From: "Juan Cole" Subject: Kazemzadeh, Semple and al-Qaida Date: Friday, February 08, 2002 12:21 PM The Baha'i faith stands for universal love, for tolerance, and for a separation of religion and state. The need for religious leaders to let politicians do the ruling is a key value stated over and over again in Baha'i scripture. Unfortunately, a weird Baha'i sub-cult has arisen. It structurally resembles al-Qaida, and differs from al-Qaida only with regard to methods, not ideals. It does not usually employ violence or terrorism (though persons with this mindset have beaten up friends of mind). And, most frighteningly of all, it has taken over and subverted the main institutions of the Baha'i faith. 1) Al-Qaida believes in the destruction of secular, civil governments and replacing them with a fascist theocracy. Baha'i theocrats believe in the destruction of secular, civil governments and replacing them with a fascist theocracy. Ian Semple, a member of the Baha'i Universal House of Justice, has for decades cast scorn on civil governments and spoken of his dream of a future when Baha'i Institutions will rule in their stead. One pilgrim wrote, "I recall being in Haifa in the '70s ('72 and '78) and hearing long talks about this from Ian Semple, on how the world was destined to be ruled by houses of justice and there will eventually be no distinction between church and state, with rather snide and smug comments about how at last the world will finally get it right and have God and Government fused through the power of the Baha'i covenant." Note that this is the opposite of what `Abdu'l-Baha says in the Treatise on Leadership: https://www2.h-net.msu.edu/~bahai/trans/vol2/absiyasi.htm Semple also put out a letter from the Secretariat of the UHJ: "As for the statement made by Shoghi Effendi in his letter of 21 March 1932, the well-established principles of the Faith concerning the relationship of the Baha'i institutions to those of the country in which the Baha'is reside make it unthinkable that they would ever purpose to violate a country's constitution or so to meddle in its political machinery as to attempt to take over the powers of government. This is an integral element of the Baha'i principle of abstention from involvement in politics. However, this does not by any means imply that the country itself may not, by constitutional means, decide to adopt Baha'i laws and practices and modify its constitution or method of government accordingly." In this passage he basically argues for a Nazi-like tactic of getting elected democratically and then abolishing democracy. By the way, the Islamists (with al-Qaida links) tried this in Algeria, and the democrats and secularists fought back, embroiling the country in a civil war that has cost 100,000 lives. This is the sort of conflict between theocratic Baha'is and the rest of society that Semple is urging on the world. At that point would the Baha'i theocrats refrain from violence? 2) Al-Qaida wishes to reestablish the Islamic Caliphate as the One World Government. Baha'i theocrats substitute the House of Justice for the Caliphate and envision it ruling the world. 3) Al-Qaida despises parliamentary democracy as corrupt, money-driven and unrepresentative. It wishes to overthrow parliaments and institute authoritarian religious rule instead. Baha'i theocrats despise parliamentary democracy and wish to substitute their religious institutions, which are not freely elected, for civil government. Long-time Baha'i leader Firuz Kazemzadeh said in 1988: "If somebody is dissatisfied with a local assembly, he is not prevented from appealing to the NSA . . . It is something else when whispering campaigns or petitions are sent around for signatures objecting to the activities of the institutions. That also may be something which is countenanced by American democracy but has nothing to do with the Baha’i Faith. We must always remember that our institutions are an unusual and unique combination of theocracy in the best sense of the term with democracy. The institutions of the Baha’i Faith have not been created by us, the institutions have been created by God.” Actually, Kazemzadeh's version of the Baha'i institutions has been created by Kazemzadeh. 4) Al-Qaida establishes cells throughout the world to work for theocracy, and recruits innocent Muslims at mosques. Baha'i theocrats have secret cells within the Baha'i community, and recruit Baha'is at deepenings and other events into their twisted world-view. Many "Auxiliary Board Members" and Assistants are secret theocrats who play dirty tricks on ordinary Baha'is to force them out of the Faith. The Ian Semple/Kazemzadeh theocratic ideology aims at destroying American democracy. It aims at gutting the Constitution and abolishing Congress in favor of Kazemzadeh's weird, secretive, authoritarian way of ruling. 5) Al-Qaida demands absolute obedience from its recruits, and no dissent is permitted. Baha'i theocrats demand absolute obedience to "the Institutions" and tolerate no dissent. Kazemzadeh told a group of Baha'i intellectuals, "the word dissent implies separating oneself from the activities of the group and putting oneself outside the mainstream of the community, and that is contrary to Baha'i practice.” You can't disagree with the NSA. The dangers to the pristine Baha'i faith, with its values of tolerance, allowing the expression of diverse points of view, and firm commitment to the separation of religion and state, of this theocratic cult that has taken control of the community cannot be overstated. Moreover, it is a threat to the whole world. Now that we have seen where such authoritarian theocracy leads, on September 11, I call upon all Baha'is to step back, reread the scriptures, and adhere to the real values of our religion. cheers Juan ColeFrom: "Juan Cole" Subject: Cowardice of the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States Date: Friday, February 08, 2002 3:10 AM Dear Pat Kohli: Since you have been out here backbiting me and using foul language and treating me to a little auto-da-fe of your own in typical Inquisitorial fundamentalist-Baha'i Style, let me just take a moment out of my busy life to respond to you, whoever you are. First of all, you have pretended to hurt that I suggested that the US NSA was cowardly in its response to the horrible attack on the United State of September 11. But it is cowardly. In the NSA letter appended to the message of a private individual below, the NSA urges that Baha'is in the wake of September 11 avoid criticizing the Taliban Government of Afghanistan. We were not even supposed to "assign blame" to Osama Bin Ladin or al-Qaida! "above any mention whatsoever of government actions, assignment of blame . . ." Moreover, no Baha'i writing in as an individual to a newspaper was allowed to say, "I am a Baha'i, and I condemn this evil attack on the United States by virtue of my Baha'i values, of tolerance and respect for human life." Bob Henderson had the gall to tell us that we could not say this. What in the world does the Baha'i faith stand for if it doesn't even publicly stand against terrorism? If adherents cannot publicly associate themselves both with a condemnation of mass murder and with the Baha'i principles?? As for this minor issue of whether the NSA had planned to ban the saying of the Prayer for America, it remains murky. Not only I but the poster below, posting in the same period, had heard that it might. I heard the same things, and was not unusual in giving them credence. I am glad to publicly acknowledge that the NSA does not appear, at least openly, to have banned the saying of the prayer. What instructions it has given its legion of Secret Police (Assistants & ABMs) behind the scenes we do not know. A lot goes on in the inner core of the Baha'i faith that is hidden from outsiders, even from the rank and file Baha'is. So, Pat, you wanted to hear me say I got that detail wrong in the heat of the moment, and here it is. I got it wrong. Unlike some people, I don't claim infallibility. I correct my errors. Doug Martin and Farzam Arbab don't have to ever say they are sorry, because they are tinpot dictators. But I did not get the tenor of the NSA response wrong. It is cowardly. It is running for the hills. And I mind it. Because when the Iranian Baha'is needed the support of my government, the United States stuck its neck out for them. The US Congress passed resolutions, condemning the Iranian government for its persecution of the Baha'is. Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton all condemned Iran on this issue. Don't you think that maybe American citizens could have been hurt by the Khomeinists in response? They did so at the explicit urging of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States, which maintained a $500,000 a year lobbyist for the explicit purpose of lobbying Washington on this matter. Firuz Kazemzadeh button-holed U.S. officials endlessly over this in public, while privately heaping scorn on the U.S. Congress. Now, when my country needs the support of everyone it can get, the National Spiritual Assembly announces that, well, no, it can't come out and condemn the Taliban government of Afghanistan. Sorry, USA. You did it for us but we're selfish cowardly s.o.b.s and we ain't doing it for you. So, Pat, say the Prayer for America all you like. But for the love of God also stand up and say that *the Baha'i Faith* condemns al-Qaida, the Taliban, and mass murder. Stand up to the pusillanimous Hendersons of the world. And just in case you don't get it, my advice to you is to get off my case. I didn't come out on TRB with that message to which you objected and I've got other things to do with my time these days that debate and condemn minor cultists. But if you keep bringing me up I will be coming after the cultists who have infiltrated and mutilated the Baha'i administration vocally, with good evidence, every day. I have file cabinets full of juicy stuff. I'd prefer to spend my time another way. But if you really want to have me spend it this way, just keep up your vacuous drumbeat. cheers Juan -------------------------------------------------- · From: · Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 04:35:52 National letter of Caution Dear all' It seems many (especially US Bahai's) are still in the dark about the National letter of Caution. Although no prayers have been actually spelt out (word for word) in the letter from the NSA, any Bahai with a little bit of brain-matter up top who knows The words in "Prayers for America" (below), is it not obvious,< B> Because of the politically sensitive nature of these recent tragic events , these prayers contain language that could seem threatening to non-Bahá'ís. namely, many Muslims, which in turn could bring retaliation to Baha'is living in both the US and Middle Eastern Countries. One now begins to understand the wisdom of the NSA's letter. (below) In other words, until this crisis is over, you don't go around waving a red flag at a bull. Once the crisis is over apocalyptic references from t he Bahá'í writings and other prayers can be used once again (Publically that is) By those Baha'is who wish to use them. . . _____________________ National letter of Caution Posted on NSA site 14/9/01 "To Public Information Representatives, Local Spiritual Assemblies, an d Individual Bahá'ís: All of us have been deeply affected by the tragic events in Washington DC, Pennsylvania, and New York. Without question, many Bahá'ís will yearn to make some response to demonstrate their wish that Bahá'u'lláh's healing message might reach every corner of this nation. In the words of the National Spiritual Assembly in its message to the American Bahá'í community, "The Bahá'í spirit of universal love and assistance are more urgently needed now than ever before." What is needed now is for us to act as true Bahá'ís, as true servants to humankind. The Office of External Affairs has received requests for guidance on such matters as whether it is appropriate to submit prayers to their local newspap ers, the appropriateness of writing letters to the editor in response to these tragic events and other similar inquiries. We take this opportunity to remind the friends of the policy of the National Spiritual Assembly on writing articles to local newspapers: * Individual Bahá'ís must first seek the approval of the local Spiritual Assembly before submission to the newspaper if the person is writing as a Bahá'í. * Bahá'ís are free to write letters to the editors of publications to express their personal views if they do not identify themselves as Bahá'ís, imply that they represent the Faith or a Bahá'í community, or discuss the Bahá'í Faith. * Individuals or local Spiritual Assemblies wishing to submit articles to national publications must first seek the approval of the Office of External Affairs. * If individuals are uncertain about the relationship of their letters to the interest of the Faith, they should consult with their local Spiritual Assembly. * Any local Spiritual Assembly that wishes to contact local government officials including for the purpose of presenting Bahá'í materials should first consult with the Office of External Affairs. Because of the politically sensitive nature of these recent tragic events, we ask that local Spiritual Assemblies consult with the Office of External Affairs before submitting anything to a local newspaper. The Office of External Affairs can be reached by phone at (202) 833-8990 or e-mail at usnsa-oea@ usbnc.org. Please note that the Office of Public Information in New York City is currently experiencing difficulty in receiving telephone and e-mail communications. General guidelines for appropriate tone of communications to the media: Any Bahá'í-connected message to the public should try to elevate the response to the attacks to a higher, more spiritual level that is above hatred and recrimination, above any mention whatsoever of government actions, assignment of blame, and above the attempt to use this tragedy as an opportunity to advance our own interests. It would also not be appropriate to cite apocalyptic references from the Bahá'í writings or to submit prayers which contain language that could seem threatening to non-Bahá'ís. We welcome you to contact the Office of External Affairs anytime with your questions. Loving Bahá'í greetings, Office of External Affairs OFFICE OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS 1320 19th Street NW, Suite 701 Washington, DC 20036-1610 Phone: 202-833-8990 Fax: 202-833-8988 __________________ "Prayers for America" "This [Cleveland, Ohio] is a beautiful city; the climate is pleasant; the views are charming. All the cities of America seem to b e large and beautiful, and the people appear prosperous. The American continent gives signs and evidences of very great advancement; its future is even more promising, for its influence and illumination are far-reaching, and it will lead all nations spiritually. The flag o f freedom and banner of liberty have been unfurled here, but the prosperi ty and advancement of a city, the happiness and greatness of a country depend upon its hearing and obeying the call of God. The light of reality must shine therein and divine civilization be founded; then the radiance of the Kingdom will be diffused and heavenly influences surround." (`Abdu'l-Baha: Promulgation of Universal Peace, Page: 104) "Ya-Baha'u'l-Abha! Abdu'l-Baha did not rest a moment until He had raised Thy Cause and the Standard of the Kingdom of Abha waved over the world. Now some people have arisen with intrigues and evil aspirations< BR> to trample this flag in America, but My hope is in Thy confirmations. Leave Me not single, alone and oppressed! As Thou didst promise, verbally and in writing, that Thou wouldst protect this deer of the pasture of Thy love from the attacks of the hounds of hatred and animosity, and that Thou wouldst safeguard this persecuted sheep from the claws and teeth of the ferocious wolves, - now do I await the appearance of Thy bounties and the realization of Thy definite promise. Thou art the true Protector, and Thou art the Lord of the Covenant! Therefore, protect this Lamp which Thou hast lighted, from the severe winds." (`Abdu'l-Baha: Baha'i World Faith, Page: 433)From: "Juan Cole" Subject: Re: Kazemzadeh, Semple and al-Qaida Date: Friday, February 08, 2002 9:42 PM I wrote, > "Juan Cole" wrote in message > news:619f1452.0202080921.188965bc@posting.google.com... > > The Baha'i faith stands for universal love, for tolerance, and for a > > separation of religion and state. Our own version of Jihad Johnny Walker Lindh, Jihad Ricky Schaut, replies: > Such is the Juan Cole official reinterpretation of Baha'u'llah. Shoghi > Effendi's statements on the matter, however, say otherwise. Uh, Jihad Ricky, Shoghi Effendi does not deny that the Baha'i Faith stands for universal love, tolerance, and for a separation of religion and state. Shoghi Effendi wrote, "Theirs is not the purpose, while endeavoring to conduct and perfect the administrative affairs of their Faith, to violate, under any circumstances, the provisions of their country's constitution, much less to allow the machinery of their administration to supersede the government of their respective countries." But Jihad Ricky wants to supersede the U.S. Constitution and to throw down the U.S. government, implementing rule by his buddies in the Baha'i "administrative order" in direct contravention of Shoghi Effendi's clear instructions. Baha'u'llah wrote in His own Will and Testament, "Kings are the manifestations of the power, and the daysprings of the might and riches, of God. Pray ye on their behalf. He hath invested them with the rulership of the earth and hath singled out the hearts of men as His Own domain. Conflict and contention are categorically forbidden in His Book. This is a decree of God in this Most Great Revelation. It is divinely preserved from annulment and is invested by Him with the splendour of His confirmation." He not only gave political power to civil rulers ("kings" and "presidents,"), but he forbade Baha'is from making any turmoil the way the Babis had in demanding that religious institutions take over. And he even emphasized that this principle of non-intervention in politics by God, who wants only the hearts of men for his Institutions, is "divinely preserved from annulment." And yet Jihad Ricky (along with those other Jihadis, Ian Semple, Farzam Arbab, Doug Martin, and Firuz Kazemzadeh) has mounted the minbar of hubris and delivered himself of a Fatwa seeking to annul what is divinely preserved from annulment, and to grab civil political power for the Baha'i religious institutions. `Abdu'l-Baha writes of the dire need to keep religious leaders and institutions from trying to run the country: "The function of the religious leaders and the duties of the clerical jurisprudents are to attend to spiritual affairs and to promulgate divine attributes. Whenever the leaders of the manifest religion and the pillars of the mighty divine law have intervened in the world of political leadership, put forward their rulings and attempted to manage affairs, it has ever caused the unity of the believers in the one true God to be destroyed, and resulted in the dispersal of the faithful into factions. The flames of turmoil flared up, and the blaze of rebelliousness scorched the world. The country was plundered and pillaged, and the people became the prisoners and hostages of oppressors." Not only has religious rule and theocracy ruined Iran, Afghanistan and now the World Trade Center, it has ravaged the Baha'i faith itself, putting it under the thumb of a small, secretive group of cultists who deliberately keep it tiny and exploited. As for Ian Semple, he has long crowed about the future Baha'i theocracy in his caves, just as Bin Ladin does in his. The proof is overwhelming. "I recall being in Haifa in the '70s ('72 and '78) and hearing long talks about this from Ian Semple, on how the world was destined to be ruled by houses of justice and there will eventually be no distinction between church and state, with rather snide and smug comments about how at last the world will finally get it right and have God and Government fused through the power of the Baha'i covenant." Thousands of pilgrims, not just one, have heard him say these things. And not just him. David Hoffman has an audiocassette filled with such ideas that you can order from the Baha'i publishing trust. It is all al-Qaida ideals, from beginning to end. Semple also had the Bahai World Centre secretariat write, "As for the statement made by Shoghi Effendi in his letter of 21 March 1932, the well-established principles of the Faith concerning the relationship of the Baha'i institutions to those of the country in which the Baha'is reside make it unthinkable that they would ever purpose to violate a country's constitution or so to meddle in its political machinery as to attempt to take over the powers of government. This is an integral element of the Baha'i principle of abstention from involvement in politics. However, this does not by any means imply that the country itself may not, by constitutional means, decide to adopt Baha'i laws and practices and modify its constitution." I commented, > > In this passage he basically argues for a Nazi-like tactic of getting > > elected democratically and then abolishing democracy. Jihad Ricky, who admits he wants to repeal the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution and overthrow the US government in the long run, writes: >The statement refers to standing Baha'i policies > regarding political non-involvement, which Dr. Cole knows forbits Baha'is > from running for office within a democratic system that's premised on > getting elected through membership in political parties. What the statement says is that when Baha'is get to be the majority, so that they in a democratic framework represent "the country," then they ("the country itself") may "decide to adopt" [i.e. impose on the whole society] "Baha'i laws" [i.e. a far rightwing literalist interpretation of the Baha'i shariah, similar to Islamic law] and "modify" [i.e. repeal] "its constitution" [i.e. the U.S. Constitution]. The whole passage is doublespeak for Khrushschev's "We will bury you!" The only difference is that Semple thinks he can accomplish the overthrow of the U.S. constitution and the institution of a Baha'i theocracy by simply roping enough John Walker Lindhs into his cult-like perversion of the Baha'i faith, so that ultimately they can pull a Nazi-like maneuver and use their majority itself to destroy democracy. >Do > Baha'is believe the Universal House of Justice will, some day, be the center > piece of what is referred to as the World Order of Baha'u'llah? Yes. In other words, Jihad Ricky is among the small group of Baha'i cultists that wants to establish a global Baha'i theocracy, just as Jihad Johnny Walker Lindh wants to establish an Islamic caliphate. > However, at that point, any similarity between what Baha'is envision and any > Al-Qaida dream for establishing a caliphate ends. The more cult-like members of Baha'i institutions brook no dissent, act in an authoritarian manner, impose censorship on all Baha'is, routinely investigate people for thought crimes, summarily toss them out of the community, spread nasty rumors about them, demonize them, and deprive them of the most basic human rights. Sounds an awful lot like al-Qaida's Caliph to me. > Dr. Cole . . . clearly seeks to brush aside any legitimate distinctions of > which many can be made, not the least of which is the complete absence of > any use of force or of any effort to undermine existing governments in > Baha'i activities. The Nazis came to power peacefully, too. That the means are nonviolent makes the Baha'i fundamentalists less dangerous in the short run than the al-Qaida and Taliban, which they resemble so much. But in the long run maybe it makes them more insidious. Anyway, I don't much care how my Constitutional rights are destroyed, whether by violence or peacefully. I care about the *outcome*. I don't intend to allow them to be destroyed at all. > > Baha'i theocrats despise parliamentary democracy and wish to > > substitute their religious institutions, which are not freely elected, > > for civil government. > > Baha'i institutions are, indeed, freely elected. No nominations, no campaigning are allowed. Speaking negatively of an incumbent is considered "negative campaigning," for which Baha'is have been punished. Even criticizing policies is disallowed. A small group of like-minded people is reelected every year at the national level, especially to offices like Secretary & Treasurer. Well, you can run your religious elections however you like. But you are not taking away the democracy we have and which the Master so forcefully praised and replacing it by this weird cult-like manipulation of community politics. >Nor, for > that matter, do Baha'is seek to substitute Baha'i institutions for civil > institutions. Baha'is believe that, some day, when the majority of the > population had become Baha'i, Baha'i institutions will form the pattern by > which civil government is exercised. That, however, is very different from > simply seeking to supplant civil government with Baha'i institutions. Well, if the current more cult-like Baha'i governance procedures are imposed by a tyranny of the majority on civil institutions as their "pattern", then that would mean abolishing Congress, forbidding political parties (=de facto a one-party state), imposing censorship on the press, repealing the Constitution and the First Amendment. In other words, Jihad Ricky is welcoming us to al-Qaida-Ville. > > Baha'i theocrats have secret cells within the Baha'i community, and > > recruit Baha'is at deepenings and other events into their twisted > > world-view. > > A charge that's been repeated many times without substantive evidence to > back it up. Yet, given the track record so far in this post, one has little > faith in Dr. Cole's ability to produce any such evidence without twisting it > to mean what he wants it to mean. Jihad Ricky, of course, is one of the Cell Leaders. Somehow the Cell Leaders are most vociferous in denying there are any Cells. > > Baha'i theocrats demand absolute obedience to "the Institutions" and > > tolerate no dissent. > > Actually, Baha'i institutions tolerate a great deal of "dissent" when it's > voiced through proper channels. No, they don't. But when the dissent is voiced, and punished privately, then nobody on the outside can know about the repression. Cultist Baha'i officials monitor community members, attempt to intimidate them into silence, interfere behind the scenes in LSA elections, and generally act in an authoritarian and corrupt way. Then they smile and put on a 'nice' face for the public. Actually, just listen carefully to Jihad Ricky and you'll see the real face of Baha'i cultism and fundamentalism. >It is a very different model of governance > than that which is prevalent in common western democracies, and, of this, > there can be little doubt. In other words, what Jihad Ricky advocates is not democratic at all. It is a form of fascist theocracy that deprives us of our God-given democratic rights. >Whether or not it can be accurately > characterised as an outright "theocracy" would only depend on the extent to > which one would highlight similarities while ingoring important differences. That's easy for you to say. It isn't your ox that is being ingored. Theocracy is the government of a society by the religious institutions. That's what Jihad Ricky wants for our beautiful, tolerant America, to make it like Iran and Taliban Afghanistan. Hint: It is a Theocracy. See above for what Shoghi Effendi really said. cheers JuanFrom: "Juan Cole" Subject: Weirdness of the NSA of Baha'is of America Date: Saturday, February 09, 2002 12:22 PM So let's look again at the reaction of Bob Henderson and Firuz Kazemzadeh to the tragic events of September 11. >National letter of Caution >Posted on NSA site 14/9/01 >"To Public Information Representatives, Local Spiritual Assemblies, and >Individual Bahá'ís: >All of us have been deeply affected by the tragic events in Washington >DC, Pennsylvania, and New York. Without question, many Bahá'ís will >yearn to make some response to demonstrate their wish that Bahá'u'lláh's >healing message might reach every corner of this nation. In other words, the first thing that came to the minds of the Baha'i fundamentalists on September 11 is, "What is in this for us? Maybe we'll be able to rope in more converts out of it." Wouldn't the right first response be enormous sorrow for the suffering of innocents, and for the blow to the United States, which has always treated the Baha'is well and given them liberty? >In the words of the National Spiritual Assembly in its message to the >American Bahá'í community, "The Bahá'í spirit of universal love and >assistance are more urgently needed now than ever before." And, could we please know what "assistance" the National Spiritual Assembly has given any of the victims? Or any non-Baha'is a all? Or any Baha'is, for that matter, in the United States? They have an annual budget of $25 million a year or so. What percentage of that does the US NSA spend on "assisting" people in need? >What is needed now is for us to act as true Bahá'ís, as true servants to >humankind. Could we have some specifics here please? What exactly would that entail? How have Baha'i communities done anything differently since September 11? Bob Henderson lives in a 9 bedroom mansion with free maid and gardening service and takes a huge salary and perks out of the National Fund. Has he made any sacrifices in his lifestyle since September 11? Has he done anything for anyone? Has he spoken out against al-Qaida terrorism? >The Office of External Affairs has received requests for guidance on >such matters as whether it is appropriate to submit prayers to their local >newspapers, the appropriateness of writing letters to the editor in response >tothese tragic events and other similar inquiries. My advice is, if you want guidance, go right to Baha'u'llah's writings. Kazemzadeh will just send you on a fool's errand. >We take this opportunity to remind the friends of the policy of the >National Spiritual Assembly on writing articles to local newspapers: >* Individual Bahá'ís must first seek the approval of the local >Spiritual Assembly before submission to the newspaper if the person is writing >as a Bahá'í. In other words, they are running the community as a controlling cult where you can't so much as say in public "I as a Baha'i feel that . . ." They impose prepublication censorship on tens of thousands of people, just like the dictatorships in the Middle East do. >* Bahá'ís are free to write letters to the editors of publications to >express their personal views if they do not identify themselves as >Bahá'ís, imply that they represent the Faith or a Bahá'í community, or discuss >theBahá'í Faith. How would this be different from apostasy and denying you are a Baha'i? These authoritarians deprived thousands of Iranian Baha'is of their administrative rights because they avoided mentioning they were Baha'is on their exit visas at Tehran airport. But now when it suits Kazemzadeh and Henderson, they order Baha'is *not* to reveal their identities. We are Baha'is. Our values come from being Baha'is. We have a responsibility to say so when we speak in public. >* Individuals or local Spiritual Assemblies wishing to submit articles >to national publications must first seek the approval of the Office of >External Affairs. Yeah, yeah. Hafez al-Asad, Ayatollah Khamenei and Mullah Omar have the same policy. It is called CENSORSHIP, folks. It is wrong. It is dictatorial. >* If individuals are uncertain about the relationship of their letters >to the interest of the Faith, they should consult with their local >Spiritual Assembly. In other words, don't touch that dial, we are in control of your television screen. You will see what we make you see. You will say what we tell you to say. >* Any local Spiritual Assembly that wishes to contact local government >officials including for the purpose of presenting Bahá'í materials >should first consult with the Office of External Affairs. Well, don't waste any time weeping over the victims of September 11, for heaven's sake! Call up your Congressman and try to slip him a copy of your latest fundamentalist tract. Here's the opportunity! >Because of the politically sensitive nature of these recent tragic >events, we ask that local Spiritual Assemblies consult with the Office of >External Affairs before submitting anything to a local newspaper. The Office of >External Affairs can be reached by phone at (202) 833-8990 or e-mail >at usnsa-oea@usbnc.org. Please note that the Office of Public Information in >New York City is currently experiencing difficulty in receiving telephone and >e-mail communications. I wonder why their communications were disrupted? Maybe religious fanaticism had resulted in this outcome? Wouldn't you conclude that WE NEED LESS RELIGIOUS FANATICISM? And yet this whole message reeks of cult-like control on people not so far from what al-Qaida itself imposes. >General guidelines for appropriate tone of communications to the media: >Any Bahá'í-connected message to the public should try to elevate the response to the attacks to a higher, more spiritual level that is >above hatred and recrimination, above any mention whatsoever of government >actions, assignment of blame, Uh, folks, I think we can assign some blame here. September 11 was perpetrated by a secretive religious cult with Middle Eastern origins called al-Qaida. Al-Qaida was part of the Taliban government in Afghanistan. There, I'm a bad Baha'i. I said it. Moreover, I think al-Qaida and Talibanism are evil. I think `Abdu'l-Baha would have said so, as well; he said similar things about similar movements in his own time. How deep a hole are you going to dig to get away from *reality* in the more cult-like reaches of the Baha'i faith? Should we get to the point where we are NEUTRAL about what happened on September 11? This is the weirdest thing I have ever seen, and it is a profound betrayal by Baha'i officials like Kazemzadeh of a country that has sheltered and nurtured him when his own would have bulldozed him into a mass grave. He is a world-historical ingrate. >and above the attempt to use this tragedy as an >opportunity to advance our own interests. Well, since the letter so far seems to think of it mainly as a proclamation opportunity, I fear that cow is out of the barn. >It would also not be >appropriate to cite apocalyptic references from the Bahá'í writings >or to submit prayers which contain language that could seem >threatening to non-Bahá'ís. Well, maybe Baha'is should give up altogether on the Calamity business. It ain't gonna happen, 2000 came and went, and it is *always* scarey to us normal people, not just when there's been a terrorist attack. 'Oh, yeah, I just joined this nice religion where people believe the world is about to end.' Any mother's eyes would shine with pride if her child came back to her with these words. >We welcome you to contact the Office of External Affairs anytime with >your questions. I have a question. Could you get more weird, please? >Loving Bahá'í greetings, Oh, yeah, Kazemzadeh has showered me and my friends with love all our lives. Hypocrite. >Office of External Affairs >OFFICE OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS Remember Ross Perot talked about lobbyists with "alligator shoes and thousand-dollar suits"? That's what "External Affairs" is. It is a lobbying organization. But it only lobbies for itself. 1320 19th Street NW, Suite 701 Washington, DC 20036-1610 Phone: 202-833-8990 Fax: 202-833-8988From: "Juan Cole" Subject: Re: Cowardice of the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States Date: Friday, February 08, 2002 3:13 PM Dear Michael: As always, your views are judicious and balanced and I am grateful for your comment. It is most unfortunate that the so-called 'universal' 'house of justice' (which is none of those three things at the moment) was unable to recognize your sincerity and tossed you out of your Faith summarily. However, I would like to insist that the Baha'i administration has spent millions of lobbying dollars to attempt to induce the US and European governments to condemn the government of Iran. They have also openly criticized Iran for its treatment of the Baha'is. It therefore cannot be concluded that they object to governments being condemned in principle. So when they ask us Baha'is to avoid condemning the Taliban government of Afghanistan for having harbored the terrorists that killed 3000 innocent Americans, what they are really doing is engaging in hypocrisy. Bob Henderson thinks it is fine to condemn Iran and engineer condemnations of Iran for mistreating Iranian Baha'is. But he forbids American Baha'is from condemning Taliban Afghanistan for its role in getting 3000 Americans killed. This is just selfishness. The fundamentalist Baha'is are always running around complaining about being persecuted. But they never condemn the persecution of anyone else. They even forbid Baha'is to belong to Amnesty International! Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha, by the way, both condemned the tyranny of despotic rulers in their own day. Here is what Baha'u'llah said about the duly constituted, recognized government of Sultan Abdulaziz of the Ottoman Empire: "O people of Constantinople! Lo, from your midst We hear the baleful hooting of the owl. Hath the drunkenness of passion laid hold upon you, or is it that ye are sunk in heedlessness? O Spot that art situate on the shores of the two seas! The throne of tyranny hath, verily, been established upon thee, and the flame of hatred hath been kindled within thy bosom, in such wise that the Concourse on high and they who circle around the Exalted Throne have wailed and lamented. We behold in thee the foolish ruling over the wise, and darkness vaunting itself against the light. Thou art indeed filled with manifest pride. Hath thine outward splendour made thee vainglorious? By Him Who is the Lord of mankind! It shall soon perish, and thy daughters and thy widows and all the kindreds that dwell within thee shall lament. Thus informeth thee the All-Knowing, the All-Wise." this is from a little book called "Kitab-i Aqdas." Just substitute "O people of Qandahar" and read it thinking about Mulla Omar, and you'll grasp what Baha'u'llah was trying to say. I wish Henderson actually knew anything about what Baha'u'llah said. cheers JuanFrom: "Juan Cole" Subject: Re: Cowardice of the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States Date: Saturday, February 09, 2002 11:47 AM So, Ostrich Robert, did the Baha'i institutions make any "appeals" for lessening the persecution of Americans to the government of Afghanistan? Did our External Affairs office lobby any legislatures anywhere to get them to condemn the Taliban, just as they lobbied to get the Iranian government condemned for its human rights violations? How about the Christians of the Sudan? Have our Institutions done anything for them? In other words, does our community really give a shit about anybody but ourselves? Couldn't tell it by the NSA directive, which was cult-like in its attempt to control behavior and which basically said that the official Baha'i faith is neutral in the conflict between al-Qaida and the United States. Which side are you rooting for? And, while we're at it, Ostrich Robert, why don't we hear from you about whether you think that Baha'i Insitutions will take over from the U.S. government in the future. Yes or no? All you've done so far is issue vague denials. cheers Juan "Robert Little" wrote in message news:... > This is a severe distortion of the facts. > > Individual Baha'is have not (as in: not now, not last year, not ever) been > invited to attack the government of Iran, nor any government anywhere. The > appeals for a lessening of the injustices perpetrated upon the Baha'is in > Iran (and elsewhere) have been done by and through the elected > representatives of the Baha'is at the international level, and even then, > the appeals were made to governments and their representatives, not the > public. > > Robert A. Little >From: "Juan Cole" Subject: Re: Cowardice of the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States Date: Saturday, February 09, 2002 1:42 AM Dear Kamran: We haven't met, and I have no idea who you are or where you live. If you live in a democratic country, then you are being protected there from persecution at the hands of Khomeinist theocrats. The hizbullah thugs who would like to beat you up because you are a Baha'i do so because they think they have to obey tyrants like Khamenei without question and cannot criticize him. They also believe in religious institutions taking over and running the civil government. So if you cannot criticize our NSA when it acts like a coward, and if you want to abolish the U.S. Bill of Rights and our Constitution, how are you better than the Khomeinists you have fled? And if it is all right for us to pay $500,000 a year for a public relations firm to encourage Congress to condemn Iran for killing 200 Baha'is, why can't we *as Baha'is* condemn al-Qaida and the Taliban for killing 3000 innocent Americans? As for `Abdu'l-Baha, he was known to give some sharp slaps to miscreants time to time. Since you bring him up, I think I know exactly what he would do to some of the scoundrels on our NSA. And, by the way, up until 1996 I was minding my own business doing scholarship when your idiot Kazemzadehs and Hendersons and Arbabs and Martins had me threatened behind the scenes by some thug named Birkland. I am tired of having my community run like a fucking Mafia and I'm mad as hell and I am not taking it any more. cheers Juan kamran wrote in message news:<3C647303.6EBA45F3@attbi.NOSPAM.com>... > Mr. Cole, > > Are you the same Mr. Cole. > > Are you the Mr. Cole the "scholar"? > > The Mr. Cole I knew of, knew many of the writings. > The Mr. Cole I knew of Believed in Baha'ulla'h. > The Mr. Cole I knew of believed in Abdul Baha''. > > Mr. Cole Assuming you are correct in your assumptions, > do you think Abdul Baha'' would write what you have written > of a National Assembly. > > The language you use is beneath the dignity of a scholar > such as your own past self. > > With all due respect > > Kamran >From: "Juan Cole" Subject: Re: And don't forget this... Date: Sunday, February 10, 2002 12:22 AM John: The old folks home run by the NSA in Wilmette has not been a philanthropic enterprise for years if it ever was one. The NSA charged handsome fees to the persons who entered it, and actually had to pay taxes on it as a profit-making enterprise. Bob Henderson doesn't give away money; he sops it up. Kids to put through ivy league college and all that. I take it that what really happened was that he felt the profit margins on the home weren't what they could be and there was some other scheme he could fund to make money instead. The NSA was given a bequest in the 1950s of $10,000 to found an orphanage. There has never been any sign that Holley or his successors used the money for any orphans at all (which is illegal). Lots of stories like that. cheers Juan > "In November the National Spiritual Assembly announced with deep regret our > decision to close the Baha'i Home, which has provided sheltered elder care > for 43 years as a dependency of the House of Worship. After consulting > Baha'is with expert knowledge of elder care, we concluded that the Home > would have to be enlarged to enhance resident accomodations and make its > operation economically feasible. The financial challenges we currently face > render us unable to expand and improve the Home, or to continue its > operation in the current state. ..." [Dec. 31, 2001, NSA Letter] >From: "Juan Cole" Subject: Re: Cowardice of the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States Date: Saturday, February 09, 2002 1:56 PM So, Ostrich Robert, do you think that the American system of government, this shining democracy that has created the society with the most liberty and human rights of any in history--do you think we are "rotten"? When Mussolini took Rome and abolished parliament, he got messages of congratulations from fascist intellectuals. Would you like to see the U.S. Congress abolished and replaced by a religious theocracy? Even in the long run? What is it about these Middle Eastern cults (and I mean the Baha'i fundamentalists, not the real Baha'i Faith) that can take our American young people and turn them against their own country? Jihad Johnny Walker wrote his mom that she should leave the U.S. "What has the U.S. ever done for anyone?" he asked. Isn't that also what the Baha'i fundamentalists say? That the U.S. system is rotten, a debauched Old World Order that needs to be torn down and replaced (by them, preferably)? No wonder they weren't vocal in denouncing the al-Qaida! They have the same ultimate ideals! cheers JuanFrom: "Juan Cole" Subject: Re: Kazemzadeh, Semple and al-Qaida Date: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 1:36 AM Jihad Paddy: Maybe you can answer the question about your plans for the subversion of American democracy, the repeal of the First Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights and of the U.S. Constitution, the characterization of American democracy as in your view "rotten." Do you agree, as it appears, with Osama Bin Ladin that it is desirable to deprive Americans of their liberties? By what stages to you envisage the abolition of Congress, of political parties, of free and fair elections, in favor of a secretive proto-Shi`ite cabal? Is this what you teach the poor people at your literacy council there in Maryland? cheers Juan but Ostrich Robert, you still haven't said what your plans are for the U.S. Congress and the American Constitution. Do you really think both must be abolished? When exactly do you envisage being in a position to carry out this erasure? You haven't said if you believe the American system of government and way of life to be "rotten" and in need of being overturned. Please enlighten us. cheers JuanFrom: "Juan Cole" Subject: Re: Cowardice of the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 8:05 PM My characterization of my activities before 1996 was perfectly correct, Sekhmet my friend. I said I was engaged in scholarship. Academic scholarship has as one of its purposes the critique of the conditions of our existence. That is what academics do. Some of my colleagues write critiques of the Bush administration. You know what? None of them has been visited by the FBI or threatened with exile. Somehow the Old World Order looks a lot more appealing than your brand-new little cult. If Baha'i institutions were functioning in an unhelpful way that contradicted the intentions of the Holy Figures, it was my responsibility as an academic and an intellectual to point it out. The idea, which Birkland and his controllers in Haifa put forward, that such a critique is a form of covenant breaking, is so bizarre and so totalitarian as to cast into doubt the thoroughness of my initial critique. I have been trying to improve it since then. By the way, if Baha'is didn't live in a quasi-totalitarian system, poor souls like Sekhmet would not be forced to adopt such silly pseudonyms. Speaking of which, I agree that Duke Atreides took a cheap shot. Then he accuses *me* of overblown rhetoric! cheers JuanFrom: "Juan Cole" Subject: Baha'i Authorities Tamper with primary sources about Baha'u'llah Date: Monday, February 18, 2002 2:22 PM This is dedicated to Pat Kohli. More to come. cheers Juan ------------------- Documents on the Shaykhi, Babi and Baha'i Movements, Vol. 6, No. 1 (February 2002) https://www2.h-net.msu.edu/~bahai/docs/vol6/salmuhj.htm see also https://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bhdoc.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Censorship of Salmani's Memoirs by the Baha'i Authorities: Historical Documents from 1982 From materials in the private collections of Juan R. I. Cole -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE BAHA'I WORLD CENTRE Department of the Secretariat 20 September 1982 Kalimat Press 10889 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 270 Los Angeles, California 90024 U.S.A. Dear Baha’i Friends, On 31 August 1982 the Universal House of Justice received a letter from Mr. Juan Cole expressing concern aver a number of points connected with its decision that certain passages, of the Salmani memoirs should not be published at this time. Shortly afterwards it was informed that Mr. . . . was also writing on this subject, and it decided to await the arrival of his letter before replying. However, Mr. Roger White has now shared with the House of Justice extracts from a personal letter he has received from Mr. . . . , and it has instructed us to send you the following clarification and comments without further delay. As you will recall from the letter we wrote to you on behalf of the Universal House of Justice on 19 August 1980, the special committee that the National Spiritual Assembly of' the United States had been asked to appoint to review Persian manuscripts was also given the responsibility of advising on the timeliness and wisdom of publishing such texts. The House of Justice then presumed that the Salmani memoirs were going through this process. In June 1982, however, one of the friends wrote to the House of Justice expressing his great concern at learning that the entire text of the Salmani memoirs was being copied out with the intent of publishing them. On receipt of this letter an enquiry was immediately made by telephone to Mr. Darakhshani, the secretary of the recently appointed reviewing committee for Persian publications, and he was asked to draw to your attention the unwisdom of publishing the book in full at this time. This was confirmed in a letter to Mr. Darakhshani on 30 June 1982. Your two cables of 1 and 15 July then arrived informing the House of Justice that, not only had the book been passed by review of both the Persian original and the English translation, but that it was actually /Cont'd.... Kalimat Press 20 September 1982 Los Angeles, California Page two at the printers. Realizing the urgency of the matter and aware that, apparently, the earlier committee appointed by the National Spiritual Assembly had not appreciated the problems of timeliness presented by this publication, the House of Justice instructed an ad hoc committee to immediately identify those few passages which were objectionable and to send them post‑haste to Mr. Darakhshani so that the proofs could be corrected and the printing go forward. The House of Justice greatly regrets that it had to intervene at the last minute in this way, and since it is clear that Kalimat Press had faithfully followed all the requirements for review, the House of Justice will pay the additional costs incurred as a result of the last‑minute changes. In addition to the general question, Mr. Cole in his letter has queried the reason for the excision of a number of passages. At the moment the House of Justice has before it only the original Persian manuscript, therefore it would appreciate your sending at your earliest convenience a copy of the typescript or proofs of the book, showing both the Persian and the English and whatever notes and footnotes you have added, so that it can consider the passages in detail and reply to the points that Mr. Cole has raised. With loving Baha'i greetings, Loraine Kerfoot For Department of the Secretariat cc: The National Spiritual of the United States , Mr. Juan Cole THE UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE BAHA'I WORLD CENTRE Department of the Secretariat 2 December 1982 Mr. Juan Ricardo Cole Department of Medieval and Modern History Lucknow University Lucknow 226007 India Dear Baha'i Friend, The Universal House of Justice has now been able to compare the published edition of the Salmani memoirs with the Persian manuscript: and to consider the passages which the ad hoc committee had marked for deletion. It is clear that Kalimat Press scrupulously followed all the provisions for review of this book before publication, but, unfortunately the process has been dogged by a series of' misunderstandings and confusions. The House of Justice has instructed us to send you the following comments on the points raised in your letter of 13 August 1982. When the early correspondence took place between the World Centre and Kalimat Press concerning this publication, the House of Justice was relying on the discretion of the appropriate committee in the United States to check not only the normal review aspects, but also the timeliness and wisdom of such a publication. It did not itself check the manuscript. If it had done so it now concludes that it would not have given permission for its publication or translation at this time, for reasons which will be explained below. In June 1982, concern was expressed to the Universal House of Justice about the possible publication in full, in Persian, of these memoirs, and action was taken in July, in great haste, to eliminate the most harmful passages so that the publication of the book, which was already at the press, could proceed. Unfortunately at that time the ad hoc committee was unaware of the earlier correspondence and of the fact that certain passages had already been quoted in translation in books by Mr. Hasan Balyuzi and Mr. Adib Taherzadeh. Kalimat Press, in its turn, knowing of the prior publication of these passages, and not understanding the reasons for the proposed deletions, has, in fact, retained the larger part of the objectionable passages. The publication is a fait accompli and the House of Justice has therefore decided to permit it to stand, but not to) permit the publication of the Persian text which, in fact, would be more damaging than the English version. Cont'd/.... Mr. Juan Ricardo Cole Page 2 To the points of substance which you have raised concerning the publication of historical texts, the House of Justice instructs us to explain the following In order to preserve basic information and historical materials for the use of future historians, the beloved Guardian instructed the communities throughout Iran to record the history of the Faith in their localities, and also gave instructions for the memoirs of a number of early believers to be written down and preserved. This was not a new advice and many friends, eyewitnesses of certain events, in the lives of Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l‑Baha, had already committed their reminiscences to writing. The memoirs of Ustad Muhammad‑`Aliy‑i‑Salmani are among, these and were written down from his spoken recollections in his old age. There is no question whatsoever of suppressing such records ‑ on the contrary, the whole purpose of having them made was to preserve them, and they have been made available to Baha'i historians, such as Mr. Balyuzi and Mr. Taherzadeh for use in their work. When excerpts are translated and published in such works, they are placed in context, related to other records and, where necessary, annotated and commented on. You will readily agree that such a use is not the same as publication in full, even if supplementary footnotes are added, and does not carry the same implications. . In time entire collections of early documents of the Faith will be published in scholarly editions for general use. An initial step in suclbrl a process is Dr. Moojan Momen's admirable book "The Babi and Baha’i Religions, 1.844‑1944 ‑ Some Contemporary Western Accounts". Additional considerations, however, have to be weighed in publishing texts by Baha'i writers. At the present time the general public, even if it has heard of the Faith, is largely uninformed or misinformed. An increasing amount of misinformation is continually being disseminated by opponents of the Faith, both in the east and in the west. The principal task of the Baha’is at the present time ‑ and especially of Baha’i scholars ‑ is to present a true picture of the Faith to the general public and to relate the Baha’i teachings to the concerns and problems of mankind. When a Baha'i publishing house issues a translation of a document such as Salmani's memoirs, the implication to an average reader is that the Baha’is consider this particular account worthy of publication, and, in the absence of adequate footnotes or commentary to the contrary, the reader will assume that Salmani's actions and statements are approved by Baha’is and are accurate portrayals of the Faith. After all, Salmani was a close companion of Baha’u’llah, comparable in the eyes of a Christian reader with one of the early disciples of Christ. Viewed in this light, certain of Salmani's accounts are misleading or Cont'd/ Mr. Juan Ricardo Cole Page 3 unworthy and, apart from distorting the Faith for the average reader can provide material for the enemies of the Faith who at the present time are seizing every opportunity to attack the Cause and blacken its reputation. To take a few examples from the passages queried by the ad hoc committee: p. 17. There is a brief account of some believers from Sultanabad saying to Baha'u'llah "You being God, Uncle, why do You give us such a hard row to hoe?" It is an old accusation against the Baha’is, especially from Muslims, that we regard Baha'u'llah as God. To print such a story without an appropriate commentary gives fuel to our Muslim enemies and makes the Faith look ridiculous to a western reader. Unfortunately Kalimat Press, not realizing the reason for the objection, let the objectionable part stand and deleted a parenthetical comment "The Shi`is, however, were very hostile", which is entirely innocuous. p.30. There are some virtually incomprehensible comments about Mirza Aqa Jan’s head, which are of no historical importance but are unpleasant and unworthy. 3. pp. 31‑34. There are three unpleasant stories recounted by Salmani to illustrate Azal's gluttony. Shoghi Effendi was always very careful in his accounts of Azal to confine his strictures to his truly infamous conduct. He never stooped to making personal criticisms of such a nature, which are unworthy , Publication of such stories in the context of an annotated edition of a historical document for scholarly study is one thing; publication in a book for the general reader is quite another. Again, unfortunately, Kalimat Press did not appreciate the reason for the committee's objection and published the whole passage apart from a couple of brief deletions which were of no significance. 3. p. 34. There is the account. of a disagreement between Baha'u’llah and Azal over the shaving of Azal’s son's head‑another unworthy story, the point of which is obscure. There are others of a similar character. The passages which have already been published in translation, such as Azal's attempt to persuade Salmani to murder Baha'u'llah, provide striking examples of the profound difference between publication in the context of a properly balanced historical exposition, and publication as unadorned parts of a narrative. In sum, to a knowledgeable Baha’i reader, Salmani’s memoirs are a graphic illustration of the overwhelming problems with which Baha'u'llah had to deal both from His enemies and because of the actions of some of His own Cont'd/ .... Mr. Juan Ricardo Cole Page 4 faithful followers; but to an uninformed reader they give a misleading and distorted picture of the Faith and of Baha'u'llah Himself. With loving Baha’i greetings, Loraine Kerfoot For Department of the Secretariat cc: The International Teaching Centre National Assembly of the United States Excerpts from contemporaneous responses to the UHJ letter to J. Cole from other Baha’i intellectuals who saw it: 1) Firuz Kazemzadeh, member of the National Spiritual Assembly of the U.S. and Yale historian, was extremely upset about the tampering with a primary source and offered to write a letter of support for Kalimat Press in the affair. 2) Professor Amin Banani of UCLA, who had written the introduction to the Salmani memoir, insisted that his name be removed from the introduction because he declined to be associated with a censored document. 3) Another intellectual observed the following: It is simply untrue to suppose that the average reader is incapable of distinguishing between the statements and actions of an individual believer and the official positions of the institutions of the Faith. This is an elementary distinction of the kind which is made every day by persons in all walks of life. This must be particularly true of a manuscript of personal memoirs which is over seventy years old. Using the House's example of the early disciples of Christ, many of their failings and misunderstandings are clearly recorded in the Gospels and in the Acts of the Apostles. Christians (or others) do not automatically assume that these shortcomings are approved by modern Churches or are accurate portrayals of Christian standards. What sane reader of the Gospels would propose that since Peter denied Christ three times or because he used his sword to sever the ear of a Roman soldier in the garden of Gethsemane, these must be Christian teachings or approved examples of Christian conduct? If anything, the current policies of review which the House is applying will serve to blur what would otherwise be a perfectly obvious distinction. Since the House now insists that any published personal memoirs, or other statements of personal opinion on the Faith by Baha'is, must actually reflect official policy and contain no statements or reminiscences that run counter to present practice the argument that any individual opinion constitutes official policy (which would otherwise appear absurd) gains some force. Of course, it is just the opposite impression. which the House wants to make. For instance, the only reason that anyone might suppose that Salmani's particular account of Baha'u'llah's exiles might be considered by Baha'is_to be of some special significance is that it is the only one that has been allowed in print. If there were several personal accounts of this kind available, from different points of view, the notion that Salmani's memoir is somehow special would be held by no one. . . The letter to Juan Cole states that Salmani's account was published without footnotes or commentary. Both were provided in [Kalimat’s] edition . . . The intention of the House to protect the reputation of the Faith is certainly to be appreciated, but it seems clear that this reputation is more likely to be blackened by present policies of strict censorship than by anything in the Salmani memoirs—not only for non‑Baha'is, but also for loyal believers who find such policies difficult to understand Moreover, such policies play right into the hands of critics of the Faith (such as Denis MacEoin in England) who are hard at work to portray the Faith as an anti‑democratic, totalitarian, rigidly authoritarian religion, which has falsified and distorted its own history. To addresss the specific objections of the ad hoc committee: 2. It is clear that Baha'u'llah never claimed to be the Godhead, and this can be conclusively demonstrated by reference to His own Writings. On the other hand, it is also clear that there were many Baha'is who believed that He was. (And there certainly still are!) Numerous references in the published works of E. G. Browne indicate this clearly. This could easily be proven, by any scholar who bothered to try. So, the offending sentence in Salmani's memoirs adds nothing to what is not already known. Furthermore, Baha'is know that in a certain sense we believe that Baha'u'llah is God, as is explained in the Iqan. Especially since the incident is not without humor, was intended as an amusing story, and involves an ignorant villager (and in the context: of the introduction of the book), it seems unlikely that it would fuel our enemies or make us seem ridiculous. 2. The comments which Salmani makes about Mirza Aqa Jan's head are admittedly curious. However, I would query the statement that they are of nc historical importance. If we could understand what the comments meant they may be of great interest. Salmani was, after all, a barber, and he may have recorded something about Mirza Aqa Jan's head that others have failed to mention. 3 & 4. The truly extraordinary standard for forbidding the publication of passages‑‑that they are "unpleasant" or "unworthy" ‑‑appears to establish a new standard for the review of materials which was not used by the Guardian, or previously used by the House of Justice. Such a new standard raises many questions: Salmani can hardly have been expected to conform to standards of style and choice of material found in the Guardian's writings, since he was writing before the Guardian began his ministry. Beyond this, there.mu8t be room in Baha'i literature for different kinds of books. Not all can be similar to the works of Shoghi Effendi. In this case, we were publishing the personal memories and pilgrim's notes of an illiterate barber. It is certainly unfair to compare them to the writings of the Guardian. The objection that a particular passage is "unpleasant" or if unworthy" is extremely vague. It is difficult to see how a reviewing committee could be expected to apply such a standard. It could provide license to forbid the publication of almost anything. The other question, of course, is “impleasant" to whom? I do not find anything in the memoirs unpleasant or unworthy of publication. Neither did the translator, or the author of the introduction to the book. Nor did two Separate reviewing committee of the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States, one Persian and one American, find anything of this kind in the manuscript. Concerning Azal's plot to murder Baha'u'llah‑‑the descriptions of which the ad‑hoc committee felt should not be included in the translation of Salmani's memoirs, since these descriptions had already been published in translation in two separate books published by George Ronald, it would have been truly remarkable to omit them from a translation of the memoirs as a whole. It was impossible for me to understand how such a request could be justified. The letter of the House of Justice states that there is no question of suppressing records such as Salmani's memoirs. The dictionary defines the word suppress as: "2: to keep from public knowledge: as a: to keep secret b: to stop or prohibit the publica­tion or revelation of." There can be little argument that the House of Justice intends to suppress certain parts of Salmani's memoirs. That it does not intend to do so forever is encouraging, but it does not change the current condition under which Baha'i publishers must operate. Nor will the intention to release such information in the future protect us much from the attacks of scholars or other critics who wish to criticize us on this point. 4) Juan Cole wrote the UHJ on 9 January 1983 in New Delhi: I remain convinced that the policy outlined by the Universal House of Justice is an unfortunate one and that time will prove it incorrect. At that point, I am sure that the Supreme Institution will, on the basis of further information and considerations, abandon its current stance. I firmly believe that it is essentially dishonest to delete passages from manuscripts when they are published, whether in the original or in translation, and no matter how temporarily. I feel that it is also morally wrong for a public institution to withhold documents, particularly ones over thirty years old, from scrutiny by the public. Because I believe that such acts are wrong in principle, no particular justifications for them can strike me as wholly convincing. I further fear that such a policy of secretiveness and bowdlerization will inevitably besmirch the fair name of the Faith of Baha'u'llah. I am convinced that the Baha'i Faith has nothing to fear from the historical records that have survived the nineteenth century. It, is too sublime, too true to ever be sullied by anything mere human beings have written or done, We Baha’is should face the historical record, not with fear, dissimulation and blue pencils, but with unshakeable certitude of the purity of our Cause. Final note: The example given by the UHJ of historical accounts being allowed to be published was Moojan Momen’s The Babi and Baha’i Religions: Some Contemporary Western Accounts (Oxford: George Ronald, 1980). In fact, this book was also censored and important material in the British Archives that the editor had planned to include was taken out at the UHJ’s insistence. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Return to Documents on the Shaykhi, Babi, and Baha'i Movements Return to H-Bahai Digital Publications Return to H-Bahai Home Page Links to pages with similar resourcesFrom: "Juan Cole" Subject: Re: Individual conscience... Date: Sunday, May 12, 2002 10:00 PM Hi, folks. I don't check this board too often, but I happened to, tonight. The original discussion was more important than the one you've gotten off on. But I just did want to intervene to express outrage that Baha'u'llah's writings were so wretchedly misused to attack the importance of individual conscience. Baha'u'llah himself speaks of the centrality of the latter. What do you think he means when he attacks blind obedience and insists that justice consists of seeing things with your own eyes. That's the individual conscience at work. It is called d.ami:r and wujda:n in Arabic and Baha'u'llah has nothing but praise for its working. `Abdu'l-Baha also praised it. The quotes condemning "self" by Baha'u'llah are not condemnations of the individual conscience. The word for "self" in the original is "nafs." The Muslim mystics spoke of various kinds of "self," good and bad. The worst is an-nafs al-ammarah bi su', or the self that is at the command of evil. It is, in other words, the self of carnal passions, unbridled desires. That is the "self" Baha'u'llah condemned. The word for *individual* would be quite different, as would the word for conscience. In fact, conscience is the exact opposite of the "self" condemned by Baha'u'llah, since it is the working of ethical reasoning inside the individual. So, to quote Baha'u'llah condemning self and passion and to equate that with a condemnation of the individual's ethical conscience, is an absolute travesty. The horrible thing is that there are Baha'is who read the scriptures in this insane way, and maybe even a lot of them. Douglas Martin hates individual conscience because he is a cultist. Cultists want to control people, and don't want any pesky objections when they behave dictatorially. Conscience leads people to object when they witness injustice. As for backbiting people, here's a beaut. In 1982 when I was a pioneer in India, doing travel teaching for the Indian NSA and also doing some translation work for the House of Justice, Doug Martin told more than one person that he considered me "a covenant breaker." These persons later became my friends and told me what Martin had said. They are persons of absolute integrity, and I have no doubt that they have spoken correctly. It is no accident that it was after Martin got himself elected to the UHJ in 1993 that the attitude of the House changed so dramatically toward Baha'i thinkers like myself, who had earlier been encouraged, and we started receiving secret visits from Martin's cronies threatening us with being declared CBs if we did not fall silent. Martin has long had a cultic attitude, and now he is in a position to implement it at the highest levels of the Baha'i institutions. So, dear friends, not only have I been backbit, I've been turned in the eyes of perhaps a majority of US Baha'is into a cartoon villain whom it is perfectly alright to backbite in the most vicious way. And it all started with Martin's viciousness and tyrannical impulses, his narrow-minded fundamentalism, as far back as the early 1980s. cheers Juan ColeFrom: "Juan Cole" Subject: Re: Individual conscience... Date: Monday, May 13, 2002 2:27 PM Dave, these things are difficult to discuss in the abstract. Individual conscience (vujdan, damir) is ethical reasoning. Revelation contains the ethics. Conscience is how you apply them in your individual life. The more cult-like elements in the Baha'i faith want you to give up your individual ability to reason ethically once you enter the faith. Thus, if you see Baha'i officials repeatedly doing something wrong, and you also see that appeals to the higher-ups are stonewalled so that the wrongdoing continues, you are expected just to keep your silence about it all. (Remind anyone of the pedophilia scandal in the Roman Catholic Church?) Anytime any group of people tells you that 1) you are not allowed publicly to criticize their power elite and 2) that you must give up your individual ability to reason ethically and just fall lockstep behind whatever the infallible leaders decide--then you are dealing with a cult. Any time a person buys into propositions 1) and 2), he or she has become a cultist. Any time he or she buys into all this and then tries to hide the fact, or obscure it for others, or engage in misdirection by launching stock accusations at anyone who won't go along, then that person has him or herself become a cultist. That is only one step away from the People's Temple in Guyana or the Koreishites at Waco. Once someone gives up the right to use his or her individual conscience, there is no reason not to drink the poison coolaid, or not to set the children on fire. It is for this reason, to protect the Cause of God from slipping into cultism, that Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha so heavily praised seeing with your own eyes and not with the eyes of others (i.e. not with the eyes of the NSA or the house of justice), and that they so heavily praised freedom of conscience and forbade Baha'i institutions to interfere with it. Douglas Martin wants to repeal that part of the Revelation that sanctifies the conscience of the individual believer. He wants to do so because he gets more power and possibly more wealth that way. Trying to repeal part of the Revelation for your own selfish purposes is a form of treason to the Faith. cheers Juan cheers JuanFrom: "Juan Cole" Subject: Re: It's a FACT - More Hits than USA bahais - 28,000+ The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience Date: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 10:16 AM My article on "The Baha'i Faith in Panopticon" was brought up with the implication that it was inaccurate in accepting the Kosmin and Lachman poll estimating 28,000 in the early 1990s. In actual fact, I openly said that I thought those poll results were probably too low, and I quoted Wilmette insiders as giving the number of registered adult Baha'is as about 60,000. https://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/1999/jssr/bhjssr.htm The increased numbers of Baha'is between the early 1990s and 2001 in the Kosmin survey, from 28,000 to 84,000, cannot be used to show an actual increase in the number of enrolled Baha'is. Virtually every knowledgeable academic observer believed that the 28,000 figure was too low. It could partially have been produced by statistical accident. In a very small group, if you call the wrong homes in a 110,000 person poll, you don't get them. The poll was mainly useful for fixing the larger groups. Also, the number represented those who were so invested in the Baha'i faith that they made it their primary identity. Large numbers of the Baha'is in South Carolina, e.g., thought they were Christians whose Christ has returned. Moreover, a *lot* of Iranian Baha'is in California had only been here about 10 years then; some did not have good English and many were too distrustful of outsiders (based on experiences in Iran) to be willing to answer a telephone poll about their religion. It would be very interesting to know exactly what methodological or other changes accounted for the increased numbers. One possibility is that the estimated 12,000-15,000 (some say over 20,000) Iranian-American Baha'is cooperated with the poll this time, now being either second generation or 20-year veterans of living in the States. Another possibility is that the 10,000 or so African-American Baha'i/Baptists in the South now have a stronger Baha'i identity. You could pick up 25,000-30,000 just with these two groups having a change of consciousness and/or willingness to answer telephone polls. It therefore is not necessary to posit actual increases of converts over deaths and withdrawals in the past decade, which I do not believe could be demonstrated. I can remember years in the '90s when even Wilmette admitted that it was a wash. (Many Baha'is focus only on conversions, not withdrawals or deaths, as though the latter don't have to be factored in). A counsellor told a friend of mine that *worldwide* from about 1986 to 1996 deaths and withdrawals in the Baha'i community just about equaled conversions to the faith, of which there had only been 400,000 in that decade. There is no reason to think the U.S. fared better than the Third World in that decade, and in fact every reason to think that it did not attract nearly as many converts. The usefulness of both polls lies not in fixing exact numbers, which they cannot do. A poll of 110,000 households in a population of 280 mn. can't get the small groups exactly right. Their usefulness is in setting a template against which popular Baha'i claims can be gauged. Many Baha'is have asserted to me that there are large numbers of self-identified Baha'is who are not on the rolls--going back to the 60s and 70s mass teaching. This kind of assertion simply could not be true given the Kosmin results. Likewise, claims of 140,000 Baha'is on the rolls, or 170,000, can be measured against the telephone polls to raise questions about how many of those people have actually drifted away, or aren't actively self-identified any longer. Note that nice religious communities like the Unitarian Universalists have the opposite configuration. They claim 200,000 (with a big increase in the 1990s), but Kosmin and Lachman estimated 500,000 Americans in the early 1990s who identified themselves as Unitarian Universalists. When you are nice, and don't persecute your intellectuals, arbitrarily toss people out on their ears, officially censor everything they publish, and actually do good things for real people, then Americans *want* to be identified with you. I'd be glad to be informed about any particular alleged facts in the Panopticon article which are actually incorrect. Rightwing Baha'is keep railing against it, but I've never been able to get any of them to specify what exactly is wrong. I had good evidence for everything I said, and I stand by it until proven wrong. cheers Juan ColeFrom: "Juan Cole" Subject: Re: It's a FACT - More Hits than USA bahais - 28,000+ The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience Date: Thursday, May 30, 2002 3:31 PM Dear Pat: My point was that you used the word "Panopticon" to have the connotations of "unfounded allegations." My reply was that the article's allegations are all as well founded as I could make them, including the allegations about U.S. Baha'i demography. I knew that the 130,000 figure (which became 140,000 magically) was an exaggeration. Note that the Wilmette officials who issued it said that it did *not* include the Iranian immigrants! Or at least some of them sometimes said this. I also knew that the first Kosmin and Lachman poll numbers of 28,000 were too low, though they probably approximate the number of *active* Baha'is according to the Wilmette definition. (The NTC did a report in the mid-1990s concluding that 1/3 of Baha'is are "active"). So I made inquiries. Several talismanians had arrived at a figure of about 56,000 voting Baha'is based on the districts announced in the mid-1990s, which were supposed each to be the same size. I also had people make inquiries with the Baha'i National Center behind the scenes. Mostly what came back was 60,000 or so adult Baha'is with good addresses. And, that is the number I reported as likely in 1996, on both grounds. I said I thought the Kosmin number probably too low. Baha'is had frequently alleged to me that there might be several hundred thousand Baha'is off the rolls who had drifted away from the community but were still believers of a sort. My comment that the Kosmin and Lachman survey demonstrated that there were not large numbers of Baha'is floating in the general population was intended to refute these claims of very large numbers. That there might be a few thousand such would not be surprising; hundreds of thousands are out of the question. None of this reasoning and resort to outside polls, etc., would be necessary if the Baha'i National Assembly would simply be honest about how many Baha'is they think they really have. We know they don't count people like Karen and me. So the long and the short of it is that Panopticon did the best job possible in reporting likely numbers in 1996, and it would have been irresponsible of me to simply accept the 140,000 figure put out from Wilmette, which was wrong then and is wrong now, especially if it does not count Iranian American Baha'is. By the way, if there are 100,000 self-reported Baha'is of some description including children, and Wilmette is claiming between 140,000 and 170,000, they are still engaged in a vast exaggeration. So your original snide use of 'Panopticon' to connote something that is wildly inaccurate, perhaps deliberately so, continues to be inappropriate and incorrect. The article was as solid as I could make it at the time, and my figure of 60,000 adults is far closer to the current Kosmin estimate of 84,000 than are the current Wilmette figures, which in any case are vague and unclear as to what exactly is being claimed and seem to fluctuate wildly without reference to any reasonable demographic reality. *Are* they counting the Iranian-American Baha'is? How many children, exactly, are they counting? Is it 140,000 or 170,000 they are claiming? They know the answers to these simple questions. They won't give them out. cheers Juan ColeFrom: "Juan Cole" Subject: Re: Fundamentalism in US Baha'i Community Date: Friday, May 31, 2002 12:12 PM But Matt, don't you think that if you lived in a society where religious institutions became the civil government, that would be Khomeinist. There isn't any real difference between komitehs of the Party of God ruling society and LSAs and NSAs. I have lots of Iranian academic friends who were silenced or purged for their writing because it was critical of the Khomeinist state. It is actually illegal in Iran to contest the idea that the supreme Shi`ite jurisprudent should rule the country. I don't see what the difference in principle is between that and the Baha'i institutions claiming they can never be publicly criticized, and sending counsellors and ABMs around to silence people with threats that they will be shunned or ostracized. If the Baha'is who behave this way controlled a government, they would be just as oppressive as the Khomeinists. UHJ member Hushmand Fatheazam once told me that a future Baha'i world government would put covenant breakers in jail! We all know where I would be if that sort of person controlled the US government. So when you say you want to get away from Khomeinism, are you serious? Because it would mean taking the theocrat party within the Baha'i faith seriously, and dissociating yourself from them. cheers Juan Cole > > > > https://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/2002/fundbhfn.htm > > Here's to getting as far away from Khomeinist Islam as possible. In > Iran they hurt us by persecution. Everywhere else they hurt us by the > embarassment of being associated with them. > > Best Regards, > > Matt From: Juan Cole Date: Sun Dec 1, 2002 4:02 pm Subject: Re: [talisman9] Problems with Facts I'd prefer not to have an individual's name in the heading, so I took it out. Ad hominems are not always useless but it is better to concentrate on the point at hand. With regard to Alison's question about translations, I did a lot of translating last spring on the 1850s and have yet to sort it all out and put it together. Right now we are wrapping up the semester, and I've been swamped, but yes, I will do more translating. There is so much to do. And, I am grateful to you and Daniela and so many others for the kind words. Of course extensive attempts have been made to turn me into a non-person. A friend at Louhelen Baha'i school sent me a copy of Steve Birkland's letter demanding they cease carrying *Modernity and the Millennium* at the bookstore there (Louhelen wanted to). Of course, by now no official Baha'i outlet carries it. Yet it is the only academic treatment of Baha'u'llah. Henderson attempted to erase the bibliographical items in the "Baha'i Resource Guide" authored by me. I have been attacked scurrilously in Baha'i Studies Journal and critiqued in Baha'i Studies Review, and I was denied the right of reply in both cases. In BSR's instance, the refusal came from the house of justice, not the local editors. Yet I provide critics of myself many opportunities to present on the Baha'i faith in public, at academic conferences, on H-Bahai and on talisman9. That some off-the-record and apparently somewhat gossipy conversations occured at some Baha'i conference about me does not have any bearing on my having been made a non-person. It is officially that the non-person policy is pursued. It is not just me. Past Baha'i historians such as Fazel Mazandarani have also often had their contributions erased from the record. With regard to a point of fact. The "Modest Proposal" was submitted to the National Spiritual Assembly offices in Wilmette, Ill. for review by Dialogue before the national convention held around April 21 of 1988. As of the time of the convention no reply had been received as to whether it could be published. The "Modest Proposal" was shown to Dorothy and Jim Nelson, members of the NSA that winter and spring and they thought well of it and encouraged the authors. Dorothy is a Federal judge at the 9th District, and Jim was then on the Los Angeles bench (he was a Reagan appointee). Both of them had served at that point nearly 20 years on the NSA and both were to put it lightly well versed in due process. "Modest Proposal" was not shown to delegates to the National Convention qua delegates. It was circulated to some persons on the Dialogue editorial staff. I believe two of them were also delegates, but that was not why they got it and there was nothing improper about editorial board members being consulted on a forthcoming editorial. It does appear to be the case that Steve Scholl called up Bob Henderson and *offered* to make the piece available to delegates to the national convention, but the offer was neither accepted in Wilmette nor acted upon by the Dialogue editors. Behind everyone's back, Firuz Kazemzadeh and Bob Henderson cabled the Universal House of Justice that the Dialogue editors were engaged in campaigning. This was not true and there is not a scintilla of evidence for it, nor did the UHJ in the end find that they had done so. Ian Semple and other by-then hardliners just bought the lie, hook line and sinker. In fact, Kazemzadeh and Henderson saw the document, with its call for term limits, as a mortal threat to their enjoyment of power in the community. They had long disliked Dialogue but hadn't been able to get rid of it. The maneuver of simply smearing the editors by falsely accusing them of a crime was their preferred method of proceeding. My reading of the evidence is that they also got Semple to hint around to the Nelsons that covenant breaking charges might be invoked, which caused them to back off supporting the Dialogue editors. The Dialogue editors played by the rules. They did everything just as was required all along the way. Since Mr. Kluge has had this explained to him several times and he insists on distorting the actual course of events, I can only assume that he is deliberately attempting to muddy the waters. This is because it is impossible for him to accept the reality (which I can document exhaustively from primary souces) that Henderson and Kazemzadeh simply screwed the editors over. They played very dirty politics with naive young idealists. And they even got away with it for a long time, until talisman-1 came along and the pattern of their unethical behavior began to become apparent when lots of different people began comparing notes. The nice thing about history is that everything comes out in the wash. cheers Juan www.juancole.com From: Juan Cole Date: Thu Dec 5, 2002 2:41 am Subject: Re: [talisman9] Problems with Facts No, I cannot publish anything at all in Baha'i-run "journals." I have tried and been told no. The issue is not what I might have to say but who I am. The allegation that if only I tried I might succeed functions as a smokescreen to any outsiders or gullible insiders who might be listening. It is a falsehood pure and simple. It is like saying Alison could publish in Baha'i Studies Review (now under new, less troublesome editorship). She can't. The Baha'i system works in an Orwellian way. Very strict behavioral limits, often somewhat arbitrary, are set up. And if someone trips over them, they are required to allow themselves to be shafted without protest. If they kick up a fuss they become non-persons for official purposes. There is a difference between being a non-person and being shunned. I am not officially shunned (as if I would care one way or another), but I am an official non-person. The purpose of having this system where it is so easy to turn insiders into outsiders is to maintain very strict control over the community by its leaders. The idea is that everyone still on the inside will fear being made a non-person or being ostracized or being shunned, and so will keep quiet and let the leadership do as it pleases with them. Silent suffering of tyranny and injustice from one's leaders is the actual definition of a Baha'i in good standing. Of course, this requirement is cult-like. As with Roman Catholicism, where excommunication plays a similar if far less Draconian role, it produces a system full of corruption and unsavory practices that are hidden from the ordinary believers. Unfortunately the Baha'i faith is not important enough for the press to take an interest in it. Otherwise there are as many juicy stories in Wilmette as in Boston. Anyone who has "trust" that the so-called universal house of justice would be any better at running people's affairs than Cardinal Law and the Vatican have been is in for a rude surprise. Infallible religious leaders aren't good for people. They literally screw them over. And, of course, *none* of this social control has anything at all to do with poor Baha'u'llah, who believed in democracy and freedom of speech and giving people their heads. Makes a person believe in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. cheers Juan www.juancole.com From: Juan Cole Date: Tue Dec 10, 2002 1:36 am Subject: Obituary for Linda Walbridge Linda Walbridge died of cancer Monday, 9 December 2002, in Bloomington, Indiana. Linda was an active poster to Talisman-1 and many of her messages can be found in its archives. I append just a few for flavor below. Linda, born in New Jersey into a Catholic family, was a devoted and self-sacrificing Baha'i from the late 1960s until 1996. She served as a pioneer in Lebanon in 1973-1974 and again in Jordan some years later. In Jordan she lived in difficult circumstances with two young children. She once remarked to me that she had spent much of her life in penury to serve the Faith, depriving her children in ways she later regretted. In the late 1980s she did a Ph.D at Wayne State University on the Shi`ite community of Detroit, later published as *Without Forgetting the Imam.* She served in the 1990s as deputy director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia University and then taught anthropology at Indiana University. Linda was an outspoken champion of women's rights, the need for women to serve on the Universal House of Justice, and of an approach to the Faith that allowed Baha'is to accommodate themselves to science and rationality. She appears to have particularly infuriated and inspired anxiety in the more male chauvinist men in the Baha'i community. As a former Catholic, she was alive to the need for a sense of mystery and mysticism in religion. Her liveliness and genial sense of humor come through vividly in her talisman messages. With her husband John, Linda published the controversial, "Baha'i Laws and the Status of Men" in World Order, Fall 1984. 25-36, in response to which a forum was published in Dialogue magazine. Linda also published "Rituals: An American Baha'i Dilemma" in the Baha'i Studies Review, available here: https://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/abs/bsr05/58_walbridge_rituals.htm . Her unpublished "Reforming the Marja`: the Baha'i Example" is available at: https://bahai-library.org/unpubl.articles/marja.taqlid.html . In April of 1996, she and her husband were threatened by Stephen Birkland at the orders of Farzam Arbab, Ian Semple, and Douglas Martin with being held in contravention of "the covenant" because of their email messages at talisman@i... in 1994-1996. These email messages in fact had nothing to do with the covenant one way or another, of course. She declined to speak to Mr. Birkland when he tried to get her to come to the telephone. Catholics recognize an inquisition when they see one, and know that no good can come of speaking to the inquisitor. Broken-hearted and betrayed (and not a little furious at this shoddy treatment), Linda ultimately reverted to the Catholicism of her youth for the last few years of her life, especially in Pakistan where she lived for two years doing research. Her book on Pakistani Christians has just been published. She spent most of her life, however, as a believing Baha'i who made enormous sacrifices for the Faith she loved. Her family requests that "In lieu of flowers, contributions should be made to the scholarship fund of St. Joseph's Boys High School, Gujranwala, Pakistan, c/o St. Paul's Catholic Center, 1413 E. 17 th Street, Bloomington IN 47408." Old-time talismanians will want to send a contribution in her name. Linda, we raise a glass of the choice wine to you there in the Abha Kingdom. You fought the good fight. Sincerely, Juan Cole ------- Date: Sat, 16 Dec 95 21:29:22 EWT From: LWALBRID@c... Subject: standing by my words To: talisman@i... Dear Robert, I do think that Ken and Rob's excellent responses on the subject of evolution are quite adequate to prove my point that there are highly intelligent and knowledgeable people here on Talisman who can explain the concept quite adequately. I refuse to return to the bad old days when science had to conform to theology. And, I trust you read the posting from Juan of Abdu'l Baha's talk in New York. This says it all. We should not follow blindly. I feel quite confident that, if the information we have now on evolution were available to Abdu'l Baha, that he would have explained things differently. He was not a scientist. He was a true religious leader - a moral guide for us to follow. It belittles his station (in my eyes) to make him into some cult figure who somehow had all knowledge of all aspects of life. This was not his claim, Robert. We should read his words to feed our hearts, not to nit pick about scientific issues. Let's leave that to the scientists, please!! I found Ahang's posting about the story of Fadil to be both fascinating and heart wrenching. I suppose I can relate so strongly to it because of the Encyclopoedia project. Three cheers for the battle against Fundamentalism! And, Derek. Long may your power outage continue. Dear friends, just as I was posting this note to Derek, the telephone rang. It was my dear nemisis, Derek. He and Burl now have a campaign of telephone torment. I will never be left in peace. I dread tuning into Talisman on Monday for the Derek and Burl scandal hour. They admit to conspiring against me. Is this the example that Abdu'l Baha gave us? Should we not be asking ourselves, would Abdu'l Baha approve of Derek and Burl's treatment of me? (We are supposed to ask ourselves questions like that, aren't we?) By the way, Burl has unsubscribed from Talisman for the week. However, I do believe that he will be sorry. I suggest that everyone forward their messages to Burl this week to make sure he has plenty of reading material when he returns. Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter. Linda ------------- Date: Sun, 17 Dec 95 11:05:43 EWT From: LWALBRID@c... Subject: evolution To: talisman@i... Dear Mark, I cannot for the life of me understand what you mean by not having the tools for studying evolution empirically. There are a multitude of ways to study various aspects of evolution using excellent scientific methodology. What else do you want? Why do Baha'is in the 1990s have to sound like my Christian fundamentalist students who literally will not look at ape and hominid skulls when I take them for tours of the anthropology museum? This stuff is so exciting. I find it difficult to believe that intelligent Baha'is don't relish in this stuff knowing that we are liberated from old religious views that denied people the right to explore the universe without fear of breaking religious law. I guess my comments to Derek will have to wait. My husband, the Beloved Listowner, has summoned me to assist him with some matter. I have not even asked what it is, so dutiful and obedient a wife am I. Submissively, Linda ------------ Date: Mon, 18 Dec 95 14:21:23 EWT From: LWALBRID@c... Subject: religious images To: talisman@i... John's posting on Fadil and his writings on the Babis made great sense to me. There is a continual struggle in the religions with which I am familiar for control of the image that the religion wishes to project. I have some difficulty, though not nearly to the extent that John, Juan, Todd, and others have, in doing anthropoligical work among the Shi'a because the more learned Shi'a don't want the world to think that the extreme "irrational" aspects of Shi'ism are really present in the world today. They prefer to present an image of Islam (and Shi'ism) as being very legalistic, rational, and in harmony with modern life. For me to explore other aspects of the religion makes them a tad nervous. However, they don't try to stop me. They just expresss exasperation that I persist in speaking to the "wrong" people. My feeling is that the Baha'i Faith won't really gain "respectability" until we are allowed to explore all aspects of the Babi and Baha'i religions and present them as openly as we would any other body of material. I have watched scholars become Muslims even though they are exploring this religion using "cold" Western scientific methodology in their studies. This type of writing is not going to harm the Faith. It will deepen and broaden it. Right now, it is stuck in a groove and, alas, is appearing to be a bit naive. I hope that Talisman's success is to open the doors for all sorts of new understandings. Linda Date: Thu, 15 Feb 96 13:01:44 EWT From: LWALBRID@c... Subject: how mystical can this be? To: talisman@i... First, thank you, Jackson for your posting. I second Terry's suggestion that Talismanians read your book if they have not already done so. It is a very important book and should be on the "must read" list of Baha'i books. Chesmack, you should be coming to this conference at Bosch. Such a spiritually uplifting (a delicately put message to our ever-sensitive Derek) event it should be. And no doubt it would provide you with many opportunities to resolve conflicts. If you do not come, it may be that the only way to avoid conflict is by putting Burl, Derek, and me in opposite parts of Bosch. Since Burl suggested putting me to sleep, I would like to suggest in turn that he be placed in the fountains with the water on. I am surprised anyone is going to show up at this conference. Surely, Derek and Burl have done nothing to put people in the proper frame of mind. If Burl thinks that his "I see Jesus" line is going to convince people of his mystical bent, I think he needs to read more Talisman postings and learn something. Arsalon, you will note the weakness of Derek's argument against me. Since when does my decking 3 monks mean that I don't know a crook when I see one? Linda ------------------------------- From lwalbrid@i... Apr 13 13:27:18 1996 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 12:09:14 -0500 (EST) From: lwalbrid To: talisman@m... Subject: being honest Linda (the one who is always soft spoken and demure) feels that she cannot avoid the discussion of women and their position in the Baha'i Faith. First, I want to applaud Milissa, Sandy, and Leigh on their forthright statements. Sugar coating things only works for a little while. Sooner or later the sugar wears off and your gagging on the hard to swallow stuff. In my heart of hearts I don't really care who used the word "exempt" from the UHJ. I think it is merely a way to make the idea more palatable. We are excluded. Period. And there are many of us who don't like it. And it is going to become a bigger problem as time goes on and the world finds it increasingly acceptable to find women in places of power. Frankly, I can't imagine how Baha'u'llah living in 19th Century Iran could have advocated having women on the UHJ. It would have been unthinkable at that time. It also would have caused so much trouble to have been unimaginable. The Iranian Baha'is faced a great deal of persecution, from what I understand, because men and women were socializing together in Baha'i meetings when they should have been segregated. While I don't want to overgeneralize, I have seen Iranian women, mostly in the M.E., who even in the past couple of decades, would not dare to speak up at an Assembly meeting or Feast for fear of chastizement from their husbands. (Now, I know there are going to be blasts at me for this statement. However, I know this for a fact - not just from observation, but because the women told me of their fears. Certainly this is not a universal situation, but it is indicative of the fact that speaking up in public has been a real issue for Iranian women. I am sure there are plenty of people on the list who will object to my explaining this law in such specifically sociological terms. However, why is it that we accept the fact that discrimination against women occurred in past religions because of social conditions but won't accept the fact that the Baha'i Faith was founded at a time when women in Iranian society were living in seclusion? I don't understand the difference. I have shocked people before by my statements that scripture is only a small part of religion. REligion is a living phenomenon constantly being shaped by social forces. The Baha'i Faith is no different in this regard. If you go to Botswana you are going to find a different expression of the Baha'i Faith than if you are in the U.S. There are a few basic ideas that serve as unifying factors, but most of the religion will be pretty much a cultural phenomenon. I can't help comparing the situation with the Shi'ites with whom I am working. These are all people who "live with scripture." Of all Shi'ites, these are the ones most informed about what the ulama teach and can quote the great ayatollahs about women's place, her "nature," her limitations, etc. However, in spite of this I see a changing expectation for women. Some of receiving college educations. Some are slowly "coming out" and becoming a little more visible. And, what is most interesting, I am meeting a lot of men who wish to see their wives and daughters becoming more educated and informed of the world around them. The fact that they speak so openly to me and deal with me on such equal terms confirms my belief that, though they might know what their grand ayatollahs might say about women's inferior station, the fact is that they are faced with reality and are responding in intelligent, rational ways to it. Yes, even the turbaned ones that are supposed to be so backwards. My point? Well, I guess it is just plod on. There are very good reasons for modern women to feel unhappy with being excluded from the UHJ. This is where major decisions are made. After all, everytime there is any disagreement on Talisman, there are those who want to run to the UHJ and ask them to solve the problem. So, we turn to the men - always - to handle the really big issues, don't we? So, I don't think women need to shut up about this. There are no scietific reasons to think that women cannot make rational judgements and be just as logical as men. So, we can just simply go on saying that "this is the law and it can't be changed," but I don't see how long that sort of attitude is going to continue in the modern world. This is so much longer than I expected. Sorry, folks. If Burl and Derek would let me on their very secret list, I could post all these ideas into that vaccuum and you would never have to read this stuff. Linda