actually quote
reads:
"At the time when the Dispensation is falling into (oblivion), all the relics,
coming from every place: from the abode of serpents and the deva world and
the Brahma-world, having gathered together in the space around the great Bo-
tree, having made a Buddha image, and having performed a 'miracle' like the
Twin-miracle, will teach Dhamma."
Parse this sentence: what is the subject, the verb, and the direct object? And
never mind that "relics" and "twin-miracle" have very specific meanings
within the Pali literature which Fozdar completely ignores for his own
inventive interpretations, and if we follow Fozdar who needs to consider the
grammatical structure of the sentence in order find the true meaning of it?
The Twin-miracle will teach the Dharma. And this from a man who
criticizes Buddhists and Buddhist scholars for having deformed the true
teaching of the Buddha.
I do think the comparison of Fozdar to Miller, they being mirror images of
the other, is not inappropriate.
> 'Fozdar was writing in a Middle Eastern genre called the
"istidlaliyyih" or "seeking of proof," the purpose of which is to create
common ground with another tradition for the purposes of gaining converts
from it.' <
This is certainly true of Momen's work, which strikes me as being
sympathetic to Buddhism, and is willing to make some attempt at presenting
Buddhism in a favorable light, at finding a common ground. Was Fozdar
trying to establish common ground by telling Buddhists that have it all wrong,
that have lost the true meaning of the Buddha's teaching, and on and on and
on? If so Fozdar is a very sorry example of this genre. In both his books his
attitude is hostile and subsumptive.
> "Such religious competition is a fact of human life." <
And so is criticism of such attempts that do serious injustice to one's
position.
> "As for Moojan's book, I should have thought it fairly obvious that it was
intended to be used in proselytizing for the Baha'i faith among Southeast
Asian Buddhists, or at least in gaining friends for the Faith in those
cultures." <
Of course it is, and it is what Moojan told me his intent was, but that does
not excuse him from any criticism of how he presents Buddhism. As a matter
of fact it should open him up, his work anyway, to a careful examination his
presentation of Buddhism, do his parallels really work, is he in fact
accurately presenting the Buddhist position, or is he just presenting enough
of Buddhism with a particular twist that will allow him to draw the parallels
he wants to draw? I would say the latter.
> "The Baha'i Faith is a missionary religion." <
Of course, and the missionized, you certainly can expect, will respond to the
attempts at presenting their religion in ways that they find problematic.
> "Polemics are forbidden to Baha'is, but apologia are not." <
Where is the line crossed from apologetics to polemics?
> "But the approaches so far tried have not been polemical or mean-spirited
in the way Miller's book is with regard to the Baha'i Faith." <
I guess it is a matter of taste, but I found Fozdar particularly mean spirited
and hostile, though not so of Momen's book.
> "No Baha'i wants to convince Buddhists that the Buddha was actually a
horrible person." <
What would be the mirror image, subsumption?
> "Obviously, the genres of inter-religious dialogue, and of the academic
study of religion would require Baha'is to take a very different approach than
any so far tried." <
I think so, and I suspect it will be an interesting struggle to watch.
> "Some Baha'is may want to convince Buddhists that their religion is
ultimately fulfilled in the Baha'i Faith. The latter will be objectionable to
some Buddhists, but the distinctions at least should be recognized." <
Certainly it is a reasonable thing to think that a Baha'i would want to
convince Buddhists that Baha'i is the fulfillment of Buddhism, but the
question for Baha'is, then, is how do you meaningfully talk to Buddhist in a
way that they will listen. Fozdar's books are certainly an obvious negative
example. Momen's book is better in attitude, but not less problematic in
execution.
Bruce
From Dave10018@aol.comMon Sep 18 12:18:12 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 11:54:45 -0400
From: Dave10018@aol.com
To: friberg@will.brl.ntt.jp
Cc: robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz, TLCULHANE@aol.com,
talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: a riff on grace but mostly on postmodernism and world order and love
In a message dated 95-09-17 21:54:20 EDT, friberg@will.brl.ntt.jp (Stephen R.
Friberg) writes:
>
>Dear David:
>
>Just got back from a vacation and read your nice piece. Very thought
>provoking and interesting. Have you given any thought to polishing up
>something like this and writing on it for a Baha'i audience?
>
Thankyou and yes, I do hope that through writing things like this for
Talisman that I will come up with something suitable for wider publication.
Hints and suggestions regarding form content and placement most welcome!!!
>My only quibble is your discussion of iconic art and related matters.
>It seems to me that the western half of the Roman empire was much
>poorer than the eastern half, so all the action moved east, including
>the culture, etc. The glorification of Christ in magnificent state-
>sponsored temples required new artforms: statues, etc, couldn't be
>very large, and anyway they were associated with the old cults, so
>the magnificent tile work of the iconic representations, which seems
>to have a long Roman history, came to the fore. Then, as the western
>Empire collapsed under the onslaught of severe population pressure
>that moved outlying peoples into Europe, the old learning collapsed
>too. Of course, iconic art was then the model as the West slowly
>built itself up.
>
>Steve Friberg
My point was that in pursuit of "new artforms" old forms were rejected which
would later prove of great value. Already developed Roman fresco techniques
were suitable for the decoration of large churches, as Giotto demonstrated
magnificently at Padua around 1300. These frescos are among the most
significant of the works which signal the beginning of the Renaissance.
It is not so terrible for art that some aspects of Roman and Greek style were
rejected for a thousand years,( though the rejection of rational one point
perspective may have had more serious consequences for science), and the -
integration- of the iconic style with Roman realism gave Western art, most
particularly painting, greater force, but my point was that the rejection of
realism, as with the later iconoclasm of Savaronaola represented an imbalence
we do not want to repeat.
david taylor
From Member1700@aol.comMon Sep 18 19:03:22 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 12:25:37 -0400
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Rude Language
I must say that I find the recent barrage of rude and vulgar comments to
which the readers have been subjected to be extremely offensive. These
messages have been personally insulting, accusatory, and impolite.
Normally, such absurdities could be ignored. But, it seems to me that--at
this point--these messages are becoming disruptive. And so, I would also
request that the list owner intervene.
Such language and such rudeness would be unacceptable in any community of
discourse, no matter how tolerant, and I don't see why Talisman should be any
different.
Tony
From jmenon@bcon.comMon Sep 18 19:04:23 1995
Date: 18 Sep 1995 07:28:43 GMT
From: Jonathan Menon
To: Alethinos@aol.com
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Censorship and standing toe to toe
Dear Jim,
You wrote:
"I have been in this struggle since 1987 at least. That was when the *youth
movement* died due to strangulation.That was also the last time we actually
saw a viable opportnity to really
shake things out of their current orbit and move the Cause to a whole new
level of activity in this country - the likes of which it had never seen."
I am interested with what you mean by "the *youth movement died due to
strangulation."
Please tell, if you have the time.
Many thanks,
Jonathan
Hamilton, Canada
From burlb@bmi.netMon Sep 18 19:05:01 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 95 10:09 PDT
From: Burl Barer
To: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: human rights, etc.
>
>Dearest Linda, drop-jawed with amazement, wrote:
>
>Now, Burl, I am surprised that you came down so hard on this poor young woman
>from Ishqabad. What if I had sat at the dinner table and chastized her for her
>assortment of beliefs?
>She did tell me that there was a woman
>in Ishqabad who was the dominating figure who was trying to teach the straight
>and narrow path. I had the impression that, for the most part, this woman was
>being ignored by the younger people who had joined the Faith.
>
>Burl, his face wreathed in warm smiles, replies:
I would not have come down hard on the poor woman -- I may have filled my
soup spoon with margarine and fliped the contents at her forehead or
something equally playfull -- but I most certainly would have lovingly
encouraged her to read and internalize the actual teachings of Baha'u'llah,
the Interpretations of Abdul Baha, the explanations and guidance of Shoghi
Effendi, and the letters from the Universal House of Justice. Perhaps you
could give her a gift of Baha'i World Faith or have a deepening class based
on the actual writings? I am curious about your statement about the
"dominating figure" trying to teach the straight and narrow path and that
she was being ignored. Is this good? Is the path of God, cleared from the
debris of superstition, best avoided in favor of all manner of nonsense?
So vast and encompassing are the Teachings of Baha'u'llah that we can swim
in that oceon for all Eternity. There is no need to "increase the depth" by
shoving a garden hose of absurdities into it. Yes, we must be patient,
encouraging (I for one, did not like any of the teachings -- I only became a
Baha'i because Baha'u'llah is Baha'u'llah.) But if "Baha'is" are telling
people that Baha'u'llah teaches what He does *not* teach, and we just let it
go, that is doing no one justice -- neither the teacher nor the student.
I have seen people embrace the cause immediately, recognize Baha'u'llah with
one glance, and devote the rest of their life to learning what He taught. I
have also seen folks become Baha'is because they like the principles, or the
cookies, or the display at the fair -- then, when they discovered that God
did not defer to their opinions, beliefs, or preconceived notions, they
threw a cosmic fit. Abdul Baha says we should stive to give the Faith in
its pure form. There is a difference between lovingly guiding a fellow
believer (and I emphasize the word "believer") to the Sacred Texts for
clarification, and keeping silent as they shove the Cause of God into their
theological Osterizer -- Hamilton Beach is not a Holy Site in the Baha'i
Faith (if that reference is too obscure for a non-American, the point can be
explained) :-)
Love
Burl (pass the butter) Barer
From jmenon@bcon.comMon Sep 18 19:08:52 1995
Date: 18 Sep 1995 19:59:50 GMT
From: Jonathan Menon
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Baha'i Jurisprudence
Suzanne mentions that:
"So the JURISPRUDENTIAL PRINCIPLE behind the existence of 'exceptions' is
that the application of the law would have been unfair, or would have in
fact undermined the (divine) principle for which that law was created. "
I think this is true, but there is also another aspect to this. I think that
exceptions to the laws, in some cases, actually complete the expression of
the principles involved. For example, the application of laws is governed by
another principle, which I will loosely define as "progressive revelation".
This is the principle which gives the House of Justice the right to apply the
laws as the state of humanity allows it. So, in the case of an exception to a
law, often it is the application of this principle which causes that
exception to be necessary. For example, the law of Huquq'u'llah is in the
Aqdas and is a law for the whole world, but has only just been enjoined on
those of us from a non-Middle Eastern background because, perhaps, we were
not able to fully benefit from it universally until now.
This is a bit different, I think, from the application of a law being
"unfair", and is rather a principle which allows the law to have its maximum
effect given the maturity of the individuals or societies involved at the
time.
Also, in response to the issue of exceptions taking precedence even when they
are in a Text of lesser authority, I think that the text of lesser authority
usually takes precedence over the Text of higher authority, since the former
is usually an authorized interpretation of the latter.
Jonathan
From jmenon@bcon.comMon Sep 18 19:09:33 1995
Date: 18 Sep 1995 20:40:07 GMT
From: Jonathan Menon
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Belief and declaration
Dear Burl and Mary,
The House of Justice mentions that a new declarant should be aware of three
things before they become a Baha'i:
1. They must catch the spark of faith;
2. They should become informed about who Baha'u'llah and the other central
figures are;
3. They should know that there are laws they should endeavour to follow and
an administration they must try to obey to the best of their ability.
These three things are the only requirements for becoming a Baha'i. So, they
should know there are laws, but they don't need to know what they are. They
need to know they should obey the Institutions, but they don't necessarily
need to know how the Administrative Order works.
In the industrialized world, we are used to people accepting the Faith in a
certain way, the principle of the independent investigation of truth being a
principle which is very important to us. But it is not this way at all in
other places. In some islands and among some tribes, the leaders become
Baha'is and the rest of their tribes follow suit as a matter of course. Their
societies are so different than ours that in some cases collective enrollment
fits perfectly within the framework of their cultures. Here, there are other
principles of the Faith at work which we would not necessarily identify with
as much as we do with the independent investigation of truth.
The whole process of entry by troops will challenge us, I think, to
re-examine how we understand that people should accept the Faith. If there
are thousands of people becoming Baha'is, they are all coming in and bringing
in with them their attachments to the old order, just like we have. The
Baha'i community is supposed to be that social laboratory in which humanity
can learn how to live according to the Revelation and unless they become
Baha'is that education can never take place.
There is a story of Hand of the Cause of God Dr Muhajir about this. He was
giving a talk in a village in Africa. The audience was Christian, and they
were interested in asking questions related to Christianity. So, one person
asked him, "Do you believe in the Trinity?" "Yes" replied Dr Muhajir. "Do
you believe in the Resurrection?" "Yes" nodded Dr Muhajir. You can imagine
the confusion in the minds of some of the Baha'is who were travelling with
the Hand. Dr Muhajir's point was that none of those details mattered, but
what really mattered was that these people fall in love with Baha'u'llah and
join the community, where they would learn the details of the Revelation
afterwards.
In Haiti they have had 7000 declarations since the beginning of August.
Apparently it is total chaos down there. I am sure that those friends have
had many of their ideas of how people become Baha'i radically altered. There
are so many people, that they are writing prayers out by hand and passing
them out among the populace. I think it sounds pretty exciting, and it will
happen in our own countries before too long as the House of Justice writes.
Are we ready for chaos?
Jonathan
From Abdo@mishmish.demon.co.ukMon Sep 18 19:14:02 1995
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 03:29:54 GMT
From: Abdo Lil & Shoghi
To: jrcole@umich.edu, GreyOlorin@aol.com
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: what if women...?
I have been lurking around "the women and the UHJ" discussion for a while,
this women in positions of political power stuff, which both yourself, Ms
Van Kerkoff and Mrs Woolbridge allude to has finally caused me to break my
silence.
I live in England, where we have had a woman head of state since before I
was born and a woman head of government for most of my adult life. I can
still remember when feminists argued that women should vote for Thatcher,
on much the same lines as you seem to advocate. Nobody would make that sort
of argument now! Under the Thatcher leadership, the rights of women were
rolled back and the gap between the average earnings of men and women increased.
Not only women suffered, the war in Ireland was stepped up, the war with
Agentina was fought, British bases were used to bomb Libia, the treatment of
political prisoners was taken to the Court of Human Rights - I could go on.
The political leadership of women is no more relevant to the treatment of
women than the worship of goddesses (I thought I would get that in before
someone suggests that the Holy Maiden is really Black Kali or something).
Many women, such as Bhutto get the job because of family connections.
It is extrodinary that Bahais are now talking about feminism when the rest of
society grapples with post feminism. In my opinion Bahai thinking on the
woman question got fossilised about 1925, we went on repeating "the equality
of men and women" like a mantra, without realising that what we meant by it
and what everyone else meant by it were no longer the same. The second wave
of feminism in the 70's passed the Bahai Faith by, so we never got to grips
with lesbian liberation or abortion on demand. The Bahai understanding of
sex equality and that of secular feminisms are not the same, I think that
we are sometimes not up front enough about this, that is why people are
sometimes very upset when they find out about women and the UHJ. Most of the
arguments i have read in this thread seem to be coming from a equal opportunities
type standpoint which might be fine for Lambeth Council but seems odd in the
context of a religion and ultimately the word of God. The Guardianship was a
heireditory, male only institution, not subject to equal opportunity recruit-
ment policy. It has been asked what if the UHJ were women only, I don't think
it would have made much difference, many of the prominant early believers in
the West were women anyway. What if the Guardianship was still going? It is a
mistake to let others set our agenda, yes I know there are lots of people who
put off because of this, lots of people would be put off by a hiereditory
imam and many more would rather go down the pub.
While we are debatingif the position of women and ethinic minorities are
comparable (I have not that one since 1978!!) the women's movement is
discussing spirituality. I think we have to move on, accept we missed a chunk
of women's history and get stuck in to developing a Baha'i feminist theology
and spirituality.
--
L Abdo
From rstockman@usbnc.orgMon Sep 18 19:28:20 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 95 08:13:36
From: "Stockman, Robert"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Baha'i martyrdoms in Iran
I want to thank Ahang for his translation of the Manshad memoir, which
I have been reading with interest.
This is one form of research and publishing on the subject of
martyrdoms that needs to be done. But there is so much more to do, I
want to challenge my fellow Talismanians to think seriously about
doing more research and writing on the persecution in Iran. Most of
the works we have are popular: Olya's Story, Iran's Secret Pogrom, and
Cry from the Heart. These are important for the purpose they set out
to accomplish. But there is almost NO published academic research on
the Iranian persecutions. The only exception I can think of is
Fershteh Bethel's doctoral dissertation on the psychological states of
the martyrs, part of which was published in *World Order* magazine
some ten years ago. Dare I call this lack of serious study
scandalous? The friends are dying and we have nothing intellectual to
say about it? There is no scholarly biography to be written, no
further psychological study, no social history? There must be dozens
of papers and serious books waiting to be written! Admittedly we are
still chronologically close to the events; but half a generaton has
passed since the Iranian Revoltion, and there's no shortage of history
on the revolution. The worst phase of persecution (in terms of
deaths) is already a decade behind us. And there are thousands of
eye-witnesses in the west who even speak English and can be
interviewed by non-Persian speakers!
This is a subject dying, as it were, to be researched (pun intended,
for emphasis).
--Rob Stockman
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comMon Sep 18 19:30:01 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 95 08:43:01 -0400
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: HW(p)-2
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
Dear Chris,
I think that you have made a nice discovery in your 1929 printing
of the first Hidden Words. Apparently the editor had decided to
manifest the hidden word "bahr" (sea) -- he had forgotten that,
after all, they don't call them *Hidden* Words for nothing :-}
The point that you raised about variants in printing is very
important one. About a year ago, in a private communication, Dr.
Riaz Ghadimi explained how when the Guardian's translations of
the Hidden Words arrived in Iran, friends noted that in a few
places it differed markedly from all the manuscripts that they
had. However, shortly thereafter a manuscript of HWs in the
hand of Jinab-i Zayn (the standard by which all other Text must
be compared) was located and it agreed completely with Shoghi
Effendi's translation.
So, either the Guardian was using Zayn's manuscript for his
translation (which is extremely unlikely), or indeed his mind and
spirit was so united with that of Baha'u'llah's Revelation that
for him looking at manuscripts is not critical.
lovingly, ahang.
ps. I'll dig up Dr. Ghadimi's letter and post his listing of
instances where the Guardian's translation differed from early
manuscripts.
From JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduMon Sep 18 19:30:08 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 95 09:40:38 EWT
From: JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Moderation
As Chris Buck points out, veiled references to the smells of mules
do not exemplify the sort of courtesy that we should be striving fo.
John Walbridge
List Owner
From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduMon Sep 18 19:30:56 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 95 10:22:59 EWT
From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: human rights, etc.
I am concerned by the posting questioning if we "should" be defending human
rights as Baha'is. The question is posed, Is there justification in the writings for even believing
in human rights. My question is, what have we reduced ourselves to if we don't
believe in and defend human rights as defined in the U.N. Charter? If, as
Baha'is, we are trying to bring humanity to a higher level of awareness and
goodness, then how can we imagine turning our backs on issues of
state-authorized torture, rape, mass killings, etc., etc. What difference does
it make whether or not Baha'u'llah specifically says something to indicate that
He advocated the defense of human rights. Is it not enough that the Baha'i
Faith advocates bringing about a new race of spititual beings? Could such a
basic principle mean anything less than coming to the defense of people who are
subjected to brutality or are deprived of important freedoms?
Also, if we are working with - and advocating the strenth of - a universal
governing body such as the U.N. - does it not behoove us to stand with them in
their battles? Even if, as a religious body we do not agree with every dotted
i and every crossed t, shouldn't we put the efforts that they make to better
humanity before exclusionist doctrines? Don't we expect members of other
faiths to do so? Aren't we critical of Muslims if they put their doctrines
ahead of universal ideas of human rights, especially when it comes to treatment
of Baha'is?
Now, Burl, I am surprised that you came down so hard on this poor young woman
from Ishqabad. What if I had sat at the dinner table and chastized her for her
assortment of beliefs? What if I had sat with her and made a list of all the
things she was and was not supposed to accept as dogma? How would I have
furthered the cause. And, if I were to have told her that these issues were
not even open to discussion - well, I can assure you that she is quite strong
minded enough that she would have politely told me what she thought of me and
my narrow interpretations of religion. She did tell me that there was a woman
in Ishqabad who was the dominating figure who was trying to teach the straight
and narrow path. I had the impression that, for the most part, this woman was
being ignored by the younger people who had joined the Faith.
I think Suzanne's point about the reversal of the inheritence law needs careful
consideration. How is this different from the issue of women serving on the
UHJ beside from the usual comment that "the House has already decided the
issue!" so shut up. Linda
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comMon Sep 18 19:37:44 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 16:29:29 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re Human Rights
My dear Linda
One of the maturing aspects of the Baha'i
Community over the next few years is going to
be exactly what you are wondering about. As
we know the present Goal, of we the Baha'is,is
to complete the Arc and mature our Communi
ties all by or before the Year 2000. <156
BE>. What happens then,we have the Lesser
Peace.So do we all sit and play our harps and
love each other.I just wish that would be so but
it is when the hard work begins , the Guardian
said we have to breath life into the body of
mankind. From the reading I have done it is not
a time of Peace , but rather a time when the u
derstanding and the means to achieve Peace has
occurred but not the reality. A time of great fear
and uncertainty in all areas of human affairs.
So we will have to be proactive over abuses and
injustices and social inequalities . We will need
to address them I suspect by example in
tially.We should establish centers for abused
women and children , create learning forums to
eradicate illiteracy< schools>,help with
farming projects in third world countries , cre-
ate work in regions of high unemployment. As
our numbers grow place economic pressure as
well as moral pressure on governments and or
ganizations that enact and condone the actions
you mentioned..All of this should be done be
cause it is the right thing to do 'Noblesse
Oblige ' with out thought of reward or praise
In order to create the type of meaningful
change you mention this religion needs more
people in it.
Not to impress people but to carry out the
things we are supposed to do for our fellow
human beings.
We started in the West with people who often
had been engaged in trying to ease the suffering
of humanity. We should pick up that laid down
banner and move forward into the 21st century
as the trail-blazers for social and spiritual pro-
gress on the Planet. We are for the rights and
dignity of every person on the God's Earth , the
Universal House of Justice states it in their
Constitution , we can but follow that noble ex-
ample empowered by the Twin Blessed Ones.
Kindest Regards Derek Cockshut.
From rvh3@columbia.eduMon Sep 18 22:28:17 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 11:30:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Richard Vernon Hollinger
To: "Stockman, Robert"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Baha'i martyrdoms in Iran
On Mon, 18 Sep 1995, Stockman, Robert wrote:
> The worst phase of persecution (in terms of
> deaths) is already a decade behind us. And there are thousands of
> eye-witnesses in the west who even speak English and can be
> interviewed by non-Persian speakers!
>
> This is a subject dying, as it were, to be researched (pun intended,
> for emphasis).
It is not just these persecutions that need to be researched and written
about. Interviewing Iranian Baha'i exiles could serve on the one hand to
fill gaps in the historical documentation of the Iranian Baha'i community
caused by the seizing and possible destruction of records, and on the
other to document the Iranian Baha'i diaspora. As important as the
persecutions in Iran were and are, the migration of tens of thousands of
Iranian Baha'is to other countries has had a significant impact on the
history of the Faith throughout the world.
Richard
From rvh3@columbia.eduMon Sep 18 22:28:32 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 09:56:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Richard Vernon Hollinger
To: "Stockman, Robert"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu, Juan R Cole
Subject: Re: logic, history and women
On Mon, 18 Sep 1995, Stockman, Robert wrote:
> Subsequently, however,
> He always called it mahfil-i-rawhani, "spiritual assembly." I checked
> the tablets pretty carefully and know of no instances where He called
> it a baytu'l-adl subsequently. He used bayt-i-rawhaniyyih "house of
> spirituality" once, and then as a reference to the Chicago useage of
> that name.
I also am unaware of any later tablets that refer to the Chicago
institution at baytu'l-adl. I think I have seen an undated tablet that
uses the term baytu'l-rawhani. There are, as I mentioned in an earlier
posting, tablets that use terms similar to mahfil-i rawhani, such as
mahfil-i shur, to refer to the New York institutions. As I recall from
Moojan's article on Ishqabad these are the same appelations `Abdu'l-Baha
used to refer to the consultative insitution there.
Hence, I concur with Rob that the term *mafhil-i rawhani* in the 1909
tablet most likely refers to the House of Spirituality. Tony has
suggested that it is unlikely that `Abdu'l-Baha would have referred to an
institution that was not in exsitence and that the Baha'i community did
not know about. While I am unaware of other tablets from this period
that refer to the UHJ, there are a number of pilgrims notes that record
`Abdu'l-Baha's expositions on this subject. Furthermore, I think it was
fairly widely understood among Persian Baha'is that `Abdu'l-Baha was to
be succeeded by the House of Justice. It is the allusion to the
Guardianship in this tablet this more unusual, as `Abdu'l-Baha's
appointment of Shoghi Effendi was not widely known.
Richard Hollinger
From haukness@tenet.eduMon Sep 18 22:34:23 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 18:59:25 -0500 (CDT)
From: John Haukness
To: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: human rights, etc.
Allah-u-abha Friends; My dear Linda, I know I cannot offer you a
satisfactory explanation for why the inheritance law shouldn't be
reversed. But maybe I could get some credit for doing the best I can, to
come the closest I can to support for you within the constraint that I
also be true to my independent investigation of the truth, which would be
my comprhension of Baha'i sacred and any secular writing. I mean do I
have any other venue?
Anyway, here goes, the inheritance laws have to do with chivalry,
the queen, the princes, taking the clock of and throwing it on the mud to
keep her feet clean, and opening the door first. (Now I know all these
scenes can be totally turned against me, and I would do it first
sarcastically to beat anyone to it) But what I mean, Isabella Allende-0I
will quote from her to defend this tomorrow, is that women are the fairer
sex, they are equally if not more intelligent, so please, us men have to
have some use in life, their isn't much left for us, so please let us
count your money some, and keep it in the bank for you, and withdraw it
when you so command us. At your service.
haukness@tenet.edu
From haukness@tenet.eduMon Sep 18 22:36:00 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 20:17:51 -0500 (CDT)
From: John Haukness
To: talisman
Subject: moderation
Allah-u-abha Friends: I will offer a different view of
Robert's posts, maybe giving Robert a breather. I am disappointed in the
requests to have Robert censored, O, I could use another term, maybe
chastized, however, I am thankful that the moderator came in with, what I
thought was a calming effect. So that takes care of the donkey. On the
otherhand, I do not see Robert's posts as combatative, partison, or of
the immature projective nature whereby a writer will put someone down,
because they have the adlerian inferiority/superiority deficiencies going
on and they need to project. Then as I have said before, I see a group
mentality of partisonship. So what I see is quite different, that Robert
is taking on the tought criticisms that happen here, when these
criticisms are based on projections and not substance. There NOW, I am
sure that I will recieve the message I am a prime example of what I am
writing about again. That has become the norm. Sacrifice is good, to my
friends who use me as the example of error, I hear the other John,
(Elton), it's no sacrifice, at all.
haukness@tenet.edu
From sw@solsys.ak.planet.gen.nzMon Sep 18 22:36:14 1995
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 13:48 NZST
From: S&W Michael
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Belief and declaration
Dear Jonathan
You've stated:
>3. They should know that there are laws they should endeavour to follow and
>an administration they must try to obey to the best of their ability.
>These three things are the only requirements for becoming a Baha'i. So, they
>should know there are laws, but they don't need to know what they are.
I do appreciate your comments regarding the ways in which Baha'is come to
the Faith, but a rather obvious conclusion from your point no. 3 is that in
order to obey the laws, one must know what they are.
Regards
Suzanne Michael
From sw@solsys.ak.planet.gen.nzMon Sep 18 22:36:36 1995
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 13:48 NZST
From: S&W Michael
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Baha'i Jurisprudence
Dear Jonathan
Thank you for your comments on 'exceptions' as they relate to the concepts
of progresive revelation and 'gradualism' - I think you are right, so we
have a further principle to add to our Baha'i jurisprudence.
So in some instances we have the case that an exception is made because the
law may be 'unfair' in a particular application, or because of the further
principle of 'gradualism'.
Your point about texts of lesser and greater authority, ie. 'authorised
interpretations' being 'lesser' and the Aqdas being the 'greater' is
interesting - I wonder if there are any exceptions to this though. Off
hand it doesn't seem so.
Suzanne
From richs@microsoft.comMon Sep 18 22:38:26 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 95 18:05:57 PDT
From: Rick Schaut
To: owner-talisman@indiana.edu, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: Baha'i Jurisprudence
Dear Suzanne and Friends,
Before I get into specifics, I feel compelled to point out, once
again, that no conception of Baha'i Jurisprudence can ignore
the domains of authority which cover various statements regarding
Baha'i Law. Indeed, any development of Baha'i Jurisprudence
must _begin_ with a means to determine the domain of authority
under which a particular law is promulgated.
Consider Shoghi Effendi's statements about inheritance and
non-Baha'is. If those statements constitute an authoritative
interpretation, they carry a different weight than if they merely
constitute a progressive unfoldment of the laws.
In short, a systematic method of Baha'i Jurisprudence must
have some way to address what a Central Figure is _doing_
as well as a way to address what He is _saying_.
Now, regarding a proposed principle of Baha'i Jurisprudence:
>From: S&W Michael
>So the JURISPRUDENTIAL PRINCIPLE behind the existence of 'exceptions' is
>that the application of the law would have been unfair, or would have in
>fact undermined the (divine) principle for which that law was created. The
>Guardian's statement regarding inheritance laws and one's non-Baha'i heirs
>or spouse is probably a similar example here.
The notion of 'exceptions' and 'reversals' will lead you completely
up in the air if you don't consider, first, the domains of authority. For
example, an 'exception' to the prohibition on alcohol is presently in
effect for Baha'is residing in the former eastern block countries. This
is an exception stated by the Universal House of Justice, and can be
construed to constitute a 'reversal' of the law with respect to the people
for whom it applies.
But, in the broader sense of Baha'i Law, it is certainly not a reversal.
We expect this prohibition to be in full effect at some time in the future.
Why? Because the present exception is 'enacted' (for lack of a better
word) under the authority that the Universal House of Justice has, as
the Head of the Faith, to unfold the laws in a progressive manner.
That said, I'll try to answer Suzanne's questions:
>ONE) Can the complete reversal of laws in the Aqdas be considered
>precedent for the reversal of the law regarding women and the House?
I'm inclined to answer with a definite 'no', but I'll step back from that
position ever so slightly with the following qualification: the law regarding
women and the Universal House of Justice can only be 'reversed' if the
Universal House of Justice has the authority required to reverse it. As
I have stated on numerous occasions, this cannot be addressed without
a determination of the authoritative status of the texts which establish
this restriction.
Was `Abdu'l-Baha progressively unfolding the law, or was He stating
an authoritative Interpretation of the Law as written? If the latter,
then this
restriction cannot be abrogated by the Universal House of Justice,
because the Universal House of Justice doesn't have the authority to
Interpret the writings.
I feel rather confident in saying that the Universal House of Justice
will consider no argument that doesn't address the question of
domains of authority, and I've yet to see an argument which adequately
addresses this issue.
>TWO) How do we separate an 'exception to' from a 'reversal of' a
>particular law, and what jurisprudential principles govern our
>consideration of the application of these two different things?
I think this question is answered entirely by the concept of
the domains of authority.
Warmest Regards
Rick
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comMon Sep 18 22:38:39 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 95 21:04:01 -0400
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: tarjuman@umich.edu
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Martyrs of Manshad -- part 7
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
On Saturday, Aqa Ali-Muhammad, the son of Hajji Nasru'llah,
had taken refuge in the house of his nephew, when six men
entered the house to capture him. They tied a rope around
his neck and two men forcefully pulled each end. Such is
how Aqa Ali-Muhammad was martyred two hours before the
sunset. After the killing, they stoned and clubbed his
remains and left the body. That evening the believers took
his remains to a nearby property belonging to Aqa Ali-
Muhammad himself and buried him. He was fifty years old.
The following day, Sunday, Aqa Ghulam-Rida, the son of Hajji
Ali-Naqi, who had also taken refuge at a home of a friend,
was discovered. Three hours after the sunrise, four men who
had committed many of the earlier killings, along with a
large mob, came to the house and captured him. They tied
his hands behind him, leading him through the streets and
eventually to a neighborhood known as Pusht-i Bagh. There,
he was shot to death by two of the gunmen and his body was
stoned, clubbed, and then thrown into a well. Two months
later, his body was recovered from the well by fellow
believers and was buried in his own home, a site near his
mother's grave, Khadijih-Sultan, who was killed earlier by
the hand of the same people. These two souls, the mother
and son, are still buried next to each other. He was forty
years old.
On the following Wednesday evening, Aqa Assadu'llah, a
nephew of martyrs Shattir-Hasan and Aqa Ali-Akbar, decided
to travel to Yazd, knowing that it would be better to leave
Manshad for a time. Together with his traveling companion,
Siyyid Ali, they took a route through the valleys outside of
town, walking day and night. The next morning, while
passing by a village named Mihrijard, they were recognized
by a few of the villagers. The villagers immediately
captured these two believers, taking them to Ibrahim-Abad, a
nearby farm. To each was given the opportunity to recant.
Siyyid-Ali, who was a Muslim, did so and was set free. Aqa
Assadu'llah, however, held back and refused to recant.
The people sent a report of the day's event to Imam-Jum`ih
of Yazd, Mirza Ibrahim, who was visiting a nearby village.
When the messenger arrived to deliver the report, he was
intercepted by one of the community leaders who took the
report and read its content. Then, without consulting the
religious leader, the Imam-Jum`ih, this prideful man
dispatched six of his gunmen to the farm where Aqa
Assadu'llah was held, instructing them to kill him. When
the men came to the farm, about three hours into the
afternoon, they took Aqa Assadu'llah to the rooftop of a
building on the farm and asked if he was a Baha'i. On
hearing an affirmative response, one of the men stabbed him
with a knife and the others mercilessly shot him. His body
was thrown into the streets, where it lay untouched for only
a short while.
Meanwhile, learning of his arrest, ten men from Manshad rod
to Ibrahim-Abad farm. Arriving about an hour after the
execution of Aqa Assadu'llah, one of the men approached the
body and with his ax severed the head from the body of Aqa
Assadu'llah. The head, as if a prize, was brought back to
Manshad and thrown on the grounds at the town square. For a
period of three hours, it remained there until it was taken
and hung from the door of Aqa Assadu'llah's own shop, where
it became the target of the stoning, cursing, even spitting
by the passers by. On seeing this spectacle, Mulla
Muhammad-Husayn, the soothsayer, a well-known Muslim, cried
out: "O people! When in Karbala the infidels killed our
beloved Imam Husayn and hung his head from the gates of the
city, the people of Islam have cursed them for centuries.
Today you have committed the same shameful act of the
infidels!"
Upon hearing this, the people stopped their assault. A day
later the head was brought down and taken to the home of his
brother, next door to the same shop, and buried. His body,
still lying in the same field, was thrown in a well. Two
months later, one of the believers removed his body from the
well and buried it the same farm that Aqa Assadu'llah was
martyred. Four months later, his head was also exhumed and
taken to the farm known as Hujjat-Abad and buried. Aqa
Assadu'llah was thirty-five years old.
On Friday morning, Aqa Mirza Muhammad, son of martyred Aqa
Mulla Ali-Akbar, who had taken refuge in a farm house
belonging to another of the believers fell prey to the
enemy. A mob numbering in excess of two hundred hastened in
gathering around that farm house. They went inside,
capturing Aqa Mirza Muhammad and restraining him by tying
his hands together. As such they dragged him to the home of
Aqa Ali-Akbar, who was martyred days earlier. There, he was
tied to a tree and executed with successive vollies of gun
fire. His body was then untied, doused with kerosine, and
set on fire, all the while being stoned and kicked by the
murderers. Afterwards, one of the relatives of Aqa Mirza
Muhammad took his remains and buried him in a property
adjacent to his house. Aqa Mirza Muhammad was forty-three
years old.
(to be continued)
From TLCULHANE@aol.comTue Sep 19 11:12:53 1995
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 02:16:58 -0400
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: HW4 Beloved land "in country"
Dear Friends,
This particular H.W. ranks up there as one of my all time favorites. It
is so poignant i have to make my remarks in the form of a story . This story
is one of the reasons I am a Bahai . It has its own mytho-poetic quality ,
only the names have been changed to protect the innocent . The past couple of
weeks saw me observe my 25 th anniversary of having been "in country". It is
a story that begins like this H.W. "O Son Of Justice "Whither can a lover
go but to the land of his beloved ?"
Like all good stories this one has a beginning , a middle and
fortunately or not only an ending in potential .
There was a 19 year old boy from a small town in South Dakota.( I have
not determined yet whether Dakota is the land of the Beloved but it is surely
nearby) The earlt winter of 1969 was especially cold . The snow must have
been three feet deep by January . Now thewre is nothing quite like a lot of
snow ; it slowa down the mail . This year the mail still managed to get
through much to the this boys disappointment. In the mail was a letter . it
was one of those personal letters. the kind of letter that sounde deep cords
within the soul . The kind of personal lettter , ironically shared by
thousands of boys . Ironic because something so personal as a call to
"manhood" ought to be - well personal . This letter came from a favorite
family member . His name was Sam . Somebody told me later that he was a great
uncle or something like that . Anyway his lettter was a request to join him
in a great crusade to go and save the "land of the Beloved" . If you were a
small town boy like me you can appreciate the confusion in all this. I did
know a little about the farm country of Dakota and as already indicated
suspected that it was close to the Beloved . But hey ! How was this going to
Viet Nam to get me to the land of the beloved . Seemed like a mighty long
detour to me As we know great uncles can be very persuasive.
Mean while back in Dakota the local friends of my uncle were in a quandry
. It seems nobody since that Petry fellow back in 1941 had ever suggested
they were not much for killing anyone. The fact i suggested the Beloved may
not really be in favor of such things appeared to sway them . The put a big
stamp on my file/letter marked . " conscientious objector 1 A O - non
combatant . ." In English that means you will be a member of the "health
corp" . A strange term , I thought , for a medic .
Imagine my surprise when some weeks later I found out another boy who I
did not know , had necer heard of and it would seem had nothing in common
with told me he had recieved the same letter from my uncle . Really, there
was no way we were related. His name was Dave. he was from Houston Texas. I
was pretty good at geography and knew there were not many dairy farms in
Houston. Besides he was black and I was white.
Things have a funny wat od working out . We went different directions for
a short while but ended up in the same company "in country". They did
something unusual in fact they put me ( and a dozen or so fellows from Dakota
in with a whole group of fellows from Texas.( No offense to Ahang or Bijan
but have you ever tried to carry on a conversation with a bunch of folks from
Texas the dialect and all .)
My story jumps ahead here a little for the sake of brevity .
My cousin from Texas, Dave , and I had a grand time getting to catch up on
family history. It turns out we both loved Otis Redding. As a matter of fact
we used to sing Otis's _One Thousand Miles from Home_ together, only we
changed the title to Ten thousand miles fron home. It only seemed fitting
considering the circumstances . And there was the matter of that "Home"
issue. I am sure you can appreciate a boy from Dakota singing it with a
slight country twang and my cousin Dave doing a more faithful rendition of
Reddings blues . We shared family stories from our past . Dave would talk
about church and people in strange white gowns that rode around during the
night . I would talk of potatoes and hunger . He would speak of Montgomeryamd
Selma . I would speak of the children and the Irish "hedgemasters . ( they
were the folks who under threat of death taught children their Gaelic
language and history ) . Mostly though we talked of our Beloved and our
family . It is fascinating how lost cousins become friends.
That summer semed wet to me . Dave thought it was normal . Dakota is after
all pretty arid , Houston , well houston is wet and humid . Considering our
proximity to the equater and Daves experience in this matter I deferred to
his judgement in this thing . I really did not like being wet all the time.
One particular day it was icky wet . the sky was grey and you just knew
it was going to dump on us . One of those wet days when you could not see
anything in front of you let alone the land of the beloved. Dave had a a
saying with me whenever i got particualrly nervous . This day i was nervous.
Every so often the boys had to rotate assignments. It was called point . Dave
would always say 'not to worry I've got your TLC ( those are my initials). I
worried anyway - hey so would you he was family. We had the same uncle and
the same Beloved.
I never minded people shouting my name when they wanted my attention .
There was one thing I always hated to hear and I think we all did . That was
when someone would shout "Medic". That always meant trouble. That sound was
like the one that causes your heart to sink to your stomach , your throat to
go dry and your kidneys to become hyper-active. i was used to the sound of
the rain and the sound of guns with their staccoto like ring in the ears. It
is that other sound I hate. It's hard to breathe when people shout at you
that way.
My god where was the TLC elixir that day. I slid into the ditch next to a
wet field and yep there was Dave . Seems he had discovered a mined field.
Sharp metal objects do nasty things to the human body . Their we were my
cousin Dave and I both of us soaking wet and him messy with blood . He had
these amazing deep brown eyes and they looked right into my soul . He was
going home to land of the Beloved . He smiled , I cried and fumbled around
for bandages. Now I no they say dead men dont speak but they are wrong . It
may not be in a language we are used to but they speak . O dont knoe how long
we talked but Dave told me the "land we were looking for was right here . In
fact he said it had been with us all along from Africa to Ireland, from
Houston to Dakota and it was here too . I don't knowe how much of what he
said I heard real well . At the moment I was too busy figuring out some way
to re-arrange his intestines to fit back into his abdominal cavity. As he
was talking I said to him "my god man your blood his red" "What do you
expect" was his response " we are cousins."
I am not to this day sure of everything . They rell me I was babbling on
about cousins and farmers and something about helping those farmers get their
crops in and in just a bit Dave and I were going to do that . They said I
went nuts. They are probably right . They decided to send me home, not the
same one as Dave but in their minds home nonetheless .
At the time I was not too clear about what Dave meant about the land of
the Beloved being right here but 25 years after "in country" it is , so we
would say, perfectly clear . Every time I read this Hidden Word I hear Dave
's voice and the smile and the eyes amd I,know he was right. " To the true
lover reunion is life, seperation is death." Truly "whither can a lover go
but to the land of his Beloved. "
warmest regards,
Terry ( and i think Dave)
From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlTue Sep 19 11:16:27 1995
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 09:22:36 EZT
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: jurisprudence, NSAs
I agree with Richard that specifics - soundly based specifics, of
course - take precedence over general principles, whether these
principles are deduced or contained in the text itself (as in
`Abdu'l-Baha's lists). However for a specific to be soundly based
requires more than a single text in response to a particular
occasion or question. As the tablets I cited on the question of
polygyny show, `Abdu'l-Baha could express widely different
views of the same question on different occasions (I have found 3
or 4 more on that topic - about 50/50 for and against two wives
being permissable). In general I would say the minimum is either
a single text in a book clearly intended as a general exposition,
rather than as an immediate response (eg The World Order of
Baha'u'llah not a letter to an individual via a secretary; Traveller's
Narrative not a letter to Mrs. X of Kenosha concerning a local
dispute) OR we have to be able to put the details we have into a
framework such as a sequence of events, development of thought
etc which is sufficiently coherent to provide an adequate cross-
check on the meaning AND IMPORTANCE of any particular
piece of the puzzle. The first of these alternatives virtually comes
back to saying that general principles over-rule particularities,
since we don't find many particularities in the general
expositions.
All of this relates to whether a specific is judged to be
normative & generally applicable, which might mean, whether it
*becomes* law. This should be distinguished from questions
regarding the application of a clear law in specific cases (below)
and the much more dubious possibility of over-ruling or
suspending a law in the light of a general principle.
Linda is I think considering 'principle' in a much broader sense
than Richard and John, who were meaning something like "one
of the Bahai 'principles'". In the example of parental permission,
the rule (my rule) is that a law should not be applied in a
particular case so as to undermine its own rationale, or even
without reference to its rationale. (Eg if we are sure that the
purpose of parental consent is to promote family unity, to apply
it in a case where the parents were no longer part of the family
would be to elevate the law above its own rationale). The
rationale may be more specific than a 'principle': it may for
example be a policy goal or social purpose, such as moderating
the extremes of wealth and poverty.) But this is an exception in
application, it does not affect the validity of the law itself.
Juan's argument regarding the principle of justice is surely
another example. If a law should not be applied so as to
undermine its own rationale, surely it should not be applied so as
to undermine the rationale of Law itself, which is Justice. Every
law in application must also be just. If a law is such that it could
never justly be applied - and the argument is that the exclusion
of women from any particular sphere of endeavour could never
be just - then the law is in effect null (it remains potentially
effective should a just application be found). {BTW, for me at
least this is a hypothetical case, since I do not think that the
exclusion of women from the Universal House of Justice meets
the first criteria above, of being soundly based}. I would be
highly wary of using any 'principle' other than justice itself as a
measure of validity, since differing principles may pull in
different direction as regards a particular law.
I see that Juan raised the question of National Houses or Justice
over the weekend, by coincidence crossing with my question on
that issue. However on further thought I think this MAY be a red
herring. My question arose from a dim memory of a text that
Juan posted back in January, which I will copy.
The second text is not authoritative, but is reported by Zarqani,
1:292 (also in Ma'idih 5:177). `Abdu'l-Baha discusses the bloody
disputes in early Christendom over whether Jesus was God or
man, etc. He says such disputes are impossible in the Baha'i
religion:
"Vali Hadrat-i Baha'u'llah abvab-i in ikhtilafat ra masdud
farmudand va bi ta`yin mubayyin-i Kitab va ta'sis-i bayt
al-`adl-i `umumi bi `ibarih-'i ukhra parleman-i milli va
amr bi `adam-i mudakhilih dar `aqayid va vujdan, in
rakhnih-ha ra sadd namudand."
Roughly: but Baha'u'llah closed the door on these disputes, and
prevented these schisms by appointing an interpreter for the Book
and establishing the general house of justice--in other words a
parliament for the (Baha'i) community [or, in other words, a
national parliament]--and by prohibiting any interference in
beliefs and matters of conscience. -JC
Sen again:
At the time we were looking at the (general-) house of justice in
these as parallel to, or replacing, a national civil parliament.
Since the text uses the term supreme/universal house of justice, I
took it as evidence that `Abdu'l-Baha at one time used the term
to distinguish between purely local institutions and those with a
more general responsibility, such as Chicago had for some time.
Which might mean he was intending that women should be
excluded from such institutions, and I couldn't think of an
instance in which he had countermanded that! However... in this
text, the logical partner institution to the Interpreter is the
Universal (world) House of Justice, not a national institution. The
reference to parleman-i milli can refer not to its level, but to its
function within the community, in contrast to the clergy who
fulfilled the same role in Islam, or may be an example of the
broad principles (elective, periodic elections, consultative,
decisions by majority vote) which are associated with the term
'House of Justice'.
So I don't think we can read this as referring to a national
institution. And the texts which do refer to secondary houses of
justice don't refer to the exclusion of women or use the term
`umumi, so far as I know.
or not???
Sen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen McGlinn ----------------------------_
From sw@solsys.ak.planet.gen.nzTue Sep 19 11:18:12 1995
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 21:34 NZST
From: S&W Michael
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: (William)Human rights
Juan,
thanks for the historical informaton on the interest in "Lockean" and
"Jeffersonian" rights in the Middle East in the late nineteenth century,
and the Baha'i connection (Talisman, 18/9/95) - I wasn't aware of that. It
brings up a number of interesting questions. I assume Baha'u'llah and
Abdul-Baha participated in these networks of interest by writing letters -
do we have any of these letters? What European texts were typically read
by those in the Ottoman Empire and Iran? How were rights understood? Also
I must re-read Secret of Divine C and A Traveller's Narrative. What you
say makes the question of human rights and the Faith, for me more open -
not to mention the question of the Faith and the whole of "Liberal"
political thought and philosophy, since rights seem to be so entrenched in
the wider Liberal context.
Linda,
I assume your remarks on human rights (Talisman, 18/9/95) are in response
to my posting. I have four comments: (1) Your response betrays an
immediate certainty in the moral goodness of human rights which I can no
longer summon up - reflection has, at least for the moment, destroyed my
confidence in human rights. (2) You seem to assume that if I don't
believe in human rights then I have no ethical resources with which to
condemn state-authorised torture, rape, mass killings, etc, but that's not
true. I might, eg., condemn rape not because it violates some supposed
human right but because it causes suffering, and inflicting suffering is
bad. (3) You say, "Aren't we critical of Muslims if they put their
doctrines ahead of universal ideas of human rights...". I think here you
are invoking the Baha'i value of universality (some quotation to the effect
that uiversality is of God, comes to mind; and of course our assertion that
there is one God and one humankind); and in fact their supposed
universality is one reason human rights can appear to be in tune with the
Faith. However I am not sure that the Liberal conception of universality
found in the notion of human rights is to be identified with the Baha'i
conception of universality. Although sometimes it does appear to me to be
"a step in the right direction". Finally, (4) I didn't say we Baha'is
should never defend human rights, but for me this must be seen not as a
straight assertion of human rights, violation of which would be wrong, but
rather as rhetoric. Rhetoric is justified or not according to its aim and
effect. In the case of defending human rights this might be justified by
the fact that it aims to move a situation in the direction of some good,
using the cultural assumptions of the time. This is human rights as a sort
of useful fiction - maybe.
William.
From LORA_M@meddeans.creighton.eduTue Sep 19 11:22:58 1995
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 08:26:58 CST
From: Lora McCall
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Educating daughters
Dear Talismaniacs: I wanted to post a quick message I sent to Mary
Day yesterday evening, just in case anyone would find it interesting:
Dear Mary,
It's late (6:30 pm) and I'm still at work (not with my daughter where I
want to be! :) ) But I just HAD to write to you and say thanks for the
wonderful post you just sent through on T'man!! Great points all!
My daughter is 13, but I can use all your suggestions, and I'm the
mother. Sometimes I think I should already know this stuff --
consciously -- not just in some back dusty maternal corner of my
mind. Alas, I don't. I'm a victim of my own stereotyping ("Mothers
innately know everything about children")
One additional comment that doesn't pertain to educating daughters:
I simply can't keep up with all the posts on Talisman. I realize
that this is my problem, and I accept it as such. However, I'd like
to put in my 2 cents worth about multiple postings of the same thing,
or several postings daily from individuals. It would help if people
would put all their ideas in ONE post instead of fire off ten or more
a day. No criticism here, just description of what I see as less
efficient than it could be. I could easily spend 3-4 hours a day
just slogging through all the messages, and I just don't have time.
I'm a mother, student, wife, full-time employee, and a woman with
some outside interests. I also love efficiency.
Thanks for listening (or deleting immediately upon seeing my name, as
the case may be :) ) -- Lora McCall
}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
**********************************************************************
"Beloved friends: Do not be dismayed or deterred. Take courage in
the security of God's law and ordinances. These are the darkest
hours before the break of day. Peace, as promised, will come at
night's end. Press on to meet the dawn."
The Universal House of Justice
**********************************************************************
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
Lora_M@meddeans.creighton.edu
From rvh3@columbia.eduTue Sep 19 11:23:41 1995
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 09:25:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Richard Vernon Hollinger
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: International House of Justice in early Baha'i discourse
Tony has suggested that the International House of Justice was not part
of the discourse of the community at the time of the 1909 tablet to
Corrine True. As I pointed out in an earlier posting, however, it does
come up in pilgrims notes from `Abdu'l-Baha's ministry. It is also
mentioned in the work of Hippolyte Dreyfus, *Bahaism: the Universal
Religion*, which was published in English in 1909. I think the French
version of this was published earlier. Dreyfus mentions both
the national baytu'l-adl and international baytu'l-adl, the latter of
which he identifies with the supreme tribunal mentioned in Baha'u'llah's
writings. His exposition on this subject, incidentally, draws
exclusively from the writings of Baha'u'llah.
I would agree with Sen that in the tablet posted by Juan, the most likely
meaning of *parliman-i milli* is not national parliament but a parliament
for the Baha'i "nation" (*millet*).
Richard
From jmenon@bcon.comTue Sep 19 14:25:04 1995
Date: 19 Sep 1995 05:44:44 GMT
From: Jonathan Menon
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Belief and declaration
Dear Suzanne and everyone,
About your comment:
"I do appreciate your comments regarding the ways in which Baha'is come to
the Faith, but a rather obvious conclusion from your point no. 3 is that in
order to obey the laws, one must know what they are."
That's true, of course. But they don't have to know what the laws are in
order to accept Baha'u'llah. They just need to know that there are some there
and that they need to follow them.
With regard to deepening new believers, the Institute process, outlined by
the International Teaching Centre in its letters (29 November 1988, 2
November 1989, 17 November 1992), is meant to handle the need to deepen large
numbers of new believers and raise them up as human resources who can sustain
the growth process. Alas, there are very few of what we refer to here as the
'big I' Institutes, which would meet similar needs in our countries as the
Ruhi Institute has in Columbia.
We don't have enough processes in place to sustain large scale growth in
North America (or, I would venture to speculate, in any of the Western Baha'i
communities. I don't know much about down under), but we have to develop them
because we are going to have so many people entering the Faith in the coming
years.
I like this topic. :-)
Jonathan
Hamilton, Canada
From jmenon@bcon.comTue Sep 19 14:25:25 1995
Date: 19 Sep 1995 05:56:03 GMT
From: Jonathan Menon
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Baha'i Jurisprudence
Hi Suzanne,
You write:
"Your point about texts of lesser and greater authority, ie. 'authorised
interpretations' being 'lesser' and the Aqdas being the 'greater' is
interesting - I wonder if there are any exceptions to this though. Off
hand it doesn't seem so."
Reflecting on what I wrote, I think it would have been more accurate to say
that the various Writings of the Central Figures, the Guardian and the House
do not in fact differ in "authority", but in "rank". They all hold the same
authority since the authority of the Authors is derived from the Writings of
Baha'u'llah and the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha.
Just a minor point to clarify things in my own mind.
Jonathan
From jmenon@bcon.comTue Sep 19 14:25:41 1995
Date: 19 Sep 1995 06:36:26 GMT
From: Jonathan Menon
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Baha'i jurisprudence
Hi everyone,
I would like to quote some things from the first five paragraphs of the
Aqdas which should add to this discussion the issue of the attitude of
applying Baha'i law.
"They whom God hath endued with insight will readily recognize that the
precepts laid down by God constitute the highest means for the maintenance of
order in the world and the security of its peoples." (Paragraph 2)
"O ye peoples of the world! Know assuredly that My commandments are the lamps
of My loving providence among My servants, and the keys of My mercy for My
creatures." (Paragraph 3)
"Say: From My laws the sweet-smelling savor of My garment can be smelled, and
by their aid the standards of Victory will be planted upon the highest peaks.
The Tongue of My power hath, from the heaven of My omnipotent glory,
addressed to My creation these words: "Observe My commandments, for the love
of My beauty." Happy is the lover that hath inhaled the divine fragrance of
his Best-Beloved from these words, laden with the perfume of a grace which no
tongue can describe." (Paragraph 4)
"Think not that We have revealed unto you a mere code of laws. Nay, rather,
We have unsealed the choice Wine with the fingers of might and power."
(Paragraph 5)
So, Baha'u'llah opens His book of laws, the Charter of the New World Order,
with a love letter. At least, that's one [unsophisticated] way of looking at
it. It seems to me that this is completely new in the history of the world.
What does this do to our attitudes in finding and examining principles of
Baha'i jurisprudence?
Jonathan
From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlTue Sep 19 14:27:10 1995
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 16:31:35 EZT
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: bio. note
In response to private queries, I must confess I have never posted
a biography on Talisman, and I guess it is time to do so. My
wife suggests I should say I am a house-husband with nerves of
steel. I am also a poet, and I work as a freelance academic editor
and translator in Maastricht, a rather beautiful old university
town (provincial capital actually) in the South of the Netherlands.
I am working very gradually on a systematic theology,
tentatively titled 'The diversity drive: the theology of difference'.
I'm interested in church and state, the covenant as constitutional
law, the relationship between the individual and the collective,
and so on, and (thanks to Terry) in revitalizing the devotional life
of the community. Once I've retired and stopped collecting
undergraduate degrees, (g) I have my eyes on Baylor University
in Texas, which has a research school for church & state issues
(they publish the Journal of Church & State, which is excellent).
But I strongly suspect that the Dr bit will never be achieved,
since I would also like to go back to New Zealand (where I was
born), build boats and potter in the garden.
I'm married to Sonja, whose voice you've heard on Talisman -
she's an artist working mainly in video, installations, performance
art etc and is also editor of Arts Dialogue (ask me for
subscription details). Together we have a largely latent Baha'i
publishing company, Open Circle Publishing, which has only
produced a collection of theology essays (Soundings), a couple of
children's prayerbooks and some collections of poetry (including
one by Robert Johnstone, which is rather nice). We also have
two boys, 3 and 5 years old.
Big plans for the (nearish) future include a four-year course in
Arabic at Leiden university: Arabic, Persian and Turkish, Quranic
studies, literature and history. Leiden has a wonderful reputation
in the field, and I have heard they have a box of uncatalogued
Babi manuscripts lying around somewhere, in addition to some
catalogued goodies.
AND I should say that I had the honour of learning how to
ferret out logical inconsistencies from William Michael, who has
just joined us. This IS going to get interesting :-)
Sen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen McGlinn
From s0a7254@tam2000.tamu.eduTue Sep 19 14:28:42 1995
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 12:05:54 -0500 (CDT)
From: Saman Ahmadi
To: talisman
Subject: Re: Guilt by Association
The technique of accusation and then silence is used
very effectively by the Islamic Republic of Iran: Baha'is
are agents of Russia, Israel, Britian and America - when
pressed for proof, none is provided. Baha'is have hedonistic
sexual morals - when pressed for proof, none is provided.
Etc., etc., etc...... (may be my example is proof positive
of "guilt by association".)
Dear Paul, if you feel that Baha'is - very few of them
(probably me included) - will react harshly to points
raised by Miller, then why refer to those points in
passing?
There is a saying in Persian: "If you decide to eat a
melon, then you must endure the fever and shivers".
However, I have a feeling that there are enough calm,
well-versed people on Talisman that can answer your concerns.
regards,
sAmAn
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comTue Sep 19 14:29:43 1995
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 10:16:29 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re Guilt by Assocation!
I really must say that Paul does not want to face to the fact he was
asked to bring out the points he claims Baha'is are covering up, and
has refused to do so.Juan last week in very clear terms explained why
no competent historian would regard Miller's book except for what it
is,non-academic and slanderous. You keep bring the subject up Paul, the
truth, I suspect,is you thought it would cause a little discomfort ,
amongest the rank and file.Anyway just to show how wrong you are on
your views of Baha'i cover-up regarding Books etc.I refer you to
'Bibliography of English Language Works on the Babi and Baha'i Faiths
1844-1985' by William P. Collins published by George Ronald. still in
print and in stock. Needless to say in case my dear Friend Richard
Hollinger is wondering again, we do have it in stock at Bosch price
$65.00. The book lists and details evry book published on the Faith for
and against in the stated time period. I am sure if you need to get the
'lost' Miller book I can help you there as well.
Instead though why don't you explain to us why Anne Besant made such
lectures on the Faith in London in 1911. Now that I would find of
interest why the interest in the Faith prior to the Master's visits.
Kindest Regards Derek Cockshut
From pjohnson@leo.vsla.eduTue Sep 19 14:31:18 1995
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 11:41:22 EDT
From: "K. Paul Johnson"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Guilt by Association
On the topic of Miller's book on the Faith, Richard and Ahang
have encouraged me to ask about specific details. The
disappearance of the book prevents that from happening, but
even if it turned up, I'd not be willing to go into it more.
Why not? Because all the issues I care about in Miller are
ones I've already raised. They are issues of historical
concealment and misrepresentation, and whatever his flaws
Miller makes a strong case that Baha'is have done a very poor job at
confronting their history honestly and openly.
Being invited to bring up details on this subject immediately
leads into the dread topic of covenant-breaking, which brings
out the worst in many Baha'is. I feel rather as if I were
invited to one of those "take your picture with the
celebrity" stands at the fair, to pose between cutouts of Mason
Remey and Julie Chanler. When the Baha'is start throwing
projectiles in the general direction of covenant breakers, who
gets hurt? Not Remey or Chanler, who are beyond your reach,
but Paul, who happens to be standing at the wrong place at the
wrong time.
In other words, the very reactiveness to controversial
questions about succession that makes people reject Miller so
violently will also make them reject me with the same force if
I bring these questions up. Not everyone, but it just takes
one irate person to ruin most of a day. I left the Faith
21 years ago quietly, voicing none of my objections and
questions, mainly because I was fearful of the intensity of
Baha'i hostility. If I managed to escape that karma back then,
why invite it now?
When you boil it all down, my debate with Baha'is comes to a
single issue:
Baha'is: "We're so different, we're so unique, none of the
flaws of other religions are present in ours."
Paul: "You all are just like everyone else, and are already
manifesting the same harmful tendencies shown in any other religion."
Interestingly, these opposing viewpoints are best exemplified
by the issue of covenant-breaking. Baha'is think that
the way cbs are dealt with is a great strength of the Faith; to
me it is a very great weakness, reminiscent of the worst in
past religions.
From pjohnson@leo.vsla.eduTue Sep 19 15:15:08 1995
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 11:41:22 EDT
From: "K. Paul Johnson"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Guilt by Association
On the topic of Miller's book on the Faith, Richard and Ahang
have encouraged me to ask about specific details. The
disappearance of the book prevents that from happening, but
even if it turned up, I'd not be willing to go into it more.
Why not? Because all the issues I care about in Miller are
ones I've already raised. They are issues of historical
concealment and misrepresentation, and whatever his flaws
Miller makes a strong case that Baha'is have done a very poor job at
confronting their history honestly and openly.
Being invited to bring up details on this subject immediately
leads into the dread topic of covenant-breaking, which brings
out the worst in many Baha'is. I feel rather as if I were
invited to one of those "take your picture with the
celebrity" stands at the fair, to pose between cutouts of Mason
Remey and Julie Chanler. When the Baha'is start throwing
projectiles in the general direction of covenant breakers, who
gets hurt? Not Remey or Chanler, who are beyond your reach,
but Paul, who happens to be standing at the wrong place at the
wrong time.
In other words, the very reactiveness to controversial
questions about succession that makes people reject Miller so
violently will also make them reject me with the same force if
I bring these questions up. Not everyone, but it just takes
one irate person to ruin most of a day. I left the Faith
21 years ago quietly, voicing none of my objections and
questions, mainly because I was fearful of the intensity of
Baha'i hostility. If I managed to escape that karma back then,
why invite it now?
When you boil it all down, my debate with Baha'is comes to a
single issue:
Baha'is: "We're so different, we're so unique, none of the
flaws of other religions are present in ours."
Paul: "You all are just like everyone else, and are already
manifesting the same harmful tendencies shown in any other religion."
Interestingly, these opposing viewpoints are best exemplified
by the issue of covenant-breaking. Baha'is think that
the way cbs are dealt with is a great strength of the Faith; to
me it is a very great weakness, reminiscent of the worst in
past religions.
From 100735.2257@compuserve.comTue Sep 19 15:17:25 1995
Date: 19 Sep 95 14:06:53 EDT
From: H-C deFlerier deCourcelles <100735.2257@compuserve.com>
To: "\"K. Paul Johnson\""
Cc: Talisman
Subject: Guilt by Association
>FROM: "K. Paul Johnson", INTERNET:pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu
>TO: (unknown), INTERNET:TALISMAN@INDIANA.EDU
>DATE: 19-09-1995 17:59
>
>Re: Guilt by Association
Cher Monsieur K. Paul Johnson et tout le Monde,
I have read your contribution as above with a mixture of feelings. They
are
amazement, dismay, sympathy and yet with only a limited degree of agreement
which I
propose to explain here below:
If I have not alluded to certain statements, you will understand that it
would be due
to the lack of my expertise in the area. However, I seem to feel quite free to
make express
my usually reserved opinions under these special circumstances.
I will quote only those parts of your contribution upon which I have only
briefly
reflected.
>On the topic of Miller's book on the Faith, Richard and Ahang
>have encouraged me to ask about specific details. The
>Miller makes a strong case that Baha'is have done a very poor job at
>confronting their history honestly and openly.
Every new religion, faith and doctrine do have their own share of
opponents. But it
is from those intelligent and sincere sceptics that every group look inwards in
retrospection
and outwards in exploration to find the truth about life and our respective
individual mission
on this plane of our existence. The other day, a few of my guests have been
telling me the
stories of how the early Babis first doubted, questioned and even defied the
self proclaimed
of the Bab and later on went on to even take up arms to defend the Babi Cause.
It was quite
touching to hear how many of the ardent opponents of the Cause actually became
devoted
followers after sincere and loving erudition by Bab and His followers.
Now I wonder if this Mr. Miller is an exception!
>Being invited to bring up details on this subject immediately
>leads into the dread topic of covenant-breaking, which brings
>out the worst in many Baha'is.
While the reactions such as above are understandable, it is beyond
anyone's control
how primitive human reactions may tend to be especially when the foundation of
their long
held beliefs come under scrutiny and question. But I believe that the Baha'i
teachings asks
for the platform of an open mind free from polarised opinions - and I,
personally, think that
polarised opinions can stand in the way of the successful independent
investigation of truth,
be they spiritual, religious, social, scientific or any scholastic pursuits.
If the adherents of a religion should stand around an inquirer and should
they
persecute him because of his doubts and questions, it is the indication of the
primitive state
of their psychological set up. An inquirer who mind is oriented in a manner
different from
their would at worst see it as a little more than a minor nuisance with which to
cope with
and also a form of bonus in the spiritual training all religions impart to
humanity. It would
be a shame to reject that challenge!
> I feel rather as if I were invited to one of those "take your picture with the
>celebrity" stands at the fair, to pose between cutouts of Mason
>Remey and Julie Chanler. When the Baha'is start throwing
>projectiles in the general direction of covenant breakers, who
>gets hurt? Not Remey or Chanler, who are beyond your reach,
>but Paul, who happens to be standing at the wrong place at the
>wrong time.
A perfect analogy! However, please bear in mind that human being as
individuals are
"basically good" (Alexander Maslov - I hope that his works are available in
English also).
However, the mass mind of the human society is fickle. If you are being lynched
by a stone
throwing mob, there would be many more who would join the mob without asking any
questions. That is the nature of the masses of the human society irrespective of
their
religious and academic persuasion. The individual in the mass believes that the
mass is
always right!
Having declared one's faith in any noble religion does not yet seem to
change that
nature. However, the Baha'i teachings seems to hold the catalyst to help the
human society
to speed up its growth from that primitive state of mind. Nonetheless, I am
reminded by
some wise old saying, such as, you can lead the mule to the pail of water, but
you cannot
make it drink, if someone is sick, you can physically carry the person to the
physician,
obtain a prescription, buy the medicaments, etc. and also forcibly insert the
pill into the
mouth of the ailing. But no one else has the control over the act of swallowing.
Neither God nor the Founders of Religions have no control over who
becomes a
follower and who does not. We all accept people at face value when they claim
allegiance to
a certain religion. But if you come across who has not understood the concerned
scriptures
and does not show the behaviour that you hold as valuable, it is not anybody's
fault. I have
not come across anyone who can walk in the image of Christ nor Baha'U'llah. If
that was
possible, the human society would change with a snap of fingers.
All there is left to do is to reckon with the present state of human
nature and
inclinations and look at both the liabilities and assets they offer.
After knowing different religions, their teachings and their respective
followers, I
have come to the conclusion that individuals or limited splinter groups do not
reflect the
teachings in their wholeness. Professing a religious pursuit does not
automatically make the
individual believer into a clone of the founders. Baha'i teaching nor Baha'is
are exceptions -
and luckily, an overwhelming majority of the Baha'is I have known admit it much
more than
those of other persuasions.
One needs to look at them on a global collective aspects and the
authentic
scriptures. Not the individuals.
Annecy (France) Yours sincerely,
19e sep.'95 de Flerier
From 72110.2126@compuserve.comTue Sep 19 15:17:49 1995
Date: 19 Sep 95 14:42:26 EDT
From: David Langness <72110.2126@compuserve.com>
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: The Phoenix
Dear Talismanians,
Further to Chris Buck's very interesting musings on the symbology of
'anqa -- the Phoenix bird -- in the Hidden Words:
I tend toward the idea that Baha'u'llah used this powerful symbol in HW1
to signify The Manifestation of God, and therefore employed it as a
general mythological allusion.
Almost all ancient cultures had, somewhere in their mythical structures,
a Phoenix-like symbol. For Persians it was the Simurgh; for the Arabs
the cinnamon bird; for the Japanese Tengu; for the Chinese the emperor
bird; and for the Sioux and many other Native American tribal groups the
great Wakinyan, the storied Thunderbird.
In most of these ancient tales, the Phoenix comes close to death, builds
a sweet-smelling nest of herbs (hence cinnamon bird) and fragrant woods,
lights a pyre, and ascends to heaven in the smoke of its own self-
immolation. The new bird then arises spontaneously out of the marrow of
the bones of its predecessor.
In my new introductory book on the Faith, I explore this universal symbol
a bit. In doing the research, I found that the Phoenix and most of its
relatives bore a great symbolic resemblance to the Manifestations, to whit:
both had "lifespans" of between five hundred to a thousand years; both
rose from the "marrow of the bones" of the one gone before; and both
emerged anew and revitalized from the ashes, bringing new life to
society. These correspondences between the Baha'i conception of the
process of progressive revelation and such an ancient mythological
creature occasionally sent shivers of recognition down my spine, and led
me to think that perhaps an extensive study of the symbolic meanings of
such an archetypal construct ought to be made...
Love,
David
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Sep 19 15:28:02 1995
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 15:15:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: "K. Paul Johnson"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: historical concealment and misrepresentation
Dear Paul:
I confess myself a little at a loss to understand your strong sentiments
with regard to the Miller book and supposed issues of historical
misrepresentation by Baha'is.
As for the Azali narrative about Babi-Baha'i history, I do not see in
what way it is superior to the Baha'i narrative.
It strikes me as highly unlikely that the Bab appointed 19-year-old Mirza
Yayha Nuri as his "vasi" or vicar. No such appointment letter has ever
been discovered. From the Bab's death till fall, 1852, the most
prominent Babi leader was Azim Turshizi, who organized the assassination
attempt on the Shah; it is hard to see how he gained this following,
especially in Tehran, if there had been an explicit appointment of Azal.
It is true that after Azim was executed, the Nuri household, and
especially Azal, became the hope of the persecuted Babis. But Azal
frittered away a good deal of his authority. He ordered Dayyan murdered,
and a follower carried it out. The command is in the printed *Mustayqiz*
and simply is not in doubt. He took the Bab's second wife as his
temporary wife, in explicit contradiction of the Bayan, which forbids
anyone to marry the Bab's widows. He continued to plot against
Nasiru'd-Din Shah. Then, around 1865, he tried to have Baha'u'llah
killed. Again, the historical narrative of Salmani is quite explicit and
highly credible; Salmani was livid that Azal tried to recruit him as a
hit man. When the Ottomans investigated disputes between Azalis and
Baha'is in Edirne, they concluded that Baha'u'llah had a right to
complain about Azal.
As for the Point of K or Nuqtatu'l-Qaf, there is no evidence that Baha'is
ever tried to suppress this book. Many copies exist in Baha'i libraries
in Iran and in Haifa. It now seems pretty clear that the references to
Azal in the rescension published by Browne are late Azali interpolations;
they do not occur in other exemplars of the manuscript. So, in fact, it
is the Azalis who falsified Nuqtatu'l-Qaf. The Azalis Aqa Khan Kirmani
and Ahmad Ruhi, sons-in-law of Azal, also cooked up the literary forgery
Hasht Bihisht, full of slanders on Baha'u'llah, and wrote to Browne that
it was an early Babi manuscript by Javad Karbala'i. Again, this is sheer
fraud, and its perpetrators were Azalis, not Baha'is. Unfortunately, the
gullible Browne swallowed this line and he depends heavily on this
forgery in his footnotes of the 1890s. (He later discovered his error
but never corrected it in print except in his catalogue of his manuscripts).
Now, all this is not to say that Baha'i conceptions of their history have
not changed over time. The tens of followers of Azim Turshizi in Tehran
who plotted the shah's assassination, and the seven Babi assassins who
attempted to carry it out, have been successively reduced in Baha'i
accounts to two or three addled youths. Baha'i accounts tend not to
recognize the period of Azal's popularity with Babis in Iran, circa
1852-1867. Also, Baha'is have on the whole completely forgotten about
Baha'u'llah's and `Abdu'l-Baha's involvement in fighting for
constitutionalism and political liberty in the Ottoman Empire and Iran.
But this reformulation of history over time is not peculiar to the Baha'i
faith and is not dishonest. All communities of discourse change over
time, and all of them constantly revise historical memory. A US history
textbook taught in schools in the 1990s does not read like one taught in
the 1890s.
We professional historians expect people to have a partial and
ever-changing grasp of their own history. We are precisely the ones who
suffer most with "past shock," with the discovery that things looked very
different a hundred years ago. I agree that Baha'is are no different
than any other community of discourse in this regard. I don't see that
they are worse than others, though.
As for the "covenant-breaking" issue, it is surely hyperbole to
characterize the shunning of schismatics as somehow equivalent to the
worse practices of past religions. The Roman Inquisition looks just a
wee bit worse to me; as does the Khomeini pogrom against mujahidin, the
Hindu persecutions of Buddhism in the 700s-800s in North India, etc., etc.
In fact, speaking of the Buddha, I distinctly remember a passage in the
Pali texts where he instructs his followers to shun schismatics.
As the Baha'i Faith grows in size and maturity, I am sure this issue will
decline in importance. Incidentally, I had a covenant-breaker student in
class once. I consulted with a Counsellor on how to handle the
situation. I explained to the student that I knew Arabic and Persian and
that in my view Remey's claims to the Guardianship were simply
unsustainable with reference to the original texts. He wrote a rather good
essay for me on the nineteenth-century Iranian intellectual context of the
Baha'i Faith, and I think he got an "A" in the class. I had some cordial
discussions with him in office hours, but have not heard from him since.
The Counsellor and I agreed that it would be unethical for me as a
teacher at a public university to treat him any differently on account of
his views. Now it is true that as long as he held those views I was not
interested in socializing with him outside our professional context. But
surely as a private individual I do have a right to make that choice? I
also do not spend time socially with people who think that the Federal
government is evil and should be abolished.
Paul, I understand that Baha'i history and the issue of covenant-breaking
can elicit some strong responses in some quarters, and you no doubt have
had bad experiences with some Baha'is in that regard. But those
responses are not "essential" Baha'i ones, nor necessarily well-informed.
I personally think Baha'is have gotten a bad rap with regard to
historical sources; sure, they have sometimes behaved badly, and
certainly their self-concept has evolved over time. But they are not
worse than other religious communities in these regards. As for the
claim that they as Baha'is are better than anyone else, no deepened
Baha'i can possibly have ever said that. We're stumbling around down
here like everyone else, and if ever we do achieve something someone else
has not, it will be because Baha'u'llah, our leader, was the most
remarkable individual to have lived in the past two centuries, and some
of his wisdom has rubbed off on us (quite undeservedly so).
Cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduTue Sep 19 15:59:02 1995
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 14:46:26 EWT
From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Human rights, etc.
Dear William, thanks for your comments on human rights. After reading Sen's
reply, I really have little to add. I guess I have come to believe that it is
incumbent on humanity to accept the concept of "human rights" as defined by the
international charter, in spite of objections to it based on cultural bias. I
simply don't see it as being to anyone's benefit to challenge the declaration.
Furthermore, when a group is persecuted by a government, no matter how they
felt about the declaration previously, they invoke it with all their might when
they want help from outside. Also, I believe it is important to be consistent.
We can't pick and choose which rights we agree with. It is extremely important
that there be consensus here, so that all governments and non-governmental
groups as well have to be held accountable to the same norms. I don't think
any doors should be open to abuse. By saying that a cultural or religious norm
contradicts a certain right makes the whole business sloppy.
I think that the declaration of human rights is one of the most positive
developments of this century. I would like to think that Baha'is are fully
behind it.
Burl, Jonathan gave you a wonderful rebuttal to your response to me.
I have a few other things to add, but don't have time now. Linda
From Member1700@aol.comTue Sep 19 18:22:01 1995
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 16:20:06 -0400
From: Member1700@aol.com
Rob Stockman for his reply to my arguments about the 1909
Tablet of 'Abdu'l-Baha to Corinne True. His posting was intelligent and well
argued. This is precisely the level of discourse that I always hope for on
Talisman.
I do disagree with him, of course. But that is another matter. And
since our beloved list owner has bid us move on to other subjects, I am
somewhat reluctant to answer his arguments point by point here. Maybe we can
talk all this over in San Francisco next month.
Suffice it to say that I believe that Rob has made an excellent
theological argument, but not a very good historical one. One can, with
conclusion in mind, look back on the available evidence and read a lot into
the silences that will make things come out right. But, I think that one
reaches a very different conclusion when the evidence is allowed to stand on
its own.
But, I still love you, Rob. We will just have to keep arguing.
Regards,
Tony
From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduTue Sep 19 22:59:52 1995
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 15:17:15 EWT
From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: persecution of Barbi
Dear Rick, I have little time now to write, but I must respond to your comment
about Barbie. You mentioned that your daughter had no Barbie dolls. Why not?
Is it because she is so feminine? And, if so, what kind of a message does that
send to your daughter? Rejecting a girls' femininity is probably more of a
problem than encouraging her to only set her sites on traditional female type
jobs. Besides, just look at Barbie's wardrobe these days. She has lots of
cool outfits, I understand, including clothes used for jobs in very
untraditional types of roles. So, let's not blame Barbie for all of our
problems.
Now, the Smurfs, that's another matter. Do you remember those hateful little
"group think" creatures? I totally banned them from our home. If the neighbor
kids brought them into our house, they'd have to hear a lecture from me on
their insidiousness. My policy in raising my kids was: nothing insipid
allowed. My children determined on their own that Disney was generally insipid
and had no interest in it and are now downright hostile towards all things
Disney. However, the boys had toy guns. Not that I planned for them to have
toy guns. But, seeing how much they wanted them, I broke down and bought them
their oozies, etc. Neither kid is at all violent. Neither has any interest in
guns whatsoever. I wonder what would have happened had I made a big deal about
toy guns when they were little. (Fortunately, my policy on Smurfs didn't
backfire, but Smurfs are so repulsive that it was unlikely to happen. Sort of
like Barney.)
Anyway, don't worry too much. You don't have all that much say over exactly
how your daughter will turn out anyway. There is an awful lot of
pre-programming involved. Talk to her intelligently, praise her
accomplishments, and, to reiterate a very important point of Mary's, never be
abusive towards her in any way. I dare say she will turn out very well. Would
that all father's were so concerned with their children's development. Linda
From Member1700@aol.comTue Sep 19 23:00:07 1995
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 16:53:27 -0400
From: Member1700@aol.com
--just maybe--our dearly loved Baha'i sister from Russia may
have understood something about the Baha'i Faith that Burl has not yet
understood--and that I have not yet understood. Rather than trying to
correct her, we might be well served to try to learn from her.
Tony
From Member1700@aol.comTue Sep 19 23:01:12 1995
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 16:54:25 -0400
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: jurisprudence, principles, etc.
I appreciate Sen's recent contributions concerning this question of
principles and exceptions. Generally, I think that his points are well
taken.
However, I think that the whole question has been made much to simplistic
by the original proposition regarding Baha'i law. I wish I had time to write
a whole paper on this subject, but I don't. I will just have to leave a few
notes here:
There is no situation that obtains in which there is one, and only one,
Baha'i principle that applys. There are always a number of competing--and
usually contradictory--principles which can be brought to bear on any given
situation. The issue of jurisprudence is the balancing of these principles
in any specific case.
There is no principle which does not carry exceptions. But such
acceptions are always limited to time, place, circumstances, etc. A
universal exception would, of course, undermine the principle itself--which
could no longer stand as such. Exceptions to principle are
necessarily--almost by definition--specific.
Therefore, there is never a question of an exception overruling a
principle. Rather, it is a question of temporarily suspending the principle
in a specific event, in deference to some other principle, which is
specifically more urgent at the time. Therefore, exceptions to principle are
always lower in rank and authority than the principle itself--since they
relate only to specific situations. Not because of the source of the
exception.
That a principle promulgated by Baha'u'llah should be overturned by half
a sentence written by the Guardian's secretary to an individual believer
strikes me as a very odd notion. It turns the Faith on its head, and I do
not think that such a notion can be sustained.
Regards,
Tony
---------------------
Forwarded message:
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
Sender: owner-talisman@indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Date: 95-09-19 03:28:28 EDT
I agree with Richard that specifics - soundly based specifics, of
course - take precedence over general principles, whether these
principles are deduced or contained in the text itself (as in
`Abdu'l-Baha's lists). However for a specific to be soundly based
requires more than a single text in response to a particular
occasion or question. As the tablets I cited on the question of
polygyny show, `Abdu'l-Baha could express widely different
views of the same question on different occasions (I have found 3
or 4 more on that topic - about 50/50 for and against two wives
being permissable). In general I would say the minimum is either
a single text in a book clearly intended as a general exposition,
rather than as an immediate response (eg The World Order of
Baha'u'llah not a letter to an individual via a secretary; Traveller's
Narrative not a letter to Mrs. X of Kenosha concerning a local
dispute) OR we have to be able to put the details we have into a
framework such as a sequence of events, development of thought
etc which is sufficiently coherent to provide an adequate cross-
check on the meaning AND IMPORTANCE of any particular
piece of the puzzle. The first of these alternatives virtually comes
back to saying that general principles over-rule particularities,
since we don't find many particularities in the general
expositions.
All of this relates to whether a specific is judged to be
normative & generally applicable, which might mean, whether it
*becomes* law. This should be distinguished from questions
regarding the application of a clear law in specific cases (below)
and the much more dubious possibility of over-ruling or
suspending a law in the light of a general principle.
Linda is I think considering 'principle' in a much broader sense
than Richard and John, who were meaning something like "one
of the Bahai 'principles'". In the example of parental permission,
the rule (my rule) is that a law should not be applied in a
particular case so as to undermine its own rationale, or even
without reference to its rationale. (Eg if we are sure that the
purpose of parental consent is to promote family unity, to apply
it in a case where the parents were no longer part of the family
would be to elevate the law above its own rationale). The
rationale may be more specific than a 'principle': it may for
example be a policy goal or social purpose, such as moderating
the extremes of wealth and poverty.) But this is an exception in
application, it does not affect the validity of the law itself.
Juan's argument regarding the principle of justice is surely
another example. If a law should not be applied so as to
undermine its own rationale, surely it should not be applied so as
to undermine the rationale of Law itself, which is Justice. Every
law in application must also be just. If a law is such that it could
never justly be applied - and the argument is that the exclusion
of women from any particular sphere of endeavour could never
be just - then the law is in effect null (it remains potentially
effective should a just application be found). {BTW, for me at
least this is a hypothetical case, since I do not think that the
exclusion of women from the Universal House of Justice meets
the first criteria above, of being soundly based}. I would be
highly wary of using any 'principle' other than justice itself as a
measure of validity, since differing principles may pull in
different direction as regards a particular law.
I see that Juan raised the question of National Houses or Justice
over the weekend, by coincidence crossing with my question on
that issue. However on further thought I think this MAY be a red
herring. My question arose from a dim memory of a text that
Juan posted back in January, which I will copy.
The second text is not authoritative, but is reported by Zarqani,
1:292 (also in Ma'idih 5:177). `Abdu'l-Baha discusses the bloody
disputes in early Christendom over whether Jesus was God or
man, etc. He says such disputes are impossible in the Baha'i
religion:
"Vali Hadrat-i Baha'u'llah abvab-i in ikhtilafat ra masdud
farmudand va bi ta`yin mubayyin-i Kitab va ta'sis-i bayt
al-`adl-i `umumi bi `ibarih-'i ukhra parleman-i milli va
amr bi `adam-i mudakhilih dar `aqayid va vujdan, in
rakhnih-ha ra sadd namudand."
Roughly: but Baha'u'llah closed the door on these disputes, and
prevented these schisms by appointing an interpreter for the Book
and establishing the general house of justice--in other words a
parliament for the (Baha'i) community [or, in other words, a
national parliament]--and by prohibiting any interference in
beliefs and matters of conscience. -JC
Sen again:
At the time we were looking at the (general-) house of justice in
these as parallel to, or replacing, a national civil parliament.
Since the text uses the term supreme/universal house of justice, I
took it as evidence that `Abdu'l-Baha at one time used the term
to distinguish between purely local institutions and those with a
more general responsibility, such as Chicago had for some time.
Which might mean he was intending that women should be
excluded from such institutions, and I couldn't think of an
instance in which he had countermanded that! However... in this
text, the logical partner institution to the Interpreter is the
Universal (world) House of Justice, not a national institution. The
reference to parleman-i milli can refer not to its level, but to its
function within the community, in contrast to the clergy who
fulfilled the same role in Islam, or may be an example of the
broad principles (elective, periodic elections, consultative,
decisions by majority vote) which are associated with the term
'House of Justice'.
So I don't think we can read this as referring to a national
institution. And the texts which do refer to secondary houses of
justice don't refer to the exclusion of women or use the term
`umumi, so far as I know.
or not???
Sen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen McGlinn
From rvh3@columbia.eduTue Sep 19 23:02:13 1995
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 16:55:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Richard Vernon Hollinger
To: "K. Paul Johnson"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Guilt by Association
On Tue, 19 Sep 1995, K. Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> When you boil it all down, my debate with Baha'is comes to a
> single issue:
> Baha'is: "We're so different, we're so unique, none of the
> flaws of other religions are present in ours."
> Paul: "You all are just like everyone else, and are already
> manifesting the same harmful tendencies shown in any other religion."
> Interestingly, these opposing viewpoints are best exemplified
> by the issue of covenant-breaking. Baha'is think that
> the way cbs are dealt with is a great strength of the Faith; to
> me it is a very great weakness, reminiscent of the worst in
> past religions.
Paul, I have the deepest respect for your opinions, which I have always
found to be both insightful and sympathetic--qualities that are essential
in the discourse of interfaith dialogue.
Atlhough it is easy to see why you think Baha'is view the treatment of
cb's as a strength, I would describe it more as a necessary evil. The
enforcement of the covenant is necessary to prevent the Baha'i community
from breaking up into schisms. One need not believe that cb's are always
insincere or motivated by evil intentions; regardless of their
motivations, however, they have taken actions that threaten the unity of
the community, and thereby the purpose of the Baha'i Faith itself. Their
expulsion from the community prevents them from mobilizing support from
within the body of believers, and has eliminated the possibility that
they can create schisms in the Baha'i Faith comparable to those in
Christianity or Islam. I see the result of this as a strength. I also
see that there is a significant human cost for acheiving this.
However, what really troubles me is not the expulsion of persons from the
community, who in some cases have undoubtedly been mistreated prior to
this by other members of the community and may sincerely see themselves
as innocent victims, but the use of the doctrine of the covenant to
curtail discussions and damage the reputations of persons who are doing
nothing to challenge the authority of the institutions. That is not a
necessary effect of enforcing the covenant, and is indeed a troubling
pattern of behavior.
Richard
From M.C.Day@massey.ac.nzTue Sep 19 23:03:23 1995
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 09:35:40 GMT=1200
From: Mary Day
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: educating daughters and sons
Dear Talismans,
Rick doesn't want to talk about educating daughters but I do and so I
am.
Rick made a comment that "the US education system stinks". The New
Zealand education system does not stink [nor do I believe does the US
system]. The system has its problems, many of them very serious ones
but it possible for kids to get a very very good education such as my
children are getting. My kids school as well as having very good
standards of teaching in the traditional subjects has awakened in my
children a love of learning, of science and a deep commitment to the
environment and conservation. We have an eco school policy and a
system of peer mediation in the playground in which children are
taught what we would call consultation skills.{Imported for the US,
you import our reading programmes more and more]. My husband and I have
made criticisms when it has been necessary and have supported these
other initiatives. Our criticisms have been welcomed and supported by
some staff members. It gives them the evidence to be able to say
"parents do or don't want this." Before you leap in and say we are
lucky, we bought a house half the size we could have afforded in
another area to keep our kids at this school. At the same time I
acknowledge this is not a choice everyone has.
I am making this point here because I have seen too many Bahai
children [one or more is too many] who have not been educated as
well as they deserved and were capable of, because their parents openly
expressed the attitude that 'the education system stinks' and Baha'is
have all the answers.. They did
not intend their children to get the message that school wasn't worth
much but that was the hidden message and the one received. It is a
subset of the "America sucks" attitude that Terry has so ably
deconstructed here on Talisman but in this case it is your own
children who could lose out. The education system is at the nexus of
the rolling up of the old and the rolling out of the new order just as all
other institutions in society are. But this is the system your
children are being brought up in and it is not going to be
transformed in time for them. The system is held together by
wonderful and dedicated teachers who deserve your support and
encouragement and the respect of you and your children, and
constructive criticsm when necessary.
To the parents of sons who think discrimination against girls is not
their issue, think about the effects on your sons of your campaigning
on behalf of these issues.It would be a pretty powerful message if
you were to go to the school and say 'girls are being excluded from
the cricket team and we are not happy about our sons being involved
in this discrimination."
That's enough preaching for one morning.
Mary
From burlb@bmi.netTue Sep 19 23:03:52 1995
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 14:52 PDT
From: Burl Barer
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: To Russia with Love
>--just maybe--our dearly loved Baha'i sister from Russia may
>have understood something about the Baha'i Faith that Burl has not yet
>understood--and that I have not yet understood. Rather than trying to
>correct her, we might be well served to try to learn from her.
>
>Tony
>
>"To deepen in the Cause means to read the writings of Baha'u'llah and the
Master so thoroughly as to be able to give it to others in its pure form.
There are many who have some superficial idea of what the Cause stands for.
They, therefore, present it together with all sorts of ideas that are their
own. As the Cause is still in its early days we must be most careful lest we
fall under this error and injure the Movement we so much adore. There is no
limit to the study of the Cause. The more we read the writings the more
truths we can find in them and the more we will see that our previous
notions were erronious."
25 April 1926 on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer.
-----
It is true we can learn something from everybody. Not everybody is
Baha'u'llah or the Master. Many of my previous notions have evaporated in
the Light of this Revelation. Even though this is not 1926, I still think
reading and studying the writings is the best way to learn what the Cause of
God is all about.
From burlb@bmi.netTue Sep 19 23:04:22 1995
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 15:23 PDT
From: Burl Barer
To: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: persecution of Barbi
Linda wrote:
>Dear Rick, I have little time now to write, but I must respond to your comment
>about Barbie. You mentioned that your daughter had no Barbie dolls. Why not?
>
Burl adds:
>My daughter had Barbie dolls all over the place. They get kinda trashed
after a while..we had "Headless Barbie," "Brain Dead Barbie," "Hopalong
Barbie" "Slack Jawed Barbie" and some kind of Ken doll with really strange
boots. We also had (have?) a Brooke Shields doll! She was the same size as
Barbie, except when you took her clothes off (which I did often) she had
painted on underpants!! Of course, Ken did not have painted on underpants
and he also had no "parts". We also had My Little Pony (she loved combing
the horses mane), Rainbow Bright, Cabbage Patch, and the infamous CARE
BEARS! I have mentioned before that Christian Fundamentalists object to the
Care Bears because there are five bears but they are all really one as they
all care --"this introduces children to... Baha'i concepts" (from the book
"Saturday Morning Seduction") .
I did NOT allow GI JOE in my house or war toys other than STAR WARS action
figures -- I played with those with my daughter. My son and I love playing
with WWF and WCW wrestling figures...and we have a real cool wrestling ring too
My daughter is past Barbie stage -- she is 16 and going to Whitman College.
Her professor keeps making snide and erronious remarks about Islam, and the
plucky little duck (my kid!) raises her hand and corrects him. I think the
old Prof. might be getting irked, but she refuses to let him get away with
saying things that simply are not true and can be shown to be false by
taking a look at the Qu'ran. So much for the irreperable damage of Barbie.
Personally, I used to sit in front of the TV set with a matty mattel Indian
Scout rifle and shoot the bad guys in the old cowboy movies. I have yet to
be sighted on a bell tower with a sniper rifle.
Burl (pass the spiritual ammo) Barer
From sw@solsys.ak.planet.gen.nzTue Sep 19 23:05:31 1995
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 95 10:36 NZST
From: S&W Michael
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Belief and declaration
Dear Jonathon and Friends
>We don't have enough processes in place to sustain large scale growth in
>North America (or, I would venture to speculate, in any of the Western Baha'i
>communities. I don't know much about down under), but we have to develop them
>because we are going to have so many people entering the Faith in the coming
>years.
The same issue has been discussed at length in the New Zealand Baha'i community.
Just to give you some 'gen' on NZ: We have about 4,000 Baha'is in New
Zealand - NZ has a popn. of 3.5 million. The greater Auckland area has
about a quarter of the country's popn. and about a quarter of the Baha'i
popn too.
Recently in NZ - perhaps you may have heard - we have had an increasing
number of declarations from amongst the Maori - NZ's indigenous people, a
polynesian race. Of particular note was the recent declaration (about 6
months ago now) of a large number of Maori from the Ratana religion. T.W.
Ratana was one of many, many Maori prophets who rose up in response to
early Christian missionary influences in NZ - their message, interestingly,
tended to focus on the Old Testament, as many of the Maori related strongly
to the dispossessed tribes of the Old Testament - Maori land had been
confiscated en masse last century and early this century. Anyway, the
Ratana faith blossomed like no other Maori religion, particularly as it
attempted to unite the various Maori tribes. Now many of the Ratana people
have seen the Baha'i Faith as a fulfilling of much of Ratana's prophecy.
This 'flood' of declarants has led our NSA and the House to comment that
this is indeed the beginning of 'Entry by Troops' in this country.
So there's been a flurry of discussion about how to handle this prospect.
I think it's a bit of a chicken-and-egg story - do we discover the means to
handling this situation once it happens, or does our preparation for it
happening actually contribute to bringing it about? It's scary and
exciting stuff.
I have heard it commented in the past that in a lot of ways the Baha'is
don't really want Entry by Troops because they like their cosy little
groups where everyone knows everyone ... We're already moving beyond that
- when one goes to a national event now, there are just heaps of people one
does not know - it used to be that you knew just about everyone!
Suzanne Michael
From haukness@tenet.eduTue Sep 19 23:05:58 1995
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 17:58:24 -0500 (CDT)
From: John Haukness
To: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: True tablet (reposted)
Allah-u-abha Friends: Correct, this certainly does not say in any form or
fashion that women will not serve on "any" house, but indeed it does say
the contrary! Muchas Gracias!
On Tue, 19 Sep 1995 Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl wrote:
> In response to John Haukness, here's the 1909 tablet (part of it):
>
> According to the ordinances of the Faith of God, women
> are the equals of men in all rights save only that of
> membership on the Universal House of Justice [bayt
> al-'adl 'umumi], for, as hath been stated in the text of the
> Book, both the head and the members of the House of
> Justice are men. However, in all other bodies, such as the
> Temple Construction Committee, the Teaching
> Committee, the Spiritual Assembly, and in charitable and
> scientific associations, women share equally in all rights
> with men.
>
> 'Abdu'l-Baha to Corinne True, 24/7/09, microfilm, National
> Baha'i Archives, as translated in the paper 'the Service of
> Women'.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sen McGlinn
From tan1@cornell.eduTue Sep 19 23:14:44 1995
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 21:16:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Timothy A. Nolan"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: how are Baha'i texts verified as authentic?
Could the friends on talisman please help me with something I've been
wondering about? My question is: How are manuscripts purportedly
authored and approved by Baha'u'llah or Abdu'l Baha, verified as authentic?
Suppose a manuscript is found; how is it determined that the document
is in fact authored by Baha'u'llah or Abdu'l Baha?
When Baha'u'llah passed away, Muhammad Ali stole Baha'u'llah's
seals, and Aqa Jan, the former amanuensis of Baha'u'llah, was in
cahoots with (i.e. was a collaborator) Muhammad Ali. It seems likely
to me that Muhammad Ali and Aqa Jan attempted some forgeries.
So, if a manuscript were found today, of a document not already known,
how would it be decided whether this was authentic?
I have the same question about Tablets of Abdu'l Baha. The World Center
has, I believe, several thousand originals or authenticated copies of
Tablets written by the Master. How was each one of these authenticated?
Suppose I went to an auction here in upstate New York, and suppose I
purchased two old steamer trunks....and suppose these trunks contained
60 or 70 documents which seemed to be previously unknown Tablets
of Abdu'l Baha to Baha'is in North America. How would the authenticity
or lack thereof, of these documents be determined?
Thanks for your help,
Tim Nolan tan1@cornell.edu
From M.C.Day@massey.ac.nzTue Sep 19 23:15:05 1995
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 13:24:51 GMT=1200
From: Mary Day
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: belief and declaration
Dear Talismans,
The National Spiritual Assembly of New Zealand has specifically asked
the Bahais of New Zealand not to exaggerate the numbers of Ratana
people who have become Baha'is. Others may wish to correct me if I
am wrong but the numbers are in the region of 12-14 and a Local
Assembly has been formed by these people in their district.
Of course each one of these people is welcomed and cherished no more
or less by the numbers who have entered with them, but we have been
asked to be realistic about the actual numbers and we can wait to see
what the future brings.
Mary
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comTue Sep 19 23:31:46 1995
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 20:11:01 -0400
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: tarjuman@umich.edu
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Martyrs of Manshad -- part 8
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
Aqa Siyyid Husayn was yet another Baha'i who had taken
refuge at a home of a Muslim friend. Two days prior to all
the convulsions, his eldest son, Siyyid Javad, who was only
fourteen years old, has fallen while working in the fields
with his father, breaking one leg and severely injuring the
other. His injuries were so severe that he could not move
and was bed ridden. Everyday I would visit the boy and tend
to his wounds. On the first day of the massacre, Aqa Siyyid
Husayn had taken his injured son and wife to a home of a
Muslim friend and where he planned to stay during the
impending period of unrest. Siyyid Husayn also had another
younger son and daughter that were left alone. These two
homeless young children would roam the streets during the
day and at night, hungry, thirsty and desolate they would
hid in a field or a farm with no one to look after them.
On that Friday, which was now the fourteenth day of the
troubles, the vicious mob was searching every household in
Manshad in hope of finding more Baha'is to kill. Aqa Siyyid
Husayn's host informed him of the days events, indicating to
him that soon his house would be searched, and expressing
his fear for their lives. Aqa Siyyid Husayn relayed the
same to his wife and also told her that his death was near.
He alone left the home which had been his family's refuge,
bidding farewell to his wife and son, not knowing that the
hand of fate would only allow them one more meeting. Taking
the advice of his host, he dressed as a begger, planning to
take refuge behind the pulpit of a nearby mosque. His host
asked him to remain there until the mob had finished
searching his house and then he would be able to return
back.
Although the anticipated search of the house did not result
in any findings, a number of women in the neighborhood
reported having seen Siyyid Husayn entering the mosque.
Siyyid Husayn, aware of his dire situation, had no choice
but to leave the mosque, running a distance of two hundred
yards and then climbing over a wall into a wheat field. He
hid between two hay stacks, but was spotted by a woman who
informed the search party of his whereabouts. Upon finding
him, a member of the mob immediately struck him with a
wooden stick, while another fired at Siyyid Husayn's face.
throwing his body over the same wall he had earlier climbed,
the men dragged his nearly dead body by feet to house of
Mulla Baba'yi, a recent martyr himself. Siyyid Husayn's
wife and children, being informed of his condition, ran to
the scene but were stopped and assaulted by the curses and
obscenities shouted by the men. Withstanding the brutality
and the verbal assault, they were then allowed to go near
the body. Siyyid Husayn, on hearing the crying voices of
his family, opened his eyes and looked at the direction of
his wife and children. The family threw themselves on his
body and with his arms around them he embraced them. While
holding his loved ones, tears streaming from his broken and
sorrow-filled eyes, Aqa Siyyid Husayn bid farewell to his
earthly life. That evening his remains were taken to his
home and buried. He was forty years old.
When he heard the news of his father's martyrdom, a bed-
ridden and broken-hearted Siyyid Javad pleaded for one last
opportunity to visit and bid farewell to his father. Alas,
no one paid any attention to this poor boy, though he was
only a short distance away from his fallen father. After
Siyyid Husayn's death, the son, Siyyid Javad, was taken back
to his own home. He was constantly hear saying and praying:
"How I wish that the enemies had seen and taken my life on
that day too! If only they would come now and allow me to
join that exalted soul!" Not a day went by that he did not
wish for his own death and the opportunity to joint his
beloved father in the Abha kingdom. His wailing and
lamenting was destined to be as ephemeral as his fleeting
life, for he was alive only fourteen days from the time his
father was so brutally martyred. Every night his mother
would take the other two children, afraid that the neighbors
would bring harm to them, and spend the night at friends'
home. Each night before her leaving, Siyyid Javad would beg
his mother not to be left alone. He feared to die alone
with no one around. But the poor mother had no choice but
to look after the other two young children and protect them
too. Indeed one morning when she returned home, her son's
body was found lifeless in the bed. After mourning for his
death, Siyyid Javad was laid to rest next to Siyyid Husayn,
where to this day both the father and son remain -- a union
in both this world and the next.
On the same Friday that Siyyid Husayn was martyred, another
young man by the name of Aqa Husayn-Ali was also martyred.
Fearing the bloodthirsty mob, this young man had gone to the
northern mountains on the outskirts of Manshad and was
hiding in a cave. When the mob was finished with Siyyid
Husayn, they went to the mountains in search for other
believers. Upon locating Aqa Husayn-Ali, he was captured
with the intention to be brought back to town. On the way
he feel victim to countless beatings and stoning. In a
final act of contempt, one of them fired at him, the rest
beating him to death with sticks and stones. He was buried
on that spot, at the tender age of nineteen.
The following day, Aqa Ghulam-Husayn, a Baha'i from Yazd who
had came to Manshad to escape the brutal pogrom unfolding
there, along with another Baha'i named Aqa Siyyid Baqir,
where found hiding in one of the caves on the eastern
mountains. Two hours after sunrise, the mob surrounded the
cave, calling for the two believers to surrender.
Acquiescing, they emerged, whereupon Aqa Ghulam-Husayn was
killed instantly by a huge volley of gunfire and later
beheaded. His headless body was left alone and later buried
in the same spot. His head was taken to Muhammad-i Kalantar
who instructed one of his messenger to take it to Mushiru'l-
Mamalik, the governor of province of Yazd. Aqa Ghulam-
Husayn was sixty-three years old at the time of his
martyrdom.
After Aqa Ghulam-Husayn was killed, the mob sought out Aqa
Siyyid Baqir, who had escaped the fate of his companion and
returned back to his own home some time earlier. When
approached at the door of his home, Aqa Siyyid Baqir invited
the men inside for refreshments and fruits. Accepting his
invitation, they entered, had the refreshments and then
arrested him and with his hand tied led him taken to the
home of Muhammad-i Kalantar, at which time his imprisonment
was ordered.
(to be continued)
From sw@solsys.ak.planet.gen.nzTue Sep 19 23:32:36 1995
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 95 13:46 NZST
From: S&W Michael
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Suzanne's Bio-note!!
Since the kiwis have started a trend, and I'm a kiwi and I like this trend,
here's my story:
I live in Auckland in New Zealand's North Island (but with a strong
attachment to the South Island), and I'm 30-something.
Soon after leaving high school (one of the more pathetic experiences of my
life) I began training as a nurse. Hitherto I had had no desire to become
a nurse at all, but my mother had been a nurse and she had just died, so
suddenly I wanted to be a nurse too. I finished my 3 years training, which
I thoroughly enjoyed, but only practised for one year after this. I
couldn't stand the hospital bureaucracy, the extreme heirarchy of nursing,
and I wasn't very good at dealing with sick people - they seemed to
complain all the time! But then I don't think anyone ought to be a nurse
until they're at least 25, preferably 30 - the emotional and psychological
demands are enormous.
I left nursing for a career in business, specifically the medical industry.
This was an interesting move from a female-dominated world to a
male-dominated world, and I discovered my aggression! I enjoyed this, and
I did pretty well - last year I began my own business specialising in
high-tech cardiology equipment and it's been very successful. We employ
two people and will be joined by a third soon.
Last year I married William (a Sen McGlinn replica: a collector of degrees,
and with nerves of steel) and we'll be having our first child in early
December. I've found pregnancy the most extraordinary, and most
extraordinarily trying, experience of my life. Being somewhat of a
'driven' personality I usually feel the need to be doing several major
things at once and find it difficult to cope with the enforced slowing-down
required of pregnancy. I'm also the director of the NZ Baha'i Office for
the Advancement of Women - a big challenge; and William and I both serve as
members of the ABS c/e in NZ. I'm also attempting to complete a university
unit on 'Women and Religion', taken by our esteemed Dr Bronwyn Elsmore (who
has recently joined talisman and who I hope we will hear from soon). My
degree major is Philosophy with a smattering of Religious Studies thrown in
- I'm two-thirds finished - Lord knows how long the rest will take!
Motherhood looms ...
Suzanne Michael
PS: I expect we'll hear from Sonja now! I hope so.
From ahmada@acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.auWed Sep 20 11:40:01 1995
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 14:43:56 +1000
From: Ahmad Aniss
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: policy
Dear Friends,
I have some comments to make regarding the running of Talisman. I
hope that John would see this and perhaps comment on it or use the
points raised for the good of Talisman.
For the short period that I have been on Talisman, I have noted that on
average each day we send a total of ~200K bit of text. Of course with
the exception of last few days that has been running at a rate of 300K
bits plus. So I think, it is reasonable to say that we send about 200K
bit of text daily, which can amount to ~80 MBit of text per year. This
amount is not a big amount for archiving purposes and perhaps
someone can produce a storage facility, may be for max. of two years
at a time. I have stored my mail daily in the form of files such as
m950920.txt, in text format, but unfortunately I can not provide access
for others to use the stored files. However, if someone would like to
provide such an archive I would be happy to post these files to him or
her.
The other problem that I see is this; in some occasions one person has
tried to send comments on all the topics of the day. This has meant
that each one of us has received up to six posting on a single day from
one individual. Imagine what would be like if all of us tried that.
Personally I can only manage 50 such postings per day and not more
(this is just to read them). So, I would like to suggest that each one of
us provide some kind of self regulation of not sending more than two
postings per day unless we are defending our original argument. I
personally could only send two a week may be three (if at all). In
addition as the majority of members are Baha'is and have this
conviction. We must show respect in our text for the writings and the
Central Figures of the Faith, also refrain from using abusive words
towards our fellow member. I have seen a couple of cat and mouse
arguments with foul tone and even expulsion of an individual.
In addition, I have heard from DR Peter Khan to say that any scholarly
work from a Baha'i believer must indicate his or her conviction to the
Baha'i institutions and their authority (Central Figures of the Faith
included). Such statements as As yet, I am waiting for a House that is
receptive otherwise is an statement that indicates that the poster has
not or does not want to accept a decision made by the UHJ, and I think
this sort of statement is a close encounter with the concept of covenant
Breaking (of course God forbid, I do not want to label any one). So
our conviction must be based in this manner. Of course we can
discuss arguments which have an indication of a view opposite to the
view of institutions, but these must be stated to be as arguments and
not convictions of one.
So I think John must add these as a policy to the guidelines that he has
posted. I hope these comments are fruitful, as IMHO they provide a
means of bettering a discussion and consultation.
With Baha'i Love and fellowship,
Ahmad.
_______________________________________________________________________
^ ^
^ Dr. A.M. Aniss,
From cbuck@ccs.carleton.caWed Sep 20 11:42:04 1995
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 95 1:05:45 EDT
From: Christopher Buck
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: Christopher Buck
Subject: Authenticating Baha'i Texts
Timothy Nolan has raised an important question. One of our
fellow Talismanians, Shahrooz Tedjarati, while serving at Haifa, wrote
a several hundred page manual on the authentication of Baha'u'llah's
Tablets. If Shahrooz can spare a few moments from his busy schedule in
China, I am sure that all of us online would appreciate a brief
description of how such authentications are made.
Christopher Buck
From margreet@margreet.seanet.comWed Sep 20 11:42:58 1995
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 00:05:58 -0700
From: "Marguerite K. Gipson"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: re: Educating Daughters....
Hello... I have to agree with Rick for a few, and that is because I too will
not allow
Barbie to be in my home for my (future) daughter. The one main reason is
that Barbie is suppose to represent what "beauty" is to American Society.
It is showing our daughters that you have to be a size "skinny" to
accomplish anything in life, from jobs, to marriage to anything else. And
God did not make all of us with those genetics to accomplish that
feat...... This is one more discrimination we have in the Bahai community
and it really needs to be taken a look at. Having a Barbie will not train
us to be more feminine either...
I did not have a Barbie doll, but I consider myself to be quite the lady,
and quite happy that God had made me the way he did. Being feminine is an
attitude, not a technique.
I am a perfect example of Gender bias in the school system. I was really
into Math and Science when I was in the 6th Grade. When I got to the 7th,
we took a math test, and I was allowed in the 8th grade to take Algebra and
other sciences. There were only 6 other girls. But by high school, was
told not to concentrate on those areas since I WOULD be getting married
right out of school and girls just do not need college or higher learning.
Now, 23 years later, (I wish I made a bet) and guess what.. I took
pre-calc in college, back in '84 and did great. I had to complete other
course work for my degree so I dropped the math classes.
Several years ago I attended a Women's Retreat, and the theme was Achievement.
What I learned was that it was OK to show my intelligence. During the 7th
grade, when hormones, both sexes, start to happen, girls tend to back off
the intelligence level to get boys to notice them. This was proven in a
study at Radcliffe College and one other one, where men and women took the
same test, and when the women were in the same room with the men, they tend
to score lower. But when the women took the same test in the room with only
women, they scored higher... But the men took the same test again by
themselves, only men now, and their total score actually went down.
I was working at Nintendo, as a technician, and before the Retreat I was
repairing about 10 units a day. The males were repairing close to 16.
After the retreat, I doubled my repair rate and it stayed there until I left
3 months later, and the guys never did catch up. And oh, I was let go, it
was only temp work anyway, cause the guys could not handle me out working
them, even though I never said anything to them, and only the boss knew what
work each of us put out.
I am all for a section of the school system where the girls are taught in
classes with only girls, at about that 7th grade level in all subjects to
help foster that self-esteem issue. For some reason, we women tend to lose
that at that point in our lives. I have volunteered with the AAUW
(American Association of University Women) in this area who sponsor math
and science days for local 7th grade girls to teach them that there are
careers out there in math and science fields. What is surprizing is that
these girls still have no clue, and still have this notion that some man
will provide for them and marriage is just after high school. For some I
hope this is true. What a rude awakening for the others.
Warmly, Margreet
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzWed Sep 20 11:43:54 1995
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 23:01:23 +1200
From: Robert Johnston
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: a thrush sat on the roof and sang
Ffolks,
This evening, at dusk ,as I was walking home away from the university, I
heard a thrush singing its heart out on the corner of the roof of the staff
club building, about ten metres up. It is spring, y'see. The trees are fat
with blossom now and almost every day I say this is the best time of the
year because it is all in front of us. Yesterday I thought of the the
fable of the ant and the cricket. The fable has the ant storing away food
for the winter while cricket sings. Winter comes and the ant is cosy while
the poor cricket is miserable and woebeggone. The fable is a lesson in
careful virtue. But I have never known a spring in which crickets did not
sing, have you? Besides, even poor old Aesop managed to get himself tossed
off a cliff by his enemies. Of course, the mystic knower has always been
persecuted by the prudent villagers. In which case Aesop may have been a
cricket. If that is the case, I guess we don't know all that we should
about good and bad.
I read Ahmed's letter and upon reflection and have taken the view that
sometimes we need to explore boundaries before we can really locate the
middle path. But -- wow -- that was a bit of a test, wasn't it? I figure
it's probably best to be both ant and cricket. The thrush, breast stuck
out, looked pretty plump. Can I come back as a thrush, Bruce? Please.
(What do you mean YOU don't have a say in the matter?!)
Sorry I sent two letters (at least one of them sophomoric) today.
Robert.
P.S. Former Dunedinites: there was a fairly large fire on the hill above
Logan Park High School this afternoon. Houses evacuated I'm told.
From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduWed Sep 20 11:45:15 1995
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 95 10:35:54 EWT
From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Burl's table manners
Burl, if you are going to fling pats of butter or spoons of soup at my dinner
guests, you will just have to eat on the kitchen floor with the dog. And all
that misbehavior just because someone wasn't singing the Baha'i anthem just in
the right key. Really!
I am reminded of my visit to Iceland which occurred shortly after having lived
in the M.E. I was truly appalled by these Icelanders. For one thing, they
kept insisting that I was an Icelander and were angry with me because I didn't
speak Icelandic. Then, they didn't behave like M.E. Baha'is, at all. One
young woman - and I blush to say this - sat on the arm of Hand of the Cause
Robart's chair with her arm around him! Now really! I was ready to ask that
the whole community be expelled and that the American NSA start a new teaching
campaign to bring in "good" Baha'is. I've mellowed out a bit since then. Now,
I am able to thoroughly enjoy being in the company of someone such as the woman
from Ishqabad. In fact, I felt as if I were learning a tremendous amount from
her and that I had very little to offer in return.
So, Burl, you are free to come here and set my new friend straight as I
certainly am not the one to do it. But you will have to clean up your table
manners first. Linda
From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduWed Sep 20 12:19:29 1995
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 95 10:43:41 EWT
From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: risalah
Juan, Moojen, someone - do you know when it became the custom for a mujtahid to
write a risalah in order to announce that he wishes to become a marji'? I
understand that this is a rather recent innovation. Thanks. Linda
From M.C.Day@massey.ac.nzWed Sep 20 22:56:25 1995
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 10:16:13 GMT=1200
From: Mary Day
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Barbie dolls and anorexia
Dear Talismans,
I don't really care that much about Barbie myself but I have observed
a signficant difference here in who takes what position. Those who
don't have children or have very young children seem to take the
strongest line. So I just want to offer a tip to the wise.
When parents say you can't have a Barbie for all of these reasons,
some kids will react "Mum and Dad say Barbies aren't worth having so
I don't want one." So that's easy. Other kids will want them more and
more, the more the parents resist. It was to those parents I
addressed my original remarks. Soemtimes it is much more effective
to let them have one and let them find out for themselves they weren't
up to much. That was why I was recommending
to give them the thing they set
their heart on and at the same time the thing you know they will
really enjoy.
Barbie dolls do not cause anorexia. This is a very complicated
syndrome. Body image is one aspect. One of the most important factors
operating is control. For
many of these young women feel that the only aspect of their lives
they can control and have power over is their food intake so they control
that. This is not an area where I have expertise so I don't want to
share my ignorance but maybe Carmen
Mathenge is still here, she may know a lot about this.
Mary
From PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.eduWed Sep 20 22:57:22 1995
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 15:47:41 PST8PDT
From: "Eric D. Pierce"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: eva luna (las ironias del Dios? / El Plan Infinito)
Howdy brother John and others,
re:
> Date sent: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 17:24:44 -0500 (CDT)
> From: John Haukness
> To: "Eric D. Pierce"
> Copies to: talisman@indiana.edu
> Subject: Re: eva luna (las ironias del Dios? / El Plan Infinito)
> Well all is wild and wholly out their. buenas noches
>
Indeed.
Hope that someone else gets at your interesting original
question, which I took to be the problem of presenting universal
truths to an audience of seekers that have a "conservative"
ideological framework without alienating them with "liberal"
sounding theories about the Cause.
As I mentioned, I see the problem the other way around (we
have been scaring liberals off by sounding too conformist), but
I don't think that negates your concern!
Have a wonderful day,
EP
From TLCULHANE@aol.comWed Sep 20 23:07:09 1995
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 20:03:31 -0400
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Influences on Bahai Faith
John : My thoughts are in two parts . First with regard to the
literary works you mentioned and second with regard to the Christian right .
Since i share some of the concerns of the "ditto heads " among them first
the literary work .
I must confess to being turned off by the portrayal of Jesus in Last
Temptation and to not being over awed with Superstar . I can't comment on the
craftsmanship of those two works though I am not sure it was quite what
Baha'u'llah had in mind by His praise of craftsman .
My own interpretation of this genre is that of a continuation of the
de- muthologizing character of modernity . More particularly the revolt
against the " heroic" character of human life . I use Thomas Carlyle as a
symbol of the championing of this heroic quality . For well nigh a hundred
years there has been a rejection and affirmation of the heroic . The
rejection involves , in my view , a response to the militaristic
nationalistic excesses of the heroic ideal . At least in this country heroism
has been confused with martial virtue shorn of a spiritual content . In the
late 19th century the imperial expansion of the U. S. was cast in terms of
these so called "manly " virtues" . T . Roosevelt and Oliver Wendell Holmes
were both champions of this view . The sense of self-sacrifice , discipline
and struggle associated with the heroic were tied to imperial ambitions of
the nation state and reached their excesses in Nazism and Fascism .( One of
the reasons i still cant find a soft spot for Heidegger )
I think William James' " moral equivalent of war " beeds to be seen in
this context . It was his response to the jingoists of the time in which he
lived . he was trying to rescue the heroic from it being stripped of all
spititual content . As an aside i think that was what the Guardian was doing
with Dawnbreakers . Trying to get the American bahai's to see this side of
life and infuse them with sense of mission .
If the heroic is confused with militarism , race exaltation and fascism
then it becomes a respectable project to de-mythologize the heroic . This is
again , in myview , the flip side of the pessimists side of the optimists
coin we have callled progress. If all humans have clay feet it is a small
step to conclude that prophets also being human ( and of course only human )
also have clay feet . Therefore we can bring those charismatic figures down
from their pedastels and strip them of their "heroic " quality . It is is
itself a curios case of what Biblical scholare call redaction . That is the
attempt to read back into history our understanding of what people were up to
rather than listening to the voices of the actual historical actors . In this
case it is a reading back into the life of the prophet alll the warts and
weaknesses exhibited by a 'perverse " generation . If we are obsessed with
sex and sexual identity why thewn all humans , including prophets , must have
been so obsessed . Gee they are no better than we are . I think it is safe
to say I am not very sympathetic with that read on prophethood .
With respect to Abdu'l Baha , I do not find him at all muddled or
confused . I have a profound attachment to him and my read on American
history at least adds to that respect, rather my heroic admiration of him .
The more I compare his thought and life with the thought and life of his
American contemporaries the more I stand in awe of the heroic character of
his "being -in-the -world . " If we look at his talks in _Promulgation_ and
_Pris Talks_ ,for example, and compare them to some prominent American
religious and political intellects of the time there is hardly a contest .
His thought is far more comprehensive. As two examples I will make reference
to Walter Rauschenbusch, probably the leading figure in progressive
protestant thought in the first decades of the 20th century . While
Rauschenbusch surely advocated a social gospel and desired a cooperative
commonwealth , had a powerful critique of industrial capitalism for which I
admire him, he had two big blind spots . They were on issues of ethnicity and
women . If one were to look at a political spectrum you find this same
difficulty in Herbert Croly ( one of the founders of the New Republic
magazine) . There are mant others and I am trying to keep this post to
reasonable length. It would be a great research project for which I do not
have the time to compare the themes and presentations of _Promulgation_ with
the articles in New republic and Christian Century both of which were leading
intellectual and religiuos publications of their day . My brief review of
these journls has led me to conclude there is really no contest . Abdu'l baha
stands heads above the contributors to those periodicals. M
Return to Talisman
Translation Page
Baha'i Studies Page
J. Cole Home Page
WebMaster: Juan R.I. Cole
jrcole@umich.edu