The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience

From: "Nima Hazini" <lotusapt@wxc.com.au>
Subject: Re: My memories of the Albuquerque Baha'i community
Date: Friday, May 04, 2001 7:33 AM

I have news for you. You are wasting your time would ye but know it. There
is at this time no better system(s) in existence other than Western liberal
democracies and to think there is one is to be either a hopeless utopian
dreamer entangled in paradigms of pure fantasy or to delude oneself just as
generations of naive idealistic Marxists did with their impratical agendas
of radical social transformation and revolution and movements towards
classless societies via dictatorships of the proletariat as represented by
vanguard parties. People who aren't good students of modern history don't
seem to realize that everytime anti-discourses against Western liberal
democracies are adopted the consequences are the roads which lead straight
to the gulags, concentration camps and totalitarianism in one form or
another. Religion in the private arena by definition is totalitarian because
it makes totalistic demands and "leaps of blind faith" how much more so if
it is in control of the public realm. This is why when the last two
theocracies in the world, Iran and Afghanistan, finally collapse in the near
future, theocracy as a model will be relegated to the dustbin of history.

Liberal democracies aren't perfect, and they're not supposed to be. Just as
life itself on all levels is a project forever in progress, so is the
Western liberal democratic principle and model. Get used it. It and its
principles and modifications thereof will be with us into the forseable
future. Your grandchildren and their progeny will never live under a Baha'i
superstate, commonwealth or similar. But they will live under liberal
democracies of one form or another.

cheers,
Nima

"Rick Schaut" <rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:9ctvm911cth@news2.newsguy.com...

We aren't going to solve them, however, by turning the Baha'i Faith into the
mirror
image of modern western democracies.  All of us have to begin striving for
something better than that, or we're just wasting our time.

From: "Nima Hazini" <lotusapt@wxc.com.au>
Subject: Re: WARNING - Fundamentalist Deception
Date: Friday, August 31, 2001 6:27 PM

"Jon" <twosofthands@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da2a2e05.0108311201.37457380@posting.google.com...
"BIGS - Bahai In *Perfectly* Good Standing" <patrick_henry@liberty.com>
wrote in message news:<9mjurq$2njc4$1@ID-75545.news.dfncis.de>...
>Your website if filled with lies.  Prof. Cole is not a very good
>translator of Baha'i text.  His translations are filled with
>intentional mistakes to further his own personal views.

Oh, really? And how would you know??? You have expertise in 19th century
Persian and Arabic texts??? You Baha'is and your 'institutions' are so full
of it. I wish you could step back and take a good hard look at how pathetic
you people have become when you make ridiculous statements like that, all of
which is based out of *FEAR*. Your whole religion is one of *FEAR* and you
people *FEAR* Juan Cole and thus you must make these rumours up about him.

cheers,
Nima

From: "Nima Hazini" <lotusapt@wxc.com.au>
Subject: Re: bahai - Why I Don't Respond to Fundamentalists
Date: Monday, September 03, 2001 7:53 PM

They did it to mine. Not between my immediate family and I, thankfully. But
my mothers family - who are among the most disturbed, sleazy biggoted looney
bahai fundamentalist hypocrite bastards this side of the equator whom I have
had the unfortunate misfortune of being related to - are cronies and close
personal friends of Peter Khan. Because my parents have absolutely refused
to disown me - as the Baha'i administration wished them to (which was the
reason for the defamation published against me in the Australian Baha'i
Bulletin in the first place) - they have been targetted by the Baha'i
administration (particularly through Peter Khan and his networks), through
my mothers family, and are now being systematically shunned. At one point
recently these people even attempted to split apart my parents' marriage -
this is the kind of people they are. The Baha'i administration has pitted
daughter against parents, parents against daughter, grandparents against
grandchildren, grandchildren against grandparents, aunt against nephew,
nephew against aunt, cousin against counsin, all because of "ideology."
People, family members, have totally thrown out the window lifetime kinships
and relationships all because of this fucked up bahai fundamentalist
ideology run by these even more fucked up cultist baha'i adminoloters and
their looney lapdogs. Which is why I say the baha'i fath is a cult - pure
and simple. Jim Jones, Branch Dravidians, Scientology, Jehovah's Witnesses,
even the Mormons have nothing on the baha'is.

cheers,
Nima

"BIGS - Bahai In *Perfectly* Good Standing" <patrick_henry@liberty.com>
wrote in message news:9n05rv$4grib$1@ID-75545.news.dfncis.de...
Nima,

Please detail, if you would, a few examples of  the uhj "creating
divisions in families on ideological grounds."

Thank you.

--
FG
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
https://www.angelfire.com/mi3/bahai/

"Nima Hazini" <lotusapt@wxc.com.au> wrote in message
news:9muaib$m0n$1@gnamma.connect.com.au...
>
> "NightShadow" <seals_jay@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3b9043e3.232977305@news...
> There was someone named "ilami" <ilami@hereorthere0.com> who once
> said...:
>
> >A "true religion of God" is meant to heal the hearts of human beings,
> >not tear them apart.
>
> Someone ought to inform the uhj and its lackies of that because that is
what
> they do: tear people (esp. families) apart. Because they, the Baha'i
> administration, engage in such divisive acts as creating divisions in
> families on ideological grounds the Baha'i faith can no longer be
considered
> a religion of love meant to heal hearts, but rather it is a dangerous,
> abusive and dishonest cult no different than Scientology, Jim Jones, the
> Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.
>
> cheers,
> Nima
>
>

From: "Nima Hazini" <lotusapt@wxc.com.au>
Subject: Open Letter to Moojan Momen (Alison Marshall is not Al Marbig)
Date: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 11:01 PM

Dear Moojan Momen,

I understand that Alison Marshall has recently been accused by yourself of
being Al Marbig, the maintainer of the Brave New World site. Having been
accused myself of being Al Marbig a little less than a month ago, I would
like to take exception to these unfounded rumours and accusations that seem
to be regularly hurled about with total impunity by certain Baha'is towards
innocent people. Although the person in question has asked that their
identity remain anonymous, Al Marbig is actually a member of your own
British Baha'i community (and as far as I understand, a Baha'i in Good
Standing). Moreover, and for the record, neither Alison Marshall or myself
are Al Marbig and furthermore, neither Alison nor myself are or have ever
been directly involved with this e-production, a fact you may kindly convey
to your superiors. As I understand it, and as stated on trb/arb and my
Zuhur19 list,  Al Marbig was temporarily incommunicado which is why one
edition of BNW happened to be hosted on Steve Marshall's website. These are
the facts which seems to have eluded those who are making unfounded
accusations right and left. Now, given these facts, I believe you owe Alison
Marshall a big apology.

Best regards,
Nima Hazini

From: "Nima Hazini" <lotusapt@wxc.com.au>
Subject: More Censorship By SRB Moderators
Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 11:22 PM

--
Greetings Nima,

The reason I rejected your message is not because of the quoted material,
but because of the repeated information otherwise known as signal to noise
ratio. Mr. Mahdi is not going to answer your questions regardless of how
many times you post the same material. Personally I don't know why you
bother trying to engage him or his rhetoric, but I digress.

Let me address a few of your concerns. First, Rick B. is right here. All
the mods get the messages each week and if there is any concern we all
speak up. I can guarantee you that you have no special favor or dislike
from any of the mods. Second, there is no directive from any
Administrative body or individuals putting you in any special condition
withthe mods. Your posts are measured by the charter and will continue to
be. Lastly, we do not post who gets rejected, but it would be safe to say
Mr. Mahdi has had a great deal more rejected than ever posted at SRB.

I now give you the same advise I give eveyone. Stick to the charter. It is
not what you say, but how you say it. My personal
 bias as an academic is not to post anything without a reference and now
that I know it is unpublished it surely will NOT get posted. You can put
the same information in your own words in another post if you feel it is
important. This is not an academic discussion group. There are plenty of
those around.

best regards,

Pete Hellmann
SRB Mod Staff

On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Nima Hazini wrote:

> Dear Pete,
>
> >You quote "an upcoming article" in your message without giving a
> >reference.
>
> Because it's not published yet and needs more work to be done on it before
> being so.
>
> > I really need a reference to make this valid.
>
> Make me the reference.
>
> >More importantly, your quotation (132 lines) is longer than your message
> (43 lines).
>
> Excuse me, but Baha'is do this all the time on SRB quoting from Baha'i
> scripture. Is this an excuse not to post my message? Where is Rick
> Boatright??
>
> >Secondly, most of the the information below has already been posted
> >to SRB.
>
> Most but not all. I was reiterating the same point because the poster was
> raising the same hubris as before. Did the SRB moderators notice that
about
> MrMahdi's message?? My message is pertinent to the attack that was being
> made by MrMahdi. And why is it that whereas posts from one of the most
> notorious Muslim fundamentalist anti-Baha'i polemicists online is allowed
on
> SRB without a sweat, I constantly have to fight you SRB moderators for
every
> single one of my messages to be posted? Is there a directive to censor all
> my messages from on high or something???
>
> regards,
> Nima
>
>
>

--

Greetings Nima,

You quote "an upcoming article" in your message without giving a
reference. I really need a reference to make this valid. More importantly,
your quotation (132 lines) is longer than your message (43 lines). I would
rather see individuals express their own ideas in discussion rather than
throwing huge quotes at each other.

Secondly, most of the the information below has already been posted
to SRB.

best regards,

Pete Hellmann
SRB Mod Staff

On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Nima Hazini wrote:

> MrMahdi obviously did not read my long reply which quoted from the
> literature of the social sciences on the subject of fundamentalism, and
> still hubristically insists the word is politically loaded without
> addressing any of the points outlined in my reply to him or the typologies
> which characterize what "fundamentalism" is. MrMahdi also poses a straw
man
> and non sequitor by casting 'secular' extremists on the Left as possible
> fundamentalists whereas the very definition of the word characterizes a
> phenomenon in 'religion' (not secular groups) in modernity. So, again, for
> the benefit of the readership of this NG, let me put forth the 9 basic
> descriptives of "fundamentalism" outlined by Marty and Appleby in volume 1
> of the FUNDAMENTALISM PROJECT: Fundamentalisms Observed_ (Chicago: 1991):
>
> 1) Fundamentalism mounts a protest against the marginalization of religion
> in
> secularizing societies.
>
> 2) Fundamentalism selectively reshapes the religious tradition (i.e. it
may
> represent
> itself as a restatement of the essence of the religion, but in fact it
picks
> and chooses from the tradition) and it accepts some aspects of modernity
> while rejecting others.
>
> 3) Fundamentalism sees the moral world as divided sharply into good and
> evil.
>
> 4)  Fundamentalism emphasizes the absolutism and inerrancy of its
scriptures
> (and thus
> rejects Western critical academic scholarship on that corpus).
>
> 5) Fundamentalism has a millennialist emphasis.
>
> 6)  Fundamentalism has an elect, chosen membership.
>
> 7) Fundamentalism draws sharp boundaries between the saved and the sinful.
>
> 8) Fundamentalism maintains an authoritarian, charismatic leadership
> structure.
>
> 9)  Fundamentalism has strict behavioral requirements for its people.
>
>
> To quote from an upcoming article on the phenomenon of Baha'i
> fundamentalism:
>
>
> "The first major ideological characteristic of fundamentalism, is a
reaction
> against the marginalization of religion in secular societies.  Among
Baha'i
> fundamentalists, this reaction takes the form of a belief in a future
> theocracy, in which they expect Baha'i ecclesiastical institutions to take
> over the civil state, and which differentiates them from Baha'i liberals
and
> moderates.  The belief appears to be rooted primarily in oral traditions
> attributed to Shoghi Effendi and letters written on his behalf by
> secretaries, since although he does speak of a future Baha'i
> commonwealth in his published works, its character remains vague.  Hand of
> the Cause John Robarts reported his version of a long conversation with
> Shoghi Effendi expatiating on this idea (Robarts 1993).  Some Baha'is
> believed that he held that a melding of religion and state would not occur
> during the thousand-year dispensation of Baha'u'llah himself, but only
> toward the end of the Baha'i "cycle," of some 500,000 years (Hofman 1953).
> There are two problems for Baha'i fundamentalists.  The first is that
> Baha'u'llah's own writings, and those of `Abdul-Baha are frankly
> anti-theocratic.  The second is that in Baha'i law, oral traditions are
> supposed to be discounted in favor of written texts. Fundamentalists thus
> tend to hew to generalities when explaining their belief, lacking
scriptural
> support."
>
> "The second feature of fundamentalism is selectivity.  Fundamentalists
> select and reshape aspects of the tradition, all the while asserting that
> they have recaptured its pristine essence.  They are also selective in
> their responses to modernity.  They embrace some aspects of it (such as
> certain types of technology), while vehemently rejecting others.  Baha'i
> fundamentalists engage in all three types of selectivity as well.  They
> frequently make a claim to be engaging in traditional practices that are
in
> fact innovations, and can do so with some success because the history and
> texts of the Baha'i faith are relatively little studied and authorities
> have often actively suppressed historical sources.  We have already
> mentioned the problem that theocratic beliefs are unscriptural. That is,
the
> scriptural tradition in the Baha'i faith strove for a separation of
religion
> and state as a way of making room for liberty of conscience for Baha'is in
> Shi`ite Iran (McGlinn 1999, Cole 1998c:17-47). In his Treatise on
Leadership
> of the early 1890s `Abdul-Baha said that religious institutions,
including
> Baha'i ones, are never to intervene in affairs of state or political
matters
> unbidden, and that whenever in
> history they have done so it has resulted in a huge disaster.
(`Abdul-Baha
> in Cole 1998a).  He clearly envisaged the state and religious institutions
> as complementary, "like milk and honey."
>
> "Baha'is, including Baha'i fundamentalists, have for the most part
embraced
> modernity.  They have a vision of building a peaceful global society and
for
> the most part have a positive view of technological advances.   Still,
> the selectivity of Baha'i fundamentalists toward modernity can be
witnessed
> in the severe misgivings that some of them have expressed about the
> Internet" or such issues as democracy and the separation of religion and
> politics."
>
> "Fundamentalist Baha'is put special emphasis on moral Manichaeanism.  They
> see the world as comprised of a small cadre of those "firm in the
Covenant."
> They....admit a larger number of Baha'is who are "infirm" but
> perhaps not dangerously so.  They worry about smaller numbers of "liberal"
> or "dissident" Baha'is who [they believe] attempt to "undermine" the
> Covenant."
>
> "Baha'i fundamentalism puts great emphasis on the absolutism and inerrancy
> of scripture.  This belief is quite widespread but not universal.  It is
> tested most fiercely with regard to issues such as evolution.
`Abdul-Baha
> maintained, in Sufi and Neoplatonic fashion, that human beings have always
> been a distinct species and that human beings are not animals, insofar as
> they are endowed with a soul.  He also argued that the morphological
> similarities between humans and apes might be merely functional (e.g,
sharks
> and porpoises resemble one another but are not immediately related), and
> maintained that "the missing link" would never be found.  These
> assertions have foundered against the DNA revolution, which has found that
> humans, chimpanzees and bonobos share 98 percent of the same genes and are
> clearly closely related.  During a discussion of his statements on
> evolution, a typical poster to SRB wrote,  "Dear all, On the topic of
> evolution: Clearly we should understand as clearly as possible what
> 'Abdul-Baha says on this subject. Because we believe His statements on
> matters pertaining to the Revelation of Baha'u'llah and all of creation
are
> infallible, we must be clear about what it is we believe, or are
accepting"
> (SRB 6 July 1997)."
>
> "Baha'i fundamentalists emphasize belief in an imminent catastrophe they
> refer to as "the Calamity" (Smith 1982).   One contributor to a
Baha'i-only
> list wrote, "I would like to open a discussion on a subject which many of
us
> are somewhat unwilling to address - namely, the impending (year 2,000)
> calamity which is supposed to create grave upheaval (literally) not only
> here in California, but also on the East Coast, and other parts of the
> world . . ." (Pers. Comm, March 14, 1994)."
>
> "Fundamentalist Baha'is have an authoritarian view of how the Baha'i
> "administrative order" should function.  There is a great emphasis on
> obedience.  The typical logic of Baha'i fundamentalists roots obedience in
> the legitimacy of authority, disallowing a rational examination of the
> substance of a command or an inquiry into whether the body giving the
> command has the "constitutional" prerogative to give it.  In this way,
> arbitrary commands by Baha'i bodies are made to be an either-or
proposition.
> If one accepts Baha'u'llah, one accepts his administrative order, and must
> obey whatever it orders one to do, whether one agrees in
> conscience or no.  Rejection of the command, ipso facto, represents a
> rejection of Baha'u'llah (Semple 1991). Thus, fundamentalist Baha'is
> secretly consider liberals and some moderates "not Baha'is" at all because
> they do not demonstrate sufficient willingness to immerse their wills in
the
> authority of the Baha'i administration."
>
> "Fundamentalist Baha'is believe that Baha'i institutions such as the local
> assembly or the NSA can be divinely guided, and that the Universal House
of
> Justice is infallible.  The technical terminology in Persian is not
> unambiguous, and Baha'i texts make distinctions that this approach
> disregards.  Contemporary Baha'i fundamentalists avoid thinking
> constitutionally about such issues, asserting the infallibility of the
House
> of Justice in an undifferentiated manner. [One] American Baha'i and
mystery
> writer...wrote, "The Guidance and infallibility of the Universal House of
> Justice are assured and promised.  We are specifically directed, as  an
act
> of faith, to offer instant, exact, and complete obedience to Baha'u'llah's
> House of Justice. We are warned of the dire
> spiritual dangers inherent in ignoring this directive, and we are
admonished
> to be vigilant, firm, and uncompromising in our loyalty, support,
obedience
> and love for the this Divinely Ordained Institution."
> (Talisman9 Archives, 23 May 2000).
>
> Fundamentalist Baha'is view "the member's time, space and activity" as "a
> group resource, not an individual one" (Almond et al. 408).   In some
> communities enormous pressure is put on individuals by fundamentalists to
> "teach the faith" or proselytize others.  Some more liberal (or just shy)
> Baha'is report being extremely uncomfortable with this pressure and cite
it
> as a reason they became inactive or withdrew from membership.  Constant
> appeals are also made for Baha'is to donate money, to "give till it
hurts,"
> and most of these donations appear to go to monumental building projects
at
> the Baha'i world center in Haifa or to bureaucratic purposes at the
National
> Baha'i Center in Wilmette.  The Baha'i administration appears to do almost
> no charity work (measured as a percentage of their budget), especially for
> non-Baha'is.  Although Baha'is do not have a distinctive form of dress,
they
> do have special ritual forms of prayer, and they fast in the Muslim way.
> They are under surveillance for behavior that might contravene Baha'i
law."
>
>
>
>
>
> Mr Mahdi <mrmahdi@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:93vk57$e2u$1@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU...
> I would like to respond in general to some of those commented on my essay.
> When I say that creed of the Bahai Faith is static, what I meant was that
> according to the Bahai Faith, the only one who has the authority to
"change"
> or
> overhaul a belief within the Bahai Faith is someone who is given "waHy"
> (revelation).  Bahais believe that God continues to send messengers and
> prophets (aka as "Manifestations" in Bahai terminology), so when there is
a
> belief that is eventually abrogated (in a religion) occurs, according to
> what
> Bahais believe, a "Manifestation" of God is given this authority to
execute
> the
> abrogation of a certain belief or practice.  So it goes back to what
Bahais
> believe is the source of beliefs; God not man or any of his "interest
> groups."
>
>
> There has never been an accurate and definite definition of
"fundamentalism"
> by
> Bahai liberals.  Because the beliefs of those accused by Bahai liberals as
> being "fundamentalist" varies (e.g., some would have varying viewpoints on
> certain issues within the Bahai Faith; some would be seen as having a
> "liberal"
> belief while others a more "conservative" inclination) and the use of
> "fundamentalism" as a label for these people as politically-motivated
> tactic,
> it has not helped people in understanding what exactly makes a Bahai a
> "Bahai
> fundamentalist."  There is no set or consistent criteria Bahai liberals
have
> where one can label a person a "Bahai fundamentalist" in a way that is
> accurate
> and justified.
>
> I would like for someone to show us what makes a Bahai a "Bahai
> fundamentalist"
> and if this criteria to label people is accurate, consistent, and justly
> applied without the obvious politically-motivated intentions behind its
use.
>
> If you study the origin of the word fundamentalism, it was meant to
describe
> Christians who followed a "literal interpretation" of the Bible.  In other
> words, fundamentalism was a basicly a literal approach made by Christians
to
> the Bible.  It had nothing to do with extremism or militancy.
>
> What the word fundamentalism brought out was a negative feeling amongst
> people
> who didn't agree with people who took everything literally.  So later on,
> esp.
> during the Islamic awakening happening around the world, anybody who did
> anything "for the cause of religion," (esp. things that were considered
> "bad')
> was labeled a fundamentalist, even though he could be violating the very
> fundamentals of his religion or belief.  At the meantime, the atheistic
> secular
> Communists were never labeled "fundamentalists," because many people who
> used
> fundamentalism to attack religion were of course secularists themselves,
and
> to
> call a fellow secularist a fundamentalist would not look good for
> secularism.
>
> So when a secularist like an extremist Communist does something extreme,
he
> is
> not called a "fundamentalist" but when a person who is not secularist does
> something extreme, he is called a fundamentalist.  That is why the term is
> not
> only loaded but politically-motivated.
>
> Mahdi
>
> --
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Nima Hazini <lotusapt@wxc.com.au>
> Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai
> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 10:51 AM
> Subject: Re: The Politically-Motivated Use of "Fundamentalism" by Bahai
> "Liberals"
>
>
> Mr Mahdi <mrmahdi@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:sd276.5045$%b.30296@e420r-sjo2.usenetserver.com...
>
> > Often used to label a group or person as intolerant, bigoted,
> >superstitious, fanatical, and just plain crazy, "fundamentalism" creates
a
> >notion that those who believe in adhering and interpreting religious
> beliefs in
> > "literal way" are intolerant, bigoted, superstitious, fanatical and just
> >plain crazy.
>
> While certain fundamentalists of the Hindu, Jewish, Chrisitian and
> especially Islamic cloth have demonstrated violence, rampant intolerance,
> bigotry, superstition, fanaticism and just plain craziness in the past,
that
> does not mean that all fundamentalists are necessarily that way, since
these
> things are an effect not the cause or description of fundamentalism.
> Fundamentalism, at its basis, is about a set of beliefs, ideological
> priorities, assumptions and a certain attitude about religion in the
modern
> world. Many have analysed its presence in the global village among us, but
> none as poignantly and in analytical and typological detail as the team of
> scholars and specialists assembled by Martin E. Marty (University of
> Chicago) and R. Scott Appleby (University of Notre Dame) for what has come
> to be christened as the FUNDAMENTALISM PROJECT. The FUNDAMENTALISM PROJECT
> has already produced 8 fat, thick volumes of detailed articles and
> monographs on the phenomena of religious fundamentalism wordlwide spanning
> traditions from Christianity to Islam and Judaism to fundamentalist
> responses in the South Asian and Far Eastern traditions. In the 1st volume
> of the Fundamentalism Project: *FUNDAMENTALISMS OBSERVED* (Chicago: 1991),
> the editors have identified 9 common typologies of fundamentalism. To wit,
>
> 1) It mounts a protest against the marginalization of religion in
> secularizing societies.
>
> 2) It selectively reshapes the religious tradition (i.e. it may represent
> itself as a restatement of the essence of the religion, but in fact it
picks
> and chooses from the tradition) and it accepts some aspects of modernity
> while rejecting others.
>
> 3) It sees the moral world as divided sharply into good and evil.
>
> 4)  It emphasizes the absolutism and inerrancy of its scriptures (and thus
> rejects Western critical academic scholarship on that corpus).
>
> 5) It has a millennialist emphasis.
>
> 6)  It has an elect, chosen membership.
>
> 7) It draws sharp boundaries between the saved and the sinful.
>
> 8) It maintains an authoritarian, charismatic leadership structure.
>
> 9)  It has strict behavioral requirements for its people.
>
>
> In another important work on the fundamentalist phenomena in
> Christianity, Judaism and  Islam, i.e. _The Defenders of God: The
> Fundamentalist Revolt Against the Modern Age_  (Columbia SC: 1995),
> Professor Bruce B. Lawrence of Duke University (Religious Studies) points
> out that,
>
> Fundamentalism is the affirmation of religious authority as holistic and
> absolute, admitting of neither criticism nor reduction; it is expressed
> through the collective demand that specific creedal and ethical dictates
> derived from scripture be publicly recognized and legally enforced (p.
27).
>
> Earlier he pointed out,
>
> Fundamentalism is shaped both by its interaction with modernity and its
> reaction against modernism. It is a two-way, not a one-way, exchange. It
> affects "secular humanists" as well as their fundamentalist opponents. And
> it is an exchange that has taken place, and continues to take place, on a
> global scale, drawing into its orbit all religious traditions not just
Islam
> [Judaism or Christianity] (p xiv).
>
> Later on he notes,
>
> ...Fundamentalist challenges have arisen in several traditions. One could
> locate cadres that are Sikh or Buddhist, _Baha'i_ [he references Denis
> Maceoin's "Baha'i Fundamentalism and the Western Academic Study of the
Babi
> Movement"] or Hindu (p. 6).
>
> On pp. 100-101 Lawrence delineates the common "traits" of fundamentalists:
>
> 1. Fundamentalists are advocates of a pure minority viewpoint against a
> sullied majority or dominant group. They are the righteous remanant turned
> vanguard, and even when the remanant/vanguard seizes political power and
> seems to become a majority, as happened in Iran in 1979, they continue to
> perceive and project themselves as a minority.
>
> 2. Fundamentalists are oppositional. They do not merely disagree with
their
> enemies, they confront them. While the evil Other is an abstract sense of
> anomie or uprootedness, it is located in particular groups who perpetuate
> the prevailing "secular" ethos. Fundamentalists confront those secular
> people who exercise political or judicial power. Often they also confront
> "wayward" religious professionals [or percieved "wayward" scholars or
> intellectuals].
>
> 3. Fundamentalists are secondary-level male elites. They claim to derive
> authority from a direct, unmediated appeal to scripture, yet because
> interpretive principles are often vague, they must be carried by
charismatic
> leaders who are invariably male. Notions of a just social order in Iran,
or
> a halakhic polity in Israel, or a Christian civilization in America
require
> continuous, repeated reinterpretation. In each instance what seems to an
> outsider to be arbitrary retrieval of only some elements from a common
past
> is to fundamentalists the necessary restoration of an eternally valid
divine
> mandate. And it is a mandate mediated through exclusively male
interpretors.
>
> 4. Fundamentalists generate their own technical vocabulary. Reflecting the
> polysemy of language, they use special terms that bind insiders to each
> other, just as they prempt interference from outsiders. Halakha for Jews,
> shari'a for Muslims, [the "covenant" or "infallibility" for Baha'is], and
> "creation" for Christians represent...[four]...terms, each of which would
be
> open to several interpretations but which fundamentalists invest with
> particular meaning that exceptionalizes, even as it appears to validate,
> their ideological stance.
>
> 5. Fundamentalism has historical antecedents, but no ideological
precursors.
> As Marc Bloch warned, one should never confuse ancestry with explanation.
> Though the antecedents of fundamentalism are varied and distant -
Maccabean
> revolt for Jews, the Protestant Reformation for Christians, the Wahhabi
> revolt for Sunnis Muslims, the martyrdom of Husayn for Shi'is -
> fundamentalism as a religious ideology is very recent. It did not emerge
in
> Protestant America until the end of the last century. It has only become
> apparent in Judaism during the last fifty years, and since it represents a
> delayed reaction to the psychological hegemony of European colonial rule,
it
> could only occur in majoritarian Muslim countries after they had become
> independent nation-states, that is, in most instances, after World War II.

>
> So given all this, it is a rather big non sequitor (i.e. fallacy of
> reasoning) to assert that fundamentalism is merely a Western boggeyman
ploy
> or that Armstrong and others who are studying the phenomena are conflating
> or misconstruing nationalism and religious identity assertion and lumping
> them all under a tenuously common rubric. For the reasons stated above,
the
> global phenomenon of fundamentalism is a very real one and one only need
> look at the the IRI or the Taliban regime as two sore thump examples of
its
> presence and existence.
>
>
> >"Liberalism" is a dynamic belief system which often is manifested in a
> >movement.
>
> The discourse of Liberalism makes the following set of assumptions,
>
> 1. Discursive dynamicity (i.e. liberal discourse) is the product of a
> continuous process of rational discourse.
>
> 2. Rational discourse is possible even among those who do not share the
same
> culture, religion, belief system nor even the same ideological
> consciousness.
>
> 3.Rational discourse can produce mutual understanding and
> cultural/philosophical consensus, as well as sometimes agreement on
> particulars.
>
> 4. Consensus permits of stable social arrangements, and is the rational
> basis of the choice of coherent strategies.
>
> 5. Rational strategic choice is the basis of improving the human condition
> possibly through collective action.
>
> 6. Liberalism as such can exist only where and when its social and
> intellectual prerequisites exist.
>
>
> <snip>
>
> Given that the Baha'i teachings uphold such principles as 'An ever
advancing
> civilization' and the progressive unfoldment of religious truth in
history,
> liberalism by definition is not incompatible with the Baha'i faith.
> Fanatism, rigid ideological dogmatism and especially that which advocates
> violence to achieve certain political ends, which certain religious
> fundamentalists such as the Taliban and Khomeinists continually advocate,
> are however incontrovertibly incompatible with the Baha'i faith and its
> teachings.
>
> As far as the issue of same-sex marriages or homosexuality and the Baha'i
> faith, this is casting hubris on an issue not all liberals agree on, and
> which does not define liberalism as such. Liberalism at base is about a
set
> of philosophical assumptions made about the world. Furthermore, liberal
> believers can be found in all the major world traditions. There are
Islamic
> liberals, Chrisitian liberals, Jewish liberals, so on and so forth. By
> virtue of subscribing to the priorities of the Open Society and hence
> liberalism does not automatically exclude a believer from being a
believer.
> Such hubristic arguments, regularly trounced by bona fide religious
> fundamentalists (especially of the Islamic stripe) are pure red herrings.
>
> regards,
> Nima
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: <nima_hazini@my-deja.com>
Subject: Censorship foiled?
Date: Saturday, January 20, 2001 2:52 AM

Just an update to let everyone know that the SRB moderators finally
posted a version of my original message. However, while they were most
reluctant to post my message originally, they were quite eager to post
the detractions of said article almost immediately after the article
appeared. This goes to show that for whatever excuses the moderators of
SRB might make about this or that reason for not posting an article,
the bottom line is that there's a HUGE double standard followed by the
SRB moderators.

cheers,
Nima

In article <9436gp$kcu$1@gnamma.connect.com.au>,
  "Nima Hazini" <lotusapt@wxc.com.au> wrote:
> --
> Greetings Nima,
>
> The reason I rejected your message is not because of the quoted
material,
> but because of the repeated information otherwise known as signal to
noise
> ratio. Mr. Mahdi is not going to answer your questions regardless of
how
> many times you post the same material. Personally I don't know why you
> bother trying to engage him or his rhetoric, but I digress.
>
> Let me address a few of your concerns. First, Rick B. is right here.
All
> the mods get the messages each week and if there is any concern we all
> speak up. I can guarantee you that you have no special favor or
dislike
> from any of the mods. Second, there is no directive from any
> Administrative body or individuals putting you in any special
condition
> withthe mods. Your posts are measured by the charter and will
continue to
> be. Lastly, we do not post who gets rejected, but it would be safe to
say
> Mr. Mahdi has had a great deal more rejected than ever posted at SRB.
>
> I now give you the same advise I give eveyone. Stick to the charter.
It is
> not what you say, but how you say it. My personal
>  bias as an academic is not to post anything without a reference and
now
> that I know it is unpublished it surely will NOT get posted. You can
put
> the same information in your own words in another post if you feel it
is
> important. This is not an academic discussion group. There are plenty
of
> those around.
>
> best regards,
>
> Pete Hellmann
> SRB Mod Staff
>
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Nima Hazini wrote:
>
> > Dear Pete,
> >
> > >You quote "an upcoming article" in your message without giving a
> > >reference.
> >
> > Because it's not published yet and needs more work to be done on it
before
> > being so.
> >
> > > I really need a reference to make this valid.
> >
> > Make me the reference.
> >
> > >More importantly, your quotation (132 lines) is longer than your
message
> > (43 lines).
> >
> > Excuse me, but Baha'is do this all the time on SRB quoting from
Baha'i
> > scripture. Is this an excuse not to post my message? Where is Rick
> > Boatright??
> >
> > >Secondly, most of the the information below has already been posted
> > >to SRB.
> >
> > Most but not all. I was reiterating the same point because the
poster was
> > raising the same hubris as before. Did the SRB moderators notice
that
> about
> > MrMahdi's message?? My message is pertinent to the attack that was
being
> > made by MrMahdi. And why is it that whereas posts from one of the
most
> > notorious Muslim fundamentalist anti-Baha'i polemicists online is
allowed
> on
> > SRB without a sweat, I constantly have to fight you SRB moderators
for
> every
> > single one of my messages to be posted? Is there a directive to
censor all
> > my messages from on high or something???
> >
> > regards,
> > Nima
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
>
> Greetings Nima,
>
> You quote "an upcoming article" in your message without giving a
> reference. I really need a reference to make this valid. More
importantly,
> your quotation (132 lines) is longer than your message (43 lines). I
would
> rather see individuals express their own ideas in discussion rather
than
> throwing huge quotes at each other.
>
> Secondly, most of the the information below has already been posted
> to SRB.
>
> best regards,
>
> Pete Hellmann
> SRB Mod Staff
>
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Nima Hazini wrote:
>
> > MrMahdi obviously did not read my long reply which quoted from the
> > literature of the social sciences on the subject of fundamentalism,
and
> > still hubristically insists the word is politically loaded without
> > addressing any of the points outlined in my reply to him or the
typologies
> > which characterize what "fundamentalism" is. MrMahdi also poses a
straw
> man
> > and non sequitor by casting 'secular' extremists on the Left as
possible
> > fundamentalists whereas the very definition of the word
characterizes a
> > phenomenon in 'religion' (not secular groups) in modernity. So,
again, for
> > the benefit of the readership of this NG, let me put forth the 9
basic
> > descriptives of "fundamentalism" outlined by Marty and Appleby in
volume 1
> > of the FUNDAMENTALISM PROJECT: Fundamentalisms Observed_ (Chicago:
1991):
> >
> > 1) Fundamentalism mounts a protest against the marginalization of
religion
> > in
> > secularizing societies.
> >
> > 2) Fundamentalism selectively reshapes the religious tradition
(i.e. it
> may
> > represent
> > itself as a restatement of the essence of the religion, but in fact
it
> picks
> > and chooses from the tradition) and it accepts some aspects of
modernity
> > while rejecting others.
> >
> > 3) Fundamentalism sees the moral world as divided sharply into good
and
> > evil.
> >
> > 4)  Fundamentalism emphasizes the absolutism and inerrancy of its
> scriptures
> > (and thus
> > rejects Western critical academic scholarship on that corpus).
> >
> > 5) Fundamentalism has a millennialist emphasis.
> >
> > 6)  Fundamentalism has an elect, chosen membership.
> >
> > 7) Fundamentalism draws sharp boundaries between the saved and the
sinful.
> >
> > 8) Fundamentalism maintains an authoritarian, charismatic leadership
> > structure.
> >
> > 9)  Fundamentalism has strict behavioral requirements for its
people.
> >
> >
> > To quote from an upcoming article on the phenomenon of Baha'i
> > fundamentalism:
> >
> >
> > "The first major ideological characteristic of fundamentalism, is a
> reaction
> > against the marginalization of religion in secular societies.  Among
> Baha'i
> > fundamentalists, this reaction takes the form of a belief in a
future
> > theocracy, in which they expect Baha'i ecclesiastical institutions
to take
> > over the civil state, and which differentiates them from Baha'i
liberals
> and
> > moderates.  The belief appears to be rooted primarily in oral
traditions
> > attributed to Shoghi Effendi and letters written on his behalf by
> > secretaries, since although he does speak of a future Baha'i
> > commonwealth in his published works, its character remains vague.
Hand of
> > the Cause John Robarts reported his version of a long conversation
with
> > Shoghi Effendi expatiating on this idea (Robarts 1993).  Some
Baha'is
> > believed that he held that a melding of religion and state would
not occur
> > during the thousand-year dispensation of Baha'u'llah himself, but
only
> > toward the end of the Baha'i "cycle," of some 500,000 years (Hofman
1953).
> > There are two problems for Baha'i fundamentalists.  The first is
that
> > Baha'u'llah's own writings, and those of `Abdul-Baha are frankly
> > anti-theocratic.  The second is that in Baha'i law, oral traditions
are
> > supposed to be discounted in favor of written texts.
Fundamentalists thus
> > tend to hew to generalities when explaining their belief, lacking
> scriptural
> > support."
> >
> > "The second feature of fundamentalism is selectivity.
Fundamentalists
> > select and reshape aspects of the tradition, all the while
asserting that
> > they have recaptured its pristine essence.  They are also selective
in
> > their responses to modernity.  They embrace some aspects of it
(such as
> > certain types of technology), while vehemently rejecting others.
Baha'i
> > fundamentalists engage in all three types of selectivity as well.
They
> > frequently make a claim to be engaging in traditional practices
that are
> in
> > fact innovations, and can do so with some success because the
history and
> > texts of the Baha'i faith are relatively little studied and
authorities
> > have often actively suppressed historical sources.  We have already
> > mentioned the problem that theocratic beliefs are unscriptural.
That is,
> the
> > scriptural tradition in the Baha'i faith strove for a separation of
> religion
> > and state as a way of making room for liberty of conscience for
Baha'is in
> > Shi`ite Iran (McGlinn 1999, Cole 1998c:17-47). In his Treatise on
> Leadership
> > of the early 1890s `Abdul-Baha said that religious institutions,
> including
> > Baha'i ones, are never to intervene in affairs of state or political
> matters
> > unbidden, and that whenever in
> > history they have done so it has resulted in a huge disaster.
> (`Abdul-Baha
> > in Cole 1998a).  He clearly envisaged the state and religious
institutions
> > as complementary, "like milk and honey."
> >
> > "Baha'is, including Baha'i fundamentalists, have for the most part
> embraced
> > modernity.  They have a vision of building a peaceful global
society and
> for
> > the most part have a positive view of technological advances.
Still,
> > the selectivity of Baha'i fundamentalists toward modernity can be
> witnessed
> > in the severe misgivings that some of them have expressed about the
> > Internet" or such issues as democracy and the separation of
religion and
> > politics."
> >
> > "Fundamentalist Baha'is put special emphasis on moral
Manichaeanism.  They
> > see the world as comprised of a small cadre of those "firm in the
> Covenant."
> > They....admit a larger number of Baha'is who are "infirm" but
> > perhaps not dangerously so.  They worry about smaller numbers
of "liberal"
> > or "dissident" Baha'is who [they believe] attempt to "undermine" the
> > Covenant."
> >
> > "Baha'i fundamentalism puts great emphasis on the absolutism and
inerrancy
> > of scripture.  This belief is quite widespread but not universal.
It is
> > tested most fiercely with regard to issues such as evolution.
> `Abdul-Baha
> > maintained, in Sufi and Neoplatonic fashion, that human beings have
always
> > been a distinct species and that human beings are not animals,
insofar as
> > they are endowed with a soul.  He also argued that the morphological
> > similarities between humans and apes might be merely functional
(e.g,
> sharks
> > and porpoises resemble one another but are not immediately
related), and
> > maintained that "the missing link" would never be found.  These
> > assertions have foundered against the DNA revolution, which has
found that
> > humans, chimpanzees and bonobos share 98 percent of the same genes
and are
> > clearly closely related.  During a discussion of his statements on
> > evolution, a typical poster to SRB wrote,  "Dear all, On the topic
of
> > evolution: Clearly we should understand as clearly as possible what
> > 'Abdul-Baha says on this subject. Because we believe His
statements on
> > matters pertaining to the Revelation of Baha'u'llah and all of
creation
> are
> > infallible, we must be clear about what it is we believe, or are
> accepting"
> > (SRB 6 July 1997)."
> >
> > "Baha'i fundamentalists emphasize belief in an imminent catastrophe
they
> > refer to as "the Calamity" (Smith 1982).   One contributor to a
> Baha'i-only
> > list wrote, "I would like to open a discussion on a subject which
many of
> us
> > are somewhat unwilling to address - namely, the impending (year
2,000)
> > calamity which is supposed to create grave upheaval (literally) not
only
> > here in California, but also on the East Coast, and other parts of
the
> > world . . ." (Pers. Comm, March 14, 1994)."
> >
> > "Fundamentalist Baha'is have an authoritarian view of how the Baha'i
> > "administrative order" should function.  There is a great emphasis
on
> > obedience.  The typical logic of Baha'i fundamentalists roots
obedience in
> > the legitimacy of authority, disallowing a rational examination of
the
> > substance of a command or an inquiry into whether the body giving
the
> > command has the "constitutional" prerogative to give it.  In this
way,
> > arbitrary commands by Baha'i bodies are made to be an either-or
> proposition.
> > If one accepts Baha'u'llah, one accepts his administrative order,
and must
> > obey whatever it orders one to do, whether one agrees in
> > conscience or no.  Rejection of the command, ipso facto, represents
a
> > rejection of Baha'u'llah (Semple 1991). Thus, fundamentalist Baha'is
> > secretly consider liberals and some moderates "not Baha'is" at all
because
> > they do not demonstrate sufficient willingness to immerse their
wills in
> the
> > authority of the Baha'i administration."
> >
> > "Fundamentalist Baha'is believe that Baha'i institutions such as
the local
> > assembly or the NSA can be divinely guided, and that the Universal
House
> of
> > Justice is infallible.  The technical terminology in Persian is not
> > unambiguous, and Baha'i texts make distinctions that this approach
> > disregards.  Contemporary Baha'i fundamentalists avoid thinking
> > constitutionally about such issues, asserting the infallibility of
the
> House
> > of Justice in an undifferentiated manner. [One] American Baha'i and
> mystery
> > writer...wrote, "The Guidance and infallibility of the Universal
House of
> > Justice are assured and promised.  We are specifically directed,
as  an
> act
> > of faith, to offer instant, exact, and complete obedience to
Baha'u'llah's
> > House of Justice. We are warned of the dire
> > spiritual dangers inherent in ignoring this directive, and we are
> admonished
> > to be vigilant, firm, and uncompromising in our loyalty, support,
> obedience
> > and love for the this Divinely Ordained Institution."
> > (Talisman9 Archives, 23 May 2000).
> >
> > Fundamentalist Baha'is view "the member's time, space and activity"
as "a
> > group resource, not an individual one" (Almond et al. 408).   In
some
> > communities enormous pressure is put on individuals by
fundamentalists to
> > "teach the faith" or proselytize others.  Some more liberal (or
just shy)
> > Baha'is report being extremely uncomfortable with this pressure and
cite
> it
> > as a reason they became inactive or withdrew from membership.
Constant
> > appeals are also made for Baha'is to donate money, to "give till it
> hurts,"
> > and most of these donations appear to go to monumental building
projects
> at
> > the Baha'i world center in Haifa or to bureaucratic purposes at the
> National
> > Baha'i Center in Wilmette.  The Baha'i administration appears to do
almost
> > no charity work (measured as a percentage of their budget),
especially for
> > non-Baha'is.  Although Baha'is do not have a distinctive form of
dress,
> they
> > do have special ritual forms of prayer, and they fast in the Muslim
way.
> > They are under surveillance for behavior that might contravene
Baha'i
> law."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Mr Mahdi <mrmahdi@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:93vk57$e2u$1@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU...
> > I would like to respond in general to some of those commented on my
essay.
> > When I say that creed of the Bahai Faith is static, what I meant
was that
> > according to the Bahai Faith, the only one who has the authority to
> "change"
> > or
> > overhaul a belief within the Bahai Faith is someone who is
given "waHy"
> > (revelation).  Bahais believe that God continues to send messengers
and
> > prophets (aka as "Manifestations" in Bahai terminology), so when
there is
> a
> > belief that is eventually abrogated (in a religion) occurs,
according to
> > what
> > Bahais believe, a "Manifestation" of God is given this authority to
> execute
> > the
> > abrogation of a certain belief or practice.  So it goes back to what
> Bahais
> > believe is the source of beliefs; God not man or any of
his "interest
> > groups."
> >
> >
> > There has never been an accurate and definite definition of
> "fundamentalism"
> > by
> > Bahai liberals.  Because the beliefs of those accused by Bahai
liberals as
> > being "fundamentalist" varies (e.g., some would have varying
viewpoints on
> > certain issues within the Bahai Faith; some would be seen as having
a
> > "liberal"
> > belief while others a more "conservative" inclination) and the use
of
> > "fundamentalism" as a label for these people as politically-
motivated
> > tactic,
> > it has not helped people in understanding what exactly makes a
Bahai a
> > "Bahai
> > fundamentalist."  There is no set or consistent criteria Bahai
liberals
> have
> > where one can label a person a "Bahai fundamentalist" in a way that
is
> > accurate
> > and justified.
> >
> > I would like for someone to show us what makes a Bahai a "Bahai
> > fundamentalist"
> > and if this criteria to label people is accurate, consistent, and
justly
> > applied without the obvious politically-motivated intentions behind
its
> use.
> >
> > If you study the origin of the word fundamentalism, it was meant to
> describe
> > Christians who followed a "literal interpretation" of the Bible.
In other
> > words, fundamentalism was a basicly a literal approach made by
Christians
> to
> > the Bible.  It had nothing to do with extremism or militancy.
> >
> > What the word fundamentalism brought out was a negative feeling
amongst
> > people
> > who didn't agree with people who took everything literally.  So
later on,
> > esp.
> > during the Islamic awakening happening around the world, anybody
who did
> > anything "for the cause of religion," (esp. things that were
considered
> > "bad')
> > was labeled a fundamentalist, even though he could be violating the
very
> > fundamentals of his religion or belief.  At the meantime, the
atheistic
> > secular
> > Communists were never labeled "fundamentalists," because many
people who
> > used
> > fundamentalism to attack religion were of course secularists
themselves,
> and
> > to
> > call a fellow secularist a fundamentalist would not look good for
> > secularism.
> >
> > So when a secularist like an extremist Communist does something
extreme,
> he
> > is
> > not called a "fundamentalist" but when a person who is not
secularist does
> > something extreme, he is called a fundamentalist.  That is why the
term is
> > not
> > only loaded but politically-motivated.
> >
> > Mahdi
> >
> > --
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Nima Hazini <lotusapt@wxc.com.au>
> > Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai
> > Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 10:51 AM
> > Subject: Re: The Politically-Motivated Use of "Fundamentalism" by
Bahai
> > "Liberals"
> >
> >
> > Mr Mahdi <mrmahdi@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:sd276.5045$%b.30296@e420r-sjo2.usenetserver.com...
> >
> > > Often used to label a group or person as intolerant, bigoted,
> > >superstitious, fanatical, and just plain crazy, "fundamentalism"
creates
> a
> > >notion that those who believe in adhering and interpreting
religious
> > beliefs in
> > > "literal way" are intolerant, bigoted, superstitious, fanatical
and just
> > >plain crazy.
> >
> > While certain fundamentalists of the Hindu, Jewish, Chrisitian and
> > especially Islamic cloth have demonstrated violence, rampant
intolerance,
> > bigotry, superstition, fanaticism and just plain craziness in the
past,
> that
> > does not mean that all fundamentalists are necessarily that way,
since
> these
> > things are an effect not the cause or description of fundamentalism.
> > Fundamentalism, at its basis, is about a set of beliefs, ideological
> > priorities, assumptions and a certain attitude about religion in the
> modern
> > world. Many have analysed its presence in the global village among
us, but
> > none as poignantly and in analytical and typological detail as the
team of
> > scholars and specialists assembled by Martin E. Marty (University of
> > Chicago) and R. Scott Appleby (University of Notre Dame) for what
has come
> > to be christened as the FUNDAMENTALISM PROJECT. The FUNDAMENTALISM
PROJECT
> > has already produced 8 fat, thick volumes of detailed articles and
> > monographs on the phenomena of religious fundamentalism wordlwide
spanning
> > traditions from Christianity to Islam and Judaism to fundamentalist
> > responses in the South Asian and Far Eastern traditions. In the 1st
volume
> > of the Fundamentalism Project: *FUNDAMENTALISMS OBSERVED* (Chicago:
1991),
> > the editors have identified 9 common typologies of fundamentalism.
To wit,
> >
> > 1) It mounts a protest against the marginalization of religion in
> > secularizing societies.
> >
> > 2) It selectively reshapes the religious tradition (i.e. it may
represent
> > itself as a restatement of the essence of the religion, but in fact
it
> picks
> > and chooses from the tradition) and it accepts some aspects of
modernity
> > while rejecting others.
> >
> > 3) It sees the moral world as divided sharply into good and evil.
> >
> > 4)  It emphasizes the absolutism and inerrancy of its scriptures
(and thus
> > rejects Western critical academic scholarship on that corpus).
> >
> > 5) It has a millennialist emphasis.
> >
> > 6)  It has an elect, chosen membership.
> >
> > 7) It draws sharp boundaries between the saved and the sinful.
> >
> > 8) It maintains an authoritarian, charismatic leadership structure.
> >
> > 9)  It has strict behavioral requirements for its people.
> >
> >
> > In another important work on the fundamentalist phenomena in
> > Christianity, Judaism and  Islam, i.e. _The Defenders of God: The
> > Fundamentalist Revolt Against the Modern Age_  (Columbia SC: 1995),
> > Professor Bruce B. Lawrence of Duke University (Religious Studies)
points
> > out that,
> >
> > Fundamentalism is the affirmation of religious authority as
holistic and
> > absolute, admitting of neither criticism nor reduction; it is
expressed
> > through the collective demand that specific creedal and ethical
dictates
> > derived from scripture be publicly recognized and legally enforced
(p.
> 27).
> >
> > Earlier he pointed out,
> >
> > Fundamentalism is shaped both by its interaction with modernity and
its
> > reaction against modernism. It is a two-way, not a one-way,
exchange. It
> > affects "secular humanists" as well as their fundamentalist
opponents. And
> > it is an exchange that has taken place, and continues to take
place, on a
> > global scale, drawing into its orbit all religious traditions not
just
> Islam
> > [Judaism or Christianity] (p xiv).
> >
> > Later on he notes,
> >
> > ...Fundamentalist challenges have arisen in several traditions. One
could
> > locate cadres that are Sikh or Buddhist, _Baha'i_ [he references
Denis
> > Maceoin's "Baha'i Fundamentalism and the Western Academic Study of
the
> Babi
> > Movement"] or Hindu (p. 6).
> >
> > On pp. 100-101 Lawrence delineates the common "traits" of
fundamentalists:
> >
> > 1. Fundamentalists are advocates of a pure minority viewpoint
against a
> > sullied majority or dominant group. They are the righteous remanant
turned
> > vanguard, and even when the remanant/vanguard seizes political
power and
> > seems to become a majority, as happened in Iran in 1979, they
continue to
> > perceive and project themselves as a minority.
> >
> > 2. Fundamentalists are oppositional. They do not merely disagree
with
> their
> > enemies, they confront them. While the evil Other is an abstract
sense of
> > anomie or uprootedness, it is located in particular groups who
perpetuate
> > the prevailing "secular" ethos. Fundamentalists confront those
secular
> > people who exercise political or judicial power. Often they also
confront
> > "wayward" religious professionals [or percieved "wayward" scholars
or
> > intellectuals].
> >
> > 3. Fundamentalists are secondary-level male elites. They claim to
derive
> > authority from a direct, unmediated appeal to scripture, yet because
> > interpretive principles are often vague, they must be carried by
> charismatic
> > leaders who are invariably male. Notions of a just social order in
Iran,
> or
> > a halakhic polity in Israel, or a Christian civilization in America
> require
> > continuous, repeated reinterpretation. In each instance what seems
to an
> > outsider to be arbitrary retrieval of only some elements from a
common
> past
> > is to fundamentalists the necessary restoration of an eternally
valid
> divine
> > mandate. And it is a mandate mediated through exclusively male
> interpretors.
> >
> > 4. Fundamentalists generate their own technical vocabulary.
Reflecting the
> > polysemy of language, they use special terms that bind insiders to
each
> > other, just as they prempt interference from outsiders. Halakha for
Jews,
> > shari'a for Muslims, [the "covenant" or "infallibility" for
Baha'is], and
> > "creation" for Christians represent...[four]...terms, each of which
would
> be
> > open to several interpretations but which fundamentalists invest
with
> > particular meaning that exceptionalizes, even as it appears to
validate,
> > their ideological stance.
> >
> > 5. Fundamentalism has historical antecedents, but no ideological
> precursors.
> > As Marc Bloch warned, one should never confuse ancestry with
explanation.
> > Though the antecedents of fundamentalism are varied and distant -
> Maccabean
> > revolt for Jews, the Protestant Reformation for Christians, the
Wahhabi
> > revolt for Sunnis Muslims, the martyrdom of Husayn for Shi'is -
> > fundamentalism as a religious ideology is very recent. It did not
emerge
> in
> > Protestant America until the end of the last century. It has only
become
> > apparent in Judaism during the last fifty years, and since it
represents a
> > delayed reaction to the psychological hegemony of European colonial
rule,
> it
> > could only occur in majoritarian Muslim countries after they had
become
> > independent nation-states, that is, in most instances, after World
War II.
>
> >
> > So given all this, it is a rather big non sequitor (i.e. fallacy of
> > reasoning) to assert that fundamentalism is merely a Western
boggeyman
> ploy
> > or that Armstrong and others who are studying the phenomena are
conflating
> > or misconstruing nationalism and religious identity assertion and
lumping
> > them all under a tenuously common rubric. For the reasons stated
above,
> the
> > global phenomenon of fundamentalism is a very real one and one only
need
> > look at the the IRI or the Taliban regime as two sore thump
examples of
> its
> > presence and existence.
> >
> >
> > >"Liberalism" is a dynamic belief system which often is manifested
in a
> > >movement.
> >
> > The discourse of Liberalism makes the following set of assumptions,
> >
> > 1. Discursive dynamicity (i.e. liberal discourse) is the product of
a
> > continuous process of rational discourse.
> >
> > 2. Rational discourse is possible even among those who do not share
the
> same
> > culture, religion, belief system nor even the same ideological
> > consciousness.
> >
> > 3.Rational discourse can produce mutual understanding and
> > cultural/philosophical consensus, as well as sometimes agreement on
> > particulars.
> >
> > 4. Consensus permits of stable social arrangements, and is the
rational
> > basis of the choice of coherent strategies.
> >
> > 5. Rational strategic choice is the basis of improving the human
condition
> > possibly through collective action.
> >
> > 6. Liberalism as such can exist only where and when its social and
> > intellectual prerequisites exist.
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Given that the Baha'i teachings uphold such principles as 'An ever
> advancing
> > civilization' and the progressive unfoldment of religious truth in
> history,
> > liberalism by definition is not incompatible with the Baha'i faith.
> > Fanatism, rigid ideological dogmatism and especially that which
advocates
> > violence to achieve certain political ends, which certain religious
> > fundamentalists such as the Taliban and Khomeinists continually
advocate,
> > are however incontrovertibly incompatible with the Baha'i faith and
its
> > teachings.
> >
> > As far as the issue of same-sex marriages or homosexuality and the
Baha'i
> > faith, this is casting hubris on an issue not all liberals agree
on, and
> > which does not define liberalism as such. Liberalism at base is
about a
> set
> > of philosophical assumptions made about the world. Furthermore,
liberal
> > believers can be found in all the major world traditions. There are
> Islamic
> > liberals, Chrisitian liberals, Jewish liberals, so on and so forth.
By
> > virtue of subscribing to the priorities of the Open Society and
hence
> > liberalism does not automatically exclude a believer from being a
> believer.
> > Such hubristic arguments, regularly trounced by bona fide religious
> > fundamentalists (especially of the Islamic stripe) are pure red
herrings.
> >
> > regards,
> > Nima
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Sent via Deja.com
https://www.deja.com/From: <nima_hazini@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Censorship foiled?
Date: Sunday, January 21, 2001 10:48 PM

Our resident American midwestern rightwing Baha'i militia man, Mark
Elderkin, currently living in the sticks of New South Wales ranted:

> The real question here is: Why would the SRB moderators, on a Baha'i
>NG,post anything at all from you?

So you are indeed advocating censorship, eh?? Amazing! Thanks for your
honesty, Mark.
   I often wonder why people like you are even Baha'is? Wouldn't it
make more sense to join the Moonies or even the Scientologists or even
a charismatic fundamentalist Babtist church than the Baha'i faith
seeing how your views more closely accord with those than anything
expounded by Baha'u'llah and `Abdul-Baha?

 > If the above were really true then the moderators would not have
>ignored the
> guidance already presented to them in a Baha'i publication.

Guidance, more like slander! But tell me, Mark, why where you calling
me and leaving Christmas greetings on my answering machine a few weeks
ago when you believe I should be shunned??

cheers,
Nima

Sent via Deja.com
https://www.deja.com/From: "Nima Hazini" <lotusapt@wxc.com.au>
Subject: Deafamation in Baha'i Publication (cult retaliation to ex-member)
Date: Monday, December 11, 2000 5:48 PM

Contents

1. Defamatory Publication about me in recent Australian Baha'i Bulletin
2. My reponse to the NSA of Australia
3. Queensland Consolidated Acts 1889 Sections  4 &5
4. Affidavit on violent physical assault by local Baha'is on the Gold Coast.
5. Text of libellous and defamatory letter written on behalf of the National
Spiritual Assembly of Australia about me dated Nov. 1997
6. Links to cites where a pattern of abuses by Baha'i authorities towards
former members is documented.

---
Australian Baha'i Bulletin, Dec, Page 2.

"Status Clarification

A number of Baha'is have expressed  concern about statements being made by
Mr Nima Hazini, who  is presently  resident in Queensland. Their concern
arose from  their belief that he is a member of the Baha'i community. In
fact, Mr Hazini  wrote the  National Spiritual Assembly of the United States
on November 25, 1996, during the period he was residing in that country,
withdrawing from the Baha'i community. Unfortunately, Mr Hazini  has for
some time been engaged in attacking the integrity of the Cause. The friends
are therefore advised to leave him to himself."

--
To whom it may concern:

I note that in the recent December 2nd issue of the Australian Baha'i
Bulletin a seriously libellous and defamatory statement has been published
about me in a journal supervised by your body explicitly casting me as an
enemy of the Baha'i Faith and overtly calling for my being shunned, this
time publicly. Since this matter is overtly defamatory and libellous,
therefore injurious to my honour, integrity and reputation, it is a very
serious matter, especially given that the Australian Baha'i Bulletin is
circulated widely. I ask 1) that you clarify forthwith, immediately and in
writing with a detailed explanation who exactly those Baha'is are who have
expressed concern about my status as a non-Baha'i, and 2) why, for what
reason and end should this clarification be printed in the Australian Baha'i
Bulletin, and under what pretext, four years to the date after my withdrawal
in the United States and after I have disassociated myself from the Baha'i
community and its functions altogether. I ask that 3) you clarify forthwith,
immediately and in writing with a detailed explanation exactly what is meant
by the phrase "engaged in attacking the integrity of the Cause," since I
have at no time attacked the Central Baha'i Figures. I ask that 4) you
clarify forthwith, immediately and in writing with a detailed explanation
exactly why this was printed and highlighted on the second page of the
Australian Baha'i Bulletin directly below a statement by the Universal House
of Justice when such status clarifications are usually printed in the back
pages of said journal. I ask that 5) you clarify forthwith, immediately and
in writing with a detailed explanation exactly who was responsible for the
decision to print this statement and specifically whether it was an NSA
decision (by majority, quorum or otherwise), or whether by another party,
and whom exactly. Furthermore, what business is it of the Australian Baha'i
Bulletin to publically clarify the status of a non-Baha'i or of their
statements to begin with? Given the timing of the publication of this
statement in the Australian Baha'i Bulletin leaves room for seriously grave
suspicions as to its origin and possible motives - even collusion by third
parties not on the NSA and hence cronyism cannot be ruled out at this
stage - which would indeed then tend to raise serious questions about the
overall integrity of the institution of the National Spiritual Assembly of
the  Baha'is of Australia and individual members thereof. It is indeed
curious that this statement should come in the wake of a violent physical
assault against my person three months ago by a member of the LSA of the
Gold Coast - a member who is a wealthy donor  to the AO, and seemingly based
on his own statements has claimed he has the ear of one or two UHJ members
and a member of your own NSA. I believe that the publication of this
statement is nothing more than yet another
carefully crafted attempt by the AO at a cover-up of corruption and abuses
by its close patrons.

As such, should this matter not be addressed by your body and a written
apology and retraction not be forthcoming immediately in the next (January
2001) edition of the said journal forthwith, the National Spiritual Assembly
of the Baha'is of Australia will leave me no choice but to proceed with
initiating formal litigation proceedings against it for its continued
defamation against my person and its continued injury of my right to privacy
and freedom of association. Make no mistakes, all legal avenues at my
disposal will be persued and exhausted to the fullest extent of the law, and
since a public call for my shunning has been made, and such calls are
illegal under Australian law, this matter will be persued. Moreover, this
will be followed by full disclosures of all pertinent facts and
circumstances to the Australian national press as well as the International
press, including but not limited to United Press International, Reuters, the
Associated Press, 60 Minutes, A Current Affair, Frontline, Radio Free Europe
and The Voice of America. Full disclosures of violations of the human and
civil rights of former members, including myself, will also be fully
disclosed and exposed to various civil liberties and human rights
organizations  such as the Australian Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty
International, Human Rights Watch and the United Nations High Commissioner
for
Human Rights and various Cult Watch groups and organizations both in
Australia and abroad. Moreover, Australian Federal MPs as well as members of
the United States Congress, the British and European Parliaments and the
United Nations favourably inclined to the Baha'is will also be contacted and
a full disclosure given about the continual pattern of abuses against myself
and others by Baha'i authorities. Academics and various professional
Academic forums and associations in Australia, North America and Europe will
also be contacted and full disclosures made, detailing this pattern of
abuse. Surely, the
National Spiritual Assembly of Australia and the Baha'i community does not
wish to tarnish irreparably its good reputation in the world at large and be
relegated to the same playing field and compared publicly in the press and
public mind to cults such as Scientology and the Reverend Sung Yung Moon's
Unification Church in its treatment, harassment and public defamation of
former members for alleged thought-crimes.

I therefore ask you attend to this matter immediately and without delay. I
will be awaiting your reply. This message will be included (and possibly
expanded) in a longer missive to be sent by me to the NSA of Australia in
several days.

Sincerely yours,
Nima Hazini
--
Queensland Consolidated Acts

 Defamation Act 1889 - SECT 4

 Definition of "defamatory matter"

 4.(1) Any imputation concerning any person, or any member of the person's
family, whether living or dead, by which the reputation of that person is
likely to be injured, or by which the person is likely to be injured in the
person's profession or trade, or by which other persons are likely to be
induced to shun or avoid or ridicule or despise the person, is called
"defamatory", and the matter of the imputation is called "defamatory
matter."

 (2) An imputation may be expressed either directly or by insinuation or
irony.

                       SECT 5

 5.(1) Any person who, by spoken words or audible sounds, or by words
intended to be read either by sight or touch or by signs, signals, gestures,
or visible representations, publishes any defamatory imputation concerning
any person is said to defame that person.

---
Affidavit (modified, some names etc, have been taken out)

On the evening of September 4th, 2000, approximately 7:00pm, at the repeated
insistence of 9999999999999999, I went to their house for dinner at
XXXXXXXXXXXX. Attending were misters W, X,  Y, Z  and ladies A, B, C and the
two year old son of Z and B, R. The attendees were already half way through
dinner when I arrived. I sat down to the meal and ate until around
7:15/7:25.

After dinner, approximately 7:30pm, a heated conversation ensued resulting
in an altercation between Mr. W, X and myself, as a result of which I was
attacked and assaulted by misters X, W, Z and Y. The events are the
following:

After the meal, around the dinner table, small talk conversation ensued
mainly around the subject of what Y was doing with his life these days in
the United States. Y spoke about his life as a medical student, how he was
planning to be a pediatrician, and also revealed that he was an expert in
the martial arts of Brazilian Jujitsu and that he had even been California
state champion. The conversation next shifted to being single, and B
complimented Mr. Y stating how she thought he was "the perfect guy" but
asking why he was still single. Mr. W then interjected and the pejorative
term "Loser" was used about those who were single. Next Mr. W began
arrogantly boasting about his major accomplishments and how he had made
enormous contributions to society and the like. I then questioned the
premise of the claim presented by Mr. W, and as a matter of principle,
stated that I did not believe that building opulent, decadent and snobbish
projects such as the *********** Hotel and such constituted true service
to society by any stretch of the imagination, since true service to society
is by definition selfless, sincere, pure, unglamorous and seeking of wide
ranging positive results for the benefit of many, like Mother Teresa, unlike
the decadent opulence of such grandiose hotel resort projects open only to
the rich, wealthy and famous such as the *********.

Next, after I had bluntly stated my opinion, X angrily interjected and began
to loudly swear at me, exclaiming, "Fuck you, Fuck you, Fuck you, you piece
of shit, you fucking covenant breaker!" repeating this several times.
Clearly unnerved by Mr. X imprecations, I replied to the insult, replying
with "No Fuck you, Fuck you!!"

As I was being insulted like this for merely stating a frank opinion, and
unnerved beyond belief by such self-righteous arrogance as Mr. X was now
displaying, I got up from my chair to leave, and X also got up.  Next Mr. Y
jumped from his chair, tackled and pinned me in a body/headlock at which
point misters W and X  began hitting me from both directions - right and
left. At no time did Y make an attempt to stop the assaults by W and X.
Pinned in a tight bodylock by Y, Mr. Z next got up, and I told him to stay
out of it, while being manhandled in a body/headlock by mister Y and being
dragged around the dinner table. Next I was slammed into the wall and pinned
to it, and Mr. X and Y both repeatedly punched me in my shoulder, and Z
slapped me in the back of the head. Mr. X then slapped me in the face. While
pinned by Y to the wall, I brought my hands up as close to my face as
physically permissible at this point in order to protect it from punches
being thrown from all sides in my direction (a technique I learned in
boxing). Next  both W and X  hit me in turn in the side of the head, and
then Mr. Z slapped the side of my head again and said "you are jealous of X,
loser, you bloody covenant breaker!"  Mr. Y proceeded to drag me through the
room and into the lounge, W and X and Z following behind them. The women,
baby and my grandfather were all screaming hysterically to stop and telling
me to leave. I told Mr. Z to let me go so that I could take my things (i.e.
hat, mobile phone and car keys) and leave, but he would not let me go. I
repeated my request once again, still Mr. Z would not let go. Before
reaching the lounge corridor leading to the front door of the unit, Mr. Z
body and headlocked me in a strangle-hold, also locking his legs tightly
around mine, throwing himself and myself down upon the floor, breaking a
porcelain vase in the process. When we hit the ground, I began feeling
slight suffocation, and I almost passed out. At this point when I was thrown
onto the ground, my left elbow was cut, due to having just been smashed into
the vase, and I began to bleed from the left arm. While on the ground Mr. W
and X each in turn kicked me in the head, when we got up Mr. X hit me in the
side of the arm.  All this time I was being held tightly on the ground
unable to move. Then Mr. Z dragged up himself and I. Mr. X swung to hit me
in the head, but missed and his punch grazed my neck and shoulder on the
left hand side instead. The altercation resumed, and I kept asking for my
possessions so that I could leave. During this back and forth altercation,
Mr. X exclaimed, "You don't know who I am in this city, you motherfucker,
covenant breaker. You don't know who I know and what power I have, I am
going to destroy you and your father, I am going to destroy you, you
covenant breaker! I am the most powerful man in this city. You fucking
covenant breakers!" This was repeated twice. Then B ran up and made the
following slanderously libellous claim,

Finally, Mr. Y dragged me out of the unit and to the elevator, still in
headlock, followed in step by Mr. Z . I kept asking for my hat, mobile and
car keys, but they were not provided.

In the elevator, Mr. Y continued to hold me in a lock all the way down to
the ground floor and into the lobby. When we got to the ground floor, Ms. B,
Mr. W and  Mr. X arrived on in the following elevator. The altercation
resumed, Mr. Y again held me in a body-lock/head lock. Once again, Mr. W
stated, "You don't know who I am; I will destroy you!" Next Ms. B stepped in
and again reiterated the same libellous defamatory remark about my father,
stating

She repeated this three times emphasing,

<libel snipped>

Next, still being held by Y, X stated "you are a piece of shit, you are
nothing, you're a loser, you motherfucking covenant breaker!" W then told Y
and Z to bring me outside and then went outside of the lobby of Westwater
apartments. He said, "you are nothing but a piece of shit, and even your
parents know it, covenant breaker." Z attempted to pull me and Rafat
outside, but Y did not move. As the manager of the complex came out to
see what the disturbance was all about, W then said to X and Z  "just call
the Police and charge him with assault." W then went and drove his Mercedes
to the front, made the following threat, stating, "as of tomorrow watch your
back!" He drove off. Then X repeated the same threat, "watch your back from
tomorrow."

At this point, it should be noted that Mr. W has boasted numerous times in
my presence about the power and influence he wields on the Gold Coast more
than any other person in the city. He has claimed that he controls various
local city council members and politicians, the city mayor, judges,
solicitors, the police, several state politicians and lawmakers, the local
media, and federal MPs, suggesting that he has ties to organised crime and
that on the Gold Coast he is completely untouchable and that anyone who
crosses him will be physically and financially destroyed.

Altercations resumed, Y finally took me outside, still in bodylock, with Z
following, then X went inside the lobby. I told Z I wanted my things now,
and he said he'd already gotten it for me. I told him I had not received
them, besides how could I since I was being held in a lock by Y. He went
back up to the 13th floor to retrieve them. Z came back with my things, a
sharp exchange of words and mutual swearing in Persian ensued, and Z let me
go.

 Y left and went back up.  Traumatized, I got in my car and left.

 I went straight to the XXXXX Police station and filed a complaint with
Constable VVVVV (AAAAA). He took my complaint and I emphasized the gravity
of the matter, since I had just been given a death threat, and he saw how my
left arm was bruised and my elbow was bleeding all over the counter. While
the complaint was being taken my mother phoned twice on my mobile phone. I
told her I'd come straight over after I'd finished in the XXXXX Police
station.

 After I finished at the XXXXXX Police Station, I drove straight to my
parents house at XXXXXX. I told my mother and sister what had happened, and
they were shocked, so my mother called my grandparent's house right away.
Mr. Z picked up the phone, my mother was shaken and angry, and demanded to
speak to one of her parents at once. Mr. Z refused and stated that it was
all mutual, and that neither of my grandparents could come to the phone at
this time. The conversation ended.

 My mother and I next went to the YYYYYYY Paradise Police station and there
spoke to Constable OOOOO (OOOOO) and told him that I wished to file a
restraining order. He told me that, although he could not currently locate
the original complaint on his computer file, the original complaint filed in
XXXXX would suffice, and that in any case no such thing as a restraining
order exists in Queensland. I told him that I feared for my life, since Mr.
W and X had both made a direct death threat, and W at least has suggested he
has connections to organised crime and in any case he would have the means
(financial and otherwise) to carry out his threat. Constable OOOOO said that
what he could do for now was to "flag my address and telephone number" so
that if any emergency or situation should occur, and I where to call 000,
the process of obtaining Police help could more speedily be expedited. My
mother and I left and drove back home.

We arrived back home, and my father and my sister were there. I stayed for
half an hour and then drove back to my apartment to get some rest.

That whole night I could not sleep, given the trauma and assault I had just
experienced and the death threat issued by W and reiterated by X. My left
elbow bled and hurt the whole night through, I felt pain and discomfort in
my neck, head and shoulders.

The next morning (5th) I went and saw Dr. HHHHHH at *******, and he examined
me. I showed my bruised left arm and the scar on my left elbow which had
continued to bleed until the morning. My neck and shoulders still ached
painfully, especially on the right hand side. After examination, the nurse
treated my bleeding elbow, bandaged it and told me to come back in three
days, but if bleeding or any other problem continues to come back
immediately. The rest of the day I had trouble concentrating, and the night
of the 5th, I again had trouble sleeping and the stress level was the
highest I have ever experienced. I then went to the Southport magistrates
court registry and obtained and then filed a Peace and Good Behavior (Act
1982 [s.4]) against both misters W and X. The copies of the forms were given
to the OOOOOO Police station to serve.

--
NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY
OF THE BAHA'IS OF AUSTRALIA INCORPORATED
A.R.B.N. 009 727 128 (Incorporated in the A.C.T.) (Liability of members
limited)

SECRETARIAT

Phone: (02) 99113 2771
Fax: (02) 9970 7275
Email: ausnsa@bahai.org.au

4 November 1997

The Local Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the Gold Coast
PO Box 833
Southport 4215

Dear Baha'i Friends,

RE: MR. NIMA HAZINI

The National Spiritual Assembly of Australia has been informed by the
National Spiritual Assembly of the United States that Mr. Nima Hazini
occasionally spends time in Australia visiting parents and often associates
with the Baha'i youth here. As Mr. Hazini's parents are members of your
community we are sharing the following information (which has been provided
by the National Assembly of the United States) with your Assembly:

".It is important for you to know that Mr. Hazini withdrew his Baha'i
membership in December 1996 after expressing his strong dissatisfaction with
the Baha'i community and our National Spiritual Assembly. Shortly after his
withdrawal was accepted, Mr. Hazini wrote to the National Spiritual Assembly
stating that he had not withdrawn from the Baha'i Faith but had withdrawn
only from the Baha'i community. He provided a copy of his letter to the
Universal House of Justice.When Mr. Hazini received a copy of the Universal
House of Justice's letter, he chose not to pursue reinstatement of his Baha'
i membership. The last information that we had about him was that he had
decided to become a follower of Sufism."

At one stage Mr. Hazini was transferred to the United States as a Baha'i in
good standing. However, in light of the information given by the National
Spiritual Assembly of the United States we have made the necessary changes
in our records about his status.

Your Spiritual Assembly is advised to be alert to Mr. Nima Hazini's
activities in your area, when he comes to Australia to visit his parents,
especially his association with the Baha'i youth..

Thanking you for your cooperation and with loving Baha'i greetings.

Gul Williams
for the Secretariat

--
https://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bhdoc.htm

(see middle to bottom of page)

See especially the following article by Juan Cole:

https://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/1999/jssr/bhjssr.htm

https://home.clear.net.nz/pages/alisonz/

(page of Baha'i woman in New Zealand summarily disenrolled -
excommunicated - by the Baha'i organization for thought-cimes, i.e. internet
postings)

see also

https://members.nbci.com/FG/index.htm

From: "Nima Hazini" <lotusapt@wxc.com.au>
Subject: Re: Defamation in Baha'i Publication
Date: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 9:51 PM

Dear Linda:

I would urge you to read through the following sites. Particularly the
following article published in the Summer 1998 edition of the Journal for
the Scientific Study of Religion by Juan R.I. Cole entitled "The Baha'i
Faith in America as Panopticon":

https://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/1999/jssr/bhjssr.htm

see also K. Paul Johnson's spirited article on the talisman@indian.edu
fiasco in the Fall 1997 edition of Gnosis magazine entitled "Baha'i Leaders
Vexed by On-Line Critics":

https://members.nbci.com/FG/Gnosis.htm

see also relevant documents on this page:

https://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bhdoc.htm

(especially middle to bottom of page)

see also,

https://home.clear.net.nz/pages/alisonz/

(page of Baha'i woman in New Zealand summarily disenrolled -
excommunicated - by the Baha'i organization for thought-crimes, i.e.
internet
postings critical of certain policies of the Baha'i administration)

see also

https://members.nbci.com/FG/index.htm

All of these documents and testimony of many ex-members, including myself,
most definitely would classify the Baha'i organization as a bona fide, yet
benign, religious cult. The problem is not so much with the teachings of the
Baha'i faith per se which promote tolerance, peace and the Independent
Investigation of the Truth. But rather the fundamentalization of the Baha'i
faith by Western and Iranian Baha'i fundamentalists which has occured just
in the past twenty some years which has transformed the Baha'i religion into
a cult by kicking aside many of the essential teachings of the Founders and
Central Figures of the Baha'i faith. Today, such notions as unquestioned
obediance to the dictates of the Baha'i administration far outweighs much of
what is publicly touted as Baha'i doctrine and teachings. For example, no
dissent is allowed within the Baha'i organization and any dissent is made
tantamount to sedition and outright heresy. While to the outside world a
tolerant, universalist and liberal face is projected, internally it is far
from being the case. Read the material and judge for yourself. It is a sad
state of affairs indeed.

cheers,
Nima

Linda Martin <lindajmartin@justice.com> wrote in message
news:91og94020nf@enews2.newsguy.com...
This is the first time I've ever seen Baha'i referred to as a cult.  I've
read a lot of anti-cult literature (books)and at one time had even looked
for mention of Baha'i and it wasn't there.  It seemed to me that it doesn't
meet the definition of so-called "dangerous" or "mind control" cults.  It
has become a rather mainstream religion.  There is not even one head honcho
people are following after.  Money donations are expected but also very
private, no plate passing, and the amount is totally voluntary.  There were
a few other differences.  Mainly the mind control aspect was gone because
Baha'is are encouraged to read other religious literature and to think for
themselves.

Just my opinion,
Linda

From: "Nima Hazini" <lotusapt@wxc.com.au>
Subject: Baha'i Fundamentalism defined
Date: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 9:23 AM

The first major ideological characteristic of fundamentalism, is a reaction
against the marginalization of religion in secular societies.  Among Baha'i
fundamentalists, this reaction takes the form of a belief in a future
theocracy, in which they expect Baha'i ecclesiastical institutions to take
over the civil state, and which differentiates them from Baha'i liberals and
moderates.  The belief appears to be rooted primarily in oral traditions
attributed to Shoghi Effendi and letters written on his behalf by
secretaries, since although he does speak of a future Baha'i
commonwealth in his published works, its character remains vague.  Hand of
the Cause John Robarts reported his version of a long conversation with
Shoghi Effendi expatiating on this idea (Robarts 1993).  Some Baha'is
believed that he held that a melding of religion and state would not occur
during the thousand-year dispensation of Baha'u'llah himself, but only
toward the end of the Baha'i "cycle," of some 500,000 years (Hofman 1953).
There are two problems for Baha'i fundamentalists.  The first is that
Baha'u'llah's own writings, and those of `Abdul-Baha are frankly
anti-theocratic.  The second is that in Baha'i law, oral traditions are
supposed to be discounted in favor of written texts. Fundamentalists thus
tend to hew to generalities when explaining their belief, lacking scriptural
support.

The second feature of fundamentalism is selectivity.  Fundamentalists
select and reshape aspects of the tradition, all the while asserting that
they have recaptured its pristine essence.  They are also selective in
their responses to modernity.  They embrace some aspects of it (such as
certain types of technology), while vehemently rejecting others.  Baha'i
fundamentalists engage in all three types of selectivity as well.  They
frequently make a claim to be engaging in traditional practices that are in
fact innovations, and can do so with some success because the history and
texts of the Baha'i faith are relatively little studied and authorities
have often actively suppressed historical sources.  We have already
mentioned the problem that theocratic beliefs are unscriptural. That is, the
scriptural tradition in the Baha'i faith strove for a separation of religion
and state as a way of making room for liberty of conscience for Baha'is in
Shi`ite Iran (McGlinn 1999, Cole 1998c:17-47). In his Treatise on Leadership
of the early 1890s `Abdul-Baha said that religious institutions, including
Baha'i ones, are never to intervene in affairs of state or political matters
unbidden, and that whenever in history they have done so it has resulted
in a huge disaster. (`Abdul-Bahain Cole 1998a).  He clearly envisaged the
state and religious institutions as complementary, "like milk and honey."

Baha'is, including Baha'i fundamentalists, have for the most part embraced
modernity.  They have a vision of building a peaceful global society and for
the most part have a positive view of technological advances.   Still,
the selectivity of Baha'i fundamentalists toward modernity can be witnessed
in the severe misgivings that some of them have expressed about the
Internet" or such issues as democracy and the separation of religion and
politics.

Fundamentalist Baha'is put special emphasis on moral Manichaeanism.  They
see the world as comprised of a small cadre of those "firm in the Covenant."
They....admit a larger number of Baha'is who are "infirm" but
perhaps not dangerously so.  They worry about smaller numbers of "liberal"
or "dissident" Baha'is who [they believe] attempt to "undermine" the
Covenant.

Baha'i fundamentalism puts great emphasis on the absolutism and inerrancy
of scripture.  This belief is quite widespread but not universal.  It is
tested most fiercely with regard to issues such as evolution.  `Abdul-Baha
maintained, in Sufi and Neoplatonic fashion, that human beings have always
been a distinct species and that human beings are not animals, insofar as
they are endowed with a soul.  He also argued that the morphological
similarities between humans and apes might be merely functional (e.g, sharks
and porpoises resemble one another but are not immediately related), and
maintained that "the missing link" would never be found.  These
assertions have foundered against the DNA revolution, which has found that
humans, chimpanzees and bonobos share 98 percent of the same genes and are
clearly closely related.  During a discussion of his statements on
evolution, a typical poster to SRB wrote,  "Dear all, On the topic of
evolution: Clearly we should understand as clearly as possible what
'Abdul-Baha says on this subject. Because we believe His statements on
matters pertaining to the Revelation of Baha'u'llah and all of creation are
infallible, we must be clear about what it is we believe, or are accepting"
(SRB 6 July 1997).

Baha'i fundamentalists emphasize belief in an imminent catastrophe they
refer to as "the Calamity" (Smith 1982).   One contributor to a Baha'i-only
list wrote, "I would like to open a discussion on a subject which many of us
are somewhat unwilling to address - namely, the impending (year 2,000)
calamity which is supposed to create grave upheaval (literally) not only
here in California, but also on the East Coast, and other parts of the
world . . ." (Pers. Comm, March 14, 1994).

Fundamentalist Baha'is have an authoritarian view of how the Baha'i
"administrative order" should function.  There is a great emphasis on
obedience.  The typical logic of Baha'i fundamentalists roots obedience in
the legitimacy of authority, disallowing a rational examination of the
substance of a command or an inquiry into whether the body giving the
command has the "constitutional" prerogative to give it.  In this way,
arbitrary commands by Baha'i bodies are made to be an either-or proposition.
If one accepts Baha'u'llah, one accepts his administrative order, and must
obey whatever it orders one to do, whether one agrees in
conscience or no.  Rejection of the command, ipso facto, represents a
rejection of Baha'u'llah (Semple 1991). Thus, fundamentalist Baha'is
secretly consider liberals and some moderates "not Baha'is" at all because
they do not demonstrate sufficient willingness to immerse their wills in the
authority of the Baha'i administration.

Fundamentalist Baha'is believe that Baha'i institutions such as the local
assembly or the NSA can be divinely guided, and that the Universal House of
Justice is infallible.  The technical terminology in Persian is not
unambiguous, and Baha'i texts make distinctions that this approach
disregards.  Contemporary Baha'i fundamentalists avoid thinking
constitutionally about such issues, asserting the infallibility of the House
of Justice in an undifferentiated manner. [One] American Baha'i and mystery
writer...wrote, "The Guidance and infallibility of the Universal House of
Justice are assured and promised.  We are specifically directed, as  an act
of faith, to offer instant, exact, and complete obedience to Baha'u'llah's
House of Justice. We are warned of the dire
spiritual dangers inherent in ignoring this directive, and we are admonished
to be vigilant, firm, and uncompromising in our loyalty, support, obedience
and love for the this Divinely Ordained Institution."
(Talisman9 Archives, 23 May 2000).

Fundamentalist Baha'is view "the member's time, space and activity" as "a
group resource, not an individual one" (Almond et al. 408).   In some
communities enormous pressure is put on individuals by fundamentalists to
"teach the faith" or proselytize others.  Some more liberal (or just shy)
Baha'is report being extremely uncomfortable with this pressure and cite it
as a reason they became inactive or withdrew from membership.  Constant
appeals are also made for Baha'is to donate money, to "give till it hurts,"
and most of these donations appear to go to monumental building projects at
the Baha'i world center in Haifa or to bureaucratic purposes at the National
Baha'i Center in Wilmette.  The Baha'i administration appears to do almost
no charity work (measured as a percentage of their budget), especially for
non-Baha'is.  Although Baha'is do not have a distinctive form of dress, they
do have special ritual forms of prayer, and they fast in the Muslim way.
They are under surveillance for behavior that might contravene Baha'i law.

These are some of the typologies and descriptives of Baha'i fundamentalism.

best regards,

Nima

From: "Freethought110" <freethought110@bohemian.org>
Subject: Moving on.....
Date: Saturday, November 24, 2001 11:05 PM

Clearly for me continuing to engage in Baha'i related issues is increasingly
becoming a total waste of time. BIGS will be BIGS. The ao will never mend
its ways, and besides it is the fate of *all* religious movements and their
adherents without exception to ultimately fall down into the abyss of
authoritarianism, intolerance, exclusivism, triumphalism, fanaticism and
terminal stupidity. The abject and manifest failure of the Baha'i religion
is testimony to the truth that all religious efforts are fundamentally rigid
and utopianic in scope and so therefore ultimately hubristic when confronted
with the hard fact realities of the world and the complexities of human
life, and thus doomed to failure regardless as to how human beings will
always strive to grasp at imaginary straws searching for that utopia. As
such neither founding a religion that offers an alternative paradigm to
previously failed religious endeavours, nor reforming that religion when its
motivating impulses are clearly sacrificed on the alters of power, money and
expediency when it becomes a runaway train, will truly provide the desired
outcome. Rather that failure, more than anything else, is an
incontrovertibly assured fact that history has proven (and will prove once
more) again and again and again.

I have reached a stage in my life that I am ready to leave ALL connections
with the Baha'i religion and its dirty politics in the past and move on to
bigger and better things. A new business I am about to start, the future of
Iran without the mullahs, the fact that I'll be turning 30 in three weeks
and above all a relationship I would like to nurture even further are more
important things to me now than the misdeeds of the uhj/ao; that they're a
terminally pathetic bunch of religious lunatics; or that they think they're
infallible; or, especially, how far BIGS will continue to bury their heads
in quicksand despite the sore thumb that constantly sticks right in their
collective faces about the realities they refuse to face. In other words,
the Baha'i wars are no longer my problem, and I couldn't care less anymore
one way or the other.

I will continue to post (occasionally) to Zuhur and talisman9 as well as
continue to moderate H-Bahai, not to mention keep in touch with all my close
friends. But the difference now is that my full energies will defintely be
expended elsewhere amd for different things.

Adieu and farewell, and if anyone wants to contact me, you know the address.

cheers
--
Freethought110

 

From: "Freethought110" <freethought110@bohemian.org>
Subject: Re: Baha'u'llah is the Prophet of God for mankind in this day
Date: Thursday, December 20, 2001 2:22 PM

"Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.0112200756.78062b9f@posting.google.com...

> And millions and millions of Americans say the pledge of alegience.

Apples and oranges comparison. Not the same thing.

> So what.  I am arguing that simply because a large number of people
> have a common understanding of a thing does not make it dangerous.

The way you fundamentalist Baha'is do, it does.

> Billions of people in this world have a common understanding of Futbol
> does that make them part of a dangerous cult?  Hardly (well except for
> Liverpool supporters :-)

Apples and oranges once again.

> > Are you arguing that because they shared a common understanding of
National
> > Socialism that this ipso facto absolves them of the vice of being
> > brainwashed??? Other examples will also suffice. But hopefully you get
the
> > picture -- or maybe not.
>
> No, you misunderstand.  I am saying that a common understanding of a
> thing does not automatically equate with cultism.

However the Baha'i faith as practiced by you and a majority of your
adherents fits every category of a cult.

> > In any case, what a simply dangerous as well as
> > boring religion/cult to belong to where everyone agrees.
>
> So every religion is, therefore, dangerous in your book, as they are
> all based on a common understanding of their faiths theology and
> practice.

*Every* bona fide religion has many different schools of thought and in the
modern world even tolerates various opinions in the religion itself. Baha'is
don't. You have a central authority which wishes to impose dogma, stifle
dissent and throw people out. You have no real spirit in your religion. It
is lifeless. You think worshipping a beaurocracy is the acme of
spirituality. Your religion is dysfunctional and its leaders abusive,
close-minded and corrupt assholes. "Ye shall know them by their fruits," and
if that is a motto to go by, then demonstrably Baha'is fail every time.
Therefore, AFAIC, it is a cult.

> > >That would be like saying
> > > that Catholics are brainwashed because they all know when to sit,
> > > kneel, and stand during mass.
> >
> > LOL :)) Typical display of terminal Baha'i naivete.
>
> Show me that I am wrong rather than simply insist that I am.
> Substance my friend - not bluster.

I've done that for over 2 years. You haven't been listening, and I couldn't
care less about rehearsing the shame arguments to you over and over and over
again, hope against hope, that you'll finally take your head out of your
behind and see the truth. Now, please, take your conversation back to TRB
and leave SCI alone otherwise I will be forced to crosspost all kinds of
irrelevant threads on your NG.

> Hey, I thought _you_ were leaving?

I have. WTF are you guys doing here on SCI??

--
Freethought110

Homepage