>From: Juan Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
>Reply-To: talisman9@onelist.com
>To: talisman9@onelist.com
>Subject: [talisman9] exit interviews
>Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 02:38:10 -0600
>
>From: Juan Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
>
>
>Someone on another list asked about my reply a couple of weeks ago to
Steve
>Marshall's report on 'life in Dunedin'. This is what I told him:
>
>In the US retention rates for Baha'i declarations are only 50%, as
compared
>to 80% for most religious bodies here. One reason for this poor
retention
>rate in my view is that the Baha'is are overly eager to chase people out
of
>the faith for relatively minor instances of non-conformity. My email
>interviews with those who have exited (many of them old Baha'i friends of
>mine from 20-25 years ago whom I rediscovered on the internet and with
whom
>I had had no contact for decades) are not scientifically weighted sample.
>They are intended to be qualitative research lending texture and greater
>specificity to the bare fact that half of those who enroll as Baha'is
>depart the faith.
>
>The only solution I can see to the problem I mentioned, of the overly
>repressive character of Baha'i institutions, is for them to lighten up.
>
>I do not advocate a slackening on matters of principle. But in
almost
>every case of which I have become aware wherein a Baha'i left the faith
>because he or she encountered the 'ceiling,' that ceiling formed no part
of
>scriptural principle.
>
>That is, obviously someone who liked to drink and/or gamble would run the
>risk of losing administrative rights. Some LSAs are more lenient
than
>others, but the risk is there and I would agree that it is unavoidable.
>LSAs are bound by Baha'i laws.
>
>But I was not talking about such clear-cut issues. I was talking
about
>cases such as the following: a young man on an LSA has some doubts
about
>the more repressive aspects of Baha'i administration and wants to consult
>the friends about the problems he sees. The LSA calls in an ABM for
a
>meeting. The ABM snubs the young man with the doubts, actually
flicks his
>nose at him, and treats him like dirt. In another instance, an ABM
>actually grabbed someone around the neck and angrily shouted into his
face,
>spraying saliva, over some difference of opinion.
>
>Or an artist does some Baha'i art but is told by members of the
>institutions that it can't be sold or displayed, whereas he knows another
>artist who is given such lattitude. Or someone's administrative
rights are
>removed by the NSA because of a single email message presenting an
>alternative view of events of a decade before to that of the NSA
secretary.
>
>Or an academic (not me) is threatened by a counselor behind the scenes
with
>being declared a covenant breaker for his researches in Baha'i history and
>thought. Or a devoted long-time Baha'i is interrogated and
threatened by
>two ABMs because he has a more mystical vision of the faith and would like
>to see local houses of worship built.
>Or an ABM and an LSA gang up on a woman who brings her non-Baha'i spouse
to
>the non-administrative portions of feast and orders her to cease in such a
>way as to infuriate her.
>
>One of my colleagues in the History Department here was a Baha'i for 15
>years in Alaska. She told me she left when she had a problem in the
>community and consulted with the LSA and they told her she would just have
>to accept something that she felt was completely unacceptable. I
don't
>know details in this case, but I know the sort of thing she is talking
>about. Baha'i institutions often demand a sort of resigned fatalism
from
>victims of injustice. In one instance I know of, a rape by a
low-level
>employee at the National Baha'i Center in Wilmette, of another employee,
>was covered up by the NSA and the victim was asked not to press charges
>'for the good of the faith.' She became inactive and ultimately left
the
>faith.
>
>In all these cases, two of the victims of repression or injustice remained
>in the faith, but most left. The one who had his administrative
rights
>taken away has been more or less shunned by old Baha'i friends ("the
phone
>stopped ringing.")
>
>Most Baha'is are unaware that there is this relatively hidden hardline
>culture among ABMs and Counselors and many LSAs, and only when they trip
>the wire by some minor act of nonconformity do they encounter it.
Since
>they then often leave, most Baha'is who remain in remain unaware of what
>goes on.
>
>I don't think you can ask a rape victim to cover up the crime against her
>for the good of the faith, and yet retain her ardent loyalty. I
don't
>think you can threaten conscientious Baha'is with being declared covenant
>breakers over some minor email messages and expect them to have the same
>enthusiasm. I blame the people in the Baha'i administration for
acting in
>this hardline way, so at odds with the teachings on tolerance of
>Baha'u'llah and the other holy figures. I do admire the individuals
who
>manage to remain faithful despite being mistreated, but the religion can't
>depend on a few such virtuous souls if it really wants to grow. Most
>people won't put up with being bullied and shepherded and mistreated.
>
>cheers Juan
>
From: jrcole@umich.edu <jrcole@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Copyright and Talisman@indiana.edu
Date: Friday, January 29, 1999 11:04 AM
Talisman@indiana.edu was a public listserv run publicly from a public
university. All the messages are still probably in the Indiana University
Mainframe and they are on hard-drives of subscribers and non-subscribers
all
around the world. They were public in nature and are mirrored at a number
of
Web sites, not only my own.
The messages sent to talk.religion.bahai are likewise public, are
permanently
on the Web, and linking to them or displying them on a Web site simply is
not
a violation of copyright. However, note that in deference to Dr.
Bramson-Lerche, I did agree to remove her name from her public postings,
which was far more than I was required to do under the law. (I checked the
law extensively with University counsel).
Talisman@umich.edu is a private club only with regard to membership. FAQs
have repeatedly informed subscribers that they relinquish copyright when
they
post there.
However, the publication of private letters to individuals with
attribution
is a very different matter. The inability of intelligent persons to
understand a simple distinction between messages sent to a public listserv
with hundreds of subscribers and messages sent privately to a private
individual with expectation of confidentiality is a puzzle to me.
cheers Juan
Juan Cole
History, U of Michigan
https://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai.htm
Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.From: <wahdat@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Universal Declaration of Human Rights & Marshall Case
Date: Friday, April 21, 2000 4:16 AM
From Juan Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
---
<snip>
I don't know if you have seen my article, but I argue that all the basic
provisions of the UDHR are already present in Baha'i scripture. Check
out:
https://www2.h-net.msu.edu/~bahai/bhpapers/vol3/rights.htm
There is no distinction between civil law and religious law in Iran,
either. It is a theocracy. All law is religious law and no law may
be
enacted that contravenes the Muslim canon law. This hegemony of
religious law is guaranteed by the Supreme Jurisprudent, Ali Khamenei
(who happens also to be head of state) and by the Guardianship Council
of clergymen. If the UDHR does not apply to religious institutions, it
does not apply to Shi`ite Islam in Iran, which just happens also to be
running the state. Shi`ites maintain that they are obliged to kill
apostates from Islam such as the Baha'is *because God has so revealed
the immutable Law*. When you tell them that they may not do so, you are
asking them to change their religious beliefs and practices. My
question to you is, on what grounds are you asking Shi`ites to change
*their* beliefs and practices when you say that the UHJ need not change
*its*? Either the UDHR's provisions apply to both or they apply to
neither.
And wouldn't you agree as an ethical matter that it would be better if
Baha'i institutions *did* meet basic human rights standards in their
dealings with Baha'is?
The UDHR is not a law. As with all human rights declarations, it is
a
set of peremptory moral obligations that are being asserted by the
international community. The international community meant to lay these
obligations on *all* organs of society and on all individuals, including
the Baha'is. While the UDHR, not being a law, cannot be employed to
direct Baha'i authorities to behave better than they are behaving, it
most certainly *is* a basis for calling upon Baha'i authorities to adopt
its basic provisions into their procedures. This includes the
desirability of due process, which was not observed in Alison's case.
In the Jehovah's Witness cases I referred to, there is nothing vague.
The church by-laws stipulated that people can only be expelled and
shunned if they do X. The persons shunned had not done X. The
church
leaders just didn't like them personally, so they expelled them. The
court found that you can't arbitrarily have people shunned in
contravention of your own by-laws. I think the case is even stronger in
the Baha'i instance since most Baha'i assemblies are incorporated, and
incorporated bodies are governed by a whole host of civil laws. Fareed
Akhtarekhavari filed a civil lawsuit in Cook County against the NSA for
removing his administrative rights in the early 1990s in a way that
contravened Baha'i practice, and it was not thrown out of court.
However, the NSA mysteriously returned his rights to him and the case
has been dropped.
By the way, there is nothing in US law that makes Golf clubs accept
African-American members, and some still do not. Likewise religious
congregations; as late as the '70s Jimmy Carter had to vote in his
Baptist church to admit blacks. It isn't illegal for a church to
exclude them. My point was that it *would* be illegal, if the
organization had *by-laws* that stipulated that race could not be used
to exclude members. The courts could enforce the organization's own
by-laws against it. I don't see anything anywhere in the constitution of
the UHJ where they can summarily remove members from the rolls; in fact
there seems to be language there about protecting the rights of
individuals. And this was not the practice of any of the Holy Figures or
of Shoghi Effendi. Moreover, the language of Baha'i law appears to
offer Alison guarantees against being persecuted within the religion for
her conscientious beliefs.
In law, precedents also count. All through the 70s and 80s there
were
Baha'is around the world *trying* to get off the membership rolls, and
they were told they'd have to write a letter renouncing Baha'u'llah.
Those who did not write the letter are still on the rolls, against their
will. This has been Baha'i practice for ages. Alison did not write a
letter renouncing Baha'u'llah, and by traditional Baha'i practice she
can't be removed from the rolls. This is not like the Pope disallowing
female priests. This is like the Pope excommunicating a New Zealand
Catholic outside the procedures of canon law and in contravention of all
Catholic law and tradition.
cheers Juan
Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.From: <wahdat@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Universal Declaration of Human Rights & Marshall Case
Date: Saturday, April 22, 2000 3:56 AM
From Juan Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
--
<snip>
Shi`ites don't recognize the Baha'i faith as a separate religion. They
believe Baha'is are Shi`ite heretics. Baha'is are Shi`ite covenant
breakers, since the Shi`ite covenant is that there shall be no more
prophets after Muhammad. Nowadays the Shi`ite covenant also requires
assenting to the absolute authority (vilayat-i faqih) of Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei. Baha'is don't recognize that authority.
If you impose on Shi`ites an outside, external definition of the Baha'is
as a separate religion then you are coercing the religious conscience of
Shi`ites. You are also interfering in the internal affairs of the
Shi`ite religion, which defines Baha'is as heretical Shi`ites and
imposes penalties according to the shari`ah or divinely revealed Islamic
law.
There is not any substantial difference between your interference in
Shi`ite belief and practice and any outside body's interference in
Baha'i procedure. I maintain that I am a liberal Baha'i who is being
unfairly persecuted by the Baha'i fundamentalists who have taken control
of the Institutions. My self-definition is different than that of the
AO, which simply defines me as 'not a Baha'i.' It is the mirror image of
the situation in Iran where Baha'is define themselves as a new religion
but the Shi`ite authorities classify them as Shi`ite heretics. It is
exactly analogous.
The documentation on the McKenny case is at:
https://www2.h-net.msu.edu/~bahai/docs/vol3/mckenny.htm
Neither Alison nor Michael were accused of backbiting or fomenting
disturbance. We have all seen Alison's lovely, kind, spiritual postings
for years on Talisman. In both cases the implicit argument appears to
have been that they rejected some element of the new fundamentalist
-defined orthodoxy of the 1990s, that the UHJ is completely Infallible
in all its doings and women may *never* serve on it under any
circumstances now and forever. Challenging either of these dogmas is now
grounds for disenrollment, which is itself a new sanction not to my
knowledge ever practiced before.
Although the US NSA may have the right to determine membership
requirements, the *practice* (and thus the precedent) throughout the
20th century was that no one has been disenrolled without prior
consultation and without a clear renunciation of belief in Baha'u'llah.
You can't just arbitrarily change longstanding practices that adversely
affect other parties. Not even large corporations can get away with
this. This is another principle of law.
But don't you think we should leave these niceties and talk about the
Golden Rule? Would *you* like to be put in Alison's position?
Would
*any* of the UHJ members like to wake up one morning to a palace coup in
which 8 of his colleagues had expelled him from the faith while he was
sleeping, all unawares? It is very simple. Do unto others as you would
have them do unto you. All the prophets have said it, including the Bab
and Baha'u'llah. And that is the real reason for which the due process
called for in the UDHR is relevant here. It is just a restatement of the
Golden Rule. None of us wants to be the victim of an arbitrary summary
judgment. Alison was.
cheers Juan
From: "Juan Cole" <jricole@my-deja.com>
Subject: Cole reply to backbiting by the BWC/Doug Martin
Date: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 5:37 PM
Some here may be interested in my commentary on a letter being sent out
concerning me by the Secretariat at the Baha'i World Center, which was
authored by Doug Martin. It is under "documents" for June 27,
1999 via
my Web site, below.
What I don't get is that when I complain here in public about specific
actions taken by Baha'i administrators, everybody here gets on a high
horse and says I'm 'backbiting.' But if Doug Martin can get himself
elected to the UHJ and get access to the secretaries at the BWC, he
apparently has carte blanche to backbite me to people all over the
world behind my back, with nothing but vague innuendo, libel and lies?
cheers Juan
--
Juan Cole, https://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai.htm
Buy *Modernity & Millennium: Genesis of Baha'i*
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0231110812/qid=933798168/sr=1-1/0
Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.From: "Juan Cole" <jricole@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Cole reply to backbiting by the BWC/Doug Martin
Date: Friday, June 23, 2000 10:21 PM
The Universal House of Justice has openly written that any Baha'i who
wishes to is welcome to buy and read my book, *Modernity and the
Millennium.* It is rather ignorant and petty of you to paint this
issue as one of "business" or "money" or
"parasitism." The Universal
House of Justice is not concerned with the business aspect of all this.
Besides, academic books don't make any significant amount of money; I'd
be lucky to get back my photocopying and microfilm costs for the
manuscripts I obtained. I didn't write the book to make money, which
is just as well, since it won't. Moreover, I consider myself a Baha'i,
and I have risked my life for Baha'u'llah, as well as getting out front
on issues like the persecution of the Iranian Baha'is, so 'parasitism'
doesn't enter into it.
What I am complaining about is that this message, which is being sent
out from Haifa to any Baha'i who enquires about me, is incorrect in
many respects. I don't mind being critiqued for specific actions, but
this is just a broad gauge attack on my character. Since it was being
sent out to dozens of persons I don't know behind my back, it is a form
of backbiting.
Pat suggested that I had it coming. But this is quite
different. I
don't spend my time talking about Mr. Martin behind his back. And when
I did want to post a critique of his Baha'i career, I did it in the
open, for everyone to see. I didn't send private emails one after one
to people he doesn't know. Moreover, I have plenty of links in to
fundamentalist Baha'i sites and material of a sort of which Mr. Martin
would approve. I am not an exclusivist.
The whole thing is just sleazy, and a sad commentary on what the Baha'i
faith has come to.
cheers Juan
--
Juan Cole, https://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai.htm
Buy *Modernity & Millennium: Genesis of Baha'i*
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0231110812/qid=933798168/sr=1-1/0
Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.From: "Juan Cole" <jricole@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Kohli replying to Cole
Date: Friday, June 23, 2000 10:31 PM
Pat:
You have been the victim of misinformation. It was alleged here that
in my article "Panopticon" where I discussed the closing down of the
mass teaching in South Carolina in the early 1970s, I attributed the
motive to Firuz Kazemzadeh of racism. The person who made this charge
was just engaging in propaganda and attempting to divert attention from
the uncontestable fact that Kazemzadeh did in fact close down the mass
teaching. I denied categorically having imputed this action to racism
on his part, and I quoted the article to prove that this is untrue.
However, I did go on to say that my oral history interviews with
African-American Baha'is did lead to me suspect that Charlotte Linfoot
was uncomfortable with the Civil Rights movement and was not in favor
of punishing white Baha'is in the South who refused to serve African-
Americans, and that since she was on the NSA when the mass teaching was
shut down her attitudes may have influenced her vote on the issue. I
said that this was only one person and one factor, and anyway was not
what I was talking about in Panopticon.
I can document that the NSA, with Firuz taking the lead, did close down
the mass teaching in South Carolina. And I can document Charlotte
Linfoot's discomfort with Baha'is being involved in the Civil Rights
movement and her complacency toward Jim Crow. As a historian, I write
up the history of what I can document.
It is very odd to me that you would instance any of this as a
justification for Mr. Martin's broad-ranging and vague attack on my
personal character, which he sent out to dozens of inquirers among
Baha'is whom I do not know, behind my back. I'd say that constitutes
backbiting. Whatever I've had to say, I've said in public. And it
has
been specific, not a global condemnation. To suggest that public
critique justifies secretive backbiting is very odd in my view.
But I do thank you for your even-handedness.
cheers Juan
--
Juan Cole, https://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai.htm
Buy *Modernity & Millennium: Genesis of Baha'i*
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0231110812/qid=933798168/sr=1-1/0
Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.From: "Juan Cole" <jricole@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Old Friends
Date: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 2:13 PM
Dear Michael:
It was so good to see your name, and thanks for continuing to post at
Baha'i venues. It is so important to demonstrate that people cannot be
made simply to vanish by heavies like Doug Martin just by the expedient
of removing them from membership rolls.
I still think it is funny in a darkly tragicomic way that they chose
*you* to come after. I can't think of anyone more gentlemanly and
courteous, more wedded to the key Baha'i principles of tolerance and
love of humankind.
As to your reference to my continued faith in Baha'u'llah, I hope you
will read my book *Modernity and the Millennium*. I think he stood for
democracy and the separation of religion and state, and for freedom of
expression. I also think his teachings about the divine transcend mere
monotheism. That his followers have misunderstood him and sought to
create social structures more reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition
than of Baha'u'llah's gentle and all-embracing faith is not his fault.
Human beings are human beings. There have been intolerant polytheists,
too, you know. The RSS in India are polytheist fascists of the first
water. There is no 'framework' that can escape the human tendency to
seek inordinate social control. All we can do, in our various
traditions, is stand up for human rights and speak out when we see
things veering in the wrong direction.
I cannot say how much I admire you for having done so.
cheers Juan
>
--
Juan Cole, https://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai.htm
Buy *Modernity & Millennium: Genesis of Baha'i*
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0231110812/qid=933798168/sr=1-1/0
Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.From: "Juan Cole" <jricole@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Building Bridges
Date: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 2:31 PM
[Actually my perception of David's behavior is a little different from
his. I find him to be extremely intolerant of any suggestion that
things aren't perfect in the community, and constantly to be blaming
the victim whenever a moderate or liberal Baha'i has been victimized by
fundamentalists. I also thought both his reply to our discussion about
the high divorce rates in the community and his posting of reactions to
it here on a different list to be rude. Basically, instead of
dialoguing he simply contradicts the other person over and over again
and then if others don't buy his contradictions he throws a tantrum and
starts quoting Doub Martin's anathemas.)
Dear David:
I am sorry you are so angry, but it really is inexcusable for you to
blow up like this in the midst of a sincere discussion of a problem in
the community.
First you cast doubt on whether the divorce rate in the Baha'i
community is higher than that of general American society. Then when I
pointed out that this was a finding of the NSA itself in a 1987 survey,
you acknowledged the point, but suggested that in 13 years the divorce
rate in the community may have changed for the better. But you gave no
evidence that this was so, you simply expressed the hope.
Then when I suggested some factors that may have affected the divorce
rate (mainly focusing on a culture of utopianism, not, as you
suggest, 'blaming the AO'), you denied each in turn, offering no
evidence except that you had not witnessed any such phenomena. Now
when others corroborate having seen such things in the community, you
explode and threaten to walk off, and call me names.
Why don't we back up. Just let's posit for the sake of argument that
the 1987 NSA poll was correct, and the divorce rate in the community
was higher in the 1980s than the U.S. average. What factors would
*you* point to, in order to explain this phenomenon? You haven't tried
to add to our understanding. You just presented a series of denials
and then a tantrum. If you present an alternative explanation that is
better than mine, I'd be glad to acknowledge it.
I would like to point out that if I am right and the problem is rooted
in American Baha'i utopianism, that there is a solution, which is to
adopt and spread a more realistic ethos about marriage in the Faith.
cheers Juan
>
--
Juan Cole, https://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai.htm
Buy *Modernity & Millennium: Genesis of Baha'i*
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0231110812/qid=933798168/sr=1-1/0
Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.From: "Juan Cole" <jricole@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Doug Martin's attack on Modernity and the Millennium
Date: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 1:16 PM
David:
Your attempt to make me look like the aggressor here is frankly
bizarre. This vicious letter has been being sent out behind the scenes
to dozens if not hundreds of Baha'is who inquire about who I am from
people like Doug Martin. The scale of it makes it public. The only
difference is that now it is public with my reply.
To compare this to Firuz's reading out of confidential letters
addressed to the institutions by the dialogue editors in 1988 is to
commit so many category errors at once that it probably sets a new
record. I didn't publish a letter sent in confidence to *me*. I
never
received this letter from Mr. Martin directly. It is another piece of
backbiting that several other people have sent me, as an example of
what is circulating in the community.
I sent a message to your friends in Haifa in May of 1996, to which I
have not ever had the pleasure of a reply. The ball is in their court.
cheers Juan
--
Juan Cole, https://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai.htm
Buy *Modernity & Millennium: Genesis of Baha'i*
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0231110812/qid=933798168/sr=1-1/0
Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.From: "Juan Cole" <jricole@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Model Issues: Critique of Modernity and the Millennium
Date: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 1:28 PM
Dear Pat:
Lots of historians of religions are believers, and when we write
theology it is perfectly all right to use theological language. I have
myself. So has Hans Kung, for example.
Academic history is so constructed that theological language is
excluded. It is not denied, it simply does not form part of the
discourse. When we write in that genre, we abide by its rules. It
is
a useful genre because of its universalism. Everyone from any
background and participate in that discourse, whereas only Baha'is
would find a fundamentalist account of Baha'u'llah plausible.
In my own view, the material and the spiritual are like two heads of a
coin. Baha'u'llah the historical man and Baha'u'llah the Manifestation
of God co-existed in time and space, and are two facets of the same
gem. It is possible to speak of one facet without the other, without
denying that the other exists.
The basic mistake of fundamentalism in every religion is to insist that
only theological language can ever be used about the prophet, and that
neutral, academic language is out of bounds. But this is not the
Baha'i historical tradition, as witness what Mirza Abu'l-Fadl said. It
is a tradition imported by American Baha'is from Jerry Falwell, and by
some Persian Baha'is from Ayatollah Khomeini.
Baha'u'llah himself disliked the fundamentalist mentality that has to
hedge everything about with divine interventions and miracle stories.
In fact, he upbraided Nabil, the author of the Dawnbreakers, for
including that sort of material when he had asked him to write a
straightforward history of the faith. That is why Shoghi Effendi
abridged so much in his translation of the Dawnbreakers; he left out
the multitude of divine interventions. So, I conclude that I wrote the
sort of book about Baha'u'llah that Baha'u'llah himself wanted to see,
and those fundamentalists like Doug Martin who are moping around
complaining that I left out the miracle stories and divine
interventions are actually out of step with Baha'u'llah's own desires.
cheres Juan
--
Juan Cole, https://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai.htm
Buy *Modernity & Millennium: Genesis of Baha'i*
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0231110812/qid=933798168/sr=1-1/0
Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.From: "Juan Cole" <jricole@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Doug Martin's Attack on *Modernity and the Millennium*
Date: Thursday, June 29, 2000 1:36 AM
Dear Pat:
It is true that academic historians do not introduce God into their
books as one of the personae dramatis. This is because academic
history is about what we can understand of the past based upon
documentary evidence and the exercise of reason on that evidence. God
does not show up in history directly. Beliefs about God do show up,
and we discuss those beliefs.
That history is about what we can know of the past through
documentation and reasoning about that documentation excludes
consideration of the supernatural as an explanatory factor in such
writing. However, the exclusion of the supernatural is not necessarily
a denial of it. For some historians it may act as such, but for others
it is simply an omission.
I will turn your meta-stages theory against you. Physics, chemistry,
biology, and human psychology are all sciences and each one in this
list concentrates on more complex phenomena than the one before.
Molecules emerge from atoms, cells from molecules, the brain from
cells. These are emergent stages. If someone writes about an
atomic
process, this does not deny that molecular interactions occur. At the
atomic level, molecules are too big and complex to be factors.
Academic history is like writing about atomic-level practices.
Fundamentalists may complain that there is a bigger picture. There are
emergent levels that are being ignored if we attend only to the atomic
level. You can explain uranium that way but you can't so much as
explain the digestion of milk in the stomach at the atomic level; you
need molecules for that.
But if one is a physicist, attending to a lower level of reality, one
is not interested in lactose. One is interested in atoms and electrons
and protons. These, in the big picture, go on to make up chemicals,
cells and brains. But it would be silly to blame the atomic physicist
for ignoring psychology in her researches. Nor would you like to argue
that doing physics implies a denial of chemistry or biology.
I think that spirituality is an emergent level beyond the ordinary
psychological. `Abdul-Baha's hierarchy of spirit in Some Answered
Questions confirms this. Academic historians stop at the level of
ordinary psychology and do not proceed to the higher level of
spirituality. They are like the physicists who stop with the atom and
do not proceed to the molecule or the cell. Not all of them deny the
spiritual, they simply are not speaking to that higher emergent level.
So, I was writing the Baha'u'llah of History, not the Baha'u'llah of
faith, in *Modernity and the Millennium.* I believe that this was a
valuable undertaking and that much can be learned from the Baha'u'llah
of History, perhaps some things that can't be learned from the
Baha'u'llah of faith. One does not deny the other; rather, like atomic
physics and chemistry, they complement each other.
Peter Smith's *Babi and Baha'i Religions*, Abbas Amanat's *Resurrection
and Renewal*, the journal articles of Moojan Momen, and many other
works carried by Baha'i publishing trusts use the same methodology, by
the way. Of course, some of these authors have also suffered, more
quietly than I, whisper campaigns of backbiting behind the scenes from
some of our friends in Haifa (Farzam Arbab seems especially bigotted in
this regard).
For fundamentalists like Doug Martin to attack this *Modernity and the
Millennium*, and to backbite me as "embittered," having a
"personal
ideological agenda," providing a mere "intellectual
underpinning" to
some sort of "long-running scheme" (say wha' ???), and then to damn
the
book for being history rather than theology, is merely to fall back
into the unfortunate mistakes of the medieval era. In medieval times
historians were under the thumb of the Church and theologians, and many
were burned at the stake for writing history that did not suit Church
leaders. Doug Martin, at least, has not proposed (publicly) any
burnings at the stake, only the organization of Mafia-like campaigns of
shunning against hapless historians who run afoul of his iron
Orthodoxy. But he has in this letter departed from the basic spirit
and teachings of the Baha'i Holy Figures and tried to recast the
beautiful faith of Baha'u'llah into something ugly and anti-
intellectual.
And here is what `Abdul-Baha (remember Him, our Exemplar?--He seems to
have gotten lost in all this) had to say about such medieval repression
of the life of the intellect:
"As regards religious zeal and true piety, their touchstone and proof
are firmness and steadfastness in noble qualities, virtues, and
perfections, which are the greatest blessings of the human race; but
not interference with the belief of this one or that one, demolition of
edifices, and cutting off of the human race. In the middle ages,
whereof the beginning was the time of the fall of the Roman Empire, and
the end the capture of Constantinople at the hands of [the followers
of] Islám, fierce intolerance and molestation of far and near arose in
[all] the countries of Europe by reason of the paramount influence of
religious leaders. The matter came to such a pass that the edifice of
humanity seemed tottering to its fall, and the peace and comfort of
chief and vassal, king and subject, became hidden behind the veil of
annihilation. Night and day all parties were slaves to apprehension and
disquietude: civilization was utterly destroyed: the control and order
of countries was neglected: the principles and essentials of the
happiness of the human race were in abeyance: the supports of kingly
authority were shaken: but the influence and power of the heads of
religion and of the monks were in all parts complete. But when they
removed these differences, persecution, and bigotries out of their
midst, and proclaimed the equal rights of all subjects and the liberty
of men's consciences, the lights of glory and power arose and shone
from the horizons of that kingdom in such wise that those countries
made progress in every direction; and whereas the mightiest monarchy of
Europe had been servile to and abased before the smallest government of
Asia, now the great states of Asia are unable to oppose the small
states of Europe. These are effectual and sufficient proofs that the
conscience of man is sacred and to be respected; and that liberty
thereof produces widening of ideas, amendment of morals, improvement of
conduct, disclosure of the secrets of creation, and manifestation of
the hidden verities of the contingent world. Moreover, if interrogation
of conscience, which is one of the private possessions of the heart and
the soul, take place in this world, what further recompense remains for
man in the court of divine justice at the day of general resurrection?
Convictions and ideas are within the scope of the comprehension of the
King of kings, not of kings; and soul and conscience are between the
fingers of control of the Lord of hearts, not of [His] servants.
- `Abdul-Baha, *A Traveller's Narrative.*
cheers Juan
(P.S. Thanks for the comments on my code; I did refresh and wasn't
reading off a cache, and I know to close a bold mark. I can't explain
the problem. Luckily, Dreamweaver has a nice program that will clean up
code automatically, and I ftp'ed the clean version, so it should be
right now. I should use wysiwyg web creation pages more, since
mistakes are harder to make, but I learned HTML back in 1995 and I got
used to writing code; usually I think I do a fair job of it).
--
Juan Cole, https://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai.htm
Buy *Modernity & Millennium: Genesis of Baha'i*
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0231110812/qid=933798168/sr=1-1/0
Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.From: "Juan Cole" <jricole@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Doug Martin's attack on Modernity and the Millennium
Date: Thursday, June 29, 2000 1:46 AM
I posted as much of the Martin/BWC letter as came to me from various
sources, so you can read it yourself.
I find it bizarre beyond words that because I found out I was being
backbit behind the scenes with this letter going to dozens, maybe
hundreds of inquirers, and I replied to it, now *I* am being blamed?
Have you read what Martin said? It is quite vicious. Protesting
against being backbitten is not backbiting, Mr. Little. You people
always manage to blame the victim, don't you?
I am not estranged from the Baha'i holy figures or the Baha'i
teachings, and nor am I estranged from the Baha'is as a community. *I*
haven't done anything at all. However, there are some glaze-eyed
cultists in positions of great power in the Baha'i administration who
obviously have an attitude toward *me*, or rather toward the way I
think. The way I think is a matter of my individual conscience, which
`Abdul-Baha said should be off-limits to religious leaders. So it is
Martin and the others who are "estranged"--from the true Baha'i
teachings. I can't help their estrangement or the compunction to
attack and threaten people like me. They'll have to work through the
demons that drive them to this un-Baha'i-like behavior themselves.
When they have exorcised them, I'd be glad to be friends again.
In the meantime, I urge everyone to read *Modernity and the Millennium*
for themselves, to see with their own eyes and hear with their own
ears. It is available in an inexpensive paperback edition from
amazon.com and the order information may be clicked on below.
cheers Juan
In article <8jdlrs$rmp$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
rlittle95@my-deja.com wrote:
> Dear Juan and Pat
>
>
--
Juan Cole, https://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai.htm
Buy *Modernity & Millennium: Genesis of Baha'i*
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0231110812/qid=933798168/sr=1-1/0
Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.From: Juan Cole <jricole@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Doug Martin's attack on Modernity and the Millennium
Date: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 12:52 AM
Actually, we who have actually dealt with the Baha'i World Center are
perfectly aware that the UHJ as an institution assigns to its members
"portfolios," and individual members most often are behind a
particular
thread of correspondence. In my correspondence with the UHJ in the
early 1990s attempting to dissuade them from continuing "review"
(prepublication censorship) forever, it was quite clear that the letters
I was receiving from "the Secretariat" were actually from Glenford
Mitchell, simply because they showed his English style and betrayed
knowledge and interest that only he would have.
The vicious attack on my book and my character posted at the bottom of
the Documents page on my Bahai Studies Web site is clearly, likewise,
the work of Douglas Martin.
How interesting, that the loyalists on this list believe it is perfectly
all right to malign and lie about others, as long as it is done behind
the veil of an "institution." And then if a victim of agitprop
dares
protest, *that* is backbiting! You begin to see how some of the worst
human rights abuses of th 20th century occurred. There are always a lot
of yes-men out there willing to march in lock-step.
cheers Juan
>
> That Dr. Cole would attribute the letter to Mr. Martin reveals much
about
> Dr. Cole's agenda.
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
>
--
Juan Cole, https://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai.htm
Buy *Modernity & Millennium: Genesis of Baha'i*
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0231110812/qid=933798168/sr=1-1/0
Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.From: Juan Cole <jricole@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Doug Martin's attack on Modernity and the Millennium
Date: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 12:52 AM
Actually, we who have actually dealt with the Baha'i World Center are
perfectly aware that the UHJ as an institution assigns to its members
"portfolios," and individual members most often are behind a
particular
thread of correspondence. In my correspondence with the UHJ in the
early 1990s attempting to dissuade them from continuing "review"
(prepublication censorship) forever, it was quite clear that the letters
I was receiving from "the Secretariat" were actually from Glenford
Mitchell, simply because they showed his English style and betrayed
knowledge and interest that only he would have.
The vicious attack on my book and my character posted at the bottom of
the Documents page on my Bahai Studies Web site is clearly, likewise,
the work of Douglas Martin.
How interesting, that the loyalists on this list believe it is perfectly
all right to malign and lie about others, as long as it is done behind
the veil of an "institution." And then if a victim of agitprop
dares
protest, *that* is backbiting! You begin to see how some of the worst
human rights abuses of th 20th century occurred. There are always a lot
of yes-men out there willing to march in lock-step.
cheers Juan
>
> That Dr. Cole would attribute the letter to Mr. Martin reveals much
about
> Dr. Cole's agenda.
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
>
--
Juan Cole, https://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai.htm
Buy *Modernity & Millennium: Genesis of Baha'i*
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0231110812/qid=933798168/sr=1-1/0
Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.From: jrcole@umich.edu <jrcole@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Copyright and Talisman@indiana.edu
Date: Friday, January 29, 1999 11:04 AM
Talisman@indiana.edu was a public listserv run publicly from a public
university. All the messages are still probably in the Indiana
University
Mainframe and they are on hard-drives of subscribers and non-subscribers all
around the world. They were public in nature and are mirrored at a
number of
Web sites, not only my own.
The messages sent to talk.religion.bahai are likewise public, are
permanently
on the Web, and linking to them or displying them on a Web site simply is not
a violation of copyright. However, note that in deference to Dr.
Bramson-Lerche, I did agree to remove her name from her public postings,
which was far more than I was required to do under the law. (I checked
the
law extensively with University counsel).
Talisman@umich.edu is a private club only with regard to membership.
FAQs
have repeatedly informed subscribers that they relinquish copyright when they
post there.
However, the publication of private letters to individuals with
attribution
is a very different matter. The inability of intelligent persons to
understand a simple distinction between messages sent to a public listserv
with hundreds of subscribers and messages sent privately to a private
individual with expectation of confidentiality is a puzzle to me.
cheers Juan
Juan Cole
History, U of Michigan
https://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai.htm
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
https://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read,
Discuss, or Start Your Own From: "Juan Cole"
<jricole@my-deja.com>
Subject: high Baha'i divorce rate
Date: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 2:41 PM
[I posted this to another list. But since Mr. Fiorito brought it up
here I thought it may as well be posted for all to make up their minds
about.]
An internal Baha'i household survey done in 1987 found that the divorce
rate in the U.S. Baha'i community was higher than that in American
society as a whole. The report was never released to the public.
My own suspicion is that the high divorce rate has several causes.
First of all, Baha'is are encouraged to utopian ways of thinking. Two
young people with little in common save that they are recent converts
to the faith will be encouraged to marry. I have seen this sort of
thing over and over again with my own eyes. This utopianism is
widespread in the faith and is the same reason for which so many other
Baha'i enterprises end up doing damage to people. That both
are "Baha'is" is not a basis for a marriage. One may be a
liberal and
the other a fundamentalist; current norms against such labeling make it
difficult for people to identify one another on that basis, but you'd
better believe the difference would show up in a marriage!
Young married Baha'is are also encouraged to pioneer, whether abroad to
places like Haiti and Nicaragua, or homefront. Being uprooted from
their social networks and families and isolated in a strange
environment is not good for them as young marrieds.
In smaller communities the Baha'i committee work is a killer, and may
isolate the two spouses, who spend less time together just coccooning
and watching t.v.
And it is my estimate that from a third to a half of U.S. Baha'is are
what the sociologists would call marginal people--persons with poor
social skills who are emotionally needy and who join the faith because
they are love-bombed and find a high proportion of other marginals in
it. A high rate of marginality is fostered by the cultists who have
infiltrated the administration, since only such individuals would put
up with being ordered around summarily or would eat up conspiracy
theories about bands of dissidents seeking to undermine the
administration. Marginals would have higher than normal divorce rates,
obviously.
Finally, the Baha'i faith encourages a great deal of ego inflation in
the individual. Each Baha'i thinks he or she is saving the world and
is a linchpin in the plan of God. This inspires in them great (and
often quite misplaced) confidence in their own judgment--I've seen them
pronounce authoritatively on astronomy, biology, Qajar history, and
many other subjects on which they are woefully ignorant. Such ego
inflation and over-confidence in personal judgment would not be good
for a marriage.
cheers Juan
[P.S. I should have also included that the exclusiveness of the
Baha'i
community, non-attendance of non-Baha'is at Feast, pressure to convert
spouses, etc., was also probably a contributing factor to Baha'i
divorces where only one spouse was Baha'i.
P.P.S. Milissa- I said I thought about 1/3 of Baha'is were lacking
in
social skills, not all of them. This is a common phenomenon that
sociologists have found in New Religious Movements. I'm not sure why
you think the statement of it offensive, but I don't know how you can
have been around and not met a fair number of such folks.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Juan Cole, https://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai.htm
Buy *Modernity & Millennium: Genesis of Baha'i*
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0231110812/qid=933798168/sr=1-1/0
From: Juan Cole <jricole@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: loyal opposition in Baha'i
Date: Tuesday, December 14, 1999 1:32 AM
The 'infallibility' of the House of Justice just means
that it is the ultimate authority on what the law is.
You may as well say the U.S. Supreme Court is 'infallible.'
It does not mean it cannot be wrong on some policy in
some objective sense. Within the system, it is 'ma`sum.'
If it could not commit errors, then there would be no
reason for Baha'u'llah's prescription that subsequent
Houses of Justice may abrogate the decisions and
legislation of their predecessors.
Besides, Baha'u'llah not only never called the House of
Justice infallible, he explicitly said that the Most
Great Infallibility was reserved to Manifestations of
God. The body that `Abdul-Baha was referring to had
a living Guardian on it and was elected according to
Western parliamentary procedure, and thus is not an
institution that any longer exists.
The present House of Justice is just 9 of our brothers
serving as trustees. They are not God, they are not
perfect, and they should not be made graven idols. They
make mistakes, and I've seen them do so over and over
again. Some of them have done things to friends of mine that are not
very nice. They have supported NSAs when the NSAs were in the
wrong. But the institution on which they serve deserves
our ultimate loyalty, whether we agree with them or not,
because they are the Trustees of the Cause of Baha'u'llah.
cheers Juan
--
Juan Cole, https://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai.htm
Buy *Modernity & Millennium: Genesis of Baha'i*
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0231110812/qid=933798168/sr=1-1/0
Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.From: Juan Cole <jricole@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: The distinction between disagreement and opposition
Date: Monday, December 13, 1999 7:14 PM
Dear Daniel:
I haven't raised any posse (whatever could that mean, when
all I've done is send some emails?). I have simply declared my
views and expressed my conscience. Others may agree or
disagree. I can't see that anything I've said since 1994
has had any effect whatsoever inside the community, nor do I care
whether it does or doesn't. I am an Baha'i intellectual, and I enjoy
thinking about the Baha'i faith, and I enjoy thinking about it with
people on email. Your attempt to make this some sort of crime seems to
me sort of pitiful and if many Baha'is think in this Luddite way, the
community has all the future of Shaker furniture makers.
I do not believe that `Abdul-Baha seriously envisaged 'literature
review' to work in the way that it does now, nor do I believe that
a guardianless House of Justice has the authority to impose its
interpretations on the believers through its agency. I am glad if,
as reported to me by a pilgrim, Peter Khan generally likes my book,
*Modernity and the Millennium*. But he is an electrical engineer, not
a historian, and isn't welcome, singly or in a collectivity with other
electrical engineers, to tell me how to write history, no matter what
they have been elected to. In return, I promise not to do the wiring on
his house in Haifa. (And a good thing for him, too.)
And yes, obeying a law you think criminal is a form of hypocrisy.
That
is why Thoreau went to jail, Daniel. Remember when Emerson came to
visit him and asked, "What in the world are you doing in
there?" And he
said, "What in the world are *you* doing out *there*?" When
illegal
demands are made on a citizen by the state, the proper place for the
citizen is jail.
As for there being no place in the community for minority views, such
a sentiment is always the sign of a tyranny of the majority and thus
of tyranny itself.
cheers Juan
--
Juan Cole, https://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai.htm
Buy *Modernity & Millennium: Genesis of Baha'i*
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0231110812/qid=933798168/sr=1-1/0
Sent via Deja.com https://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.From: Juan Cole <jricole@my-deja.com>
Subject: loyal opposition in Baha'i
Date: Monday, December 13, 1999 1:49 AM
We were having a discussion of the issue of "loyal opposition"
to
official policies on talisman and I thought folks here might be
interested in such a discussion. This is what I said:
I think the key term in "loyal opposition" is not
"opposition" but
"loyal." The real question is whether someone is loyal or not. For
instance, there are lots of Americans who dislike the US Supreme Court's
stands on some issues. But there are very few Americans (perhaps less
than 12%) that reject the *legitimacy* of the authority of the Supreme
Court. If they say, well, I recognize the Supreme Court's authority to
say what the law is on this issue, but I don't like the outcome, then
they are not *traitors* to the US government. They are in loyal
opposition to a particular ruling. I don't see why it makes a difference
whether we are speaking of a civil government or a religious
institution. Hans Kung, the great Catholic theologian, describes himself
as the Pope's 'loyal opposition.' I think Kung's stance very admirable.
It is a religious one. The only religions that do not allow a loyal
opposition are cults, like Scientology, or authoritarian structures like
those of the Khomeinists in Iran. I refuse to believe that any Baha'is
really want those to be the models for our religion.
Moreover, I don't think the conception of 'loyal opposition' per se is
objected to by all the members of the House of Justice.
Baha'is have always shown loyal opposition to policies they did not
like. Howard Colby Ives admitted to `Abdul-Baha that he just couldn't
give up smoking, and `Abdul-Baha said, well, half a pack a day isn't
all that much. Mostly, Baha'is just showed passive resistance. Shoghi
Effendi complained endlessly in his correspondence to the US NSA that
his directives to the US community under Horace Holley were often never
implemented. In fact, a major reason that that correspondence has never
been published appears to be that it would demonstrate how little the
NSA members attended to his policy directives. The generation of the
1960s that invented the 'Beloved Guardian' way of speaking is said to
have done so in part out of guilt that they hadn't actually paid all
that much attention to Shoghi Effendi while he was alive.
The House of Justice has a lesser station than the Guardian. I remember
one time discussing some issue with Hushmand Fatheazam, around 1979, and
I was careful to say of this House policy, 'I don't mean to disagree.'
He said, 'Disagree all you like.' or words to that effect. Now, of
course, some may feel I took him too literally at his word. :-) But I
think his sentiment was genuine. One may disagree with the House of
Justice if one's conscience leads one to do so, and may express that
disagreement in private (I suppose 'private' means 'among a small circle
of trusted friends', perhaps 'among less than 9 people?). What was
objected to is the *public* expression of disagreement with House
policies (over 10 people? Including strangers?).
The problem as I see it is that the advent of cyberspace has severely
weakened the boundaries between private and public views. I see this in
academia all the time--the underlying premises of scholars' work is
being exposed on discussion lists, whereas in the past they might well
have remained unknown except to the author's own circle.
So, I just don't think old, discrete sort of loyal opposition (which has
always existed in the Baha'i faith) works any more. At a Staff meeting
in Wilmette, Ill. at the National Baha'i Center one morning in the early
1990s, Bob Henderson (Secretary-General of the National Spiritual
Assembly of the Baha'is of the US) picked up a recent letter from the
House of Justice, slammed it on the table, and said, "Look at what
they've done to us now!" He was expressing loyal opposition. There isn't
any question that he is loyal in a general sort of way to the UHJ. But
he disliked the policy in that letter and thought it inimical to the
best interests of the US NSA or US community. And he said so, in front
of all of these loyal Baha'i staffers (one of whom told me about it). I
am simply adopting the same stance as Mr. Henderson, but doing it on
email rather than behind closed doors, and it is this issue of *where*
the loyal opposition is expressed that makes for the difference in how
his stance and mine have been received. I am afraid I think that the
demand for only private expression of policy differences is a form of
institutionalized hypocrisy, and I'd rather be an outcast than a
hypocrite.
But, as I said, the key term in the phrase 'loyal opposition' is
'loyal.' And remember it is only on some issues that I differ, and they
aren't really key. After all, I believe in world peace, in world federal
gov't as an instrument to that end, in the unity of the religions, in
the equality of women and men, in all the Baha'i social principles. I
believe that Baha'u'llah is the Manifestation of God for this Day. I
have worked tirelessly for the human rights of Iranian Baha'is. I began
the email petitions to the Iranian gov't in fall of 1998 in protest of
the closure of the Open University, and I printed off the hundreds of
names my Web site garnered from educators and students around the world
and sent them off to Mr. Khatami and Ayatollah Khamenei and the Iran UN
Ambassador with my own hands. This tactic was so successful that NSAs
around the world picked up on it and promoted dozens of such petition
drives by Baha'is at universities. I think it was in part because of the
revelation of how the academic world around the globe feels about this
issue to Mr. Khatami through these petitions that he made his recent
pronouncement in Paris that Baha'is should have basic civil rights in
Iran (a first for this government!).
So, so what if I think 'temporary' Review should be abolished? Some
members of NSAs have also said this publicly. So what if I think women
should eventually serve on the UHJ? Late UHJ member Borrah Kavelin's
widow, and, it is said, Ruhiyyih Khanum herself, agrees with me. So what
if I believe the House of Justice has only legislative, not
Interpretive, authority? They admitted this to me themselves in a
letter. These minor differences do occasionally put me in a 'loyal
opposition.' But I am not alone there, and even some UHJ members concur.
It is absurd, after all the things I have done for the Baha'i faith,
that a few minor stances of conscience on my part (expressed on email!)
should be used to make me into some sort of pariah. I think it is
important to begin changing the culture of hypocrisy. We should be free
to declare our consciences and express our views. Shoghi Effendi said
so.
As for Baha'u'llah's example, of course it is there. He was obedient to
the Sultan and the Shah, but he called on them to institute
parliamentary democracy in their realms. As absolute monarchs, they
hated to hear it, hated to hear that above all else, but he said it. He
said it publicly. He was in loyal opposition to the supreme Caliph of
the Sunni Muslim world. He also wanted to reconfigure religion, away
from Caliphism and toward participatory democracy. We have a duty to be
loyal to that vision of Baha'u'llah's. It is what is *really*
revolutionary among all his teachings.
cheers Juan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community email addresses: Post message: talisman9@onelist.com
Subscribe: talisman9-subscribe@onelist.com Unsubscribe:
talisman9-unsubscribe@onelist.com List owner:
talisman9-owner@onelist.com
--
Juan Cole, https://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai.htm
Buy *Modernity & Millennium: Genesis of Baha'i*
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0231110812/qid=933798168/sr=1-1/0
Homepage
|