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