From jrcole@umich.eduWed Sep 20 15:43:00 1995
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 12:16:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: history and representation
Paul: The issues you raise in your reply are not what I would think of
as the "distortion" of history. I thought you were saying Baha'is had
twisted the facts.
I agree with you that the Baha'i religion as it is now practiced is more
closed with regard to the free availability of information than is common
in, say, the mainstream Protestant churches in the U.S. The practice of
Review is quite peculiar; and the unavailability of several biographies
of Baha'u'llah written by his close companions is downright weird
(though the information in them, I can attest, is largely and accurately
summarized in H.M. Balyuzi's *Baha'u'llah, King of Glory*.
I think this closed-information approach is not long for this world (you
are seeing it break down on e-mail before your eyes).
As for the Aqdas; well, it was, of course, published by the Baha'is in
Bombay and cyclostyled a number of times thereafter. Copies exist in all
the major manuscript repositories (British Library, NYPB, Cambridge,
etc.); there is also a Russian edition. So it is not as if the book was
somehow unavailable, at least to those who know the original languages.
As for English, a typescript translation by Anton Haddad circulated
widely in the American community.
But it is true that it took a long time to publish an English
translation. I think the main unstated reason for this is that in the
Middle East the Aqdas is a death warrant. It abrogates the Qur'an, which
constitutes apostasy, and in traditional Islamic jurisprudence the
punishment for that is death. (The fatwa against Rushdie has the same
basis). I think one can understand that the Middle Eastern Baha'is, who
were the vast majority until the 70s, might not want their death warrant
mass-produced. And information does travel at high speed from the U.S.
to the Middle East. In fact, many of the information practices
Westerners find peculiar in the Faith are rooted in its having had to
operate as a radically new religious movement in a Muslim Middle East
where the word for "heresy" literally means "innovation."
Anyway, it seems to me that if one understands the Middle Eastern context
of most of these decisions, they look less sinister or manipulative and
more prudent. Denis MacEoin notes somewhere that he originally thought
the security measures Tehrani Baha'is took about their archives extreme,
but after the Revolution he suddenly realized that they were simple
common sense in that context.
I think a comparable situation exists for Ismaili Muslims (there is a
fine book about them by Farhad Daftary that I recommend). The Ismailis
responded to persecution by simply closing almost all their texts to
outsiders. My friend Paul Walker, who studies Ismailism, complains of
how he cannot get the most basic sort of source from them. The Baha'is
have been *far* more open about their materials than have the Ismailis;
but the point is that to the degree either is secretive, the death-fatwas
of the mullas stand behind this policy.
I personally believe that the Baha'is would be better off opening their
manuscripts to publication and scrutiny, since the Khomeinists are going
to mistreat them anyway, and the world and the community would benefit
from more information about the Faith. But my sister is not in Mashhad
being shaken down every day by the Hizbullahis, and I understand the
other point of view.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.eduWed Sep 20 15:45:13 1995
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 09:42:28 PST8PDT
From: "Eric D. Pierce"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: policy (archives, burros, malodorous breezes)
Hi,
re:
> Date sent: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 14:43:56 +1000
> From: Ahmad Aniss
> To: talisman@indiana.edu
> Subject: policy
> Dear Friends,
...snip
> bit of text daily, which can amount to ~80 MBit of text per year. This
> amount is not a big amount for archiving purposes and perhaps
> someone can produce a storage facility, may be for max. of two years
> at a time. ...
I can't verify the storage estimates made by brother Ahmad, but I'm
sure he's "in the ballpark". I have been archiving everything since
the last week of May 1995. The problem is that there are some personal
talisman-related messages that are mixed in since I was to lazy to
separate them at the time they were sent. I have offered to send
archives to some of the new subscribers, but most recoil in horror
when they realize the volume. There are about 3,500 (!) messages that
I have received since late May 1995. Just resorting the mesages to
search by author/subject/date to look for something has caused me
considerable aggravation a few times, so I don't do it unless
absolutely necessary.
Sen was kind enough to send me a packet of floppies back in June
containing a set of "zip" files (aprx 4Mb) that were text extracts
of selected talisman messages. There are several other people that
reported to me (as of June 1995) that they have collections of
talisman messages in various types of email folder formats, usually
on a personal computer.
As I mentioned earlier in the summer, I am researching how to provide
a text search database of talisman messages to be distributed to any
interested parties. As Dr. Cole has mentioned, topics resurface, and
many things must be restated. If a free-format text search database
of talisman messages was available, it would be possible to read what
had been already said and developed on an issue!
Since the powers that be at this campus are unlikely to approve a
lowly data technician's request for internet resources to make the
archives of a religious email discussion list public, I have to wait
to learn some new programing techniques to produce a standalone Mac
and Windows version of the archives in a personal computer database
format that I would distribute to interested parties as time and
resources permit. The other alternative is to set up a private
internet site as a home business, and also use the machinery for
Baha'i related internet stuff, such as talisman archives. Or
piggy-back on someone elses internet site, probably requiring $.
Got to go now, I am rather busy at this time of year, we have various
reports to send to our state and federal funding agencies, then a major
departmental network, hardware and software upgrade process. BORING.
Bye,
Eric D. Pierce
Data Janitor
California State University, Sacramento
ps, regarding langauge: the references to "ass" recently may have
led to some confusion by those not aware of subtle forms of English
language word play (puns). There was a reference to domestic
livestock (an "ass" being a donkey/mule) which was IMO hilariously
twisted into an inference that some members of this list exude a
faint aroma redolent of the human posterior, which could have been
also taken as a reference to foolish behaviour. Or something like
that.... ROBERT-J@NZ: YOU BAD BOY :)
On a related topic, the gentleman from Texas mentioned "ditto
heads", it is a term used to identify the ethusiasts and supporters
of a flamboyant and popular reactionary conservative americian media
infotainer named Rush Limbaugh. Considering the number of liberal/
progressive types that have been driven out of the community over the
years and the dominant conformist attitude that has pervaded the
community, what is the context of making the community more attractive
to those holding reactionary viewpoints about social/political issues?
Does this bode well for diversity? Does anyone give a rosy rodent's
rump?
From PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.eduWed Sep 20 15:46:20 1995
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 10:11:40 PST8PDT
From: "Eric D. Pierce"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: eva luna (las ironias del Dios? / El Plan Infinito)
Hi again, I couldn't resist making the simple observation that
Ms. Allende has written a book in which a major and not very
simpatico Anglo character is a Baha'i crackpot/eccentric who
sexually molests at least one of his children.
EP
> Date sent: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 18:35:10 -0500 (CDT)
> From: John Haukness
> To: talisman
> Subject: eva luna
...snip
From Member1700@aol.comWed Sep 20 15:46:36 1995
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 13:23:01 -0400
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Table manners
Regarding the endless ways to be a Baha'i, I wonder if Moojan might say a
little more about his notion that there is not just one Baha'i Faith--but
many. Our Russian sister may have just found one that we don't know about
yet.
By all means, let her read the writings. I am sure that she will read
them differently than we do--and we will all be enriched by her reading.
Tony
From richs@microsoft.comWed Sep 20 15:49:03 1995
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 95 10:33:38 PDT
From: Rick Schaut
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Daughters, Dolls and Pre-Programming (RE: persecution of Barbi)
Dear Friends,
I'm going to try to respond to several posts on the subject of raising
and/or educating girls, but I'll be using Linda's remarks as a point of
departure. But first, a little house cleaning.
Mary, I suppose I should apologize for my remarks. I felt that your
message talked down to me, and reacted, in some way, to that
feeling. You shouldn't come away with the notion that I'm not
interested in my daughter's education. On the other hand, of all
fifteen suggestions you made, not a single one is a suggestion
that I can't come to without a woman's help. I am _specificly_
interested in an issue with which I am unable to cope without a
woman's help (and I'd like more than one woman to help). An
adequate response requires both of us to so some serious
introspection.
Marguerite came very close to hitting the nail on the head when
she talked about achievement. Why do women learn to suppress
their intelligence around men? How do they learn this? I suspect it
has al lot to do with what Linda describes as 'pre-programming'.
Before I get to this, I want to answer Linda's specific questions
about dolls:
>From:
>Dear Rick, I have little time now to write, but I must respond to your comment
>about Barbie. You mentioned that your daughter had no Barbie dolls. Why not?
>Is it because she is so feminine? And, if so, what kind of a message
does that
>send to your daughter?
First of all, the decision was Beth's (my wife), and I merely backed her up on
it. As the Writings say, there are areas where the husband should defer to
the wife and areas where the wife should defer to the husband. When it
comes to toys, that's Beth's call, not mine.
Secondly, the reason is specific to Barbie dolls. Teresa has other dolls
(in fact, they're called 'Happy to be me' dolls). Among other things,
Barbie dolls have legs 20% longer than the average human being and
waists which are at least 50% smaller. The combination is almost
statisticly impossible from a genetic standpoint. Beth prefers, and I agree,
that our daughter not have a conception of beauty based on a body shape
which is in the 99th percentile of human body shapes. If you want to know
why anorexia and bulemia are found almost completely among women,
you probably don't need to look any further than this conception of
beauty.
Now, back to 'pre-programming'. Linda writes:
>Anyway, don't worry too much. You don't have all that much say over exactly
>how your daughter will turn out anyway. There is an awful lot of
>pre-programming involved. Talk to her intelligently, praise her
>accomplishments, and, to reiterate a very important point of Mary's, never be
>abusive towards her in any way. I dare say she will turn out very
well. Would
>that all father's were so concerned with their children's development. Linda
But it is the 'pre-programming' I'm most concerned with. I can't
help the feeling that a) I might be contributing to it, and b) that there are
some specific things I can do to counter-act that pre-programming if
I'm aware of some of the factors involved.
The problem is that no amount of introspection on my part is sufficient
for me to address that concern. I need the help of women who have
gone through the introspection necessary to understand how this
'pre-programming' affects a girl's attitudes about herself and her
abilities.
I think this 'pre-programming' is grounded in common conceptions
of what constitutes 'femininity'. You can see this in the female characters
of most Disney movies. These characters all exhibit the stereo-typical
attributes of an 'attractive' female (i.e. those characteristics which define
'femininity'). But what's the substance to this conception of 'femininity'?
Are men really more aggressive than women, or is this part of a self-fulfilling
socialization? Do we, by telling young girls that assertive behavior is not
'attractive' in women (but it's certainly 'attractive' when men do it)
instill in
these girls the desire to suppress behaviors they would otherwise exhibit
quite naturally?
I hope, by now, that it's clear how I can't work on this by myself. Having
not been subject to the same kind of socialization, I can't know how it
would affect me if I were a woman. I can only ask women to tell me how
this socialization has affected them. _Then_, I can take that knowledge
and apply it to some introspection of my own.
Lastly, and this is the bottom line, I don't think we'll achieve true equality
between men and women unless we all begin to engage in this same
process. Indeed, I'm not even sure we can understand what this equality
_is_ unless we do this. If our concpetions of equality are coloured by
this socialization, how can we visualize true equality without understanding
what this socialization does?
So, yes, Linda, I'm worried about this, and I don't think it's possible to be
too worried about it. Baha'u'llah's call for the equality of men and
women requires this of me, and I can't walk away.
Warmest Regards,
Rick
From rvh3@columbia.eduWed Sep 20 15:49:58 1995
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 15:01:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Richard Vernon Hollinger
To: Juan R Cole
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: history and representation
On Wed, 20 Sep 1995, Juan R Cole wrote:
> As for English, a typescript translation by Anton Haddad circulated
> widely in the American community.
A minor quibble...I don't think the Haddad translation of the Aqdas was
widely distributed. I have only seen one or two copies of this in Baha'i
archival collections, this in contrast to various tablets and pilgrim's
notes that were copied and/or mimeographed and ciruclated, which can be
found in a number of collections.
There were other translations of the Aqdas, however. One by Kheiralla,
which did not circulate widely because of his expulsion from the
community. There was another by Fadil-i Mazandarani and Marzieh Gail
that was fairly widely circulated, at least after the advent of the
photocopy machines. Portions of the Aqdas were available
in academic and Baha'i publications, and as Rob has noted, a summary of
its contents by Haddad was published around the turn of the century.
Hence, Baha'is have had access at least to the major provisions of the
Aqdas almost since the Faith began in the West.
Incidentally, Miller himself provides some evidence that belies his
assertion about the Aqdas. The copy of the Aqdas that he used for his
translation contained annotations indicating that it had been provided to
one of the first Western pilgrims to visit `Abdu'l-Baha in 1898 [Lua
Getsinger, I believe]. This was one of at least three copies that were
provided to these pilgrims for use in the American Baha'i community.
`Abdu'l-Baha had to focus on providing copies of Arabic texts rather than
Persian texts, as there were no Persian-speaking Baha'is in the U.S. at
that time, but there two Arab Baha'is there. The members of the
community quickly became aware of at least some of the provisions of the
Aqdas, as a result of their translations and expositions.
Richard Hollinger
From PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.eduWed Sep 20 15:50:39 1995
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 12:06:06 PST8PDT
From: "Eric D. Pierce"
To: TALISMAN@indiana.edu
Subject: Re[2]: eva luna (las ironias del Dios? / El Plan Infinito)
Howdy,
Sorry if my bad mixed up catalan/spanish grammer (The ironies of
God/The Infinite Plan) in the subject heading has caused any
confusion! Apropos of who knows what, my understanding is that
Ms. Allende writes in spanish, the english publications of her
works are translations.
Unless my tattered memory has totally failed, the main male
character's father in "The Infinite Plan" was the person that I
was referring to. Wasn't the sister of the main male character
the molested one that also had the hormone (medical?) problems?
I guess the whole itenerant family was vaguely portrayed as some
sort of Baha'is during the childhood years of the main character
and the sister, but I had forgotten that the sister maintained a
stronger Baha'i identity (in spite of huge personal devastation?)
through the later part of the story.
Of course the book goes somewhat beyond any sort of Baha'i-ish
sense of dysfunctional/crackpot cult universalism, and tries to
grapple with the interplay of specific types of decadent social
self-conceptions of both the mainstream and counter-cultures that
have been prevalent from the 1960's on. The book ends on a somewhat
optimistic note as to the possibility of personal redemption, but
I came away with the feeling that the book was somewhat dry with
respect to the sense of poetic mystery compared to Ms. Allende's
other charming and sublime works. Perhaps she was reflecting a
dissapointment with the cultural angst, sterility, shallowness
etc. of the post-60's Bay Area and the California region?
Oh dear, no more procrastinating, back to work!/ Best Wishes,
EP
Am repling via the list due to my interest in what others
think of this rare (and arguably unflattering) phenomena
of Baha'i characters appearing in a work of fiction by a
popular author!
> Date sent: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 10:43:18 -0700
> From: derekmc@ix.netcom.com (DEREK COCKSHUT )
> Subject: Re: eva luna (las ironias del Dios? / El Plan Infinito)
> To: "Eric D. Pierce"
> You wrote:
> >My dear Eric
> The book is Eva Luna?, Allende had a Baha'i in a previous book a woman
> who was drawn away from the Faith ...
...snip
> Kindest Regards Derek
...snip
From dan_orey@qmbridge.ccs.csus.eduWed Sep 20 15:51:34 1995
Date: 20 Sep 95 12:37:14 U
From: Dan Orey
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: FWD>educating daughters and
GatorMail-Q FWD>educating daughters and son
Today Mary wrote:
The education system is at the nexus of
the rolling up of the old and the rolling out of the new order just as all
other institutions in society are. But this is the system your
children are being brought up in and it is not going to be
transformed in time for them. The system is held together by
wonderful and dedicated teachers who deserve your support and
encouragement and the respect of you and your children, and
constructive criticsm when necessary.
First I want to say thanks for the enlightened comment. Secondly, and not
becasue I am a teacher educator, I might offer another perspective. Here in
California there is a rather interesting history of school bashing. I think
related to past su cess and the result of "too many enlighted troublemeakers",
and creative thinkers for the poweers that be that it once generated. The cycle
goes like this. Our taxes are too high, lower them, the schools don't have
enough to opperate upon, the schools are bad 9wehatever that is). Currently
there has been a lot of grass roots work over the past ten years, in math
education. Literally millions of dolars and thousands upon thousands of
volunteer hours going into curriculum reform aimed at building a math
curriculum that responds to a number of things Baha'is I would guess would be
very proud and supportive of: namely access and equity (that all people should
have the right to good math education, especialy girls and non-represented
minorities), that all children in California should have the proper tools to
solve problems (I like to replace it with indepent investigation of truth).
Becasue of lack of funding, general societal negativity, and political spin
this is currently under attackm, and this rather remarkable program is in
jeopardy. Most politicians and educational leaders blame the teachers, I don't
see it that way. Its more of a total system failure. I have seen the problem in
all school reform (and in a number of countries) as mutlifacited - parents,
students, teachers, administrators, and communities must be mutually supportive
for schools to be good (and that is an term that is as yet undefined). Sort of
the "it takes a whole village to raise a child" theme. When any one of those
links fails for any reason the school (and therefore the community, and in our
case State) then has a diminished probablity of success. Another example: Here
at CSUS, a number of senior faculty have stood up to the administration, and
said, "we are all responisble for the poor condition of our system, we cannot
do much about the adminstration, or the staff (sorry Eric P) but we can do
something about how we treat our fellow colleagues and our own level of service
to our larger community and students. Its quite remarkable, and I am very
encouraged. I have done my part, as a Baha'i, trying to inject our ideas of
consultation, encouraging people to use the system, not backbite, to get
envolved (or shut up as it may be). Despite the fact that I returned from a
rather grouchy committee meeting, I am cautiously optimistic. At any rate, the
gist to a good school (what ever that is) is related to how much the community,
the teachers, the students, the parents, etc are engaged in the process. It has
some interesting refections for me of what is wrong (and right) about the
American Baha'i Community.
From momen@northill.demon.co.ukThu Sep 21 10:58:09 1995
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 95 00:01:32
From: Wendi and Moojan Momen
To: talisman@ucs.indiana.edu
Subject: Quddus
I am sorry to be rather late in coming forward with this posting on
this thread but I am running somewhat late in my reading of my E-Mails.
It may help us in understanding the station ascribed to Quddus to look
at the station of Ali. In particular, I am thinking of the Khutba
Tutunjiyyih, a discourse attributed to Ali and which Baha'u'llah
appears to authenticate by quoting it in several places. The sermon
of Ali includes many statements that appear to give a lofty
station to Ali similar to the one being given to Quddus in the postings
by Ahang.
Perhaps Steve Lambden could share with us his and Khazeh Fananapazir's
translation of this sermon.
Moojan
--
Wendi and Moojan Momen
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comThu Sep 21 10:59:03 1995
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 95 21:59:01 -0400
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: tarjuman@umich.edu
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Martyrs of Manshad -- part 9
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
On that same day, Siyyid Ali, out of fear of events, decided
to leave Manshad and headed towards Yazd. On the way, while
passing through the villages of Tazarjan and Taft, three men
from that area saw and recognized him. Siyyid Ali was
summarily arrested, his hands tied behind him, and taken to
Tazarjan where they sought the permission of visiting Mirza
Ibrahim, the Imam Jum`ih of Yazd, to kill their prisoner.
The Imam Jum`ih replied that since he was not familiar with
the character of the Siyyid, it is not possible for him to
issue such a warrant, advising them to take the Siyyid back
to Manshad and inquire from the people of that town of him.
Two hours before sunset, the men entered the town of
Manshad, bringing with them Siyyid Ali., deciding earlier to
take him to Muhammad-i Kalantar and let him pronounce a
decision.
When they came to the town square, the Siyyid escaped from
the hands of his three captors and hid himself behind a palm
tree. By now a group of town's people had heard of their
arrival and had come to see them, circling the tree
surrounding the Siyyid who was holding fast to it as a
refuge. As the men prepared to take his life, a villager
cried out that the tree that he had embraced was sacred and
his life should be spared until he releases the tree.
Heedless of man, Siyyid Ali was shot dead. Others continued
to repeatedly fire at his motionless body. That evening,
the his wife removed her husband's remains from the scene
and buried it in their home. He was thirty-five years old.
The three men who had brought Siyyid Ali and instigated his
murder, now returning home decided before leaving to shed
the blood of this servant. With this intention in mind they
headed towards my home. I was all alone when the three men
entered my house. Since at the time I did not know them nor
was aware of their intentions, I greeted them warmly. A
waterpipe was offered and tea was served. Afterwards, I
asked them where they were from and what business brought to
Manshad, to which they related to me the story of Siyyid
Ali's martyrdom. Upon hearing this, I was overwhelmed by
sorrow and grief. Seeing my condition, the men immediately
left my house. Outside, I heard one of them mention that
since I had been so extremely kind and hospitable, they did
not have the heart to take my life.
That same afternoon, as the mob finished killing Siyyid Ali,
they returned to the home of Muhammad-i Kalantar, where
Siyyid Baqir was being held from earlier that day pending
execution of his order of imprisonment. It was late in the
afternoon when they took him to a farm field known as
Turkish farm. There, he was martyred as a result of gun
shot wounds. Later the believers took the remains and
buried it next to the gravesite which contained the headless
body of Aqa Ghulam-Husayn killed earlier in the day -- his
companion and fellow martyr. Siyyid Baqir was fifty-one
years old.
The following day, Sunday, Aqa Muhammad had taken refuge in
his home when around noon time I saw three men headed in
that direction. I was grieve stricken, knowing their intent
to commit yet another murder of some innocent Baha'is but
didn't know where they were going. As the men came upon the
home of Aqa Muhammad, they entered the house, brought him
out and took him to town's square. Aqa Muhammad requested
that they delay their perfidious act for an hour so that he
may say farewell to his wife and young children and see them
for one last time. The men paid no attention to his plea,
answering only with gunfire. Tying a rope around his feet,
they dragged him beck home, where later that evening his
wife brought the body inside and laid it to rest. He was
twenty-three years old.
The following Wednesday, Mulla Baba'yi (a brother of the
famous martyr Razyu'l-Ruh and father of recently martyred
Aqa Muhammad) having found shelter in a friend's home. One
of the neighborhood's woman learned of his whereabouts and
informed Manshad's populous. Soon, a mob and many onlookers
totaling over two hundred descended upon the house where
Mulla Baba'yi had taken refuge. Several men entered the
home and began searching the rooms. when one of them came
upon the room where Mulla Baba'yi and his son, Aqa Javad
sitting in the dark corner. He cried that we must shoot him
right here, but apprehensive of the harm that may befall his
son, Mulla Baba'yi quickly surrendered. Mulla's hands were
tied behind his back and with bare head and foot, along with
his son, were led to another section of town to the home of
Hajji Siyyid Husayn to be killed. Mulla Baba'yi who in the
dense of crowd could not see his son asked Siyyid Husayn
that if they have as yet not killed his son to bring him
near for one last glance at him. Siyyid Husayn agreed and
brought the son near. When Mulla's eyes fell upon him, his
last spoken words were instructions for Aqa Javad, should he
survive, to arrange for the payment of a debt to a certain
individual. Bidding him farewell, the Mulla left the boy to
the care of the Siyyid Husayn, expressing the wish that he
not be obliged to speak again and remained silent.
Although the crowd wanted to kill the boy, Siyyid Husayn
intervened, shielding the body from bodily harm by taking
him inside the home. It was around noon that the crown
moved Mulla Baba'yi once again towards Bazaar. With his
hands still firmly tied behind him, he endured every manner
of insult, injury and defamation. On the way, he was
repeatedly stoned. A rock hurled towards him fractured his
forehead, from which a fountain of blood gushed forth,
covering his radiant countenance. Time after time, he was
assaulted, until his white beard was soaked by his blood.
Paraded as such for a time in the bazaar, he was later taken
behind the home of martyred Aqa Ali-Akbar. During this
entire time, his gaze remained fixed in the direction of the
Qiblih, the Sacred Threshold of his Beloved. Not one word
was uttered by him in the face of his ordeal, so poignantly
did he exemplify the lesson of true faith and sacrifice.
In the midst of the chaos, someone retrieved a can of
kerosine from a nearby shop, pouring it over Mulla Baba'yi
and setting him ablaze. While burning, those who carried
guns began to shoot. Others were satisfied with clubbing
and stoning him. Dragging him by his bound feet, he was
taken to the home of a fellow believer, Siyyid Taqi, where
he was later buried. Mulla Baba'yi, whose body and soul
were ablaze with the love of His Beauty, was sixty-five
years old at the time of martyrdom.
(to be continued)
From momen@northill.demon.co.ukThu Sep 21 11:04:48 1995
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 95 23:56:51
From: Wendi and Moojan Momen
To: talisman@ucs.indiana.edu
Subject: Miller, Bahai & Buddhism
Dear Bruce
As you have criticized my book on the Talisman list, I assume that
you will not mind if I bring extracts of your private message to me
onto Talisman in order to reply to the various points raised.
I am sorry that you think that my treatment of Buddhism is in some
way comparable to Miller's treatment of the Baha'i Faith. I think
others have commented sufficiently on that. I had assumed that your
statement was merely a rhetorical device for getting the
discussion on Talisman onto subjects that interest you.
The two main areas that you contested are:
1. My arriving at a conclusion that there is reference to an
Absolute in Buddhism (your assertion that I have stated that there
is a reference to a "god" in Buddhism is incorrect - I do not make
any such assertion - or at any rate I do not intend to).
> the introduction to the whole of the Udana 80 passage clearly
> states
> that it is a discourse about nibbana, not some "Absolute." . . .
> Again, the reading of nibbana
> for the second word in this line inappropriate; however, the
> whole of the line does in fact refer to nibbana . . .
> You quote this passage but you give no
> discussion of it or its elements, as if this mysterious sounding
> collections of
> words will somehow support your contention that it refers to an
> Absolute, a god.
I would cite as evidence for my interpretation, Nagarjuna's
commentary on the Udana passage. Murti gives this as: "Nagarjuna
is emphatic in stating that without the acceptance of the
paramartha (the ultimate reality) there can be no deliverance
(Nirvana) from Samsara" (Central Philosophy of Buddhism, p. 235
and note 1). If Murti has translated correctly, then clearly
Nagarjuna does not regard the ultimate reality spoken of in the
Udana passage as being Nirvana -- if that were the case it would
reduce the above-quoted sentence to a nonsense: "Without the
acceptance of Nirvana there can be no Nirvana"
However, having said that, I really do not mind whether one chooses
to interpret this Udana passage as referring to Nibbana or to some
other Absolute.
For even if it does refer to Nibbana as you assert, this makes no
difference to my argument. Nibbana is itself an Absolute, the
description of it in this Udana passage makes it Absolute
Reality, and that is all I am asserting: that there is a concept of
an Absolute Reality -- whatever name you wish to hang on it. There
cannot of course be more than one Absolute Reality otherwise
neither could be said to be absolute.
If we then consider the way that Nagarjuna and others
develop this in the formulation that Samsara is Nibbana and Nibbana
is Samsara, we arrive at a position that I see as being resonant
with the Advaita Vedantist position that "Thou art That" or the
position in the Wahdat al-Wujud school of Sufism in Islam -- i.e.
the assertion that the Absolute Reality is the only Reality if we
could see things as they really are, and thus this world (samsara)
and our reality are not different to that Reality.
2. My assertion that the Buddha claims some supra-mundane station
for himself that puts him above his disciples
> Your discussion of the uniqueness of the Buddha is also
> singularly
> problematic. Essentially, you picked a few verses that seem to
> support
> your position, ignoring many others.
You then quote several passages that state that others can, through
their own efforts, do what the Buddha has done.
I was not unaware of these passages. To keep the book at a simple
level, however, I decided not to deal with them.
First, I would not consider the passages that you quote are
necessarily relevant to the point that I am making. The fact that
others can do what the Buddha has done does not mean that others
have the same station that he does.
Second, if we were to allow that the passages that you quote do
assert that the Buddha was a mere human just like the rest of us,
where does that leave us? I assume that you are not claiming that
the series of passages that I quote which clearly claim a supra-
mundane station for the Buddha and a salvific role for his
teaching, are forged.
So we have a contradiction between these two sets of passages.
I suppose we could just conclude that the Buddha was incoherent and
leave it at that. That after all is what Miller would do in a
similar situation since his only aim is destructive.
But Baha'is prefer, wherever there is an apparent contradiction to
look for a truth that unites the contradictions at a higher level
of truth.
Thus if we look at these two statements, the one claiming a high
station for the Buddha and the other seeming to say that he is just
an ordinary human being we again find resonances between this
situation and the situation in other religions. In Islam, the
Qur'an states that Muhammad was a man just like any other; but at
the same time other passages in the Qur'an, the Sunni Traditions
and especially the Shi`i Traditions give an elevated station to
Muhammad; similarly Jesus, at one time is making statements that
ask the question of whether he can even be called good when there is
only one good, the Father in Heaven, and at another making
statements that have caused Christians to consider him to be one
with the Godhead itself. And Baha'u'llah at one time writes: "Know
verily that whenever this Youth turneth His eyes towards His own
self, he findeth it the most insignificant of all creation"; and
yet he also writes passages that caused his Muslim enemies to
assert that he had claimed to be God.
Baha'u'llah explains this apparent contradiction in the words of
these religious leaders by explaining that they they each have a
dual station. They have one elevated station in which they are far
above humanity. In this station, high claims can be made about them
(also in this station they are all in reality one, but we will
return to this anon). They also have a human station which they
share with the rest of humanity and in this station, they are "but a
man like others". If you want to read more on this theme then you
should turn to Baha'u'llah's Book of Certitude (Kitab-i-Iqan, pp.
about 150 to 185)
I hope you can appreciate why I did not want to bring complex issues
like this into a book that I was trying to keep simple.
You seem to be keen to see me as asserting that in Buddhism there
are such concepts as "god" and "revelation":
> your contention that it refers to an Absolute, a god.
> but you fail understand that does not thusly mean revelation by
default.
I do not think that a close reading of my text would support the
assertion that I was claiming that the Buddha taught of God or of a
revelation.
I think you are reading your own prejudices against Western theism
into my text. My position is not that theism is the right answer and
that the Buddhists have got it wrong. Nor am I playing a game of
seeking to destroy Buddhism by playing with its texts in the way
that Miller does. My position is that Baha'u'llah supports neither
the theism of the Western religions nor the monism of the Eastern
religions (Advaita Vedanta, Buddhism, Taoism), but rather a
relativist approach that asserts that the Truth is transcendent to
all concepts and schema. Therefore any metaphysical statement that
is made can only ever be made from a particular viewpoint and thus
be correct from that viewpoint--but that is precisely the point: it
IS true from that viewpoint. All truth is, however, a limited,
relative truth. (I have set this out at much greater length in a
paper published in vol. 5 of the Studies in the Babi and Baha'i
Faiths series, published by Kalimat Press in Los Angeles)
Thus the Buddhist concepts are not wrong, they are correct; and so
are the truths of Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, etc. I would say
the job of the Baha'is is to see the Baha'i Faith in terms of the
religious truths that each of these religions have uncovered from
their scriptures and their Way in centuries of civilization. Of
course for historical reasons, Baha'is have progressed much
further down this path with Christinaity and Islam. But
inevitably, Baha'is must make a start in the task of seeing the
Baha'i Faith in terms of the religious truths which Buddhists have
uncovered in 2500 years of civilization. My book is only intended
to be a small start in this direction and, given my lack of the
necessary language skills, it was inevitably a flawed start; but I
would beg of you not to mistake the direction that is being taken,
however much you may dislike the first step.
Finally you seem to be much concerned with a quotation from the
writings of Baha'u'llah which you have found: "If thou wilt observe
with discriminating eyes, thou wilt behold Them all abiding in the
same tabernacle, soaring in the same heaven, seated upon the same
throne, uttering the same speech, and proclaiming the same Faith."
(Gleanings, p. 52). This passage is referring precisely to that
unity of these founder-prophets of the world religions at the
higher level which I referred to earlier.
Baha'u'llah gives the analogy of sun. Although there is only one
sun, human beings, in order to mark the passing of time give each
day a different name. And so if the sun were to say: "I am the sun of
yesterday", it would be quite correct, for each day is the
expression of the same reality, the appearence of the sun; and if
it were to be said that, with regard to their names the days differ,
that would also be true. The oneness and differences of the
prophets of God should be thought of in the same way. They are each
the appearence on earth of the same reality, and thus are all one;
and yet they each came at a different time and thus have a different
name. Therefore to prefer one of these prophet-founders of the
world religions over another is wrong.
Know thou assuredly that the essence of all the Prophets of
God is one and the same. Their unity is absolute . . . They all
have but one purpose; their secret is the same secret. To prefer
one in honor to another, to exalt certain ones above the rest, is
in no wise to be permitted. Every true Prophet hath regarded His
Message as fundamentally the same as the Revelation of every other
Prophet gone before Him. If any man, therefore, should fail to
comprehend this truth, and should consequently indulge in vain and
unseemly language, no one whose sight is keen and whose
understanding is enlightened would ever allow such idle talk to
cause him to waver in his belief. (Gleanings, pages 78-79)
Although in their inner spiritual reality these prophet-founders
of the world religions are one and the same, they differ in their
external aspects, their name, their bodily form, the age in which
they came and the specific message that they brought.
The same passage that speaks of "uttering the same speech, and
proclaiming the same Faith" goes on, however, to speak of the
differences between the prophet-founders at the lower level the
human level. "The other station is the station of distinction, and
pertaineth to the world of creation, and to the limitations
thereof." In this respect, each of these founder-prophets "hath a
distinct individuality, a definitely prescribed mission, a
predestined revelation, and specially designated limitations.
Each one of them is known by a different name, is characterized by a
special attribute, fulfils a definite mission, " etc. (Gleanings,
p. 52).
It is this area of difference that has confused humanity and made
it appear that there are some inherent contradictions among the
religions of the world.
It is because of this difference in their station and mission
that the words and utterances flowing from these Well-springs of
divine knowledge appear to diverge and differ. Otherwise, in the
eyes of them that are initiated into the mysteries of divine
wisdom, all their utterances are in reality but the expressions of
one Truth. As most of the people have failed to appreciate those
stations to which We have referred, they therefore feel perplexed
and dismayed at the varying utterances pronounced by
Manifestations that are essentially one and the same.
(Kitab-i-Iqan, page 177)
The differences among the teachings of the prophet-founders of the
world religions arise because they have come to different parts of
the world in which there are differing cultures, therefore they
have to address their message differently in accordance with that
culture. An even more important reason for difference is the fact
that the needs of humanity has changed over the ages and the
message of these prophet-founders of the world religions is in
accordance with the needs of the age in which they appear.
The difference between the ordinances under which they abide
should be attributed to the varying requirements and exigencies of
the age in which they were revealed . . . Cleave unto that which
draweth you together and uniteth you. (Gleanings, page 217)
Baha'u'llah writes that these founders of the world religions
should be regarded as doctors whose task is to diagnose the ills of
humanity and prescribe the remedy (an analogy also used by the
Buddha of course).
The Prophets of God should be regarded as physicians whose
task is to foster the well-being of the world and its peoples,
that, through the spirit of oneness, they may heal the sickness of
a divided humanity. To none is given the right to question their
words or disparage their conduct, for they are the only ones who
can claim to have understood the patient and to have correctly
diagnosed its ailments. No man, however acute his perception, can
ever hope to reach the heights which the wisdom and understanding
of the Divine Physician have attained. Little wonder, then, if the
treatment prescribed by the physician in this day should not be
found to be identical with that which he prescribed before. How
could it be otherwise when the ills affecting the sufferer
necessitate at every stage of his sickness a special remedy? In
like manner, every time the Prophets of God have illumined the
world with the resplendent radiance of the Day Star of Divine
knowledge, they have invariably summoned its peoples to embrace
the light of God through such means as best befitted the exigencies
of the age in which they appeared. They were thus able to scatter
the darkness of ignorance, and to shed upon the world the glory of
their own knowledge. It is towards the inmost essence of these
Prophets, therefore, that the eye of every man of discernment must
be directed, inasmuch as their one and only purpose hath always
been to guide the erring, and give peace to the afflicted.
(Gleanings, pages 80- 81)
As I said to you in a previous posting, I do not particularly want
to get involved in lengthy metaphysical hair-splitting and
disputation for various reasons; the first being that I believe
that it is exactly what both the Buddha and Baha'u'llah tried to
dissuade their followers from doing. Surely that is the whole point
of the Buddha likening humanity to a man with a poison arrow in his
foot -- it is not just a waste of time for us to be debating these
niceties, it is actually dangerous because it distracts attention
from what is the real task at hand. The Baha'i scriptures also
condemn religious disputation "If ye fail to discover truth in a
person's words, make them not the object of contention, inasmuch as
ye have been forbidden in the Bayan to enter into idle disputation
and controversy (Selections from the Bab, page 134).
I apologize that it has taken a while to get this posting out. That
is not just because of its length. I am also rather late on several
writing projects that I have promised to various people. I finally
managed to complete an introduction to a book which I had promised
to Tony Lee last week and now I am trying to finish a manuscript of a
book which I had thought I would complete at the beginning of this
month, as well as organize a conference that is due to take place in
December.
Moojan
--
Wendi and Moojan Momen
From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduThu Sep 21 11:07:02 1995
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 95 09:26:11 EWT
From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: raising sons
Dear Rick, I was glad to see your last posting. As I read an earlier one, it
suggested to me that you saw the major problem facing parents was to make their
daughters turn out all right. It is my contention that a bigger problem is
making sure that the boys attitude towards girls is a healthy, constructive
one.
I am very alarmed by what I see as a growing hostility towards females in this
society. I also agree wholeheartedly that the portrayal of women in the media
is dangerous. Perhaps I am not alarmed by Barbie dolls because I see so many
other things as really being the problem. Everywhere we turn, we face images
of women that are unhealthy images. And there seems to be a never ending
supply of TV shows and movies where women are degraded.
When I interact with female college students I am often very pleased with them
and the interests they have. However, I am so often alarmed by their
descriptions of their relationships with men.
So, while I hold to what I said before - treat your daughter with respect,
speak intelligently to her about a wide array of topics, etc. - I really don't
have a feeling that you would do otherwise. I think we can work ourselves up
into a frenzy trying to create an ideal person. She is who she is. You can
only nurture that. But to demand that the males around you treat her and
other women with respect might be the most important thing you, or any man, can
do. Linda
P.S. Most happy to hear that Burl is taking a conscientious approach to
improving his table manners. When Sherman the Cat gives his o.k., we will try
Burl at the dinner table once more.
From rstockman@usbnc.orgThu Sep 21 14:35:53 1995
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 95 10:03:49
From: "Stockman, Robert"
To: talisman@indiana.edu, aw515@freenet.carleton.ca, aperry99@utdallas.edu,
billstoc@winternet.com, brill@bradley.bradley.edu,
christopher.jones@stonebow.otago.ac.nz, crideout@crl.com,
cxe5@musica.mcgill.ca, hatcher@chuma.cas.usf.edu,
hhanson@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu, mocquais@max.cc.uregina.ca,
momen@northill.demon.co.uk, seena@castle.ed.ac.uk,
white3@husc.harvard.edu
Subject: Religious Studies Seminar
Dear All:
I have finally assembled a tentative program for the Religious Studies
Seminar of the Association for Baha'i Studies. As you can see, we
have a surprisingly full program, and I think it is pretty strong as
well. One speaker, Allan Keislar, is a Hindu, so the program includes
religious diversity. I'd rather not have to change anyone's times,
since this program has virtually gone to the printers; however, please
inform me of any serious errors, such as mistakes in titles.
Comments on the statement of purpose are also welcome, as it needs
further development.
I hope to see many of you at this gathering, on Thursday, October 12,
1995.
-- Rob Stockman
---------------------------------------------------------------
Association for Baha'i Studies
Religious Studies Seminar, 1995
Schedule
9:00 Welcome and opening remarks
9:15 Mr. Anthony Lee, "Muslim and Christian Influences on
Baha'i Identity in America."
9:55 Mr. Allan Keislar, "The United Religions Initiative: An
Inspired Effort to Unite the Nations on a Spiritual
Platform."
10:35 Break
10:50 Mr. Jack McLean, "The Convergence of Theology and
Spirituality."
11:30 Dr. Diana Malouf, "Baha'u'llah's Corpus: Kernel of a New
Literary System."
12:10 Lunch
2:00 Dr. Susan Maneck, "Wisdom, Unwisdom, and Dissimulation:
The Use and Meaning of Hikmat in the Baha'i Faith."
2:40 Mr. Peter Terry, "The Dala'il-i-Sab`ih: The Seven Proofs
of the Bab"
3:20 Break
3:35 Prof. Juan R. I. Cole, "The Secret of Divine Civilization
and Iranian Reformist Literature."
4:15 Mr. Shahrokh Monjazeb, "The Dilemma of Authenticity of
`Abdu'l-Baha's So-Called `Marriage Tablet'"
4:55 Adjorn
-----------------------------------------
The Religious Studies Seminar of the Association for Baha'i Studies
exists to carry out the following purposes:
1. To explore the nature and meaning of the Baha'i
scriptures;
2. To explore Baha'i history;
3. To explore the development of the Baha'i community, both
sociologically and by other means;
4. To study the lives of the Primary Figures of the Baha'i
Faith (Baha'u'llah, the Bab, `Abdu'l-Baha, and Shoghi Effendi)
and to develop Baha'i biography;
5. To explore Baha'i theology, philosophy, and ethics;
6. To educate the Baha'i community in the techniques and
approaches of the scholarly community; to apply these
techniques to the study of the Faith;
7. To educate the scholarly community about the Baha'i Faith,
and through study of the Faith to assist in the development of
various scholarly disciplines.
The Seminar thus embraces all or part of the following fields:
religious studies, history, biography, literature, theology,
philosophy, ethics, sociology, anthropology, and psychology.
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comThu Sep 21 18:59:58 1995
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 11:54:34 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Educating Sons.
I think Linda has brought forward an excellent point , it is no use
developing the girls to be forward thinkers and allowing the boys to
have attitudes that relate to a past era.You simple create greater and
greater chances of abuse and conflict. My brother-in-laws wife , sort
of my sister-in-law decided after she had her first son she was not
going to have her future daughter-in-law angry with her for not showing
her son how to help and act around the house and towards women in
general.She has two sons both of whom act totally different to their
father, he never lifts a finger to do anything, they do not regard it
as being particularly masculine thing to do nothing, I believe this
shows the impact a mother has.Now if that is backed by the father in
deed and word. We could see a very big change in two
generations.Kindest Regards Derek Cockshut.
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comThu Sep 21 19:01:03 1995
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 12:49:10 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re Watsonville explanation
Due to rushing I sent the Watsonville report to Talisman , as it does
not sound complete here goes.
Jeff and Janie Rhodes two Baha'is who live in Santa Cruz County 12
weeks ago decided to start a teaching project. They chose Watsonville
which is 8 miles from their home. Watsonville is a city of 28,000 plus
people. With another Baha'i Adelard from Brundi who lives in Santa Cruz
City they have gone every week for the last 10 weeks , concentrating on
one small area of the City. they decided not to process the enrolements
cards to make sure the people who had enrolled were happy to be
Baha'is.Watsonville in the 70's had a project that was not exactly good
at confirming people Jeff and Janie are determined to not repeat the
mistakes of the past. They just feel joining the Faith of God is not
signing a card but a union of the soul with its Maker. Now that the new
and as I understand pretty wonderful new Baha'is are getting
comfortable at being Baha'is , Jeff and Janie are processing them so
that they join the World Wide Family.One of the things they do is to
visit each person every week so you dont just sign a card and thats it.
I have not posted Jeff's Weekly reports to me but if anybody would like
a copy just post to me or I could post a general posting.
Kindest Regards Derek cockshut.
From richs@microsoft.comThu Sep 21 22:22:03 1995
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 95 15:40:02 PDT
From: Rick Schaut
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Toward a Baha'i Economic Paradigm
Dear Talizens,
My undergraduate degree is in Economics, and one of my
passtimes has been an attempt to develop some ideas which
would form the basis of a model of Economics based upon
Baha'i principles. I have toyed with the idea of posting some
of these thoughts to Talisman, but I'm just not sure if anyone
is interested.
Mind you, my thoughts are toward the development of a
model. We Baha'is are quite good at talking about things
as they should be, but this talk only goes so far as people
are willing to accept the assumptions which underly such
positive analysis. If we expect others to adopt our assumptions,
we have to use them to build a model which better describes
things as they are.
So, if you're looking for the ruminations of an iconoclast who
has little to offer in place of the old model, you'll probably find
my stuff very boring.
What say you?
Warmest Regards,
Rick
From ahmada@acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.auThu Sep 21 22:23:55 1995
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 11:04:16 +1000
From: Ahmad Aniss
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: second part of Dr. P.Khan's talk
Dear Friends,
This is the second part of the third talk by Dr Peter Khan which was
given on Sunday 17th of September 1995 in Sydney. There are
words that have been put in brakets with a question mark after.
These are words that were not clear from the tape. The following
content must be considered as typing from a tape and not the
original.
With regards,
Ahmad.
[text of the talk ( second part)]
We are told this in direct opposition to every word we mean. We
renew faith in this, that we see on television or from commentators
of the news, and other areas of advising information, as we think
they have been on us. Those sources tell us generally the precise
opposite, they would not tell us that duty and responsibility and
scarifies are the key to happiness and fulfilment. Rather than tell us
that, they tell us self satisfaction and freedom from restraint
consideration only of one's own being and one's own narrow
interest that there lies happiness and fulfilment. I believe that our
religion tells us the precise opposite, that our religion tells us that
through the process of spiritual development, we will increase our
powers and capacity through a remarkable extend.
I was particularly pleased that councillor Sanders opened this
meeting with those (......?) references to Mr. and Mrs. Dun.
Because, I think, there in, one sees and therefore the things I which
spoke. This frail couple lacking material resources, in afternoon, if
not in the evening of their lives increased their power and capacity
by their spiritual commitments as pioneers of the Cause in this call,
and as many of us here today, are the direct result of that.
I see one of the major challenges to the Baha'is in all parts of the
world, East and as well as West, at this present stage of
development of Cause. The challenge for the members of the
Baha'i community is to be transformed, and do not simply be
adherents. But, to be transformed into true believers, so in rage we
must challenge an arduous and difficult task of spiritual
development. It is not enough for us to say yet I believe, ok , I am
a Baha'i. I accept Baha'u'llah. I sign the card. This is not
enough, what is needed is the process of spiritual development and
transformation of character, morals and conduct. This is needed as
a mercy and benefit to the individual. It is also needed by The
Cause of God, but The Cause of God will survive. If this is from
God, it will care of itself.
These may be the means by which, we can find our own personal
salvation and our own preferences, as well, it will fulfil the full
expectation of our lives. When this has not occurred, when the
responses to this commitment to spiritual transformation ( ?), one
finds that the religion is reduced to a mere creed, a set of rituals, a
set of practices without meaning. This has occurred and is
occurring in many of the religious communities of the world. We
have to be careful so it does not occur in the Baha'i Community.
We have to be careful that the Nineteen Day Feast is not reduced to
rituals, but Local Spiritual Assembly meetings, participation in
conferences, the recitation of The Obligatory Prayers and all the
other elements of Baha'i practices, we have to be careful that they
are not reduced to rituals, such as the previous Catholic practice
(what we call no meat on Friday?).
When we do not engage in this process of spiritual development
and transformation, we find ourselves looking at present day world
affairs and history from a secular perspective. If we are not Baha'is
who are looking at society from this spiritual perspective we look at
it with material perspective of the present day society and if you do
that, and if you look very carefully, you would get very worried.
Because the world is in an appalling mess, far worst than the
average person realises. The prospects of destruction looms at
every stage.
As I said so many times in the talks of this weekend. The counties
are becoming ungovernable and societies are breaking down
completely, the spread of terrorism and narcotics and the
possibilities of tautological and chemical warfare, even I sight the
perfoliation of nuclear weapons. the world is in an appalling mess.
If we Baha'is look at the world through a secular perspective of the
people around us, we would become as depressed, as discouraged,
as pessimistic, and as alienated as they are. we have to look at it
through spiritual perspective so we see it as the first pang's of a
new society, as the transition to world unity, and world civilisation
at a period of definitely of birth and as a period of total destruction.
I have and I am sure you too gave a great amount of thought to the
process of spiritual development. To try to determine what are the
factors? How is it carried out? What are its basic parameters? I
want to share with you the present state of my thinking on this
subject. It seems to me that the process of spiritual development on
which we are called upon to embark as followers of Baha'u'llah,
has three dimensions to it. The first dimension, is as far as, I can
tell is essentially new to the Baha'i Faith. And the reason it is new,
I think is that given the dispensations preceding the Birth of the
Baha'i Revelation, so during the Islamic Dispensation some thing
very interesting happened to science. People discovered magnets,
and magnets become common. little pieces of iron which you carry
around and this piece of iron attracts another piece of iron, if they
are held close enough. What is in the world that that has to do with
spiritual development. It has a lot to do with spiritual development.
Because a magnet is a useful symbol of the process of spiritual
development. Why we are saying this so? Firstly, with a magnet
you have action occurring at distance. (two pieces of iron .also two
pieces at a distance totally survive and the manifestation of
their actions are greater?). Secondly, there is nothing visible
between them, but there is an attractive force. And thirdly the
forces are so generated such that the arrangement of the little bits
of pieces in magnet are dipole. This is an analogy for certain
actions in the process of spiritual development.
As the first of the three dimensions, and I see it is associated to the
spiritual development, is what I call the principle of magnetism. It
is simply that. In This Dispensation, magnet is used as a means to
convey a great and profound truth. The great and profound truth
conveyed by the use of the analogy of the magnet is that if we take
certain actions, physical actions, we attract a spiritual force. So if
as we were making a magnet, we take little and bits of pieces and
organise them in a right shape and form and they would attract a
magnetic force to it. So we find curiously enough that the term
magnet appeared again and again in the writings of Baha'u'llah, and
Abdu'l-Baha and The Guardian and as well as some statements of
The Universal House of Justice. The term magnet appears again
and again as a vehicle for conveying this profound truth. And if we
would take certain actions prescribed by the Divine Law, a spiritual
force is associated with us.
Let me read some of these statements; Abdu'l-Baha says: the
commemoration of God attracts confirmation and assistance like
unto a magnet. Praying to God attract confirmation and assistance
like a magnet. Another place; (take?) the magnet which draws the
confirmation of the Merciful One. Another place; service is the
magnet which attracts heavenly spirits. Yet again, unity and
harmony is the magnet that draws down the confirmations of God.
And so, He goes on that teaching the Cause, making a soul think
rightful, Abdu'l-Baha tells us this is the magnetic power which
attracts the confirmation of God. Another place, directing mankind
to the right path is the magnet which will attract to us the help of
God. And so he goes on, I can get a kind of weary if I talk about
this in a great length. you find that it is every where.
Shoghi Effendi in a letter of 1953, said living the Baha'i life creates
a magnet for the Holy Spirit. Another place, to day as yet never
before, Shoghi Effendi said: the magnet which attracts blessings for
a Baha'i is teaching the Faith of God. It is the most powerful and
the most important analogy to describe a profound truth that we are
called upon to carry out certain actions in accord with Baha'i, with
Divine Law, given by Baha'u'llah, with faith that those actions are
necessary to attract great spiritual powers. Just as the magnet,
because of its formation attracts magnetic powers.
The analogy is developed very fully in the writings and you will
find, The Guardian in translations of Baha'u'llah's writings, in
Gleanings and other places, in times uses the term Lode Stone; l-o-
d-e, Lode Stone as a synonym for a magnet, and He says in one
place, that the revelation of Baha'u'llah will act as the Lode Stone
for all nations and kindred's of the Earth. You see the analogy of
the revelation to be like a magnet, attracting the nations and
kindred's of the Earth to it. And before I leave the stand, you see
yourselves upset with me trying to take (....?).
Abdu'l-Baha in one place referred to Baha'u'llah and says that
Baha'u'llah as He manifested, He said: Thy Lord hasth manifested
the magnet of the souls of hearts in the whole of existing world. In
another words, in that analogy Abdu'l-Baha describes Baha'u'llah
as a magnet attracting the souls of truth. So, what are the
dimensions, I see in the process of spiritual development, is that of
the believers are called upon to carry out certain spiritual practices
which attracts a spiritual power. Some of these practices are very
inevitable, for example the practices of prayer, the practice of
fasting, the practice of reading the creative writings, one might well
guess, they are the source of attraction of spiritual powers, but
some of them are less obvious. Why do we teach the Faith? It is
not simply that we want more people around the place, so that we
want more power and influence and more (....?), and the rest of it.
Obviously we think these are important, but one of the fundamental
reason for teaching of the Faith, for the individual is that it is a
magnet, it is a thing, by which an individual can attract spiritual
powers. The same applies to contributions to the fund. Why do we
contribute to the funds? It is not just that we need a lot of money
to do all kinds of interesting things. It is much more than that. It is
that (.....?) devotional act by contributing to Local, National and
International Fund for development. But with the act of
contributing to these funds a spiritual practice which attracts
spiritual powers to the individual.
The first of these three dimensions of which, I think to be the
process of spiritual development is that of the principle of
magnetism, actions attract this truth. The second of three
dimensions (irons .....?), is that what I regard as the principle which
I fill (.....?) is constructive interaction, let me illustrate this, if I have
a certain level of spiritual development, I say prayers. By saying
these prayers for me, form a degree of devotion. I attract spiritual
powers. Having attracted those spiritual powers, I become more
spiritual and so I say more prayers. Now that, I attracted more
spiritual power, I will become even more spiritual and (read?) more
prayers and so on, it could go on.
In other words, what I am saying is that the second of the three
principles is that of constructive interaction. Constructive
interaction between the acts one perform and the powers of
attraction. We do some thing, we sort of take the currents in our
hands and make a great effort and mention the Faith to some body
else and through our friends at least a little bit and you find that that
attracts powers to you, you fill good, you fill strong, you fill more
courageous, you fill it has merits, you do it some more, it attracts
more powers, we do it some more (itself?) . And of course the
same goes with contributions to the funds, give a little and you
realise that that greatly changes your spiritual perspective, and you
become more sacrificial and give more, gain more sacrificial itself.
So there is a level of constructive interaction.
This process of constructive interaction is illustrated very vividly by
a strange remark made by Abdu'l-Baha, He made that remark in
1912, when He was in Willemite, United State of America, and He
was called upon to lay the foundation stone of the House of
Worship. They gathered around Him, with a mood of prayer, that I
suspect they had no idea of what they were embarked upon, and it
will take another forty years to built it, and cost millions of dollars
and all kinds of set backs, hardships and problems. What is strange
about this remark of Abdu'l-Baha, He said and His words are
recorded, He said, there he was with His friends gathered on a little
piece of ground found on lake Michigan, "the temple is already is
built". He clarified that remark by saying also you have only to
begin, every thing will be all right. I submit that, that was an
example of constructive interaction. "You only need to begin every
thing will be all right, the temple is already built". In another
words, what He was saying is, look the very fact that you have
made a start you more or less gathered at lake Michigan .....
(to be continued)
_______________________________________________________________________
^ ^
^ Dr. A.M. Aniss,
From tan1@cornell.eduThu Sep 21 22:24:15 1995
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 21:04:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Timothy A. Nolan"
To: sw@solsys.ak.planet.gen.nz, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Belief and declaration
Suzanne Michael responded to the following comment:
>> 3. They should know that there are laws they should endeavour to follow
>> and an administration they must try to obey to the best of their
>> ability.
by saying:
s> I do appreciate your comments regarding the ways in which Baha'is come to
s> the Faith, but a rather obvious conclusion from your point no. 3 is that
s> in order to obey the laws, one must know what they are.
Yes of course. However, in order to enroll in the Baha'i community,
it isn't necessary to know all the laws, it is only necessary to agree in
advance to obey them, even if you don't yet know what they are!
That is, a person has to have faith that, if a law comes from Baha'u'llah
or Abdu'l Baha or Shoghi Effendi or the Universal House of Justice,
then, one must agree in advance to try to obey that law as soon as one
learns of it. I think this is a sign of deep faith, to agree to follow
laws, not because you know them already and agree with them, but because
of Who set forth the laws. The Source of the law, not the content of any
particular law, is the reason for obedience.
Tim Nolan tan1@cornell.edu
From TLCULHANE@aol.comThu Sep 21 22:25:19 1995
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 21:24:16 -0400
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Seneca Falls
Dear Stephen ,
The Seneca falls Womens Rights Conference took place in Seneca Falls
New York on July 19 -20 1848. The conference was given imputus by the
passage of an equal property rights bill in the New York legislature in April
of that year .
It was organized by Eliz. Cady Stanton , Lucretia Mott one of her
sisters , Martha Wright , two other Quakers Jane Hunt and Ann Mc Clinock .
The Conference produced a resolution known as the Declaration of Sentiments
and Resolutions. The above mentioned women , in consultation with some of
their husbands , ( a famous decision making style) produced a document
patterned after the Declaration of Independence . It was cady Stanton who
fleshed out and completed the rough draft for the concention .
The declaration consisted of 12 resolutions , the most controversial of
which was related to securing for women the right to vote . It is
significant that among those who adamently supported this resolution , the
most controversial of the convention, -which did pass - was Frederick
Douglass. The Declaration was signed by 68 women and 32 men . Some of its
resolutions and commentary regarding religion and the clergy make for good
reading in light of that remarkable document the Book of Certitude .
Here is the last of the resolutions presented by Lucretia Mott .
Resolved; That the speedy success of our cause depends upon the zealous and
untiring efforts of both men and women , for the overthrow of the monopoly of
the pulpit , and for the securing to women an equal participation with men in
the various trades , professions and commerce.
( Yes it passed )
Hope this helps. In the for what it is worth category this is one of the
documents we go over in our Omaha Bahai Academy junior high and youth class .
And we talk about it in tandem with Badasht.
warm regards,
Terry
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comThu Sep 21 22:26:32 1995
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 18:39:25 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re : The Great Paradox.
The Great Paradox appears to be the one in your mind
Paul , I do not think you are up to date on Baha'i Litera-
ture . Adib Taherzadeh in his book 'The Covenant Of
Baha'u'llah' actually outlines the very points you claim
Baha'is are hiding or refusing to face. The Book was
published in 1992 is priced at $21.95 as you refused to
take the point over William Collins Book because that was
too expensive , as far as the rank and file not being in-
formed .In 1990 I spoke at the Desert Rose Conference
in Tucson on the History of the Covenant dealing in
greater detail than Adib's book with the whole subject. It
was a set of 5 lectures with around 500 people attending
the class. Since then I must have given that class to
around 2000 more people. Hardly a cover-up operation
explaining the sorry mess regarding Covenant Breaking
and the Holy Family, which I am well aware the Chris-
tian Fundamentalists will pick on just as you are trying
to do. The only thing for Baha'is to do is do be aware of
the true situation and answer questions that can be an-
swered. But you have now gone to your feelings not
Facts or Scholarly or Academic considerations , you
state 'It is an intuitive reading of an historical situation
that emphasizes , even exaggerates ----- I find Miller
persuasive on the general thesis that the Faith is 'in de-
nial'so to speak about its origins.'That really is a cop-
out, you do not want to discuss things, you were offered
by several people on Talisman to answer your questions
, you then said the book was missing < gone into occulta-
tion no doubt >.
It really does not matter to you Paul what answers you
could receive because you have already decided and re-
jected the answers before you have thought of the ques-
tions. That is a futile and pointless exercise for anybody
to embark upon with you. I suggest you could be the one
'in denial' whatever the Baha'i Community was like
when you were a part I do not recognize. but it is radi-
cally different now from what you infer , whether you
like it or not. The real truth is you do not believe in this
Religion for you it is not the Truth , you are unable to
accept the fact that millions of people regard this Faith
as the most wonderful and the purest thing ever to enter
their lives. That it has created aspects of Unity beyond
your imagination.
I am sorry you are so bitter , but you
seem bitter against the Theosophists , so it is certainly not
something unique to the Baha'i Faith your negative
feelings of angry and frustration . I do not for many
reasons accept your views and opinions regarding my
Religion. Some are Intellectual , some are academic ,
some are based on my personal historical research of
primary sources which you have never been privy too.
But most of all for those blessed and precious moments
when I open my inner eyes in Prayer and Meditate on
the Glorious Maiden of Heaven and feel the Power of
the Twin Blessed Ones fill my Soul .
How could I explain that to one whose life seems to
dwell on the dark side of things, regardless of whether
true or false ,and that is a sadness, more than you can
realize, for me.
Kindest Regards Derek Cockshut.
From richs@microsoft.comThu Sep 21 22:27:35 1995
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 95 16:29:51 PDT
From: Rick Schaut
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: The Great Paradox
Dear Paul and Friends,
>From: "K. Paul Johnson"
>I'm not arguing that Miller is a good scholar, or that his book
>is fair. What I keep trying to say is that he can see things
>about the Faith that Baha'is seem resolutely unwilling to see,
>and that you can profit from a dispassionate consideration of
>his points.
I must confess that I'm not sure what to make of this claim.
The phrase "resolutely unwilling to see" is a phrase, in
this context, which is so laden with subjective interpretation
that it's difficult to give it any form of discourse whatsoever.
Yet, the facts are clear: Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha gave
pretty clear instructions as to who had what authority in the
Faith, and those who were declared covenant breakers
disregarded these instructions. I don't know that one can
get any more dispassionate about it than this simple
observation.
In terms of dysfunctional families, a dispassionate review
of the evidence is also rather clear. Those who appear to
have been most dysfunctional are those who were declared
covenant breakers. Moreover, we are faced with the rather
stark evidence that the Baha'i Faith has progressed faster
than any other religion has progressed in the first 150 years
of its life.
Any dispassionate review of this evidence has to marvel
at the extent to which the Baha'i Faith has withstood the
efforts of members of Baha'u'llah's own family to shake
the foundations of authority as they have been laid down
in the Writings of the Faith.
In terms of Baha'i willingness to view these events in any
form, I should point out that they haven't been brushed under
the rug. The issues, the history and the documentation is
generally available to Baha'is at large, and a rather good
summary of the events is containd in Adib Taherzadeh's
_The Covenant of Baha'u'llah_.
So, I'm at a loss to understand precisely which facts I'm
so "resolutely unwilling to see." Is it the nefarious activities
of Muhammad `Ali? How Badi'u'llah and his cousins? Of
their activities I'm well aware.
I understand what Miller is trying to say. In that sense, I
"see" what he's saying. I also disagree with his point of
view and where that point of view leads him. In that sense,
I don't "see" what he's saying. To which of these are you
referring when you claim that Baha'is are unwilling to see
Miller's points?
Warmest Regards
Rick
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comThu Sep 21 23:13:24 1995
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 95 21:10:01 -0400
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Badasht and women emancipation
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
Friends,
In a very informative posting on "Seneca Falls", Terry wrote
(Thanks Terry!):
> And we talk about it in tandem with Badasht.
If I understood this correctly, the implications is to draw a
parallel between the women emancipation efforts in the West and
Tahirih's supposed sentiments and preaching on the same. I am
not picking on my good friend Terry, but I hear this about
Tahirih in many places.
Actually, I like to hear what evidence exists that Tahirih ever
said or did anything on the subject of women's liberty. There is
nothing in her writings that offer such an evidence. Even the
supposed act of removing her vale at Badasht, is not mentioned in
any of the early manuscripts that I have chanced upon. (This
"act" which is suppose to signal abrogation of Islamic
Dispensation is a rather late report and if I'm not mistaking is
first mentioned by Nabil -- who may of course have heard it from
Baha'u'llah!) Outside of that, anything?
Would appreciate any information on this issue.
regards, ahang.
From mfoster@tyrell.netThu Sep 21 23:14:54 1995
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 21:53:38 -0500 (EDT)
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Baha`i Jurisprudence/Wom
To: talisman@indiana.edu
R > "The Spiritual Assemblies which are organized for the sake of
R >teaching the truth, whether Assemblies for men, Assemblies for women or
R >mixed assmeblies are all accepted and conducive to the spreading of the
R >fragrances of God....But now is not the time--it is utterly impossible to
R >establish the House of Justice which is mentioned in the Book of Aqdas,
R >nay rather it is impracticable and not to be thought of, that is for the
R >time when the Cause is proclaimed and the Commands have become
R >effective. Therefore now is not the time for the House of Justice, which
R >must be estsblished by general election. Its mention is not permissible
R >and its realization impossible."
Richard -
It seems to me that this passage is talking about the future local
houses of justice and not the Universal House of Justice. They key
phrase here, I think, is "by general election." The Master, IMO,
was distinguishing between the local house of justice and the local
spiritual assembly. Although the second is the nascent form of the
first, the responsibility is somewhat different. Of course, the local
spiritual assemblies do not, in most of the world (though I have heard
of a few recent exceptions in certain politically undeveloped places in
the world), function as true houses of justice.
Baha'i greetings,
Mark
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Sociologist of Religion *
From jrcole@umich.eduThu Sep 21 23:17:43 1995
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 23:06:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: dysfunctionality
Paul:
>From my point of view, with regard to the issue of the Nuri family, I
think you are blaming the victims; and it would be easy to set up any
religion for this treatment. Look how unfair Christians are to Judas,
who after all probably sacrificed three years of income to hang around
with someone advertising himself as the Messiah, who cannot even prevent
himself being taken captive by the Romans and handily dispatched. Why
can't Christians come to terms with the entirety of the twelve disciples
and recognize that Judas had a valid point of view, too? And it is not
as if Peter was so much better, after all, since he denied Christ 3 times
before dawn. But Peter gets rehabilitated, whereas poor Judas is demonized.
:--)
As for Baha'u'llah and Azal, I suppose one can understand why Baha'u'llah
rather stopped wanting to have anything to do with a half-brother who
tried to have him rubbed out. Baha'u'llah quite clearly appointed
`Abdu'l-Baha his successor, the one to whom all should turn, the
Interpreter of the Book. When Muhammad `Ali refused to accept
`Abdu'l-Baha's authority and blatantly made a bid for power, what was
`Abdu'l-Baha supposed to do? Roll over and play dead? Let the Baha'i
faith splinter for the sake of his little brother's ego?
I think other lessons can be drawn from the problems the Holy Figures had
with their families than the one you drew. You lumped them all together,
as the Nuri dysfunctional family, as if all were equally blameworthy in
what happened. But it seems obvious to me that this is not the case.
Sociologically speaking, I would suggest the following: In Middle
Eastern society (and one could as well say the Mediterranean) clan
organization is common. One's cousins mean a lot to one. You do favors
for a brother or a cousin, especially on your father's side. If you are
a male you tend to marry your father's brother's daughter. The system
tends to be segmentary. This is usually explained as a shifting set of
intra- and inter-clan rivalries. A proverb is often given to explain the
system: "I against my brother; my brother and I against our cousin; I,
my brother and our cousin against the world." Brothers and cousins
expect patronage. (Greece has been given $10 billion in aid by the
European community, with no obvious multiplier effect on its economy.
Where did all the money go? The best guess is that it was distributed
into the pockets of the cousins, dispersing it and eating it up in
consumption and inflation. The same thing happened to a lot of the aid
given the Pakistani government supposedly for Afghan refugees.)
Now the system of succession set up by Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha
challenged these Mediterranean notions of segmentary alliances, patronage
and (frankly) corruption. And the greater Nuri family simply could not
stop playing by the old rules, ganging up on Baha'u'llah, `Abdu'l-Baha
and Shoghi Effendi in turn, challenging their charismatic authority,
seeing what they could wring out of the system in these segmentary
faction-fights. The Nuris thought they could get away with all this;
they were family, after all. But the Holy Figures said no to segmentary
politics, they said no to patronage for the brothers and cousins, they
said no to corruption. The price of this uprightness was severe, in
cutting off much of the family over time. But the alternative was to let
factionalism and sleaziness of the Sicilian sort take over the leadership
of the Baha'i Faith.
On another level, one you may appreciate, one could see the saga of the
failure of so many Nuris to live up to their own religion as a parable for
humankind. Just as Baha'u'llah's own brother tried to isolate him and
kill him, so the Ottoman and Iranian authorities sent him to the fortress
at Akka with the intent that it should be a sort of solitary confinement
and the end of him. Just as `Abdu'l-Baha's brothers attempted to have
undermine his authority and his standing with the government, so
conservatives in the Ottoman state seriously considered executing him or
exiling him to the Libyan desert. Just as Shoghi Effendi's relatives
defied him and jockeyed for position in case he should die, so the world
itself fell into the fratricidal conflicts of WW II, the Palestine war,
and the Cold War. All Baha'u'llah, `Abdu'l-Baha, and Shoghi Effendi
wanted was to bring the message of the unity of God, the unity of the
religions and the unity of humankind to the world. And neither in their
inner kinship circle nor in the wider world were they greeted with
anything but a clasped dagger.
So, no, I don't think I have anything at all to learn from
Miller, a warped and narrow-minded fundamentalist who would have gladly
consigned both you and me to hell.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From pjohnson@leo.vsla.eduThu Sep 21 23:18:05 1995
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 95 16:30:12 EDT
From: "K. Paul Johnson"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: The Great Paradox
The discussion of the Miller book tends to go in specific
grooves, already worn by Talisman members' previous thoughts on
the subject. I don't want to argue about factual matters, or
his scholarly status, but to point out that above and beyond
all that there is a kind of truth in Miller's book that can be
found in nothing produced by Baha'is to my knowledge. It is an
intuitive reading of the historical situation that emphasizes,
even exaggerates, all the elements that Baha'is most ignore and
suppress.
I find Miller persuasive on the general thesis that the Faith
is "in denial" so to speak about its origins. And the truth
that is ignored or denied is inconveniently contradictory of
the collectively-accepted official history. The Great Paradox,
as Miller implicitly argues and I am explicitly stating, is
this: Baha'is talk about creating a harmonious world where
national, racial, gender, etc. conflict is transcended. And
yet the true history of the Faith's emergence is basically the
story of the self-destruction of an aristocratic family, each
generation of which is rent asunder by sibling rivalry. The
Faith that is supposed to bring all humanity together as one
family is the product of a rather spectacularly dysfunctional
family. From the rivalry between Baha'u'llah and Yahya,
through that between `Abdu'l Baha and Muhammad Ali, down to
Shoghi Effendi vs. the entire remaining family, the dynamics of
this family look about as spiritually uplifting as an episode
of Dynasty or Dallas. People are constantly undermining one
another, violent episodes punctuate the narrative; in essence
there's vastly more hate than love evident in the history of
the family. All that fratricidal sturm and drang doesn't make
a very inspiring story for the birth of a perfect world
religion, so Baha'is have viewed their history in a highly
selective, avoidant manner.
For example, all of Shoghi Effendi's relatives who were
declared covenant-breakers "turned against him and the
Covenant," according to the official version. But from their
side, he turned against them and not for reasons of religion.
In every generation, Baha'i history is a field of power
struggles that simply don't strike one as signs that
transcendence of humanity's conflicts is likely to come from
this source.
So apart from the specifics about non-publication of the Aqdas
and Bayan, or the promotion of a distorted Christian-oriented
popular form of Baha'i in the West, or concealment of sources,
of treatment of covenant breakers, there is a general pattern
Miller lays out that does not inspire trust.
Sure, he's one-sided and unfair and tries to twist everything
into the least flattering interpretation. But is that not the
Jungian "shadow" of the Baha'i writers who have been one-sided
and unfair and tried to twist everything into the most
flattering interpretation?
I'm not arguing that Miller is a good scholar, or that his book
is fair. What I keep trying to say is that he can see things
about the Faith that Baha'is seem resolutely unwilling to see,
and that you can profit from a dispassionate consideration of
his points.
From jrcole@umich.eduFri Sep 22 11:21:57 1995
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 23:13:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: Ahang Rabbani
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Badasht and women emancipation
Ahang-jan:
`Abdu'l-Baha confirms the unveiling incident in Memorials of the
Faithful, almost certainly on Baha'u'llah's information.
Tahirih cannot be understood as a feminist in the modern sense. But
telling her husband to get lost, asserting Babi leadership in Karbala,
openly preaching to large crowds, and writing very obviously woman's
erotic poetry about God, all do have implications for gender roles.
(This was a society in which she was, after all, supposed to stay in the
house and do child care, veil when she went out, and defer to her male
superiors [ha!]).
That is, I think one can read "feminism" out of Tahirih's narrative; but I
don't think you can read "changing gender roles" out of it. ("Feminism"
as a word, by the way, comes into use only in about 1913-14 in the U.S.)
cheers Juan Cole, History, Univ. of Michigan
From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduFri Sep 22 11:22:26 1995
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 22:12:46 -0600 (MDT)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
To: Rick Schaut
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: Baha'i Jurisprudence
Rick, I don't know where you got the concept of the "domains of
authority" but I agree that it's at the heart of an understanding of how
Baha'i law works. That doesn't help to construct strict rules of
jurisprudence, but I think it's helpful in understanding how the system
actually works. The most emphatic texts direct our eyes to these
Institutions, not to our logical constructs. Thanks for pointing this out.
Brent
From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduFri Sep 22 11:24:34 1995
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 22:39:08 -0600 (MDT)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
To: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: jurisprudence, NSAs
On Tue, 19 Sep 1995 Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl wrote:
> In general I would say the minimum is either
> a single text in a book clearly intended as a general exposition,
> rather than as an immediate response (eg The World Order of
> Baha'u'llah not a letter to an individual via a secretary; Traveller's
> Narrative not a letter to Mrs. X of Kenosha concerning a local
> dispute)...
That's a tall order. How do you know if a Book or Tablet was "clearly
intended as a general exposition?" Surely the Master knew that every
syllable He wrote would be collected and published; Mahmud followed Him
around writing down as much as he could during His western travels. Many
of the most important Baha'i Writings were, of course, addressed to
individuals. Of course, the Text of, say, the Kalimat-i-Firdawsiyyih
addressed ostensibly to Haydar-Ali is addressed to kings and rulers and
the peoples of the world, etc. so clearly has the world as its audience.
Even in cases where a Tablet from the Master or a letter from the Guardian
contains specific answers to specific questions, it often has wider
implications. Such a missive might give an insight into a spiritual or
administrative principle, even if the specific guidance does not have
universal application. All I'm saying is that I think it's quite a tall
order to distinguish guidance limited to a specific individual in a
specific case, from guidance the Master or Guardian intended to have
wider application.
There's another thing I wanted to bring up. Some fellow (I want to say
Kingman Brewster but I know that's not right) wrote a letter to the
Master and asked if Emanuel Swedenborg was a prophetic figure. The
Master wrote a Tablet replete with references to "Emanuel" which praised
him greatly. The Guardian was asked if this Tablet referred to
Swedenborg, and he said it had no bearing on him at all; that the
"Emanuel" in the Tablet was the Bab.
I saw a pamphlet published by the recipient of the Master's Tablet at the
Bosch school some years back. He printed the text of his letter to the
Master, and the Master's response; and then said "let the reader decide
for himself if the Master was writing about Swedenborg."
Now, one real clear object lesson in this is that that recipient
apparently went by the wayside, choosing his own intellect over the
Guardian's and the Master's guidance.
But what I want to raise here is this point: The Master responding to a
different matter in His Tablet, than the questioner raised. This may
have bearing on the analysis of His Tablets to the early US Houses of
Justice.
Brent
From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduFri Sep 22 11:25:38 1995
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 23:05:43 -0600 (MDT)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
To: H-C deFlerier deCourcelles <100735.2257@compuserve.com>
Cc: "\"K. Paul Johnson\"" ,
Talisman
Subject: Re: Guilt by Association
Having discussed some of this with Paul over the year or two I've
corresponded with him, I'd like to second his hunch that going into the
topic would be a negative rather than positive experience. I think we're
going to be able to focus on more productive areas in other fields.
Paul's not shy about his views, not lacking in the linguistic tools to
express himself, and not lacking in the integrity to speak up. I do not
feel that he's hiding and taking pot shots then ducking back in. My
vote, if you're counting Paul: Don't get drawn into this.
Brent
From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduFri Sep 22 11:26:13 1995
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 23:23:44 -0600 (MDT)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
To: "Timothy A. Nolan"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: how are Baha'i texts verified as authentic?
During the days I had the benefit of living at Bosch I frequented the
library, and came across instances where the Guardian had Tarazullah
Samandari verify the authenticity of Tablets.
If you ever do come across a trunk of Tablets, I heard a story that
*might* be true. I heard it in the Temple, so it must be.
It seems that an enterprising Iranian Muslim came across a Tablet by the
Master and offered to sell it to a Baha'i. The Baha'i asked for a
photocopy so he could send it to Haifa for authentication. The word came
back that it was indeed authentic; with further advice that if the price
was modest, go ahead and purchase it; if the price was high, never mind.
The House will accept a clear photocopy the same as the original Tablet.
From TLCULHANE@aol.comFri Sep 22 11:28:27 1995
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 02:30:01 -0400
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: re:Badasht and women emancipatio
Dear Ahang,
Actually we dont try and equate Tahirih's role at Badasht with
Seneca Falls in a strict sense . We touch on it (We being Suzanne Croisant
and myself ) in a way Juan described. What we are trying to do with the youth
is not so much turn Tahihih into a late 20th century "feminist" which as Juan
noted would be a misnomer , as demonstrate to them that the Faith belongs in
this country . Unfortunately in my part of the country the Faith has been
presented in such a way too much of the time as though it were a Persian
ethnic religion . The consequences being that it was in some sense "foreign "
to America . We hope to provide the youth with a sense that there are in this
country very powerful traditions with which they can be proud and identify as
proto - Bahai to borrow Sens word . It is a self-conscious attempt to
demonstrate that the world was beginning to awaken to a new age and that
Bahau'llah validates many of these developments .
How can we make sense of the world and history. We argue it is an excercise
in covenant theology as exemplified by the Guardian in PDC. This Covenant is
a big umbrella that includes more than the Bahai community and Bahau llah
lets us know in His revelation what is included in that Covenant . We are
trying to teach them to see history through the lense of the revelation and
find links between that Revelation and the larger history of humankind . It
is this sense that we present Badasht as an example of this birth of a new
era in history and so is Seneca Falls . I would recommend to everyone who has
not done so to read the Declaration of Sentiments from Seneca . It contains a
number of themes which Bahai's can identify as validated by Baha u llah .
We then speak of the long struggle to achieve the aims of the Seneca
Conference and the peole who sacrificed a great deal to make this a reality
-- Susan B. Anthony , Eliz. Stanton Lucretia Mott among others . They had a
sense of mission ! From there it is a small step to link Badasht to that
same emancipatory process . Then we can speak of the sacrifice , the struggle
the sense of mission that the Babi's had , the courage it took to break free
of the constraints of their culture. Then we get to speak of Baha u'llah and
His sacrifice and struggle and mission and . .and . . I am sure you get my
point . there is then a challenge to the youth . Who is willing to carry on
that mission ? Who is willing to be content to simply benefit from the
sacrifices of Baha u llah , the babi's and early Bahai's. as well as the
sacrifices of Susan B. and all the unnamed human beings who have struggled
for justice and loved that the world may became more like the Kingdom or as
I sometimes prefer - an * Irfan Republic* . The world we inherited did not
just happen . The benefits we take for granted did not fall like manna from
heaven . The world we inherited was built on the sacrifice , the love , the
joy , the sorrow , the pain of those who preceeded us . It is an attempt to
give some life to the Oneness of humankind and open the youth to the
sacrifice , the love , the joy , the sorrow and pain of Baha'ullah, the one
who we believe can transform our lives and those of our fellow human beings .
We take this same approach when discussing the Abolitionist movement from
the early Quakers to Wm . Garrison to Frederick Douglass to Martin Luther
Kings "I have A Dream" speech as part of this same class. All of this is
part of the Covenant ( the Greater one ). It is i think an effort to
reflect two things mentioned in the Most Holy Book.
1) " Were any man to taste the sweetness of the words which the lips of the
All - Merciful have willed to utter, he would , though the treasures of the
earth be in his possession, renounce them one and all , that he might
vindicate the truth of even one of His commandments, shining above the
Dayspring of His bountiful care and loving kindness. "
This is the promise . I want them to experience that sweetness.
2) " This is not a Cause which may be made a plaything of your idle fancies,
nor is it a field for the foolish and faint of heart . By God , this is the
arena of insight and detachment, of vision and upliftment . . "
This is the challenge . I want them to experience that vision .
Gracious God, I love this Book ! ! !
Hope this clarifies what we are up to.
warm regards,
Terry
From pjohnson@leo.vsla.eduFri Sep 22 11:32:22 1995
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 95 10:40:54 EDT
From: "K. Paul Johnson"
To: Juan R Cole
Subject: Re: dysfunctionality
According to Juan R Cole:
>
> Paul:
>
> >From my point of view, with regard to the issue of the Nuri family, I
> think you are blaming the victims; and it would be easy to set up any
> religion for this treatment.
Hereditary succession in religion inevitably sets up such
conflict. In the long run it's for the best that the Faith was
liberated from that outdated paradigm. But if Baha'u'llah was
both omniscient and the source of a blueprint for the New World
Order, why didn't he foresee the fate of his own family and
organize things differently in the first place?
>
> Now the system of succession set up by Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha
> challenged these Mediterranean notions of segmentary alliances, patronage
> and (frankly) corruption. And the greater Nuri family simply could not
> stop playing by the old rules, ganging up on Baha'u'llah, `Abdu'l-Baha
> and Shoghi Effendi in turn, challenging their charismatic authority,
> seeing what they could wring out of the system in these segmentary
> faction-fights. The Nuris thought they could get away with all this;
> they were family, after all. But the Holy Figures said no to segmentary
> politics, they said no to patronage for the brothers and cousins, they
> said no to corruption.
But they never said no to hereditary successorship in religious
office, and we can only conclude from history that [God/the
Fates/the Universe/Time] decreed otherwise than those Sacred
Figures.
> exiling him to the Libyan desert. Just as Shoghi Effendi's relatives
> defied him and jockeyed for position in case he should die, so the world
> itself fell into the fratricidal conflicts of WW II, the Palestine war,
> and the Cold War. All Baha'u'llah, `Abdu'l-Baha, and Shoghi Effendi
> wanted was to bring the message of the unity of God, the unity of the
> religions and the unity of humankind to the world. And neither in their
> inner kinship circle nor in the wider world were they greeted with
> anything but a clasped dagger.
Except for the fact that they were literally (in the case of
Baha'u'llah) and virtually (in the other two cases) worshipped
by a worldwide set of followers.
>
> So, no, I don't think I have anything at all to learn from
> Miller, a warped and narrow-minded fundamentalist who would have gladly
> consigned both you and me to hell.
OK. BTW, Presbies are not ordinarily fundies, and fundies are
not ordinarily smart enough to write even a Miller type book.
Evangelical is perhaps the word that should be used.
Cheers
PJ
From s0a7254@tam2000.tamu.eduFri Sep 22 11:32:37 1995
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 09:53:39 -0500 (CDT)
From: Saman Ahmadi
To: talisman
Subject: Re: The Great Paradox
How does Miller treat Baha'u'llah's time in the
mountains of Kurdistan?
sAmAn
From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduFri Sep 22 11:33:33 1995
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 95 09:58:57 EWT
From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Paul's posting
Dear Paul, if someone "outside" the Baha'i Faith were to get a rundown on
Nuri family dynamics such as Miller has written, I could see where things could
look awfully fishy.
However, although I have agreed in the past with some of your criticisms, I am
a bit bewildered by this one. Juan has posted a wonderful explanation of the
dynamics of M.E. (that's not "Meticulous English" either) family organization.
The importance of understanding this cannot be underestimated. I am in the
throes of trying to figure out how family politics affect Shi'i leadership in
the world today. Believe me, the rules still live. I would have thought that
you would have had some background in this yourself, so that the problems that
so plagued Baha'u'llah and Abdul Baha's family would not seem so very strange
to you.
I would also like to add one other thing. With all the research that people
such as Juan and John and others (who are often accused of being subversive)
have done, none have dug up any "dirt" on the central figures of the Faith.
None of them were at all corrupt. None have ever been accused of being
hypocritical. None were womanizers. They did not amass fortunes or demand to
be treated like gods. In other words, none of them ever personally benefited
from their positions. As a historian, I don't have to tell you how rare an
occurrence this is. Warmly, Linda
From Member1700@aol.comFri Sep 22 19:06:16 1995
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 11:42:31 -0400
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Tahirih and gender
Of course, it is true that it would be a distortion to characterize Tahirih
as a "feminist" in the modern sense of the word. Neither was she the "first
women's suffrage martyr" as I have seen some Baha'i texts refer to her.
But, I do not think that we can ignore the fact that she was a woman, and
that she very deliberately and consciously appropriate male role and male
social space--to the outrage of her contemporaries. While her writings are
silent about the "rights" of women, a European idea, her actions are not.
Not only removing the veil, but organizing women's literacy classes in
Karbala, preaching to women's networks, etc.
I highly recommend Farzaneh Milani's astonishingly well written book,
VEILS AND WORDS: The Emerging Voices of Iranian Women Writers (Syracuse
University Press, 1992) for an assessment of her role as a proto-feminist
voice in Iranian literary history.
Warmest,
Tony
From Member1700@aol.comFri Sep 22 19:06:45 1995
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 11:47:43 -0400
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Local Houses of Justice
Since I so seldom find an opportunity to agree with my good frined and Baha'i
brother Mark Foster, let me leap at the one he has just presented. I
heartily concur that the Tablet of 'Abdu'l-Baha he has quoted certainly
refers to local Houses of Justice to be established in the United States.
For this, we need not just rely on the text alone, but the historical
context--again, the request (by this time coming from many quarters) that
women be admitted to local administrative bodies.
Of course, we know that Houses of Justice HAD been established in the
United States in New York, Chicago, and Kenosha much earlier--with
'Abdu'l-Baha's full consent and blessing. He even addresses them in Tablets
as "House of Justice." But, then obviously changed his mind.
Tony
From Member1700@aol.comFri Sep 22 19:12:44 1995
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 12:22:59 -0400
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: The Great Paradox
Actually, I will both agree and disagree with Paul on his points about
Miller's book. To suggest that Miller brings anything new to the scholarly
study of the Baha'i Faith is simply a mistake. His views are nothing more
than an unsophisticated restatement of the positions held by various brands
of Covenant-breakers over the generations. He has no new analysis or insight
to offer. He intends his book only as an expose, unmasking various bits of
information which Baha'is (it is true) usually find unpleasant and
uncomfortable.
So, as far as Miller's book having any value for scholarly study, I will
have to disagree. It is an open attack on the Baha'i Faith written by a
hack, with the clear intent of damaging the name and reputation of the
religion among Christians. Really nothing more. We would have to be a
community of saints to react to this book with anything less than contempt.
We are not a community of saints--though sometimes we pretend to be.
On the other hand, if Paul's point is that Baha'is generally present a
simplified and sanitized version of our history (and of everything else, for
that matter) to those investigating the Faith, in our introductory
literature, and to ourselves in Baha'i meetings--of course, he is right.
Baha'i history is a lot more messy than we would like to believe that it is.
(History is always quite messy, by the way, so no one should be surprised.)
And so, as we construct a sacred history of our religion and
community--well, things naturally tend to get cleaned up a bit. I do not see
anything sinister, or even unusual about that. In fact, I doubt very much
that Paul could locate a human community where this is not the case. The
messy details are left to the scholars, who enjoy such things. Most people
would prefer not to see the sausage being made, even if the result is
delicious.
Actually, that is what history IS, Paul. At least, popular and
community history. The construction of a heroic story about the past which
is the basis of a common identity. That is what human beings do. Of course,
I as an historian what to know more. But, I can hardly condemn all of
humanity for wanting histories that they can call their own. I will contest
such histories at certain points, especially where their implications are
destructive. But, I hardly expect the whole world to turn into a graduate
school.
Warmest,
Tony
From saman@tamu.eduFri Sep 22 19:16:07 1995
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 11:42:12 -0500
From: Saman Ahmadi
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Mutatis/Mutandis
Dear Sen and All,
Sorry for the delay in responding to your post.
I have amended the list a bit:
1) Laws already CONTAINED in previous dispensations which
treated men and women differently: Baha'u'llah explicitly
ordains a change to the law that applies to men and women
equally.
> Greeting formula (assuming Baha'u'llah approved the
> change) FIT?
> Infidelity FIT
> Divorce FIT
Trading slaves
2) Laws which He affirms from previous dispensations, He
applies them to males or females - in the same manner that they
appeared in prior revelations
> Guardianship (imamate), male only: FIT (but not ordained
> by Baha'u'llah I think)
> Dowry PARTLY FIT (need a category 2a for laws
> retained, and still sex-specific, but very much softened,
> made optional etc.)
> Right to support during separation (?)
Obligatory Prayer - with exceptions for women in their
courses and those nursing
Pilgrimage - with exemption for women
Non-primary education of children responsibility of
father (similar to Islam ?)
3) Laws unique to the Baha'i Faith: Baha'u'llah addresses them
to males only - allowing Abdul Baha and Shoghi Effendi to
interpret them to have broader meaning if and when necessary
> Inheritance FIT (interpretation in this case in the Q&A)
> House of Justice FIT
Appearence of the next Manifestation: "... such a
*man* is assurdely a lying imposter." (emphasis added)
[not really a law, I suppose.]
4) Laws specifically addressed to women which are cancelled
> Uncleanliness during menses
5) Laws unique to the Baha'i Faith that address people in general with no
reference to gender
Holding Feasts
Establishing House of Worships
Establishing Houses of Justice
Kissing of hands
Confession of sins
Huqquq'u'llah (?)
6) Laws from previous Dispensation with no reference to gender
Murder
Backbiting and calumny
Cleanliness
regards,
sAmAn
From rvh3@columbia.eduFri Sep 22 19:19:58 1995
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 14:18:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Richard Vernon Hollinger
To: Member1700@aol.com
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Local Houses of Justice
On Fri, 22 Sep 1995 Member1700@aol.com wrote:
> Since I so seldom find an opportunity to agree with my good frined and Baha'i
> brother Mark Foster, let me leap at the one he has just presented. I
> heartily concur that the Tablet of 'Abdu'l-Baha he has quoted certainly
> refers to local Houses of Justice to be established in the United States.
You are probably right about this, though House of Justice is singular
in this tablet while the reference to the other Spiritual Assemblies is
plural, which is suggestive. In either case, however, it makes it
difficult to read the reference to baytul-adl-umumi in the 1909 tablet as
a reference to any existing Baha'i institution. `Abdu'l-Baha states
clearly here that the formation of the House of Justice at the present
time is impossible. Why would he refer to the House of Spirituality as
the House of Justice if his position was that this institution did not
and could not presently exist?
Richard
From pjohnson@leo.vsla.eduFri Sep 22 19:21:00 1995
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 95 14:12:46 EDT
From: "K. Paul Johnson"
To: Member1700@aol.com
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: The Great Paradox
According to Member1700@aol.com:
>
> Actually, I will both agree and disagree with Paul on his points about
> Miller's book. To suggest that Miller brings anything new to the scholarly
> study of the Baha'i Faith is simply a mistake.
It may not be new now, but wasn't it at the time of
publication? Especially when you consider the extremely
limited distribution of cb literature compared to Miller?
His views are nothing more
> than an unsophisticated restatement of the positions held by various brands
> of Covenant-breakers over the generations.
His contemptuous description of Mason Remey hardly falls into
that category. It was the most (as in ONLY) informative
material about him I had ever seen; I'll take Derek at his word
that this is dealt with by Taherzadeh too.
> And so, as we construct a sacred history of our religion and
> community--well, things naturally tend to get cleaned up a bit. I do not see
> anything sinister, or even unusual about that. In fact, I doubt very much
> that Paul could locate a human community where this is not the case.
Doubtless you are right. But the result is sinister in the
case of Baha'i sacred history, because it is told in simplistic
hero/villain terms that encourage Baha'is to turn such loaded
weapons on one another. The widespread willingness to insinuate that
someone is a covenant-breaker, or about to become one, is
surely a result of the way Baha'i history has been popularized.
> Actually, that is what history IS, Paul. At least, popular and
> community history. The construction of a heroic story about the past which
> is the basis of a common identity. That is what human beings do. Of course,
> I as an historian what to know more. But, I can hardly condemn all of
> humanity for wanting histories that they can call their own. I will contest
> such histories at certain points, especially where their implications are
> destructive. But, I hardly expect the whole world to turn into a graduate
> school.
If sacred history kept in its own domain, it would not be a
problem. But it wants to displace real history and obliterate
all memory that things were ever less than ideal. This, in my
Theosophical experiences, produces real hostility to objective
inquiry.
Cheers
PJ
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comFri Sep 22 19:23:07 1995
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 11:40:41 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re.Darkness and Light was the Great Paradox
My dear Paul.
I am sorry you feel because of my posts on the subject
you may have to leave Talisman. I do not nor did I im-
ply I have or had spiritual authority to opinion over the
state of your soul. I simple called as I saw it. and as your
long post indicates the state of mind you were in it does
not need me to comment, I believe your statement is
self-explanatory.
I have a copy of your book "The Masters Revealed ' you
are a good writer, I believe I posted to you at the time,
that I did not think you clarified fully the point you were
making over the conspiracy theory . That comment does
not detracted from your abilty as a writer, however I do
believe you prefer the more controversial side of things.
I am looking forward to reading your new Book maybe I
will modify my view then. No Book shop in Santa Cruz
had it last week otherwise I might have posted a review.
As it has been mentioned Abdu'l- Baha and E. G. Browne
in it I may find myself stocking it in the Bosch Book
shop.
I do not apologize for the fact you brought up the subject
of the Miller Book and Baha'i historical cover-ups and
when people tried to engage you in rational discussion
you kept changing the rules. If that was not your intent
well I am afraid that is how it came over. The irony is if
you had not used the Miller book as your example of
historical blindness in the Baha'i Community I can think
of at least 30 people on Talisman who would have
agreed wholehearted with you including myself. I do not
have to explain all the reasons why again Baha'is
from a wide range of perspectives find that type of
publication of no value in terms of understanding their
Religion We are a Religion at the start of its cycle , there
are many things that we are still discovering about it. I
look around the Baha'i World and I see things happening
as the Faith unfolds into its true form which will ensure
it is nothing but a positive Force in the Life of this
Planet . I have no animosity towards you , whatever I
posted was said in frank open discussion , you person-
ally posted to me that you were offended that I had men-
tioned you had lost your copy of the Miller Book. It
might be well to consider did you not imagine on a fo-
rum like this you would be asked to deal in detail about
such a book . The only way you could have justified
your statements was by direct reference not innuendo ,
that I found to be offensive and still do.
I am truly sorry that your life has been in such turmoil
the last few months , I never wish harm to anyone , but
that was hardly the fault or the problem of the Baha'i
Community. I expressed the fact that I am sorry I can
not convey to you the Wonders of this Faith that I have
in Prayer which is the core of ones belief , I fail to see
why you should regard that as offensive.
Kindest Regards Derek Cockshut
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzFri Sep 22 19:31:39 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 1995 08:09:51 +1200
From: Robert Johnston
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Tahirih and gender
Tony wrote:
>Of course, it is true that it would be a distortion to characterize Tahirih
>as a "feminist" in the modern sense of the word.
During a discussion with David Taylor, it became evident to me that we each
may have a different view of what is the meaning of "modern". Regarding
"feminist", again the meaning is disputed. Juan has said that the word
feminist did not come to light until early this century, but -- of course
-- this does not mean that the movement towards sexual equality -- which
is a dictionary-kind of feminist assumption -- had not begun earlier than
that.
If we -- as I do -- take modernity to really be about the movements in the
world towards conformity with the Divine Will as expressed in the Baha'i
Dispensation, then it would seem fairly obvious that Tahirih occupies a
pivotal position in the liberation of women. I feel certain that only in
centuries to come will her unique status in this sphere be really
understood. In the meantime, I think it is helpful to read history
primarily in terms of religious dispensations, as 'Abdu'l-Baha does.
Robert.
From s0a7254@tam2000.tamu.eduFri Sep 22 19:32:36 1995
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 15:22:37 -0500 (CDT)
From: Saman Ahmadi
To: talisman
Subject: Re: Darkness and Light
Dear Paul,
As it has been said on Talisman when some have expressed
concern with regards to the content and tone of some threads,
the information superhighway runs both ways. God knows how many
times I have begun my unsubscription message to majordomo - may
be I am too hooked to leave but, even with all the storms, I know
that there is something special about what is going on here. I
am uncomfortable with the threat of you leaving unless everyone
is as "open minded" as you want us to be.
I have a lot of trouble understanding your feelings; you make remarks
about the heart and soul of the Baha'i Faith - often more explicitly
than Rushdie's words about Islam. You then are surprised at the reaction
of Baha'is who feel their honor (gheyrat in Arabic) has been compromised.
And you ignore those Baha'is who have channeled their feelings by
attempting to engage you with reasoned posts.
Lets try a hypothetical (and no, I am not going to write a review
of your book):
Its May 30th, 1892. You are Abdul Baha. You read Baha'u'llah's
Will with Muhammad Ali, your brother, at your side. What
do you do next?
on a cold Texas afternoon,
sAmAn
P.S. I have never been to South Fork.
From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlFri Sep 22 19:34:01 1995
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 95 22:39:07 EZT
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: jurisprudence
Dear Brent,
I dont think it is difficult to be sure that Traveller's Narrative or
the Tablets of the Divine Plan are clearly intended to be general
expositions of the teachings - each modified somewhat for
particular audiences. But as the tablets on the permissability of
having two wives, and those regarding the election of women to
committees and local institutions in the US, show, when he was
writing to individuals or responding to particular situations he
does not seem to have been at all concerned about consistency
with other such particular letters. If we have only one letter on a
topic, and it is addressed to an individual in a particular
circumstance, how could we know whether there might be
another tablet saying just the opposite which we happen not to
have? Look at the bigamy tablets and consider what the 'Baha'i
teachings' would be if we lost all but one. A single such tablet is
too unstable a basis to base a teaching or interpretation on. And
if we have multiple tablets, then the question is, are they
consistent? Or can we put them into some sort of historical
framework or reconstruct the situations to which they refer
sufficiently well to explain the inconsistencies in terms of
particular circumstances, and so distinguish an underlying
rationale.
A public talk, even a talk to a small group of Baha'is with
Mahmud or a stenographer present, is another matter. We may
not be sure of the authenticity of every word, but we can be
reasonably sure that `Abdu'l-Baha is expounding the teachings
and not giving advice for a particular situation.
Sen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen McGlinn
From Dave10018@aol.comFri Sep 22 19:34:48 1995
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 17:04:40 -0400
From: Dave10018@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu, TLCULHANE@aol.com, slabanow@s-cwis.unomaha.edu,
LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
Cc: DAVEJORDAN@aol.com
Subject: Patriarchy, Kingship and the House of Justice; some speculations
Dear folks,
Several weeks ago I touched on the ''thorny" question of women and the House
of Justice at the end of a note to Robert Johnston. I promised then to
explain what I meant. This is a difficult, even scary thing to talk about! I
don't claim to have it "all wrapped up" but simply want to articulate as best
I can a sense of what's involved that does differ a bit from what has been
posted so far, as a point of departure for a dialog. I do not write to
"support" the rule as it now stands, as in fact I believe the House, if it
finds itself able to change the rule, probably should. I wrote:
>
>The male membership of the Universal House of Justice has, in my view,
>nothing to do with women's capacity to serve. The sooner we accept that the
>sooner we can talk about the real reasons for it. Any attempt to explain it
>in terms of capacity or "function" or role of women has the effect of
reading
>into it limitations on women that are not there and which women are
>disproving every day and which we as believers in women's equality do not
>want women to be bound by. Such attempts rest on the assumption that there
>must be a rational practical reason for the limitation, a reason why the
>0House must work better without women, or be more acceptable at present
>without them. I think none of these apply. I do think the all-male House of
>Justice does represent,along with some other features of the Faith such as
>the attitude toward Kings and the male Gaurdianship, a symbolically
>significant remnant of patriarchy. There might be reasons why such a remnant
>might be desirable psychologically in an age when other marks of patriarchy
>will be gone. If we try to understand it rationally, as if the exclusion of
>women from the House membership were made for some practical non-symbolic
>reason, we are confusing symbolic and practical realms. I will go over this
>in a seperate post.
About the same I mentioned the same ideas in a post to Terry Culhane, who
mentioned me in his post on the subject. He wrote:
>The exemption rather than exclusion of women has nothing to
>do in my mind with the capacity or lack thereof with respect to women . I
>have argued against such interpretations for years.
> I believe it has a lot to do with the responsibility of men . I would ,
>hestitatingly , suggest that the limitation on gender service on the House
>exists because most men , not all, most men need what David Taylor a few
>days ago referred to as " symbolic patriarchy." Allow me to be more
>personal .I consider myself one of those men . I need men on the House of
>Justice ! It is an issue of symbolic patriarchy for me
I wrote him that I would rush in with my own ideas, as they were a bit
different from his.
Now, the trail is getting cold, but I still want to get some words down about
"symbolic patriarchy"..Even to talk as Terry did about male "responsibility"
is too literal a reading of the male House of Justice. What could I possibly
mean "too literal a reading?" I mean that the "men of the House of Justice"
do not have this position because of any male talent for leadership, or
because we need them as "role models."
I think things would be a lot easier if we could have women on the House and
certainly think the House would function just as well with women on It. I
also think the all-male House is confusing for many contemporary Baha'is, men
as much as women. We do not understand the reason for it and when we try to
give practical explanations, we fall into the modern error of rationalism, as
when men in "scientific" nineteenth century Europe and America confused what
they allowed women to do with what women were capable of doing. Such
misunderstandings are all too current in our community. "Rational"
explanations which posit any kind of practical advantage for an all-male
House are demeaning to women and, plainly, wrong. Alternatively, we see the
possibility of a symbolic rationale but take it literally, as a statement of
our "real" natures,applying it too broadly and in the wrong direction,
which is the ancient error and has the same effect. Ahmad's "seed of
creation" post is, I am afraid, an example of this.
The maleness of the House is symbolic,pro forma. Because of this
--symbolic-- requirement, the House is not advantaged but inconvenienced,
put to no small additional trouble to be sure that it understands correctly
in addition to the Sacred Texts the needs and interests of the whole(female
as well as male) community. In practice, women have tremendous power in the
Baha'i Community to make known their feelings,power which is growing,not
decreasing, and the House must make every effort to discover the interests
and needs of women as they are involved in their decisions and the House may
easily do this through consultation with women and through contributions of
women. The restriction of its membership can in practical terms be regarded
as a handicap accepted for symbolic purposes, a preference of symbolism over
practical considerations, and this symbolism must be understood not in
contemporary terms but as an ancient symbolic ordering preserved in spite of
our tendency in the modern world to want government to represent the People
through democratic representation. In a democratic order, women's
participation as members of the House would symbolize women's full rights of
citizenship. The administrative order of the Baha'i Faith does have
democratic elements and thus to an extent our LSA and NSA members are our
representatives, representing us as individuals as well as as collectivities,
and the Universal House of Justice as well is an elected body, but, to quote
Shoghi Effendi, "The Administrative Order of the Faith of Baha'u'llah must in
no wise be regarded as purely democratic in character inasmuch as the basic
assumption which requires all democracies to depend fundamentally upon
getting their mandate from the people is altogether lacking in this
Dispensation."(WOB,p.153) The House represents not the community but God the
Father as Source of Authority. As such, membership on the House is a kind of
kingship, especially in the absence of a living Gaurdian, who would have been
a direct male descendent of Shoghi Effendi in line with "that hereditary
principle which, as Abdu'l-Baha has written, has been invariably upheld by
the Law of God. 'In all the Divine Dispensations,' He states,in a Tablet
addressed to a follower of the Faith in Persia,' the eldest son hath been
given extraordinary distinctions. Even the station of prophethood hath been
his.'"(Shoghi Effendi, World Order of Baha'u'llah, p.148) Kings, also, as,
occasionally, Queens, have been seen as representatives of Divinity, a
principle upheld by Baha'u'llah. "Although a republican form of government
profiteth all the peoples of the world, yet the majesty of kingship is one of
the signs of God. We do not wish that the countries of the world should
remain deprived thereof. If the sagacious combine the two forms into one,
great will be their reward in the presence of God."(Tablets of
Baha'u'llah,p.28)(see also Promised Day Is Come,pp 73-76, the section
entitled "Recognition of Kingship")Even though the members of the House are
elected, they do not represent the Community but God the Father. The
representation of God as male is ancient and complex. The Torah presents the
Jewish people as undergoing a continuous struggle to uphold their idea of one
god while surrounded by worshippers of Ishtar and Baal. The "patriarchy" I am
referring to is this one. The Essence of Essences is of course beyond all
images, and a mature human race must understand that, must not confuse every
guy changing a diaper with God the Father, but that Image is, for some
reason, important,(and perhaps that is the heart of the quandary) and
important enough to be reflected in the Administrative Order at its highest
level in preference to a reflection of a representation of the community.
No one could suggest that this is a new idea. It is one of the very oldest
ideas. It is also a delicate idea, easily corrupted. In the past every corner
had its lord who exercised unrestrained and arbitrary authority. When, with
the rise of capital and the vogue for "scientific" justifications for the
prevailing order in the nineteenth century, the ideology of the divine right
of kings was replaced by an appeal to raw force and the idea of the supremacy
of white males and every household had its imperious tyrant. Since that time
women have fought for their rights, bringing men back down to earth. We are
not kings. Even kings are not kings in the absolute sense, as only God is."Ye
are but vassels, O kings of the earth! He Who is the King of Kings hath
appeared, arrayed in His most wondrous glory, and is summoning you unto
Himself, the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting." All authority, all
sovereignty on earth is limited and really only a token, a symbol, of this
Ancient Beauty. With the realization of this limited nature of authority,
kingship becomes a burden. " One of the signs of the maturity of the world is
that no one will accept to bear the weight of kingship. Kingship will remain
with none willing to bear alone its weight. That day will be the day whereon
wisdom will be manifested among mankind. Only in order to proclaim the Cause
of God and spread abroad His Faith will anyone be willing to bear this
grievous weight. Well is it with him who, for love of God and His Cause, and
for the sake of God and for the purpose of proclaiming His Faith, will expose
himself unto this great danger, and will accept this toil and
trouble."(Baha'u'llah,quoted on page 72 of The Promised Day is Come)
The male House of Justice is thus, I tentatively conclude, a remnant of the
old order of things, symbolically male in memory of ancient kings, upholding
an ancient image of hierarchy which, with our understanding of relative as
opposed to absolute truth, we know can only be actually manifest in the world
to a limited extent, but the image of which is important to us as it points
to transcendent reality. No longer is this image to be reflected by males in
authority at every level. It has been minimized, by restricting it to 2
institutions at the highest level ready to welcome the Maiden into their
midst(the House of Justice and the Gaurdianship). As the Gaurdian left no
heir, the House of Justice may perhaps decide at some point that the need of
the community for democratic representation of itself as both male and female
does take precedence and allow the older symbolism of an all-male institution
to pass on "through the roof", and perhaps that would be fitting. In many
ways I think that would suit us at the present. I do have a funny wonder
about the future. It may seem absurd but what if we really do achieve a world
of peace and justice? In such a world the all-male House would be a remnant
of ancient practice, a deliberate holdover, a memory of traditional
authority. That may(just may) be its value.
I hope I have not wasted your time. Perhaps you will have some thoughts that
can push the sun higher into the sky.
david taylor
From dan_orey@qmbridge.ccs.csus.eduFri Sep 22 19:36:37 1995
Date: 22 Sep 95 15:48:35 U
From: Dan Orey
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: dysfunctionality
Reply to: RE>dysfunctionality
Actually there are places where Judas is not so much demonized as cannonized.
In Guatemala we freguently visited Maximon who was a mixture of a Mayan God and
Judas. They felt that in the same circumstances we would probably do a similar
stunt, also he represented the human in all of us, as in all of us are chicken
.. thus the offerings. I believe there is something like that in Barcelona with
the "cargador" (help me here Eric P.). The Catholic Church had given up years
ago in trying to disuade the locals of this "cult". Maximon or sometimes called
San Simon was interesting, if not a bit creepy. He was a Sears manikin who was
propped up in a chair in someone's house. Folks went there before weddings (not
Baha'i obviously because at Baha'i weddings we turn down the futbol game on the
radio during the services). Maximon enjoyed offerings of eggs, cigarettes and
hootch (a fiery liguid that I was told would be good as an alternative fuel
source in petro deprived countries....)
just my thoughts, Daniel "with nine fingers who got a "c" in woodshop and so
can't type" Orey in Sacramento
From TLCULHANE@aol.comFri Sep 22 19:37:21 1995
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 19:03:13 -0400
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
To: Dave10018@aol.com
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Patriarchy, Kingship and ...
Dear David,
There is very little that I find to disagree with in your post . I too
think it has a symbolic value . I also think it has an embodied value - what
you referred to as literal . I do not mind at all saying that the male
presence on the House is there for what it reminds men are their
responsibilities . I dont think this is literal as much as it represents
embodiment . Symbolic presences detached from the embodiment in the lives of
living humans have an aesthetic appeal but are not , in my view, especially
transformative . And it is transformation that I am after . By way of
reference to a book Juan referred to earlier allow me to use the Reat and
Perry definition of a symbol . " . .a symbol points beyond itself to a
larger reality in which it participates and whose larger dimensions it makes
present and known . " In this context the symbol of patriarchy calls men to a
reality different from what they have known . It also assists in bringing
about a reality in which women can experience the world and the male presence
in it in vastly different terms than has been their historical experience .
When I survey the course of human history I finf that the actuality of
maleness in the world has been a little short on the side of the virtues that
Bahau'llah prescribes for human beings of both sexes . And I do believe that
men have a special responsibility to alter that and I believe men need to
tell other men that they in fact have that responsibility . If I did not make
it clear before i can do so now . This has nothing to do with the capacity
of women or the lack thereof . It also has nothing to, do with any special
capacity of men for leadership . I do believe it has a lot to do with
responsibility for transformation,- literal or embodied- transformation
neverthe less .
warm regards,
Terry
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzFri Sep 22 19:40:40 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 1995 11:31:44 +1200
From: Robert Johnston
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: SEX
Ahem....now that I have got your attention...
As Eric-the-wise has pointed out, there was a fairly high level of
misunderstanding in the Talismanic community when I wrote the name of a
certain farm-yard animal recently. This naming of the unmentionable was a
catylist in the termination of our discussion of women on/in the House.
Indeed, it was probably the major precipitating factor. John
simultaneously issued a rebuke and ended the discussion.
Now, I am not about to raise once more the women on/in the House House
matter. For me it was over by the time John put his foot down anyway. And
I have not desire to re-visit it, as such. What I am about to do is to
give my version of why I wrote that word and what I meant by it.
The discussion itself was bound to become heated.... Broadly speaking, two
positions were adopted. Simplistically, one side took the view that the
House had to be obeyed: the other took the view that the matter was not
really all that clear-cut. I was on the former side. The battle raged.
Then a position adopted by one of my allies was compared with that held by
Mason Remey. My ally responded in a spirited manner, telling of his
real-life experiences with Covenant breakers. In the letter, he said
[something like] that 'Abdu'l-Baha said that covenant breakers smelled like
mules. I also responded to the inflamatory letter, and included a line
which went, [something like] " I am testing the breeze for the smell of
[unmentionabale word]". I used the unmentionable word instead of mule in
error. But I did not use the word to suggest that the person was stupid,
and nor did I use the word with a view to making a sexual allusion.
Further, I did not state that I smelt the unmentionable. I simply wished
to draw attention to the useful function of perception that my ally had
pointed to: anyone wishing to detect a Covenant breaker might test
suspected persons for smell of the unmentionable... It was also a little
reminder that it had been -- IMV -- inappropriate to suggestively compare
the ideas of a Baha'i-in-good-standing with the ideas of a Covenant
breaker.
And then the outrage. And then the end of the discussion.
I have written this to increase understanding. There is more to write yet
on the dynamics of this discursive event (as a discursive event) --
especially since Mikhail Bakhtin, dead since 1975 but something of a
new-boy on the intellectual block, came forward and gave his opinion. But
I have got to go and collect my daughter from clarinet, and it is a lovely
day outside... so Mikhail's story will have to wait until another day. But
here's a taste:
" Bakhtin holds the carivalesque to be the antidote not only to a
particular dominant meaning but also, more profoundly, to a particular
*form* of meaning: the abstracted, disembodied concept of meaning that the
Platonic tradition favoured."
Robert.
From mfoster@tyrell.netSat Sep 23 13:37:22 1995
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 19:02:17 -0500 (EDT)
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Local Houses of Just
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Hi, Tony -
M >Since I so seldom find an opportunity to agree with my good frined and
M >Baha'i brother Mark Foster, let me leap at the one he has just presented.
Thanks (I think ).
M >But, then obviously changed his mind.
Risking the chance of negating a possible trend ;-), is it possible
that the Master, rather than changing His mind, progressively nurtured
the Western friends until He felt, in His heavenly wisdom, it was
opportune to suggest a change in terminology?
Blessings,
Mark
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Sociologist of Religion *
From Member1700@aol.comSat Sep 23 13:38:38 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 1995 01:18:04 -0400
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Local Houses of Justice
No, Mark, I am afraid that it is not possible. 'Abdu'l-Baha changed the
terminology used to refer to the Houses of Justice very early on, as Rob
Stockman has noted. The Chicago body was renamed the House of Spirituality,
and also called by other similar names by 'Abdu'l-Baha. His terminology,
during this period, was not fixed--and there was no reason for it to be.
But now, in this 1910 Tablet, he says quite clearly that these are not to
be Houses of Justice at all, but only Spiritual Assembies (that is, Spiritual
Gatherings). This is undeniably a change in status. And a change of mind.
There is no reason at all to be puzzled or threatened that 'Abdu'l-Baha
should change his mind. He did this dozens, if not hundreds of time, and can
be documented to have done so. That should tell us something about the
flexibility of the Faith of God.
Tony
From mfoster@tyrell.netSat Sep 23 13:39:11 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 1995 01:57:52 -0500 (EDT)
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Local Houses of Just
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Anthony Lee wrote to the multiple recipients of talisman@indiana.edu:
M >There is no reason at all to be puzzled or threatened that 'Abdu'l-Baha
M >should change his mind. He did this dozens, if not hundreds of time, and can
M >be documented to have done so. That should tell us something about the
M >flexibility of the Faith of God.
Hi, Tony -
Rather than go into detail on my viewpoint, I merely suggested an
alternative perspective. There are many ways to view the Master. My
meaning was to suggest an approach to understanding what seems to be the
Master changing His mind, i.e., through a concept of contextualized
infallibility.
I do not find the notion that the Master changed His mind to be
threatening. My primary interest in the Faith is in exploring the
various levels of reality and conditions of existence. There are few
things which actually threaten me; but, by the same token, I do have a
particular hermeneutic approach which I try to apply to everything I
read or hear. For example, in attempting to understand a particular sort
of being, I like to consider the level of spirit which animates it and
the intensity of expression of that degree of spirit.
I agree that, observably, the Master did change His mind. To change
one's mind means to see things from a different POV, and, IMO, the
Master, as the divinely guided Exemplar, had the ability to see reality
from all perspectives. His vision was not limited.
If I, Mark Foster, change my mind, it is because I may have come to
some new insight or rational deduction, or spiritual guidance. Likewise,
I would say that the Master outwardly changed His mind depending on what
guidance He received. The difference, I think, is that, unlike us, the
Master's guidance was infallible. If His mind changed, it was because of
the fresh information He received from the spiritual Kingdom of God
manifested (the Greater World of Prophethood) on the best way to deal
with a situation.
Over the course of `Abdu'l-Baha's ministry, the Faith developed
rapidly in the West. The fact that the Master changed His mind, on an
outward level, is itself a testimony to the flexibility, as you wrote,
of the Faith and to the role of contextualized divine guidance in the
life of the Master. To me, it is not a sign of uncertainly or confusion
in the Master's mind.
The Mystery of God, unlike the Prophet, was both fully divine and
fully human. As a divine being, He was endowed by God with the capacity
to know intuitively what was correct in any given situation. OTOH, as a
human, He was an example to us of how to best react to situations.
Blessings,
Mark
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Sociologist of Religion *
From rlg0001@jove.acs.unt.eduSat Sep 23 13:39:55 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 1995 04:08:35 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Lee Green
To: Member1700@aol.com
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Local Houses of Justice
As I understand the titles for the Administrative Order of Baha'u'llah,
Local Spiritual Assembly and National Spiritual Assembly derive from the
level of total community responsibility.
The titles will be changed, in the fullness of time, when the local and
national institution will be the major provider of humanity's basic
services on the administrative level. Literally, responsible for
providing for all the needs of the community and the nation.
As evidence, of the future station and responsibilities of the local and
national administrative bodies We may with certainty look to the
Universal House of Justice. On the International level, all local Bahai
communities defer to guidance from the Universal House of Justice on all
matters, and they do this by choice.
The local and national bodies are supreme within their jusrisdiction to
the extent that they obey the laws. The local and national bodies will
in the fullness of time manage these things for their communities:
Schools, courts, hospitals, orphanages, day care, senior's care, garbage
collection, the treasury, counseling, and many other tasks, which I can
only imagine the future will need, and the local and national
administrative bodies will also serve because the people will it.
When the responsibilities increase to some level (I don't know when), The
Local and National Spiritual Assemblies will become Local and National
Houses of Justice. This level of development is clearly indicated in the
writings, and I think it helps me understand the truly dynamic nature of
the Faith better. At the present time, when the local and nationals
populations rely more on the old world order, it is more appropriate that
the Local and National bodies be called Spiritual Assemblies.
I pointed out that the administrative bodies serve at the will of the
people , several times, because in my experience most people find the
method of selecting the administrative bodies to be refreshing.
When it the course of a year, nine adults in good standing come to
declare their Faith in Baha'u'llah as the Promised One of God, they have
it as their sacred duty to form a spiritual assembly, and begin to apply
the laws revealed by Baha'u'llah to their lives. We are not perfect, but
we are trying to move the planet forward, and look introspectively into
ourselves at the same time. This thing does not come from us, but we see
that it makes more sense to us than anything else in the world.
As the community grows beyond nine adults, elections at the local and
national level are held annually between April 20 and April 21. The
assembly members do not campaign, nor are nominations allowed. Each
member of the voting community ( yes there are requirements, i.e.,
minimum age) cast a single ballot "naming" nine members of the
community, he or she feels best capable of looking after the affairs of
the community. This administrative is young, and immature, but it
works. It works at all three levels, and it has been for the last three
decades, When the first Universal House of Justice was elected by the
National Spiritual Assemblies of the Bahai's around the world.
The immaturity of the assemblies is a greater reflection on the
immaturity of the believers in applying the lofty principles of
Baha'u'llah on a global level, but like normal adolescense maturity
comes; it often comes in fits and starts, but we do move toward
maturity. I understand the frustrations on the part of all to both have
a shared vision and to tolerate differing opinions. Baha'is are often
reminded that the "shining spark of truth comes forth only after the
clash of differing opinions." At the same time, we are collectively
learning that we can let our opinions clash, without requiring that our
personalities clash, and if we don't have to remove personality clashes
without removing personalities, then I think we can ignite the spark of
truth into a dazzling flame.
:-)
------------------------------------------------
| "O SON OF SPIRIT! |
Robert Green | My first counsel is this: Possess a pure, |
rlg0001 | kindly and radiant heart, that thine may |
@jove.acs.unt.edu | be a sovereignty ancient, imperishable |
| and everlasting." - Baha'u'llah |
------------------------------------------------
From rlg0001@jove.acs.unt.eduSat Sep 23 13:40:29 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 1995 04:30:14 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Lee Green
To: "talisman@indiana.edu"
Subject: Re: Patriarchy; some speculations
I hope you dont mind if I add my two cents.
I wonder if there isn't something to be said for being the last all male
institution, as a reminder to the hazards of humanity misguided.
I first thought that the topic would seem different if instead of
focusing so much attention on "why" the house "is" an all male
institution, we focused on making sure that the house was the "last" all
male institution, we may gain enough insight to remove even the "last."
I don't think at this time that we are mature enough or detached enough
to allow differing opinions to educate us. I think the growth process has
taught us a heavy handed approach to maintain our ideas. I think, we
might do well to remember that the Universal House of Justice is nine
people.
Nine (9) people, out of more than 5 billion. And they represent one (1)
assignment on the many entrusted to humanity. Is it worth it to get
bogged down in morass that the issue causes, when the friends, who
struggle to understand and accept this divine wisdom do not.
Consider that we all recognize the difficulties presented by this
position, and still we maintain our faith that Baha'u'llah has provided
the best solution. Do we become bogged down in one institution among
many, or can we work to ensure that it is a one of a kind institutions.
These are some of the musings i've had on the subject:)
Would if be different if the prohibition were against blacks? Not really.
It would still be an issue we didn't understand, but we would still trust
that the guidance Baha'u'llah provided is in the best interest of all
humanity.
One last word on this subject, Baha'u'llah has apparently let women off
the house of justice in order to give them some other task to handle. We
dont have the task yet (i dont think so anyway), but it will shed light
on the present inequality which appears to be imbedded into the fabric of
the Faith. Truly it test us. Do we let God's Will reign or do we
insists of following our own?
------------------------------------------------
| "O SON OF SPIRIT! |
Robert Green | My first counsel is this: Possess a pure, |
rlg0001 | kindly and radiant heart, that thine may |
@jove.acs.unt.edu | be a sovereignty ancient, imperishable |
| and everlasting." - Baha'u'llah |
------------------------------------------------
From pploesch@reed.eduSat Sep 23 13:41:15 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 1995 04:17:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Raisin Goddess
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Federalism and the New World Order
Dear talisman folks,
I'd like to get some feedback on an issue I've had for some time
concerning the structure of the furture world government. In The World
Order of Baha'u'llah, Shoghi Effendi outlines the basic structure of a
world federal system consisting of "a world legislature.... A world
executive, backed by an international Force.... [and] A world
tribunal...." (WOB, p.203) I first assumed, when reading this passage,
that he was referring to the the eventual outcome of the international
collective security agreement (to occur by the end of this century) which
will proclaim the advent of what we call the Lesser Peace. It seems
logical that this system would eventually give way to the system of houses
of justice (local, national, and international) and their attendant
agencies. However, at the bottom of page 204, where he elaborates on the
nature of this federal system, he states that its "...life is sustained by
its universal recognition of one God and by its alliegance to one common
revelation." This statement suggests that the system will continue to
exits during the Most Great Peace. I find it difficult to visualize the
manner in which the federal system and the system of Houses will interact.
One thought of mine equated the UHJ with the international legislature.
The UHJ is after all elected by the people of the various nations of the
world and may have more than nine members, thus allowing it to be more
representative. However, on page 38 of WOB Shoghi Effendi, in describing
the future world super-state, refers to its legisltive body as "...a world
parliament whose members shall be elected by the people in their
respective countries and whose election shall be confirmed by thier
respective governments..." This does not sound anything like the UHJ.
Alas, I have no answers. If any of you have insight/information which
would clarify things, please respond.
- friend of the Raisin Goddess
P.S. Raisin Goddess is a recent subscriber. I fear she hasn't introduced
herself yet and I apologize for this rudeness on her highness' behalf.
From Dave10018@aol.comSat Sep 23 13:42:39 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 1995 11:45:37 -0400
From: Dave10018@aol.com
To: TLCULHANE@indiana.edu, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Patriarchy, Kingship and ...
Dear Terry,
Thanks for your response. I think this is an important thing to think
about--this point about what is symbolized and embodied and how it relates to
men and women and concepts of masculinity and divinity, kingship and the
like. I am rushing off for a camping trip and then to Rosh Hashana at my
Significant Other's mother's house--the first time that Katie(my daughter)
and I will get to meet Laura's family.Laura, by the way, was very
upset when she heard there are no women on the House of Justice, wondering
particularly how I could propose to bring up my daughter in such a faith. I
knew it would be a sore point and told her myself because I thought she
better hear it from me, and we had a difficult few days after that.
I want to take a few hours to write a response to your post, and to other
reactions. My thoughts are quite tentative. it is not a matter of "my way or
no way" at all. I think together(hopefully with some others contributing as
well, women especially, such as Linda and Suzanne and--Mary?) we can
examine the ramifications of this line of thought.
cheers,
david taylor
From Member1700@aol.comSat Sep 23 13:43:05 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 1995 12:17:37 -0400
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Local Houses of Justice
Well, Mark, I really have no argument with your point of view (on
'Abdu'l-Baha changing his mind) at all. I regard that as a fairly coherent
theological perspective, and--while it is certainly not my perspective--you
are welcome to it.
Of course, from a theological point of view you can make anything you
want to out of 'Abdu'l-Baha's words and actions. Looking at them from a
purely historical point of view, however, without theological structure, they
look different.
The only time I object is when the theological perspectives of others
seem to deny me the right to point out what is clearly and obviously
historically true.
Still your brother,
Tony
From Member1700@aol.comSat Sep 23 13:44:22 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 1995 12:52:10 -0400
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Local Houses of Justice
Well, I hesitate to answer Richard's question about the 1909 Tablet for fear
of re-igniting the whole question of women on the House of Justice again.
But, here goes!
It appears to me, from the historical record that we have--which is, of
course, partial--that 'Abdu'l-Baha's thinking developed very rapidly on the
question of local organization in America between 1909, when Corinne True
wrote him again on the question of women's service, and 1912 when the Chicago
House was dissolved and reelected with women on it for the first time.
It is important to note that only three institutions in America were
elected as formal Houses of Justice--New York, Chicago, and Kenosha. In
other places, there were various ad-hoc committees and boards that always had
women on them and were regarded differently than the Houses of Justice
(Spirituality) in major Baha'i communities. The Houses of Justice acted as
regional Assemblies, coordinating the activities of the Cause over wide
areas, acting as liasons to 'Abdu'l-Baha, receiving His Tablets and
translating them, and so forth. So, we are dealing with a two tiered system.
The Houses of Justice were to be all-male institutions. In 1909, and
again in 1911, 'Abdu'l-Baha reaffirmed this. But, in other areas he was
reluctant to have formal Houses of Justice elected, urging the believers to
make do with "Spiritual Assemblies," meaning spiritual gatherings. (This
latter term, of course, had many meanings.)
Anyway, it is also important to note that after 1909, there was a general
uproar in the Baha'i community caused by Corinne True and many other women
who thought that they saw an opening in 'Abdu'l-Baha's Tablet for women to
serve on the highest Baha'i bodies. 'Abdu'l-Baha received many letters from
women in Kenosha, Cincinatti, Chicago and elsewhere asking for him to clarify
this point. We have three for four Tablets of his responses. They are not
entirely consistent, but I concur with the understanding of the Chicago House
at the time that it appears that 'Abdu'l-Baha was saying that the Houses of
Justice should remain as they are, but that no more should be formed
anywhere. Women should serve on spiritual assemblies with men, if they want
to. Otherwise, separate Assemblies for men and women are also acceptable.
So, in my view, the 1910 Tablet saying that now is not the time to form
the House of Justice means (in context) that no more local Houses of Justice
should be formed, but instead local informal spiritual gatherings of
believers should be formed. He remained reluctant, however, to dismantle the
existing Houses of Justice. But he eventually did it, first with New York
(1911, according to Rob), then Chicago (1912), and eventually Kenosha we
must suppose. As women were elected to these bodies, they were renamed
Spiritual Assemblies at 'Abdu'l-Baha's expressed command.
This leaves an ambiguity in the status of local Spiritual Assemblies
which remains in Baha'i practice to this day. As the recent posts on
Talisman demonstrate, in some ways we regard local Assemblies as Houses of
Justice, and in some ways we don't.
That's all for now.
Tony
From rvh3@columbia.eduSat Sep 23 14:33:04 1995
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 18:07:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Richard Vernon Hollinger
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Baha'i Jurisprudence/Women on the UHJ
One of the issues that has come up in the discussion of women's exclusion
from membership on the UHJ is who would be able to offer an authoritative
opinions on issues that are not entirely clear in the writings. The
division of authority outlined by the Guardian places interpretation of
the text within in his purview of authority, while legislation would fall
within the authority of the UHJ. It would seem that the function of
interpretation would be essential in determining what falls into the
UHJ's purview of authority and what doesn't. But there is a tablet from
`Abdu'l-Baha that gives them authority in Baha'i jurisprudence (whether
it gives them authority to "interpret" is perhaps another question):
"In the religion of Islam...individual divines made conflicting
deductions from the orignial revealed ordinances. Today this process of
deduction is the right of the body of the House of Jsutice, and the
deductions and conclusions of individual learned men have no authority,
unless they are endorsed by the House of Justice."
Rahiq-i Makhtum vol. I, pp. 302-304; cited in Wellsprings of
Guidance, pp. 84-86.
It would be interesting to know when this was written, and if it was
before `Abdu'l-Baha had made provisions for the appointment of Shoghi
Effendi as Guardian.
Now, further evidence that the Universal House of Justice was discussed
in the early Western community can be found in *Some Answered
Questions* pp. 172-173, which had been published ca. 1907; and
in *Promulgation of Universal Peace* pp. 455-456, where `Abdu'l-Baha
makes reference to this institution.
And, in *Baha'i World Faith* pp.409-411, the following tablet almost
certainly from the 1900-1912 period (possibly the tablet to Shahnaz
Waite) appears:
"The Spiritual Assemblies which are organized for the sake of
teaching the truth, whether Assemblies for men, Assemblies for women or
mixed assmeblies are all accepted and conducive to the spreading of the
fragrances of God....But now is not the time--it is utterly impossible to
establish the House of Justice which is mentioned in the Book of Aqdas,
nay rather it is impracticable and not to be thought of, that is for the
time when the Cause is proclaimed and the Commands have become
effective. Therefore now is not the time for the House of Justice, which
must be estsblished by general election. Its mention is not permissible
and its realization impossible."
Richard Hollinger
From dan_orey@qmbridge.ccs.csus.eduSat Sep 23 14:33:52 1995
Date: 22 Sep 95 00:12:46 U
From: Dan Orey
To: jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: Re: dysfunctionality
Reply to: RE>dysfunctionality
Actually there are places where Judas isnot so much demonized as cannonized. In
Guatemala we freguently visited Maximon who was a mixture of a Mayan God and
Judas. They felt that in the same circumstances we would probably do a similar
stunt, also he represented the human in all of us, as in all of us are chicken
.. thus the offerings. I believe there is something like that in Barcelona with
the "cargador" (help me here Eric P.). The Catholic Church had given up years
ago in trying to disuade the locals of this "cult". Maximon or sometimes called
San Simon was interesting, if not a bit creepy. He was a Sears manikin who was
propped up in a chair in someone's house. Folks went there before weddings (not
Baha'i obviously because at Baha'i weddings we turn down the futbol game on the
radio during the services). Maximon enjoyed offerings of eggs, cigarettes and
hootch (a fiery liguid that I was told would be good as an alternative fuel
source in petro deprived countries....
just my thoughts, Daniel "with nine fingers who got a "c" in woodshop and so
can't type" Orey in Sacramento
From jrcole@umich.eduSat Sep 23 17:13:14 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 1995 14:32:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Baha'i Jurisprudence/Women on the UHJ
Richard Hollinger, with customary brilliance, wrote:
>But there is a tablet from `Abdu'l-Baha that gives them [houses of
>justice] authority in Baha'i jurisprudence (whether it gives them
>authority to "interpret" is perhaps another question):
> "In the religion of Islam...individual divines made conflicting
>deductions from the orignial revealed ordinances. Today this process of
>deduction is the right of the body of the House of Jsutice, and the
>deductions and conclusions of individual learned men have no authority,
>unless they are endorsed by the House of Justice."
> Rahiq-i Makhtum vol. I, pp. 302-304; cited in Wellsprings of
>Guidance
This is actually the entire basis of the argument that I have been making
about Baha'i jurisprudence.
The word translated as "deduction" above is *istinbat*, which in Arabic
means "derivation" (of the law). It is roughly equivalent to another
word, "ijtihad" which means to struggle (to derive the law). In the
tradition of Islamic jurisprudence from which these terms come, deriving
and implementing the law was thought to have two prerequisites. First,
we must identify the *sources* of the law. Then we must reason about
these sources (that is the istinbat). The entire field is called
"principles of jurisprudence."
In Islam, the sources of the law were: 1) the Qur'an; 2) the sayings
and doings of the Prophet and the Imams (hadith); 3) the consensus of
the great jurisprudents over time; and 4) ijtihad and istinbat, the
operation of juridical reasoning on the first three to come up with a
ruling in any particular case.
In the Baha'i Faith, we have not worked out the *sources* of
jurisprudence or any hierarchy among them. We also have not settled upon
the sorts of reasoning that would be fruitful in deriving the law. It
*is* clear from `Abdu'l-Baha's statement that a) individual Baha'i
jurists are expected to reason about the law and b) their reasoning has
no authority unless it is adopted by a house of justice. It seems clear
also that, since Shoghi Effendi was during the 10 year world crusade
preparing to appoint Bah'ai court judges in Muslim countries to hand
personal status cases, that juridical reasoning can be delegated by
houses of justice to judges.
I have proposed some basic elements of Baha'i jurisprudence:
The first and primary source of Law is the Revealed (vahy) Writings of
Baha'u'llah, which take precedence over all others.
The second source of law is the inspired writings of `Abdu'l-Baha and
Shoghi Effendi, as appointed Interpreters of the Holy Writ. However, as
Rick Schaut rightly says, it is necessary to distinguish between those of
their writings that embody permanent juridical principle and those issued
in their capacity as heads of the Faith, intended only to enunciate
temporary policy.
The third source of law is the legislation of the Universal House of
Justice, which can, however, be repealed by the House itself.
The fourth source of law is *istinbat* or juridical reasoning, which can
only achieve official status where it is adopted by or carried out by
houses of justice.
I have been able to find only a few juridical principles that might help
us with the fourth source. For instance, `Abdu'l-Baha says that whatever
is not explicitly forbidden in the Holy Writ is permitted; so we don't,
unlike the Saudis, have to scramble to find a justification for watching
television (which was not authorized by Muhammad or Baha'u'llah).
Also, there are two instances in which the general principle of
"fairness" (ins.a:f) was employed by holy figures to overrule specific
revealed statutes. First, `Abdu'l-Baha employed it to ban polygamy and
implement monogamy. Second, Shoghi Effendi employed it to require that
individual Baha'is provide for non-Baha'i spouses in their wills, even
though the latter are excluded in the Aqdas. The form of these arguments
is that of syllogistic reason.
I would argue that Baha'i istinbat or juridical reasoning should be
patterned on that of the Holy Figures, and that these two examples
implicitly permit houses of justice to shape implementation of revealed
statutes according to situational "fairness," and to employ logic to
achieve consistency or integrity, which is part of what "fairness" is
about. I also believe that logical consistency in the implementation of
law is implied by the Baha'i principle of the unity of science and religion.
I would also argue that the case for judicial activism by houses of
justice in employing such independent legal reasoning is stronger in
instances where the primary revealed and inspired texts appear contradictory
to one another.
This is why I believe that the Universal House of Justice may employ
*istinbat* to decide that women may serve on the House. Sources 1 & 2 on
this issue are contradictory over time and unclear; therefore primacy
must go to sources 3 & 4.
As for those who continue to say that Baha'u'llah excluded women from the
Universal House of Justice, I would appreciate seeing any quote to that
effect that did not also exclude them from local houses of justice. Yet
Shoghi Effendi is clear that women may serve on local and national
spiritual assemblies, which he says differ only in name from houses of
justice.
As for patriarchy, get over it guys. It's over. When power was vested
in swords and armor, you wanted a large male to fight for you. But now
power is vested in control panels and informational systems (the "mode of
information"); and guess which gender tends to do better at working
control panels?
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlSun Sep 24 14:38:24 1995
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 95 00:44:12 EZT
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: World Order & Raisins
Dear Raisin Goddess,
yes, the description in The World Order of Baha'u'llah refers to a
stage at which the world system is "sustained by its universal
recognition of one God and by its allegiance to one common
Revelation" and also at which "science and religion.. will be
reconciled, will cooperate, and will harmoniously develop." - thus
clearly the 'golden age' of maturity of the system. Moreover, at
the beginning of that section you will see that Shoghi Effendi
says that it is time to "establish once for ALL the machinery
..." - so presumably if this machinery were ever to fall out of use
or collapse the Baha'is would have a duty to re-establish it. Thus
these must be permanent institutions. The Universal House of
Justice, as a body specified in the Will and Testament, is also a
permanent institution - nobody has the authority to dissolve it in
favour of the world legislature.
You also noted the differences between the voting methods for
the Universal House of Justice and the world legislature. There
are similar differences between the voting methods for the
Universal House of Justice and the world tribunal, and since
these are specified in texts of Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha, there
seems to be little possibility the institutions could be combined
into a single body. They could however function closely together,
and this seems to be what `Abdu'l-Baha hopes for in his Will and
Testament:
The legislative body must reinforce the executive, the
executive must aid and assist the legislative body so that
through the close union and harmony of these two forces,
the foundation of fairness and justice may become firm
and strong, that all the regions of the world may become
even as Paradise itself.
Thus the purpose is to bring the institutions of the world civil
government into the Faith, to 'baptise' them, not to abolish them.
The same applies at national and local levels, and at the national
level there is a lot in what Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha say
about the station and duties of kings and rulers, as rulers and
specifically vis-a-vis religion and religious leaders, which helps
to clarify the theological principles and political vision
underlying church-state relationships in the Baha'i world order.
These principles can I think be applied at the global level also,
where the Writings do not contain much detail about inter-
institutional relationships. Equally, much of what they write
about the duties of believers and religious institutions towards the
kings and rulers is applicable, at least at the level of principle, to
the relationship between the Universal House of Justice and the
World Government.
We had a long and fruitful discussion on this about 6 months
ago. I posted a paper on 'church and state' at that time, and have
incorporated some useful insights from the ensuing discussion. I
can post the current version direct to anyone who would like it.
It's about 30 pages now, and growing steadily...
BTW, two of the lists of Bahai principles from the talks of 'Abdu'l-Baha that
I posted a week or so ago included the separation of church and state as one
of the Baha'i principles, and I think 1 contained the union of church and
state!
Sen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen McGlinn
From Member1700@aol.comSun Sep 24 14:38:42 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 1995 20:38:21 -0400
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Female Guardians
Why does everyone keep saying that the Guardian of the Faith must necessarily
be male? The Will and Testament does not say that anywhere. The will only
states that the Guardian must be a "Branch."
Suppose that a future Guardian had interpreted the word "Branch" to
include women in the family of Baha'u'llah? Then what?
Then, we could have a woman as Guardian.
Tony
From Alethinos@aol.comSun Sep 24 14:41:23 1995
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 00:21:51 -0400
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: Re: Baha'i Jurisprudence/Women on the UHJ
Dear Juan:
In a message dated 95-09-23 14:34:50 EDT, you write:
>In the Baha'i Faith, we have not worked out the *sources* of
>jurisprudence or any hierarchy among them. We also have not settled upon
>the sorts of reasoning that would be fruitful in deriving the law. It
>*is* clear from `Abdu'l-Baha's statement that a) individual Baha'i
>jurists are expected to reason about the law and b) their reasoning has
>no authority unless it is adopted by a house of justice. It seems clear
>also that, since Shoghi Effendi was during the 10 year world crusade
>preparing to appoint Bah'ai court judges in Muslim countries to hand
>personal status cases, that juridical reasoning can be delegated by
>houses of justice to judges.
Also you state:
>The fourth source of law is *istinbat* or juridical reasoning, which can
>only achieve official status where it is adopted by or carried out by
>houses of justice.
Could you please provide the source here? I would greatly appreciate it.
From glenz@reed.eduSun Sep 24 14:45:02 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 1995 23:23:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gabriel Salman Lenz
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Local Houses of Justice
Mark wrote
"Likewise,
I would say that the Master outwardly changed His mind depending on what
guidance He received. The difference, I think, is that, unlike us, the
Master's guidance was infallible. If His mind changed, it was because of
the fresh information He received from the spiritual Kingdom of God
manifested (the Greater World of Prophethood) on the best way to deal
with a situation."
I think this theological perspective might create a lot more problems
than it tries to solve. If 'Abdu'l-Baha appearing fickle is a problem
then having a fickle "Greater World of Prophethood" that sends down
fresh, and I assume different guidance then last year would be a very
very serious problem.
I don't claim at all to know the answer but it seems like "fresh
information" from the spiritual Kindgom of God sounds like a modern
Christian interpretation of divine guidance rather than the neo-platonic
sense that I think the Faith uses.
Baha'u'llah also changed His mind and He is the source of "fresh
information".
gabriel
From mfoster@tyrell.netSun Sep 24 14:46:46 1995
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 03:39:37 -0500 (EDT)
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Baha`i Jurisprudence/Wom
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Juan R Cole wrote to the multiple recipients of talisman@indiana.edu:
J >As for those who continue to say that Baha'u'llah excluded women from the
J >Universal House of Justice, I would appreciate seeing any quote to that
J >effect that did not also exclude them from local houses of justice. Yet
J >Shoghi Effendi is clear that women may serve on local and national
J >spiritual assemblies, which he says differ only in name from houses of
J >justice.
Juan,
Just a question here - and I ask it with the utmost respect. We do
seem to agree in many areas, but there are also many in which we may
disagree - at least on some level. And, in all these areas, I honor
personally the rights of all list members to speak their minds on these
issues. Please do not take what I will say as a personal criticism.
When you write, "... those who continue to say that Baha'u'llah
excluded women from the Universal House of Justice ...," are you
including the Universal House of Justice? Although I have, for most of
my Baha'i life, believed in the principle of the contextual
infallibility of the Guardianship and the Universal House of Justice,
since the Supreme Body, as an infallibly guided institution, has stated
that, over the course of this Dispensation, there is no way to change
the sex-typed membership requirements, it strikes me as an example of
"metaphysical hairsplittings" to continually speculate on the future in
a way which is contrary to the inspired projections of the House.
Well, I felt that I needed to say that - especialy since I have been
only minimally involved in the discussions on this subject. However,
since the list owner has asked us to move on to other areas of
discussion, perhaps we should do so.
Loving greetings,
Mark
P.S. Looking forward to meeting you face to face in San Francisco.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Sociologist of Religion *
From mfoster@tyrell.netSun Sep 24 14:47:09 1995
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 03:39:40 -0500 (EDT)
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Guidance
To: talisman@indiana.edu
G >I don't claim at all to know the answer but it seems like "fresh
G >information" from the spiritual Kindgom of God sounds like a modern
G >Christian interpretation of divine guidance rather than the neo-platonic
G >sense that I think the Faith uses.
Gabriel -
Thanks for your response to my posting . Although it is certainly
not authoritative, what the late Stanwood Cobb told me that the Master
said to him directly (and is also in at least one of Stanwood's books)
confirms *my* *sense* of the infallibility of the Master. According to
Stanwood Cobb, he asked `Abdu'l-Baha if He knew everything. The Master
responded saying, "No, but if I want to know something, it is pictured
before My eyes as on a moving screen."
Loving greetings,
Mark
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Sociologist of Religion *
From chris1@vesta.chch.planet.org.nzSun Sep 24 14:48:09 1995
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 22:02:31 +0000
From: Chris Thorn
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Karen Austin: The intellect: a Baha'i problem
This posting is my second since subscribing; i have only irregular
access to my friends' hardware and have been following some of the
discussions as they arise. i want to address a cluster of issues to
do with women on the UHJ/censorship/the place of
research/rights/intellectual freedom.
The dissemination of the 1988 paper on women on the UHJ was a source
of intellectual liberation for me. Being a Baha'i has never been the
same, and i have remianed dissatisfied with what i perceive as the
inauthenticity of the official discourse on this and other matters. i
think the debate matters - it really does - for two reasons.
The first reason is that what is said in these circles does have an
effect on those like myself in the intellectual hinterland. I have
been inspired, irritated, enthused and enlightened. The work you are
doing on Talisman makes a difference.
The second reason is that the problem of what to do with the
intellect is huge, a meta-problem. If we can sort this one out, such vexed questions
as women on the UHJ will perhaps be seen from a different perspective.
We have some salutory examples from European
history with regard to how Christianity has coped and not coped with
this problem. We do not need the old dualism of faith/works, via
negativa/ via positiva, intellect/heart, nor its more peculiarly Baha'i
manifestation that goes a bit like: faith/obedience/virtue/service
versus freedom/struggle/doubt. i was inspired to see that it is
'intellectuals' who have begun the Baha'i Mystics Society!
i fear that if scholars are marginalised and our institutions
remain suspicious of the intellect, the current atmosphere of
cenorship that i perceive even from here will prevail. The Faith as a
force in the world will not be
able to develop as it should. The problem will not go away.
From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlSun Sep 24 14:51:30 1995
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 16:40:45 +0100 (MET)
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: knowledge and information
Mark referred to `Abdu'l-Baha receiving "information ... from the
spiritual Kingdom of God manifested". The association of
inspiration with the transfer of information is far from self-
evident. In Some Answered Questions 157f `Abdu'l-Baha
discusses the knowledge of the Manifestations:
Knowledge is of two kinds. One is subjective and the
other objective knowledge--that is to say, an intuitive
knowledge and a knowledge derived from perception....
the former "is intuitive; it is like the cognizance and
consciousness that man has of himself." The knowledge which is
particular to the Manifestations is this subjective knowledge of
the mysteries of beings.
Presumably their objective knowledge (information) is dependent
on effort and perception, thus they can get new information
simply by encountering new facts. And in trying to apply the
experience of subjective understanding of reality to the needs of
the day, and of particular individuals, they can also come to
different conclusions at different times/for different situations.
E.g. there is a shift in attitude to political involvement during the
life of Baha'u'llah.
I see nothing to indicate that this basic model of intuitive
understanding of reality vs objective knowledge of facts should
not apply also to `Abdu'l-Baha?
Sen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen McGlinn ----------------------------------------------------------------------
From glenz@reed.eduSun Sep 24 14:51:58 1995
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 09:20:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gabriel Salman Lenz
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Guidance
Mark wrote:
"Thanks for your response to my posting . Although it is certainly
not authoritative, what the late Stanwood Cobb told me that the Master
said to him directly (and is also in at least one of Stanwood's books)
confirms *my* *sense* of the infallibility of the Master. According to
Stanwood Cobb, he asked `Abdu'l-Baha if He knew everything. The Master
responded
saying, "No, but if I want to know something, it is picturedbefore My
eyes as on
a moving screen."
Thanks for this great story. Who is Stanwood Cobb incidentally?
I don't know if this really solves the problem. If it was not
'Abdu'l-Baha that changed his mind then it would have to have been the
Word of God or the Manifestations that did? The way that I have always
understood it, put very crudely, is that the manifestations had access to
eternal truths which they applied to the contigencies of age that they
came for. So 'Abdu'l-Baha simply had a some sort of similar access to
these eternal truths, combined with his education from Baha'u'llah and
his knowledge of the age, and in that combination comes his
infallibility.
I am very interested in this and I would like to ask you whether you or
anyone else on the list thinks that the level of Manifestations, the Word
of God, can actually change its mind? Or is it only in this temporal
world, this bad approximation, that these Great minds have to figure out
how best to apply the eternals truths.
thanks so much
gabriel
From Member1700@aol.comSun Sep 24 14:55:48 1995
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 13:27:55 -0400
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Darkness and Light
Well, if Paul's fight is against self-righteousness, arrogance, character
assassination, censorship, and the "authoritarian nature of Baha'i life" then
I am with him 100%.
But, I do not think that these are evils that are peculiar to the Baha'i
community, as he has seen. Among Baha'is they have taken on a particular
form--which I find just as repugnant as he does. But, they are hardly worse
in the Baha'i community than they are anywhere else. I am afraid that we are
dealing with human failings that are all too universal.
And no, it can never stop. As long as there are human beings there will
always be a continual struggle between light and darkness. And light only
looses when we give up the struggle.
Warmest,
Tony
P.S. Paul, I hope you stay. But, if you have to go, I will understand.
From rstockman@usbnc.orgSun Sep 24 14:57:34 1995
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 95 12:05:34
From: "Stockman, Robert"
To: Member1700@aol.com, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re[2]: Local Houses of Justice
Tony, I think there are major problems with this argument. First,
`Abdu'l-Baha never called the New York and Kenosha bodies Houses of
Justice. He only referred to Chicago that way once, in 1901.
According to Ali Kuli Khan, `Abdu'l-Baha never wanted any body named
"House of Justice" and He said so; but Mirza Asadu'llah didn't know
that and thus encouraged Chicago to adopt the name "House of Justice"
(see volume two, pp 48-49 ). I can send you a copy of Khan's original
document, if you'd like. I think `Abdu'l-Baha used "House of Justice"
in the September 1901 tablet in reference to Chicago simply because
(1) He recognized that local bodies were local houses of justice, and
(2) He didn't want to upset them by changing their name too quickly.
`Abdu'l-Baha always called the Chicago body "spiritual assembly" after
1902; look at the tablets. Where is your evidence that `Abdu'l-Baha
viewed certain bodies as having a special status as "Houses of
Justice" but not others? I see no such evidence anywhere.
Where is your evidence that New York was elected "as a House of
Justice"? We know nothing about their December 1900 election at all.
We can say Racine's Baha'is considered their body a House of Justice
in 1900 or 1901, and that all the Kenosha Baha'is collectively
considered themselves a House of Justice in 1900 or 1901 (I can't
remember the dates of the documents, but I think they're all mentioned
in volume two). I wonder what it means when the entire community
considers themselves a house of justice. It probably means the
community didn't want a separate decision-making body and thus
considered the community to wear a second "hat" as house of justice,
but I am speculating. This Kenosha "House of Justice" included the
women as well, if we understand the cyrptic document aright.
As for a "general uproar" in 1909: what are you talking about? Where
is your archival evidence? I am unaware of any number of diary
entries, letters, and minutes referring to the issue of women. Just 2
or 3 letters in the Chase Papers, one cryptic entry in the House of
Spirituality Records, and `Abdu'l-Baha's tablet to Kenosha (for which
we do not have Kenosha's letter). What have you seen that I haven't?
As for the change of name, here is what `Abdu'l-Baha says:
The signature of that gathering should be the Spiritual Gathering
[mahfil-i-rawhani] (House of Spirituality) and the wisdom therein is
that hereafter the government should not infer from the term `House of
Justice' that a court is signified, that it is connected with
political affairs, or that at any time it will interfere with
governmental affairs. (`Abdu'l-Baha to House of Spirituality, received
9 September 1902)
Note `Abdu'l-Baha named the body mahfil-i-rawhani, that is, "spiritual
assembly"; the term "Spiritual Gathering" is a nontechnical
translation of the word. The phrase "(House of Spirituality)" was
added by the translator ant is not in the original text itself (I have
checked). The name change is NOT viewed as a change of status at all.
There is no hint of a change of status. The change of name is to
protect the Faith.
So where is the evidence `Abdu'l-Baha changed His mind? He changed a
name that He never gave the body in the first place to something that
will protect the Faith from accusations of political aspirations. He
first used the old name because it is also valid--our local spiritual
assemblies today ARE Houses of Justice--because in 1901 the new
Chicago body was calling itself that name. But He didn't want that
name used, as Ali-Kuli Khan asserts, so a year later, after the body
was established and running, He changed its name. Even with a year's
delay, the change of name still generated controversy over whether the
House was legitimate. The delay probably protected the House from
greater controversy.
-- Rob Stockman
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Local Houses of Justice
Author: Member1700@aol.com at INTERNET
Date: 9/23/95 1:02 PM
Well, I hesitate to answer Richard's question about the 1909 Tablet for fear
of re-igniting the whole question of women on the House of Justice again.
But, here goes!
It appears to me, from the historical record that we have--which is, of
course, partial--that 'Abdu'l-Baha's thinking developed very rapidly on the
question of local organization in America between 1909, when Corinne True
wrote him again on the question of women's service, and 1912 when the Chicago
House was dissolved and reelected with women on it for the first time.
It is important to note that only three institutions in America were
elected as formal Houses of Justice--New York, Chicago, and Kenosha. In
other places, there were various ad-hoc committees and boards that always had
women on them and were regarded differently than the Houses of Justice
(Spirituality) in major Baha'i communities. The Houses of Justice acted as
regional Assemblies, coordinating the activities of the Cause over wide
areas, acting as liasons to 'Abdu'l-Baha, receiving His Tablets and
translating them, and so forth. So, we are dealing with a two tiered system.
The Houses of Justice were to be all-male institutions. In 1909, and
again in 1911, 'Abdu'l-Baha reaffirmed this. But, in other areas he was
reluctant to have formal Houses of Justice elected, urging the believers to
make do with "Spiritual Assemblies," meaning spiritual gatherings. (This
latter term, of course, had many meanings.)
Anyway, it is also important to note that after 1909, there was a general
uproar in the Baha'i community caused by Corinne True and many other women
who thought that they saw an opening in 'Abdu'l-Baha's Tablet for women to
serve on the highest Baha'i bodies. 'Abdu'l-Baha received many letters from
women in Kenosha, Cincinatti, Chicago and elsewhere asking for him to clarify
this point. We have three for four Tablets of his responses. They are not
entirely consistent, but I concur with the understanding of the Chicago House
at the time that it appears that 'Abdu'l-Baha was saying that the Houses of
Justice should remain as they are, but that no more should be formed
anywhere. Women should serve on spiritual assemblies with men, if they want
to. Otherwise, separate Assemblies for men and women are also acceptable.
So, in my view, the 1910 Tablet saying that now is not the time to form
the House of Justice means (in context) that no more local Houses of Justice
should be formed, but instead local informal spiritual gatherings of
believers should be formed. He remained reluctant, however, to dismantle the
existing Houses of Justice. But he eventually did it, first with New York
(1911, according to Rob), then Chicago (1912), and eventually Kenosha we
must suppose. As women were elected to these bodies, they were renamed
Spiritual Assemblies at 'Abdu'l-Baha's expressed command.
This leaves an ambiguity in the status of local Spiritual Assemblies
which remains in Baha'i practice to this day. As the recent posts on
Talisman demonstrate, in some ways we regard local Assemblies as Houses of
Justice, and in some ways we don't.
That's all for now.
Tony
From Member1700@aol.comSun Sep 24 14:58:45 1995
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 13:51:46 -0400
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Guidance
Well, Mark, I think that the problem comes from assuming that
reality--including spiritual reality--is fixed, static, and unchanging,
rather than fluid, dynamic and progressive. Again, we return to the concept
of progressive revelation within the revelation of Baha'u'llah.
Of course, both Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha changed their minds, revised
their decisions, updated their commands, and so forth. This can be easily
documented and proven. If you are going to insist that this must correspond
to some fixed and static higher reality--well, go ahead, but I can't imagine
what difference it makes. We might remember that 'Abdu'l-Baha stated that
both in this world and in the next, change and progress are universal.
We might also remember--just by way of example--that according to the
direct and explicit text of the Kitab-i 'Ahd, it was Mirza Muhammad-'Ali who
was appointed as 'Abdu'l-Baha's successor as the head of the Cause. This was
a provision made by Baha'u'llah in the most categorical way.
Of course, we all know that 'Abdu'l-Baha set aside this provision in
Baha'u'llah's Will and Testament--as he certainly should have, and which he
had full authority to do. But, it seems to me silly to insist that this was
not a change. And a most fundamental change. It was 'Abdu'l-Baha's
interpretation that this provision of the Will no longer applied.
(And to Rob's question of when we know something is an interpretation, we
know this one is because 'Abdu'l-Baha spent much of his Will and Testament
explaining it and justifying it. It was not found in an obscure letter
written through his secretary to an individual believer.)
Now, I suppose that we can say that the appointment of Shoghi Effendi
was foreordained from eternity in the mind of God, or something. But, at
that point I simply loose interest in the conversation. Because, then
whatever happens is always foreordained, and all things begin to look alike.
Which is comforting and satisfying to some people, I suppose. Personally,
it bores me to death. I prefer history.
Warmest,
Tony
From Member1700@aol.comSun Sep 24 15:03:37 1995
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 14:11:26 -0400
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Local Houses of Justice
Rob, are you sure that we should pursue a point by point debate over this
issue on Talisman? I will if you want, but remember John has asked us not to
talk about this issue ad nauseum.
It does appear that I have seen a bit more of the documentary evidence on
this question than you have--which is surprising. But, I do have a copy of a
letter from the New York House of Justice congratulating the Chicago House on
its election, in which they clearly refer to themselves as a House of Justice
and to Chicago as the same.
I also have a copy of the letter that Kenosha wrote to 'Abdu'l-Baha in
1911, and the intentions of the Kenosha all-male House are crystal clear.
They were willing to dissolve their male-only institution and reelect one
with women on it, but they were afraid that this violated the instructions
that they had received in Tablets of 'Abdu'l-Baha at the time the House was
first organized. (Tablets that I presume are now lost.)
I agree that 'Abdu'l-Baha did not change the status of the Chicago House
in 1902, only its name. But, then in 1910, he was saying that now is not the
time to establish (local) Houses of Justice. And (I think) in 1912, he did
change the status (and the name) of the Chicago House.
I do not think that it is possible to maintain that 'Abdu'l-Baha
maintained a consistent terminology to refer to local Spiritual Assemblies
after 1902. He used six or seven different terms after that date. It is
true that at some later point the terminology was fixed, but I don't know
when. This is especially true when also considering 'Abdu'l-Baha's Tablets
to Iran. Sharokh Monjazeb has told me that he has seen one instance
(published in Ma'idiy-i Asmani, I believe) in which 'Abdu'l-Baha refers to
the local Assembly of Tehran as baytu'l-'adl ummumi (the general, or
universal, House of Justice). Too bad I can't look it up myself. (Can
anyone help? It might help if we could find a date for this Tablet.) But
other terms included mafil-i shur (consultative assembly), arjomand-i shur
(board of consultation), and so forth.
Warmest,
Tony
From rstockman@usbnc.orgSun Sep 24 15:06:41 1995
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 95 13:02:56
From: "Stockman, Robert"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: History Conference
Dear Friends:
The Institute for Baha'i Studies is beginning its plans for the
History conference next year. As you know, our first one was June 3-5
1994. We had planned one for 1995, but the theme we announced proved
too narrow and we got very few abstracts, and many of the abstracts
were not of high quality. That and the flood of work for the Wilmette
Institute forced us to postponed the conference to 1996.
We are looking at the first weekend of June; I think the dates are 4-6
June 1996. Any suggestions about the dates? Please note we have to
avoide the "New World Order" conference in late January (more on that
later today in another message), the Arjmand-sponsored "Irfan
Colloquium" in late March (more on that later also), National
Convention in late April, and the Friends of Persian Culture
conference in late May. We think we also have to avoid Northwestern
University's graduation (no hotel room available) and the summer in
general.
Second question: any suggestions for themes? We tried local history
last year and that proved too narrow. Maybe we should should suggest
several themes and try to set up panel programs on each.
All suggestions welcome. Please post them straight to me; no reason
to eat up Talisman bandwidth with them. Suggestions before Monday
noon especially recommended; the task force holds its first meeting
over lunch to discuss the upcoming conferences and may be able to
discuss recommendations then.
-- Rob Stockman
From mfoster@tyrell.netSun Sep 24 15:07:35 1995
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 13:54:05 -0500 (EDT)
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: knowledge and informatio
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Hi, Sen -
After I read your message, which I completely agree with, I realized
that I had probably already addressed most of the points you raise in
the note I just completed to Gabriel. However, I will try to focus
more directly (sort of ) on what you say.
I concur with you about the Prophets having these two sorts of
information. As I understand it, The Prophets have three natures - the
body, the rational soul, and the divine Appearance/Manifestation. In
order to relate to humans, They come into this world as humans
Themselves. The station of divine Appearance/Manifestation is expressed
gradually, perhaps beginning in childhood, in the kingdom of names and
attributes (physicality) and in the human kingdom (especially, the world
of human reason).
The beginning of the Prophetic Mission (symbolized as a Dove, Angel,
Burning Bush, Maiden, etc.) is the point at which the divine
Appearance/Manifestation fully dominates Their physical and human
natures. The Master says that this event is what Baha'u'llah has
referred to as being asleep on His couch until awakened by the Holy
Spirit ("the breezes of the All-Glorious"). It is the emanation of
Manifestation.
IMO, the statements of the the Prophets are examples of divine
Wisdom (applied Knowledge) - taking the Word of God (the Knowledge of
God) and, using Their human and physical natures, contextualizing it.
With loving greetings,
Mark
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Sociologist of Religion *
From mfoster@tyrell.netSun Sep 24 15:08:34 1995
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 13:54:04 -0500 (EDT)
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Guidance
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Hi, Gabriel -
Stanwood Cobb was the owner of Avalon Press in Maryland. He was also
a well-known Baha'i writer and speaker. He met `Abdu'l-Baha when he was
an adult and lived past the age of 100 years old (as he said the Master
predicted he would). I had the bounty of meeting him several times -
mostly at the Green Acre Baha'i School (Eliot, Maine) but once at a
small, informal meeting in suburban New York City.
Stanwood was the maverick's maverick and one of the last of the
so-called `Abdu'l-Baha Baha'is. One of his books was called _Islamic
Contributions to Civilization_ and provided a good summary of the
subject. However, his forte was human potential, as in his books
_Discovering the Genius Within You_ and _Radiant Living_. He was
profoundly interested in the concept of divine guidance and inspiration
and wrote of how he often focused his attention on the sensations in his
solar plexis when deciding whether to take a particular action.
Unfortunately, as far as I know, no one has taken up the work of
publishing his books after his death.
A short story (though I hope it won't be misconstrued): I remember
going to see him speak once. After the meeting, I went up to say "hello"
and to introduce him to a friend of mine and his girlfriend. When
Stanwood asked my friend how he was feeling, he said that he was a bit
ill. Stanwood took my friend by the hand. Later, my friend told me that
he felt a rush of energy passing through him and his illness was passed.
I don't know if Stanwood was consciously doing anything, but my friend
thought so!
You wrote:
G >So 'Abdu'l-Baha simply had some sort of similar access to these
G >eternal truths, combined with his education from Baha'u'llah and his
G >knowledge of the age, and in that combination comes his infallibility.
Yes. I think that what you say sounds plausible. The way that I
would see it, Baha'u'llah continually guided His Son both before and
after His Ascension.
G >I am very interested in this and I would like to ask you whether you or
G >anyone else on the list thinks that the level of Manifestations, the Word
G >of God, can actually change its mind? Or is it only in this temporal
G >world, this bad approximation, that these Great minds have to figure out
G >how best to apply the eternals truths.
With respect to the Manifestations of God, I think that the word
"mind" is used in two senses. First, there is the human mind - the
result of a dialectic between the rational soul/faculty (the human
spirit) and the brain/nervous system. IMHO, the human mind of the
Prophet is structurally identical to each of our minds. Secondly, there
is the Universal Mind, i.e., the Word (Knowledge), Will (Volition),
Cause (Action), and Holy Spirit (Animating Influence) of the Prophet.
With the Manifestation, His human mind is under the continual direction
of the Universal Mind.
If, on the level of outward appearances, the Manifestation changes
His (human) mind, it is because a new contingency has necessitated a
fresh application of the divine Word (the Knowledge of God). It is
precisely this situation that I intended by the contextualized (as
contrasted with the infallibility of Guardianship which, I believe, is
both contextualized and contextual) infallibility of the Manifestations
and the Master.
Blessings,
Mark
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Sociologist of Religion *
From sw@solsys.ak.planet.gen.nzSun Sep 24 15:28:45 1995
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 95 17:52 NZST
From: S&W Michael
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: (William)Human Rights
THE STORY SO FAR: I argued that there was no reason for believing in human
rights, either in natural reason or in the Writings (Talisman, 18/9/95).
Sen in reply posted a compilation of material from the Writings in which
'human rights' or 'rights' occur. He also presented an argument for human
rights (19/9/95). In response ...
Let's start with the quotations from 'Abdul-Baha in which the expression
'human rights' or words to the same effect occur. I'll assume that He did
say something which could legitimately be translated into English as 'human
rights'. If as Juan says, the issue of human rights was on the agenda in
the Middle East at the time then there may have been a standard translation
in Persian of the English term 'human rights'. 'Abdul-Baha may have
knowingly used that Persian term.
The question then is, (A) Do these statements by 'Abdul-Baha commit us to
the existence of human rights?, and (B) If yes, what does that commit us
to? To (A) I shall respond "No"; to (B), "Very little". I'll start with
the easier question, (B).
'Abdul-Baha never tells us what human rights there are, nor what he takes a
human right to be, nor how human rights relate to other concerns. But we
know almost nothing about human rights untill we know when they ought to be
overridden. Are human rights always to be satisfied before other concerns,
or at the other extreme are they easily overridden, or where in betweeen do
they lie? 'Abdul-Baha does not tell us. As far as I can see the only
thing we do know for sure about human rights from what 'Abdul-Baha has said
is that they are accorded equally to all. They could, it seems, be almost
anything.
Perhaps you think there is something artificial about what I have just
said: what I have said may be logically true but what 'Abdul-Baha says
should, like any act of communication, be put into context, and that
context includes a lot of implicit understandings about human rights. This
is true. However, in this case the relevant context, the general discourse
on human rights is full of disagreement on what human rights there are,
what they are, and how they relate to other things.
For example, a disagreement on what human rights there are: A Lockean could
not accept some of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. At least if the right is interpreted to be the same sort of thing
as a right in Locke. Article 25 says that, "Everyone has the right to a
standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and
his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care..." etc.
Now, a right, for Locke imposed an obligation on others, so for example, my
right to liberty imposes the obligation that others ought not to restrict
my liberty. So if article 25 expresses a right in that sense of the term
then it must impose obligations on others, and the obligation it would seem
to impose is that if I have food and some one else does not, such that it
is effecting their health or well-being, then I have an obligation to give
them my food (provided it does not effect my health and well-being, I
suppose). Note, this would not be an act of charity, it is not simply that
it would be good for me to give my food, but rather I would have a duty to
do so. Yet this is in conflict with my Lockean property rights, which say
I can choose to do with my property as I see fit. Obligations to give my
property away are inconsistent with Lockean property rights.
One could even argue that, if, as Juan maybe thinks, Baha'is are committed
to Lockean rights then Baha'is should be opposing the United Nations
Declaration of Human Rights.
And there is disagreement on what rights are. There is at least two sorts
of answers, one classically represented by Kant, and the other by John
Stuart Mill. Theie different answers affect how rights ought to apply in
practice. I don't want to go into the difference here but it just adds to
my contention that human rights discourse is riven with disagreement, and
so just the bare affirmation of human rights, as 'Abdul-Baha does, tells us
very little.
Parethetically I should point out that there is a surprising degree of
agreement on what human rights there are, which suggests to many that even
if we can't agree on an objective basis for human rights there is one.
Now for question (A): Does what 'Abdul-Baha said commit us to the existence
of human rights?
Well, it certainly seems that way. However, I argue we should, or at least
could, take some of what 'Abdul-Baha says as, for wont of a better word,
rhetoric. 'Abdul-Baha was speaking with "due regard to the exigencies of
the situation and the people" (I quote from memory, out of Tablets of
Baha'u'llah) he was addressing. Part of the cultural resources of the West
is the idea of human rights. Human rights are coherent with the
universalistic perspective of the Faith ("The earth is but one
country..."), and its notion of equality of treatment as part of justice;
Human rights are, so to speak, on the path to the Baha'i position and
therefore to be affirmed. They are the sun of justice reflected in an
imperfect mirror. In my view the substantive content of what 'Abdul-Baha
says is perhaps not what the surface grammar sometimes sugggests: that
there are already human rights, and therefore these should be recognised by
rulers and in the positive law. Rather, we could read Him as proposing a
meta-legal ideal of justice, i.e., an ideal which all legal systems ought
to conform to, and that is that any legal rights should be given equally to
all. My reading then, suggests that the real substance of what 'Abdul-Baha
is saying can all be found on the surface in the quotation from
Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 318: "Tenth, there shall be an equality
of rights and prerogatives for all mankind", which one the surface is a
statement about what the law ought to be, and will be in the future, while,
I hold, the surface grammar of (Paris Talks, p. 153-54): "The general
rights of all mankind must be guarded and preserved", is misleading in that
it suggestd there are already some human rights which the law ought to
guard and preserve.
Do you buy this? I realise it's a bit obscure, and needs expanding, but I
feel it is right. (Mirza Abul-Fadle in Miracales & Metaphores (1981) p. 9
is relevant here for the general view I am proposing, what I have put under
the word, "rhetoric". (By the way, I also need some general theory of
rhetoric to explain the use of human rights in the external affairs
strategy.)
Let's now turn to the quotations from Baha'u'llah. We may note that they
do not use the expression "human rights". Perhaps then the rights
mentioned are not human rights, i.e., not rights one has by virtue of one's
humanity alone, but either rights conferred by Revelation: "divine rights",
or maybe in some cases customary rights. Divine right: rights conferred by
revelation are conferred as a result of one's participation in a divine
Covenant, not merely due to one's humanity, so they are not human rights.
My understanding that divine rights and not human rights are meant by
Baha'u'llah, is suggested by the quotation from Gleanings, p. 247, where
the sentence after the one talking of "the rights of the down-trodden"
talks of "the duty prescribed unto you [the ruler] by God in His Book".
Where as Sen reads this duty as being to promote human rights, from which
it follows that the rights of the down-trodden are human rights, I think it
may be a duty to promote the rights conferred in the Book, i.e., divine
rights. As far as I know neither the Koran, nor the Kitab-i-Aqdas
explicitly mention human rights.
As well there is often customary law which confers rights. The English
common law grew out of customary law and will often recognise customary
law. "[T]he rights of the peoples and kindreds of the earth" (Tablets of
Baha'u'llah) may be rights according to customary law in Iran and those of
other peoples and kindreds.
Some historical research could throw light on the validity my readings of
Baha'u'llah.
Now to Sen's reasoning to human rights.
Sen wants to infer human rights from, or pretty much from, the principle of
equality of rights before the law and abolition of discrimination. Since I
think this is what 'Abdul-Baha is really saying, as I say above,if he can
do this I'm a believer.
I have some difficulty reading Sen's reasoning, so I should quote the core bit:
"[T]he principle of equality of rights before the law, and the abolition
of discrimination, implies that men and women, black and white, muslim and
christian and Bahai, all have equal SOMETHING. This something is called
their 'rights'. If equality and abolition of discrimination is applied on
a world scale, the result is equal human rights. On a national scale it is
only citizens rights."
First we may note something nice about this argument, at least I think this
is not a misunderstanding: On Sen's account human rights is something we
will get when we apply equality to all humans, it is not something we
already have now and which therefore we can rely on now. Equality and
hence human rights is something we ought to have and so we ought to strive
for, but is not something we have now, hence my ontological worries about
what human rights (see my last posting on Talisman) don't arise; and (b) it
makes sense that Baha'is obey the law of the land even when it opposes
human rights, that is, it makes sense that they don't rely on human rights
when they are not part of the law; yet (c) we promote human rights. Note
that this is not obviously human rights in the traditional sense, which are
something that we have timelessly as human beings. For Sen the "human" in
"human right" refers to the scope of the human rights as much as to the
subject of human rights. Of course a problem with the traditional
conception of human rights for Baha'is is that under human rights it
could be relied upon to justify revolution and disobedience to the law.
I've been thinking about Sen's argument. There is, I think, three things
going on: First, explicitly, an inference from Equality &
non-discrimination to Human rights. Second, and perhaps covertly, an
inference from Human rights to Equality & non-discrimination. Third, an
explanatory relationship such that human rights explains Equality &
non-discrimination. I find myself reading Sen's argument useing these
three "elements" or "movements". I start by reading it as saying that
Equality & non-discrimination imply human rights. But this seems false.
Imagine a law which says everyone must be vegetarians. This treats all
equally and discriminates against no one, yet it confers no rights on
anyone. But if Equality & non-discrimination logically implies Human
rights then everytime there is equality and non-discrimination, there must
be human rights, however I've just given you one counterexample where we
have Equality & non-discrimination, but no human rights. Hence Equality &
non-discrimination don't imply human rights. After stopping short on this
reading of Sen's argument I tried another reading. In this I read Sen's
argument as really appealing to the idea that Human rights would explain
our commitment to Equality and non-discrimination. On this reading when
Sen says Equality & non-discrimination "imply" something which turns out to
be human rights, he means "imply" in the sense that what is implied is
required to explain, or is the best explanation for, what does the
implying. The word "imply" is sometimes used in this way. So I might say,
"If he got here in five hours he must have come by plane, because thats the
only way he could get here that fast." And I might put the same thing by
saying, "He took five hours; that implies he came by plane", or "He took
five hours; he must have come by plane"; which means, I think, two things:
1. If he came by plane then it would take five hours; and 2. Taking only
five hours is explained by coming by plane. Correspondingly Sen is saying,
S1. If we had human rights then Equality & non-discrimination; S2. Equality
& non-discrimination is explained by human rights. (Of course I accept
S1.) So Sen is not really appealing to the inference that Equality &
non-discrimination logically imply human rights, but he is appealing to
human rights to explain our commitment as Baha'is to Equality &
non-discrimination.
Sen, is this right? And even if it is, does it miss the point?
If my reading of Sen's argument is correct then it is a weaker argument
than the one I first read, because even if human rights is a good
explanation of Equality & non-discrimination, there may be other
explanations, or Equality & non-discrimination may be properly basic, so
not in need of any explanation or support. And of course Sen's argument
turns out to be an argument from human rights, not to human rights. So I
am not ready to accept human rights just yet.
Well, I am not sure all this is going to stand up to scrutiny, and I could
think more about it, but lets see what others think.
William
From jrcole@umich.eduSun Sep 24 15:43:53 1995
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 15:28:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: S&W Michael
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Human Rights
I enclose some passages from my notes toward a consideration of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the context of Baha'i texts.
The document, incidentally, appears to be endorsed by the Universal House
of Justice's Peace Statement.
Human rights are those that one possesses by virtue of being human. As I
have said before, the problem with the Lockean tradition is that rights
are possessed by virtue of one's status (white propertied adult male)
rather than one's humanity. Also, Lockean and Millsian liberalism exalt
property rights over all other kinds and make them absolute. One can
have human rights thought that recognizes human rights and property
rights but hierarchizes them differently. I think that is what Baha'i
texts do. - cheers, Juan Cole, History, Univ. of Michigan
It is not clear that the scriptures of most world religions
contain the conception of a civil or human "right." That human beings
have rights, however, is asserted by Baha'u'llah. Addressing the
monarchs of the world, he instructed them to "safeguard the
rights of the down-trodden, and punish the wrong-doers." (Gl. 247). He
felt that his own rights had been unjustly denied him by the despotic
governments of Iran and the Ottoman Empire (Gl. 129-130). Baha'u'llah
was falsely accused of sedition in Tehran in 1852 and
imprisoned in a horrific dungeon for four months before being acquitted
and exonerated. He nevertheless was forced into exile in Baghdad for
over a decade, was then brought to Istanbul and summarily banished to the
provincial European town of Edirne or Adrianople
for about five years, and then was sent to Akka on the coast of Ottoman
Syria by the Sultan in 1868, where he spent the rest of his life. During
all this time he was never convicted of a crime. He was a prisoner of
conscience, suffering for his insistence that a
new religion was required that would succeed Islam and reform the world.
In 1891, referring to the situation in contemporary Iran, Baha'u'llah
lamented that "they that perpetrate tyranny in the world have usurped the
rights of the peoples and kindreds of the
earth and are sedulously pursuing their selfish inclinations." (TOB p.
85). The idea of "rights" (Ar. huquq) in its modern sense had been
advocated in the Middle East by intellectuals and journalists from at
least the 1860s, often by Muslims with a European
education who were well aware of the French Declaration of the Rights of
Man, the U.S. Bill of Rights, and subsequent liberal thought.
Baha'u'llah, as has been seen, employed the
word especially in opposition to tyranny and arbitrary rule. Already by
1875 `Abdu'l-Baha was arguing to Iranian conservatives that "This liberty
(hurriyyat) in the universal rights of individuals (huquq-i `umumiyyih-'i
afrad) " is not "contrary to prosperity and success."1 (SDC 100, my trans.)
A right to privacy and freedom from attacks on honor and
reputation are guaranteed in Article 12, while Article 17 guarantees the
right to own property and protection from being arbitrarily deprived of
it. `Abdu'l-Baha in the Secret of Divine
Civilization advocates "the free exercise of the individual's rights, and
the security of his person and property, his dignity and good name."
(SDC 115). Shoghi Effendi lists among Baha'i principles that excited the
enmity toward the Baha'i Faith of Russian Communists in
the 1920s, "the institution of private property." (GPB 360-361).
In his chronicle of the Babi and Baha'i movements, `Abdu'l-Baha
deplored the
religious persecution practiced in nineteenth-century Iran, writing, "[To
ensure] freedom
of conscience (azadigi-yi vujdan) and tranquillity of heart and soul is
one of the duties and
functions of government, and is in all ages the cause of progress in
development and
ascendency over other lands." (TN) This passage emphasizes that to ensure
freedom of
conscience is a duty of the state.
The Declaration forbids torture and inhuman or degrading treatment
(Article 5) as well as
arbitrary detention, arrest or exile (Article 9) and insists that the
accused be brought
before a competent tribunal (Articles 8, 10) and be presumed innocent
until proven guilty
(Article 11); it also provides for the right of asylum from persecution
(Article 14). In his 1875 Secret of Divine Civilization, `Abdu'l-Baha
severely criticizes arbitrary
arrest and punishment. He says that in the 1840s "it was heard from many
sources that the
governor of Gulpaygan seized thirteen defenseless bailiffs of the region,
all of them of holy
lineage, all of them guiltless, and without a trial, and without
obtaining any higher
sanction, beheaded them in a single hour."1 He even blames what he saw
as Iran's decline
in population on "the lack of an adequate system of government and the
despotism and
unbridled authority of provincial and local governors."2 He complains
that "the governors
would select any victim they cared to, however, innocent, and vent threir
wrath on him
and destroy him." He declares such practices in conformity neither with
justice nor with
the laws of God. It is clear, then, that the Baha'i scriptures insist on
a rule of law, and
forbid the arbitrary detention or exile of any individual. They require
proof of
wrongdoing, and the considered judgment of a judicial panel that takes
into account all the
facts. The despotic fiat of a single unelected ruler or governor is
rejected as the basis for
jailing or sanctioning a citizen. As for asylum, `Abdu'l-Baha commands
Baha'is to
"become ye a shelter and asylum to the fearful ones" (Tablets of
`Abdu'l-Baha, p. 43).
In addition, Baha'i texts call for the right to universal education; to
representative government, to legal due process. Most of these are
mentioned explicitly in *Secret of Divine Civilization*. The Baha'i
world would be much better off if it spent more time with SDC and less
with third-tier compilations.
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:17:31 1995
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 01:46:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: Christopher Buck
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Human Rights a Baha'i Principle
The quotation from Baha'i World Faith is actually from Promulgation of
Universal Peace, from a talk on 9 June 1912 in a Baptist Temple in
Philadelphia; in the new corrected edition of PUP it is actually
principle number 7 of Baha'u'llah.
Luckily, a Persian transcription was made and published in `Abdu'l-Baha's
own lifetime, in the *Khitabat* (3 vols. in one), vol. 2:148.
It reads:
Ta`lim-i haftum-i hadrat-i Baha'u'llah musavat-i huquq ast. Jami`-i
bashar dar nazd-i khuda yiksanand. Huquqishan huquq-i vahidih; imtiyazi
as bara-yi nafsi nist. Kull dar taht-i qanun-i ilahi hastand . . .
Literally, this says `the 7th teaching of Baha'u'llah is equality of
rights. All humans are alike in the eyes of God. Their rights are one;
no one has any superiority over others. All are under the divine Law.'
It seems to me this passage is about human rights, but is probably in the
original more about the equality of all under the law.
Christopher is to be congratulated on this important finding!
I look forward to more discussion of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and will post more articles soon.
cheers Juan Cole, History, Univ. of Michigan
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:17:31 1995
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 10:35:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: Christopher Buck
Subject: Re: *Musavat*
Christopher: Yes, `Abdu'l-Baha is using musavat or equality here in what
I think is a Liberal sense of equality under the law, whereas Baha'u'llah
is probably speaking metaphysically.
cheers Juan
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:17:31 1995
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 10:43:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: Keven19@aol.com
Cc: tarjuman@umich.edu
Subject: Re: Basit al-Haqiqa
Keven: on "al-Haqq" as Absolute Reality and also as somewhat impersonal,
I am with Moojan here. That is clearly part of the word's semantic field
as used in Islamic mysticism. Eternal Truth is also not bad. But I
think "it" is appropriate, to show that the concept is being discussed as
an abstract principle rather than a Hebraic-style personal god of history
at that point.
cheers Juan
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:17:31 1995
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 11:01:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: j.rooij@rechten.vu.nl
Subject: re: the end of Talisman
Janine: Thanks. The one reform I am suggesting is that some sort of
Talisman steering committee be set up to jointly make decisions about
issues like expulsion; perhaps even a referendum is called for. I myself
do not second-guess John's judgment, but I feel it is unfair for him to
take the brunt of criticism when in fact the decision was urged by a
large number of people, as you say. We'll see. Remember that John has
done a lot of good for the community (including the Encyclopaedia, on
which he worked for a decade which you would enjoy if you could get hold
of it!), and has selflessly sacrificed his time on Talisman, time which
he can ill afford since the tenure clock is ticking. To have twelve
years of devoted service outweighed by one decision seems to me a hard thing.
I also think it is a little immature of you to blame John for the
disruptions caused by Talisman. I seem to remember your being happy to
post on the medium and enjoy the interchanges.
JRIC
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:17:31 1995
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 11:11:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
Subject: Re: women on UHJ
Sen:
1) the rijal-i buyut-i `adliyyih seem certainly to me to be members of
Baha'i institutions; I do not think I have ever seen Baha'u'llah refer to
civil parliaments as houses of justice. If he did, this would be
exciting for my thesis about Baha'i democracy. But I think there is in
fact a terminological distinction. Moreover, the Universal House of
Justice in the Supplements is also given duties with regard to the
universal language, so why not LSAs?
2) The 1909 Tablet may in fact be about the the Chicago LSA and not the
Universal House of Justice. `Abdu'l-Baha does use the term bayt
al-`adl-i `umumi or general house of justice to refer to what we would
now call NSAs, and the Chicago LSA was the leading such body in 1909.
cheers Juan
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:17:31 1995
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 11:23:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: Robert Johnston
Cc: Christopher Buck , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: *Juan vs the House*?!!!
Could we please have less argument about Juan (of whom I am a severe
critic) and more about Juan's points and arguments? I have asked this
before.
cheers JRIC
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:17:32 1995
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 12:43:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: Ahmad Aniss
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: writings on UHJ
Ahmad: Thank you very much for the quotations.
My question to you is this: You initially said that the reason women
cannot serve on the Universal House of Justice is that Baha'u'llah called
its members "rijal/men" in the Most Holy Book.
I think I have demonstrated that Baha'u'llah also called the members of
local houses of justice "rijal/men."
Logically speaking, you have 2 choices:
1. To continue to make your former argument, but to acknowledge that
women cannot by the same token serve on local houses of justice, either,
given that Baha'u'llah referred to them abstractly as "men."
2. To acknowledge that your previous argument must be revised and that
Baha'u'llah's use of the word rijal/men does not form the basis upon
which women are excluded from the universal house of justice. But then
what is the basis?
Incidentally, aside from his use of the word "rijal/notables/men" to
refer to the members of the houses of justice, Baha'u'llah neither in the
Most Holy Book or elsewhere ever explicitly says "Women may not serve on
houses of justice." `Abdu'l-Baha at one point thought that the
terminology was sufficient grounds to exclude them, but he demonstrably
changed his mind about this, with regard to the local level, in 1912.
It seems to me that there is therefore no longer any reason to maintain
that Baha'u'llah legislated women's exclusion from the House (He did
not). Such an exclusion does not therefore form part of the Revelation
(vahy, `ibadat), and ipso facto falls into the category of matters upon
which the House may legislate.
Contrary to what has been alleged, I am upholding the authority of the
Supreme Institution here. They are dependent upon the information at
hand in making their rulings; I think they deserve to have more information.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:17:35 1995
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 23:48:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: tarjuman@umich.edu
Subject: Baha'u'llah's Ode; notes
At popular request, not to mention some dire threats, I shall be posting
the substantive notes Baha'u'llah appended to his "Ode of the Dove"
(Sulaymaniyyah, 1855).
Ahang had asked why Baha'u'llah wrote the notes. My suspicion is that
the "Ode of the Dove" not only has echoes of Ibnu'l-Farid's "Poem of the
Way" (also about the mystic as a love-sick suitor and the Divine as a
cruel-hearted tormentor), but also of Ibnu'l-`Arabi's "Tarjuman
al-Ashwaq" (Translator of Desires). The latter is also a love poem to a
feminized God; I think there are some verses of the "Ode of the Dove"
that echo verses of "Translator of Desires." And Ibnu'l-`Arabi wrote up
notes explaining the mystical purport of his lines (which might otherwise
sometimes be taken for secular love poetry). So there was a genre of the
commentary on the mystical love poem, and I think this is where we may
locate Baha'u'llah's notes.
I will quote the relevant verse(s) and then a provisional translation of
the note.
Baha'u'llah:
4. The End-Time's Trump resounded when She blew;
Her breath caused shadows of the clouds to move.
Note:
4. Shadows of the clouds: A reference to that which He hath said,
Blessed and Exalted may He be, "That God should come down to them
overshadowed with clouds [Q. 2:210]."
To move: A reverence to the mountains moving, insofar as they
will stir even as clouds, as He hath said, "and thou shalt see the
mountains, that thou supposest fixed, passing by like clouds [Q.
27:88]." All these are signs of the Resurrection Day, and the
events associated therewith.
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:17:35 1995
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 23:55:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: human rights
Time to move on to the second article of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. Moojan is right that a whole book could be written about
the concord of the Faith with the first article. But I think it
important to pursue the document all the way through.
Article 2:
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this
Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex,
language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social
origin, property, birth or other status.
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the
political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or
territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust,
non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
The quote Christopher gave from PUP by `Abdu'l-Baha addresses this issue
of the uniformity of rights for all. Does the beloved Guardian say
anything about this?
cheers Juan Cole, History, Univ. of Michigan
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:17:35 1995
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 10:05:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: gpoirier
Subject: Re: rijal/men and local houses of justice
Brent: Baha'u'llah at various times assigns responsibility for choosing
(helping choose?) the universal language to the parliaments of the world
(Aqdas) or the Universal House of Justice (Supplements).
This particular Tablet seems to me to clarify all this.
The word for "parliaments" in the Aqdas is "majalis" or assemblies. I
think Baha'u'llah is saying that there are two types of assemblies, civil
and religious ones, the religious ones being the houses of justice. And
the houses of justice have a special responsibility to see that Baha'i
law is implemented. (Parliaments have a general responsibility, Baha'i
institutions a specific one).
If the universal language is to be adopted by the peoples of the world
voluntarily, there is no reason that LSAs everywhere should not be
involved in the process of choosing and implementing it, especially given
their future role in parochial education.
I don't think it matters in this regard whether one is speaking of an
auxiliary language or a single-language policy.
cheers Juan
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:17:35 1995
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 10:38:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: Stephen R Bedingfield
Subject: Re: Passing of Habib Taherzadeh
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 1995 17:27:16 -0500 (CDT)
From: Frank Lewis
To: tarjuman@umich.edu
Subject: Habib Taherzadeh
I heard today that Habib Taherzadeh, who, as you know was the chief
translator of the Tablets of Baha'u'llah revealed after the Aqdas volume,
passed away in Brazil about two weeks ago. From the accounts I have heard,
he was an utterly humble and unassuming man; perhaps those who knew him
could say a little about him. Here's hoping that he will become a kind of
patron saint and send blessings down upon the efforts of Tarjuman from the
next world.
yours, Frank Lewis
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:17:38 1995
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 11:01:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: Richard Vernon Hollinger
Subject: Re: The issue of a male-only UHJ
Richard:
1) `Abdu'l-Baha did use bayt al-`Adl-i `umumi (general house of justice) to
refer to bodies other than the Universal House of Justice.
2) Baha'u'llah did not exclude women from service on houses of justice,
as `Abdu'l-Baha's 1912 ruling demonstrates. Are you suggesting that
`Abdu'l-Baha had the authority to legislate such an exclusion?
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:17:39 1995
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 19:37:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: Rick Schaut
Cc: owner-talisman@indiana.edu, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: *Subverting the House*? (fwd)
On Tue, 29 Aug 1995, Rick Schaut wrote:
>
> >From: Christopher Buck
> > I must protest your insinuation that there are those online
> >who are engaging in *extremely skilful attempts to subvert the
> >integrity of the House*.
>
> While I don't agree with Robert's characterization, I can understand
> it. If people consider themselves "advocates of inclusion" and
> talk about attempts to influence the decisions of possible future
> members of the House of Justice, then they are walking very
> close to the line if not over it.
Dear Rick: I appreciate the moderate and measured tone of your message.
However, I think there is a fairly serious misunderstanding here. No one
is engaged in a political campaign of any sort here.
I am a historian and a student of texts. I am trying to understand a
historical issue and a set of texts that seem difficult to sort out. I
am seeking that understanding through the dialectic of give-and-take with
other Baha'i scholars steeped in that history and those texts. The
conclusions I seek are honest ones; I may play the devil's advocate but
as a historian I will have failed if I become closed to evidence. Are
you suggesting that public discussions of issues in Baha'i history and
texts are somehow illegitimate?
> There _are_ Covenantiary issues involved, here. I've raised
> them. Having raised these issues, how should I view people's
> attempts to discuss membership of the House when these
> discussions fail to address the Covenantiary aspects of the
> topic?
If one begins by assuming one knows everything about the Covenant, then
clearly no further discussion is necessary. I am seeking to understand
what the Covenant entails; I begin by assuming that I do not know everything.
In fact, as everyone can tell, I often know very little.
My problem with the nature of discourse in the Baha'i community is that
it has been assumed by many that such public discussion of scholarly
issues is illegitimate. In fact, there is no Baha'i civil society or
public opinion, or very little of either. I do not think Baha'u'llah
wanted to create a community where everyone is afraid to speak. First of
all, such a society has totalitarian overtones. Second of all, it was
not necessary for a new Manifestation to come if that is what was
wanted: Shi`ite Iran has already done a good job of militating against
any civil society.
Jurgen Habermas:
"By `the public sphere' we mean first of all a realm of our social life
in which something approaching public opinion can be formed. Access is
guaranteed to all citizens. A portion of the public sphere comes into
being in every conversation in which private individuals assemble to form
a public body. They then behave neither like business nor professional
people transacting private affairs, nor like members of a constitutional
order subject to the legal constraints of a state bureaucracy. Citizens
behave as a public body when they confer in an unrestricted fashion--that
is, with the guarantee of freedom of assembly and association and the
freedom to express and publish their opinions--about matters of general
interest . (New German Critique 3 (1974): 49).
This is what the North Atlantic world has had for some time now; it
allows scientific and social progress. It was lacking in the Soviet
Bloc, which was why the latter failed. It is also lacking in theocracies
such as Khomeini's Iran and in fascist states such as Syria and Iraq.
I think it is clear from Baha'u'llah's and `Abdu'l-Baha's writings that
they foresaw a lively public sphere in the Baha'i Faith. Attempts to
curtail it reflect badly upon the Faith and put us in the bad company
just mentioned. The policy of not having a public sphere puts any
organization at a disadvantage in competing with those who do. But
surely the principle should be the thing.
Rick, I know you are not among those who wish to curtail the Baha'i
public sphere, and you have spoken eloquently in support of Talisman's
right to exist. I am simply setting out my understanding of the
rationale for the current discussions.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:17:39 1995
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 10:13:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: gpoirier
Subject: Re: Pressure from the community
Who was it who said `patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel'?
cheers JRIC
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:17:39 1995
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 10:37:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: "Stockman, Robert"
Subject: Re: Gems of Mysteries
Rob: Many, many thanks; if this procedure can be worked through
successfully, I think it will be very good for WO and for the community,
since there are many wonderful Tablets that the friends are eager to read
and there are a fair number of individuals in the North American
community now who are equipped to tackle this demanding task, however
inadequate their efforts must ultimately be.
cheers Juan
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:17:40 1995
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 10:44:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: "Stockman, Robert"
Subject: Re: rijal/men and local houses of justice
An interesting idea. Rijal-i buyut-i `adliyyih or the men of the houses
of justice could indeed refer to all levels, local, national and
universal. There seems to be a parallelism in the Tablet between civil
parliaments with a general responsibility to implement Baha'i principles
and Baha'i assemblies, with their specific charge.
My point that it is not only the Universal House of Justice that is
referred to as "men" stands.
cheers Juan
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:17:40 1995
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 11:36:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Service of Women on the Universal House of Justice
Rob:
1) With regard to your computer problems, there is definitely something
wrong with the Lotus system at National; it should not lock up simply
because you get a cc. And the likelihood you can train all Talismanians
not to cc you is small. You may have to switch to a personal account for
this purpose.
2) With regard to the issue of women on the House, a lot of the comments
seem to me positivist because they are not informed by a theory of
jurisprudence. Admittedly, Baha'is do not yet have one.
But I should explain some of the principles by which I am operating, just
so I don't seem loony (well, maybe there is no way to avoid that).
1. Revelation (vahy) is specific to Baha'u'llah. It has supreme
authority. It cannot be directly contradicted except by another verse of
Revelation. Where anything Baha'u'llah said seems to be different from
something another Baha'i leader has said, Baha'u'llah's statement trumps
all others. Only Baha'u'llah had the authority to reveal legislation
(shari`ah).
2. The Universal House of Justice was given the authority to legislate
on matters not covered in Baha'u'llah's divinely-revealed legislation
(shari`ah, `ibadat). The relevant verse is Ishraq 8:
"The men of God's House of Justice have been charged with the affairs of
the people [millat, the Baha'i community] . . . All matters of State
(siyasat) should be referred to the House of Justice, but acts of worship
(`ibadat) must be observed according to that which God hath revealed in
His Book.
I maintain that Baha'u'llah never legislated the exclusion of women from
the Universal House of Justice. His use of the word "rijal/men" is
not decisive for all the reasons I gave before. The lack of men on the
House is not a matter therefore of shari`ah (revealed Law) or of "acts of
worship" (`ibadat). It is, however, an affair of State (siyasat), a
matter of policy of the sort that the Universal House of Justice has been
authorized to legislate on by Baha'u'llah.
3. Baha'u'llah also appointed `Abdu'l-Baha the Interpreter (mubayyin) of
Baha'u'llah's verses. I accept that where `Abdu'l-Baha has made a clear
and unambiguous ruling, it forms a precedent that must enter Baha'i law
and practice. However, `Abdu'l-Baha did not have the authority to Reveal
Law (shari`ah) and repeatedly denied that he could do so. His rulings
must be based upon Baha'u'llah's text (thus, it is easy to extrapolate
NSAs from Baha'u'llah's comments about the nature and duty of houses of
justice). Finally, there is a well-known principle of Islamic law that
room for interpretation emerges where the text explicitly mentions the
`illah or reason for a piece of legislation. Thus, Baha'u'llah does not
forbid cocaine. But he forbids whatever clouds the mind. Thus, cocaine
is forbidden. Now, `Abdu'l-Baha initially forbade membership on houses
of justice *tout court* on the grounds (`illah) that Baha'u'llah referred
to their members as men. Later he reversed himself and allowed women on
local houses of justice. He therefore gives every evidence of having
abrogated (naskh) his earlier `illah/grounds. Shoghi Effendi, also an
authoritative Interpreter, appears to have made no new ruling but simply
to have depended upon the 1902 letter, apparently having thought it the
last word.
4. My conclusion is that since membership of women on the Universal
House of Justice is an affair of State (siyasat); since Baha'u'llah did
not explicitly exclude women and it is therefore not a revealed matter of
worship (`ibadat); since `Abdu'l-Baha initially felt the use of rijal/men
excluded women but subsequently abrogated (naskh) this grounds (`illah)
for their exclusion and therefore the Interpretive Institution has left
ambiguities; since `Abdu'l-Baha does not use the future tense but only
says women may not serve on the House in the present (1913); since he
says the wisdom of this will become clear in the future (and since any
future wisdom could be such as to make it clear why women could not serve
in the 20th century but might in the 21st);
*therefore* the Universal House of Justice has competence to undertake a
thorough study of the issue and legislate on it. As we all know, the
House's legislative function can take precedence over what it considers
incomplete interpretation, since there are provisions for it to
over-rule by majority vote a sitting Guardian.
As for Rob's objection:
1. "The 1902 letters excludes women from all kinds of House of
Justice": This is an interpretation of the letter, which says women
are excluded from "the" House of Justice. This could mean (1) the
Chicago House of Justice; (2) all Houses of Justice; (3) the Universal
House of Justice. `Abdu'l-Baha's tablet makes no reference to
"Chicago" at all. Corinne True's letter does refer to Chicago early
on, but when she asks about Houses of Justice she asks about "the"
House of Justice as well (she is ambiguous). And we don't know how
the translator summarized her letter, so we don't know what question
`Abdu'l-Baha was really answering. He could also have chosen to
answer a different question than He was asked, something He
occasionally did.
Cole: There was no controversy in 1902 about the Universal House of
Justice. The controversy was about the Chicago House of Justice. In
context, the only way to read the 1902 letter is as an attempt to resolve
that controversy by saying that women are excluded from the (institution
of) the house of justice, tout court. The possibilities you are raising
are ahistorical.
Stockman:
Now, CONCLUSIONS:
1. The 1909 tablet, I would argue, clarifies the 1902 tablet and
allows us to conclude that its true meaning was (3), that is, "the"
House of Justice meant "Universal House of Justice" all along. Maybe
`Abdu'l-Baha tolerated the ambiguity because He did not feel the
Chicago community was ready for women to serve on its governing body.
Or maybe because of lack of translation He was entirely unaware of the
problems there.
If this is true, it would explain why Shoghi Effendi and his
secretaries frequently referred to the 1902 tablet as the proof that
women could not serve on the Universal House of Justice. Shoghi
Effendi knew "the" House of Justice meant "Universal" House of
Justice.
Cole:
Rob: Please reconsider this entire line of argument. It is ex post
facto, a logical fallacy. You can't decide the meaning of a 1902 letter
by reading back from a 1909 one; and there is every evidence that Shoghi
Effendi's secretary thought the 1902 letter the last word. It is not
necessary to do this sort of violence to history to make the points you
want to make.
Stockman:
Two other matters: I see no connection between the International
Baha'i Council and the House of Justice; we know they weren't the same
body, and the Council had a head who wasn't the Guardian whereas the
House has to have the Guardian as head, so I see no reason to push the
analogy very far and say if women served on the Council, they can
serve on the House. If this is true, Remey can be Guardian.
Cole:
I think Ahmad Aniss's recent posting has undermined this line of argument
pretty decisively, and retract the suggestion.
Stockman:
As for the tablet where Baha'u'llah *clearly* says local houses of
justice must choose the world language: I have not seen the tablet and
would need to study it to discuss it intelligently. But I see no
problem if `Abdu'l-Baha, in His broad powers of interpretation, says
"rajal" means only men in the case of the Universal House of Justice,
but *mutatis mutandis* rajal can be extended to women in other cases.
That's the creative power of `Abdu'l-Baha's interpretation. We may
not like it, and may not regard it as logical, but that is within His
power.
-- Rob Stockman
Cole:
Sorry, Rob. I cannot accept this statement. It is incompatible with
reason and with the unity of science and religion. If I had wanted a
religion based on inconsistent fiat, I could have found plenty of others.
I think the Baha'i Faith is a religion of laws, not of men. And I have
given my legal reasoning above.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:17:40 1995
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 11:40:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: Rick Schaut
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Covenantal issues
Rick: Sorry about the bad-tasting porridge; I never was much of a cook.
I think the problem is that I misunderstood what exactly you meant by
raising "covenantal" issues. I think subsequent posts show that others
understood it as I did.
The problem is that some of the friends use "covenant" as a means of
disciplining others' discourse. I now see that you did not intend that
at all.
But I still cannot understand quite what you *did* intend. Is it that
the discussion has not been sufficiently concerned to understand the
nature and evolution of institutional authority in the Faith?
cheers Juan
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:17:41 1995
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 18:26:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: Rick Schaut
Subject: RE: Re[2]: *Subverting the House*? (fwd)
Rick, Rick--nobody at all is talking about you in this matter. It is
Robert Johnston who caused all the fuss. You're a sincere and
intelligent correspondent and I've always felt your good intentions and
love for the Faith and the friends; I'm sure others have, as well.
cheers Juan
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:17:41 1995
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 18:52:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: covenant
I think a deepening on the types of authority and their evolution in the
Baha'i Faith would be a good joint Talisman subject.
I would be glad to make some postings, some from untranslated Tablets,
that would help in tracing this subject, but I cannot do it all by myself.
Let me begin by pointing out that in the cultural context within which
Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha operated, a distinction existed between
Revelation (vahy) and inspiration (ilham). Revelation pertains solely to
the Manifestation of God. Part of the task of Revelation is
divinely-revealed Legislation (shari`ah, verb: shara`a). Revelation and
divine Legislation are the sole prerogatives of the Manifestation.
`Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi, despite their differing stations, both
had the function of Interpretation (tabyin). Neither had the prerogative
of divine Legislation (i.e. revealing shari`ah). And neither can
contradict the explicit text of Baha'u'llah.
For instance, Baha'u'llah said in the Aqdas that no Prophet can come for
a thousand years. The Interpreter cannot say,"this is metaphorical; in
fact a certain kind of Prophet can come; in fact, I am such a prophet."
It will be said that neither `Abdu'l-Baha nor Shoghi Effendi would
wilfully contradict Baha'u'llah. And this is true.
However, there were limitations on their Interpretation. The main
limitation is information. Baha'u'llah authored 15,000 documents; only
7,000 or so are even extant. These were not collected and indexed.
There may be instances where `Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi said
something without full access to the Revealed Text.
Now, one explicit text of Baha'u'llah says, "imruz ima'u'llah az rijal
mahsub" (Payam-i Malakut): "Today, the handmaidens of God are accounted
as men." Moreover, as my earlier post on women should make clear,
Baha'u'llah's entire theory of gender attributes saw them as detached
from biology and distributed among the sexes without regard to biology.
`Abdu'l-Baha also denies biology as a sole basis for distinguishing women.
I accept that `Abdu'l-Baha had the right to set policy, as head of the
Faith, and to exclude women from the Chicago House of Justice in 1902
(this is what He did, and he was in close enough contact with the Friends
to know how the letter was interpreted), *despite* Baha'u'llah's Revealed
Word quoted above. This is because the head of the faith is in charge of
implementation of the divine Revelation, which may be implemented gradually.
But I simply do not accept that any essential principle of Baha'u'llah
could be forever set aside. `Abdu'l-Baha's rulings show a trajectory
toward inclusion, and that in itself is part of His interpretive legacy.
The Baha'i Faith began in a heavily patriarchal, gender-segregated
society; it began by being highly patriarchal and by excluding women from
the Baha'i administration. It has gradually moved toward the ideal of
gender inclusiveness. For it to stop here simply brings patriarchy in
again through the back door.
Besides, biotechnology and genetic research is advancing so rapidly that
it is possible that in half a century gender will be a matter of choice
(it already is to some extent). Then what?
cheers Juan Cole, History, Univ. of Michigan
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:17:42 1995
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 22:03:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: Dan Orey
Subject: Re: Re- *Subverting the Hous
Dan: many thanks. Remember that `Abdu'l-Baha's family and loved ones,
persons close to Baha'u'llah, for the most part considered him a
subverter of the Covenant. If it could happen to Him . . .
I'd love to see the questions. The best address is Juan Cole,
Department of History, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1045.
cheers Juan
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:17:42 1995
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 22:12:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: Rick Schaut
Subject: RE: Re[2]: *Subverting the House*? (fwd)
Rick: Good! But I do care how you feel; you are my Baha'i brother, and
my pleasure in any increase of understanding we gain here would be much
diminished if that were placed in jeopardy.
cheers Juan
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:17:43 1995
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 10:51:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: Steven Kolins
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: covenant
Thanks to Steven Kolins for questions on my posting about the Covenant.
On Wed, 30 Aug 1995, Steven Kolins wrote:
>Cole:
>
> > Let me begin by pointing out that in the cultural context within which
> > Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha operated, a distinction existed between
> > Revelation (vahy) and inspiration (ilham). Revelation pertains solely to
> > the Manifestation of God. Part of the task of Revelation is
> > divinely-revealed Legislation (shari`ah, verb: shara`a). Revelation and
> > divine Legislation are the sole prerogatives of the Manifestation.
Kohlins:
> Where does it say that?
>
> Then what is the Book of Revelations?
>
> What of the levels of function of a Greater and Lesser Prophet - are
> they prone, or limited to, one class or another?
>
> What about 'Abdu'l-Baha, who occupies something like a posiiton which
> has never appeared in history ( i think i recall some comment along
> those lines from somewhere,) ?
The Book of Revelation is a Christian work in Greek and derives from a
different paradigm than the Islamic, Babi and Baha'i one I am
discussion. The word I am glossing as "Revelation" in Arabic is wahy.
In Islamic theology, and also in Baha'i scripture, it is a special
attribute of Prophets. Examples of how the word is used can be found in
Gleanings 120-121, 140; and ESW 80, as well, of course, as throughout the
Qur'an. Minor Prohets experience wahy or divine Revelation as well as
major Manifestations of God. The legislating of a divine Law or
shari`ah, however, is solely an attribute of major Manifestations of God
(examples of this use of *shari`ah* are in Iqan, 38, 176-177; ESW 15;
Promised Day is Come pp. 119-120 (a quote from the Master).
`Abdu'l-Baha's position is unique. However, it is at least analogous to
that of `Ali in Shi`ite Islam, the first Imam. In any case, no Baha'i
text ever speaks of `Abdu'l-Baha receiving wahy/Revelation or being in a
position to legislate (shara`a) divine Law (shari`ah). `Abdu'l-Baha was
accused of these things by the Covenant-Breakers and denied making any
such claims. What `Abdu'l-Baha received was Inspiration (ilham). And
his role was that of Interpreter or clarifier of texts (mubayyin), as
well, of course, as head of the Faith during his lifetime.
One problem Baha'i scholars and administrators will have is sorting out
the things `Abdu'l-Baha said that are for all time from his immediate
reaction to specific situations. He says at one point that women should
cover their arms and hair; when he was shown an American dance hall he
complained that mixed dancing causes corruption; and so on and so forth.
On many issues, especially that of the position of women, he clearly
changed his mind over time. And not everything he says is the same as
Shoghi Effendi's later practice.
As we enter the latter part of the second Baha'i century, without a
Guardian, we are going to have to sort out these contradictions. I
propose that we must give the highest priority to the wahy or divine
Revelation of Baha'u'llah; that we must contextualize statements of
`Abdu'l-Baha and the Guardian that change over time; and that we must
recognize the full scope of the legislative authority of the Universal
House of Justice. Otherwise, we will rigidify in a way that Baha'u'llah
strove mightily to prevent; the whole idea of having a Universal House of
Justice (Ishraq 8) was to avoid rigidity and stagnation.
> >
> > `Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi, despite their differing stations, both
> > had the function of Interpretation (tabyin). Neither had the prerogative
> > of divine Legislation (i.e. revealing shari`ah). And neither can
> > contradict the explicit text of Baha'u'llah.
> Then how did 'Abdu'l-Baha create (?) the Universal, National, and
> Local Houses?
Baha'u'llah explicitly ordained local houses of justice and the Universal
House of Justice. I believe national houses of justice may be implied in
some of His untranslated Tablets. `Abdu'l-Baha was acting here, not as a
legislator, but as an Interpreter.
> >
> > For instance, Baha'u'llah said in the Aqdas that no Prophet can come for
> > a thousand years. The Interpreter cannot say,"this is metaphorical; in
> > fact a certain kind of Prophet can come; in fact, I am such a prophet."
> >
>
> Certainly they were in a better position to know what they were
> basing their decision on, and had the spiritual station to know the
> limits of their authority. Cannot one then assume that they acted
> within their province?
They knew the limits of their authority and acted in good faith. They
did not, however, have perfect information. With the digitalization of
Baha'i scriptures, and the increasing ability to do keyword searches, the
Universal House of Justice increasingly is in a better position to know
everything Baha'u'llah said on a subject than was either `Abdu'l-Baha or
Shoghi Effendi.
> >
> > Now, one explicit text of Baha'u'llah says, "imruz ima'u'llah az rijal
> > mahsub" (Payam-i Malakut): "Today, the handmaidens of God are accounted
> > as men." Moreover, as my earlier post on women should make clear,
> > Baha'u'llah's entire theory of gender attributes saw them as detached
> > from biology and distributed among the sexes without regard to biology.
> > `Abdu'l-Baha also denies biology as a sole basis for distinguishing women.
> >
>
> Has there been any interpritate comment on this line by authorized
> figures? Is this an accepted translation of this line or just
> literal, or personal? I am reminded that a reference of "salty lips"
> was translated as "sugar honeyed lips" i beleive because of the
> appropriate referent in the respective cultures. What are the choices
> you are making in this translation < not that i can even affirm them,
> but i can at least act with greater understanding>.
`Abdu'l-Baha quoted the phrase, but does not appear to have delivered a
commentary on it. I am unaware that the beloved Guardian cited it or
translated it. The original contains no metaphors and the translation is
my provisional one; the translation is not problematic; ask any of our
Eastern friends here.
imruz= today; ima'=handmaidens; Allah=God; az=among; rijal=men (or
notables); mahsub=accounted, reckoned.
It has been suggested by some that the phrase merely refers to spiritual
stations and has no social implications. Since, however, the Qur'an
already recognized the *spiritual* equality of men and women, there is no
reason for Baha'u'llah to put this idea forward as in some way
distinctive, by saying *imruz*, *today*. If we want a religion in which
women have only a spiritual equality with men, but are subjected to
patriarchal domination in practical life, then even Khomeinism would
affirm this idea; why not just stay Muslims?
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:17:44 1995
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 23:56:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: S&W Michael
Subject: Re: Women/UHJ
Shoghi Effendi was no doubt aware of the quotes; I am not aware that he
commented on them and therefore simply have no way of knowing what he
thought of them.
cheers Juan
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:17:44 1995
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 00:40:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: Rick Schaut
Subject: RE: covenant
Thanks for a cogent set of arguements. I confess myself tired right now
of the other subject, but would love to discuss the evolution and types
of authority in the Faith and how they might work together in the
post-Guardian period.
Rick has clearly laid out some types of authority, and perhaps the
central ones can be diagrammed (this is not meant to be exhaustive):
Authority Figure Types of Authority
Baha'u'llah Revelation (wahy); divine Legislation (shari`ah);
abrogation of past laws and of his own earlier laws
(naskh); Head of the Faith (policy-setter with regard
to the immediate situation in his own lifetime).
`Abdu'l-Baha Interpretation (tabyin) through Inspiration (ilham); Head of
the Faith (Center of the Covenant).
Shoghi Effendi Interpretation (tabyin) through Inspiration
(ilham); Head of the Faith (as Guardian)
Universal House of
Justice Contingent legislation (tashri`); Head of the Faith.
Beyond recognition of these types of authority, however, we do need some
basic principles of jurisprudence in order to know who to proceed in
settling any particular contentious issue.
Some principles can be derived from scripture, and I can give some random
examples; citations will be forthcoming at request:
1. Baha'u'llah says that His later verses can abrogate earlier ones (the
prescription of an auxiliary language and then the abrogation of this
principle in favor of one exclusive language is a case in point).
2. `Abdu'l-Baha says that what is not forbidden in the Scriptures is
allowed. Thus, we don't need to get permission from the House to use
computers, just because they did not exist in the time of Baha'u'llah.
(Some Muslims, especially in Saudi Arabia, believe the opposite--that
what is not explicitly permitted is forbidden).
3. The law must be consistent in some essential ways. Thus, all
individuals must have the same rights under the law. I would like to
argue for a principle of what Dworkin calls integrity, but this issue
needs more study.
4. There is a difference between collective obligations and individual
ones. Thus, Shoghi Effendi says it would be wrong for an individual
Baha'i not to provide for his or her spouse in a will, despite the
inheritance divisions given in the Aqdas.
I instance these points simply to demonstrate that we are not at the
mercy of raw texts, and that principles of Baha'i jurisprudence do exist
and can be extrapolated.
How various strands of authority can produce contradictions over time is
clear in the issue of Baha'i nonparticipation in politics.
1. Baha'u'llah never forbade the Friends from participating in politics;
he did forbid them from committing (irtikab) crimes against the state.
In fact, Baha'u'llah commanded the friends to support parliamentary
governance, belief in which was quite illegal in Iran and the Ottoman
Empire, so his position was highly political. During Baha'u'llah's
lifetime Iranian Baha'is served as provincial governors and treasurers,
and in other high government posts.
2. `Abdu'l-Baha also allowed the friends to occupy high government
posts. He went back and forth on participation in politics. He
supported the Iranian Constitutional Revolution of 1905-1909 in its first
stages, and urged the Friends to try to elect a Hand to the parliament.
Then in 1908 when the shah made a countercoup, `Abdu'l-Baha commanded the
friends to lapse into neutrality. He continued to make highly political
statements, however. In the US he praised the party of Union and
Progress (the Young Turks) who contested elections in the Ottoman Empire;
and he made remarks about the growing Palestine issue. During his lifetime
American Baha'is belonged to political parties and some served in elected
office.
3. Shoghi Effendi attempted to disengage Baha'is from politics
altogether, forbidding them from belonging to political parties; from
holding high governmental office; and ultimately, even from discussing
politics (and discouraging them from entering fields such as journalism
where such discussion is unavoidable).
There are, clearly, several policies here. What is Interpretation and
what is contingent policy?
I would argue that the practice during Baha'u'llah's time is ultimately
normative. He was the Author of divine Revelation, and the Legislator of
Baha'i Law (shari`ah). He did not forbid engagement in politics nor
membership in political parties; indeed, he advocated what were at the
time radical democratic values. What is not forbidden is permitted.
I would see `Abdu'l-Baha's 1908 letter urging neutrality as a matter of
temporary policy, which even contradicted his stances in 1906. Likewise,
I see the extreme disengagement from political life in the time of the
Guardian as temporary and strategic (it seems to me that world politics
was particularly polarized in the 1920s-50s, what with the rise of
Fascism, WW II, and then the Cold War, which I think is the context of
the Guardian's policy).
When Baha'is become a majority in a parliamentary democracy, they will
have a duty to take part in the country's affairs; anything else would be
irresponsible. [Please note that I am not advocating an immediate end to
the ban on politics; this is for the Universal House of Justice to
decide. I am discussing the issue abstractly.]
I put forward the case of politics, not in order to discuss it itself,
but simply to show the ways in which contradictions over time
certainly exist but can be resolved through study of context and through
the development of a theory of jurisprudence. I would argue that the
conundrum of women on the House is at least somewhat illumined by the
parallel case of noninvolvement in politics.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:18:42 1995
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 19:18:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: revelation and inspiration
Further to our mini-deepening on the Covenant:
I had pointed out that in the Islamic, Babi and Baha'i Writings,
Revelation (wahy) is only received by Prophets, whereas other, lesser
holy figures receive inspiration (ilham).
Here is what `Abdu'l-Baha says, from Ma'idih-yi Asmani, 9:122:
"You wrote concerning Revelation (vahy). The most pure Imams were
dawning-points of Inspiration (ilham) and manifestations of the emanation
of the All-Merciful. Revelation (vahy) was confined (ikhtisas) to the
Messenger (Muhammad). For this reason, we do not say that the word of
the most pure Imams is the Divine Word, rather we see it as Inspiration
(ilham) from the All-Merciful."
I think the purport of this message can be applied also to the Baha'i
Faith, and this is supported also by the Persian text of SAQ, though that
is so badly translated that such a point is entirely unclear in the English.
That is, only Manifestations of God receive wahy (Persian vahy) or divine
Revelation, and only their words and writings can be called the Word of God.
I went through all the texts I could find about `Abdu'l-Baha's station in
Arabic and Persian, and again, found no evidence that He was given, or
ever claimed, any authority to Legislate divine Law (shari`ah). I think
His contributions in the Will and Testament must be seen as judicial
activism rather than as formal legislation.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From anlee@eis.calstate.eduTue Oct 3 12:19:17 1995
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 16:34:01 -0800 (PST)
From: "Anthony A. Lee"
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Infallibility
The following is a letter from the Universal House of Justice that sheds
some light on the question of infallibility with regard to matters of
Baha'i history. Reprinted at request.
______________
The Universal House of Justice
Baha'i World Centre
Haifa, Israel
July 25, 1974
(Name)
Dear Baha'i Friend,
We have received your letter stating you were disturbed by
statements made in your deepening class regarding the infallibility of
the beloved Guardian and we appreciate your concern.
According to your letter, this question arose in connection with
Shoghi Effendi's references in GOD PASSES BY to historical events, and
his descriptions of the characters of opponents of the Faith,
particularly that of Haji Mirza Aqasi. Letters written on behalf of the
Guardian by his secretary to individuals who asked similar questions
clearly define the sphere of the Guardian's infallibility. We quote from
two of these, one written in 1944, and the second in in 1956.
"The infallibility of the Guardian is confined to
matters which are elated strictly to the Cause and
interpretations of the Teachings; he is not an infallible
authority on other subjects, such as economics, science, etc."
"The Guardian's infallibility covers interpretation of
the revealed word, and its application. Likewise any
instructions he may issue having to do with the pro-
tection of the Faith, or its well-being must be closely
obeyed, as he is infallible in the protection of the Faith.
He is assured the guidance of both Baha'u'llah and the
Bab, as the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha clearly reveals."
Now, in the matter of the accuracy of historical fact, Shoghi
Effendi had to rely on available information. For example, on page 5 of
GOD PASSES BY, he refers to Haji Mirza Aqasi as ". . . the idolized tutor
of Muhammad Shah, a vulgar, false-hearted and fickleminded schemer . .
." An appropriate and pertinent quotation supporting that
characterization can be found in P. M. Sykes's A HISTORY OF PERSIA,
Volume 2, pages 439-440, which appears as a footnote on page 233 of
NABIL'S NARRATIVE:
"The state of Persia, however, was not satisfactory; for
Haji Mirza Aqasi, who had been its virtual ruler for thir-
teen years, 'was utterly ignorant of statesmanship or of
military science, yet too vain to receive instruction and
too jealous to admit of a coadjutor; brutal in his language;
insolent in his demeanour; indolent in his habits; he
brought the exchequer to the verge of bankruptcy and the
country to the brink of revolution . . ." Such--to adopt
the weighty words of Rawlinson--was the condition of Persia
in the middle of the nineteenth century."
The Guardian was meticulous about the authenticity of historical
fact. One of the friends in Yazd wrote to him stating that the account
given by 'Abdu'l-Baha in one of His Tablets about events related to the
martyrdom of some of the believers in that place sas in conflict with
known facts about these events. Shoghi Effendi replied saying that the
friends should investigate the facts carefully and unhesitatingly
register them in their historical records, since 'Abdu'l-Baha Himself had
prefaced His recording of the events in His Tablet with a statement that
it was based on news received from Yazd.
It is a great pity if some of the friends fail to recognize the
matchless prose to be found in the Guardian's writings. Shoghi Effendi's
masterly use of the English language makes the meaning abundantly clear,
and that is an essential quality of great works.
. . . (Personal greetings deleted.)
With warmest Baha'i greetings,
THE UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE
cc: National Spiritual Assembly of the United States
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Oct 3 12:19:17 1995
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 12:22:29 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole
To: jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: infallibility
--------------------------
The Universal House of Justice
Baha'i World Centre
Haifa, Israel
July 25, 1974
(Name)
Dear Baha'i Friend,
We have received your letter stating you were disturbed by
statements made in your deepening class regarding the infallibility of
the beloved Guardian and we appreciate your concern.
According to your letter, this question arose in connection with
Shoghi Effendi's references in GOD PASSES BY to historical events, and
his descriptions of the characters of opponents of the Faith,
particularly that of Haji Mirza Aqasi. Letters written on behalf of the
Guardian by his secretary to individuals who asked similar questions
clearly define the sphere of the Guardian's infallibility. We quote from
two of these, one written in 1944, and the second in in 1956.
"The infallibility of the Guardian is confined to
matters which are elated strictly to the Cause and
interpretations of the Teachings; he is not an infallible
authority on other subjects, such as economics, science, etc."
"The Guardian's infallibility covers interpretation of
the revealed word, and its application. Likewise any
instructions he may issue having to do with the pro-
tection of the Faith, or its well-being must be closely
obeyed, as he is infallible in the protection of the Faith.
He is assured the guidance of both Baha'u'llah and the
Bab, as the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha clearly reveals."
Now, in the matter of the accuracy of historical fact, Shoghi
Effendi had to rely on available information. For example, on page 5 of
GOD PASSES BY, he refers to Haji Mirza Aqasi as ". . . the idolized tutor
of Muhammad Shah, a vulgar, false-hearted and fickleminded schemer . .
." An appropriate and pertinent quotation supporting that
characterization can be found in P. M. Sykes's A HISTORY OF PERSIA,
Volume 2, pages 439-440, which appears as a footnote on page 233 of
NABIL'S NARRATIVE:
"The state of Persia, however, was not satisfactory; for
Haji Mirza Aqasi, who had been its virtual ruler for thir-
teen years, 'was utterly ignorant of statesmanship or of
military science, yet too vain to receive instruction and
too jealous to admit of a coadjutor; brutal in his language;
insolent in his demeanour; indolent in his habits; he
brought the exchequer to the verge of bankruptcy and the
country to the brink of revolution . . ." Such--to adopt
the weighty words of Rawlinson--was the condition of Persia
in the middle of the nineteenth century."
The Guardian was meticulous about the authenticity of historical
fact. One of the friends in Yazd wrote to him stating that the account
given by 'Abdu'l-Baha in one of His Tablets about events related to the
martyrdom of some of the believers in that place sas in conflict with
known facts about these events. Shoghi Effendi replied saying that the
friends should investigate the facts carefully and unhesitatingly
register them in their historical records, since 'Abdu'l-Baha Himself had
prefaced His recording of the events in His Tablet with a statement that
it was based on news received from Yazd.
It is a great pity if some of the friends fail to recognize the
matchless prose to be found in the Guardian's writings. Shoghi Effendi's
masterly use of the English language makes the meaning abundantly clear,
and that is an essential quality of great works.
. . . (Personal greetings deleted.)
With warmest Baha'i greetings,
THE UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE
cc: National Spiritual Assembly of the United States
August 22, 1977
The Universal House of Justice
Baha'i World Centre
Haifa, Israel
Dear Baha'i Friend:
The Universal House of Justice received your letter
of 26 June seeking clarification on the infallibility of
the Guardian and of the Universal House of Justice. We
have been asked to convey the following to you.
As the three questions you have raised are
interrelated, it will be conducive to a clearer
understanding of the issues involved if these questions
are considered together.
Shoghi Effendi was asked several times during his
ministry to define the sphere of his operation and his
infallibility. The replies he gave and which were written
on his behalf are most illuminating. He explains that he
is not an infallible authority on subjects such as
economics and science, nor does he go into technical
matters since his infallibility is confined to "matters
which are related strictly to the Cause." He further
points out that "he is not, like the Prophet, omnicient at
will," that his "infallibility covers interpretation of
the revealed word and its application," and that he is
also "infallible in the protection of the Faith."
Furthermore, in one of the letters, the following
guideline is set forth:
". . . It is not for individual believers to limit the
sphere of the Guardian's authority, or to judge when they
have to obey the Guardian and when they are free to reject
his judgment. Such an attitude would evidently lead to
confusion and to schism. The Guardian being the appointed
interpreter of the Teachings, it is his responsibility to
state what matters which, affacting the interests of the
Faith, demand on the part of the believers complete and
unqualified obedience to his instructions."
It must always be remembered that authoritative
interpretation of the Teachings was, after 'Abdu'l-Baha,
the exclusive right of the Guardian, and fell within the
"sacred and prescribed domain" of the Guardianship, and
therefore the Universal House of Justice cannot and will
not infringe upon that domain. The exclusive sphere of
the Universal House of Justice is to "promounce upon and
deliver the final judgment on such laws and ordinances as
Baha'u'llah has not expressly revealed." Apart from this
fundamental difference in the functions of the twin
pillars of the Order of Baha'u'llah, insofar as the other
duties of the Head of the Faith are concerned, the
Universal House of Justice shares with the Guardian the
responsibility for the application of the revealed word,
the protection of the Faith, as well as the duty "to
insure the continuity of that divinely-appointed authority
which flows from the Source of our Faith, to safefuard the
unity of its followers, and to maintain the integrity and
flexibility of its Teachings." However, the Universal
House of Justice is not omniscient; like the Guardian, it
wants to be provided with facts when called upon to render
a decision, and like him it may well change its decision
when new facts emerge. . . .
The Universal House of Justice assures you of its
loving prayers on your behalf.
With warm Baha'i greetings,
For the Department of the Secretariat
From momen@northill.demon.co.ukTue Oct 3 12:21:01 1995
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 95 00:38:40
From: Wendi and Moojan Momen
To: talisman@ucs.indiana.edu
Subject: Re: MacEoin transl. 1-1
As no-one else has attempted Sen's questions, I will have a go. I have
not however compared MacEoin's tranlation with the original text -- no
time at present I am afraid.
In article: <01HUL0VHQJ2Q0003J5@RLMAT1.RULIMBURG.NL> Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl writes:
> Sen's questions - gloss please:
> - the land of the Red Sand-dune,
> - the Sura al Fajr
Sura 89 of Qur'an
> - al-Kawthar
Sura 108 of Qur'an
> - the takbir
Saying "Allahu Akbar"
> - the temple of your love - presumably a prayer posture?
> Also the temple of prophethood
> - ...in the accent of its revelation: ie Meccan pronunciation,
> or is that too literal?
I have not checked the original but I would guess this is a
reference to the fact that there is an accepted taught way of
reciting the Qur'an which is supposed to be the way that
Muhammad himself recited it.
> - the prayers that follow, that are concealed by the truth
> - the paths of allusion (subUl al-ishAra)
I cannot say for sure without looking at the original but I would
guess that it balances the SabIl al-BayAn in some way. The first
refers to hints and allusions, the second to open explanation
> - then await the call of your Lord. - the adhan?
> - the SUra al-Tawhid
> - the signs of your ascent (fI AyAt mi`rAjika)
The Mir`aj is the night-ascent of Muhammad to Heaven which many Muslims
consider to be a physical event, but which Baha'is would consider to
have been a spiritual event, see Qur'an 17:1.
I would translate it as "spiritual ascent"
>
>
> and:
> What is going on with the donkey? A joke?
> If those asleep at dawn are deprived of their share of
> sustenance, how come I get no thinner?
I think it must be the midnight feasts at De Poort that do the damage
>
--
Wendi and Moojan Momen
momen@northill.demon.co.uk
Tel./Fax: (44) 1767 627626
From momen@northill.demon.co.ukTue Oct 3 12:21:01 1995
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 95 12:26:15
From: Wendi and Moojan Momen
To: talisman@ucs.indiana.edu
Subject: Re: textual bias
In message <85656.frlw@midway.uchicago.edu> Frank Lewis writes:
> ...it ignores the obvious fact that Abdul-Baha was in a position to
> receive oral instructions from Baha that may never have been written down
> and that, by virtue of being involved in or aware of various situations
> first hand, AB was much better able to contextualize the various
> instructions and statements given by Baha'u'llah than we are now able to do.
> The same holds true for SE. It strikes me that the function of interpreting
> or expounding the meaning of a religion does not rest solely, and perhaps
> not even primarily, on texts. It seems to me that the meaning of texts is
> also shaped by the kerygma or life-history of the author and the oral
> give-and-take that the author has with friends interested in understanding
> what was meant. . .
> yours, Frank Lewis
The following comments may be of some interest, but on the other hand
maybe not . . .
Frank's words and line of argument remind me strongly of a number of
early Shi`i authors who stressed the closeness between Ali and the
Prophet Muhammad -- how Ali knew of the circumstances of the Revelation
of each verse of the Qur'an and was the recipient of much oral
guidance from the Prophet, to which others were not privy.
In writing about the later Shi`i Imams, however, these same authors
were forced to take a different tack. Some of the later Imams (the 9th,
10th and 11th Imams in particular) became Imams at a very young age
(2 years old in the case of the 11th Imam) when their father was killed
on the orders of the Abbasid caliph. These Imams had obviously had no
close contact with their father. The Shi`i authors therefore in talking
about these Imams emphasise an innate knowledge that came to the Imams
at the moment of death of the previous Imam.
Moojan
--
Wendi and Moojan Momen
From ahmada@acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.auTue Oct 3 12:23:19 1995
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 09:33:50 +1000
From: Ahmad Aniss
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: women's emancipation
Dear Talismanians
Dear derek,
You wrote:
>From owner-talisman@indiana.edu Mon Sep 4 17:35 EST 1995
>Date: Sun, 3 Sep 1995 23:10:44 -0700
>From: derekmc@ix.netcom.com (DEREK COCKSHUT )
>Subject: Re Seed of Creation and Women and the Universal >House of Justice.
>To: talisman@indiana.edu
>
>Much has been posted in the last two weeks on the subject of the
>Seed of Creation and Women.Relating to the concept that women
>will or not serve on the house of Justice ,whether biology relates >to
>Spirituality etc etc. Ahmad Annis has been keen to promote as he
>says 'my theory',to the extent that anyone who has an opposite >view
>he immediate posts a rebuttal,of course this is his prerogative.
As you said it, it is my prerogative to defend an article that I put
forward for the friends to read. I don't ask any body to be
convinced of it. But, if the concept is right (which I think is) then I
am definitely keen to let all people to see for them and to try to
understand it. Isn't Talisman there so that we the friends can freely
go through concepts and Baha'i writings and discuss them and
counter-discuss them so that the truth can shine out of that
consultation. If not what is Talisman for?
>I have to say I find the whole concept that you can relate a
>biological process to understand the spiritual process distasteful
>and contrary to the Writings.
This metaphorical method of defining spiritual concepts is not
unique to my writings. Abdul'-Baha and The Guardian have both
done so. As to distasteful this is your opinion and as such your
prerogative. But being contrary to the writings, I must say
definitely not. You can see an example of that in the recent
Moojan's posting regarding the concept of male and female
principle.
>Clearly Ahmad has his theory and searched the Writings to prove
>it, I have never regarded that as a sound way to understand the
>Revelation of Baha'u'llah. In order to attain true Knowledge one
>must be prepared to let go of the barriers that exist from acquired
>knowledge.
There are many way of taking the writing and study them in order
to understand a topic. But I think majority of friends when they
want to discuss a topic the first thing they do is search the writings
for proves. I don't think you are right to say that is not a sound
way of studying the writings, contrary it is the most correct way of
gathering writings on a topic of discussion.
>His stated background is in the field of Biology, that appears to
>me to be an intellectual' millstone around his neck' in trying to
>grasp the true spiritual ramifications of the equality of women and
>men.
My background is a mixture of Engineering and Physiology. I do
follow the current scientific research but I don't think I allow that
to obscure my understanding of Baha'i concepts, such as equality.
In fact I think it allows me to see or differentiate the difference
between equality and functionality of men and women.
see my previous postings.
>I have shown to 20 different ladies the Annis theory and asked
>them for their imput,I did not make any comment regarding the
>theory in order to get an unbiased view.Without exception they all
>were offended and believed it placed women in an inferior role
>and they took it as a personal affront.We are exhorted to hurt and
>offended no soul, but this theory, whatever the intention,is
>offensive and hurtful.I suggest that Ahmad prays and meditates
>upon the theme he wishes to explore so that he can either find a
>way of expressing it and women are not offend or he discovers he
>is wrong.
As I was not there to see how you presented the article to those
friends, I can not comment on what you saying. It might be hard
for some ardent feminine in our society to accept differences in
functionality and equality. But, I assure you that I have presented
the concept to a number of female friend locally and they can see my
view regardless of whether they accept it or not. I am not here to
please people, I only present the idea and let friends to decide for
themselves , whether they like to approve or disapprove it. but, I
like to take the privilege of defending anything that I post.
>In May 1993 after completing 18 months in the United Kingdom,
>for the most part on a lecture tour, I returned to the United
>States.The letter from the Universal House of Justice on Violence
>and Sexual Abuse of Women and Children had just been released
>in the UK Baha'i Journal.As I was at Bosch and part of the
>Summer School Programme as a Teacher, I shared the letter with
>the Bosch staff. It had not been released in the American Baha'i at
>that time.It was decided to offer it as an afternoon optional
>programme to study it.During the 8 weeks of general sessions
>over 400 people attended the class,that I ran,mainly women about
>30% were men.35 women sought me privately and shared their
>own experiences,I was then and still am at the appalling abuse and
>violence they were been subjected to in their home enviroment.I
>am left with a deep sense of shame at the things my own gender
>are doing to women by men who say they bear the name of Baha.
>It is only in an atmosphere of Trust and Understanding that
>anyone can grow and develop,when women have to exist in a
>world in which men inflict either upon them or someone they
>know pain and suffering.The nagging doubt is always there will I
>be next hardly a recipe for personal development.Putting a woman
>or women on the House of Justice is not the answer to this terrible
>situation,the answer lies in the personal behaviour of men.UN
>state that around 140 million women disappear each year,
>murdered, sold off into a modern type of slavery and other such
>things.
no comments. Mind you, we must separate the issues here,
Woman's emancipation is different to discussion on a new concept.
Perhaps we should discuss that issue as well.
>Women are not given the opportunity to grow and develop within
>the Baha'i Community let alone in the Outside World.
I totally disagree with you. May be we are not trying our best, but
we are trying collectively to that end. As an example in my Baha'i
community (Hurstville) we have woman as Chairman, Vice-chairman,
Secretary and assistant Secratary in our Spiritual Assembly and only
our Tressurer is a man.
>I do not see that being discussed Talisman.I see a lot of men
>pontificating on why women should or should not be on the
>House of Justice and others discussing the merits of the Seed of
>Creation.
Well we are trying to discuss a concept here not the women's
emancipation. I think you should separate the two. It will be nice
to discuss the women's emancipation as a separate issue and try to
better our understanding in that regard.
>You simply do not get it. Baha'i men have to radically change their
>behaviour, it is not for women to change they need to know it is a
>new era in human relationships , to be blunt I see virtually no sign
>of it yet. Women are deeply concerned with the way that society
>treats them collectively and individually, at present they are
>treated badly. Sadly it is not much better in the very Community
>that is supposed to be creating an elevated new lifestyle based
>upon the Teachings of God for today.
I think you are not quite right here. It is both men and women in our society that must change . If you don't see any sign of changes, may be it is you that not looking in the proper perspective. There is changes even if it very gradual.
>What do we do here on Talisman we enter into Theological
>debates on the whys and wherefors of a subject that is already
>decided.
Decided by you? As you confirm in your next sentence or as is
currently collectively in our Faith?
>When the change comes the Universal House of Justice will tell
>us.
I thought we are waiting for its wisdom to appear and not the
change of it according to the writings of our Faith. Am I wrong?
>Why do we not resolve to find ways that can start to change the
>way in which our Community operates towards women. A little
>brainstorming on that could reap far more benefits for women
>than what has been posted so far. It is very difficult for women to
>point out the way that they are treated is simply wrong ,
>Baha'u'llah states in the Writings that the effect of words last for
>100 years. It could be a good thing to contemplate that.
I can not agree more on this with you!
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut.
I hope you don't take this personally, but I think you are confusing
concepts with issues, good will of people with negativity in the
world, and so on. One other suggestion that I have is; please read
your postings before you post them, as There are so much mistakes
in this one.
With Baha'i Love and Fellowship,
Ahmad.
_______________________________________________________________________
^ ^
^ Dr. A.M. Aniss,
Return to Talisman
Translation Page
Baha'i Studies Page
J. Cole Home Page
WebMaster: Juan R.I. Cole
jrcole@umich.edu