From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Thursday, September 11, 1997 7:18 AM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Many Thanks etc. Greetings, Frederick, from Ottawa. Many thanks for placing "The Service of Women" on alt. religion.bahai, and thank you for trying to place it on talk.religion.misc. There's a point I would like to make clear, and I would be grateful if you could place this on the same lists to which you posted your explaination of why you forwarded the "Service of Women" paper. This is that inasmuch as the Baha'i system was designed to promote human harmony, and was provided with internal methods to accomodate the naturally occurring variety of views (in effect anyone may have and share personal understandings, which are realized to be individual, unauthoritative and in the natural course of events subject to change, even by the one presenting them) I absolutely deny the possibility that there can be any such status as Baha'i outside the Baha'i community. When the Universal House of Justice informed the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Canada that I was no longer a member of the Baha'i community, my response, since I accepted the authority of the Universal House of Justice, and since I completely deny such concepts as Baha'is outside the Baha'i community, was to promptly declare publically that I have joined the Ottawa neo-pagan community. In addition to my pagan activity in the real world, I am subscribing to pagan lists, and reading pagan newsgroups. This follows up a long standing interest of mine going back till at least the 80s. Nevertheless, I am keeping an eye on Baha'i affairs. When I received a request for this paper, a few days ago, I realized it was time to send it out. I had received a copy on March 23, 1996 by e-mail. This marks the date that I realized the opportunity which exists within the Baha'i Faith for the fuller implementation of the fundamental Baha'i principles of the equality of women and men, and the independent investigation of truth with its corollary of freedom of thought, conscience and expression. Anyway, I accept only the concept of Baha'is within the community of the Baha'i Revelation, united in wondrous diversity. I am quite happy as a pagan to be attuning myself more to nature and to becoming more aware with the ways of my early Celtic ancestors, and I am delighted to be meeting even more members of the pagan community than I had previously known. I hope my relative preoccupation with other things will correspond to an era of increased respect, tolerance and open-mindedness by all Baha'is, especially those charged to exercise high responsibility. Thanks again for everything. May this find you very well, and may that long be so. Peace, Michael -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) ---------- From: L-Soft list server at H-Net - Humanities On-Line (1.8b)[SMTP:LISTSERV@h-net.msu.edu] Sent: Sunday, October 05, 1997 10:39 AM To: Fred Glaysher Cc: Juan Cole, U of Michigan; Negar Mottahedeh, U Minnesota; Susan Maneck, Berry College Subject: You have been added to the H-BAHAI list Sun, 5 Oct 1997 10:39:25 You have been added to the H-BAHAI mailing list (H-NET List for Bahai Studies) by "Susan Maneck, Berry College" . *********************************************************************** H-NET Humanities and Social Sciences Online *********************************************************************** Sun, 5 Oct 1997 10:39:25 Your subscription has been accepted. Welcome to H-BAHAI (H-NET List for Bahai Studies) on the H-NET Humanities Online Listserv at Michigan State University. H-NET sponsors more than 80 Listserv lists for scholars in history and the humanities. Please visit our WWW site at https://www.h-net.msu.edu for more information about all of our lists, the Book and Software Review Project, the H-Net Job Guide, and the many other projects and initiatives H-NET is engaged in. Some initial tips for managing your subscription to the H-BAHAI list follow. Please note: If you would like to discuss a problem, please write to HELP@H-NET.MSU.EDU. Use the address LISTSERV@H-NET.MSU.EDU for all subscription and administrative commands, but not for comments, discussion and questions, as LISTSERV can't understand those. Please save this message for future reference. ************************************** * SENDING MAIL TO THE H-BAHAI LIST * ************************************** To send a message to all the people currently subscribed to H-BAHAI just send mail to H-BAHAI@H-NET.MSU.EDU. Your message will be automatically intercepted and sent to the Editor. That's a real person who will decide whether to forward it to all the subscribers (or perhaps to send it back to you with an explanation.) **************** * TO SUBSCRIBE * **************** Write to LISTSERV@H-NET.MSU.EDU and, in the text of your message (not the subject line), write: SUBSCRIBE H-BAHAI firstname lastname, university or other affiliation Example: SUBSCRIBE H-BAHAI Mary Smith, Michigan State University ********************* * TO LEAVE THE LIST * ********************* You may leave the list at any time by writing to LISTSERV@H-NET.MSU.EDU. In the text of your message (not the subject line), say: SIGNOFF H-BAHAI If your email address is about to change, you should UNSUBSCRIBE from the old address and SUBSCRIBE at the new address. ***************************** * PUTTING YOUR MAIL ON HOLD * ***************************** To temporarily turn off your mail, send this command to LISTSERV@H-NET.MSU.EDU: SET H-BAHAI NOMAIL *********************************** * RECEIVING MAIL IN DIGEST FORMAT * *********************************** To receive all the day's postings in one long message that is sent out at midnight, send this message to LISTSERV@H-NET.MSU.EDU: SET H-BAHAI DIGEST To resume individual postings, send this: SET H-BAHAI MAIL ***************************** * READING ARCHIVED MESSAGES * ***************************** Contributions sent to this list are automatically archived every week. You can get a list of the available archive files by sending LISTSERV@H-NET.MSU.EDU the command: INDEX H-BAHAI You can then order these files with the command: GET H-BAHAI LOGxxxx Thus, GET H-BAHAI LOG9601B will ask for all the messages posted in year '96, month 1 (January), week 2. They will come to your email address. On the Web, go to https://www.h-net.msu.edu/logs. There you will find logs for most H-Net lists. ************************************************ * FOR MORE INFORMATION OR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE * ************************************************ We hope you enjoy H-BAHAI, H-NET List for Bahai Studies and find it useful. More technical information on LISTSERV commands can be found by sending any of the following commands to LISTSERV@H-NET.MSU.EDU: HELP (Sends a short help message) INFO (Lists technical files you can order) INFO REFCARD (Sends the Listserv Reference Card) If you would prefer to talk to someone from H-NET Technical Assistance, please send mail to HELP@H-NET.MSU.EDU. Our staff would be glad to help you. If you have any questions or comments about H-NET, other available H-NET lists, the WWW site, the Review Project, or the Job Guide, please write us at H-NET@H-NET.MSU.EDU ---------- From: Susan Maneck[SMTP:smaneck@BERRY.EDU] Sent: Monday, October 06, 1997 10:25 AM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: McKenny affair Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 11:12:12 +0500 From: john walbridge Subject: McKinney affair In a way, the most curious thing about this whole sequence of events-- from Michael Mc-Kenny going back at least as far as the dialogue affair--is that the House of Justice always feels obligated to respond in a manner which turns what would otherwise be sincere but essentially secondary differences of opinion into crises of authority. After all, there was nothing to prevent them having written to McK thusly: "The House of Justice appreciates the frankness with which you have expressed your views and will bear them in mind in its consultations on the affairs of the cause." Or, if they felt obliged to explain themselves: "While, as you know, the House of Justice does not think it is possible to legislate to make women eligible to serve on the House, it is anxious that women play a more active role in the Baha'i community and suggests that you might wish to involve yourself in such activities in Canada." Either would have ended the matter without a crisis or ill will. john walbridge ---------- From: Gavin E. Reed[SMTP:gavinreed@compuserve.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 2:57 AM To: (unknown); Maneck,Susan Subject: Re: Message to the Universal House of Justice In the Baha'i Studies List today: Susan Manek wrote, in part: > I agree with you that your letter represents the attitude which the > House would have us take towards "guidance" from the Institutions. > And as a general rule this may be the best way for the > Institutions to address believers. But I wonder if this is > appropriate in those cases where continued misbehaviour is going to > bring on definite consequences, as in Micheal's case? I've already spoken to this to some extent in a separate post to Baha'i Studies, in response to a post by R. Jackson Armstrong-Ingram, but I thought it worthwhile to make one brief point in response to this specific question. My approach to wondering about this question would begin with the assumption that because the House of Justice chose to respond in a certain way, given a specific set of circumstances, this *is* the appropriate approach (by definition), because I think it unresolvably problematic to presume to delimit the areas in which the guidance of the House is infallible. If one starts with the assumption that the methodology is sound, one can begin to explore (question) why such an approach might be appropriate, rather than chasing the chimera of "if" it is/was appropriate. This approach could be characterized as rationalization, except that it is based on a clear article of Faith, and thus, for Baha'is, is a "given". I don't think there were any "consequences" in Michael's case which he himself could not have predicted, given the position he chose to take. There was nothing punitive in the House's determination, only the logical result of a dispassionate review of Michael's beliefs. If Michael were to actually find that he *believed* in Baha'u'llah's Revelation (all of it, and not just the parts he already thought he agreed with), he would assuredly be welcomed as a member of the community. The same is true for any of us. Warm regards, Gavin Reed - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: L-Soft list server at H-Net - Humanities On-Line (1.8b)[SMTP:LISTSERV@h-net.msu.edu] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 7:35 AM To: FG@HOTMAIL.COM Subject: Message ("Your message dated Tue, 7 Oct 1997 07:36:09 -0400...") Your message dated Tue, 7 Oct 1997 07:36:09 -0400 with subject "NOTICE: talk.religion.bahai" has been submitted to the moderator of the H-BAHAI list: "Susan Maneck, Berry College" . ---------- From: Susan Maneck[SMTP:smaneck@berry.edu] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 11:12 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Bill Garlington; jrcole@umich.edu; motta003@maroon.tc.umn.edu Subject: Re: NOTICE: talk.religion.bahai Dear Fred, I am a little confused as to why you are posting this message here. It looks like you are referencing something are list members would not likely have access to since most do not subscribe to Bahai Discuss. Are you trying to provide information as to how to access it through Usenet? If so you may have to be more specific. I don't think everyone understands Usenet protocols. Susan Maneck Moderator > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (14 lines) ------------------ > A frequent poster to alt.religion.bahai has sent a message to the > Universal House of Justice, the highest administrative institution of the > Bahai Faith in Haifa, Israel, regarding the second proposal and vote on > talk.religion.bahai. At this time, it is not clear whether or how this > development will influence the proposal and UseNet vote. Although > the message has also been posted on Bahai-Discuss, a private > Bahai list, he has requested that it not be reposted to any newsgroup. > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > Ask your ISP to add it; also available on > www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. > > ---------- From: Susan Maneck[SMTP:smaneck@BERRY.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 11:32 AM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Usefulness of crises From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Usefulness of crises Date: Tue, 7 Oct 97 9:38:06 EDT John Walbridge comments that the "most curious thing" about the sequence of events involving Michael M. and similar crises back to the Dialogue affair is the way minor problems are turned into major crises of authority. While I have been surprised again and again by the actions of the institutions, in retrospect it doesn't seem at all surprising or curious that such extreme actions and rhetoric would occur. The Baha'i Faith, after all, was born in a crisis of authority-- that of the Babi community. The Bab had created a crisis of authority for Shaykhism and for Shi'ism. `Abdu'l Baha's struggle with his siblings, and Shoghi Effendi's with his own and virtually all his relatives, carried the tradition of constant crises of authority through the midpoint of this century. Then Mason Remey brought the tradition forward through the third quarter; after his death in 1974, though (and really well before that) there were no longer genuine, credible threats to the unity of the Faith. However, a "script" had been firmly embedded in the collective Baha'i psyche by this point. It said in essence, "God has been trying to reach and guide humanity through his chosen instruments, but evil forces have always attempted to thwart God's will by dividing the Baha'i community, and believers must be constantly vigilant in upholding the Covenant." Although Satan by name does not play much role in the writings, the theme of Satanic human opposition to divine authority is a constant. Therefore, I conclude, the Universal House of Justice is "scripted" to believe itself not only the chosen instrument for the communication of God's will to humanity, but also the target for evil forces which are eternally at work against it. The number one evil that could be accomplished by such forces would be the undermining of the authority of the House. This would undermine the entire divine plan and the New World Order. And since evil never rests, there must *always* be threats to God's chosen instruments, and thus they must *always* be extremely vigilant in detecting and defeating the evil divisive forces with whom they are locked in a struggle that will not end until the final triumph of Baha'i institutions over all competing authority claims. This means that inevitably, any slight disrespect for any Baha'i institution by any Baha'i is prone to get interpreted as a crisis of authority, and by being so interpreted become same. I would say this is a collective illustration of a common truism about individual psychology. The experiences of childhood and adolescence permanently affect the attitudes with which we interpret events later in life, and the results are often maladaptive to the actual state of affairs with which we are dealing, which is often very different from the circumstances which have shaped our attitudes. ---------- From: Susan Maneck[SMTP:smaneck@BERRY.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 7:48 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Usefulness of Crises Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 17:42:16 -0400 (EDT) From: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca (McKenny Michael) Subject: Re Usefulness of Crises Greetings, Paul and others, from Ottawa. If you are well, it is well. I think it is a very interesting point you are raising. One great strength of the Baha'i worldview was its all- inclusive nature. This was fascilitated by its concept of unity in diversity and by the denial of the evil other. Affirmation has long been a powerful psychological tool, a means perceived by some societies as magical. However, this Baha'i affirmation of the beneficial, of the light, of the good, exists alongside a history of something less than unanimous acceptance of the authority of the succeeding Baha'i leaders either from within or from without the Faith. A response which was not fully successful in avoiding demonizing those who had opposed the Faith and its Head (See the descriptions in THE PROMISED DAY IS COME among many examples) greatly reduced the efficacy of the affirmation mentioned above. Further, the expectation was created that such opposition by enemies, internal and external, would intensify in the future. I recall reading at the time of a great conference at the Baha'i Temple in Wilmette on July 9, 1975 by the National Spiritual Assemblies of Canada, the United States and possibly Alaska, as well as members of the Institution of the learned, and the intent of this conference was to deliberate on the advice from the Universal House of Justice that the time had come to acquaint the Baha'is with the concept that increased attacks on the Faith by both internal and external enemies were to be expected. Such an expectation, such an affirmation of the satanic other, facilitated an interpretation that varied views and alternative perceptions of the Baha'i Revelation, far from being the natural flowering of the garden of human diversity, were due to inimical, or at best lukewarm, elements within the Faith. Peace, Michael ---------- From: Susan Maneck[SMTP:smaneck@BERRY.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 7:34 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Usefulness of crises From: belove@sover.net Date: Tue, 7 Oct 97 10:59:35 Subject: RE: Usefulness of crises Paul Johnson's interesting post about the usefulness of crises and the "script" of the UHJ addresses a point I was trying to bring forward in my posting about the Bahai Paradox. Here is my thought: every religion has a teaching not only as a prose statement, if you will, but also as a drama. The drama, the story, becomes the mythic teaching of the that religion. I submit that the mythic teaching is far deeper and more profound than the prose statement and that the prose statements are commentaries on the myth which is the real teaching. I see this most clearly in Judaism (Exodus) and Christianity (The Passion and Crucifixion). A religion without a myth is to me inconceivable. The greatest teaching is in the story. But what is the Bahai story? What myth is being born, is emerging, is clarifying itself out of the story of Baha'ullah's life and travails and triumphs? Certainly if there is a "script" that could be discerned in the actions of the Universal House of Justice, that script should be true to the myth -- or a betrayal of it. Some take the position that their actions are a betrayal of the myth -- but they do not say it that way, rather they say it is a betrayal of the teachings. Again, I say, the "teachings" are the prose, but the life as lived and later told is the "myth." In the myth, the great evil is devisiveness, just as the great revelation is unity. The myth is how unity will triumph over divisiveness. but the myth is, as yet, not unfolded. I think some Bahai's would claim that we are still living out the myth. I don't think I like that claim, or buy it. Myths are timeless and eternal. They exist as complete stories with beginning and end already present. Frankly, I don't think the central myth of the Bahai revelation has been told clearly. But I do think that something goes on which activates the Universal House of Justice to play it's part in some timeless drama of which it is uniquely aware. But the crisis may or may not be one of authority. I think most certainly it is one of Unity. But how authority relates to unity is yet to be understood. In contemporary chaos theory, complexity theory and systemic theory, the role of authority is understood differently than in traditional heirarchically imagined systems. That, however, is another discussion. Philip ---------- From: Susan Maneck[SMTP:smaneck@BERRY.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 11:39 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Attitudes Towards Women Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 18:35:03 -0400 (EDT) From: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca (McKenny Michael) Subject: Re Attitudes Towards Women Greetings, Bill and others, from Ottawa. On this issue of women and souls, the novel ALI AND NINO, written, according to John Wain who wrote the introduction, by a Tartar (hence, one of Muslim backgound?) contains the following passage: "'So you believe that a woman has neither soul nor intelligence?"' He looked at me pityingly: "How can you ask, Ali Khan? Why should a woman have either? It is enough for her to be chaste and have many children." p. 76 The character expressing the above view is a Muslim cleric. According to the introduction to my English edition (Pocket Books, New York, 1972 (1970), this book was originally published in German (in Vienna?) in 1937 and the author has the pseudonym of Kurban Said. The story is set in Azerbaijan and Persia around the time of the Russian Revolution. One of the minor characters in the book is a Baha'i, and there is reference to Tahirih. Fare very Well, Michael ---------- From: Susan Maneck[SMTP:smaneck@berry.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 1997 9:59 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Bill Garlington; jrcole@umich.edu; motta003@maroon.tc.umn.edu Subject: Re: NOTICE: talk.religion.bahai Dear Fred, That will probably be all right, but I think you are going to have to contextualize it a little more. I'm not sure our readers would have understood your post. Susan > From: "Frederick Glaysher" > To: > Subject: Re: NOTICE: talk.religion.bahai > Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 07:15:13 -0400 > A weak moment, perhaps. A Who's Next Moment? I originally > contacted h-bahai merely thinking it might be a list on which I > should post a "pointer" to the RFD, when the time comes in the > next few weeks, if acceptable the moderators. Someone has > written to the UHJ regarding talk.religion.bahai, and I felt others > might find that interesting, given the overall context.... Anyway, > just delete it. I suppose it's not really appropriate to h-bahai and > will seem too obscure to many. > > ---------- > > From: Susan Maneck > > To: Frederick Glaysher > > Cc: Bill Garlington ; jrcole@umich.edu; > motta003@maroon.tc.umn.edu > > Subject: Re: NOTICE: talk.religion.bahai > > Date: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 11:12 AM > > > > Dear Fred, > > > > I am a little confused as to why you are posting this message here. > > It looks like you are referencing something are list members would > > not likely have access to since most do not subscribe to Bahai > > Discuss. Are you trying to provide information as to how to access it > > through Usenet? If so you may have to be more specific. I don't think > > everyone understands Usenet protocols. > > > > Susan Maneck > > Moderator > > > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (14 lines) > ------------------ > > > A frequent poster to alt.religion.bahai has sent a message to the > > > Universal House of Justice, the highest administrative institution of > the > > > Bahai Faith in Haifa, Israel, regarding the second proposal and vote on > > > > talk.religion.bahai. At this time, it is not clear whether or how this > > > development will influence the proposal and UseNet vote. Although > > > the message has also been posted on Bahai-Discuss, a private > > > Bahai list, he has requested that it not be reposted to any newsgroup. > > > > > > -- > > > Frederick Glaysher > > > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > > > Ask your ISP to add it; also available on > > > www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. > > > > > > > ---------- From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU] Sent: Saturday, October 11, 1997 1:28 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: interpretation and ta'wil Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 02:01:53 -0400 From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: interpretation and ta'wil In both medieval Europe and medieval Islam, two important types of scriptural exegesis were practiced. One was exegesis, the attempt to understand the outward meaning of the text through linguistic and philological analysis, reference to historical events surrounding the verse's revelation, and comparing it with similar verses of scripture. The other was eisegesis, or figurative, esoteric and allegorical interpretation. As most of you know, High Medieval Catholic scripture commentary was only thought perfect if it contained both elements, both literal and allegorical interpretation. In Islamic thought, as Todd Lawson has insightfully pointed out (--we are sometimes insufficiently aware of how blessed we are to have someone among us--), over time exegesis came to be known as tafsir and eisegesis was referred to as ta'wil. In his Commentary on the Surah of the Sun (https://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/shams.htm) Baha'u'llah urges commentators on scripture to engage in both literal and figurative interpretation, and warns about losing the balance between the two. The Western Baha'i tradition of popular Baha'i culture has been insufficiently aware of what a strong denunciation this is of scriptural literalism of the sort that came to be known after about 1905 as "fundamentalism." Baha'u'llah does not forbid ta'wil in general. In the Most Holy Book, he forbids the ta'wil of *legal* texts. There is a simple reason for this. A figurative interpretation of a verse of scripture that concerns *law* raises the question of practice, and Islamic tradition is orthoprax. Thus, from Baha'u'llah's point of view it would be wrong to interpret the command to perform ablutions before prayer in such a way as to not in fact require that one perform ablutions. The advent of the next manifestation is also a legal and institutional event, and therefore it would be wrong to interpret the thousand-year interval figuratively. In an important Tablet in Iqtidarat pp. 279-283, Baha'u'llah explicitly explains what he means by ta'wil or figurative interpretation, and when he thinks it legitimate. He says ta'wil should only be practiced if it does not result in depriving one of the exoteric or outward meaning of the verse. thus, if God commands one to wash one's face, one may not interpret that as a command to cleanse one's inner countenance, and then go about grimy-faced. Nevertheless, he says, "some of the divine words may be interpreted esoterically (ba`d-i kalimat-i ilahi ra mitavan ta'wil namud)." Such figurative interpretation or ta'wil must not become a source of idle fancies. To show a legitimate exercise in ta'wil, Baha'u'llah considers the Qur'an verse that those who are given "wisdom" (hikmah) are given great good. He points out that some commentators have identified "wisdom" with the divine Law. Others have suggested it means "medical knowledge" (hikmah bears that meaning in Arabic, as well). Others have said it means knowledge of the realities of things; still others have identified it with metaphysics. Baha'u'llah settles on the "fear of God" as the best figurative interpretation or "ta'wil" of "wisdom." Baha'u'llah concludes on pp. 282-283 with incisive criticisms of Sufis who use ta'wil to confuse the difference between merely praying (du'a) and saying obligatory prayers (salat). (That is, the Sufis sat around praying and never got to their obligatory prayers, but said that was all right because they were, by the lights of ta'wil, the same thing). Baha'u'llah says such a person is deprived of the outward meaning of the verse, how much more of its inner meaning. In short, it is not true that Baha'u'llah forbade either the interpretation of scripture generally or ta'wil as a technique in particular. He only forbade figurative or personalistic theology if it caused one to betray the outward meaning of the verse, or if concerned *legal* matters. I present a more extended discussion of these issues in *Baha'i Studies Review,* Volume 5.1 (1995), Invited Commentary: "Interpretation in the Baha'i Faith". Baha'u'llah was very supportive of individual interpretation. I wrote to H-Bahai on 16 July 1997 and will quote from that message here: "There are two sorts of lattitude I'd like to point to. The first is lattitude of relatively free thought. Because Baha'u'llah accepted Ibn al-`Arabi's and Rumi's Sufi notion of standpoint epistemology with regard to metaphysics, he did not believe there was only one right answer to any particular doctrinal question. Which answer one gave would depend on one's own "maqam" or spiritual station, and upon one's degree of spiritual discernment or "idrak." Since maqams and idrak were so numerous and disparate, in Baha'u'llah's view, he did not expect the Baha'is all to adhere to the same theological beliefs at the same time. That is why he refused to intervene in the dispute between Jamal-i Burujirdi (who insisted that Baha'u'llah was man, not God) and other prominent Baha'i teachers (some of whom saw Baha'u'llah as a manifestation of God's very essence). This tablet and Khazeh's translation is in Baha'i Studies Bulletin and also on my Web page. It is very instructive. (cf. Iqtidarat p. 219) . . . Along the same lines, in Iqtidarat, p. 100, Baha'u'llah tells the Baha'is who keep writing him with questions that *they* are the springs of his own discourse, and that they should strive to cleanse their water of idle fancies so that they can answer their questions *themselves*: ta az shuma: khu:d dar amtha:l-i i:n masa:'il-i mas'u:lih java:bha:-yi muhkamih-'i mutqanih za:hir shavad In this dispensation, he says, all bear the divine effulgence according to their own capacity, and all are able to discern the truths in the revealed scripture. This is an encouragement to all Baha'is without exception to develop their own midrash on the Baha'i scriptures and to try to answer questions for themselves. This is very different from the attitude of some authoritarian leaders that everything must be referred to them, and they must have the option of settling all important questions." This freedom of individuals to engage in their own personal interpretation (which in English is part of what ta'wil amounts to) was also affirmed by Shoghi Effendi. In 1928, he wrote to an individual Baha'i, as reprinted in Unfolding Destiny, p. 423: "I have no objection to your interpretations and inferences so long as they are represented as your own personal observations and reflections. It would be unnecessary and confusing to state authoritatively and officially a dogmatic Baha'i interpretation to be universally accepted and taught by believers. Such matters, I feel should be left to the personal judgment and insight of individual teachers . . ." Moreover, when a dispute arose in a local community over John Cornell's freedom of individual speech, in the time of Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian backed Cornell. Baha'u'llah's openness to figurative and personalistic interpretation for non-legal purposes and on condition that it not betray the common-sense meaning of the verse; his positive encouragement of individual believers to become the fountains of his own discourse through their independent interpretive activities; his standpoint epistemology; and `Abdu'l-Baha's and Shoghi Effendi's later reluctance to erect a dogmatic orthodoxy that would curb individual interpretive activities--all this could form the basis for a Baha'i openness, liberalism and universalism unlike that in any other revealed religion, if Baha'i thinkers were to build on them. Juan Cole History Univ of Michigan p.s. The word `Abdu'l-Baha uses for Interpreter is mubayyin, which literally means 'one who makes things clear.' Note that it is neither mufassir/exegete nor mu'awwil/eisegete. ---------- From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU] Sent: Sunday, October 12, 1997 2:38 AM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Ritual and Law Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 00:13:25 -0400 From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: Ritual and Law Dear Bill: In Islamic culture ritual falls under the rubric of Law (shari`ah) in the sense of revealed Law. That is, there is no difference in principle between God commanding you to avoid stealing or committing adultery and God commanding you to perform ablutions before prayers. Both are legal commands. All deeds in Islamic law are categorized as forbidden, discouraged, allowed (neutral), commended and obligatory. Thus, Obligatory Prayers are required, and du'a or ordinary prayers are commended. Too much chattering and too much laughter are discouraged. Stealing and adultery are forbidden. All *deeds* can be placed on this grid of revealed Law (shari`ah). And it is in the realm of Law, rather than of theology, that Baha'u'llah says that figurative or idiosyncratic interpretation (ta'wil) is forbidden. cheers Juan ---------- From: John C Craig[SMTP:johnc@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu] Sent: Monday, October 13, 1997 9:57 AM To: SManeck@berry.edu Cc: Rick Schaut; talisman@umich.edu; bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: Re: Message to the Universal House of Justice In the Baha'i Studies List today: Dear Susan, Rick, and others, Forgive me for being a latecomer to this thread, but I was only able to work through a large e-mail backlog over the weekend. There have been some really interesting and thought-provoking ideas put forward on the topic. Just one point I would like to add, but first to quote Rick and Susan: Susan Maneck wrote: > In the Baha'i Studies List today: > > To my comment: > > > > Don't misunderstand me. I am not faulting the Institutions for > their > > > actions. They too have a responsibility to preserve their identity > > > > and integrity which involves the identity and integrity of the > > > Baha'i Faith as a whole. But the tension between individual and > > > institutional integrity will always be there. We have to find ways > to > > > provide for both. This is a struggle as old as humankind. It will > > > likely always be there. > > Rick writes: > > > Which brings me to the second point. Individual integrity cannot > exist > > without an appropriate degree of intellectual honesty and humility > with > > regard to one's own limitations. The moment I decide that I > understand > > Baha'u'llah's Revelation better than `Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi, > no > > matter how well trained I might be in religious studies, my behavior > has > > moved outside the realm of individual integrity and into the realm > of > > individual arrogance. > > Would that it were this simple! The dilemma which always faces the > Baha'i academic scholar is whether to give priority to authority over > the evidence. To give priority to authority may well make a person a > better Baha'i, but in the process one sacrifices one's integrity asan > academic scholar. The thought that this exchange provoked in my mind was this -- a recent letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice said in part: "The House of Justice feels confident that, with patience, self-discipline, and unity of faith, Baha'i academics will be able to contribute to a gradual forging of the more integrative paradigms of scholarship which thoughtful minds in the international community are increasingly calling." Question: what are the "more integrative paradigms of scholarship", and how would they be characterized? As someone currently struggling towards a PhD, this issue is of great interest to me. It seems they can include interdisciplinary studies; certainly many people in Academe are calling for this, because they find that narrowly-defined disciplines are increasingly incapable of dealing with the complex problems the world faces. The context of the letter from the UHJ (dated 20 July 1997), however, would indicate the bridging of a larger chasm than that which exists between disciplines. To quote further: "A related paradigm for the study of religion has gradually consolidated itself in the prevailing academic culture during the course of the present century. It insists that all spiritual and moral phenomena must be understood through the application of a scholarly apparatus devised to explore existence in a way that ignores the issues of God's continuous relationship with His creation and His intervention in human life and history. Yet, from a Baha'i point of view, it is precisely this intervention that is the central theme of the Teachings of the Founders of the revealed religions ostensibly being studied." There are very challenging words. What do they mean to you? To me they seem to imply that a Baha'i scholar must recognize this terrible flaw that exists in Western Scholarship, and gradually work towards overcoming it, by forging new paradigms. Of course, if one were to produce work which embodies the verities presented in the above quote, it would probably not be pubished, and in order to have influence on Academe you need to have your work published. This is a problem. But Baha'u'llah gave us the solution to the problem: "Whatever is written should not transgress the bounds of tact and wisdom, and in the words used there should lie hid the property of milk, so that the children of the world may be nurtured therewith, and attain maturity. " I know there are a lot of adults that are not able to digest milk, so in our scholarly work we should include, not just "milk", but "enzymes" to help them digest it. But in order to accomplish this, we must first recognize the deficiencies of Western scholarship, and that God is the source of all truth. Best Wishes, John Craig - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU] Sent: Monday, October 13, 1997 4:18 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Dual myths From: David Langness <72110.2126@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Dual myths Dear H-Baha'i, Although I've been very quiet of late, my synapses were awakened recently when I read the posts from K. Paul Johnson and then Philip Belove on the subject of the Baha'i Faith's central myth. Many scholars -- Huston Smith, Heinrich Zimmer, Joseph Campbell and certainly C.G. Jung among them -- all write much more cogently than I possibly could on this massive and very important subject. But I did want to make one comment. It seems to me that the Baha'i Faith, growing as it has out of a separate and in some ways quite different revelation, may have a dual mythic structure -- first, the Babi myth of the Black Flag, the revolutionary army vanquishing corruption and evil; and second, the Baha'i myth of Ridvan, which intends to reunite the disparate and scattered elements of a shattered mythic code into a cohering post-modern world. We confuse or conflate the two religions and their deeply-embedded mythic structures at our own peril, perhaps. In fact, I can think of instances where individuals and organizations within the Baha'i Faith have acted as though their central, energizing myth draws its power from the Babi structure -- to their detriment. One myth, a strong argument could posit, centers around an almost apocalyptic vision, while the other focuses on its countervailing force -- unification. (I would remind everyone, especially our erudite historians, that I am not discussing reality or historical fact here, but instead am talking about embedded myth and inner story) In one sense, these myths represent the two ends of a very large mythic spectrum -- from apocalyptic tearing down of the old world to the creation myth of the new. You could easily list some of these mythic dualities and see them as almost polar opposites -- anarchy versus order, violence versus peace, martyrdom versus service, destruction versus unity-building, pre-modern versus post-modern, and exclusive versus inclusive. While I don't mean this list literally, and while it ignores the many similarities and congruencies between the two Faiths, it does point out the difficulties of attempting to discern a central myth for both. I hope this helps shape our discussions on the topic. Love, David ---------- From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 1997 12:57 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Dual myths From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Dual myths Date: Tue, 14 Oct 97 9:36:26 EDT A qualified amen to David's idea of dual myths. It is fairly evident that `Abdu'l Baha strongly deemphasized the exclusivistic Babi myth of chosenness, even at the expense of willful distortion of history-- e.g. his depiction of Tahirih. Equally evident that Shoghi Effendi swung the pendulum back to an exclusivistic, triumphalistic myth that resonates with the original Babi emphases. Neither completely excluded what they didn't emphasize, but Baha'i identity was drastically transformed by the change in emphasis. Where I would differ, I think, from Terry, David and perhaps Juan is in the portrayal of Baha'u'llah as innocent of the exclusivistic myth. The opening passages quoted in Promised Day is Come include one by Baha'u'llah which is every bit as exclusivistic as anything from the Bab. The ambiguity that is so evident today, and so apparent in the differing emphases of `Abdu'l Baha and Shoghi Effendi, is fully present in Baha'u'llah's own writings. Baha'u'llah contains within himself the two conflicting myths, and thus is hard to perceive as an unqualified exemplar of what Terry calls affirmation in the form of inclusion. I would also point out that the idea that every member of the human race is chosen is much more explicitly present in other bodies of literature than in the Baha'i writings. Notably, the Edgar Cayce readings repeatedly state that everyone, regardless of religious background, has been "called by name" and invited to intimate communion with God. The whole New Age movement resonates with this kind of inclusive rhetoric. Hindu, Buddhist and Sikh movements as they have come West have adopted the same viewpoint. And Christianity as a whole has become dramatically less exclusivistic in the last 150 years. By most measures of "chosenness" I can think of, the average American Baha'i ranks higher than the average Catholic or Protestant. Certainly in the case of how the authority structure of the religion is perceived this is the case. A similar tension is present in the emergence of Christianity. John the Baptizer was, from what little we know, much more in the mode of Essene denouncer of all other Jews as well as the rest of the world, whereas Jesus emphasized inclusive themes but didn't completely avoid exclusivistic rhetoric. Perhaps it is all a reflection of a dual drive in every human being. Part of us, what Theosophists would call the lower self, delights in being separate from and better than others. Another part, which Theosophists would call the higher self, seeks to serve and merge with others without regard for external distinctions. On the basis of this crude paradigm, one can easily rank `Abdu'l Baha, Baha'u'llah, Shoghi Effendi and the Bab in that order from "high" to "low." Where the current and future Houses of Justice will rank on such a measure is an interesting question. ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@UMICH.EDU] Sent: Friday, October 17, 1997 11:49 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: dual myth From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Dual Myth Date: Fri, 17 Oct 97 9:24:14 EDT Susan adds another dimension to the "dual myth" threat by pointing out that the Babis were the opposite of triumphalist, that they, like Shi`ites, commemorated defeat and martyrdom. This illumines another conflict within the mythic structure of the later Baha'i religion. On one hand, some Baha'is evince a confident triumphalism that asserts Baha'i will eventually dominate the world culture and government. But this kind of expectation could result in a relaxed, complacent attitude that has little room for anxiety about the future. That does not appear to have developed. Instead, those Baha'is who are most triumphalist, as best I can discern, have the highest level of anxiety about failure. Faced with a numerical goal of doubling their numbers yearly (according to Stockman in SUNY Press's America's Alternative Religions) members in this country feel like failures and devote a fair amount of energy to self-doubt and worry on this score. The fear of covenant breaking and dissidence is another sign of anxiety hiding behind the triumphalism. Baha'u'llah's dark warning about the people of Baha possibly failing and another people being raised up (from stones, is it?) is another element of contingency underneath the triumphalism. There is a threat that the entire trajectory of Baha'i history might after all be towards utter failure. I can't think of another religion where some large proportion of adherents so mix hope and despair in their self-image. Other than Shi`ism, perhaps. On an individual basis, Christianity, Sikhism, and Buddhism tend to despair of this world and place hopes in escape from it, but that's not quite the same kind of blend as in Baha'i where the destiny of the entire group is the subject of such mixed hope and fear. K. Paul Johnson ---------- From: L-Soft list server at H-Net - Humanities On-Line (1.8b)[SMTP:LISTSERV@h-net.msu.edu] Sent: Monday, October 20, 1997 3:14 PM To: FG@HOTMAIL.COM Subject: Message ("Your message dated Mon, 20 Oct 1997 15:06:49...") Your message dated Mon, 20 Oct 1997 15:06:49 -0400 (EDT) with subject "RFD: talk.religion.bahai" has been submitted to the moderator of the H-BAHAI list: "Negar Mottahedeh, U Minnesota" . ---------- From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 1997 1:45 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Freedom of speech and conscience, and Interpretation Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 20:09:31 -0400 From: jrcole@UMICH.EDU (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: Freedom of speech and conscience, and Interpretation I agree with both Peter Terry and Mike Furst about contemporary Baha'i administrative practice with regard to issues in freedom of conscience and speech. That is, I agree with Peter that the Baha'i administration appears to be acting like Orthodox Rabbis and with Mike Furst in his views of that. Historically speaking, during the Inquisition the Roman Catholic church denied the freedom of conscience, so that even private remarks could get you tortured. Among the Protestant states that rebelled against this practice was the Netherlands, and the Dutch Republic enshrined freedom of conscience in the Treaty of Utrecht in the 1500s. However, "freedom of conscience" is a very weak right. It is the right to hold private beliefs at variance with public orthodoxies, as long as one does not speak them publicly or beyond certain venues (that is, as long as one does not make them a public cause). Thus, even under a regime of "freedom of conscience," the Dutch Republic allowed the Jewish community to excommunicate Spinoza for his views, and occasionally Mennonites and Arminians were sanctioned, and Catholics and Lutherans had to keep a low profile. In England, where Anglicanism also recognized the "freedom of conscience," George Fox was jailed for preaching the Inner Light on street corners. Protestant "dissidents" (non-Anglicans) were barely tolerated, but only if they did not speak publicly. A similar regime was still in place in the 1770s in Virginia, where it came to Thomas Jefferson's attention that Quakers were being punished by the Established Anglican Church for not having their children baptized. The Enlightenment brought a new and broader right, to freedom of speech as well as of conscience. Thus, Locke had argued that magistrates had no business sanctioning even vocal dissidents from the Anglican church. And the First Amendment insisted that the U.S. government should make no law regarding the Establishment of religion (that is, backing an official religion) or abridging individual freedom of religion, speech or the press. Given that the Baha'i administration conceives of itself as an embryonic theocracy, its policy of allowing "freedom of conscience" but not freedom of speech essentially takes things back to the 1500s and 1600s in the Dutch Republic and England. It is a revocation of modernity and a flight back into the Renaissance and Reformation period. The question is, are current restrictions on freedom of speech consonant with scriptural Baha'i principle? I personally see a contradiction. `Abdu'l-Baha complained about the persecution of Baha'is in Iran, saying: "Yet nought has been effected and no advantage has been gained; no remedy has been discovered for this ill, nor any easy salve for this wound. [To ensure] freedom of conscience (azadigi-yi vujdan) and tranquillity of heart and soul is one of the duties and functions of government (vaza'if va savalih-i hukumat), and is in all ages the cause of progress in development and ascendency over other lands." He adds: "Inteference with creed and faith in every country causes manifest detriment, while justice and equal dealing towards all peoples on the face of the earth are the means whereby progress is effected." He makes an argument similar to that of Locke, for religious *liberty* (and not just private, limited freedom of conscience) when he says, "In other countries when they perceived severity and persecution in such instances to be identical with . . . incitement, and saw that paying no attention was more effectual, they abated the fire of revolution. Therefore did they universally proclaim the equal rights of all denominations, and sounded the liberty of all groups (lihadha bi kulli i`lan-i musavat-i huquq-i ahzab namudand va azadigi-yi `umum-i tava'if gush zad sharq va gharb)." In order to illustrate the pragmatic benefits of liberty, he contrasts the religious policy of Shi`ite Iran, which was weak and losing territory in the nineteenth century, with that of the British Empire. British administrators, building on a century of thought and law concerning toleration, on the whole developed a policy of impartiality across religious groups. The British, he says, implemented equality and "uniform political rights" for diverse religious groups. Finally, `Abdu'l-Baha affirms that such a policy of allowing equality among the adherents of various religions is not areligious, and can be pursued by state officials who are themselves pious believers, just as the British bureaucrats who foreswore a Christian assault on India were themselves Christians. He seeks to deny any necessary link between freedom of conscience and irreligion or atheism. Note that the example `Abdu'l-Baha gives of the best religious policy is that of Liberal Great Britain of the late nineteenth century, which had granted liberty of religious expression to all subjects. He criticizes medieval intolerance and argues of European nations during the Enlightenment that : "But when they removed these differences, persecutions, and bigotries out of their midst, and proclaimed the equal rights of all subjects and the liberty of men's consciences, the lights of glory and power arose and shone from the horizons of that kingdom in such wise that those countries made progress in every direction . . . These are effectual and sufficient proofs that the conscience of man is sacred and to be respected; and that liberty thereof produces widening of ideas, amendment of morals, improvement of conduct, disclosure of the secrets of creation, and manifestation of the hidden verities of the contingent world." (Above quotes from *A Traveller's Narrative* keyword search at https://SunSITE.unc.edu/Bahai/TrueSeeker/ts-kwicd.html) Now, it may be objected that even if the Baha'i administration has theocratic tendencies, it is after all the steward of a religion and that `Abdu'l-Baha had not meant to tie its hands in making it put up with adherents who openly and publicly spoke their individual views. But in fact `Abdu'l-Baha makes an explicit analogy between the sort of *political* liberty granted individuals in democracies and his hopes for individual rights of free speech even in the religious sphere: "Just as in the world of politics there is need for free thought, likewise in the world of religion there should be the right of unrestricted individual belief. Consider what a vast difference exists between modern democracy and the old forms of despotism. Under an autocratic government the opinions of men are not free, and development is stifled, whereas in a democracy, because thought and speech are not restricted, the greatest progress is witnessed. It is likewise true in the world of religion. When freedom of conscience, liberty of thought and right of speech prevail--that is to say, when every man according to his own idealization may give expression to his beliefs--development and growth are inevitable." (*Promulgation of Universal Peace* p. 197) Note that `Abdu'l-Baha here does *not* limit himself to advocating the "weak" right of conscience only, but openly advocates the liberty of conscience, thought and *speech.* `Abdu'l-Baha did not authorize Baha'i institutions to punish the public expression of individual belief, only "behavior." The attempt to subsume Baha'is' email traffic under "behavior" rather than speech does obvious violence to the distinctions `Abdu'l-Baha was careful to make in saying that polite expression of conscience could not be punished, only infractions of religious law. Moreover, since the Universal House of Justice has no prerogative to engage in authoritative Interpretation, it is not obvious how it could be within its rights to impose its interpretation of Baha'i scripture on an individual adherent and prevent him or her from expressing an individual interpretation, as long as the latter was clearly marked as individual. So, I personally see a rather vast chasm between Baha'i scriptural ideals with regard to liberty of conscience and speech, and current administrative practice that puzzles me deeply. cheers Juan Cole History University of Michigan ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 1997 3:06 PM To: jrcole@UMICH.EDU Subject: Freedom of speech and conscience, and Interpretation May I have your permission to post your message to h-bahai on alt.religion.bahai? It's a timely piece, and others too might find it interesting, especially given recent discussion now that the RFD has appeared for the next vote.... Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 1997 1:56 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Freedom of speech and conscience, and Interpretation Dear Frederick: Post away! cheers Juan >May I have your permission to post your message to >h-bahai on alt.religion.bahai? It's a timely piece, and >others too might find it interesting, especially given >recent discussion now that the RFD has appeared for the >next vote.... > >Frederick Glaysher >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > > > ---------- From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 1997 11:09 AM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Interpretation & House Decisions Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 22:45:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Bill Garlington Subject: Re: Interpretation & House Decisions [As this post opens the discussion up to the study of a contemporary case, let me alert the list members of a new policy signed by the H-Bahai moderators with respect to forwarding posts that address contemporary community issues: "H-Bahai moderators will generally forward to the list only messages of an academic character. Posts are approved with regard to their disciplinary relevance to the list, their attempt to uphold academic standards of argumentation, their contribution to the diversification of approaches to subjects being discussed, and their maintenance of a civil standards of courtesy to other list members. Critical discussions of contemporary developments must fulfill academic standards for argumentation and must provide documented support for statements." --mod. NM] Arash writes: >However, we must recognize that the House *must* engage in interpretation >in the first ordinary language sense. It appears to me that when this >takes the form of exposition, the House calls it "elucidation", making it >clear that it is not authoritative interpretation a la the Guardian. >Furthermore, the "application of the revealed word" to the given >circumstances always involves interpretation in the first hermeneutical >sense I defined above; the thrust of the argument I presented earlier in >fact attempted in part to show that this interpretation in the first sense >must not be equated with interpretation in the second sense of >authoritative interpretation. Thanks for your comments Arash. I find them most helpful. How would you see your analysis of the House's powers of interpretation/elucidation applying to the McKenny case? Was this a matter of doctrinal dispute, and if so would not the expulsion of a member from the community on doctrinal grounds require more than mere elucidation (or non authoritative interpretation) on the part of the House? Bill Garlington ---------- From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 1997 11:34 AM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Freedom of speech and conscience, and Interpretation Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 01:56:20 -0400 From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: Freedom of speech and conscience, and Interpretation Dear Susan: In my posting, I tried to make a number of points: 1) that a very weak and limited "freedom of conscience" without a freedom of public speech was a feature of Public Religions (not just states) of the Early Modern period, 1550-1789. 2) that from 1789 we see the advent of a much stronger freedom, that of public speech, beyond just private conscience; 3) That `Abdu'l-Baha clearly advocated not only freedom of conscience but also freedom of *speech* and a democratic society 4) That `Abdu'l-Baha explicitly forbade Baha'i institutions from punishing polite speech about religious beliefs as opposed to behavior such as breaking religious law 5) That since the Universal House of Justice may not authoritatively Interpret the Baha'i writings, it in any case appears to lack any juridical standing in imposing a narrow orthodoxy on individual believers. In your reply, you ignored points 3-5, and seem to say that because the Baha'i faith is not yet in a position to implement its policies as policies of state, my argument is flawed. Since 3-5 do not depend on the Baha'i faith actually coming to power as a theocratic state, however, your statement does not in fact demonstrate any flaw in my argument. Moreover, the Letter on Individual Rights and Freedoms of 1988 does argue for policies extremely similar to those of early modern Protestant regimes that allowed private freedom of conscience but disallowed freedom of public expression. That there is a similarity here between Dutch Reformed Calvinism of 1550-1789 and current Baha'i administrative practice seems to me a promising comparison that I am sorry you simply dismissed. I find it difficult to believe that you really hold that complete social ostracization of people because of their individual views is not a derogation of their autonomy and basic rights as defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As for the right of a "religion" to define itself, I am astonished that you should reify the matter in this way. What we are really discussing is the prerogatives of the Baha'i *administration* to define the religion. I do not see in Baha'i scripture any bestowal on houses of justice of the right to interpret the scriptures authoritatively, to make doctrine, or to require assent to dogma/orthodoxy (which in the nature of the case could only be their Interpretation of dogma/orthodoxy). Further, I find explicit denials in `Abdu'l-Baha of their right to punish polite speech or doctrinal unorthodoxy in adherents. Finally, you end by attacking the Enlightenment. First of all, I was not endorsing the entirety of the Enlightenment project. I was pointing out that the Enlightenment was that point at which freedom of private conscience was supplemented by freedom of public speech. Moreover, it was *`Abdu'l-Baha* who praised the Enlightenment, in *A Traveller's Narrative*, for abolishing Medieval restrictions on freedom of conscience and of speech, thereby making modern liberty and science possible. You have not addressed `Abdu'l-Baha's support for *aspects* of the Enlightenment. As for Voltaire, he was a believer in God and morality, and in a form of religion compatible with Reason. When he said "crush the infamous thing," he was referring to Roman Catholic practices of intolerance, which had led to the revocation of the Edict of Nantes and therefore to the repression of the Hugenot Protestants; Jews were also unfairly treated and taxed. The pre-Enlightenment Roman Catholic Church, which did not even recognize a right to freedom of conscience, was a major oppressor of non-Roman Catholics, backed by the coercive might of the Old Regime State. Voltaire was right to want that coercion of consciences and denial of basic human rights "crushed," and was right to call it "infamous." >Religion was to be privatized in order to prevent it from impacting >society as a whole. Is this really a solution? If religion is not allowed >to transform the way in which we live, what good is it? There is a strong and frankly somewhat frightening Utopian strain in this question. It is very similar to Marx's dictum that philosophers must cease talking about the world and must now actually change it. The problem with Utopian programs of world transformation is that they are open to becoming extremely coercive in practice. Religion is dying off in the industrialized world. Forty percent of the French don't believe in God, fifty percent of Swedes don't, and the Dutch are similar, as are the peoples of the former Soviet Union. Even in Tunisia 20% of the population is unbelievers, and I suspect it is higher in Turkey. In China it is not clear that very many people at all have any serious "religious" beliefs. Why have all these billions of people fled organized religion? Because they found it coercive. They don't want you to set things up so that their lives have to be transformed in the way that *you* dictate. The places where religion still does fairly well, such as the U.S., are places where religion is in fact recognized in law as a private activity, unlike Sweden where it is very public and tied to the state. So the evidence is that the sort of religion you advocate produces irreligion, whereas the Enlightenment privatization of religion, as in the U.S., allows it to thrive in relative terms. Life is full of paradoxes. cheers Juan R. I. Cole History U of Michigan ---------- From: L-Soft list server at H-Net - Humanities On-Line (1.8b)[SMTP:LISTSERV@h-net.msu.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 1997 3:30 PM To: FG@HOTMAIL.COM Subject: Message ("Your message dated Wed, 22 Oct 1997 15:26:05...") Your message dated Wed, 22 Oct 1997 15:26:05 -0400 with subject "Re: Freedom of speech and conscience, and Interpretation" has been submitted to the moderator of the H-BAHAI list: "Negar Mottahedeh, U Minnesota" . ---------- From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 1997 4:56 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Freedom of speech and conscience, and Interpretation From: "Frederick Glaysher" Religion is dying off in the industrialized world. [clip] >In China it is not clear that very many people at all have any serious >"religious" beliefs. As a Fulbright scholar to China in 1994, in a seminar at Beijing University, I heard a professor of history state that over 85% of the population has ceased to believe in any type of religious meaning or purpose to human existence.... I might add it was in a classroom that was used as a prison cell for more than 20 professors during the Cultural Revolution.... Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 1997 6:04 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Freedom of speech and conscience, and Interpretation From: "Susan Maneck" Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 13:15:07 EST Subject: Re: Freedom of speech and conscience, and Interpretation Juan argued that I had ignored three of his points in his discussion of freedom of speech and conscience within the Baha'i community. So let's look at those. He writes: >3) That `Abdu'l-Baha clearly advocated not only freedom of conscience but >also freedom of *speech* and a democratic society No argument here. Nor have I ever seen any suggestion from the World Centre that the state should be allowed to interfere in these matters. >4) That `Abdu'l-Baha explicitly forbade Baha'i institutions from punishing >polite speech about religious beliefs as opposed to behavior such as >breaking religious law Hmmm. It seems to me you have gone much further than either your original statement or your quotations from 'Abdu'l-Baha went. What you originally said was 'Abdu'l-Baha did not *authorize* the punishment of expressions of individual belief. Now you are saying he explicitly forbade it. But be that as it may, the question remains is defining someone as a "non-Baha'i" because their beliefs are felt to lie outside the parameters of what it means to be a Baha'i a form of punishment? It is not clear to me that it is. Furthermore, the quotation you give from the Promulgation of Universal Peace appears to refer to the issue of religious pluralism, not to the right of religious institutions to define their belief system and expect their follows to adhere to them if they expect to be members. What after all, is a religion but a system of beliefs? If no self-definition is allowed to religious institutions to what extent are they even religious? It also strikes me that your use of quotations from 'Abdu'l-Baha is rather selective. You don't note 'Abdu'l-Baha's statement in the Will and Testament, for instance, "To none is given the right to put forth his own opinion or express his particular conviction. All must seek guidance and turn unto the Centre of the Cause and the House of Justice. And he that turneth unto whatsoever else is indeed in grievous error." Clearly an understanding of 'Abdu'l-Baha's thinking about freedom of conscience within the Baha'i community must take into account all of His Writings on the subject. And if contradictions exist then perhaps we need to frankly admit they exist within 'Abdu'l-Baha's own thinking on the subject, instead of painting the House of Justice as the bad guys here. >5) That since the Universal House of Justice may not authoritatively >Interpret the Baha'i writings, it in any case appears to lack any >juridical standing in imposing a narrow orthodoxy on individual believers. It is not clear that that is what they are doing, in fact. What seems to concern them is persons openly contradicting them in public forums, which they view as undermining their authority. This is the "behavior" they object to. >I find it difficult to believe that you really hold that complete social >ostracization of people because of their individual views is not a >derogation of their autonomy and basic rights as defined by the Universal >Declaration of Human Rights. Now who are we referring to here? The Remeyites or Michael McKenny? Michael has been expelled but not ostracized. They Remeyites are ostracized in accordance with the provisions of the Will and Testament written by 'Abdu'l-Baha who you wish to present as the 'good guy' here. But even given that, the Guardian as well as the House of Justice has explicitly stated that Covenant Breakers cannot be deprived of their civil rights. How that would work in practice within a Baha'i state, I'm not prepared to say. >Finally, you end by attacking the Enlightenment. First of all, I was not >endorsing the entirety of the Enlightenment project. I was pointing out >that the Enlightenment was that point at which freedom of private >conscience was supplemented by freedom of public speech. Moreover, it was >*`Abdu'l-Baha* who praised the Enlightenment, in *A Traveller's >Narrative*, for abolishing Medieval restrictions on freedom of conscience >and of speech, thereby making modern liberty and science possible. You >have not addressed `Abdu'l-Baha's support for *aspects* of the >Enlightenment. It might be interesting to examine the entirety of 'Abdu'l-Baha's attitude towards Enlightenment thought including His statements in the *Secret of Divine Civilization* but I think that would be beyond the scope of this thread. I'm certainly not suggesting there is nothing in the Enlightenment worth admiring. I am simply stating that, by and large, the *philosophes* were opposed to revealed religion in general. >As for Voltaire, he was a believer in God and morality, and in a form of >religion compatible with Reason. When he said "crush the infamous thing," >he was referring to Roman Catholic practices of intolerance, which had led >to the revocation of the Edict of Nantes and therefore to the repression >of the Hugenot Protestants; Jews were also unfairly treated and taxed. When one reads the Enlightenment works in is quite clear that it is revealed religion as a whole, that they wished to do away with, Voltaire, like Paine, was a deist who thought revelation only interfered with human reason being allowed to go its own way in examining the divine. He would have had a great deal of trouble with statements like Baha'u'llah's: "The door of the knowledge the Ancient Being hath ever been, and will continue for ever to be, closed in the face of men. No man's understanding shall ever gain access unto His holy court. As a token of His mercy, however, and as a proof of His loving-kindness, He hath manifested unto men the Day Stars of His divine guidance, the Symbols of His divine unity, and hath ordained the knowledge of these sanctified Beings to be identical with the knowledge of His own Self. Whoso recognizeth them hath recognized God. Whoso hearkeneth to their call, hath hearkened to the Voice of God, and whoso testifieth to the turth of their Revelation, hath tesfified to the truth of God Himself. Whoso turneth away from them, hath turned away from Bod, and whoso disbelieveth in them, hath disbelieved in God." (Gleanings, pp. 49-50 ) >Why have all these billions of people fled organized religion? Because >they found it coercive. Actually Juan, people "fled" religion *after* it lost its power to coerce. But I would not deny that it was religious coercion that turned the Enlightenment thinkers against organized religion. But in the process they denied the authoritative nature of revelation itself, something fundamental to Baha'i self-understanding. The question here, it seems to me, is whether the House of Justice is exercising coercion in its recent actions or merely upholding the authoritative nature of revelation? It seems to me it would only be coercion if people were not free to choose to leave the Faith as they were not medieval Europe. The House has made it abundantly clear that they will respect this right. Susan Maneck Berry College ---------- From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 1997 12:26 AM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: freedom of conscience & speech Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 19:23:22 -0400 From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: freedom of conscience & speech Dear Susan: You queried my statement that: >>4) That `Abdu'l-Baha explicitly forbade Baha'i institutions from punishing >>polite speech about religious beliefs as opposed to behavior such as >>breaking religious law However, I have on several occasions drawn your attention to the following two quotes "By arranging for interpretation to be carried out by an authoritative Interpreter of the Book, by establishing the Universal House of Justice--or in other words the Parliament of the [Baha'i] community--and by commanding that there be no interference in beliefs or conscience, He blocked such breaches from occurring." (Mahmud Zarqani, Kitab-i Bada'i' al-Athar, 2 vols. (Hofheim-Langenhain: Baha'i-Verlag, 1982), 1:294.) "In the religion of God there is freedom of thought, for no one can rule over the [individual's] conscience save God. But [freedom of thought] exists only to the extent that it is not expressed in terms that depart from politeness. In the religion of God there is no freedom of deeds. No one can transgress the divine law, even if in so doing he harms no one." `Abdu'l-Hamid Ishraq-Khavari, ed., Ma'idih-yi Asmani, 9 vols. (Tehran: Baha'i Publishing Trust, 1973) 5:17-18. 'Abdu'l-Baha clearly enjoins the houses of justice from punishing Baha'is for the polite expression of their consciences, as opposed to punishing them for contravening by their deeds Baha'i law. If one categorizes speech as a type of deed, then it is impossible for the distinction drawn by 'Abdu'l-Baha here to be implemented. What do *you* think he means when he makes this odd statement that in the religion of God there is freedom of thought? And that it should just be expressed politely? That doesn't sound to me like he had a creedal religion in mind, at all. >Furthermore, the quotation you give from the Promulgation of Universal >Peace appears to refer to the issue of religious pluralism, not to the >right of religious institutions to define their belief system and expect >their follows to adhere to them if they expect to be members. What after >all, is a religion but a system of beliefs? If no self-definition is >allowed to religious institutions to what extent are they even religious? In that quote, 'Abdu'l-Baha makes it clear he is *not* talking about the issue of religious pluralism vis a vis the State alone. He explicitly says that *in the world of religion* there should also be freedom of expression, just as there is in civil democracy. Since the Baha'i faith would have to be subsumed under the "world of religion," it cannot be immune from this demand of 'Abdu'l-Baha's. Besides, I don't think Baha'u'llah thought he was bringing "a system of beliefs." I know that from an American Protestant point of view, a religion is a covenanted community built on a common creed. However, Baha'u'llah revealed no Baha'i "creed" to which everyone should assent. Baha'u'llah was quite straightforward that he did not expect everyone to be able to assent to the same dogmas, about, e.g., the humanity or divinity of the Manifestation (and this was the sort of issue around which the Christian creeds were constructed). He allowed pluralism of belief depending on spiritual maqam/station. He said quite explicitly that the purpose of his religion was not to bring a new law but to enable human beings to acquire divine attributes (Iqtidarat, p. 167) How do you think Baha'u'llah was able to affirm the validity of the other religions? They clearly differed theologically, as he was entirely aware. It was because he was not hung up on creeds. I'm afraid I think you've imported a Protestant understanding of religion into the Baha'i faith, which has a more malleable *batini* background in esoteric Shi`ism. It was precisely that early Christian communities were creedally based that caused them to fight one another. When 'Abdu'l-Baha was asked how Baha'is would avoid the same fights, he replied that it was through the universal house of justice, the authorized Interpreter, *and* the fact that neither would interfere in the freedom of conscience of adherents. That is, he said that Baha'is would not be persecuted by other Baha'is over theological issues such as rent early Christian communities. >It also strikes me that your use of quotations from 'Abdu'l-Baha is rather >selective. You don't note 'Abdu'l-Baha's statement in the Will and >Testament, for instance, "To none is given the right to put forth his own >opinion or express his particular conviction. All must seek guidance and >turn unto the Centre of the Cause and the House of Justice. And he that >turneth unto whatsoever else is indeed in grievous error." Clearly an >understanding of 'Abdu'l-Baha's thinking about freedom of conscience within >the Baha'i community must take into account all of His Writings on the >subject. And if contradictions exist then perhaps we need to frankly admit >they exist within 'Abdu'l-Baha's own thinking on the subject, instead of >painting the House of Justice as the bad guys here. I am not being selective, it is just that it would never occur to me to instance that quote because it has no relevance to this discussion. There is no contradiction in 'Abdu'l-Baha's thinking on this matter. It is simply that he has been misinterpreted, partially because the translation is not technical. First of all, if he repeatedly says he believes that Baha'is should have freedom of conscience and expression of that conscience, then this principle cannot be abrogated, and other texts must be interpreted in this light. As for the quote you provide from the end of the Will and Testament, you omit a very important contextualizing sentence just before: "Beware lest anyone falsely interpret [literally "figuratively interpret"; P. ta'vil] these words, and like unto them that have borken the Covenant . . .. advance a pretext, raise the standard of revolt . . . and open wide the door of false interpretation. To none is given the right to put forth his own opinion . . ." So, 'Abdu'l-Baha makes it clear that what he means here is that no one may put for his individual opinion *in the context* of raising a rebellion or schism, i.e. of claiming authority. He is not issuing a blanket denial of the right of Baha'is to express their opinions and conscience, or he really would be contradicting himself. As for the translation issues, this passage evokes a number of issues in Shi'ite juridical practice that the rendering obscures. 'Abdu'l-Baha was trying to get away from the practice of giving juridical and almost legislative power into the hands of mujtahids or Shi`ite clerical jurisprudents (we would now call them ayatullahs). Literally, this passage reads thusly: **"Beware lest anyone interpret these words figuratively (ta'vil nimayad), and advance a pretext, as did those who broke the covenant after the Day of Ascension (of Baha'u'llah), to raise the standard of revolt; to make their own views authoritative (khud-ra'i kunad); or to open the gate of individual juridical authority (bab-i ijtihad). No one has the right to a special legal opinion (ra'i) or belief. Rather, they must derive it from the center of affairs, the house of justice."** In Islamic jurisprudence, "ra'i" or "personal legal opinion" was a jurisprudential ruling in which the qadi or court judge ruled on a case in accordance with his own judgment, without being able to cite a specific quranic text or hadith. It was often based on free analogy (qiyas). Jurisprudents differed about whether it was permitted, but some did it. "Ra'i" is an Arabic technical term in Persian here. If 'Abdu'l-Baha were speaking of individual views, he would probably have said "naz.ar" instead. That "ra'i" is being used in a technical legal sense is confirmed by the reference to "ijtihad," the legal reasoning employed by individual mujtahids or Islamic jurisprudents. 'Abdu'l-Baha is here simply affirming that the universal house of justice is the court of last resort; that its legal judgments are final; and that individual Baha'i "mujtahids" are not to go about asserting legal authority to settle cases among Baha'is on the basis of their own reasoning, without reference to the binding precedents set by the house of justice; and that they are *certainly* not to do so in such a way as to interpret the house's rulings figuratively or to foment schism. *Please* read a book on Islamic jurisprudence and then come back and read this passage in the original. It has *nothing* to do with the right of individual Baha'is to entertain and express their private religious views. It is a prohibition on an individual learned Baha'i attempting to adjudicate disputes in the community on the basis of his own unsupported opinions or in contradiction to the centralized rulings of the house of justice. It is a legal issue. Since I am unaware that anyone has put himself forward recently as a Baha'i mujtahid or ayatollah, able to settle, e.g. Baha'i divorce cases with no reference to a local spiritual assembly or the rulings of the house of justice, I cannot see that this passage has any relevance to contemporary problems whatsoever. I agree, Susan, that a sort of literalist and absolutist reading of the untechnical translation would produce the contradiction to which you point. But a simple consideration of the real meaning of the passage in the original Persian and in light of its own technical terminology, which is that of Islamic jurisprudence, easily removes the misunderstanding. However, even this bit of philology would not be necessary if persons in authority had good will and actually followed the precepts of 'Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament, which also says: "Wherefore, O my loving friends! Cosort with all the peoples, kindreds and religions of the world with the utmost truthfulness, uprightness, faithfulness, kindliness, good-will and friendliness, that all the world of being may be filled with the holy ecstasy of the grace of Baha, that ignorance, enmity, hate, and rancor may vanish from the world and the darkness of estrangement amidst the peoples and kindreds of the world may give way to the Light of Unity." (p. 14). He further suggests that if people keep aloof from you, attract them to yourselves, should the show their enmity be friendly towards them, should they poison your lives, sweeten their souls. That's the real Covenant. I will let you judge if this is in fact the sort of thing that is being done. cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan ---------- From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 1997 4:02 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: freedom of conscience & speech From: "Susan Maneck" Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 09:49:20 EST Subject: Re: freedom of conscience & speech Sandy writes: >If backbiting and calumny, speech acts in the linguistic sense, are >forbidden, then, in the same way, public criticism of the decisions of the >House of Justice, its legitimacy and its authority can be considered >forbidden as well, as a form of backbiting--as indeed it is in the >writings and letters on behalf of Shoghi Effendi. Here is where the problem gets sticky. If the House is making all sorts of statements in regards to doctrinal views, whenever questions on such matterrs are brought to them, and if, as in the case of the House's letter to Iskandar they are encouraging that those kinds of questions be submitted to them rather than debated in a public forum, cannot any statement which varies in the least from some doctrinal position which the House has taken be interpreted as backbiting? Under these circumstances can the statements of 'Abdu'l-Baha in support of the freedom of expression of conscience and belief have any meaning whatsoever in real life? Susan Maneck Berry College ---------- From: Richard Harmsen[SMTP:RHARMSEN@MUSIC.FERRIS.EDU] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 1997 4:28 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: UHJ on internet disputes Dear friends: The polarization that can occur in the Faith due to the clash of differing opinions needs perspective. There are any number of issues that can cause this unfortunate outcome. The following is an excerpt from a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice about disputes or disagreements that take place on the internet, and particularly in reference to discussion lists: For instance, the House of Justice points out that if a person feels that "a view put forward" is inconsistent with Baha'i thought, "he should be free to say so, explaining candidly and courteously why he feels as he does." "The person who made the initial statement will then be able to re-evaluate his opinion," they continue, "and, if he still believes it to be valid, he should be able to explain why it is not contrary to either the letter or the spirit [of the teachings]..." (Email letter to an individual believer dated 16 Feb. 1996) The House of Justice goes on to say, and significantly I suspect, that the participants "should avoid disputation and, if they are unable to resolve an issue, they should refer the point to the Universal House of justice..." (Ibid.) rick ---------- From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 1997 7:44 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: freedom of conscience & speech From: "Susan Maneck" Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 10:27:34 EST Subject: Re: freedom of conscience & speech Juan writes: > Literally, this passage reads thusly: > > **"Beware lest anyone interpret these words figuratively (ta'vil nimayad), > and advance a pretext, as did those who broke the covenant after the Day of > Ascension (of Baha'u'llah), to raise the standard of revolt; to make their > own views authoritative (khud-ra'i kunad); or to open the gate of individual > juridical authority (bab-i ijtihad). No one has the right to a special > legal opinion (ra'i) or belief. Rather, they must derive it from the center > of affairs, the house of justice."** > > In Islamic jurisprudence, "ra'i" or "personal legal opinion" was a > jurisprudential ruling in which the qadi or court judge ruled on a case in > accordance with his own judgment, without being able to cite a specific > quranic text or hadith. It was often based on free analogy (qiyas). > Jurisprudents differed about whether it was permitted, but some did it. > "Ra'i" is an Arabic technical term in Persian here. If 'Abdu'l-Baha were > speaking of individual views, he would probably have said "naz.ar" instead. > That "ra'i" is being used in a technical legal sense is confirmed by the > reference to "ijtihad," the legal reasoning employed by individual mujtahids > or Islamic jurisprudents. Excellent point! The question then is have any sanctions been applied by the House of Justice for the expression of opinions on doctrinal matters or only on opinions regarding legal matters? Since the latter, not the former is under the jurisdiction of the House of Justice, according to 'Abdu'l-Baha, can you provide any instances where the former has occurred? Evidence would consist of documented cases in which the House of Justice itself took action. It would not consist in statements or threats made by Counselors or any other persons not authorized to apply sanctions. Susan Maneck Berry College ---------- From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 1997 7:58 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Religion *is* belief system? From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Religion *is* belief system? Date: Thu, 23 Oct 97 16:32:13 EDT In dialogue with Juan, Susan asks what religion is, if not a system of beliefs. This question could inspire a book-length reply, but herewith a few reflections and some questions. The Encyclopedia of Religion entrry under Religion observes that "[B]eing a member of a body of believers-- a term that betrays the Western theistic emphasis upon doctrine-- separates individuals to some extent from others in the environing society."(12:283) Religion is thus considered, in Western theistic terms, as external and discreet, "my religion" vs. "your religion." But there are many problems with defining religion in such a way. First is that defining religion in terms of belief systems does not accord well with religious expressions outside the Western theistic tradition. In the case of primitive religion, "custom and ritual are abundant while belief structures are scarce, where emotional realities carry more weeight than statable ideas."(Ibid.) In the cases of Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Jainism, "Asian religious traditions, too, characteristically place their prime emphasis upon the inner states of realization rather than upon the merely instrumental rite or doctrine."(Ibid.) Second is that even within Western theism, belief systems are not equivalent to religions although they are closely tied to them. (And there are nonreligious belief systems, e.g. Leninism.) Much emphasis in defining religion has been placed on defining "religious experience," exploring the nature of the holy/sacred (places and objects as well as rituals) and on the structures and practices of religious life. None of these areas is subsumed under belief systems, but they are sine qua nons of religion, I think. Finally, though, what is most personally interesting to me is that even within Western theism, the relative importance of belief systems has been steadily declining for a long time. For example, Judaism has evolved to the point that belief is clearly less crucial than practice and a shared sense of the sacred. And Christianity seems to be moving in the same direction, whether or not the leadership wants it. Alas, the book I want to quote is two months overdue so I have to summarize from memory. George Barna's Index of Leading Spiritual Indicators reports results of dozens of nationwide telephone surveys about religious issues. I can't recall a specific survey question, but distinctly recall the message that American Christians are less and less doctrinally coherent or even concerned about doctrinal matters. In conclusion, I think that Baha'i use of the term "religion" tends to make universal claims on the basis of a highly particular situation. At no time to my knowledge has the majority of humanity followed "revealed religions" and there doesn't seem to be a high likelihood of that happening in the future, on the basis of current trends. But the alternative to the hegemony of "revealed religion" isn't total irreligion. Rather, humanity will likely continue to be religious in terms of having religious experience, a sense of the sacred, a need for ritual. But people will be less and less likely to seek coherent belief systems from religious sources. Science has become the predominant explainer of reality for people, and religion has other more pressing duties. Questions will be in a separate post. ---------- From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 1997 8:00 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Irreligion? From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Irreligion? Date: Thu, 23 Oct 97 17:26:29 EDT In light of the difficulties in defining religion, there are some ways in which it can be said to be in decline and other ways in which that is not true. I yield to Juan's statistics about the French and Swedes and Chinese-- but what society most seems to be a microcosm of where the world is heading? At the risk of being called chauvinistic, I suggest that the US experience is the most representative of the full range of religious expression in the world. Religion can hardly be said to be in serious decline here-- or in India, where the loss of religion does not seem to even be conceivable in the same way as in Western Europe. I wonder how much evidence is there for a general decline of religion versus a specific decline in particular forms that have lost credibility for particular reasons? The Index of Leading Spiritual Indicators reports both that Baby Busters have the lowest level of church attendance or adherence to religious doctrines of any generational group in America, and that they have the highest rate of interest in astrology. Has folk religion of this sort really declined in China or Europe commensurate with the drop in churchgoing? This kind of statistic inclines me to think in terms of an innate sense of the sacred that can express itself in many ways (including secular religions like Marxism and Ayn Randism) but which is relatively constant compared to externally observable measures about specific "religions". Can anyone comment on relevant current thinkers in the field of religious studies and their ideas about defining religion and measuring the ways in which it waxes or wanes in influence? K. Paul Johnson ---------- From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU] Sent: Friday, October 24, 1997 11:13 AM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: freedom of conscience & speech From: "John Dale" Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 00:30:31 -0700 Subject: Re: freedom of conscience & speech Dear Friends, It seems to me that another angle on "criticism" and public "negative speech" in the Baha'i community is the issue of what kind of freedom is necessary in order for scientific and public accountability investigation of the administration to proceed in an unhindered way. If somehow Baha'i prohibitions on "doubting" or "criticizing" certain things are going to extend to scientific or ethical investigations of those things, then obviously we have a conflict of principles at some level. Science proceeds, in part, on the basis of systematic doubt. "Doubting" something like the infallibility of the House of Justice in the scientific sense is something that scientists would have to do in terms of exploring, for example, whether there is anything factually verifiable about this infallibility. And of course, such scientists would be expected to talk among themselves, participate in public conferences, publish papers, etc. Now, I can just see somebody starting to claim that "publicly expressing" such "doubts" is "negative speech" or "negative behavior" toward the House of Justice and is thus prohibited. By this logic, the House would be immune from any kind of scientific scrutiny or accountability. To even begin to try to "examine" its infallibility would be to "question" that infallibility. The CB slogan. Etc. By the same logic, whole areas of Baha'i administrative activity could be sealed off from the light of scientific study and investigation and public accountability. "Whistle-blowing" and even routine impulses for self-improvement within the administrative order could be stiffled, because to voice any opinions that something needs to be improved would be "criticism" of a divine institution and is thus prohibited. Statements which are "negative" to a person or institution with a vested interest in not being examined might be completely positive to another person acting for the public's right to know that its administration is proceeding in a legally and morally correct way. Bottom line: who gets to define what is "negative"? And the answer in the current Baha'i system seems to be, not the Baha'i public at large which is allegedly being served by its administrative order and which might be supposed to be entitled to see evidence of this service, but the same institutions which might be embarassed if their internal workings or failings were exposed to public scrutiny. If such a conclusion is true, it means to me that there is a conflict of interest built into the present design of the administrative order. Such a conflict is obviously a serious issue, and I hope we can continue to refine this question and look at it more closely. Sincerely, John Dale ---------- From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU] Sent: Friday, October 24, 1997 2:54 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: irreligion Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 13:17:42 -0400 From: jrcole@UMICH.EDU (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: irreligion In reply to queries by John Dale and Paul Johnson with regard to irreligion and secularization, let me just make some remarks. If Negar will indulge me, I promise to get around, toward the end, to making them relevant to this list. There is a debate on the "secularization thesis," which is that industrialization, urbanization, high literacy, and a consumer society track with reduced importance for religion. This theory generally works, with the exception of the U.S., where there appear to be powerful intervening variables. Therefore, one would not expect India, with a 40% literacy rate and a largely rural, agrarian population, to be very secularized. Even Iran is only 50% literate and 50% urban. In industrialized countries a majority of the population is urban or suburban, the farming population is only about 4%, and literacy is close to universal. In such countries as France, Sweden, Holland, etc., belief in God and active participation in religion tends to be less than in agrarian countries. One also has to be very careful what one means by "religion." *Membership* in religion increased from 17% to 68% in the US between 1776 and 1997, a poke in the eye at secularization theory if it is not carefully defined. In many other countries, as well, formal affiliation with a religious body was much less common in the early modern period, especially among the poor, than we now often assume. (Members of the official Dutch Reformed church were never a majority in the Dutch Republic!) If one means by religion things like belief in God and actual attendence at religious services, or the power of religious bodies to influence public policy, there is no doubt that these have plummeted in Europe in the 20th century, though there are strong differences among "national cultures." Attendence at services is far different from affiliation. 60% of the French say they are believers, but only about 12% attend mass. There are also other sorts of difference. Women are more religious than men, and young people tend to be less involved in religion that those over than 40. Protestants and Eastern Orthodox appear more at risk for "going secular" than Catholics (in East Germany only 35% of the largely Lutheran population remains affiliated with the church; only 50% of Russians say they believe in God; while 90% of Poles remain at least nominally Catholics). Political conservatism is highly correlated with religiosity in most countries (the Gaullists depend heavily on lay, practicing French Catholics). An intervening variable appears to be the degree of participation and autonomy open to an adherent. I am drawing for the latter point on Rodney Stark and Laurence R. Iannaccone. "A Supply-Side Reinterpretation of the `Secularization' of Europe." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 33 (Sep. 1994):230-52. The wild card in whether a country has high rates of religious belief and participation appears to be the degree to which individual adherents feel an ability to participate actively in and shape the direction of their religion. Where there is no separation of religion and state, so that the religion is a state project; where the state collects involuntary tithes for the religion; where there is little or no congregational autonomy; where decision-making is highly hierarchical and centralized in the religious body, there tend to be low rates of religious belief and participation under conditions of "modernization." Whether a religion has a "monopoly" in the society or is part of a vibrant "market" in diverse religions also seems important. Among the industrialized countries, Sweden's Lutheran church was perhaps most entangled with the state, the least voluntary, and the least open to individual initiative, the most coercive of individuals (with involuntary tithing) and the most "monopolistic," and it produced a country fully 50% of whose inhabitants say they do not believe in God. Sweden was until recently the opposite of the U.S., where there is strict separation of religion and state, and where most denominations practice congregational autonomy or in other ways allow for high degrees of local, individual participation and decision-making, where individual autonomy is respected, and where there is a vast choice in religious "brands" available in the "market". Because of the priest shortage, fair numbers even of U.S. Catholic congregations are essentially led by local laity, often women. My own observation is that the Baha'i project looks a very great deal like the Swedish Lutheran project--what is hoped for is a high degree of entanglement between religion and state, lack of congregational autonomy, coercion of the individual with regard to certain sorts of participation (Review), little room for individual autonomy or influence on the religion, and a monochrome, totally Baha'i society. And the evidence is that in industrialized, urbanized, literate consumer societies, this model produces low rates of individual religious identification and participation. That even in the highly religious U.S., with complete freedom to compete in the market place, the Baha'is have done with regard to membership not much better than the Scientologists (a science fiction cult founded in the 1950s by a U.S. pulp novelist), bears out my thesis that the highly hierarchical model doesn't do well in a modern or postmodern environment. Sincerely Juan Cole History U of Michigan ---------- From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU] Sent: Friday, October 24, 1997 2:57 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: freedom of conscience & speech Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 12:33:44 -0500 From: "Mark A. Foster" Subject: Re: freedom of conscience & speech Hi, Susan - You wrote: >If by infalliblity you mean propositional inerrancy then this doctrine >would certainly be open to "falsification" and hence scientific >investigation. But if, as I would contend, infallibility is a moral and >not a propositional category its validity would not be subject to such >treatment. By moral infallibility, do you mean normative infallibility? In other words, are you saying that the function of the legislations, elucidations, etc. by the House is to establish a set of rules of conduct (norms and norm-sets/roles)? And that, if those norms are followed and roles performed, the result may be, at least hypothetically, an accomplishment of the formal objectives given in the Writings of Baha'u'llah ,'Abdu'l Baha, etc.? Cordially, Mark (A. Foster, Ph.D.), Prof. of Sociology ---------- From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU] Sent: Friday, October 24, 1997 3:59 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: On Freedom of Speech Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 14:14:03 -0400 (EDT) From: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca (McKenny Michael) Subject: On Freedom of Speech Greetings, from Ottawa. In all this discussion about whether or not speech is behaviour i have not seen the distinction made which was made in AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES, C. Herman Pritchett, McGraw-Hill 1962 p. 242: "Because of its social setting, the process of communication by speech is likely to create more temptations and justifications for government intervention than is the process of communication by the printed word. People who are reading cause no trouble, and the government should have no concern about what they are reading. A possible exception to this rule is if the reading matter is outrageously obscene; the problems of obscenity are considered in Chapter 24. But communication by speech is by definition a social process, and often occurs in situations where public problems necessarily result. Speeches often draw crowds. They are often made on public property. They may be amplified by loudspeakers to the point of becoming a public nuisance. They may arouse animosities or inflame listeners to the point of physical violance. The public interest in peace and order may often be thought to require some prior restraints on speech, and the Supreme Court has adjudicated many conflicts of this sort." Chapter 23 of this book does consider libel, "Any written or printed material defaming or reflecting on the character of a person, published maliciously and without justification", as well as slander, "An oral statement of the same kind." However, it would appear, with such exceptions as obscenity taken into consideration, that American Constitutional law in general perceives a distinction between problems caused by the exercise of speech and the expression of views in printed format. Blessed Be, Michael ---------- From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU] Sent: Saturday, October 25, 1997 2:26 AM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Letter of the House From: "Susan Maneck" Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 18:54:58 EST Subject: Letter of the House Dear Colleagues; On June 3, 1997 the Universal House of Justice send a letter to Dr. Iskandar Hai in response to question he raised as a result of a debate between the two of us some months earlier on Talisman. On paragraph of that letter very much surprised me as it refuted a theory neither I, nor anyone else I knew had ever proposed. I wonder if there are any list members who might recall if anyone had indeed presented this theory on any forum they are aware of. The paragraph in question reads: "Some people have put forward the thesis that in place of the Guardian's function of authoritative interpretation, a check on the Universal House of Justice should be set up, either in the form of the general opinion of the mass of the believers, or in the form of a body of learned Baha'is --preferably those with academic qualifications. The former is in direct contradiction to the Guardian's statement that the members of the Universal House of Justice are not "allowed to be governed by the feelings, the general opinion, and even the convictions of the mass of the faithful, or of those who directly elect them." "They are to follow", he writes, "the dictates and promptings of their conscience. They may, indeed they must, acquaint themselves with the conditions prevailing among the community, must weigh dispassionately in their minds the merits of any case presented for their consideration, but must reserve for themselves the right of an unfettered decision. God will verily inspire them with whatsoever He willeth,' is Baha'u'llah's incontrovertible assurance." As to the latter alternative: this would constitute usurpation of a function of the Guardian." Again, does anyone have any idea who the people promoting this theory might be and what their justification was for it? Susan Maneck Berry College ---------- From: Susan Maneck[SMTP:smaneck@BERRY.EDU] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 1997 11:24 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Moral Infallibility Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 19:12:26 -0500 From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Susan: You wrote: >But I am assuming that what it means to be a >Baha'is is to take Baha'u'llah's word as normative in religious >matters. And what Baha'u'llah has to say (as I think I have quoted to >you numerous times) is this: "Weigh not the Book of God with such standards and sciences as are current amongst you, for the Book itself is the unerring Balance established among men. In this most perfect Balance whatsoever the peoples and kindreds of the earth possess must be weighed, while the measure of its weight should be tested according to its own standard, did ye put know it." Kitab-i Aqdas p. 56. I have found that such passages are frequently quoted to suggest that there are no external grounds upon which scriptural principle can be judged, and even that there are no external grounds upon which the actions of Baha'i religious institutions can be legitimately judged. But I think this may be an error even in terms of Baha'u'llah's own self-understanding. The Mu'tazilite school, which so influenced Shi`ism and the Baha'i faith, held that *reason* can recognize good and evil independently of scripture. Muslim rationalists held that religious laws, as revealed, always accorded with the ethical standards of natural reason and natural law. I find several pieces of evidence that Baha'u'llah also held this Mu'tazilite principle, though he is usually quoted in such a way as to make him sound like an Ash`arite for whom human reason and discernment is always inadequate to grasping God's purpose. Thus, in the "City of Radiant Acquiescence," Baha'u'llah says that the ethical/spiritual principle that human beings should be content (rida) with God's decree is one that is not confined to a single dispensation, but is rather true across dispensations. Some ethical principles are ipso facto independent categorical imperatives apart from revelation. In his tablet to Nasiru'd-Din Shah he says that for a king to rule according to the law of God is simply for him to rule with *justice* toward all his subjects. This is actually an argument against Shi`ite clergy who insisted that the Shah could only rule in accordance with the shari`ah or revealed law if he acted in a partisan manner toward Islam and its canon law, and if he actively discriminated against non-Muslims. Baha'u'llah seems to be making abstract justice in the sense of equity a higher principle than the minutiae of revealed law. In Some Answered Questions, moreover, `Abdu'l-Baha says that it is not always wrong to be angry; that anger can be good, for instance, if directed against tyrants. But since a) the Baha'i holy figures did not usually identify rulers as tyrants (though they sometimes did, as with Sultans Abdulaziz and Abdulhamid II), and b) since in any case the period of revelation would not continue forever, this statement in turn presupposes that human beings are able independently to recognize tyranny. I agree that Baha'u'llah sometimes employs a rhetoric that seems to imply a denial of the role of reason in determining ethics. But he sometimes employed a rhetoric implying belief in creation of the world ex nihilo at a particular point in time, as well, and we know he did not mean it literally, since he believed the cosmos is eternal. As for the more general point of this discussion, I think it is self-evident that no human being or human institution always acts ethically or justly; all commit lapses of varying seriousness. Individual or collective, they are fallible. `Abdu'l-Baha knew this, which is why he set up procedures for the impeachment of uhj members and why he attempted to create a guardianship to act as a check and balance on the rest of the uhj. `Abdu'l-Baha denied that he himself was "ma`sum" or morally immaculate ("infallible" in common Baha'i parlance: https://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/abinfall.htm ), and as the perfect exemplar surely he had a higher claim to such a station than anyone else. Baha'is know this as well, which is why they frequently speak of their institutions as "immature" or "newly-established," as a way of acknowledging imperfections and moral lapses. It is true that `Abdu'l-Baha used the word ma`sum or protected from sin for the universal house of justice. But he often spoke this way to encourage people rather than to make a substantive statement. In the Secret of Divine Civilization he spoke of the Iranian government's Cabinet in 1875 as "ma`sum" (we wouldn't translate that as "infallible," or "immaculate" would we?), and I think we all know what the ethical reality of the Iranian cabinet in the mid-1870s really was. There are ethical standards, even scriptural ones, against which Baha'i institutions can be measured and fall short in any particular instance. It seems to me that `Abdu'l-Baha's use of the word "ma`sum" was a statement of hope for evolution toward greater perfection in the future, not a guarantee of perfection in the present. In short, I think this discussion has started from the wrong end. cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan ---------- From: Susan Maneck[SMTP:smaneck@BERRY.EDU] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 1997 11:27 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 17:55:43 -0500 (EST) From: FG Subject: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to create an unmoderated worldwide discussion group called talk.religion.bahai. This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details appear below. All followup discussion should be crossposted to news.groups,alt.religion.bahai. CHANGES from previous RFD: The only major change on this 2nd RFD is a second proponent has climbed aboard: Chris Manvell. Several other very minor things. Newsgroup line: talk.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith. RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, which exists specifically for discussion of the Baha'i Faith, is moderated. A need exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup would meet that need. From January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, until March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning talk.religion.bahai, 11 messages per day for 70 days. From April 1, 1997, to September 27, 1997, over 2,863 messages have been posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly varying points of view on the Baha'i Faith, resulting in 16 messages per day for 179 days, and 477 messages a month for six months. Since www.dejanews.com does not pick up all postings, an additional conservative 5 percent, roughly 150 messages, have probably been lost from the archive. These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com for talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time periods. Please note that despite the poor propagation of the alt.* hierarchy the high rate of posting demonstrates significant interest, justifying the forming of an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith on the talk.* hierarchy. It is only reasonable to conclude that the easy accessibility of the talk.* hierarchy will lead to even higher rates of posting by interested people. The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement, rather than supplant, the existing moderated group soc.religion.bahai, and will provide those without access to alt.religion.bahai, on the less well propagated alt.* hierarchy, the opportunity to participate, especially since many people who voted YES on the first proposal were unable to join in on alt.religion.bahai, their ISPs not carrying the hierarchy. It is anticipated that alt.religion.bahai will evolve along as its users see fit and will complement talk.religion.bahai as an alternative unmoderated newsgroup. The establishment of unmoderated companion groups is a well-accepted practice on Usenet. This newsgroup will be part of the talk.* hierarchy, which is almost exclusively for unmoderated groups. CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history, teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for discussion. The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages, large ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography, spam, and any postings of a purely commercial nature. Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting procedure in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation. Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not to start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on articles and threads written in more moderate terms. Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers are encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive crossposting. Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to the charter above. END CHARTER. PROCEDURE: The process of creating newsgroups is twofold. First is the RFD stage, when someone writes a Request for Discussion (RFD) outlining the purpose of the proposed group. The RFD appears in news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and other relevant discussion groups. Anyone may publicly comment on the RFD in news.groups for a three-week period. During the discussion phase, proponents may modify the RFD in response to suggestions from posters on news.groups. The second stage is the Call for Votes (CFV) stage. The proposal must pass a Usenet-wide vote with a 2/3 supermajority -- and at least 100 more votes in favor than against -- to be created. Anyone with an e-mail address may cast a ballot. A neutral votetaker from the Usenet Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) conducts all CFV's. This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "Writing an RFD." Please refer to these documents if you have further questions about the process. DISTRIBUTION: This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,soc.religion.bahai, alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.iranian, soc.culture.israel and the following three mailing lists: Talisman Subscribe via: jsgreen@umich.edu Bahai Studies Subscribe via: major@johnco.cc.ks.us h-Bahai h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu Subscribe smaneck@BERRY.EDU or jrcole@umich.edu Pointers will appear in the following newsgroups: soc.religion.unitarian-univ,soc.religion.eastern, soc.religion.gnosis,soc.religion.hindu, soc.religion.paganism,soc.religion.quaker, soc.religion.sikhism,soc.religion.vaishnava, talk.religion.buddhism,talk.religion.newage, alt.religion.islam,alt.religion,a.bsu.religion, uk.religion.misc,uk.religion.interfaith, uk.religion.other-faiths,news.admin.censorship, soc.rights.human and to the following seven Bahai-only listservs: Subscribe via bahai-request@bcca.org Baha'i Campus Forum (BCF) Baha'i Discuss (Discuss) Baha'i Singles (Singles) Baha'i Teachers (Teachers) Baha'i Women Converse (Women) Baha'i Youth (Youth - aimed at the 12-18 age group) Baha'i Announce (Announce) Mentor: Chris Stone Proponent: Frederick Glaysher Proponent: Chris Manvell ---------- From: Susan Maneck[SMTP:smaneck@BERRY.EDU] Sent: Friday, November 07, 1997 10:22 AM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: moral infallibility Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 00:34:29 -0500 From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: moral infallibility Terry wrote: >I have two tentative questions/comments in regard to ma` sum and one of >the other passages of the W&T of Abdul Baha . The other passage in question >is the one about "source of all good and free from error." > If Abdul Baha is speaking in a language of Islamic jurisprudence as Juan >has suggested in a different post might not the source of all good and free >of error statement be understood . . . The original text of the Will and Testament says: Amma bayt `adl alladhi ja`alahu 'llahu masdara kulli khayrin wa musawwanan min kulli khata' . . . a`da bayad mazahir-i taqva-yi ilahi va matali`-i `ilm va dana'i va thabit bar din-i ilahi va khayr-khwah-i jami`-i naw`-i insani bashand . . . Which roughly translates as: "As for the house of justice, which God has rendered the source of all good and protected from every sin (khata') . . . its members *must* be manifestations of the fear of God, dawning-places of learning and knowledge, steadfast in the divine religion, and well-wishers of the entire human race." (emphasis mine) I would suggest that these two phrases are related. The promise is made, of being protected from sinfulness (khata' is the Islamic equivalent of the Christian "sin", and though it can also [as a secondary meaning in most dictionaries] mean "mistake," here the diction musawwan min kulli khata echoes Shi`ite beliefs about the Imams being "protected" from sin by God's will; here musawwan is a synonym of ma`sum or protected from sin). But this promise is made in conjunction with an absolute requirement (*bayad*) that the members of the house of justice be "manifestations of the fear of God, dawning-places of learning and knowledge, steadfast in the divine religion, and well-wishers of the entire human race." Where they fell short in these areas, where any substantial number of them lacked fear of God, learning and [secular] knowledge (dana'i), steadfastness, or the best of intentions toward *all* human beings without exception, it seems implied that to that degree the "protection" afforded them from sin would be reduced. For, after all, a group of impious, ignorant and untrained, fickle, and prejudiced, spiteful or hateful leaders would obviously not really be a house of justice of a sort that is protected from sin. And although it may be replied that it is unlikely that a group of persons with such failings would be elected, this eventuality cannot logically speaking be ruled out, especially if one looks at the history of the papacy (which after all consists of elected cardinals). The possibility that five of the nine members might at any one time lack the required virtues in full complement is increased further with the end of the guardianship and the lack of this key check and balance, this delineator of the line between interpretation and legislation, this impeacher of the impious. Susan: As for Baha'u'llah and the Mu`tazilite tradition, I don't always find that Baha'u'llah agrees with Shaykh Ahmad al-Ahsa'i. Moreover, Baha'u'llah does say in the Tablet to Manakji that human reason is an emanation of the Universal Intellect. The reason for which human reason cannot judge revealed law is that it is partial, rather than Universal, and so cannot understand some aspects of the law. But since human reason is a reflection of Universal Reason, it would not be right to say that it completely lacks the faculty of ethical discernment apart from revealed law, either. I think your analogy between the unknowable God and the unknowable Good is flawed, since the Good exists in this world among human beings and all of us can judge what is good and bad through our reason. This issue is fairly easily resolved with one question. Are there things that you would not do if ordered to do so by your religious authorities? Why? cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan ---------- From: Susan Maneck[SMTP:smaneck@BERRY.EDU] Sent: Saturday, November 08, 1997 12:34 AM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: moral infallibility Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 16:39:08 -0500 From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: moral infallibility Dear Stephen: Many thanks for your kind question. I think many such hermeneutical issues are affected by the linguistic shift that has occurred since the 19th century, as Classical Arabic has been replaced by Modern Standard Arabic, in the course of which the connotation of words has changed. The same sort of shift affects our understanding of Qajar and modern Persian. As a historian who reads a lot of 19th century sources I am very struck by these shifts. I recommend for this issue Ami Ayalon's book on the many and drastic changes in political terminology between the 19th century and the present. In my view in the phrase wa musawwanan min kulli khata' the word khata' has the implication of "sin" rather than of "mistake." Of course, in Arabic "sin" and "mistake" are very tied up with one another in the root kh t ' , and it is also true, as you say, that in modern standard Arabic a linguistic shift has occurred such that khata' more usually means "error, mistake" and khati:'ah means sin. This distinction, however, was less common in classical Arabic, where the two words tended to "float" more. One who commits a khata', for instance, is referred to in Classical Arabic as kha:ti' , which most often means a sinner. Even in modern Persian, which often retains the more classical sense of Arabic words, the first definition given by Haim for khata' is "sin," and "mistake" is secondary. Remember we are dealing with turn of the century Arabo-Persian, a mixture of the two languages. As an example of classical usage of the root, Qur'an 17:33/31 gives: "Kill not your children for fear of want: We shal provide sustanance for them as well as for you. Verily the killing of them is a great sin [khit'an]." It is true also that Qur'an 4:94 gives khata'an for manslaughter, as when you kill someone unintentionally. But manslaugher often involves a fault of character, after all. The gerund kha:ti' from khata' is used by the Qur'an thusly: In Qur'an 12:91 and 12:98/97 Joseph's brothers apologize to Jacob for trying to kill him, saying "we certainly have been guilty of sin [la-kha:ti'i:n]" and "O our father! Ask for us forgiveness for our sins, for we truly have been sinful (kha:ti'i:n)." (Arberry tr.) Obviously what they did involved a moral disorder, not just a "mistake," and so it was a khata' or "sin". In addition, the discussion in Shi`ite theology about the `ismah or immaculacy/infallibility of the Imams centered on whether they were protected (musawwan, ma`sum) from committing sin (khata' is one of the words used). But beyond these philological issues, there is no reason to believe that `Abdu'l-Baha, a well-read and cosmopolitan man, really believed it was possible for such a thing as "propositional inerrancy" to exist. Look, in *Secret of Divine Civilization,* pp. 26-27, at his account of how the Prophet Muhammad took advice on the digging of war trenches from the Iranian, Salman. He does not presume Muhammad (a Manifestation of God!) is omniscient or omnicompetent or "infallible." Nor, of course, is any such thing in fact possible. It is impossible to live and work in the human world with human faculties and human language, and to avoid committing errors of propositional fact. One would have to be omniscient to avoid this, which the "house of justice" manifestly is not--to say the least--nor was this ever predicated of it by anyone (even the Guardian denied omniscience). Of course it is also impossible to live and work in the human world with a human character and avoid committing sins, which `Abdu'l-Baha knew very well. In his statement to Yunis Khan he said that not only was he himself not ma`sum, but that he was a sinner. The actual lack of sinlessness in the world is why, perhaps, he appears to condition "sinlessness" on a whole host of virtues that are unlikely actually to be completely present at all times (and it is unclear whether he really would have thought the phrase "protected from sin" would apply to a body on which no living Guardian serves, anyway). As I said before, `Abdu'l-Baha appears to have used phrases like "protected from sin" in a hopeful rather than a factual manner, and spoke also of his hope that the Iranian cabinet would be ma`sum or protected from sin. It has also been argued that "protected from sin" is another way of saying that the house of justice is in the Baha'i system the court of last resort, just as the Supreme Court is in American law. I think the esoteric, Batini-Shi`ite, Neoplatonic mental world out of which such phrases as "protected from sin" comes has been lost to contemporary Westerners, and that the Will and Testament has been persistently misread by Anglophone Baha'is from the perspective of Christian fundamentalist presuppositions. cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan ---------- From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU] Sent: Sunday, November 09, 1997 7:44 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: H-Bahai Lawson Publication and Logs FAQ Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 18:23:52 -0500 =46rom: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: H-Bahai Lawson Publication and Logs FAQ We have had several new subscribers recently and I wanted to make some announcements. Remember that H-Bahai messages are logged and are available to members at the H-Bahai Web page. The URL is: https://h-net2.msu.edu/~bahai/ The hyperlink for log access will prompt you for a login, which is H-Bahai (with exactly that capitalization and punctuation) the password is listpass . "Occasional Papers in Shaykhi, Babi and Baha'i Studies" is proud to announce the publication of Todd Lawson of McGill's subtle and detailed study of a chapter from the Bab's "Best of Stories": Todd Lawson. "Reading Reading Itself: The Bab's `Sura of the Bees,' A Commentary on Qur'an 12:93 from the Sura of Joseph=97 Text, Translation and Commentary" Occasional Papers in Shaykhi, Babi and Baha'i Studies, vol. 1, no. 5 (November, 1997). It can be found at: https://h-net2.msu.edu/~bahai/bhpapers.htm The three pages of the Bab's Qayyum al-Asma' that are posted with the translation constitute the first publication of any portion of this central work. A number of exciting new publications in this series are in the pipeline and will appear soon. Also, recent publications in the H-Bahai "Translations" series at: https://h-net2.msu.edu/~bahai/trans.htm include: Ahang Rabbani. "Baha'u'llah's Tablet of Visitation for the wife of the Bab, Khadijih Begum," Text, Translation, Commentary." Translations of Shaykhi, Babi and Baha'i Texts no. 9 (October, 1997). Juan R.I. Cole. "A Letter from `Abdu'l-Karim Qazvini to Sayyid Javad Karbala'i concerning Baha'u'llah in Iraq, dated August, 1851: Text, Translation, Commentary." Translations of Shaykhi, Babi and Baha'i Texts no. 8 (October, 1997). John Walbridge. "Baha'u'llah's `Tablet of the Deathless Youth': Text, Translation, Commentary." Translations of Shaykhi, Babi and Baha'i Texts no. 7 (October, 1997). Enjoy! Juan Cole H-Bahai Web Editor Dept. of History U of Michigan ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 1997 9:31 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Private Posts Received Greetings, Frederick. Your post replying to mine has been received. I'll read it and reply tomorrow. I've used up my two hours here. Don't be too alarmed. May this find you well, and may the future exceed our hopes. Best Wishes, Michael -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 1997 8:02 AM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Private Re 3rd RFD etc Greetings, Frederick, from Ottawa. If you are well, it is well. Many thanks for your comments on my request for a 3rd RFD. In my opinion, your concerns are reasonable, and we ought to be able to get the approval of USENET officials that if more people are added to the list of co-proponents, then they would not have the ability to control the wording of the charter in the area of defining the topic. I believe it quite justified that you only allow additional names to be added at the end of a process of discussion and on the grounds the scope of discussion in the newsgroup remains as broad as you've proposed. This in my view is the chief concern, that there be an unmoderated newsgroup where anything goes. I think we even could even find news.groups people willing to be co-proponents to balance the numbers of others, if there is any doubt about the ability of others to water down the range of the discussion provided by the newsgroup. All the discussion I've seen from anyone on this (including the fundamentalists) has assumed there would be no way to limit the range of the subject matter, that even posts by Covenant Breakers would be considered on topic in the newsgroup. You have reasonable grounds to wonder about what would happen were extremists placed in control. Do you have any other concerns about the point that actually seems to be obtaining votes, that the Charter and FAQ make it clear that the posts on TRB are not official Baha'i statements? This to me seems reasonable, as it is a statement of fact. Actually, fanaticism is not monolithic. Persuasion may not work with the extremists, but extremists are actually in the minority. This is why my posts have drawn such positive reaction from some Baha'is, and that any response I've got from the most extreme doesn't sound very convincing to the majority following this issue. In my opinion, this is why moderated Baha'i cyberspace has been so keen to prevent discussion of Talk.Religion.Bahai. I think there is momentum now to pull off a yes vote, though that's not a guarantee. However, I believe the extra time a 3rd RFD would give, as well as the statement of fact that the newsgroup is not official, important. You are undoubtedly correct that there are a few people who would like absolute control over everything said and thought. However, this letter from the Universal House of Justice is worded so as to allow Talk.Religion.Bahai to form, and I think we can pull it off. Let's take the little extra time of going to the 3rd RFD, even if only to produce the statement on the unofficial nature of the group. This adds to the extent to which the proposal seems reasonable to those following this on news.groups and elsewhere. May this find you very well, and may the future be better than we hope. I'm interested in your reaction. I am busy for a lot of this day, including a meeting tonight (Wednesday) and I will try to follow what's going on and to reply to any messages from you or significant posts as soon as I can. If it seems I've missed something don't hesitate to draw it to my attention again. All the Best, Michael -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) ---------- From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU] Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 1997 2:30 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Abdu'l-Baha and the nation-state Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 12:51:33 -0500 From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: `Abdu'l-Baha and the nation-state Dear Negar: I have a sense that you are asking a subtle question. Let me, however, begin with an unsubtle answer, in hopes, not of answering your question but helping me locate its crux better. Both *Secret of Divine Civilization* and *A Traveller's Narrative* are addressed simultaneously to *several* audiences. The first and primary audience is Iran's political elite. The second audience is, implicitly, Baha'is and seekers. The third audience and framework is, potentially, European thinkers and policy makers. `Abdu'l-Baha's concern with the fortunes of the Iranian nation-state is not anomalous if one considers that he was a world federalist and saw individual nations as the constituent units of an emergent global civilization. So the health of these constituent units, that is nations (and in his time empires) is relevant globally. So then what determines the health of nations such as Iran? Like his contemporary the Egyptian reformer Rifa`ah at-Tahtawi (whom he certainly read, as can be shown by his terminology), `Abdu'l-Baha poses this question in the context of a theory of civilizational (`umran) success. (For at-Tahtawi this theory of civilization is rooted simultaneously in Ibn Khaldun, Rousseau, and Saint-Simon, and therefore these influences can also be seen in `Abdu'l-Baha). The answers `Abdu'l-Baha gives concerning the underlying factors that make for a healthy and thriving nation-state that forms part of an advancing civilization include: 1) freedom of conscience and speech 2) freedom to pursue science 3) adoption of the latest technology without regard for its source 4) parliamentary democracy 5) accountability of officials 6) the protection of the moral autonomy of the individual, of his/her privacy and property He posits that Iran as a polity has shrunk geographically since the 17th century precisely because its government has denied its subjects these rights at a time when, e.g., Great Britain was implementing them (and in the process was becoming the largest and most successful empire in all of history). That is, the Safavids' strict and uncompromising Shi`ism alienated the Sunni Afghan tribes, provoking revolts that ultimately brought down the empire in 1722 and led to a prolonged period of tribal depradations throughout the 18th century. Even when the Qajars managed to restore some order, they had irretrievably lost Afghanistan and parts of Central Asia, and went on to lose most of the Caucasus to the Russians. In part this latter derived from an unwillingness or inability to adopt the latest military technology and tactics (Abbas Mirza had been thwarted in his rudimentary attempts in this area). In 1945 the United Nations promulgated the principle of the fixity of national borders. But in the 1880s the borders of nation-states and empires were not fixed, and their "success" indeed was measured by whether they were "growing" geospatially or shrinking. The Ottoman and Qajar empires were shrinking. The European empires were growing. `Abdu'l-Baha believed that the reason for this difference lay in basic civilizational principles such as Jeffersonian toleration (about which he read in Draper), democracy, etc. In this belief he resembles Namik Kemal, who argued for a mixture of Jefferson, Sufism and Ottoman nationalism as a cure for the "sick man" syndrome afflicting Istanbul. That is, `Abdu'l-Baha's program is "Young Ottomanist" in shape, and the tensions in his emphases, as between internationalism and regional patriotism, also occur among the Young Ottomans. I agree that there are some apparent contradictions in `Abdu'l-Baha's nationalism/globalism and approval/condemnation of empire. He criticizes Europe's wars of conquest, including the Franco-Prussian war, as civilizationally immature. Yet he praises British even-handedness in their India religious policy (not favoring Christianity over Hinduism and Islam). It seems to me, however, that some of this contradiction derives from the fact that sometimes he is giving a theory of why things are as they are (British imperial success in India and elsewhere) and sometimes he is giving a prescription of how things ideally ought to be (an end to industrialized warfare of the new European sort and of imperialism-by-arms). cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@UMICH.EDU] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 1997 12:52 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Dissembling From: "Frederick Glaysher" Subject: Dissembling Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 08:37:51 -0500 Dear members of h-bahai: More than a decade or so ago, I read somewhere of an Islamic word or phrase that meant something like to dissemble one's faith when having to do so for the good of Islam. The nuance apparently was favorable toward the practice. For those of you more linguistically gifted and trained, do you know of such an Arabic or Farsi term? Does it appear in the Writings? If so, what are the connotations? Is this practice extended in Islam to dissembling in general when thought needed? Any parallels with Bahai teachings? I'd appreciate very much the benefit of any light you might shed on this aspect of Islam, any historical instances, and so forth.... Thank you. Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@UMICH.EDU] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 1997 2:39 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Re: Dissembling From: "Susan Maneck" Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 12:23:03 EST Subject: Re: Dissembling Fred Glaysher writes: > More than a decade or so ago, I read somewhere of an Islamic word > or phrase that meant something like to dissemble one's faith when > having to do so for the good of Islam. The nuance apparently was > favorable toward the practice. The term is *taqiyyih* and is disallowed in the Writings. However, it is replaced by a term *hikmat* or wisdom which at times functions similiarly. I recently wrote an article on this subject entitled "Wisdom and Dissimulation* which is published in Baha'i Studies Review, vol. 6. Jonah has it posted on his web site. [This paper can be reached on the Web under "Papers by Susan Maneck" via https://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bhscholr.htm - ed.] If you can't locate a copy of it, let me know and I'll send it to you. But I will be gone until after Thanksgiving. I'll see you all in San Francisco at the AAR and MESA. Susan Maneck Berry College ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 1997 6:26 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Dissembling Frederick: Do you think psychologically you could handle being on talisman again without flaming other participants? There are very obnoxious conservatives on that list, but Josh doesn't want the list roiled (any more than it is) by vituperative language. I'll be incommunicado till Thanksgiving, but we can talk then. cheers Juan ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@UMICH.EDU] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 1997 11:19 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Re: Dissembling Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 20:00:06 -0600 From: "Bijan/Farnaz Ma'sumian" Subject: Re: Dissembling The term you're looking for is probably "taqiyyih" (dissimulation/hiding one's religious belief system or pretending to belong to an accepted religious system to protect oneself) practiced by many Shi'ihs in time of physical danger. Some Babis and Baha'is may have practiced it occasionally but, to my knowledge, the Baha'i Writings do not support dissimulation. The closest thing in the Baha'i writings to "taqiyyih" I can think of would be Baha'u'llah's suggestion to "observe wisdom" meant to encourage his followers to avoid volunteering their religious preference indiscriminately and, in the process, create problems for themselves and their fellow-believers. This was particularly understandable in the 19th century due to the size of the nascant Baha'i community and the frequency and severity of the persecutions. Bijan Ma'sumian Austin, Texas ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Sunday, November 30, 1997 12:57 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Dissembling Dear Frederick: The reason you were thrown off Talisman was that you called Sheila a "prig" and used similar abusive language toward several other participants, and *everyone* on the list was upset with you. Everyone of all ideological stripes. What Josh wanted from you was an acknowledgment that that behavior was inappropriate and that you will refrain from personally insulting other list members if you are readmitted. It was Josh's understanding that you had come to terms with this tendency to "flame" indiscriminately. If I describe the situation correctly (i.e. that you are now willing to be civil even on an unmoderated list), message Josh at jsgreen@umich.edu and ask him to resubscribe you to Talisman, and tell him I said it was all right (you could forward him this message). I think your point of view can be an important corrective to more hardline and rightwing ones, but only if you develop some "emotional intelligence" (the title of a book I highly recommend to you) about how to build a network of friends and supporters for your position. cheers Juan >Frederick Glaysher >-----Original Message----- >From: Juan R. I. Cole >To: Frederick Glaysher >Date: Thursday, November 20, 1997 5:25 PM >Subject: Re: Dissembling > > >> >>Frederick: >> >>Do you think psychologically you could handle being on talisman again >>without flaming other participants? There are very obnoxious conservatives >>on that list, but Josh doesn't want the list roiled (any more than it is) >by >>vituperative language. >> >>I'll be incommunicado till Thanksgiving, but we can talk then. >> >>cheers Juan > >Though I have never fully understood the reasons nor the manner >in which I was brusquely thrown off talisman and then kept >off, even after six months, I harbor no ill will towards talisman >or anyone there that needs to be revisited.... > >Sure, I'd accept reinstatement.... Please use the following >address: fglaysh@hotmail.com which I use exclusively for >mailing lists. > >And thanks for the invitation. My having access to talisman might >help a great deal with the passing of talk.religion.bahai.... > >Frederick Glaysher >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai >The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, >news.announce.newgroups, or at > > > ---------- From: L-Soft list server at H-Net - Humanities On-Line (1.8b)[SMTP:LISTSERV@h-net.msu.edu] Sent: Sunday, November 30, 1997 2:32 PM To: FG@HOTMAIL.COM Subject: Message ("Your message dated Sun, 30 Nov 1997 13:32:37...") Your message dated Sun, 30 Nov 1997 13:32:37 -0500 with subject "Re: Dissembling" has been submitted to the moderator of the H-BAHAI list: "Juan Cole, U of Michigan" . ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@UMICH.EDU] Sent: Sunday, November 30, 1997 4:16 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Re: Dissembling From: "Frederick Glaysher" Subject: Re: Re: Dissembling Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 13:32:37 -0500 Bijan Ma'sumian wrote: >The term you're looking for is probably "taqiyyih" (dissimulation/hiding >one's religious belief system or pretending to belong to an accepted >religious system to protect oneself) practiced by many Shi'ihs in time of >physical danger. Were there situations in which Shi'ihs would practice "taqiyyih" with other Muslims not only with infidels? If so, can you give me an example or historical illustration of the practice? Is the word "taqiyyih" ever used in the Bahai Writings? Would you cite the passage.... >Some Babis and Baha'is may have practiced it occasionally >but, to my knowledge, the Baha'i Writings do not support dissimulation. The >closest thing in the Baha'i writings to "taqiyyih" I can think of would be >Baha'u'llah's suggestion to "observe wisdom" meant to encourage his >followers to avoid volunteering their religious preference indiscriminately >and, in the process, create problems for themselves and their >fellow-believers. Are there other passages you know of, translated or not, in which Baha'u'llah suggests the same? Similarly, as with Islam, are they always in regard to non-believers? To Susan Maneck: Thanks for mentioning your paper on hikmat. I'm working on reading it. Perhaps that will answer some of these and other questions I have in regard to dissembling in the Muslim/Bahai context.... Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@UMICH.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 1997 12:58 AM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Re: Dissembling From: "Susan Maneck" Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 19:25:29 EST Subject: Re: Dissembling Fred asks: > Is the word "taqiyyih" ever used > in the Bahai Writings? Would you cite the passage.... Yes it is. Baha'u'llah explicitly forbids it and replaces it with *hikmat.* Here's the passage: "In this Day, We can neither approve of the conduct of the fearful that seeketh to dissemble his faith, nor sanction the behaviour of the avowed believer that clamorously asserteth allegiance to this Cause. Both should observe the dictates of wisdom [bayad bi-hikmat amil bashand], and strive dillegently to serve the best interests of the Faith." Gleanings. p. 343. > Are there other passages you know of, translated or not, in which > Baha'u'llah suggests the same? Similarly, as with Islam, are they always >in regard to non-believers? I don't think so. Passages involving hikmat seem to carry a broader meaning in the Lawh-i Maqsud, for instance. "Every word is endowed with a spirit, therefore the speaker or expounder should deliver his words at the appropriate time and place, for the impression which each word maketh is clearly evident and perceptible. . . . One word may be likened unto fire, another unto light, and the influence of both is manifest in the world. Therefore, an enlightened man of wisdom should primarily speak with words as mild as milk, that the children of men may be nutured and edified thereby and may attain the ultimate goal of human existence... It behoveth the prudent man of wisdom to speak with the utmost leniency and forbearance so that the swwetness of his words may induce everyone to attain that which befitteth man's station." TAB 172 While at times hikmat involves concealing one's genuine views in situations of insecurity and possible persecution, Baha'u'llah at other times spoke of it in broader terms as that sagacity of spirit which ought to typify all of our human interactions at all times. Consider this passage: O Son of Dust! The wise are they that speak not unless they obtain a hearing, even as the cup-bearer, who proffereth not his cupt till he findeth a seeker, and the lover who crieth not from the depths of his heart until he gazeth upon the beauty of his beloved. Wherefore sow the seeds of wisdom and knowledge in the pure soil of the heart, and keep them hidden, till the hyacinths of divine wisdom spring from the heart and not from mire and clay. HW Persian no. 36 Susan Maneck Berry College ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@UMICH.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 1997 8:20 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Re: Dissembling From: "Frederick Glaysher" Subject: Re: Re: Dissembling Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 07:24:33 -0500 Susan Maneck wrote: >Yes it is. Baha'u'llah explicitly forbids it and replaces it with >*hikmat.* Here's the passage: > >"In this Day, We can neither approve of the conduct of the fearful >that seeketh to dissemble his faith, nor sanction the behaviour of >the avowed believer that clamorously asserteth allegiance to this >Cause. Both should observe the dictates of wisdom [bayad bi-hikmat >amil bashand], and strive dillegently to serve the best interests of >the Faith." Gleanings. p. 343. Is THIS the only passage in the Bahai writings that uses the word "taqiyyih"? Are there really no other passages? And yet your article, which I've now read, seems to acknowledge it as a much broader idea and influence on especially early Bahai life.... You're too hasty to move onto the Lawh-i Maqsud, and so forth, if you will.... Linger a little longer.... [clip] >While at times hikmat involves concealing one's genuine views in >situations of insecurity and possible persecution, Baha'u'llah at >other times spoke of it in broader terms as that sagacity of spirit >which ought to typify all of our human interactions at all times. A change of subject, in my opinion.... I'm interested in the "broader terms" of the original concept and practice.... It seems to me more influential in the Bahai community, or the general tendency, I should say.... Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 1:33 AM To: irfan@umich.edu; talisman@umich.edu Subject: anonymous remailers I am sorry to inform you that a devoted Baha'i who has in the past been a wonderful and thoughtful and polite contributor to irfan and talisman has been under investigation by the counselors and has received a threatening letter from the "universal" house of "justice". My information, which is second hand, appears to indicate that irfan postings were included in the indictment and had been archived and sent to the accused as proof of his perfidy. This use of Irfan messages (if my information is correct) strikes me as completely unethical (surprise!) on the part of the Baha'i authorities, since they can only have gotten the messages from someone who is on irfan under false pretenses and lied about their willingness to comply with the no-forwarding policy. This individual was always unfailingly polite and never criticized the Baha'i institutions in any way. The only possible charge against him is that he is not a fundamentalist. In all the ridiculous and trumped-up heresy cases that have been brought by the uhj and its counsellors against devoted Baha'is in the past two years, to my knowledge not a single conservative, however rude or obstreperous, has been charged, which pretty clearly signals the real intent of these show trials and purges. I think it may be time for any Baha'i of liberal views who is involved in regular email conversations to think seriously about becoming anonymous, for self-protection. Talisman is glad to accept anonymous email addresses; the Irfan board should decide the issue there, but I should think there is not a problem as long as anonymity doesn't encourage people to act up. America Online (AOL) allows its subscribers up to six aliases. There are also numerous anonymous remailing services on the Web, the most famous of which is www.hotmail.com. I don't know much about this sort of thing, since I insist on speaking my mind under my own name and then enjoying my notoriety. But I have heard that there is at least one anonmyous remailer that provides excellent security against surveillance of the account. Probably a Web keyword search under anonymous remailer would turn up more information. Obviously, there are thousands of Baha'is who do not share the current uhj's fundamentalist mindset, and they can't put them all on trial, so most of you are probably safe enough. Their tactic appears to be to identify persons who are persistent posters and who therefore are becoming "prominent," with whom they disagree about their vision of the Baha'i faith, and then to target them in hopes of either silencing them or forcing them out of the religion. They probably also hope that a few such publicized cases will scare every other non-fundamentalist into silence, as well. If so, they haven't dealt with many Americans. cheers Juan ---------- From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 10:18 AM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Dissembling From: "Susan Maneck" Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 01:16:10 EST Subject: Re: Dissembling Fred asks regarding the passage I cited from Gleanings: >Is THIS the only passage in the Bahai writings that uses the word "taqiyyih"? Probably not, but it is the one I know off the top of my head. >Are there really no other passages? And yet your article, which I've now >read, seems to acknowledge it as a much broader idea and influence on >especially early Bahai life.... You're too hasty to move onto the Lawh-i >Maqsud, and so forth, if you will.... Linger a little longer.... What my article suggests is that *in practice* Baha'is tended to observe *hikmat* almost identically to the way Muslims observed *taqiyyih.* At times they would even explicitly deny being Baha'is. What they would not do is deny who Baha'u'llah was. To my statement: >>While at times hikmat involves concealing one's genuine views in >>situations of insecurity and possible persecution, Baha'u'llah at other >>times spoke of it in broader terms as that sagacity of spirit which ought >>to typify all of our human interactions at all times. Fred says: >A change of subject, in my opinion.... Or maybe an attempt to apply the principle to the present. :-) Susan Maneck Berry College ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 1:21 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Fw: anonymous remailers Frederick: Absolutely! cheers Juan >May I repost this to news.groups as further comment on tactics used >in cyberspace? > >Frederick Glaysher >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai >The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, >news.announce.newgroups, or at >-----Original Message----- >From: Juan R. I. Cole >To: irfan@umich.edu ; talisman@umich.edu > >Date: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 12:31 AM >Subject: anonymous remailers > > >> >>I am sorry to inform you that a devoted Baha'i who has in the past been a >>wonderful and thoughtful and polite contributor to irfan and talisman has >>been under investigation by the counselors and has received a threatening >>letter from the "universal" house of "justice". My information, which is >>second hand, appears to indicate that irfan postings were included in the >>indictment and had been archived and sent to the accused as proof of his >>perfidy. This use of Irfan messages (if my information is correct) strikes >>me as completely unethical (surprise!) on the part of the Baha'i >>authorities, since they can only have gotten the messages from someone who >>is on irfan under false pretenses and lied about their willingness to >comply >>with the no-forwarding policy. >> >>This individual was always unfailingly polite and never criticized the >>Baha'i institutions in any way. The only possible charge against him is >>that he is not a fundamentalist. In all the ridiculous and trumped-up >>heresy cases that have been brought by the uhj and its counsellors against >>devoted Baha'is in the past two years, to my knowledge not a single >>conservative, however rude or obstreperous, has been charged, which pretty >>clearly signals the real intent of these show trials and purges. >> >>I think it may be time for any Baha'i of liberal views who is involved in >>regular email conversations to think seriously about becoming anonymous, >for >>self-protection. Talisman is glad to accept anonymous email addresses; >the >>Irfan board should decide the issue there, but I should think there is not >a >>problem as long as anonymity doesn't encourage people to act up. >> >>America Online (AOL) allows its subscribers up to six aliases. There are >>also numerous anonymous remailing services on the Web, the most famous of >>which is www.hotmail.com. I don't know much about this sort of thing, >since >>I insist on speaking my mind under my own name and then enjoying my >>notoriety. But I have heard that there is at least one anonmyous remailer >>that provides excellent security against surveillance of the account. >>Probably a Web keyword search under anonymous remailer would turn up more >>information. >> >>Obviously, there are thousands of Baha'is who do not share the current >uhj's >>fundamentalist mindset, and they can't put them all on trial, so most of >you >>are probably safe enough. Their tactic appears to be to identify persons >>who are persistent posters and who therefore are becoming "prominent," with >>whom they disagree about their vision of the Baha'i faith, and then to >>target them in hopes of either silencing them or forcing them out of the >>religion. They probably also hope that a few such publicized cases will >>scare every other non-fundamentalist into silence, as well. If so, they >>haven't dealt with many Americans. >> >> >>cheers Juan >> >> > > > ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 1:55 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Fw: anonymous remailers Frederick: Absolutely! cheers Juan >May I repost this to news.groups as further comment on tactics used >in cyberspace? > >Frederick Glaysher >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai >The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, >news.announce.newgroups, or at >-----Original Message----- >From: Juan R. I. Cole >To: irfan@umich.edu ; talisman@umich.edu > >Date: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 12:31 AM >Subject: anonymous remailers > > >> >>I am sorry to inform you that a devoted Baha'i who has in the past been a >>wonderful and thoughtful and polite contributor to irfan and talisman has >>been under investigation by the counselors and has received a threatening >>letter from the "universal" house of "justice". My information, which is >>second hand, appears to indicate that irfan postings were included in the >>indictment and had been archived and sent to the accused as proof of his >>perfidy. This use of Irfan messages (if my information is correct) strikes >>me as completely unethical (surprise!) on the part of the Baha'i >>authorities, since they can only have gotten the messages from someone who >>is on irfan under false pretenses and lied about their willingness to >comply >>with the no-forwarding policy. >> >>This individual was always unfailingly polite and never criticized the >>Baha'i institutions in any way. The only possible charge against him is >>that he is not a fundamentalist. In all the ridiculous and trumped-up >>heresy cases that have been brought by the uhj and its counsellors against >>devoted Baha'is in the past two years, to my knowledge not a single >>conservative, however rude or obstreperous, has been charged, which pretty >>clearly signals the real intent of these show trials and purges. >> >>I think it may be time for any Baha'i of liberal views who is involved in >>regular email conversations to think seriously about becoming anonymous, >for >>self-protection. Talisman is glad to accept anonymous email addresses; >the >>Irfan board should decide the issue there, but I should think there is not >a >>problem as long as anonymity doesn't encourage people to act up. >> >>America Online (AOL) allows its subscribers up to six aliases. There are >>also numerous anonymous remailing services on the Web, the most famous of >>which is www.hotmail.com. I don't know much about this sort of thing, >since >>I insist on speaking my mind under my own name and then enjoying my >>notoriety. But I have heard that there is at least one anonmyous remailer >>that provides excellent security against surveillance of the account. >>Probably a Web keyword search under anonymous remailer would turn up more >>information. >> >>Obviously, there are thousands of Baha'is who do not share the current >uhj's >>fundamentalist mindset, and they can't put them all on trial, so most of >you >>are probably safe enough. Their tactic appears to be to identify persons >>who are persistent posters and who therefore are becoming "prominent," with >>whom they disagree about their vision of the Baha'i faith, and then to >>target them in hopes of either silencing them or forcing them out of the >>religion. They probably also hope that a few such publicized cases will >>scare every other non-fundamentalist into silence, as well. If so, they >>haven't dealt with many Americans. >> >> >>cheers Juan >> >> > > > ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 1:55 PM To: talisman@umich.edu; irfan@umich.edu Subject: anonymous remailers FYI cheers Juan --------------------------- >If anyone inquires: >There are currently only two safe nymservers: >anon.efga.org >nym.alias.net >The anonymity they provide is good enough, unless the Baha'i Faith has a >deal with certain CdotIdotAdot operatives. ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 1:55 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: forward too to UHJ? Dear Frederick: About 20 people have almost certainly already forwarded the message to the authorities. They are going to declare you a covenant breaker eventually, you know, if they don't just drop you off the rolls the way they did McKenny. You are among the persons whom an anonymous remailer would benefit. cheers Juan >May I also simultaneously, in public, forward your remailer >message to the UHJ as evidence of the widening perception >in cyberspace of Bahai suppression of conscience and >invite them again to enjoin upon Bahais not to vote NO? > > >Frederick Glaysher >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai >The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, >news.announce.newgroups, or at > > > ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 1:56 PM To: Rhonda Wittorf; fdbetts@mindspring.com; belove@sover.net Cc: irfan1@umich.edu; talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: Re[2]: anonymous remailers Look, my dear friends, I didn't send my message to Irfan about anonymous remailers in order to provoke a witch hunt against the people forwarding the messages. I have much more respect for the people who declined to sign on to Irfan because they knew they would feel an impulsion to pass "offending" messages over to the Baha'i administration. But it has long been obvious that a number of persons were signed on to Irfan under false pretences, as, essentially, spies. While I think this makes them "not Baha'is" since Shoghi Effendi strictly forbade lying, I think we can all understand the immature sense of "ethics" that drives them to do this. They are between 3 and 4 on the Kohlberg scale. They don't know how to reconcile their loyalty to the faith with their ethical obligations to other irfanis (stage 3); and they are willing to sacrifice their personal integrity for the sake of a group ideology (an odd mixture of stage 2 and stage 4). All totalitarian organizations and one-party states produce such people, and the Baha'i community is riddled with more informers per square inch than was the old Soviet Union or the Shah's Iran. The reason I sent my message was simply to acknowledge that my expectation that the Baha'i *institutions* would not be so dishonorable as to act on information supplied unethically was incorrect. They appear entirely willing to snoop through informants' reports from private lists for signs of heresy and then to initiate proceedings against the poster. In this situation, and given what has happened to devoted Baha'is who sacrificed so much of their lives for the good of the Baha'i faith and for service to humankind and universal ideals, such as Linda Walbridge, Steve Scholl, David Langness, Michael McKenny and a number of other persons who have been silenced behind the scenes, it appears to me that the only viable way to continue to function as a real Baha'i (as opposed to a fundamentalist cultist masquerading as a Baha'i) in cyberspace is to become anonymous. I have forwarded some information about relatively secure anonymous remailers. I personally think that one of the things that drives the ongoing inquisition is concern about cyberspace visibility translating into electability, so anonymity might be enough to induce the authorities to lay off. The point is that the Baha'i institutions have developed a mixture of totalitarian and fundamentalist ideology that disallows academic scholarship (thus the silencing of Fadil Mazandarani, the expulsion of Abbas Amanat, and the charging of Linda Walbridge and me), disallows independent Baha'i media not controlled by the institutions, and disallows the public expression of individual faith commitments at variance with the totalitarian/fundamentalist orthodoxy. In a very clever set of reversals, these authoritarian policies are actually attributed to Baha'u'llah, `Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi, despite the clear evidence that they did not and would not have approved of any such thing. The various repressive strategies adopted by this one-party Baha'i state, including informing, surveillance, blackballing, threats, administrative sanctions, and ultimately shunning, have been remarkably effective in stultifying Baha'i intellectual and spiritual life and keeping the religion a tiny cult in the industrialized world. (Most Baha'is have no idea how tiny the religion really is--only a few hundred in most European countries, e.g.). The *only* way for the faith to break out of this gridlock and develop and flourish in the West is for the Baha'is to develop civil society. There have to be *public* institutional spaces wherein the failed policies that have caused such stagnation here and elsewhere can be critiqued, wherein critical thinking can be pursued in common, and an alternative to totalitarian fundamentalism developed. The hard-line, old-style Baha'is in the mold of Holley and Furutan are attempting to prevent this healthy development by targeting thinking Baha'is and chasing them out or dropping them off the rolls or silencing them. They think they are defending the faith even though they are wreaking enormous harm to it. Just as Brezhnev thought he was defending socialism in invading Czechoslavakia or Afghanistan, but was in fact digging its grave. If anonymity in email is necessary to go forward with genuine Baha'i thinking, which is to say, with universal love, service to humankind, the unity of science and religion (and therefore of reason and faith), the equal rights of all, freedom of conscience and speech, and other principles we all thought we were endorsing when we joined the Baha'i faith (but the opposite of which are secretly held by the cult "administrative order")--then let there be anonymity. cheers Juan ---------- From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@maroon.tc.umn.edu] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 6:58 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Dissembling From: "Frederick Glaysher" Subject: Re: Dissembling Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 10:42:14 -0500 To my question: >>Are there really no other passages? And yet your article, which I've now >>read, seems to acknowledge it as a much broader idea and influence on >>especially early Bahai life.... You're too hasty to move onto the Lawh-i >>Maqsud, and so forth, if you will.... Linger a little longer.... Susan responds: >What my article suggests is that *in practice* Baha'is tended to observe >*hikmat* almost identically to the way Muslims observed *taqiyyih.* At >times they would even explicitly deny being Baha'is. What they would not >do is deny who Baha'u'llah was. I'm more interested in "taqiyyih" becoming a broadly accepted way of conduct among Bahais.... What Marshall Hodgson states, whom you cite, as a "pattern of gradation and concealment of knowledge." Such patterns erode integrity and other virtues.... They lead to all manner of abuse, the end justifying the means.... >To Susan's statement: >>>While at times hikmat involves concealing one's genuine views in >>>situations of insecurity and possible persecution, Baha'u'llah at other >>>times spoke of it in broader terms as that sagacity of spirit which >>>ought to typify all of our human interactions at all times. >Fred says: >>A change of subject, in my opinion.... Susan: >Or maybe an attempt to apply the principle to the present. :-) Not to my mind.... Or we might perhaps apply them in different ways.... Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 8:51 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Re[2]: anonymous remailers Dear Frederick: As far as I'm concerned, if I said it in cyberspace, anyone is welcome to use it. cheers Juan ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 8:51 PM To: Richard C. Logan; Talisman Subject: Re: anonymous remailers Dear Richard: I must say I am shocked and disturbed at your diatribe at me. When did I ever attack you or bring your character and motivations into question? Are you really doing to others as you would have them do unto you? > He has mounted a bitter campaign >against Baha'i institutions for some time now posting anything he can >find that might tend to discredit the Rulers and the Learned of this >Cause. Well, actually, I am the one against whom a bitter campaign was mounted, by Farzam Arbab, Doug Martin, Ian Semple, Fred Schechter, Monajjem, Stephen Birkland, and others. I was just minding my own business, studying the writings and doing deepenings for the friends in cyberspace. All of a sudden I am being made out some kind of proto-covenant breaker. And the charges against me were things like talking about Baha'u'llah as a historical person. Stephen Birkland sat in my living room and accused me of talking about Baha'u'llah as a historical person. And this sort of nonsense was being construed by the uhj and the itc as covenantal. He was a historical person, by the way. And after they drove me out of the faith I loved with these utterly false and dishonest charges, the cued or at least allowed their minions to go around slandering me as mentally unbalanced or as thirsting for leadership or some such. Let me ask you, Richard. What exactly have I done to any of these cultists that even slightly compares to what they did to me? >There were several instances of this last year including an >attack on a very mild mannered and self-effacing Counselor who resides in >Canada. Those who were subscribed to the list last year will remember >this sad episode. Your self-effacing Dr. Ghadirian stood up in front of a large crowd in London, where I was not present, and libelled me and David Langness as "enemies from within" of the Baha'i faith. Being a counsellor does not give him license to backbite or to spread falsehoods in public. All I did was protest being treated this way by him. I still haven't gotten the apology from him I deserve, by the way. >I'm not a member of Irfan because Juan Cole wouldn't allow me to join >when he started the list because he considered me one of those perfidious >fundamentalists he's always excoriating. Richard, I haven't had anything to do with Irfan@umich.edu for a very long time. Take it up with their board. When it started it was a private list I ran off my x500 program, and I let people on to it who I thought were involved in serious Baha'i studies. I suppose you have amply demonstrated what you thought and think of me, which doesn't exactly call into question my earlier judgment. But I do want you to know that I bear you no ill will and that I know you can be very sweet, and that it is your desire for unity and harmony that drives you to demonize me for protesting injustice. I don't like the role that has been thrust on me, either, you know. But I don't see how I can lie down and let these people walk all over my friends; it wouldn't be right. As for the Inquisition launched against a friend of ours, your questioning of my assertion is just a muddying of the waters. After what happened to the prominent Talismanians and to Michael McKenny, does a further Inquisition really sound so implausible to you? Anyway, all I said was I now think if someone wants to be a true Baha'i in cyberspace, they'd better do it anonymously. What's wrong with my saying that? cheers Juan ---------- From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU] Sent: Thursday, December 04, 1997 12:42 AM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Dissembling From: "Susan Maneck" Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 23:04:12 EST Subject: Re: Dissembling Fred writes: >I'm more interested in "taqiyyih" becoming a broadly accepted way of >conduct among Bahais.... What Marshall Hodgson states, whom you cite, as a >"pattern of gradation and concealment of knowledge." Such patterns erode >integrity and other virtues.... They lead to all manner of abuse, the end >justifying the means.... That is a real danger and one which I allude to in my article. In a recent letter I wrote to the Universal House of Justice I suggested that some of the tensions which have developed between academics and the administration have their roots in the Western emphasis on truth at all cost vs. the eastern emphasis on "wisdom." I asked how such principles can be reconciled without sacrificing integrity. It will be interesting to hear their response. Susan Maneck Berry College ---------- From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram[SMTP:jarmstro@iusb.edu] Sent: Thursday, December 04, 1997 5:54 PM To: irfan Cc: Talisman Subject: reliabilty of information It would seem appropriate to mention that I know from sources other than Juan that the information he gave about a list member being under 'investigation' because of postings is correct. This has actually being going on for some time. I might also mention, that the time I worked at the National Center included the period covered by the 'Wilson diary' as it has been seen in electronic form. Whoever may be the author of that text, those events for which I have personal knowledge are accurately portrayed, however 'colorized' these passages may seem to those who were not there. I do not intend to engage in any discussion or further elaboration of this post. I simply felt that it needed to be made clear that just because news comes from Juan that does not in itself make it dismissable. Jackson ---------- From: Susan Maneck[SMTP:smaneck@BERRY.EDU] Sent: Thursday, December 04, 1997 7:19 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Bhagavad Gita Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 23:59:15 -0500 From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: H-Bahai Bhagavad Gita I think the position of the Bhagavad Gita in the eyes of Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha may have been much more ambiguous than has been suggested here. Baha'u'llah knew the major themes of the Gita indirectly through the Yoga Vasistha, a Persian translation of which Mir Findiriski had edited for Iranians on his return from India in the 17th century. He favorably mentions the long chronology for the world in the Yoga Vasistha in a tablet published in Iqtidarat and translated in *Gleanings*. The English translation has him referring to the Kitab-i Juk , but it should be transliterated Kitab-i Jog, i.e., the Book of Yoga or the Yoga Vasistha. That is, Baha'u'llah actually favors the long ages of the Hindu yugas *over* biblical, Zoroastrian and Islamic "short" chronologies for the creation of the universe (6,000-12,000 years). It doesn't seem to me that this is evidence for any favoritism by him toward the Qur'an over Hindu works. Baha'u'llah almost certainly knew a good deal about Hinduism. Basir-i Hindi had written Babi works influenced by Hindu philosophy in the early 1850s. The *Dabistan-i Madhahib* or School of Religions--a Persian book on comparative religions from the Akbar period in India--was lithographed three times in the 19th century and it has a section on Hinduism. When Manakji quoted the Bhagavad-Gita to Baha'u'llah (the Persian text is in vol. 7 of Ma'idih-i Asmani) and talked about the rise of avatars when society disintegrates, Baha'u'llah does not say anything like "That is not authentic scripture" or "Only the Qur'an is valid." He replies to Manakji's quote from the Gita, saying that he had written much the same thing in the Iqan. That is, Baha'u'llah made an *explicit* comparison between this famous verse of the Gita and his own Book of Certitude, affirming their similarity. In Paris Talks `Abdu'l-Baha refers to Krishna as a "Prophet," and in Islam prophets are generally thought to have books. From an academic point of view, of course, the Bhagavad-Gita is a late (2nd century B.C.?) text by anonymous hands. Although it represents itself as part of the Mahabharata, the Hindu epic, contemporary scholars are not willing to include it in the scholarly edition of the latter since it is thought a later add-on work. If Krishna existed at all, he was probably a contemporary of David and Solomon in the 10th century B.C., and the Bhagavad-Gita has as much connection with him as the Book of Daniel has with David and Solomon (if any of them existed). But Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha did not know any of this, and it is not at all clear from the evidence at hand that they would have entirely ruled the Bhagavad Gita out as possessing, at least in parts, some divine inspiration. cheers Juan Cole History University of Michigan ---------- From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU] Sent: Thursday, December 04, 1997 8:15 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Dissembling Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 00:54:21 -0800 Subject: Re: Dissembling From: white-wolf-arts@juno.com (robert b stauffer) There were not a few Baha'is who fled Iran in the early 1980's, after controls to prevent them from leaving the country were set up by the Revolutionary Governement, by disguising themselves as other than Baha'is (i.e. dissembling their Faith, rather than risk being turned back or worse). The UHJ made it clear that those leaving by virtue of the false pretense of being other than a Baha'i would have their administrative rights removed. Here is one letter from the UHJ explaining this situation: Letter from the Universal House of Justice 3 July 1985 Department of the Secretariat To the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States Dear Baha'i Friends, In reply to your letter of 13 June concerning the restoration of administrative rights for those who left Iran with official exit permits, the Universal House of Justice has requested us to convey the following guidance on its behalf. When a person who has been deprived of his administrative rights applies for reinstatement, various factors have to be considered by your National Spiritual Assembly before reaching any decision. The person should express regret for the action which has resulted in sanctions being imposed on him. An admission of guilt may be perceived as a sign of true repentance. Although there is no way to be absolutely sure of the feelings of the believer, the House of Justice suggests that one can judge to a certain extent the believer's sincerity by his outward expression of repentance i.e. the actions of the believer during the period he has been under sanction. In other words, if your National Assembly is convinced that during this period the person has not done anything to harm the Faith, has made evident his profound regret at the action he performed, and provided that other factors in his case do not indicate anything to the contrary, you may recommend to the House of Justice that the individual be reinstated. In the cases of any competent Local Spiritual Assembly which enjoys the confidence of your National Assembly, you may wish to endorse its recommendation provided you are satisfied that the above mentioned criteria have been considered by the Local Spiritual Assembly. Those who have recanted their faith in order to come out of Iran should not receive the impression that after the passage of a year, by simply writing a letter of regret, they would be automatically admitted into the Baha'i community. Each case has to be studied separately. The result of this study must be conveyed to the House of Justice, which will reach a decision on the case in question only after consultation with the friends in Iran. One of the reasons why the House of Justice is so particular about these cases is that it does not wish any person to be under the false impression that anyone can use the Faith for his own personal convenience whenever it suits his self-interest. The believers who have denied their faith in order to leave Iran should realize that they have betrayed the many steadfast Baha'is who, at the cost of their lives, have steadfastly refused to recant their faith. With loving Baha'i greetings, (signed) Betty Frost For the Department of the Secretariat There were some Baha'is who left Iran with relatives who dissembled for them without their relative's knowledge; that is, a few told the authorities that the relatives traveling with them were also not Baha'is [ i.e. we are Muslim]. While Baha'is would be retained and not allowed to leave Iran if they admitted on exit-visas they were Baha'i (in the place on the visa that asked what religion they belonged to), other religious followers could be allowed to go. Those relatives, be they knowledgeable or not of the manner in which another relative essentially lied for them to get them out of the country, also had their Baha'i administrative rights removed. Most who left in this manner have had their rights restored in the ensuing years. A few have never been reinstated, refusing to request reinstatment, feeling this punitive measure by the Baha'i administration was too harsh a treatment for people seeking refuge from the persecution they faced if they had admitted they were Baha'i to the Iranian authorities. Rob S. ---------- From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU] Sent: Thursday, December 04, 1997 8:18 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Dissembling From: "Frederick Glaysher" Subject: Re: Dissembling Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 08:35:13 -0500 >Frederick asked: >>>>Are there really no other passages [regarding Wisdom/Hikmat]? Bijan responds: >Here are a few more passages from Baha'u'llah regarding the use of Hikmat >(Wisdom): I'm more interested in "taqiyyih." I feel that's the more prevalant influence on Bahai thinking and practice for some.... Its moral tenor.... Susan Maneck mentions in her paper that Shiites commit taqiyyih with Sunnis. Does it work in reverse? That is, is there a Sunni form of taqiyyih? Or a universal sense of it for Muslims of any background, with any believer or non-believer? In defense of Islam, is anything permissible? Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: TLCULHANE[SMTP:TLCULHANE@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, December 04, 1997 11:11 PM To: nineteen@door.net Cc: irfan1@umich.edu; talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: Re[2]: anonymous remailers Dear Richard , If I said more accurately that the existence of an informant culture within the Bahai community and that many seem to think this is an acceptable ethic is one of the biggest embarassments of my life - would that sound less hollow. It may be rhetoric to you but is a visceral spiritual anguish for me. warm regards, Terry p.s. the current rumor is not a rumor ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Friday, December 05, 1997 1:09 AM To: Richard C. Logan; Talisman Subject: Re: anonymous remailers >I said I imagined you believe you are doing some kind of good and I meant >it, but I don't believe you can step back from yourself and see the harm >you are causing. Dear Richard: Could you please be more specific about *my* causing any harm? Human beings, real, living human beings, are being manipulated, libelled, given nightmares, silenced or forced out, and having the most treasured parts of their identity torn from them. It happened to me. It happened to Linda Walbridge. It happened to Steve Scholl. It happened to Michael McKenny. And it has happened to many others behind the scenes, who decided to handle it differently. This is being done to devoted Baha'is. Linda Walbridge pioneered in difficult circumstances in both Lebanon and Jordan, and she made enormous sacrifices (including monetary and quality-of-life sacrifices with regard to her children) for the faith while her husband was working for it on the Encyclopedia project. She never harmed the faith she loved. Unlike the treasurer of the Phoenix LSA, she never embezzled $70,000 from the Baha'i faith, yet the treasurer of the Phoenix LSA is still a Baha'i and has not been accused of contravening the covenant. Unlike some high Baha'i officials she was never guilty of any infraction of Baha'i law or of sexual harrassment or of lying to the Baha'is. Yet they have cushy offices and make pompous speeches and are being paid out of your donations to the faith. What was her crime? To express her views on email, views which were legitimately hers as a Baha'i in good standing (i.e. she was guilty of doing the same thing that Richard Logan and Burl Barer do every day). She had the right to declare her conscience and express her views, according to Shoghi Effendi. That right was withdrawn from her suddenly, by narrow-minded elderly men eager to slap down an uppity woman. And she was forced out of the faith she loved, by the very people who should have been nurturing her faith and helping her forward. She was betrayed, deeply, treasonously, inexcusably. And this is somehow *my* fault? >I'm convinced >that it was unnecessary for things to have come to this--that you allowed >yourself to be swept into a self-fullfilling prophecy. I could be very >wrong in this but I'm letting know as a brother and a collegial admirer. Richard, if I wanted revenge there are lots of ways for me to get it far more efficacious than sending occasional messages to 80 Baha'is. I was in the religion for nearly quarter of a century. I have lots of documentation of Baha'i leaders' peccadilloes. I'm not interested in that sort of thing. When you set out for revenge you have to be sure to dig *two* graves. What I am interested in doing is protesting against the *systemic* injustices being committed against Baha'is by their own administration. And I have the same interest in this as I do protesting, as a member of Amnesty International, violations of human rights in any setting. When the Baha'i administration stops conducting intellectual pogroms and inquisitions that are contrary to Baha'i law and contrary to basic Baha'i scriptural principle, then all you will hear from me is translations of Baha'u'llah's tablets. >The question of credibility is always at issue when allegations are made. I said that I was provided information from a source I trust (who was in direct contact with the principal), that an Irfani is currently being prosecuted for email messages that include Irfan messages, which the prosecutors (i.e. the uhj and the counselors) can only have received illicitly and can only use by disregarding the right to privacy and confidentiality that should be enjoyed by everyone on irfan. I stand by this statement and I think there are enough others who know the particulars such that I need not be seen as the only source for this information, nor is it biased in any way. As for the possibility that I could have handled things differently, I respectfully disagree. While I am glad to say I am all to fallible and make mistakes all the time (something your uhj, out of institutional pride, would never admit about *itself*), I do not believe this was one of them. You see, I put up with quite a lot over the years from the Baha'i administration, and I never considered leaving the faith. It was not a matter, as with Louis Gregory, of my simply being dropped off salary. I was never on salary, and never sought to be. I endured being buttonholed and hassled about my academic writing (which is no one's business but mine), and I endured being backbitten & so forth. For 24 years. But when the Baha'i *institutions& *falsely* accused me of contravening a covenant for which I had risked my life on more than one occasion, it demonstrated to me that the religion had gone seriously bad, that it had become corrupt and cult-like, and that there was no place in it for persons like myself except if they should live their lives in silence and in fear of the ignorant and narrow-minded. Since this is demonstrably the opposite of what Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha wanted for the world, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the religion has been betrayed by its leaders, just as Islam was betrayed by the ulama and Christianity was betrayed by the popes and the priests. Roman Catholicism has benefitted enormously from the Protestant, secular and other non-Catholic critique it has been submitted to in the past 400 years, and is demonstrably a better religion after Vatican II than it was during the Inquisition. And in the same way that the non-Catholics have done so much to help the Church right itself after it had gone deeply astray from Jesus's principles, so non-Baha'is with an intimate knowledge of the Baha'i faith have a duty to try to help that religion return to its scriptural roots and principles. This is all the more urgent given that those Baha'is within the administrative order who speak out about the problems they see are swiftly silenced or expelled. And just as the Vatican has never thanked Voltaire for helping reform it, I doubt the Baha'i authorities, after they finally have their version of Vatican II and release the poor Baha'is from intellectual bondage, will thank any of us who helped them achieve that reform. So be it. But that is what is desirable: that the Baha'i institutions start acting as Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi would have wanted them to, instead of like Inquisitors and musty Stalinists. cheers Juan ---------- From: S. Hazini[SMTP:sohazini@OntheNet.com.au] Sent: Saturday, December 06, 1997 8:32 PM To: talisman@umich.edu Subject: [Fwd: FYI] <> ---------- From: S. Hazini[SMTP:sohazini@OntheNet.com.au] Sent: Saturday, December 06, 1997 8:32 PM To: talisman@umich.edu Subject: [Fwd: Libel defined in Australian/QLD Law (Re: FYI)] <> ---------- From: Susan Maneck[SMTP:smaneck@berry.edu] Sent: Friday, December 05, 1997 12:37 PM To: Frederick Glaysher (by way of Negar Mottahedeh) Cc: mod-hb@umich.edu Subject: Re: Dissembling Dear Fred, Negar and I have discussed your proposed posting to H-Bahai. We both agree it is rather too polemical for an academic forum. If you would like tone down its emotional content and focus on the issues involved you are welcome to resubmit. You do have an important point here to make, but it needs to be done without attacking. Susan Maneck > > Susan Maneck writes: > > >That is a real danger and one which I allude to in my article. In a recent > >letter I wrote to the Universal House of Justice I suggested that some of > >the tensions which have developed between academics and the administration > >have their roots in the Western emphasis on truth at all cost vs. the > >eastern emphasis on "wisdom." > > There's no "wisdom" in deceit, lies, fabrications, distortions, > suppression, tyranny, blackballing, intrigue, ignominy, > skullduggery.... The euphemistic twisting of "wisdom" drains > all proper meaning from the word.... > > >I asked how such principles can be reconciled > >without sacrificing integrity. It will be interesting to hear their > >response. > > Or whether it will be sophistry.... > > Frederick Glaysher > > > ---------- From: Susan Maneck[SMTP:smaneck@berry.edu] Sent: Friday, December 05, 1997 3:02 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Dissembling Thank you for your cooperation. ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Friday, December 05, 1997 6:15 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Fw: Dissembling Dear Frederick: Yes, Susan also cc'd me her comments. You should be aware in general that any rejection of a post can be politely appealed to the board of four moderators. In this case, though, I think we would all agree that she has a point. cheers Juan ---------- From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU] Sent: Sunday, December 07, 1997 3:04 AM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Baha'u'llah, Neoplatonism, and Hinduism Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 18:45:45 -0500 =46rom: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: Baha'u'llah, Neoplatonism, and Hinduism Dear Theo: I shall address only the parts of your message that have to do with my reasoning and evidence. I do not believe this list is the right place to pursue a discussion of private theological beliefs; it is for examining texts and evidence and for reasoning about those. 1) Whether Baha'i metaphysics is "Neoplatonic" would, of course, depend on your definition of Neoplatonic. But when I say that Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha had a Neoplatonic metaphysics I mean that in the broad sense that the discourses out of which they work were formed over a millennium as a mixture of Platonism, Neoplatonism, Suhravardi's Illuminationism, Aristotelian thought, and Sufism. If one defined Neoplatonism strictly as only the Plotinus positions, then, well, one might well find Baha'i positions at variance with Plotinus. Many medieval Muslim thinkers mistakenly thought that the Enneads were by Aristotle, and they ended up mixing in a lot of Aristotelianism into their Neoplatonism. So "Islamic Neoplatonism" is a special kind of creature from the point of view of European philosophy. But certainly Baha'i texts do use the technical terminology and adopt most of the philosophical positions of Islamic Neoplatonism. What would be interesting would be a precise study of where exactly the two diverge. 2) You say that I asserted Baha'u'llah's familiarity with Hindu texts merely on the grounds that Mir Findiriski introduced them into Iranian philosophy in the Safavid period. However, I wish you would reread my message. What I said was that Baha'u'llah *cited* the Laghu Yoga Vasistha, demonstrating knowledge of its contents, and that he preferred its "long chronology" (Hindu yugas are millions of years) to the traditional Zoroastrian, biblical and quranic chronologies of the world, which begin between 6 to 12 thousand years ago. Mir Findiriski's edition of the Yoga Vasistha was known as the Kitab-i Jug, and in Baha'u'llah's Iqtidarat the "g" was written without the over-stroke, so it looks like a "k". So Shoghi Effendi transliterated it as Kitab-i Juk. Now, Baha'u'llah is referring his correspondent to this book as an example of how some (here Hindu) historical traditions admit a very great age for the earth and the universe, a proposition Baha'u'llah himself puts forward. Since Baha'u'llah had obviously read this book, we may conclude that he knew the information it contained. And the information in the Kitab-i Jug included a precis of the Bhagavad Gita. If you want proof of Baha'u'llah's general familiarity with the works of Mir Findiriski, I would point to *Epistle to the Son of the Wolf*, p. 41: "Referring to this, the Siyyid of Findirisk hath well said: "This theme no mortal mind can fathom; be it even that of Ab=FA-Nasr, or Ab=FA-`Al=ED S=EDn= =E1 (Avicenna)." In Baha'u'llah's exchange with Manakji Sahib, a translation of which I believe you have seen, Manakji discusses Hinduism at length and Baha'u'llah seems entirely willing to incorporate it into his schema of progressive revelation as set out in the Book of Certitude. The passage citing the Yoga Vasistha is in Gleanings pp. 174-175: "And now regarding thy question, "How is it that no records are to be found concerning the Prophets that have preceded Adam, the Father of Mankind, or of the kings that lived in the days of those Prophets?" Know thou that the absence of any reference to them is no proof that they did not actually exist. That no records concerning them are now available, should be attributed to their extreme remoteness, as well as to the vast changes which the earth hath undergone since their time. =46urthermore, among existing historical records differences are to be found= , and each of the various peoples of the world hath its own account of the age of the earth and of its history. Some trace their history as far back as eight thousand years, others as far as twelve thousand years. To any one that hath read the book of Juk it is clear and evident how much the accounts given by the various books have differed." I just don't see how such evidence of Baha'u'llah's familiarity with (and often approval of) Hinduism can be swept away or ignored. cheers Juan ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Sunday, December 07, 1997 2:37 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Private Greetings. If you are well, it is well. Elizabeth Holden ab248@freenet.carleton.ca I am working on separate post for news.groups. Sorry for great busyness which has reduced my participation. I hope tomorrow at the latest I'll post my hopefully significant comment. May this find you well and may the future exceed our hopes. Michael p.s. I don't really feel that reply to Dean is quite on topic for news.groups. I'm trying to be more precise in forthcoming post. -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Monday, December 08, 1997 8:23 AM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Private Greetings. Kindly send me a copy of what you'd like me to reply to. Farewell, Michael > >If you can respond in any way to Kathy Pascoe, it would be >a great help.... > >Frederick Glaysher >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai >The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, >news.announce.newgroups, or at > >-----Original Message----- >From: McKenny Michael >To: FG@hotmail.com >Date: Sunday, December 07, 1997 1:37 PM >Subject: Private > > >>Greetings. >> If you are well, it is well. >> Elizabeth Holden ab248@freenet.carleton.ca >> I am working on separate post for news.groups. Sorry for great >>busyness which has reduced my participation. I hope tomorrow at the >>latest I'll post my hopefully significant comment. >> May this find you well and may the future exceed our hopes. >> Michael >> >>p.s. I don't really feel that reply to Dean is quite on topic for >>news.groups. I'm trying to be more precise in forthcoming post. >> >> >> >>-- >>"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." >> (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) >> >> > > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) ---------- From: Richard C. Logan[SMTP:nineteen@door.net] Sent: Monday, December 08, 1997 1:41 PM To: TLCULHANE Cc: irfan1@umich.edu; Talisman Subject: Re: Re[2]: anonymous remailers > > Dear Richard , > > If I said more accurately that the existence of an informant culture >within the Bahai community and that many seem to think this is an acceptable >ethic is one of the biggest embarassments of my life - would that sound less >hollow. > It may be rhetoric to you but is a visceral spiritual anguish for >me. > > warm regards, > Terry > > p.s. the current rumor is not a rumor > I hope you'll understand that not everyone sees things this way. A person may well feel they are acting in everyone's best interests in informing the Institutions about things that trouble them, in like manner I imagine you feel you are acting in everyone's best interests when you express your point of view. We should be willing if necessary to own up to our convictions. If we are wise in our expression alarm bells are not likely to be sounded in others. If our views are secretively passed about the potential for problems is unavoidable. This secretiveness IMO is at the root of much of the distrust that characterizes relations between some individual believers and their institutions. One of the most troubling aspects of this pattern is an attempt by critics to control the flow of information about each accusation in such a manner as to frame the discussion very narrowly without access to any facts. Just enough information is made available to assert a problem but never enough to evaluate its significance. This latest incident is a perfect example of the pattern. i Richard C. Logan Editor: Unified Star nineteen@door.net Maintain HomePage: The Baha'is of Lubbock https://door.net/nineteen/ The further you go, the less you know. (Toa-te ching, ch. 47.) ---------- From: Susan Maneck[SMTP:smaneck@BERRY.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 1997 3:51 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Neoplatonism Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 09:41:44 -0500 From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: H-Bahai: Neoplatonism Steve, I very much appreciate your recent contributions, and I agree with most of what you say. But I hope you will take in the spirit of friendship and intellectual interchange my desire to press you on the paragraph below, in hopes of gaining greater clarity about your proposition, which as it now stands seems rather murky to me. You wrote: "To this we should add, from the Baha'i viewpoint, another possibility: 5) Or a thinker (a 'Prophet') might draw upon some ineffable, eternal spiritual reservoir to which others have but limited access, and clothe this insight in the garment of the words and concepts current to the time and place in which the thinker lived. That this insight ('Revelation') so closely corresponds to an existing system of thought is, in this view, a testimony to the unity of the spiritual source that essentially precedes them both." Despite the fact that this is a theological statement, it does contain a set of propositions about religion and language that I would like to try to unpack and to see where they would lead, in a "philosophy of religions" sort of way. I frankly don't entirely understand your point. "a thinker (a 'Prophet') might draw upon some ineffable, eternal spiritual reservoir" Ineffable means something that cannot be expressed in words. Eternal means everlasting. Reservoir is here a metaphor for some pooled "space," and "spiritual" presumably has to do with matters of religious meaning, ethics, mystical states, and so forth. But if the insight is truly ineffable, then how can it be expressed through Neoplatonic metaphysics, since what can be expressed is not ineffable? If it is truly eternal, then it has always existed; why express it in non-Neoplatonic terms in the Qur'an but in Neoplatonic terms in the Baha'i scriptures? "and clothe this insight in the garment of the words and concepts current to the time and place in which the thinker lived" How exactly do we separate out the "ineffable, eternal, spiritual insight" from the "words and concepts current to the time and place"? The words and concepts are employed to convey propositions. When `Abdu'l-Baha says that the cosmos has always existed, how is that conveying an "insight" that is more supercharged with "ineffable" spirituality than when all other previous Neoplatonists had said the same thing? I am not denying that such a thing is possible, only asking for clarification. "That this insight ('Revelation') so closely corresponds to an existing system of thought is, in this view, a testimony to the unity of the spiritual source that essentially precedes "them both." So there is a "spiritual source" or reservoir. And Suhravardi and other Islamic Neoplatonists drew on it to produce their human system of thought. Is that what you are saying? And so when Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha received their inspiration from the same "spiritual source," it was natural that they expressed it in the terms of Islamic Neoplatonism, which was the closest existing human discourse to the insights they wished to convey? This schema seems to imply that Suhravardi and other Neoplatonic sages were inspired (if this is what you are saying, Corbin and the Corbinists will be very happy with you). The corollary of this would be that all the other competing streams of Islamic thought--Ash`arism, strict Peripateticism, Ibn Qudamah's "Tertullianism," Scholasticism, etc., were not inspired but mere human creations. Are we then privileging Suhravardi as a preeminent Muslim saint, for rescuing Platonism and Neoplatonism in an Islamic framework? But if this was so important, why not build it into the Qur'an to begin with? Why does the Qur'an have to be rescued via Plato and Plotinus? The problem, of course, is that the Qur'an is decidedly *not* Neoplatonic. Of course, Plotinus had not yet been translated into Arabic. So are you suggesting that perhaps Plotinus drew on the spiritual reservoir, but since his discourse was not available to Muhammad's milieu, Muhammad used other discourses to convey the spiritual insights revealed to him? But The Qur'an clearly does *not* think the cosmos is eternal. If Plotinus and Muhammad are drinking at the same reservoir, why do they come up with different propositions about so basic a matter as cosmogony? And, if these insights are so detachable from any set of metaphysical propositions, wherein do they consist? What is the "insight" that is conveyed equally well by the propositions "God created the world in 6 days" *and* "the world has always existed?" Personally, I am open to the idea of "spiritual insights," but I think they are images that produce moods and states in the believer, or are ethical teachings that move us from conventionality to post-conventionality, or they provoke mystical apprehension. I can't see how a proposition like "the material universe has always existed" (which may or may not be true--you would know better than I) contains a "spiritual insight" or how Islamic Neoplatonism is necessarily a superior vehicle for such insights to other metaphysics or no metaphysics. cheers Juan Cole History Univ. of Michigan ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 1997 12:38 PM To: bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us Cc: Talisman@umich.edu; Irfan@umich.edu; dbikman@bwc.org Subject: Loyalty to the Covenant *The Baha'i Studies List* Greetings, David, from Ottawa. If you are well, it is well. No, you have not correctly understood me. I am the one who forwarded the message from the Universal House of Justice saying they are not opposed to the formation of an unmoderated newsgroup on the Baha'i Faith (Talk.Religion.Bahai) as well as that there is the kind of freedom of expression by Baha'is to which you refer to news.groups (the USENET site of this consultation) as well as to a number of Baha'i sites. I am the one who has repeatedly advised the moderators of the moderated Baha'i sites (including soc.religion.bahai) that refusal to permit discussion of talk.religion.bahai could only confirm the impression that the Baha'i Faith is not serious about freedom of thought and expression, that this refusal would most fully demonstrate to non-Baha'is the need for an unmoderated newsgroup. I agree with you that this message from the Universal House of Justice calls for freedom of expression, even though very few of the Baha'is have indicated they believe this. I believe there are now a lot of non-Baha'is attentively awaiting this vote to see whether the Baha'is are serious about freedom of expression. If you are indeed prepared to allow the expression of views, if indeed, you are ready to respond with your reasons as to why you'd continue to exclude women from membership on the Universal House of Justice, and truly you have nothing to hids, then you'll prove this to the world by voting YES to Talk.Religion.Bahai Although as a non-Baha'i I am not bound by Baha'i authority, I invite you to read what I replied to Roger, including my statement that the details concerning the eligibility of women on the Baha'i Universal House of Justice contained in the Service of Women Paper did not violate Baha'i authority (Covenant) as they awaited action from the Universal House of Justice which retains full authority to reverse any decision, including its ruling in 1988 that this issue did not lie within its jurisdiction. I have already mentioned re those who would really involve themselves in matters of Baha'i authority, your Covenant Breakers who claim to be Baha'i Popes or High Priests or Grand Shamans or whatever, that were President Clinton to urge Americans to forbid the establishment of an unmoderated newsgroup on US politics on the grounds that loyal Americans could there encounter those claiming to be Emperors or Kings or Grand Dukes of the US of A, he would be the one granting legitimacy to such claimants and causing people to think, "Holy cow, there must really be a true American Emperor." I hope this has made some sense, and shown, I trust, that I am not so much in disagreement with you as you first thought. fare very Well, Michael Message #61 (61 is last): Date: Wed Dec 10 10:34:23 1997 From: dbikman@bwc.org (David Bikman) Subject: Re: For Those Who Feel Loyal To the Covenant To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca Cc: talisman@umich.edu, irfan1@umich.edu, bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us Reply-To: dbikman@bwc.org Mr. McKenny, Let me get this straight: you support an unmoderated Baha'i newsgroup so your views which challenge the Covenant will have the opportunity to reach Baha'is who do not challenge the Covenant. Is this essentially accurate? I am failing to see how you intend your politics to aid your search for truth. -David Bikman PS: To respond in detail: As one who considers himself within the bounds of the Covenant, I have no desire to hide any issue, including the ordainment of men as members of the Universal House of Justice. I have no difficulty accepting it and no qualms about explaining it to others. Also, you interpret a message from the House of Justice as condemning or restricting freedom of expression in cyberspace. I humbly propose, without prejudice, that your understanding of this particular message is limited. Freedom of expression for Baha'is is the brother of the command to independently investigate the truth. Not only is it our privilege, but our duty, to consult with one another in the attempt to resolve personal questions. All is open for discussion-- except the validity of the Authority which makes it possible for us to have these questions. -d End of File, Press RETURN to quit -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 1997 1:24 AM To: pierceed@csus.edu; talisman@umich.edu Cc: sancho_panza@snotmail.com; amadeustoo@rocketmail.com Subject: Re: facile and fractious fusilades/ Re: good will Dear Mr. Bausani: Just please note that I am not subscribed to Irfan1 or Talisman, so if you wish me to hear your criticism, you will have to cc me privately. Please note also that I do not believe my message went to Irfan1 (if it did that was an error on my part and I apologize), nor do I believe Irfan1 is the correct forum for this discussion. I did not claim to be Baha'u'llah, but rather pointed out that if one were to emulate him and take him seriously, one would denounce injustice and take its highly-placed perpetrators publicly to task rather than acquiescing in it. Mr. Birkland and his handlers are not, of course, in the same league as Fuad Pasha, a great man despite the wrong he did to Baha'u'llah, and I suppose it is my fate to have been deprived of my spiritual and intellectual freedom by small men instead of by great ones. Alas. cheers Juan At 01:36 PM 12/10/97 PST8PDT, pierceed@csus.edu wrote: >Bon Journo Sr. Bausani, > >At least as it applies to Richard's statement earlier in this thread, >I'm afraid that this happy little bumpkin was more impressed by Dr. >Cole's parallel than yours (although it remains to be seen exactly how >the example of Baha'u'llah's condemnation of Fuad Pasha fits into the >overall framework of His ethical exhortations to His followers and >humanity). > >It is becoming increasingly obvious that the excuses made for the >Baha'i community's elites and their outmoded values, assumptions and >organization practices, while conveyed through with pious language and >concepts, are frequently serving an *inexcusable* and languid >complacency which serves to prepetuate a wheezing meritocracy. > >Where is all the great enthusiasm for deep self-examination and self- >criticism that one would expect of a vibrant movement seeking to >advance human conciousness? > >Answer: practically nowhere. A vacuum seeks to be filled. > >Tu amic, > >EP > >cc: Sr. Pancha Garbanzo > >On 10 Dec 97 at 11:39, Vincenzo Bausani wrote: > >> Date sent: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 11:39:39 -0800 (PST) >> From: Vincenzo Bausani >> Subject: Re: good will >> To: talisman@umich.edu, irfan1@umich.edu > >> Well, I chuckled at the analgy or historical parallel which the poster >> of the following post drew between himself versus Counsellor Birkland >> and Baha'u'llah versus Fu'ad Pasha because a pilgrim's notes story >> came to my mind. The story is that in one of the many sessions that >> `Abdu'l-Baha had with the arch-breaker of the Covenant, His >> half-brother Mirza Muhammad-Ali (I suppose he would characterize them >> as "inquisitions"), he reportedly told Him that he would wrest the >> reins of administering to the affairs of The Cause from Him just as >> `Umar took the reins of administering to the affairs of the faithful >> Muslims from Ali (about 90% of the Muslim world are Sunnis) to which >> `Abdu'l-Baha reportedly answered something to the effect that neither >> he was as smart as `Umar nor He was as timid as Ali. So, my dear >> Professor, neither you are a Manifestation of God speaking with Divine >> authority nor Counsellor Birkland is as evil as Fu'ad Pasha or >> Torquemada. >> >> Regards, >> VB >> >> Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 17:42:57 MDT >> From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) >> To: "Richard C. Logan" , "Talisman" >> Subject: Re: good will >> >> >> >> >> Well, Richard, all I know is that when Fuad Pasha exiled >> Baha'u'llah to >> Akka, Baha'u'llah didn't just smile and kowtow. He thunderously >> condemned >> Fuad Pasha (see my translation of the Lawh-i Fuad on the H-Bahai >> Web page, >> https://h-net2.msu.edu/~bahai/ under Translations) and basically >> told him to >> go to hell. :-) Now, this was the former prime minister and foreign >> minister of the Ottoman Empire, one of the great statesmen of the >> 19th >> century, and speaking about him that way was illegal according to >> Ottoman >> censorship laws. Baha'u'llah also condemned the Sultan himself, and >> made >> fun of his name (playing on the element "`Aziz" in Abdu'l-`Aziz, >> which is >> from the same root as `Uzzah, the name of a Meccan idol), and >> predicted the >> turmoil in Istanbul and the end of his reign. This was also >> seditious and >> illegal talk at the time. He also complained loudly about being a >> "victim" >> and about the lack of due process by which he and his followers >> were exiled >> without even a trial. >> >> So if we take Baha'u'llah seriously, instead of just invoking his >> name as a >> reason to give shadowy figures money for cornering the world market >> in >> marble, we actually might find this poor non-Baha'i to be emulating >> his >> example more than you might think. And we might find that somehow >> some >> latter-day Fuad Pashas have managed somehow to get elected or >> appointed to >> high Baha'i office. >> >> >> cheers Juan >> >> At 12:18 PM 12/8/97 -0600, Richard C. Logan wrote: >[Juan:] >> >>Could you please be more specific about *my* causing any harm? >> Human >> >>beings, real, living human beings, are being manipulated, >> libelled, given >> >>nightmares, silenced or forced out, and having the most treasured >> parts of >> >>their identity torn from them. It happened to me. It happened to >> Linda >> >>Walbridge. >> > >[Richard:] >> >My Dear Fellow, >> > >> >We've been over this time and again. In the light of the Baha'i >> message >> >your actions can't be justified. We have to improve things by >> acting >> >with goodwill even when things contrary to our wishes take place or >> >people treat us ignorantly. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Friday, December 12, 1997 1:10 PM To: Talisman Subject: Re: The "Science" of History Dear Quanta: The postings you made from Baha'u'llah on acquiescing in the authority of the powers that be had reference to the civil state. The Babis were revolutionaires, and Baha'u'llah was trying to convince them to accept the legitimacy of Qajar rule (very hard for them because Nasiru'd-Din Shah had executed the Bab). Baha'u'llah was also renouncing the Babi theocratic program, saying that he and his religion only wanted to rule hearts, and would leave governmental rule to the civil state. When Baha'u'llah says one shouldn't go against the considered views of the authorities, the word he uses in Persian is irtika:b. This word has the connotation of committing a *crime*. So in the original the text simply advises the Babis not to go around breaking civil laws in a manner that is contrary to the considered views of those who legislated them. I don't actually think either quote was intended to support religious inquisition by anyone, Shi`ite ayatollahs or Baha'i houses of justice. cheers Juan ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Friday, December 12, 1997 2:50 PM To: talisman@umich.edu Subject: democratic (ha!) Richard: After the barbaric and dishonest way the "universal" house of "justice" dealt with Michael McKenny, you are in some state of doubt as to whether there is a fight going on? The fight is to determine whether those who hold the views I listed yesterday may continue to be Baha'is in good standing. The answer is: only if they hide their consciences from view, quaking in fear of the conservatives and fundamentalists who have clawed their way onto the universal house of justice, and who are eager to institute inquisitions and expulsions against anyone who dares actually be a Baha'i and think for him or herself. And the point of these inquisitions and expulsions is to ensure conservative hegemony, to ensure than no voice can be heard in the community save a conservative one. This is not only a fight, it is a full-scale persecution. That would be all right if this were the sort of thing Baha'u'llah or `Abdu'l-Baha had ordained. But it isn't. It is the most profound betrayal of a prophet by his successors since the popes instituted the Inquisition. Quanta: I should think the current universal house of justice has by its pronouncements and actions made abundantly clear that it is not interested in consultation or group reasoning together as a means of problem solving. These people have worked themselves into a state of mind that they think they are prophets speaking with the voice of God, and you either agree with them or you are not a Baha'i and they can arrange to make your life miserable. (They even think they have the authority to say something about legitimate academic methodology! That's the funniest thing of all). They have said this over and over again in the past two years. They are not interested in your faith or sincerity or grappling with difficult questions or trying to work together through consultation to resolve problems. They are interested in dictating a narrow ideology to all Baha'is (despite the fact that there isn't the slightest scriptural mandate for their behaving in this manner), and in having all Baha'is kowtow to it. They don't throw around the word Supreme so much because they like Motown. Since most people don't join a religion because they are desperate for someone to tell them what they can or cannot think or say, the result of this sort of narrow-mindedness is to keep the religion tiny in literate countries. I can't tell you how many ex-Baha'is I have met in cyberspace who complain bitterly about being regimented and shepherded. I mean, you could understand this sort of thing in the Amish, who want to be a small isolationist sect, or in the Catholics, who have believers to spare. But as a tactic for a very small group (I doubt there are really more than 1 1/2 million Baha'is) to attract believers and grow itself into a world religion, it sucks. There are some issues on which it is worthwhile writing to them. This is not one of them. My advice: Do your own thing as long as you can. cheers Juan ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Friday, December 12, 1997 6:37 PM To: pierceed@csus.edu; talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: Tablet to the Shah Baha'u'llah felt that Nasiru'd-Din's antipathy for the Babis was understandable given their attempt to assassinate him, and in the 1868 Tablet to the Shah (yes, it is the same one), he attempted to convince the Shah that the Baha'is were just another religion, not a front for radicalism. However, Baha'u'llah continued to be critical of Nasiru'd-Din's tyranny and that of other members of the Qajar dynasty, which he condemns in the Tablet to the World. He also continued to insist with Nasiru'd-Din Shah that the only thing that would save Iranian monarchy and help Iran's stability was the institution of a parliament, and he said so openly at a time when that was quite illegal. So, Baha'u'llah could be conciliatory, but he continued to denounce tyranny and he tirelessly insisted on democracy. cheers Juan At 11:55 AM 12/12/97 PST8PDT, pierceed@csus.edu wrote: >On 12 Dec 97 at 6:17, Vincenzo Bausani wrote: > >> Date sent: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 06:17:42 -0800 (PST) >> From: Vincenzo Bausani >> Subject: Tablet to the Shah >> To: talisman@umich.edu > >[Eric:] >> I thought conventional wisdom is that the reason for Baha'u'llah's >> light treatment of him was that the Babis tried to kill the Shah? > >I read Dawn Breakers many years ago every fast for about 5 years, and >then later I read Taherzadeh's "Revelation" series a couple of times. >My recollection is mainly from those books, but may have also been >from other sources I have forgot. My recollection of the details of >persian history is so fuzzy that I'm not sure that we are even talking >about the same Shahs. Was the assasination attempt against the same >one that the tablet was addressed to? HELP. > >> My comment: >> I am not sure that is true but that was not my point. My point was >> that you can emulate Him in His Tablet to Nasirid-Din Shah (whom He >> described as "tyrant" in His other Tablets) in addressing injustice. > >I haven't been able to back off this, reread the entire thread and >take time to try to see the big picture. A narrow counterpoint would >be that if your analogy holds true, then perhaps we should conclude >that it is *only* necessary to tolerate unjust administrators who had >been the target of an assasination attempt by liberal Baha'is? > >> Anyway, I would be interested in seeing any references in The Writings >> which would explain His conciliatory tone and style in His Tablet to >> the Persian despot the way you explain it above as conventional wisdom. > >I'm just a lowly bumpkin computer programmer, I'll leave the fine >points to qualified scholars or other interested and better informed >parties. > >I'll have to wait to review the quotes Quanta provided, we just got >the final report spec (3 months late) for a huge federal, and I have >to collect/massage lots of data before semester break. > >EP > > ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Friday, December 12, 1997 7:05 PM To: talisman@umich.edu Subject: Protest to Islamic authorities The following letter written to the heads of states participating in the Islamic Conference Organization meeting in Tehran groups some wll-known progressive intellectuals and addresses issues of concern also to those on the present list. It should be remembered that the same regime responsible for these crackdowns on writers has persecuted the Iranian Baha'i community. Ironically, there is every evidence that many in the Baha'i administration would also not allow freedom of speech to writers if they gained control of the machinery of state. cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan -------------------- OPEN LETTER From: Edward Albee, Homero Aridjis, Yasar Kamal, Edward Said, Michael Scammell, Anthony Appiah, Paul Auster, Nadine Gordimer, Arthur Miller To Heads of States participating in the Islamic Conference (December 8-11, 1997, Tehran) December 8, 1997 We speak today as writers engaged in the constant struggle to defend our right and the right of our colleagues around the world to express ourselves freely without fear of reprisal. This week, two significant events coincide: International Human Rights Day (December 10th) and the Islamic Conference in Tehran (December 8th-11th). In light of the rich literary heritage of the participating countries, we wish to draw attention to the plight of many writers who must struggle every day with the unacceptable choice to either protect their own safety and remain silent; or to speak their minds and risk imprisonment, torture and even death. In Tehran this week, many people will speak, and many will be spoken of: we wish to mention a few who will not. We turn our attention first to the host country of the conference, the Islamic Republic of Iran. By censoring many of its brightest literary figures and silencing all dissent, the government has gone to great lengths to undermine Iran's long and distinguished tradition of letters. The editor, Faraj Sarkuhi, is imprisoned today for nothing more than attempting to speak his mind. He will not be on any agenda at the Conference, but his presence in a cell somewhere nearby will surely cast a cloud over the proceedings. So will the deaths of writers and intellectuals such as Soltanpoor, Saidi-Sirjani, Mir'ala'i, Tafazzoli, and Zalzadeh. The recent suppression of Simin Behbahani shows that the signatories of the 1994 Declaration of 134 Iranian Writers remain in danger today. It is not only in Iran that writers have been censored, imprisoned, exiled, or killed by official and unofficial groups. In Algeria, Abdel Kadr Alloula, the playwright, filmmaker and actor was gunned down for his denunciation of violence. In Syria, the poet, Faraj Birqdar, has been imprisoned for ten years. In Kuwait, Iraqi poet Khalaf Alwan Jallud Al-Maliki is serving 15 years in prison. In Iraq, Aziz Al-Syed Jasim, journalist and author, is imprisoned indefinitely for refusing to write a book about Saddam Hussein. In Turkey, Recep Marasli, a publisher, was arrested in March 1997 for expressing his views on Kurdish culture and identity. Even writers of international stature, such as Turkey's Yasar Kamal and Egypt's Naguib Mahfouz, have been targeted in recent years. We condemn these violations irrespective of the perpetrator. We appeal to the participants in the Islamic Conference to put an end to these abuses and to promote freedom of expression which will inevitably enrich their cultural heritage. We believe that the coincidence of International Human Rights Day and the 1997 Islamic Conference points to a larger truth in which the caprices of chance play no part: try as they may, governments who repress their own citizens cannot escape the standard of freedom set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As we celebrate the declaration*s forty-ninth anniversary this week, we reaffirm our commitment to human rights and our conviction that all leaders who violate such principles as freedom of expression shall witness the erosion of their power, and shall be defeated by the strength inherent in words. Signed Edward Albee, Homero Aridjis, Yasar Kamal, Edward Said, Michael Scammell, Anthony Appiah, Paul Auster, Nadine Gordimer, Arthur Miller ---------- From: Susan Maneck[SMTP:smaneck@BERRY.EDU] Sent: Friday, December 12, 1997 8:05 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Re: Dissembling Sometime ago Fred asked the question: > >Is THIS the only passage in the Bahai writings that uses the word "taqiyyih"? At the time I answered: > Probably not, but it is the one I know off the top of my head. I think I just found another passage in Epistle to the Son of the Wolf. "By the righteousness of God! This Wronged One is not capable of dissimulation. He, verily, hath revealed that which He verily, hath revealed that which He desired; He, truly, is the Lord of strength, the Unrestrained." p. 38. I found another passage in the Kitab-i Iqan which refers to dissimultion which I found mystifying. The following hadith is cited there: "In our Qa'im there shall be four signs from four Prophets, Moses, Jesus, Joseph, and Muhammad. The sign from Moses, is fear and expectation; from Jesus, that which was spoken of Him; from Josehph, imprisonment and dissimulation; from Muhammad, the revelation of a Book similiar to the Qur'an." p. 254. I wonder if Todd could tell us why dissimulation is associated with Joseph? Susan Maneck Berry College ---------- From: Susan Maneck[SMTP:smaneck@BERRY.EDU] Sent: Saturday, December 13, 1997 10:43 AM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Dissembling Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 08:40:13 -0400 From: Todd Lawson Subject: Re: Dissembling Dear Susan, Abbas in Resurrection points out that the Shi'a were drawn to the story of Joseph because of the many resonances it has with taqiya. I think he means: Joseph's " hiding" in the well, his father cautioning him not to share his dream with his brothers, his "disguise" as an egyptian official. There are doubtless other things too, but this are the most obvious to me. It is interesting that Ibn Arabi was drawn to Joseph (he considered himself the Muhammadan Joseph) because of the way Joseph's "vocation" indicated the importance of the imagination. Here then is a relationship between imagination and taqiya to further explore . . . one day. Thanks for the question! Todd ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Monday, December 15, 1997 8:37 PM To: JoySafari; talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: democratic (ha!) The Baha'i faith as an organization has become extremely over-centralized under the Guardian-less uhj, since 1963, which has the effect of snuffing out individual initiative and scotching most worthwhile programs. You are right that if something is not perceived as the idea of the higher-up "suits" then it goes nowhere (i.e. it is squelched). So I think for the foreseeable future the hope for the Baha'i community is in the local communities. There are lots of sweet, wonderful courageous Baha'is in the hustings, and they are doing marvellous things. Most often they have no idea what's really wrong with the religion in Wilmette and Haifa, and just assume that the administrators are humble and good Baha'is. Although it is true that the uhj has been trying to use its assistants and abm's (the number of which it has vastly multiplied) to control local communities' deepening programs & so forth, it is nevertheless still true that things can be gotten away with at the local level. I personally think that prayer meetings with chanting and music, deepenings on scholarship and the Writings, and small community service projects are the places to start. I was appalled all the time I was a Baha'i at how little interest there seemed to be in these three areas. Instead you had these gonzo assistants (aiming to become abm's, counselors and then uhj members) talking about a goal of converting 3,000 people next week through pamphleteering (for which you were to do the work and they were to get the credit). It was like a surreal Amway convention. Moreover, I think local communities should try to keep more of their resources in the local community, and should send very little to Wilmette and Haifa to be wasted on boondoggles, monumental architecture, and flying counselors around to conduct Inquisitions. More resources locally would mean more growth and more activity locally. Basically, just take back your religion. cheers Juan At 06:03 PM 12/15/97 EST, JoySafari wrote: >What issues do you think would be worthwhile? I am interested in knowing what >you believe is a topic that might make a change... since I am at a loss for >any topics and quite frankly, I am close to thinking that my chances of >igniting change(s) are hopeless. On the other hand, I am studying the >writings on courage and on fearlessly defending the Faith since I think they >will only change when and if they want to - period - and this sort of thing is >similar to a lot of male egos I have come across: if you don't let _them_ >think that it's their own idea that they come up with, then it's hopeless. > >In a message dated 97-12-13 07:43:47 EST, jrcole@umich.edu writes: > ><< There are some issues on which it is worthwhile writing to them. This is > not one of them. My advice: Do your own thing as long as you can. > > >> > > ---------- From: Susan Maneck[SMTP:smaneck@BERRY.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 1997 3:28 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Good & Evil and Neoplatonism Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 11:47:50 -0500 From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: Good & Evil and Neoplatonism Bill: Yes, the idea of evil as a privation is a specifically Neoplatonic contribution that was taken over into medieval Christianity by Augustine and others. Both via Greek philosophy and Christian influence, it entered the thought of the Muslim Neoplatonists, though many "shari`ah-minded" Muslims rejected the idea in favor of a more proactive notion of evil as the work of an agent, Shaytan or Iblis (Satan). Evil as privation depends metaphysically on the idea of emanation, since the plenitude of the One overflows into terraced subsidiary levels of being, each of them farther away from pure being than the next, and shading off into nothingness. Thus, evil in the sublunary world is the absence of some Good that is actually present in the Being of the One. John Walbridge can remind us of Suhravardi's use of light/darkness in addition to being/nothingness in this regard. Since the Encyclopedia Britannica is on-line at our university, it is easiest for me to cite it for such matters rather than typing out long passages from a history of Neoplatonism: "Another prime example of the influence of Neoplatonism on Christian thought occurred in the response of the greatest of the early Christian thinkers, St. Augustine (354-430), to the perennially challenging question of how it is that evil exists in a world created by an all-good and all-powerful God. Augustine's answer (which, as refined by later thinkers, remained the standard Christian answer until modern times) includes both theological aspects (the ideas of the fall of angels and then of humans, of the redemption of some by the cross of Christ, and of the ultimate disposal of souls in eternities of bliss and torment) and philosophical aspects. The basic philosophical theme, drawn directly from Neoplatonism, is one that the American philosopher Arthur Lovejoy, in The Great Chain of Being (1936), called the principle of plenitude. This is the idea that the best possible universe does not consist only of the highest kind of creature, the archangels, but contains a maximum richness of variety of modes of being, thus realizing every possible kind of existence from the highest to the lowest. The result is a hierarchy of degrees both of being and of goodness, for the identity of being and goodness was another fundamental idea received by Augustine from Neoplatonism and in particular from Plotinus (205-270). God, as absolute being and goodness, stands at the summit, with the great chain of being descending through the many forms of spiritual, animal, and plant life down to lifeless matter. This conception explains why there are lower forms of existence--dogs, snakes, insects, viruses--as well as higher. Each embodies being and is therefore good on its own level; and together they constitute a universe whose rich variety is beautiful in the sight of God. Evil only comes about when creatures at any level forfeit the distinctive goodness with which the Creator had endowed them. Evil is thus negative or privative, a lack of proper good rather than anything having substance in its own right. This, too, was a theme that had been taken over from Neoplatonism by a number of earlier Christian writers. And if evil is not an entity, or substance, it follows that it was not a part of God's original creation. It consists instead in the going wrong of something that is in itself good, though (because made out of nothing) also mutable. Augustine locates the origin of this going-wrong in the sinful misuse of freedom by some of the angels and then by the first humans. His theodicy is thus a blend of Neoplatonic and biblical themes and shows clearly the immense influence of Neoplatonism upon Christian thought during its early formative period." To cite this page: "Christianity: ASPECTS OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION: Christian philosophy: HISTORY OF THE INTERACTIONS OF PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY: Emergence of official doctrine." Britannica Online. cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 1997 8:06 PM To: Richard C. Logan Cc: Talisman Subject: Re: The "Science" of History Actually, there are two issues. One is that as a social scientist I certainly have the right to discern in the Baha'i community persons with liberal and persons with conservative views. How could we do a sociological study of the community that ignored such divisions? They are certainly visible in email networks. The second issue is my human rights protest against the manner in which the group I am calling conservative or fundamentalist has misused its control over the institution of the learned to persecute the group I am calling liberal. Richard calls such a protest "mud-slinging." But it is apparently not mud-slinging when conservative Baha'is falsely accuse liberal Baha'is of being covenant breakers. It is not mud-slinging when anyone who dares protest the silencing of people is accused by conservatives of false pride or even of mental imbalance or of making a bid for dictatorial leadership. If someone believes that human beings are not related to the other primates and that the primates do not have a common ancestor; and if the person who rejects all this scientific data does so on the basis of a literalist reading of scripture; and if that person is willing to put a literalist reading of scripture above vast amounts of scientific data that even a layperson can easily grasp; then that person holds at least one fundamentalist view. Richard wants to prevent me from characterizing that view as fundamentalist. There is another word for it, of course, if one likes. `Abdu'l-Baha said that when religion contradicts science it becomes superstition. So we can call an anti-evolutionary stance simply "superstitious" if you like. In that case there would be those Baha'is who really believed in the unity of science, and those who have fallen into superstition. It is `Abdu'l-Baha's word. As for the fight, well, I didn't start any fights. On Talisman I, I kept pleading for tolerance for all views. I never said a fellow Baha'i was a covenant breaker or "not a Baha'i." My pleas for toleration were rejected by the Baha'i conservatives, who ganged up with the Baha'i institutions to launch an inquisition and persecution of liberal Baha'i posters. That is how we got to where we are today. It was naked, unprovoked aggression on the part of the conservatives for whom Richard keeps doing special pleading. And that naked aggression has continued, against Michael McKenny and now others. I will condemn it till my last dying breath. It is a permanent stain upon the faith of Baha'u'llah, which should have brought universal love and tolerance and instead has fallen into the hands of superstitious Inquisitors. And what did it all buy them? If they wanted to close down academic discussion, well, the number of academic email lists has multiplied and become even more institutionalized. If they wanted to impose limits on email debate, they have failed. If they wanted to bring Linda Walbridge, Steve Scholl and others to heel, they have failed. All they have accomplished is to contravene the constitution of the universal house of justice itself, which mandates the protection of individual Baha'i rights, to contravene the letter and spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and to make the Baha'i faith into just another literalist, superstitious religion. Is this what `Abdu'l-Baha promised to Dr. Auguste Forel? cheers Juan At 11:26 AM 12/16/97 -0600, Richard C. Logan wrote: >>Well I do think that there is great virtue in characterizing intellectual >>and political positions. Further, I would be strongly suspicious of any >>view of unity that did not allow for honorable diversity within it. And I >>certainly hope that this is not merely a "liberal" position. > > >Juan is NOT denying this is a FIGHT. You tell me how fighting is an >expression of unity. People seem to want to bend over backwards to make >excuses for what Juan Cole is doing. One should condemn Juan or belittle >his accomplishments but we are not required to make excuses for all of >this mudslinging. > >Richard C. Logan >Editor: Unified Star >nineteen@door.net >Maintain HomePage: The Baha'is of Lubbock >https://door.net/nineteen/ > >The further you go, >the less you know. (Toa-te ching, ch. 47.) > > > ---------- From: Susan Maneck[SMTP:smaneck@BERRY.EDU] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 1997 1:25 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Hinduism & Neoplatonism Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 18:43:03 -0500 From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: Hinduism & Neoplatonism Dear Peter: I've said all I'm going to on the issue of Muslim Neoplatonism. It is not a controversial issue in Islamics to my knowledge, and therefore there is nothing that *I* have to "prove." Come to a meeting of the Middle East Studies Association some time and ask around among people who know Arabic and Persian and Greek and have actually read the primary texts about whether it is legitimate to speak of a Muslim Neoplatonism that includes hikmat-i ilahi and Ishraq. The standard reference works by specialists in the field, from Ian Netton to the Encyclopedia of Islam to the Encyclopedia Britannica, use the same diction as I do. As I said, in the social sciences you can use a word like Neoplatonism as you like as long as you clearly define it and are thereafter consistent. As for Hinduism, my point was that when Manakji asked Baha'u'llah about the verse in the Bhagavad Gita that says new avatars come when the social structure frays, Baha'u'llah replied welcomingly that he had made the same point in the Kitab-i Iqan. He did not reply that Manakji was wasting his time quoting false books from false religions. My reading of the text suggests to me that Baha'u'llah was perfectly willing to incorporate Hinduism into his theory of progressive revelation. This is admittedly a "thick" rather than a "thin" reading, but it is one I am willing to put forward with some confidence. Your point about Baha'u'llah's citing the Kitab-i Jug or Laghu Yoga Vasistha not proving he had read Mir Findiriski's edition of it in Persian seems to me unduly nitpicky. Why would he cite a book he hadn't read? (You have admitted that he read books, which he certainly did, though I feel a little bit like Alice in Wonderland in even having to defend this point). Why would he have read only one passage of the book? And note that actually he treats it as common knowledge; he does not even feel the need to explain what the Kitab-i Jug is to the recipient of the letter. This suggests to me that lots of literate Iranians had read Mir Findiriski's edition in the 19th century, and it was only later that Iranians, under the pressure of Western education and nationalism, lost touch with the Indo-Persian traditions that had been so productive in the Akbar period and under Prince Dara Shikuh (there are literally hundreds of Persian works on Hinduism from this period and some demonstrably circulated in Iran. Even one of Browne's Baha'i manuscripts was interspersed with the sayings of "Ramchand"). As for other mentions of Hinduism, `Abdu'l-Baha certainly seems to have thought Krishna a manifestation of God: "Blessed souls whether Moses, Jesus, Zoroaster, Krishna, Buddha, Confucius or Muhammad were the cause of the illumination of the world of humanity. How can we deny such irrefutable proof? How can we be blind to such light?" (Compilation of Compilations, 1:15). "The Message of Krishna is the message of love. All God's prophets have brought the message of love." Paris Talks, p. 35 Shoghi Effendi wrote: "The nine religions to which you have referred include both the Babi and the Baha'i Dispensations, Baha'u'llah being the ninth Prophet in the series. The other Prophets included are Zoroaster, Krishna, Moses, the Christ, Muhammad, Buddha, the Prophet of the Sabaeans Whose name is unrecorded, the Bab and Baha'u'llah . . ." (Compilation of Compilations, p. 20). cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 1997 9:04 PM To: talisman@umich.edu Subject: mutual tolerance "If men could only learn the lesson of mutual tolerance, understanding, and brotherly love, the unity of the world would soon be an established fact. Bahá'u'lláh spent His life teaching this lesson of Love and Unity. Let us then put away from us all prejudice and intolerance . . ." `Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks Would not mutual tolerance and brotherly love require that we all listen respectfully to one another, without charging anyone with being a covenant breaker simply because he or she seems to be saying new things? Recognizing that there are conservative and liberal Baha'is, is it really "mutual tolerance," "brotherly love" and "unity" for conservative Baha'is to employ their control of the central institutions to declare the liberals "not Baha'is" or guilty of "making statements contrary to the covenant?" Isn't it a form of prejudice and intolerance for conservative Baha'is to wax suspicious of Baha'i academics, to mutter about "intellectual pride" (while ignoring the greater problem of institutional pride), and to attempt to silence them? Is this "tolerance"? Or is it intolerance? Is this to be free of "prejudice" or is it anti-intellectual bigotry? Notice that Baha'u'llah "spent His life" teaching this "lesson of Love and Unity." What love have Baha'i liberals found at the hands of the conservatives? Have they been unified with them or excluded from their midst? How can Baha'is hope to bring Christians and Muslims together if they cannot even bring devoted Baha'is of various opinions together? Is unity really achieved through intimidation, threats, sanctions, and expulsion? What sort of fascist unity is that? Does this sound like "brotherly love" to any of you? cheers Juan ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Friday, December 19, 1997 1:26 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Response from UHJ Thanks, Frederick. Since we decided that a small academic list like H-Bahai was not the right place for this discussion, obviously also it is not the right place for reactions or non-reactions to the discussion from religious leaders. cheers Juan >This message was originally submitted by FG@HOTMAIL.COM to the H-BAHAI >list at H-NET.MSU.EDU. If you simply forward it back to the list, using a mail >command that generates "Resent-" fields (ask your local user support or consult >the documentation of your mail program if in doubt), it will be distributed and >the explanations you are now reading will be removed automatically. If on the >other hand you edit the contributions you receive into a digest, you will have >to remove this paragraph manually. Finally, you should be able to contact the >author of this message by using the normal "reply" function of your mail >program. > >----------------- Message requiring your approval (38 lines) ------------------ >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >- >Transmitted by email > >TO: Mr. Frederick Glaysher DATE: 19 December 1997 > >Email address: FG@hotmail.com >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >- >MESSAGE: > >The Universal House of Justice has asked us to reply as follows to your >email of 20 November 1997 concerning the proposed Internet newsgroup >"talk.religion.bahai." > >To a previous inquiry about the proposal addressed by an individual to >the House of Justice, we conveyed the following reply on its behalf: > > The House of Justice does not feel that it can comment on the validity > or appropriateness of various reasons for voting for or against the > proposed newsgroup. Individual Baha'is who are interested in the > matter must come to their own decision, based upon the dictates of > their conscience and their understanding of the principles of the > Faith. > >The clear purpose of this statement was to indicate that the House of >Justice >did not wish to get involved in this matter, since it feels that the friends >should not need its guidance in this instance and are free to make their own >decision. > >Department of the Secretariat > > > > > > > > ---------- From: Susan Maneck[SMTP:smaneck@BERRY.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 1997 9:54 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Women and the Validity of `Abdu'l-Baha's talks Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 18:08:59 -0500 From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: Women and the Validity of `Abdu'l-Baha's talks I think there is ample evidence that `Abdu'l-Baha was greatly influenced by his interactions with Western Baha'i women, which began with correspondence in the 1890s and proceeded to face to face meetings from 1900, culminating in his visit to the US. Unfortunately, his correspondence with Americans has not on the whole been published or correlated with the letters he was receiving from them. But in his talks in Promulgation of Universal Peace one can see the clear evidence of how impressed he was with Western women, whom he looked upon as extremely advanced compared to Middle Eastern ones. "If a pupil is told that his intelligence is less than his fellow pupils, it is a very great drawback and handicap to his progress. He must be encouraged to advance by the statement, "You are most capable, and if you endeavor, you will attain the highest degree." It is my hope that the banner of equality may be raised throughout the five continents where as yet it is not fully recognized and established. In this enlightened world of the West woman has advanced an immeasurable degree beyond the women of the Orient. And let it be known once more that until woman and man recognize and realize equality, social and political progress here or anywhere will not be possible." PUP pp. 76-77 "Question: Will women or men aid this new religion most? Which will be more capable? Answer: In Persia the men have aided it more, but in the West perchance the women. In the West women evidently have precedence in religion, but in the East men surpass the women." PUP 170 I agree with Susan that `Abdu'l-Baha was so impressed with Western women that he changed his opinion about whether they could serve on Baha'i houses of justice as a result. He did this orally while in Chicago in 1912, reversing his 1902 letter to Corinne True. (I still have doubts that the 1909 letter to Corinne True concerned the universal house of justice, which did not exist then and which was not at issue in any way). As for the reliability of the *Promulgation of Universal Peace, from the point of view of a historian, I would say that I do not think the talks in this book can be dismissed as primary sources for `Abdu'l-Baha's thought. First of all, a large number of these talks was also taken down in Persian. These were published as Khitabat-i Hadrat-i `Abdu'l-Baha fi Awribba' va Amrika, in three volumes, all during `Abdu'l-Baha's lifetime. Given how centralized Baha'i publishing has always been, it seems to me incredible that these volumes should have appeared in Persian without `Abdu'l-Baha's having looked at the text first; or, if they did so appear, that he never saw them or was denied the opportunity to object to passages that misrepresented his views. Obviously, one has to be careful about notes that someone else has taken on a talk, but it is after all not as if the talks exist in a vacuum. They can be compared to the volumes and volumes of letters (8 big volumes in the Makatib series and probably 25 or so more in the Iran National Baha'i Archives Private Printing), along with thousands of letters in the US Baha'i archives. There also exist, but only in manuscript, enormous sets of Persian notes of `Abdu'l-Baha's talks in Haifa over the years. Where only an English text survives in PUP, even more caution is called for. But, again, the text cannot be dismissed. `Abdu'l-Baha had good translators, and many note-takers were stenographers. Moreover, it is possible that Persian texts of these will still surface, in the Sohrab papers or elsewhere. I personally feel comfortable with a default of considering PUP a valuable and fairly reliable primary source for knowing what `Abdu'l-Baha was thinking in 1912. That is, before anything in it was dismissed, I would want to see evidence for its unreliability. cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 1998 8:08 AM To: talisman Cc: UHJ Subject: Re: To UHJ #9 (Re Response from UHJ) -----Original Message----- From: Cheryll & Wade Schuette To: talisman@umich.edu Date: Wednesday, December 24, 1997 7:13 AM Subject: Re: To UHJ #9 (Re Response from UHJ) >Fred Glaysher wrote: > >>> I'm not so sure. It seems quite doubtful even. It appears to me that >>> it must have been too busy to attend to the details of Berstein's >>> piece or whoever handled it in the secretariat failed to pass on to >>> them the subtleties of the issues involved in interest polling and >>> made it appear a normal type of election voting. > >Don C commented: >>And perhaps they believe they have more important topics to consult on. > >And I'll add: > >In any case, Fred's request is not internally consistent. The UHJ has >taken a hands-off, let everyone decide for themselves what to do position, >which seems exactly what Fred wanted. What MORE does he want, now? I don't believe the UHJ has taken a "hands-off" position. The entire notion of conscience is inappropriate to an interest poll. They entered the discussion and have now affected it, for some, if not many, and I would think it only reasonable to ascertain whether or not they truly understand what they are doing.... I don't believe so.... It appears to me they must have been misinformed. Their counsel of "conscience" is actually tantamount to supporting voter fraud, in, let's say, a national election in Canada or the United States.... I don't believe the UHJ would or should do such a thing. Ergo, I assume someone in the Secretariat failed them or they received flawed advice on the nature of Usenet interest polling--notice, not "voting." > >If the UHJ took a position FOR the newsgroup, wouldn't that be precisely >the sort of "politically" motivated and centrally-sponsored group voting >that he's been criticizing so vehemently for months as inappropriate or >criminal? I am not advocating that the UHJ should take a position FOR talk.religion.bahai. Rather, that they not take a position AGAINST trb, which they have, I hope, inadvertently done.... Their "conscience" is, by the way, against the consciences of many others, Bahai and non-Bahai.... If one fully understands interest polling, it is reminiscent of the hatred and passion that often animates old world politics and religious intrigues.... 100+ people cannot honestly and fairly be denied their right to form a newsgroup within which to express their consciences. Baha'u'llah's injunction against the "destruction of books" fits this context quite well.... To suppress trb would be tantamount to a violation of his stricture in the Kitab-i-Aqdas.... If the UHJ knowingly chooses to do that, fine, it may.... But I hope for better.... > >Call the vote, already. If it loses, wait 6 months, prove TRB has value >with a longer track record, and call another vote. I just can't believe >that all this endless jockeying around is accomplishing anything useful. Why would it lose? On what basis? Political and religious passion and opposition are illegitimate reasons for voting NO. Over 5,000 postings to alt.religion.bahai is more than sufficient proof that 100+ people are interested in creating a newsgroup on the subject, as are the over 1,200 different threads and over 513 different individuals who posted up to October 1997. I can't believe all the endless opposition to free speech and conscience that many Bahais have displayed.... If the UHJ opposes trb, it should come out in the open and say so, not pretend it's neutral by employing strategems to justify and excuse the NO votes of fundamentalist Bahais.... Again, I hope for better and will cc this message to the UHJ to help them understand the nature of Usenet interest polling.... >Wade Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 1998 8:17 AM To: talisman Cc: hart@lycosemail.com Subject: Re: Catch-22 in Faith -----Original Message----- From: hart@lycosemail.com To: Talisman Date: Monday, December 22, 1997 5:18 PM Subject: Catch-22 in Faith Scott S. Hart wrote: > During my time as a Baha'i, I saw potential converts lied to by Baha'is regarding the >membership of the Faith. The Baha'is, especially the Baha'i leadership, have always >grossly inflated the 'official' numbers in order to present an inaccurate picture to the >world (as well as to individuals considering conversion) and to make the Faith seem >much more successful and influencial than it really is. The Faith is really a 'footnote' >religion, in my view, and all the peace/race unity statements and p. r. in the world will >not change this. You cite the figure of 30,000 to 80,000. How or why do you estimate the true figures are this low? If they've been inflated, how does that help the Bahai Faith? > > I do not know how to solve the above problem, except to be completely honest and >open to the public and to people who may be interested in the Faith. It does little >good to 'hide' things regarding the Faith that may be unpleasant or misunderstood, >intending to reveal these things later when the new Baha'i has been in the Faith for a >few years. If people feel that they've had the wool pulled over their eyes, they will >leave or become disenchanted. Believe me, I observed this phenomenon over and >over during my years as a Baha'i. Can you share a few examples? > > These are just some friendly observations from someone who is familiar with Baha'i matters. Wishing everyone the best. Shalom. Scott Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 6:25 PM To: talisman Cc: UHJ; Chris; Ron House Subject: Re: To UHJ #9 (Re Response from UHJ) -----Original Message----- From: David Bikman To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: talisman@umich.edu ; house@usq.edu.au ; Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk Date: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 8:00 AM Subject: Re: To UHJ #9 (Re Response from UHJ) >Mr. Glaysher wrote, > >> NOT SO OBVIOUS AT ALL, IN MY OPINION.... IT SEEMS TO >> ME THAT MANY BAHAIS, ON BAHAI-DISCUSS AND ELSEWHERE, >> HAVE TAKEN THE UHJ'S MESSAGE AS A CODED NOD TO >> ATTACK WITH ANOTHER MASSIVE NO VOTE.... > > >This statement indicates a fundamental misunderstanding as to how the >Universal House of Justice operates. They do not "code" their messages. >They do not assume hidden knowledge. If the happened to feel that the >proper response of the Baha'i community was to vote "no" they would say >"Please vote no." They would not take it as a given that the Baha'i >community knows this, and just give a slight nod in its general >direction. They have not told us to vote "no," thus the only logical >conclusion to for us to read the message at face value. I did not say the UHJ codes it's messages.... I said many Bahais seem to have taken it as such.... A significant diffference.... I have said and still maintain the message evinces no understanding of the nature of Usenet interest polling but conceives of it as though it were a conventional vote, which it is not.... > >The Universal House of Justice does not say any more or less than what >they feel is needed to sufficiently address the issue at hand. I believe they have not properly addressed the issue at hand.... If they have, they're then undermining an established system of governing public forums on the Internet, tantamount to the fatwa against Salman Rushdie or a similar fanatical attack on the West.... It may be the BCCA is complicitous in this or erroneously advising the UHJ.... The >evidence for this is replete in every message they've ever sent. The >House of Justice is not in the business of creating precedent, they are >in the business of dealing with the issues at hand, one at a time. If a >problem is facing the Baha'i community, and the House of Justice knows >what to do in order to solve it, would they leave the solution up to >chance by dropping vague allusions and subtle hints? How could the >Trustees of God deliberately withhold their guidance? Their message suggests, I believe, that they did not understand the nature of the polling. NO votes are illegitimate votes, except for technical reasons, and none exist.... Many PUBLISHED Internet manuals, published in huge numbers, on Usenet, state it straightout.... > >Regards, >David Bikman Since Juan Cole and others have suggested there are people passing on messages to the UHJ, I'll forward this one myself to them so that they don't miss it. Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 10, 1998 10:05 AM To: talisman Subject: Re: Just Government -----Original Message----- >From: T.ALBERT-ISHMAEL ANDERSON >To: talisman@umich.edu >Date: Friday, January 09, 1998 5:01 PM >Subject: Just Government >Shoghi Effendi, regarding `Abdu'l-Baha's commands to Baha'is to >obey the just government(s), says: >"What the Master's statement really means is obedience to a duly >constituted government, whatever that government may be in form. >We are not the ones, as individual Bahá'ís, to judge our government >as just or unjust--for each believer would be sure to hold a different >viewpoint, and within our own Bahá'í...." >-Directives from The Guardian, Page 56 Many people have argued, myself included, that the Usenet system of interest polling is a form of a "duly constituted government." It provides the rules and rationale for forming and regulating the newsgroup social order, if you will.... Yet Bahais have shown no lack of alacrity to judge it and violate its most basic tenets of interest polling.... How do you explain or justify such blatant dismissal of the Guardian's guidance? Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: Bill Garlington[SMTP:wilgar@sirius.com] Sent: Sunday, January 11, 1998 6:04 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: religion of contradictions? Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 16:49:44 -0500 From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: religion of contradictions? I think there may be some utility in distinguishing between a contradiction and a paradox. A paradox can convey a truth in its own right. That God is unknowable and yet that human beings have a duty to know him is a paradox. The Zen koans are paradoxes. Because religion seeks to integrate left-brain and right-brain ways of thinking, and to show that cold rationality is not always the best path, paradoxes are often used by religious teachers, and their use can be healthy. A contradiction has a different connotation. When Baha'is say they believe in the equality of women and men but that ultimately all really important decisions in the religion will be made by a council of *men* alone, that is a contradiction. It is not a paradox and doesn't appear to have developed as a means of teaching a spiritual truth. In fact, it developed over history, unevenly, and perhaps unnecessarily. And it may yet be resolved. Many *contradictions* in religions result from unintentional and cumulative changes over time. Baha'u'llah for instance was a highly political figure, spoke politically, and intervened in politics, and in his time so too did many Baha'is. `Abdu'l-Baha urged Baha'is to involve themselves in democratic politics in 1905-1907 during the early stages of the Constitutional Revolution, but`Abdu'l-Baha also urged Baha'i non-involvement at strategic points, such as the Tobacco Revolt and the later part of the Constitutional Revolution after Muhammad `Ali Shah's counter-coup of 1908. Baha'is in the West were freely involved in politics during the `Abdu'l-Baha period and there is no reason to think he disapproved. From the 1930s, however, Shoghi Effendi took Baha'is out of politics altogether. These developments are not a koan or paradox, but an example of how religions change over time, unconsciously, in response to changing social and political conditions. These cumulative changes often produce contradictions. And it is when the past is suppressed in order to erase the contradiction and uphold the status quo that the sort of leadership questions arise that John Dale has referred to. cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan ---------- From: Susan Maneck[SMTP:smaneck@BERRY.EDU] Sent: Monday, January 12, 1998 4:02 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Reincarnation Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 19:22:41 -0500 From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: H-Bahai Reincarnation With regard to the Shi`ite esoteric/ Babi-Baha'i idea of "Return" and what it might mean for an understanding of reincarnation, I think this would be a fruitful place for some comparative theology. The idea of "return" as explained in Baha'u'llah's Book of Certitude and `Abdu'l-Baha's *Some Answered Questions* involves the "return" of the personality-attributes (qualities or characteristics) in similar structural situations. Thus, Fatimah is the return of Mary, etc. This is not a return of the soul (nafs). The notion seems similar to Nietzche's conception of the "Eternal Return," and to some ancient Greek doctrines, though the Baha'i twist on it tying it to cycles of dispensational renewal seems entirely original. This idea (which is little understood and means much less to contemporary Baha'is than it had to their forebears earlier in the 20th century) is very different from the idea of reincarnation in Hinduism, where it is thought that the individual soul or *atman* returns, and that this soul is an immortal really-existing thing. But the idea of Return or raj`at in esoteric Shi`ism and in the Babi-Baha'i scriptures may have more in common with the Buddhist idea of reincarnation. Buddhists do not believe in a reified "soul," and so do not believe that one can return. Rather than a "return" of a "thing," Buddhism posits a continuity of karmic process and a continuation of certain qualities or experiences, such as thirst and suffering, until these can be snuffed out. I have touched on the subject of raj`at/return and Baha'i cyclical cosmology in my article "`I am all the Prophets'", published in *Poetics Today* and available on my Baha'i Studies Web site at https://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/index.htm cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@UMICH.EDU] Sent: Friday, January 16, 1998 2:55 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Roy Mottahedeh on Iran's overture to the U.S. On Friday, Jan. 9, 1998, the New York Times opinion page carried a piece by Roy P. Mottahedeh, professor of Middle Eastern History at Harvard, who is from a prominent Baha'i family. It was entitled, "What to Make of Iran's Oveture?" and concerned the speech of Iranian President Mohammad Khatemi, broadcast on CNN, which called for cultural relations between the U.S. and Iran. Mottahedeh notes that Khatami praises America's political heritage "and its martyrs like Lincoln," and has written on liberal Western political thought. Mottahedeh contests the notion that Khatemi's speech is the equivalent of a Shi`ite "Vatican II" or thaw. Rather, he says, Shi`ism was never hierarchical with strict lines of command and doctrine. Each "doctor of the Law" (mujtahid) is entitled to his own juridical reasoning. The Iranian constitution did attempt to centralize religious authority, he notes, in the office of the Supreme Jurisprudent, but the present incumbent, Ali Khamenei, is so little respected as a learned man that he has been unable to make that centralization stick. Nevertheless, Khamenei has extensive powers and Khatemi clearly defers to him to a certain extent. Mottahedeh continues that Khatemi's speech "showed guts", and that he continues to be extremely popular in Iran. His belief that Islamic government means democracy is spreading among Shi`ite seminary students. Mottahedeh says that Khatemi is correct to say that anti-Americanism was a phase of the Revolution that most Iranians have put behind them. But he says Khatemi (who more or less apologized for the hostage taking) did not go quite far enough in his appreciation of human rights, saying, "Americans will rightly bridle when an Iranian leader calls Israel "racist" while Iran continues its shameful persecution of the Baha'i minority." The author points out that, in addition, the Iranian government should abrogate the death sentence on novelist Salman Rushdie passed by Imam Khomeini, since in Shi`ite jurisprudence only the rulings of a living jurisprudent have any force (something Iranian officials know very well but have been reluctant to acknowledge). He says that the U.S. can also do some simple thigs short of state to state dialogue, including changing the current, vindictive visa policy for Iranians and settling military claims. Some of the cultural exchange Khatemi is calling for has already begun, in the form of visits between the two countries of professors and students, he points out, so that it seems strange that the State Department in its reply insisted that the dialogue must begin at the governmental level. Recalling the famous "ping pong" diplomacy whereby Nixon and Kissinger opened China, Mottahedeh suggests that instead, what is now needed between the U.S. and Iran is a "backgammon policy." Mottahedeh's article seems to me courageous and judicious, and perhaps we can discuss aspects of it. Sincerely, Juan Cole History U of Michigan ---------- From: Bill Garlington[SMTP:wilgar@sirius.com] Sent: Saturday, January 17, 1998 3:34 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: the use of Rijal Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 13:54:19 -0500 From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: the use of Rijal Dear Ahang: Thank you so much for sharing your valuable discoveries in the Iran National Baha'i Archives private printing volumes about the use of "rijal" (literally "men") to refer to brave Baha'i women. I would like to point out that Baha'u'llah in his extensive correspondence with Baha'i women in Iran *often* referred to them as "men" (rijal) and as "champions" or "heroes" (batal, abtal). Another example of this is in Baha'u'llah, La'ali al-Hikmah, vol. 3, p. 349. I have argued in my forthcoming book that this is an instance of role reversal. That is, Baha'u'llah suggests that men who do not become Baha'is because they are afraid of the government or the mullas are not real men, whereas brave Baha'i women who risked persecution were the real men, the real champions (and I think we have to realize that batal would be translated in Persian as pahlavan, with its twin connotations of champion warrior and of champion wrestler). To another woman, he wrote, "O maidservants, arise in a masculine way (mardanih) for the sake of God's Cause. A goodly number of women are today mentioned by God as men (rijal), whereas some men are reckoned as women." (Payam-i Malakut, p. 232). One very interesting feature of this deliberate destabilization of gender roles by Baha'u'llah is that it comes in the course of what was obviously an extremely large and regular correspondence with women themselves, in the course of which he surely was given much feedback about women's conditions in Iran. I doubt if very many other Middle Eastern male reformers of the 19th century had this opportunity to correspond with unrelated women so widely. And although feminists might object to the continued positive valuation of "men" as "heroes" and the equation of failure to convert with effiminacy, it should be remembered that the effect of Baha'u'llah's approach is actually to detach such gendered words from any connection to the sex of the person modified by them. As you probably all know, I believe that when Baha'u'llah addressed the members of the Baha'i houses of justice (both local and universal) as "men"/rijal, he was employing this diction equating being a Baha'i prominent enough to serve on such a body in Qajar Iran with great bravery and fortitude, regardless of sex. `Abdu'l-Baha in his 1902 letter to Corinne True at first tended to take the word "rija:l" in its literal meaning of biological men, and therefore to exclude women from the local house of justice as well. But in 1912 (at least) he definitively changed his mind and put women on the Chicago local assembly. I believe this is because he met so many American Baha'i women in the U.S. who had the characteristics of "men" in classical Arabic chivalric literature that he became convinced there should be no bar to their service. I do not believe that there is any logical or textual way of allowing women on local houses of justice but excluding them from the universal house of justice, since Baha'u'llah also referred to the rijal-i buyut-i `adliyyih or the men of the *houses* of justice, by which he clearly meant LSAs and not the one international house of justice. In the Catholic case, women are excluded from being priests or serving as pope on the grounds that all the apostles of Christ were men. But in the Babi-Baha'i tradition, this argument would fail, given that Tahirih was not only a Letter of the Living, but arguably among the three most important such "apostles." cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@UMICH.EDU] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 1998 2:55 AM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: A Response to the Public Message of President Khatami Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 20:02:25 -0500 From: "Sholeh A. Quinn" Subject: A Response to the Public Message of President Khatami The following letter appeared in the New York Times on Saturday, January 17, 1998, on the op-ed page 25. ___________________________________________________________________________ A RESPONSE TO THE PUBLIC MESSAGE OF PRESIDENT KHATAMI TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE January 13, 1998 His Excellency President Mohammad Khatami Islamic Republic of Iran Tehran, Iran Your Excellency, We, the American Baha'is, residing in more than seven thousand cities and towns across the United States and representing all races, cultures and ethnic origins in our nation, have listened with great interest to your words addressed to the American people, of which we are an organic part. Your message prompts us to address you directly, because of your expressed dedication to the principles of freedom, justice and the rule of law - principles which, as you noted, are cherished by the American people. We who enjoy such freedoms hope that our co-religionists in Iran, who have been deprived of them, will be granted their full rights as law-abiding citizens of your nation. We are particularly encouraged by your assertion "that religion and liberty are consistent and compatible." As you said, "Human experience has taught us that prosperous life should hinge on three pillars: religiosity, liberty and justice." These, you concluded, "are the assets and aspirations of the Islamic Revolution as it enters the twenty-first century." Are the Baha'is of Iran - your nation's largest religious minority - included in these aspirations? Your explicitly stated determination to fulfill the provisions of the Iranian Constitution and to establish the rule of law gives us hope that the freedom of the Baha'i community in Iran openly to practice its religion will be guaranteed. May we not expect, in the light of your commitment to human dignity and freedom, that the United Nations General Assembly Resolution (A/RES/52/142), which calls for the emancipation of the Baha'i community of Iran, will now be implemented? Respectfully yours, THE BAHA'IS OF THE UNITED STATES Robert Calvin Henderson Secretary NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY OF THE BAHA'IS OF THE UNITED STATES 1320 NINETEENTH ST., N.W., SUITE 701 . WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 . 202.833.8990 ---------- From: Susan Maneck[SMTP:smaneck@BERRY.EDU] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 1998 9:53 AM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Rijal and Ra'i Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 01:52:37 -0500 From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: Re: H-Bahai: Rijal and Ra'i Dear Susan: It might be more useful for me to lay out some basic concepts than to reply point by point. The key concept is istinba:t. In Usuli Shi`ite Principles of Jurisprudence, istinba:t. is the *process* whereby a jurisprudent or court judge *derives* a judgment in a dispute from the texts of the revealed law by a process of *reasoning*. This is the meaning that the word had for all Qajar Iranian thinkers, and certainly had for Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha. A trained jurisprudent who engages in complex istinbat or jurisprudential reasoning reaches a conclusion about some point of law. This conclusion is only valid as a result of the action of the reasoning process on the relevant texts and facts. Should the jurisprudent rethink the issue later and change his mind, then the first conclusion would be invalidated. Since jurisprudential reasoning can change, in Usuli Shi`ite thought one may only follow the rulings of a living jurisprudent, since dead ones are no longer actively engaging in the process of jurisprudential reasoning. In the Baha'i system the houses of justice have been given the prerogative of istinbat or jurisprudential reasoning, and have been given the *sole* prerogative of enforcing the results of that reasoning in a practical manner. When the Universal House of Justice found that there can be no further guardians, it did so as a result of istinbat or jurisprudential reasoning (which is also translated "elucidation.") But the houses of justice have not been given the *sole* prerogative of engaging in jurisprudential reasoning. Indeed, *all* believers in a revealed religion practice jurisprudential reasoning, another fact that is is recognized by all Qajar thinkers. When, as a Muslim or a Baha'i, you make a determination of where the point of adoration/ qiblah is, you are engaging in istinba:t. When you decide not to take a cough medicine because it has a high alcohol content, you are engaging in jurisprudential reasoning. Any time the law isn't perfectly clear and you make a reasoned determination as to how it should be *practically applied* in any given case, you are doing istinbat. In Qajar Iran, it was common for mujtahids or trained jurisprudents to perform jurisprudential reasoning for other Shi`ites with less religious knowledge or training, even though these jurisprudents held no official religious or governmental position. And as I said, the jurisprudential conclusions to which these individuals came often were enforced, either by virtue of their high status or even by their private bodyguards. I did not mean to say that there was no theoretical distinction in Qajar society between the official, legitimate, state-appointed qadi or judge and the informal jurisprudent. What I meant was that in practice the mujtahids often managed to assert prerogatives that they theoretically should not have had. And Qajar reformers universally decried this practice. What `Abdu'l-Baha wanted to do was to deny those informal jurisprudents any *practical* power, and to stop their jurisprudence from having the force of law. He put juridical decision-making about Baha'i law, i.e., judicial rulings that are necessarily implemented, in the hands of houses of justice alone. However, `Abdu'l-Baha did not forbid learned individuals from researching and writing on jurisprudence in an abstract manner. Indeed, he explicitly says that he expected them to do so, and that their writings might well provide jurisprudential arguments that would be adopted by the houses of justice. However, only the houses of justice could transform such jurisprudence into judicial judgments with the force of law. Obviously, it would in this system be wrong for a learned Baha'i jurisprudent (and I think we have established that there is and can be such a category) to seek to have his or her idiosyncratic jurisprudential conclusions (ra'i) *implemented*. It would be even more wrong for him or her to seek to implement his or her conclusions where they contradicted the *official* rulings of the houses of justice. Thus, clearly, if a Baha'i jurisprudent encouraged and presided over a second, bigamous marriage for a Baha'i man, that would be wrong. However, I do not believe `Abdu'l-Baha says it would be wrong for a jurisprudent to exercise his reasoning on the law in such a manner as to write a paper concluding that there was no way actually to bar bigamy in Baha'i law, given the clear text of the Aqdas. As long as he did not act on this conclusion, and only presented it as abstract reasoning, then `Abdu'l-Baha appears to allow this sort of activity when he says that opinions are free in the Baha'i faith, as long as they are expressed politely, but behavior is not. Given that the universal house of justice now has no guardian on it, and therefore cannot engage in authoritative interpretation (tabyin), I do not believe, moreover, that the universal house of justice has the legal right in the Baha'i system to prevent ordinary Baha'is from holding any opinion they choose, or from expressing it publicly in a polite manner. The only scripturally sanctioned grounds for their intervention would be if an individual attempted to *enforce* his or her idiosyncratic opinion on others. Baha'i qadis are called for in the Questions and Answers appended to the Kitab-i Aqdas and Shoghi Effendi once contemplated having a Baha'i court authorized in Egypt, with Baha'i judges who would apply Baha'i personal status law. In response to my statement that I am engaged in the academic study of Baha'i law, just as I am of Islamic law, Susan replied that such an enterprise in her view did not violate the letter of the Will and Testament "so long as one was not attempting to utilize ones scholarship to pressure the Institutions, to criticize their policies or worse as a pretext for ignoring their decisions. " I am afraid I must reject this formulation of things. While academic scholarship is not in any particular case antithetical to the current (usually conservative or traditionalist) practice of the Baha'i faith (as opposed to Baha'i scriptural principle, which is usually more liberal), such scholarship is founded upon the principle of free reasoned inquiry and the responsibility of the scholar to report his or her findings to the public in a completely honest manner. It cannot be constrained by such considerations as Susan mentions, or it is no longer academic scholarship. If academic inquiry leads one to publicly stated positions, the statement of which is perceived as the application of "pressure," then I'm afraid that is just too bad. (*Any* publicly stated position in any community is after all open to being *perceived* as a form of pressure, regardless of the author's intentions). If academic inquiry leads one to publicly stated positions that constitute a criticism of the Baha'i authorities or their policies, then that is where it leads. You can't engage in circumscribed free and reasoned inquiry any more than you can be only partially pregnant. Free, reasoned inquiry is simply the independent investigation of reality in an honest and forthright manner. If it is incompatible with the Baha'i covenant (and it is not I who say that it is), then the Baha'i covenant is ipso facto incompatible with reality, honesty and forthrightness, and that would be too bad for the covenant. cheers Juan Cole History University of Michigan ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@UMICH.EDU] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 1998 1:24 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: A Response to the Public Message of President Khatami From: "Frederick Glaysher" Subject: Re: A Response to the Public Message of President Khatami Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 07:42:33 -0500 In the NSA's open letter to the Iranian government, Mr. Henderson asked President Khatami: >Are the Baha'is of Iran -- your nation's largest religious minority -- >included in these aspirations? I would in turn like to ask Mr. Henderson if all Baha'is of all points of view have really been included in the NSA's aspirations during the past few years? And if not, isn't his plea to Mr. Khatami somewhat hypocritical? Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 1998 6:01 PM To: talisman Subject: Khatami & NSA's open letter.... In the NSA's open letter to the Iranian government, Mr. Henderson asked President Khatami: >Are the Baha'is of Iran -- your nation's largest religious minority -- >included in these aspirations? I would in turn like to ask Mr. Henderson if all Baha'is of all points of view have really been included in the NSA's aspirations during the past few years? And if not, isn't his plea to Mr. Khatami somewhat hypocritical? Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: Susan Maneck[SMTP:smaneck@BERRY.EDU] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 1998 6:29 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: rights of Iranian Baha'is and hypocrisy Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 16:16:00 -0500 From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: rights of Iranian Baha'is and hypocrisy Let me just respond to the suggestion made that given the ways in which Western Baha'i authorities have excluded certain individuals from the community, the US NSA's call to President Khatami of Iran to include all Iranians (including Iranian Baha'is) in that country's national aspirations is hypocritical. The first thing I would say is that the two cases are not commensurate. Iranian Baha'is were executed in the Great Terror. They are still, even after the thaw, denied the opportunity to attend university and face officially sanctioned discrimination in many areas of life. Moreover, they suffer at the hands, not of a private voluntary organization, but of the government of the country to which they belong by virtue of citizenship. It is true that this distinction is clouded by a) the fact that Iran is a theocracy run by a religious organization, Shi`ite Islam, and b) that the official stance of the current Baha'i leadership is that the Baha'i faith also should be a governmental theocracy. But for the moment, the Shi`ites have the government, and the special responsibilities under international law that come with that. Clearly, the Iranian state in its official "Jim Crow"-like discrimination against Iranian Baha'is for their beliefs is in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and of several subsequent United Nations covenants on human rights, which have the force of international treaty law, and to which Iran is signatory. I therefore think all supporters of human rights should welcome and give their complete backing to the statement of the U.S. National Spiritual Assembly. It should be pointed out that Jewish communities, especially the Orthodox, do excommunicate adherents, and that the Catholic Church does so with even greater frequency. This fact would not excuse antisemitism or anti-Catholicism where Jews or Catholics are minorities. Believers in human rights must condemn both of these things and seek to ensure that Jews and Catholics enjoy the same human rights as all others. Indeed, it is important to civil liberatarians that Shi`ite Muslims in the U.S. be protected from the discrimination to which they are so often subject, regardless of whether they would support discrimination against others such as the Baha'is. All that said, I believe that the next great frontier for human rights thinking and activism is civil society itself. States and governments can be held, successfully or unsuccessfully, to the human rights standards of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and subsequent U.N. covenants, and organizations such as Amnesty International (to which Baha'is are not allowed to belong), Human Rights Watch, and others are active in this arena. The human rights community has given the Iranian Baha'is enormous support, and I have been part of that and am proud to have been. This effort is on good ground with regard to international law and institutionalization. However, the issue of human rights in nongovernmental organizations is much less clearly defined. And this is a particularly difficult subject within religious organizations. Hans Kung and Jurgen Moltmann point out in their edited book, *The Ethics of World Religions and Human Rights* the paradox that many of our highest ideals about human rights come from religious scriptures, but that religious organizations have often been among the more egregious violators of the sanctity of the individual conscience. Marx once dismissed freedom of religion as tantamount to giving ecclesiastical bodies the prerogative of trampling on the rights of their adherents. I can't think of any religious body that has not given evidence in favor of his view. I certainly think that the claims of religious adherents to being granted their full human rights would be much strengthened if they themselves honored, to the greatest extent possible within their own congregations, individuals' rights to freedom of conscience and speech. But I do not believe that these claims *depend* on their behaving in this way, since I believe that human rights are peremptory and that every human being has them as a consequence of being a human being, regardless of his or her views on the rights of others. Only in working to actualize those rights for all can any of us hope to enjoy them ourselves. Sincerely Juan Cole History University of Michigan ---------- From: Susan Maneck[SMTP:smaneck@BERRY.EDU] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 1998 4:27 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: rights of Iranian Baha'is and hypocrisy Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 02:39:50 -0500 From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: rights of Iranian Baha'is and hypocrisy I think it is getting time to wind down this discussion, unless it is pursued with reference to academic work on human rights. However, I do have a couple responses to make. To those few who complained that the subject was inappropriate to our list, I have to say that I (obviously) disagree. I do not see in what way it can be appropriate to criticize the Iranian government for its treatment of the Iranian Baha'is (which the NSA does and has been doing, quite rightly so, for many years), and yet to leave the issue of that body's own human rights record off limits to discussion. Nor can I entirely agree with Ted that the issue of a religious body's officials' authority to draw boundaries so as to exclude some adherents from their own religion is not also a human rights concern. Shunning and imprisonment are both forms of isolation and coercion. Quite a lot of the disabilities under which Iranian Baha'is suffer in Iran are informal, and result from their being shunned as apostates within Shi`ism. cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Friday, January 23, 1998 2:33 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: A Response to the Public Message of President Khatami Oh, I wouldn't sigh. I think the whole exchange accomplished something and I thank you for it. JRIC >Sigh.... > > > > > ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Friday, January 23, 1998 12:10 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: A Response to the Public Message of President Khatami Frederick: Fine. But I didn't rewrite your message. I simply filled in the blanks you had left so it was clear what you meant. Did I get you wrong? If so, I apologize. JRIC >Nevertheless, please don't rewrite my messages >and then post them without my consent.... > >Frederick Glaysher >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai >The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, >news.announce.newgroups, or at > > > > ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@UMICH.EDU] Sent: Saturday, January 24, 1998 2:56 AM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Re: Future Convergence of House and Supreme Tribunal? From: "John Dale" Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 21:35:21 -0700 Subject: Re: Future Convergence of House and Supreme Tribunal? Dear Bijan, I was intrigued by the implications of your post. Based on how I read what you're saying, we seem to have three names for the same entity: (1) the Universal Court of Arbitration; (2) the International Tribunal; (3) the Supreme Tribunal. Then, at some point when the Baha'i State is a reality, the Universal House of Justice will merge with the Supreme Tribunal/UCA/IT. But that merged body does not as yet have a name. Is this correct? Question: Is it possible that there is a confusion here, and that the Supreme Tribunal itself represents the merger of the UHJ with the International Tribunal/Universal Court of Arbitration? First, it would seem strange to have three names for the same entity while the supreme administrative entity in the future Baha'i State remains unnamed. And, second, what could be a higher name for such an entity than the "Supreme Tribunal"? Has somebody somewhere laid all this out in a timeline or a systematic chart or diagram of some kind? Sen? In any case, the idea that the supreme Baha'i administrative body of the future would include women goes some way toward solving my rather deep problems with their absence on the present UHJ, although it still seems silly, in a sense, to have to wait probably for centuries for the development of the Supreme Tribunal or Merged Entity to take place. The problem with the "women will serve in the future" scenario is that the unexplained absence of women on the *present* UHJ will continue to block people's acceptance of the Faith, IMO, and thus retard fulfillment of the very goal we allegedly seek to achieve. It will keep the Faith in an apparently backward and retrogressive position on this issue long after the rest of the world will have accepted the idea of women as leaders. (Just look at developments in Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country in the world, where Megawati Sukarno Putri may well win the next election over the aging and by all accounts corrupt current president.) Looking from the future back to the present, if we *know* that it is OK for women to serve in the future highest Baha'i administrative agency, why is it "not OK" for them to serve in the present one? Additionally, I wonder whether Baha'i pulic relations people are fitting this information into their programs. Are Baha'i public relations people now being instructed to say that women will serve on the future highest Baha'i administrative body? What reasons are they giving for the current absence of women from the UHJ? Simply that "there is a wisdom in it"? IMO, the present national proclamation statement about the equality of men and women, which makes no mention of the absence of women on the UHJ or of their presence on future Baha'i bodies, raises serious ethical questions about Baha'i "honesty in advertising." Sincerely, John Dale ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@UMICH.EDU] Sent: Saturday, January 24, 1998 2:56 AM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Rule of law From: "John Dale" Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 22:45:17 -0700 Subject: Re: rule of law The recent letter from the US NSA to President Khatami of Iran raises some collateral issues: by virtue of what explicit set of internal or external standards Baha'is in the USA enjoy the "freedom, justice and the rule of law" that they seek for their co-religionists in Iran. What explicit set of standards within the Baha'i Community itself gives us our picture of human rights and duties? Are we committed formally to international human rights law as it develops globally and regionally through the UN and subsidiary international organizations? Or are we committed to human rights codes on a nation-by-nation basis as part of obedience to the duly constituted government of Earth? Do we, should we, have our own internal standard as a global faith community? What would such an internal standard look like, and on what set of principles or teachings would it be based? What would be the universal consultative role -- if any -- of the Baha'i peoples around the world in helping to formulate and create such an internal standard? What would a Baha'i society truly look like in terms of human rights, and how would it treat the human rights of non-Baha'is? Will Baha'i nations in the future have the freedom to set their own standards of human rights within the minimal requirements of international human rights law, or will there be one direct uniform global legal code of human rights? Do we reinvent the human rights wheel to our own satisfaction and design, or do we take seriously the work that previous generations have struggled and sacrificed to achieve? Questions, questions. Questions that need an answer if Baha'is are serious in putting the Baha'i community forward as a model for the world to adopt. Sincerely, John Dale ---------- From: Susan Maneck[SMTP:smaneck@BERRY.EDU] Sent: Saturday, January 24, 1998 1:27 AM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Rijal and Ra'i Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 20:00:11 -0500 From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: Re: Rijal and Ra'i Dear Susan: I think our discussion has gotten away from textual basics. It began, as the header suggests, with an attempt to understand the issue of how the word "rijal" (literally "men") was understood by Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha, which is really all I am interested in. The subsequent discussion revolved around whether such a discussion was legitimate within the terms of the Baha'i "covenant" given Shoghi Effendi's statements and the 1988 ruling of the universal house of justice, and in light of `Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament. Obviously, as an academic I don't actually have much patience for these latter considerations. What is striking to me is how different these concerns are from those of `Abdu'l-Baha himself. `Abdu'l-Baha does not appear to me to have been particularly stricken with anxiety over what people might say or publish publicly, and in the talks he gave in the U.S. he praised freedom of speech and conscience, both in the civil and the religious spheres. He did worry about Baha'is breaking the censorship laws of the Ottoman and Qajar empires, but he made a clear distinction between the duties of Baha'i citizens of Republics as opposed to Baha'i subjects of absolute monarchs (TAB). In Secret of Divine Civilization and A Traveller's Narrative he consistently praised knowledge, learning, publication, and openness. What `Abdu'l-Baha *was* concerned about was the abuse of power, arbitrariness and lack of accountability of the civil and *religious* authorities of his day. He wanted to see the rule of law substituted for personalistic power, of codified laws and rights for despotic whim. He was trying to curb the arbitrary power of mujtahids (Baha'i or Shi`ite), not to rule out scholarly research and analysis! One reason he supported parliamentary democracy was that he wanted to have the people have the opportunity to turn out of office someone who was misbehaving (SDC). It stands to reason that he would have been appalled by any system that prevented the electorate from having any real information by which the performance of elected officials could be judged, and which prevented any critical analysis of their performance from becoming public. Such a system would be an elective dictatorship, not a parliamentary democracy in which an informed public could make informed choices. As for academic scholarship, it has a place in a parliamentary democracy precisely in making information and analysis available to the public and to the electorate. And, obviously, it cannot be carried on in any meaningful way when any argument any scholar makes can at any time be branded illegitimate "advocacy," or "criticism" of the status quo. All historical scholarship has the characteristic of revising our image of the past and bringing into question the "naturalness" and "inevitability" of the status quo, which is why religious authorities and governments so often have persecuted historians. (And it is why Fadil Mazandarani was made to apologize by the Iran NSA in the '40s for having published primary texts on Babism at variance with Nabil's Narrative). Let's do go back to the texts, and see if we can't, uncharacteristically, get a thread going on something really important, like Todd Lawson's magisterial translation of the Surat al-Suluk. cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Sunday, January 25, 1998 4:15 PM To: talisman@umich.edu Subject: Rijal and Ra'i FYI from another list. Juan ---------------------- >Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 20:00:11 -0500 >From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) >Subject: Re: Rijal and Ra'i > > >Dear . . . > >I think our discussion has gotten away from textual basics. It began, as >the header suggests, with an attempt to understand the issue of how the word >"rijal" (literally "men") was understood by Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha, >which is really all I am interested in. > >The subsequent discussion revolved around whether such a discussion was >legitimate within the terms of the Baha'i "covenant" given Shoghi Effendi's >statements and the 1988 ruling of the universal house of justice, and in >light of `Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament. > >Obviously, as an academic I don't actually have much patience for these >latter considerations. > >What is striking to me is how different these concerns are from those of >`Abdu'l-Baha himself. `Abdu'l-Baha does not appear to me to have been >particularly stricken with anxiety over what people might say or publish >publicly, and in the talks he gave in the U.S. he praised freedom of speech >and conscience, both in the civil and the religious spheres. He did worry >about Baha'is breaking the censorship laws of the Ottoman and Qajar empires, >but he made a clear distinction between the duties of Baha'i citizens of >Republics as opposed to Baha'i subjects of absolute monarchs (TAB). In >Secret of Divine Civilization and A Traveller's Narrative he consistently >praised knowledge, learning, publication, and openness. > >What `Abdu'l-Baha *was* concerned about was the abuse of power, >arbitrariness and lack of accountability of the civil and *religious* >authorities of his day. He wanted to see the rule of law substituted for >personalistic power, of codified laws and rights for despotic whim. He was >trying to curb the arbitrary power of mujtahids (Baha'i or Shi`ite), not to >rule out scholarly research and analysis! One reason he supported >parliamentary democracy was that he wanted to have the people have the >opportunity to turn out of office someone who was misbehaving (SDC). It >stands to reason that he would have been appalled by any system that >prevented the electorate from having any real information by which the >performance of elected officials could be judged, and which prevented any >critical analysis of their performance from becoming public. Such a system >would be an elective dictatorship, not a parliamentary democracy in which an >informed public could make informed choices. > >As for academic scholarship, it has a place in a parliamentary democracy >precisely in making information and analysis available to the public and to >the electorate. And, obviously, it cannot be carried on in any meaningful >way when any argument any scholar makes can at any time be branded >illegitimate "advocacy," or "criticism" of the status quo. All >historical scholarship has the characteristic of revising our image >of the past and bringing into question the "naturalness" and >"inevitability" of the status quo, which is why religious authorities >and governments so often have persecuted historians. (And it is why >Fadil Mazandarani was made to apologize by the Iran NSA in the '40s >for having published primary texts on Babism at variance with Nabil's >Narrative). > >Let's do go back to the texts, and see if we can't, >uncharacteristically, get a thread going on something really >important, like Todd Lawson's magisterial translation of the Surat >al-Suluk. > >cheers > >Juan Cole >History >U of Michigan > > ---------- From: Bill Garlington[SMTP:wilgar@sirius.com] Sent: Sunday, January 25, 1998 4:29 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Rijal and Ra'i Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 15:12:45 -0500 From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: Rijal and Ra'i Dear Susan: As an academic, I have mainly been concerned with understanding and writing about what I call "the early Baha'i faith," which in my view is quite different from the later tradition in many ways. One of the biggest problems in recovering the early Baha'i faith is that it is viewed by contemporary Baha'is (including most Baha'i academics) through the lens of the contemporary Baha'i faith. Thus, Baha'u'llah is declared to have been completely apolitical, an assertion that the documentary evidence decisively refutes (how was, in an Ottoman context, condemning the sultan as a tyrant, predicting his overthrow, and advocating a parliament in any way apolitical?) My problem with the "covenant" as it is employed in the current Baha'i community (and we saw many practical examples of this on Talisman 1) is that this "central organizing principle" can very easily be employed to simply rule out of court an academic investigation of, say, Baha'u'llah's role in Ottoman and Qajar politics. Moreover, the "covenant" is not just an organizing principle; it is a threat. Being on the wrong side of "the covenant" means one is shunned by all Baha'is. Who within the community will dare enunciate a position once it has been declared "contrary to the covenant"? I find the mainstream contemporary Baha'i conception of the "covenant" to come out of an American folk cultural interpretation of an untechnical translation of the Will and Testament, which equates thinking for oneself with covenant breaking and which rules out much academic research and writing because the latter will tend to revise and challenge the status quo, which is what the folk interpretation of the Will and Testament is attempting to prevent. The "covenant" very often simply means an insistence on a literalist approach to Shoghi Effendi's writings, which not only makes them "peremptory" over mere historical documentation but even occasionally exalts them above the clear text of Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha themselves (as with the issue of Ishmael versus Isaac or the position on parliamentary democracy). In my view it is simply illegitimate to import such considerations anachronistically into our study of the 19th century. I admit that once I think I have a handle on some phenomenon in the early Baha'i faith, it often benefits me to compare and contrast it to later developments. I am struck, e.g., by the flexibility `Abdu'l-Baha showed in greeting the importuning of Corinne True for the right to serve on the Chicago LSA, and by the inflexibility of contemporary Baha'i leaders on this issue. I understand that you believe that what I am calling "inflexibility" derives from their good-faith commitment to a conception of "the covenant." And that is very important if one is mainly studying the post-1963 period (even though knowing this does not a) make them more flexible or b) actually explain much, since what exactly "the covenant" requires is subject to hermeneutics and debate just like anything else in the religion). But in my work on the changing meanings of rijal, I am not studying the post-1963 period, and don't consider it relevant except as a case for contrast. In short, if one really wants to understand the actions of the hands of the cause in the 1950s and the universal house of justice since 1963, I agree that a folk conception of the "covenant" is very important. But to allow it to dictate our understanding of Baha'i history as a whole is anachronistic. That is one reason I am opposed to importing it into every conceivable discussion. Insisting that only considerations immediately relevant to a particular academic discussion be raised is not censorship; invoking the "covenant" on the other hand very often does function as censorship. cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 29, 1998 8:32 AM To: talisman Subject: Harassing, vilifying hate mail.... I've received several pieces of abusive and vilifying hate mail from Bahais during the last three or four days. Although I've asked one person not to email me at least twice in the past, he continues to insist on his "right" to harass me. I'd appreciate if other Bahais would generally appeal to such persons either to post what they think in public view or not to contact me in any way.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted. You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th. The CFV is also available directly from the votetaker, Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Thursday, January 29, 1998 11:21 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Fw: CFV: talk.religion.bahai The moderators made a decision a long time ago not to post these CFVs to H-Bahai, and I think you were informed of it. JRIC >Has someone decided not to post the CFV to h-bahai? I haven't seen >it yet. It was posted elsewhere two days ago.... > >-- >Frederick Glaysher >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai >The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: > >The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the >newsgroups specified in the CFV: > >news.announce.newgroups >news.groups >alt.religion.bahai >soc.culture.israel >soc.rights.human >talk.religion.misc >soc.religion.bahai > >You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th. > >The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker, >Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Rebecca G. McQuitty >To: Bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us >Date: Tuesday, January 27, 1998 10:30 PM >Subject: CFV: talk.religion.bahai > > >>*The Baha'i Studies List* >> >> FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2) >> unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai >> >>Usenet readers may now vote on the proposed worldwide newsgroup >>talk.religion.bahai. This CFV contains information about both the >>voting process and the proposed group; please read the entire CFV >>before voting. >> >>Only the votetaker is authorized to distribute this CFV. Do not post >>it to any newsgroup, mail it to any person or mailing list, or place >>it on the World Wide Web. Ballots or CFVs provided by anyone except >>the votetaker will be invalid. >> >>Newsgroups line: >>talk.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith. >> >>Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC, 18 Feb 1998. >> >>A neutral, third-party volunteer is conducting this vote. Direct >>questions about the vote to the votetaker, and questions about the >>proposed group to the proponents. >> >>Proponent: Frederick Glaysher >>Proponent: Chris Manvell >>Proponent: Ron House >>Mentor: Chris Stone >>Votetaker: Rebecca McQuitty >> >>RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai >> >>Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, which exists >>specifically for discussion of the Baha'i Faith, is moderated. A need >>exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup would >>meet that need. >> >>Between January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, and >>March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning >>talk.religion.bahai, 11 messages per day for 70 days. >> >>Between April 1, 1997 and September 27, 1997, over 2,863 messages have >>been posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly varying >>points of view on the Baha'i Faith, resulting in 16 messages per day >>for 179 days, and 477 messages a month for six months. >> >>Since www.dejanews.com does not pick up all postings, an additional >>conservative 5 percent, roughly 150 messages, have probably been lost >>from the archive. During this time period, approximately 513 different >>individuals posted on over 1,200 threads. >> >>These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com for >>talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time >>periods. Please note that despite the poor propagation of the alt.* >>hierarchy the high rate of posting demonstrates significant interest, >>justifying the forming of an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith >>on the talk.* hierarchy. It is only reasonable to conclude that the >>easy accessibility of the talk.* hierarchy will lead to even higher >>rates of posting by interested people. >> >>The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement, rather >>than supplant, the existing moderated group soc.religion.bahai, and >>will provide those without access to alt.religion.bahai, on the less >>well propagated alt.* hierarchy, the opportunity to participate, >>especially since many people who voted YES on the first proposal were >>unable to join in on alt.religion.bahai, their ISPs not carrying the >>hierarchy. It is anticipated that alt.religion.bahai will evolve along >>as its users see fit and will complement talk.religion.bahai as an >>alternative unmoderated newsgroup. >> >>CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai >> >>All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history, >>teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for >>discussion. >> >>Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting procedure >>in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation. >> >>Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not to >>start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on >>articles and threads written in more moderate terms. >> >>The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith >>is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages, large >>ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography, spam, and >>any postings of a purely commercial nature. >> >>Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers are >>encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive crossposting. >>Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from >>soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this charter. >> >>As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular >>religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai >>newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional faith. >> >>END CHARTER. >> >>IMPORTANT VOTING INFORMATION: >> >>The purpose of a Usenet vote is to determine the genuine interest in >>reading the proposed group, and soliciting votes from uninterested >>parties defeats this purpose. Do *not* distribute this CFV; instead, >>direct people to the official CFV posted to news.announce.newgroups. >>Distributing pre-marked, incomplete, or otherwise edited copies of >>this CFV is considered vote fraud. >> >>At most one vote is allowed per person or per account. Duplicate >>votes will be resolved in favor of the most recent valid vote. >>Addresses and votes of all voters will be listed in the final RESULT >>post. >> >>Voters must mail their ballots directly to the votetaker. Anonymous, >>forwarded, or proxy votes are not valid. Votes mailed by WWW/HTML/CGI >>forms are considered anonymous, as are votes from any "munged" >>addresses the votetaker cannot decipher. >> >>Please direct any questions to the votetaker at . >> >>HOW TO VOTE: >> >>Extract the ballot from the CFV by deleting everything before the >>"BEGINNING OF BALLOT" and after the "END OF BALLOT" lines. Please do >>*not* send the entire CFV back to me! Don't worry about the spacing >>of the columns or any quote characters (">") that your software >>inserts. >> >>Provide your real name on the line that asks for it, and indicate your >>vote in the brackets beside the group name. Valid votes are YES, NO, >>ABSTAIN, and CANCEL. Examples of how to properly indicate your vote >>(do not vote here): >> >> [ YES ] example.vote.yes >> [ NO ] example.vote.no >> [ ABSTAIN ] example.abstention >> [ CANCEL ] example.cancellation >> >>Do *not* modify or delete any other information in this ballot. >>Votetaking is automated, and any other changes to the ballot may >>prevent your vote from being counted. >> >>When you're finished, mail the ballot to . Replying to >>this message should work, but check the "To:" line. If you ordinarily >>use a spam block, please delete it and use a valid address to vote. >> >>If you do not receive an acknowledgment of your vote within three >>days, contact the votetaker about the problem. You are responsible >>for reading your ack and making sure your vote is registered >>correctly. >> >>-=-=-=-BEGINNING OF BALLOT: Delete Everything Before This Line=-=-=-=- >>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Usenet Ballot: talk.religion.bahai >> >>Valid ballots are distributed blank in a Call for | Leave this >>Votes posted to news.announce.newgroups or mailed | marker here: >>by the votetaker. Other ballots may be rejected. | >> >>Give your real name on the next line (do not give your email address). >>Your name --> >>[Your Vote] Group (Place your vote in the empty brackets below.) >>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>[ ] talk.religion.bahai >>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>-=-=-=-=-=-END OF BALLOT: Delete Everything After This Line-=-=-=-=-=- >> >>DISTRIBUTION >> >>This CFV has been posted to the following newsgroups: >> >> news.announce.newgroups >> news.groups >> alt.religion.bahai >> soc.culture.israel >> soc.rights.human >> talk.religion.misc >> soc.religion.bahai (posted separately) >> >>The CFV and the eventual RESULT posts will be mailed to these mailing >>lists: >> >> Mailing list name: Baha'i Studies >> Submission address: Bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us >> Request address: major@johnco.cc.ks.us >> >> Mailing list name: h-bahai >> Submission address: h-bahai@h-net.msu.edu >> Request address:smaneck@berry.edu or jrcole@umich.edu >> >> Mailing list name: Talisman >> Submission address: talisman@umich.edu >> Request address: jsgreen@umich.edu >> >>Pointers directing readers to this CFV will be posted in these groups: >> >> a.bsu.religion >> alt.religion >> alt.religion.islam >> news.admin.censorship >> soc.religion.eastern >> soc.religion.gnosis >> soc.religion.hindu >> soc.religion.paganism >> soc.religion.quaker >> soc.religion.sikhism >> soc.religion.unitarian-univ >> soc.religion.vaishnava >> talk.religion.buddhism >> talk.religion.newage >> uk.religion.interfaith >> uk.religion.misc >> uk.religion.other-faiths >> >>The CFV is also available by e-mail from the votetaker. >> >>-- >>Rebecca Graham McQuitty >>- >>To switch to the digested list, >>send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body >>- >>unsubscribe bahai-st >>subscribe bahai-st-digest >> > > > ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Thursday, January 29, 1998 11:47 AM To: FG@hotmail.com Cc: talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: Harassing, vilifying hate mail.... Greetings. The first time that happened to me, I posted the item to the list. That not only embarassed the devoted Baha'i who was the author, it kept me from receiving more of the same. I recommend this solution to all hate male from regular members of the list. All the Best, Michael > >I've received several pieces of abusive and vilifying hate mail >from Bahais during the last three or four days. Although I've asked >one person not to email me at least twice in the past, he continues >to insist on his "right" to harass me. I'd appreciate if other Bahais >would generally appeal to such persons either to post what they >think in public view or not to contact me in any way.... > >-- >Frederick Glaysher >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > >The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: > >The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted. >You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th. >The CFV is also available directly from the votetaker, >Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com > > > > > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) ---------- From: T.ALBERT-ISHMAEL ANDERSON[SMTP:talishman@usa.net] Sent: Thursday, January 29, 1998 12:23 PM To: talisman@umich.edu Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Harassing, vilifying hate mail.... I recommend that Fred notify Baha'i institutions and ABM's with the specific names and forward the hate mail to Baha'i instituions and ask for them to intervene on his behalf. Loving regards, t ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at https://www.netaddress.com ---------- From: Quanta Dawn-Light[SMTP:quanta@mindspring.com] Sent: Friday, January 30, 1998 4:42 AM To: talisman; Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Harassing, vilifying hate mail.... Dear Fred, No one can prove on email about hate mail etc. I have to my astonishment seen my own messages changed in interactions. Anyone can edit a message and forward it as though it was the original. I hope that the Baha'i Institutions do not pay much attention to controversial email messages that are forwarded. Unless, they receive copies from trustworthy people as well. Email should not be considered as a an evidence of wrongdoing. love, quanta > >I recommend that Fred notify Baha'i institutions and ABM's with the > specific names and forward the hate mail to Baha'i instituions and ask for > them to intervene on his behalf. > > > I've forwarded copies to Mr. Roger Reini and asked him to contact the > people involved and handle them discreetly.... I've also put their email > addresses in hotmail filters for deletion. > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: . > > The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the > newsgroups specified in the CFV: > > news.announce.newgroups > news.groups > alt.religion.bahai > soc.culture.israel > soc.rights.human > talk.religion.misc > soc.religion.bahai > > You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th. > > The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker, > Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com > > =================================================== "When diverse shades of thought, temperament and character are brought together under under the power and influence of one central agency; then, will the glory of human perfections be made manifest." -Abdu'l'Baha p. 55 Advent of Divine Justice (pocket version) ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Saturday, January 31, 1998 9:27 AM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Private Freenet in Ottawa Greetings. I'm talking about directing my friends etc in Ottawa who've been closely following my situation to the specific freenet article here, if they don't already know it. There are a minimum of half a dozen yes votes promised (some may vote from non freenet accounts). I've met two ex-Baha'is who knew me from the past and live out of town and have told them to go to news.groups. This is just the beginning. If there is a massive NO vote and a 150 plus YES vote, I will find it hard to resist strong participation in round three. If as I think possible, many Baha'is who voted YES last time do not participate this time, I may just wash my hands of the whole thing. All the Best, Michael -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) ---------- From: Milissa Kafes[SMTP:mbkafes@bestweb.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 1998 6:44 PM To: Juan R. I. Cole; Dean Betts Cc: talisman@umich.edu; irfan1@umich.edu Subject: Re: Khomeinism and phenomenology Hi Dean-- In response to a comment by Juan, you wrote: >There is no parallel or similarity here. If you talk against the Faith, the >very worst thing that can befall you is that you're simply removed from the >roles, nothing more. You don't lose any civil rights, nor would you do so >under any future "World Order", much less fear for your safety. I have heard this claim before from others and when I was upset by events in the past people tried to allay my fears with this thought. However, I have a hard time with it and here's why: (please note these are criticisms of this idea, not you personally, as I have heard many Baha'is say this) 1. For one thing, it just seems glib. 2. It overlooks the reality of life many Baha'is find themselves in. For example, your spouse, your children or your parents may be Baha'i. All your friends may be Baha'i. Leaving requires much more than just no longer showing up for Feast....its not like leaving a club! It can dramatically alter your entire life. This response also seems to overlook the enormous emotional costs involved. If you leave simply because you don't believe anymore, then you will feel like you were duped and wasted valuable time. If you left under duress, but still believe, then you feel like God has abandoned you. For the latter, being "simply removed from the roles" is the worst thing that can happen! 3. I would like to believe your last sentence but...........when the religious authority and the political authority are not entirely separate then a religious sanction could very well have political and legal ramifications. For example, 'Abdul-Baha warned about association with CBs and enemies of the Faith. I believe the word "shun" and "avoid" are used, very strong terms. What if, in the future World Order (when Baha'is believe most everyone else will be Baha'i) Joe Baha'i is removed from the list for "talking against the Faith" and his employer is a Baha'i? How long do you think Joe Baha'i will have a job? (As an aside, I wonder what civil rights, if any, people who are actually declared Covenant Breakers will have--has anyone looked into that?) I guess my point is that "simply" removing someone is really not all that simple. Peace, Milissa Boyer Kafes mbkafes@bestweb.net ************************************************************************** * ".....who could imagine..... * * that you would freak out, somewhere in Kansas......" * * * * --Frank Zappa * ************************************************************************** ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 1998 9:12 PM To: Dean Betts Cc: talisman@umich.edu; irfan1@umich.edu Subject: Re: Khomeinism and phenomenology Dear Dean: The vast majority of Iranian Baha'is do not experience discrimination in the form of physical violence. They experience it in the form of being shunned by their wider society, and from facing disabilities that come from being shunned. I can't tell you how many Iranian Baha'is have bitterly and at length complained to me, sometimes with tears in their eyes, about the social discrimination they faced in Iran. People wouldn't invite them over to dinner, or if they did they considered the Baha'i guest ritually polluted and would break the plates they ate on after they left. I always listened to such stories of shunning and discrimination with a great deal of sympathy, and they continue to pull at my heart strings. People should not be shunned for their beliefs. Nowadays, things are even worse. Iranian Baha'is may not attend university. However, I was threatened with being shunned by the Baha'is for my beliefs, and some of my old friends in the community now shun me, and don't invite me over to dinner, or even answer my email greetings. And no doubt some of them would break their plates if I ate off them. Of course, it would be much worse if I had actually been declared a CB instead of only being accused of "making statements contrary to the covenant." I would have become a non-person to a lifetime of friends and family. A Baha'i intellectual who was declared a CB would not be welcome to use Baha'i libraries or archives or to benefit from Baha'i educational activities, in exactly the same way as the Iranian Baha'is are excluded from Shi`ite universities. Moreover, to suggest that the existential hell that a believer is put through by being "dropped from the rolls" or being accused of contravening the covenant is trivial is to take a cruel and instrumental view of human suffering. The Baha'i authorities are not welcome to treat human beings as though they are chess pieces, and as though they have no rights. And I predict to you that if they go on in the direction they are going, sooner or later they will land in legal trouble. Already the governmental authorities in Germany, who have a special sensitivity to fascism, have their eye on the Baha'i faith as an organization that might be being run like a cult. To the extent that the Baha'i authorities (we are talking about Firuz Kazemzadeh, Robert Henderson, Douglas Martin, Farzam Arbab and Ian Semple among others) actually do run the religion like a cult, they will increase the surveillance of their activities by civil libertarians and the civil authorities in charge of protecting civil liberties in the free world. Already last fall, plans were made to send a German Counselor across the border to a neighboring country to silence a Baha'i living there. Don't the Baha'i authorities have the slightest idea of what that would look like if it got into the European press? Anyway, I don't actually see the slightest difference between the way Baha'is treat those they think should be shunned for their ideas and the way some Shi`ites shun the Iranian Baha'is. Nor do I see much difference in the authoritarian style of the chief Shi`ite authorities and that of the so-called universal house of justice and its counselors. The only difference is that the Baha'is don't yet have control of the apparatus of a state, and so can't jail dissidents. Whether they would execute them if they could remains to be seen. cheers Juan At 01:38 AM 2/3/98 -0500, Dean Betts wrote: >There is no parallel or similarity here. If you talk against the Faith, the >very worst thing that can befall you is that you're simply removed from the >roles, nothing more. You don't lose any civil rights, nor would you do so >under any future "World Order", much less fear for your safety. > >>> >>>With regard to the Baha'i parallel, I can't see that . . . has >>>presented any information or analysis that challenge my view that a similar >>>process of Representation and the invention of tradition lies behind Baha'i >>>counselors' increasingly wideranging claims to be able to pronounce on the >>>authoritative interpretation of the Baha'i texts in such a way as to >>>determine that ordinary Baha'is' email traffic is "contrary to the >>>covenant." Just as no 19th century Shi`ite believed that the ulama should >>>rule Iran or that they had the authority to abrogate the command of >>>pilgrimage, so no early 20th century Baha'i believed that a corporate body >>>such as the "counselors" had the right to tell people what they could or >>>could not say. And, moreover, the claim of counselors to engage in this >>>activity is especially illogical given that they have in their reporting >>>line no person or body that has the prerogative of authoritative >>>interpretation (unlike the Hands of the Cause in the time of Shoghi Effendi, >>>who at least reported to someone with such authority). >>> >>> >>>sincerely >>> >>>Juan Cole >>>History >>>U of Michigan >>> >>> >> >> > > >**************************************************************************** > Verily, He is the Merciful, the Compassionate. Praise be to God, the >Lord of all the worlds. > - Baha'u'llah >**************************************************************************** > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 1998 7:01 AM To: talisman Subject: Re: CENSORSHIP? soc.religion.bahai No need for a question mark on censorship.... ``~\~Liquid Sky~//~`` wrote in message <34d7847a.7069845@news.ping.be>... > >FORWARDED >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- >X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail & News for Macintosh - 3.0a (370) >Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 09:01:08 -1000 >Subject: FW: Open Letter to President Khatami of Iran >From: "Island Business Center (Bill Hyman)" >To: pin00987@ping.be >CC: srb > >I am returning your submission for the following reasons. It is written in >a >demeaning manner. It assumes all "Ayatol Bahas" are male, I have >reservations about the title "Ayatol Baha", and I have a personal aversion >to emasculation. If you could resubmit your views in a more respectful >manner I will be pleased to review them again for posting. >Bill Hyman >co-moderator >soc-religion-bahai >---------- >From: pin00987@ping.be (`~=x[silvermask]x=~`) >To: soc-religion-bahai@news3.Belgium.EU.net >Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai,news.groups >Subject: Re: Open Letter to President Khatami of Iran >Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 14:51:15 GMT > >In a valuable contribution to my intellectual enrichment, "William P. >Collins" wrote as follows: > William P. Collins wrote: >> compared to Islamic authorities by disaffected individuals who have made a >> habit of collecting injuries to themselves. > Liquid Sky responded: >If individuals go about branding people and their actions with >"reprehensible" labels, well, what do we have? Lots of Self Styled Self >Appointed "Ayatul Bahas," acting as illegitimate vigilantes (which is >explicitly prohibited in the Baha'i Faith: Authority lies EXCLUSIVELY in >the hands of the Elected Institutions). > >And of course, those above mentioned "Ayatul Bahas" just walk into the >vacuum created by the abolition of the clergy, and the believers who feel >infirm in their Independent Investigation of Truth also start looking up to >those Ayatul Bahas for leadership and guidance. A perfect recipe for >disaster and strain on already stretched Baha'i Human Resources. What do you mean by "disaster" or have in mind? >REPEAT: >> who have made a habit of collecting injuries to themselves. > >This sounds more like an "Edict of some His Holiness above defined Ayatul >Baha" than an observation. Or in the least, "If only I get a chance I >will help them "collecting those injuries to themselves." Yes. I am >angered - and I do hope that those Ayatul Bahas will soon be shoved into >a corner and emasculated. It needn't go THAT far.... Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: . The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the newsgroups specified in the CFV: news.announce.newgroups news.groups alt.religion.bahai soc.culture.israel soc.rights.human talk.religion.misc soc.religion.bahai You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th. The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker, Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 1998 7:06 AM To: talisman Subject: Re: CENSORSHIP? soc.religion.bahai Robert A. Little wrote in message <6b8lp2$qct$1@nnrp2.snfc21.pbi.net>... >There seems to be no question that the moderator censored the message sent >to soc.religion.bahai (see below). Thank you for admitting THAT.... >Respectfully, > >Robert A. Little >``~\~Liquid Sky~//~`` wrote in message <34d7847a.7069845@news.ping.be>... >> >>FORWARDED >>-------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >-------------- >>X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail & News for Macintosh - 3.0a (370) >>Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 09:01:08 -1000 >>Subject: FW: Open Letter to President Khatami of Iran >>From: "Island Business Center (Bill Hyman)" >>To: pin00987@ping.be >>CC: srb >> >>I am returning your submission for the following reasons. It is written in >>a >>demeaning manner. It assumes all "Ayatol Bahas" are male, I have >>reservations about the title "Ayatol Baha", and I have a personal aversion >>to emasculation. If you could resubmit your views in a more respectful >>manner I will be pleased to review them again for posting. >>Bill Hyman >>co-moderator >>soc-religion-bahai >>---------- >>From: pin00987@ping.be (`~=x[silvermask]x=~`) >>To: soc-religion-bahai@news3.Belgium.EU.net >>Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai,news.groups >>Subject: Re: Open Letter to President Khatami of Iran >>Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 14:51:15 GMT > > >(snip) > >>1. I think that "reprehensible" acts have been quite clearly defined by >>the Founders in their writings. >> >>2. If something warrants "reprehension," the authority to call it as >>such, lies exclusively in the hands of the elected institutions. >> >>> compared to Islamic authorities by disaffected individuals who have made >a >>> habit of collecting injuries to themselves. >> >>If individuals go about branding people and their actions with >>"reprehensible" labels, well, what do we have? Lots of Self Styled Self >>Appointed "Ayatul Bahas," acting as illegitimate vigilantes (which is >>explicitly prohibited in the Baha'i Faith: Authority lies EXCLUSIVELY in >>the hands of the Elected Institutions). >> >>And of course, those above mentioned "Ayatul Bahas" just walk into the >>vacuum created by the abolition of the clergy, and the believers who feel >>infirm in their Independent Investigation of Truth also start looking up to >>those Ayatul Bahas for leadership and guidance. A perfect recipe for >>disaster and strain on already stretched Baha'i Human Resources. >> >>REPEAT: >>> who have made a habit of collecting injuries to themselves. >> >>This sounds more like an "Edict of some His Holiness above defined Ayatul >>Baha" than an observation. Or in the least, "If only I get a chance I >>will help them "collecting those injuries to themselves." Yes. I am >>angered - and I do hope that those Ayatul Bahas will soon be shoved into >>a corner and emasculated. >> >>> The mere breathing in the same sentence that the actions of the Universal >>House >>> of Justice can be compared to the manner of the ayatollahs of Iran is an >>intentional >>> affront and insult to Baha'is, who are themselves the electors and >>candidates in the >> >> >> >> / \ >> / \ >> / \ >> _______________________ >> ````` from''''' >> `~=x[silvermask]x=~' >> ~~ >> \ / >> ~~ >> >> >> >> >> _______________________ >> ````` from''''' >> `~\\ liquidsky //~' >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: . The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the newsgroups specified in the CFV: news.announce.newgroups news.groups alt.religion.bahai soc.culture.israel soc.rights.human talk.religion.misc soc.religion.bahai You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th. The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker, Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 1998 7:29 AM To: talisman Cc: Loni BramsonLerche Subject: Civil rights of covenant breakers? (was Re: Khomeinism and phenomenology) -----Original Message----- From: Loni BramsonLerche To: Mark A. Foster ; Juan R. I. Cole ; Dean Betts Cc: talisman@umich.edu ; irfan1@umich.edu Date: Wednesday, February 04, 1998 4:54 AM Subject: Re: Khomeinism and phenomenology >Loni B. quoted: > "First, the civil rights of Covenant-breakers must be scrupulously >upheld." If this is true, why have so many Bahais claimed their opposition to talk.religion.bahai is based on fear of covenant breakers posting messages to it? Would it not be their "civil right" to do so? > (From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice > to a National Spiritual Assembly, October 29, 1974) > (Multiple Authors: Lights of Guidance, Page: 186) [clip] >At 19:23 03-02-98 -0600, Mark A. Foster wrote: >>At 08:12 PM 2/3/98 -0500, Juan R. I. Cole wrote: >> >>>Already the governmental authorities in Germany, >>>who have a special sensitivity to fascism, have their >>>eye on the Baha'i faith as an organization that might >>>be being run like a cult. >> >>Juan - >> >>Do you have more information on this point? >> >>Mark (Foster) >> >> > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 1998 7:57 AM To: talisman Subject: Dr. Juan Cole on Bahai censorship & denial of civil rights.... The relevance of Dr. Juan Cole on Bahai censorship and denial of civil rights to the discussion for talk.religion.bahai should be obvious by now to most thoughtful people.... -----Original Message----- From: Juan R. I. Cole Cc: talisman@umich.edu ; irfan1@umich.edu Date: Tuesday, February 03, 1998 8:23 PM Subject: Re: Khomeinism and phenomenology > >Dear [X]: > >The vast majority of Iranian Baha'is do not experience discrimination in the >form of physical violence. They experience it in the form of being shunned >by their wider society, and from facing disabilities that come from being >shunned. I can't tell you how many Iranian Baha'is have bitterly and at >length complained to me, sometimes with tears in their eyes, about the >social discrimination they faced in Iran. People wouldn't invite them over >to dinner, or if they did they considered the Baha'i guest ritually polluted >and would break the plates they ate on after they left. I always listened >to such stories of shunning and discrimination with a great deal of >sympathy, and they continue to pull at my heart strings. People should not >be shunned for their beliefs. Nowadays, things are even worse. Iranian >Baha'is may not attend university. > >However, I was threatened with being shunned by the Baha'is for my beliefs, >and some of my old friends in the community now shun me, and don't invite me >over to dinner, or even answer my email greetings. And no doubt some of >them would break their plates if I ate off them. Of course, it would be >much worse if I had actually been declared a CB instead of only being >accused of "making statements contrary to the covenant." I would have >become a non-person to a lifetime of friends and family. A Baha'i >intellectual who was declared a CB would not be welcome to use Baha'i >libraries or archives or to benefit from Baha'i educational activities, in >exactly the same way as the Iranian Baha'is are excluded from Shi`ite >universities. > >Moreover, to suggest that the existential hell that a believer is put >through by being "dropped from the rolls" or being accused of contravening >the covenant is trivial is to take a cruel and instrumental view of human >suffering. The Baha'i authorities are not welcome to treat human beings as >though they are chess pieces, and as though they have no rights. And I >predict to you that if they go on in the direction they are going, sooner or >later they will land in legal trouble. Already the governmental authorities >in Germany, who have a special sensitivity to fascism, have their eye on the >Baha'i faith as an organization that might be being run like a cult. To the >extent that the Baha'i authorities (we are talking about Firuz Kazemzadeh, >Robert Henderson, Douglas Martin, Farzam Arbab and Ian Semple among others) >actually do run the religion like a cult, they will increase the >surveillance of their activities by civil libertarians and the civil >authorities in charge of protecting civil liberties in the free world. >Already last fall, plans were made to send a German Counselor across the >border to a neighboring country to silence a Baha'i living there. Don't the >Baha'i authorities have the slightest idea of what that would look like if >it got into the European press? > >Anyway, I don't actually see the slightest difference between the way >Baha'is treat those they think should be shunned for their ideas and the way >some Shi`ites shun the Iranian Baha'is. Nor do I see much difference in the >authoritarian style of the chief Shi`ite authorities and that of the >so-called universal house of justice and its counselors. The only >difference is that the Baha'is don't yet have control of the apparatus of a >state, and so can't jail dissidents. Whether they would execute them if >they could remains to be seen. > > >cheers Juan -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: . The Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the newsgroups specified in the CFV: news.announce.newgroups news.groups alt.religion.bahai soc.culture.israel soc.rights.human talk.religion.misc soc.religion.bahai You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th. The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker, Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 1998 1:07 PM To: Loni BramsonLerche; Mark A. Foster; Dean Betts Cc: talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: Khomeinism and phenomenology Dear Loni: It is my recollection that there was an incident around 1988 when the Berlin city council refused to allow the Baha'is to use public facilities on the grounds that they were what we would refer to as a cult with fascist tendencies. It is also my impression that the German government generally is understandably nervous about a movement, some leaders of which aim at the establishment of a theocratic state wherein no dissent or public criticism of the Establishment is permitted, since the Germans have had bad luck with such utopian/authoritarian projects in the 20th century. The Russian press also identified the Baha'i faith, along with Scientology and some other movements, as among hierarchical and repressive groups (the Scientology leadership also interprets dissent as "attacks"). This was one reason the Russian parliament recently refused officially to recognize the Baha'is. Of course, I know that the Baha'i movement is extremely diverse. There are thousands of good and decent people in it who are not committed ro repression. The basic scriptures of the Baha'i faith contain high ideals and a commitment to democracy. Unfortunately, the top leadership of the movement has been infiltrated by persons who see covenant breakers under every bed, who can't tell the difference between critique and brutal attack, who are openly contemptuous of critical, analytical thinking, who demand public absolute obedience and conformity, and who have viciously betrayed the very essence of the Baha'i revelation. That is why I do not say the movement is "a cult" tout court. I say that some of its leaders sometimes run it like a cult. And my point was that this mode of operation is not going to remain hidden from the world forever, and there is going to be a backlash from democratic societies. My prediction is that this backlash will be good for the Baha'i leadership, which, hidden in obscurity, now gets away with bullying its adherents dreadfully. cheers Juan At 10:19 AM 2/4/98 +0100, Loni BramsonLerche wrote: >Dear Esteemed Irfan list owner, the Prof. Juan Cole, who is welcome to come >eat at my house anytime (do you mind fish sticks?) :-) > >Dear Juan, > >Have you heard that there is an Irfan rule about no crossposting? ;) > >A rule I am breaking this one time to get the following out. > > >As for what you have written below, you must be referring to the court case >that took place a few years ago, the results of which were widely spread >around Europe because of the EU and all that. What goes on in one EU >country can affect all the others, so this court case was very important >for the independent status of the Baha'i administrative order. > >This court case had nothing to do with a "cult status" but was because the >German legal code did not have statutes which permit LSA's and the NSA to >have separate non-profit legal status (that is "ASBL" in French, but I >can't remember the term in English at the moment). > >What happened was a local assembly took its by-laws to the city hall to >register as an "ASBL". This particular city hall said it could not have an >independent status as an "ASBL" because it was dependent on the NSA and >thus was not independent. > >So the LSA statutes had to go through the state and federal courts in order >for it to be recognized as independent from the NSA (for finances, etc.), >but under the aegis of the NSA. > >The German civil code had provisions for non-profit organizations to have >chapters throughout the country, but had no provisions for something like >the Baha'i administrative order. > >It now does because whatever the highest court was for this kind of case, >this court recognized the Baha'i Faith as an independent religion and thus >recognized that the Baha'i Faith can organize itself in any way it wishes. > >As for the comment concerning the civil rights of covenant-breakers in a >Baha'i society, I have already posted several times the following: > >"Personal relations with Covenant-breakers, however, such as personal >contact or entering into correspondence with one is strictly forbidden. In >this connection, however, it is important to remember two qualifications: > "First, the civil rights of Covenant-breakers must be scrupulously >upheld. For example, if a Baha'i owes a debt to a person who breaks the >Covenant he must be sure that it is repaid and that his obligations are met. > "Secondly, although the believers are required to avoid, if possible, >all contact with Covenant-breakers it sometimes happens that contact on >business matters cannot be avoided. For example, in one city the head of >the rate collection department was a Covenant-breaker. In such situations >the believers should restrict their contact with the Covenant-breaker to a >purely formal business level and to an absolute minimum." > (From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice > to a National Spiritual Assembly, October 29, 1974) > (Multiple Authors: Lights of Guidance, Page: 186) > >Please, no more crossposting. > >Loni > > > > > > > >At 19:23 03-02-98 -0600, Mark A. Foster wrote: >>At 08:12 PM 2/3/98 -0500, Juan R. I. Cole wrote: >> >>>Already the governmental authorities in Germany, >>>who have a special sensitivity to fascism, have their >>>eye on the Baha'i faith as an organization that might >>>be being run like a cult. >> >>Juan - >> >>Do you have more information on this point? >> >>Mark (Foster) >> >> > > ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 1998 8:10 PM To: SManeck@berry.edu; Dean Betts Cc: talisman@umich.edu; irfan1@umich.edu Subject: Re: Khomeinism and phenomenology Dear Susan: Well, look, if you send this kind of garbage out to both Irfan and Talisman, then I have no choice but to reply to both lists. Kindly restrict these sorts of discussions to Talisman if you will. This particular remark of yours is beneath contempt. I do not engage in tirades in my private conversation with Baha'is. In some instances simple greetings have been met coldly or not replied to by old friends with whom I had never even brought up the painful events of the past two years, in a social context in which is was clear that I had no intention of doing so (New Years greetings, for instance.) And moreover, I was in April, 1996, directly threatened by the Baha'i authorities with being shunned, at a time when I was a loyal and believing Baha'i who actually (stupid me) went around defending them. Had they followed through on their foolish threat, you would not now be talking to me, in exactly the same way as a Shi`ite would not talk to a Baha'i with whom conversation was banned by the ayatollahs. There is no difference in this regard. The lengths that you have shown yourself willing to go to defend these indefensible Baha'i cult practices are also comparable to the Shi`ite intellectuals, loyalists to the Khomeini regime, who defend treating the Baha'is as pariahs because they criticize the Muslim authorities, deny the existence of the 12th imam and hold other distasteful views. Juan ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Thursday, February 05, 1998 2:18 AM To: talisman@umich.edu Subject: Phenomenology and Khomeinism FYI from another list. cheers Juan ----------------------------- >Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 20:11:58 -0500 >From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) >Subject: H-Bahai Phenomenology and Khomeinism > > >Many thanks to . . . and others for excellent messages with >regard to Shi`ite history. > >Let me just try to clarify a little bit what I think is at stake in the >discussion. That is, I do not in the least challenge the analysis so >usefully put forward, by Professors Lawson and Babayan, concerning what I >would call a theocratic motif in the history of Shi`ite thought. > >I just think it is important to make certain distinctions. When the >Safavid, Shi`ite-ruled state arose from 1501, it presented Shi`ite clergymen >like al-Karaki with a dilemma. Shi`ism had been for centuries premised on >the Occultation of legitimate power. How could you have Friday prayers, >collect religious taxes, etc., in the absence of the Imam. The strict >Akhbari answer was that you could not. What the Safavid Usulis did (and I >think they were the most powerful force till the mid-17th century) was to >*legitimate* the Shi`ite-ruled Safavid state. They said it was all right to >have a king, and that it was all right to say the khutbah or Friday >afternoon sermon in his name. So it may be fair to say that the early >Safavid ulama and Khomeini faced *analogous* tasks (justifying a new >arrangement in the history of state-clerical relations). But the >*substance* of their positions couldn't have been more different. Khomeini >denounced bitterly the sort of lively cooperation of Shi`ite clergy and >monarchical state that the sixteenth-century ulama so effectively crafted. > >But I gave the example of Khomeinism, and I tried to define Khomeinism >exactly: belief that monarchy is disallowed (not just less than wholly >legitimate, but practically disallowed and to be fought against) in Islam, >that the Shi`ite ulama have a mandate to rule from the Imams, that the >Shi`ite ulama in turn must throw up a single central jurisprudent (faqih) >who must have supreme governmental authority. > >Please note that Khomeini does not, in his *Hukumat-i Islami*, put forward >these ideas as his own or as novel. He analyzes the sayings of the Twelve >Imams to discover in them these imperatives. > >Now, Shahrough Akhavi and others have subjected Khomeini's philology to a >searching critique and I need not repeat it here. But the simple fact is >that the Twelve Imams did not put forward a blueprint for the Khomeinist >state. To suggest that they did so is simple anachronism. There was no >Usuli ulama corps in the time of the Imams, anyway. The Imams probably did >not expect their own line to end. And when they appointed some follower to >be the qadi of Yemen or whatever and designated him a hakim, they did *not* >mean that he should be the ruler or ha:kim in the modern sense of the word. >They meant he should adjudicate legal disputes. They were not given >"hukumat" or civil governance, but rather the power to be hakam or judicial >authorities. Whether Khomeini was confused on this matter or whether he >deliberately put forth a falsehood is irrelevant, since his argument simply >does not hold water to begin with. (Some of the argument is based on >supposed hadiths that the alleged 12th imam sent back from Occultation 120 >years after his death). And, yes, as a historian I do think we can form a >fair opinion of what the 12 Imams really did think about religious and state >authority, by combing through the surviving records and collating them with >contemporary evidence. I don't accept that such careful historical work can >be reduced to being on par with Khomeini's fantasy philology. > >And, obviously, Khomeinism as a state ideology in Iran has involved the >imposition of cultural hegemony in the Gramscian sense. The ridiculous and >erroneous Khomeini interpretation of Shi`ite history has been elevated in >schools to divine truth, and the institutions Khomeini "deduced" in his >twisted way from the Shi`ite tradition have been endowed with the power of >life and death, seeping into every aspect of society, and committing >judicial murder against thousands, including 200 Baha'is. Decent Shi`ite >learned men who refused to go along with this travesty were disgraced and >destroyed, and now it is even a capital crime in Iran to question vilayat-i >faqih, and Ali Khamenei has threatened to charge Montazeri and others under >this monstrous law. > >Now, I submit that any scholarly stance or methodology that denies us the >ability to critique the rise of Khomeinism as hegemony is simply inadequate >to the task. I think it is very important to understand the various stances >that believers take at any one time, from the inside as much as possible. >It would be foolish to ignore Khomeinism or its main arguments. But a >phenomenology that prevented us from recognizing this ideology's >anachronistic ideological bases or its generally reactionary and >authoritarian character (and I know no one here has suggested such a thing) >would not be an aid to understanding, but the opposite. Indeed, we would >thereby be prevented from understanding the ideology's opponents, such as >Montazeri, who are themselves steeped in the Shi`ite tradition. > >Khomeinism is, as I suggested before, an "invented tradition" in the sense >that Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger use the term. Such traditions are >invented by powerful social groups (such as the Shi`ite ulama) in order to >bolster their power. And conservative forces within the Baha'i institutions >have also been very successful in reshaping the religion so as to reflect >their desire to be above criticism, to be thought infallible in all >respects, to acquire the de facto ability of authoritative interpretation, >to disallow dissident voices a hearing, etc. The processes are very similar >in both of these Iranian religious traditions, except that the Shi`ite >clergy have been enormously more successful in actually gaining substantial >hegemony over large numbers of peoples' lives. > > >cheers > >Juan Cole >History >U of Michigan > > ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Thursday, February 05, 1998 11:48 AM To: Ian Kluge; talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: Germany, Russia & the Baha'i Faith I will look up the documentation on the German and Russian cases. With regard to Russia, the critiques of the authoritarian nature of Baha'i governance were coming from Russian civil libertarians, not from the communists or (only) from the Orthodox Church. Russians know organizations that have a Stalinist tinge when they see one, and most of them are not interested in any further experiments of that sort. With regard to Germany, the particular critiques I was talking about came from the Berlin government, which was known for its liberalism and secularism (partially a result of the Free University being there). As for freedom of speech, this is not something Baha'is have much claim to expound on given their own organization's role in suppressing it. The Baha'i power elite is explicitly committed to censoring everything Baha'is write; to controlling all media even remotely connected with the Baha'i faith (one reason they attacked *Dialogue*), to spying on and encouraging the informing on of all Baha'is within the organization, the monitoring of Baha'is' email traffic for signs of unorthodoxy or dissent, and the punishment of those who exercise their free speech rights through disfellowship, shunning, and threats of shunning. Germany and Russia have both had a great deal of experience with organizations that behave in this way, and are right to be suspicious. cheers Juan At 06:17 AM 2/5/98 -0800, Ian Kluge wrote: >Dear Friends: > >That the German authorities would look askance at the activities of the Baha'i Faith should be no surprise to anyone who is familiar with the extremely close ties between the German state and the Christian churches. > >The ties are so close that the German government actually collects taxes from all citizens to support the churches - i.e. imposes a religious tax on all citizens which it then divides among the various Christian denominations. In effect, Christianity is a state religion in Germany (as Lutheranism is the state religion in the Scandinavian countries). > >One of the ways to escape the tax is to declare and prove that one is a member of a non-Christian religion... > >Consequently the German churches and government (in which the Christian Democratic Union -CDU and its catholic affiliate in Bavaria are key players) have a vested interest in discouraging successful or potentially successful rivals. > >I suggest that money rather than concern about civil rights was the motive for the German actions against the Scientologists and Baha'is. > >The Baha'i Faith is potentially a big player in Germany where it represents a possible bridge between Christianity and Germany's large Muslim population (Turks). > >Nor should anyone who knows anything about Marxism be surprised that the Russians Duma is no friend of the Baha'i Faith. >The Orthodox Church is struggling hard to regain its former position and would like to ban all non-Orthodox but especially non-Christian work. > >Furthermore, Baha'i teachings have a potentially wide audience in Russia because it combines some of the progressive economic doctrines (no extremes of wealth and poverty, for example) that Russians are used to with a religious system that can meet their spiritual needs. (See Marxism and the Baha'i Faith) > >As the Bahai Faith becomes more successful and wide-spread it is obvious that --under the guise of protecting people from cults- governments will attack it. > >The traditional religious institutions as well as the governments and parties they support understand all too well that the Bahai Faith is a revolutionary and viable threat to their hegemony. > >They are not the guardians of free thought and civil rights as Dr. Cole and others would make them out to be. > >Best wishes, > >(Dr.) Ian Kluge > >-----Original Message----- >From: Juan R. I. Cole [SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] >Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 1998 9:09 AM >To: talisman@umich.edu >Subject: Re: Khomeinism and phenomenology > > >Dear Loni: > >It is my recollection that there was an incident around 1988 when the Berlin >city council refused to allow the Baha'is to use public facilities on the >grounds that they were what we would refer to as a cult with fascist >tendencies. It is also my impression that the German government generally >is understandably nervous about a movement, some leaders of which aim at the >establishment of a theocratic state wherein no dissent or public criticism >of the Establishment is permitted, since the Germans have had bad luck with >such utopian/authoritarian projects in the 20th century. > >The Russian press also identified the Baha'i faith, along with Scientology >and some other movements, as among hierarchical and repressive groups (the >Scientology leadership also interprets dissent as "attacks"). This was one >reason the Russian parliament recently refused officially to recognize the >Baha'is. > >Of course, I know that the Baha'i movement is extremely diverse. There are >thousands of good and decent people in it who are not committed ro >repression. The basic scriptures of the Baha'i faith contain high ideals >and a commitment to democracy. Unfortunately, the top leadership of the >movement has been infiltrated by persons who see covenant breakers under >every bed, who can't tell the difference between critique and brutal attack, >who are openly contemptuous of critical, analytical thinking, who demand >public absolute obedience and conformity, and who have viciously betrayed >the very essence of the Baha'i revelation. That is why I do not say the >movement is "a cult" tout court. I say that some of its leaders sometimes >run it like a cult. And my point was that this mode of operation is not >going to remain hidden from the world forever, and there is going to be a >backlash from democratic societies. My prediction is that this backlash >will be good for the Baha'i leadership, which, hidden in obscurity, now gets >away with bullying its adherents dreadfully. > >cheers Juan > > > > > >At 10:19 AM 2/4/98 +0100, Loni BramsonLerche wrote: >>Dear Esteemed Irfan list owner, the Prof. Juan Cole, who is welcome to come >>eat at my house anytime (do you mind fish sticks?) :-) >> >>Dear Juan, >> >>Have you heard that there is an Irfan rule about no crossposting? ;) >> >>A rule I am breaking this one time to get the following out. >> >> >>As for what you have written below, you must be referring to the court case >>that took place a few years ago, the results of which were widely spread >>around Europe because of the EU and all that. What goes on in one EU >>country can affect all the others, so this court case was very important >>for the independent status of the Baha'i administrative order. >> >>This court case had nothing to do with a "cult status" but was because the >>German legal code did not have statutes which permit LSA's and the NSA to >>have separate non-profit legal status (that is "ASBL" in French, but I >>can't remember the term in English at the moment). >> >>What happened was a local assembly took its by-laws to the city hall to >>register as an "ASBL". This particular city hall said it could not have an >>independent status as an "ASBL" because it was dependent on the NSA and >>thus was not independent. >> >>So the LSA statutes had to go through the state and federal courts in order >>for it to be recognized as independent from the NSA (for finances, etc.), >>but under the aegis of the NSA. >> >>The German civil code had provisions for non-profit organizations to have >>chapters throughout the country, but had no provisions for something like >>the Baha'i administrative order. >> >>It now does because whatever the highest court was for this kind of case, >>this court recognized the Baha'i Faith as an independent religion and thus >>recognized that the Baha'i Faith can organize itself in any way it wishes. >> >>As for the comment concerning the civil rights of covenant-breakers in a >>Baha'i society, I have already posted several times the following: >> >>"Personal relations with Covenant-breakers, however, such as personal >>contact or entering into correspondence with one is strictly forbidden. In >>this connection, however, it is important to remember two qualifications: >> "First, the civil rights of Covenant-breakers must be scrupulously >>upheld. For example, if a Baha'i owes a debt to a person who breaks the >>Covenant he must be sure that it is repaid and that his obligations are met. >> "Secondly, although the believers are required to avoid, if possible, >>all contact with Covenant-breakers it sometimes happens that contact on >>business matters cannot be avoided. For example, in one city the head of >>the rate collection department was a Covenant-breaker. In such situations >>the believers should restrict their contact with the Covenant-breaker to a >>purely formal business level and to an absolute minimum." >> (From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice >> to a National Spiritual Assembly, October 29, 1974) >> (Multiple Authors: Lights of Guidance, Page: 186) >> >>Please, no more crossposting. >> >>Loni >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>At 19:23 03-02-98 -0600, Mark A. Foster wrote: >>>At 08:12 PM 2/3/98 -0500, Juan R. I. Cole wrote: >>> >>>>Already the governmental authorities in Germany, >>>>who have a special sensitivity to fascism, have their >>>>eye on the Baha'i faith as an organization that might >>>>be being run like a cult. >>> >>>Juan - >>> >>>Do you have more information on this point? >>> >>>Mark (Foster) >>> >>> >> >> > > > > ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Thursday, February 05, 1998 11:55 PM To: talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: Control of media? Dear Burl: Calling a perfectly correct statement "absolute nonsense" only calls your own perspective and/or motives into account. By the way, are you still an Assistant for Protection? You know perfectly well that all published writing by Baha'is on their own religion must be vetted by the Baha'i authorities at the appropriate level, local, national, or international. What is not generally realized is that this system has been employed to systematically prevent the publication of certain views and perspectives, of certain books and other materials, and to generally shape Baha'i discourse in particular directions. In our check-list of "cult-like" practices, I think we may safely enter such items as: 1) no one may publish anything about his or her own religion without prior permission from his or her religious authorities 2) dissidence or even "persistent public questioning" is forbidden 3) religious authorities employ shunning and threats of shunning to manipulate, frighten and control adherents. cheers Juan ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Friday, February 06, 1998 9:03 PM To: talisman@umich.edu Subject: RE: Germany, Russia & the Baha'i Faith Dear Friends: First of all, the repressive and authoritarian policies of the current Baha'i authorities, which are directly contradictory to the key scriptural texts of the Baha'i revelation, are simply not in doubt. Since cyberspace arrived, anthropology professor and long-time Baha'i pioneer and writer Linda Walbridge, religious publisher and long-time Baha'i activist Steve Scholl, history professor, former pioneer, translator and long-time Baha'i Juan Cole, and a large number of other Baha'i intellectuals have been threatened with being shunned by the so-called universal house of justice via its counselors for their inoffensive email messages (often reporting the findings of their academic research) to private academic lists. Michael McKenny, a devoted Baha'i for 25 years, was summarily expelled at the direct order of the "universal" house of (ha!) "justice". These events are not rumor or innuendo. They occurred. They have occurred on even a larger scale behind the scenes, since the favorite means of cult-like social control employed by the Baha'i authorities is to silence people by threatening them with being shunned, and to warn them that they must not let anyone know they have been threatened. How does any Baha'i official even know about an email message sent to 150 persons on an Indiana University listserv? That's a tiny group in a religion claiming millions of followers! It is because the Baha'i leaders have the membership spied upon and informed upon assiduously. Initially the number of assistants for every ABM was small, and the number of ABMs for ever counselor was as well. Now typically a counselor has 60 ABMs and each has 60 or so Assistants. This is a large corps of people who are essentially spies on the community. And my point is that the social control techniques employed by the Baha'i Far Right that has captured control of the religion's institutions and prostituted it for their own wealth and power are cult-like and offensive to any civil libertarian anywhere in the world, and that these control mechanisms, which have been carefully concealed from the outside world, are now becoming known. And they will inevitably have an impact on the legal standing and the reputation of the Baha'i communities in democratic countries until and unless these policies are changed and the Baha'i faith returns to its scriptural roots as a religion of democracy and freedom of conscience. As for the supposed inability of Americans to recognize genuine repression because they have too much "freedom," this is really quite a pernicious statement. Precisely because Americans do have freedom of speech and conscience, they can recognize when someone is trying to take it away. And as for me, I lived in Syrian-occupied Lebanon as a journalist and was censored by the agents of the dictator Hafiz al-Asad. The agents of the "universal" house of "justice" also attempted to censor me. It felt exactly the same in both cases. It felt shitty. Has Dr. Kluge ever lived under a dictatorship? If not, perhaps his inability to recognize the authoritarian nature of Baha'i governance derives precisely from his inexperience with dictatorship. As for me, I know whereof I speak. I was interrogated by the Egyptian secret police for my Baha'i views, and I was interrogated by the Baha'i authorities for my Baha'i views, and in both cases the interrogation was not conducted in order to extract information, but rather in order to intimidate me into changing my views or falling silent. I am glad to report that both Colonel Wagih of the Egyptian Secret Police and Stephen Birkland of the Baha'i Secret Police have failed to silence me. However, Birkland did manage to change my views of the contemporary Baha'i organization, simply because he was sent out as a representative of it, to inform me that I was in a cult-like organization that required my silence Or Else. I declined to remain a member of a cult-like organization. cheers Juan ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Friday, February 06, 1998 9:17 PM To: quanta@mindspring.com; talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: Control of media? Burl is just attempting to muddy the waters. If he wrote an article on the Baha'i faith for a magazine with national circulation, the article would have to be vetted in Wilmette, and he knows it. When I was a Baha'i professor of history, I was constantly harrassed by the Baha'i authorities who insisted on subjecting my academic writing to prepublication censorship. I was actually called up at home and browbeaten. I received nasty letters in the mail from Haifa containing personal insult. Now, the whole point of academic free inquiry is to discover new things and to delve into primary sources. Prepublication censorship by a religious organization would make that impossible. No self-respecting professional academic would agree to have his writing put through such censorship. Indeed, Firuz Kazemzadeh has written almost nothing about the Baha'i faith, he has told friends, precisely because he is unwilling to have his writing on the subject "reviewed" by religious bureaucrats. Baha'i writers are faced with a choice of silence, dishonesty or expulsion. With regard to Professor Amanat's book, *Resurrection and Renewal*, the author refused to submit it for prepublication "review" by the Baha'i authorities, and as a result the "universal" house of "justice" sent a letter to the US NSA announcing that Professor Amanat is "not a Baha'i." However, the US NSA declined to take formal action against him, leaving him technically on the rolls! There was, of course, a lively controversy in Wilmette over whether his book could be carried by the Baha'i distribution service. It was only because he was *not* a Baha'i (though he had not made any such declaration himself) that the uhj allowed his book to be carried. If you find all this confusing and faintly ridiculous, you are not alone. So, Burl, I'm afraid the story of that book, that author, and his fate are not exactly advertisements for the "openness" of the Baha'i administration. cheers Juan ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Saturday, February 07, 1998 3:44 PM To: SManeck@berry.edu; talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: Control of media? The true story of Abbas Amanat is as follows. He was brought up a Baha'i, in a Kashan family that had traditionally been Jewish but that had converted to the Baha'i faith in the previous generation. His brother Husayn designed the monument at Azadi square in Tehran, and also the seat of the universal house of justice. His father is an accomplished historian and is writing a mult-volume history of the Kashan Baha'i community. His brother Mehrdad is also a historian and co-authored the section on Qajar Iran in the prestigious Cambridge History of Iran. As a young intellectual at Tehran University and then later at Oxford, Abbas noticed that there was an authoritarian and anti-intellectual streak to the Baha'i organization, as exemplified in bigots such as Furutan (who had played a very sinister role in the attack on and suppression of Mazandarani's scholarship back in the 1930s and 1940s). Abbas therefore very wisely decided rather early on that he wanted nothing to do with the Baha'i organization. However, he has said repeatedly and publicly that he is "in love with the Bab." Abbas wrote his dissertation on the Babi movement at Oxford under the direction of Albert Hourani and Roger Owen, two of the magisterial historians of the Middle East in our times. He then came to the United States to teach at Yale. He did not ask to be transferred from the UK to the US Baha'i community, but some helpful person in Wilmette heard of his advent and entered him into the US rolls. Abbas, naturally, declined to submit his major historical study of the Babis for their approval or censoring to the motley assemblage of insurance salesmen, electrical engineers, bit part actors and failed businessmen who staff the upper echelons of the Baha'i administration. His book was published by Cornell University Press in 1989. The Baha'i Distribution Service, to its credit, felt that Abbas's book would be of interest to the Baha'is, and therefore contracted with Cornell University Press to buy 500 copies. When the book was distributed to the Baha'is, it generated large numbers of angry letters from the fundamentalists in the community who have the impression that they own the religion and can tell people what they may or may not say. They were upset that it departs from the details of Nabil's Narrative (which many have elevated to the status of infallible scripture) and Shoghi Effendi's God Passes By (ditto). Moreover, some religious bureaucrats in Wilmette became uneasy about carrying a book by an author who was on the rolls but who had declined to have it reviewed. A dispute therefore broke out in Wilmette as to whether the Baha'i Distribution Service should continue to carry the book. This dispute was ultimately submitted to the universal house of justice, which in reply declared that Abbas Amanat was not a Baha'i, and therefore the Baha'i Distribution Service was welcome to distribute his book, as it would be to distribute the book of any non-Baha'i author. I have a copy of this letter, but it is in my file cabinets somewhere and I am not going to spend time digging it out just to satisfy Susan Maneck, who may believe it or not as she likes. In the good old days before the universal house of justice's membership began being stacked with former counselors (who tend to have an Inquisitorial mindset, since part of their job is Inquisition), the only way to be removed from the rolls of Baha'i membership once you were entered on them was to write a letter explicitly renouncing belief in Baha'u'llah. Professor Amanat has never done so, although it is no secret that he long ago dissociated himself from the Baha'i organization and its authoritarian practices. I find Susan Maneck's speculation about his internal, private, existential beliefs, based on nothing more than hearsay, to be extremely rude and the height of slander (since she is bringing up slander). Has she ever had so much as a private conversation with Professor Amanat? I find her, and her organization's, willingness to expel Baha'is from their own religion by haughty and arrogant fiat, to be not only offensive but indicative of a quite dangerous mindset. In any case, the US Baha'i authorities have slightly more integrity about these things than do the Canadian ones, since they declined to remove Professor Amanat from the rolls simply on the say-so of the universal house of justice. They have sought from him a clarification of his views, but he maintains that his views are nobody's business. However, I will indulge in a little speculation. I think that if the Baha'i religious authorities really desire to make themselves so odious that they succeed in chasing out of the religion all the major Baha'i professors at major universities, that they will succeed in this. Apparently the real purpose of these intellectual pogroms is to ensure that it may be said that learned persons such as Denis MacEoin, Abbas Amanat and Linda Walbridge are not Baha'is, but the real Baha'is are ignoramuses who know no Middle Eastern languages, know nothing serious about Baha'i history, and adhere to a fundamentalist and intolerant point of view on the Baha'i faith, and who have managed to get themselves elected to high office (often through the most shameful campaigning and manipulation). cheers Juan ---------- From: Bill Garlington[SMTP:wilgar@sirius.com] Sent: Saturday, February 07, 1998 4:16 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Contentment Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 15:09:30 -0500 From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: Contentment Dear Bill: The idea of contentment or radiant acquiescence (rid.a:) in Sufi thought has more, I think, to do with the soul's existential attitude to God than with social quietism. Sufis were often social activists (the Safavid empire was founded by a militant Sufi order) and the orders maintained hospitals, insane asylums, and other social institutions. I think what Baha'u'llah is saying is that we should strive for an attitude wherein we don't rail at our fates. The sentiment, "why did this have to happen to me?" or worse "God, why did you do this to me?" is being ruled out. We have to, as you say, reconcile with and radiantly acquiesce in what befalls us, and learn to use it for our spiritual advancement. This does not mean we should withdraw from society or accept injustice. A decade later, Baha'u'llah denounced Fuad Pasha and Sultan Abdulaziz for tyranny, and put forward a practical solution to tyranny by advocating parliamentary governance and constitutionalism. But Baha'u'llah also never renounced his principles, no matter what happened to him. In Sufism, spiritual progress was considered to be stage-like, so that one traverses "maqa:m"s or structural stages on one's way to union with the divine. Within each maqa:m one could experience more ephemeral spiritual moods or "h.a:l". Rid.a: or radiant acquiescence is here seen as an essential maqam, a permanent structural acquisition of the personality of the mystic. Interestingly, it is also said to be a principle that transcends any particular revelation or dispensation, to be a universal desideratum without regard to specific religions or cultures. I continue to be interested in the possible analogies between the Sufi/Baha'i idea of spiritual stages and the Kohlberg/Gilligan idea of ethical stages in human development (which Wilber has elaborated with regard specifically to spiritual growth). I would suggest that radiant acquiescence is an aspect of post-conventionality, the ability to put ethical principle above the needs of self, friends, or ideological community. That is, there is something more important than your self-interest, or the interests of your individual friends, or the interests of your organization and community (whether party or religion), such that you must existentially acquiesce in it. Sincerely Juan Cole History U of Michigan ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Saturday, February 07, 1998 9:40 PM To: SManeck@berry.edu; talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: Control of media? At 08:01 PM 2/7/98 EST, SManeck@berry.edu wrote: >Well Juan, this certainly sounds like a very different story than >the one you told initially. It sounds as though Prof. Amanat wanted >nothing to do with the Baha'i community and the House of Justice was >simply acknowledging that fact. Susan: First of all, this is exactly the same story as I told initially. Your "it sounds like" precedes an illogical conflation of two very different things. There is a difference between "wanting nothing to do with the Baha'i community" and not being a Baha'i in one's heart. There is also a rather severe difference between an individual declaring himself not a Baha'i in the sense of not a believer in the Bab or Baha'u'llah in any sense, and an external body declaring by fiat that "x is not a Baha'i." Your attempt to make it sound as though the uhj simply recognized Abbas's internal feelings founders on the fact that neither you nor they know what his internal feelings are. I consider it a great plus that >people no longer have to deny belief in Baha'u'llah to be >dissassociated with the Administrative Order. But Abbas never denied belief. >Sounds like they simply gave permission for the BDS to distribute >this book based on their understanding that he was not a Baha'i. It was not an "understanding." It was an anathema. They *declared* him not a Baha'i. > > > In the good old days before the universal house of justice's > membership >> began being stacked with former counselors (who tend to have an >> Inquisitorial mindset, since part of their job is Inquisition), the >> only way to be removed from the rolls of Baha'i membership once you >> were entered on them was to write a letter explicitly renouncing >> belief in Baha'u'llah. > >Now there's another interesting spin. Just the other day I had lunch >with Prof. Frank Lewis who told me how, when he worked at the >National Centre, he strove with others to have this policy changed >so people could withdraw upon request without having to explicitly >deny their faith. He felt this was much more humane and eventually >he succeeded. . You are confusing two very different things. It is in fact preferable to have individuals be free to leave the Baha'i faith as an administrative organization without necessarily explicitly denying belief in Baha'u'llah. This is when it comes from the side of the individual. But we are here (and in Michael McKenny's case) talking about an external body dictating to the individual what his beliefs are and are not. It is the latter, *expulsion*, which I am complaining about. It should also be noted that, however, the very fact that Nima Hazini withdrew from the Baha'i organization without explicitly renouncing Baha'u'llah appears to have been employed as a pretext by Robert Henderson to have the Baha'i youth of Australia shun him (the letter was posted to Talisman). So Dr. Lewis's reform hasn't been taken as far in Wilmette as he no doubt would have liked. Is Frank one of those people with an "Inquisitorial >mindset" who you were referring to? Making it easier and less wrenching voluntarily to leave is the opposite of forcibly expelling people. Frank is a very noble soul, and you should be ashamed, calling him Inquisitorial like this. >Don't tell him he's a possible >candidate for the House of Justice now! The Baha'i faith should be so lucky. > I find Susan Maneck's speculation about his internal, private, >> existential beliefs, based on nothing more than hearsay, to be extremely >> rude and the height of slander (since she is bringing up slander). Has she >> ever had so much as a private conversation with Professor Amanat? > >Not for any extended period, but since you know him so well, why >don't you have him post a message here telling us all of how wronged >he was by the letter from the House telling the BDS they could >distribute his book. If so I will cheerfully admit my error. You may as well go ahead and cheerfully admit your error now, without requiring poor Abbas to make a tent revival speech. You don't have the slightest notion of what you are talking about in his regard, as you admit. As to the NSA's refusal to "expel" Abbas >this is clearly because the letter from the House didn't tell them to >take him off the roles. You keep saying this. Take another look at the uhj's letter to the Canadian NSA about Michael McKenny. I don't remember the wording being substantially different than in their letter to the US NSA about Professor Amanat. >suggests >that the House of Justice did not believe it was expelling Prof. >Amanat, Since he was from a Baha'i family and formally enrolled in the UK and then US Baha'i communities, declaring him "not a Baha'i" was certainly an expulsion. >that they simply stated what they believed to be fact. Now, how exactly did the universal house of justice in Haifa have the slightest idea about what was in Professor Amanat's heart? What basis did they have for this belief? Certainly, he never wrote anything of that sort under his own signature. The >American NSA is to be commended for not taking this statement at face >value and doing some double-checking. But obviously they didn't come >up with anything which would contradict the House's assessment. Well, since they never took him off the rolls, they didn't find any corroboration of the House's "assessment" (guess, mean-spirited anathema?) either. cheers Juan ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 1998 3:54 AM To: SManeck@berry.edu; talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: Control of media? Dear Susan: I don't see that you are presenting any real logical or evidential arguments. You have fallen to simply justifying anything the Baha'i authorities do. According to you it is all right for these authorities summarily to declare believers "not Baha'is," for them to track the movements of ex-Baha'is and to discourage association with them, and generally to treat human beings as so many sacks of sawdust, to be thrown here and there at will and left without any rights whatsoever. I feel an ethical need, however, to denounce these derogations of human rights in a movement that claims to believe in the unity of humankind, in universal love, and in equal rights for all, in a rule of law and in parliamentary democracy. I do not believe that the Baha'i holy figures would take the same sanguine view of the actions I have described as you do, and I should think Baha'is owed more to the ideals of the Secret of Divine Civilization than to the whims of whoever was elected last year to the uhj. cheers Juan ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 1998 3:44 AM To: talisman@umich.edu Subject: City of Radiant Acquiescence I think this appeared on Talisman about a year and a half ago, but perhaps some here have not seen it. Enjoy! cheers Juan ------------------------------------ >Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 20:07:59 -0500 >From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) >Subject: City of Radiant Acquiescence > > > . . . asked for a translation of Baha'u'llah's Lawh Madinat ar-Rida, the >Tablet of the City of Radiant Acquiescence. This tablet was revealed in >Baghdad, perhaps in the late 1850s. I am sending along my rendering of this >Tablet, since it is good to have such material in the H-Bahai Logs for >reference. > >cheers > >Juan Cole >History >U of Michigan > >---------------------- >Baha'u'llah > >This is > > >The City of Radiant Acquiescence > > >In the name of God, the exalted, the most high. > > Remind his servant of God's clemency in truth, that he might be honored >thereby among the concourse of the worlds, and might give thanks to his lord >at all times, insofar as God's bounties to him and the people of the heavens >and the earth have been completed. This is from a Book wherein is mentioned >that which will bring the people near to the court of the holy, the >manifest. It bears witness that there is no God but him and all are his >servants, and all shall return to him. The likeness of those who listen to >the melodies of God and follow them is: A light illumined by the radiance >of God, the mighty, the All-Powerful. Likewise, gaze at the crystal that >ignites fires when the sun shines on it. This is a reminder from us to >those who remember. Say, O people of the earth: If you sanctify your souls >and spirits, you will find them more fine than crystal, and this is an >indisputable truth. And if you allow God, your creator, to shine on them, >there would be reflected in them the Word of God, the help in peril, the >uncreated. Then the fire of nearness would be ignited therein, whereby your >physical and ethereal bodies would be illumined, as would everything that >pertains to you. Thus would the torch of love be kindled in the bush of >your soul, which would burn away the veils that come between you and the >splendor of the divine countenance. Thus do we teach you the paths of the >soul, that you might be among the mystic knowers. > Say: If the odor of evanescence lingers in your heart with regard >to this >world and its baubles, you shall never perceive the fragrance of immortality >from the coat of the holy, the radiant One. Follow, people of the earth, >what God had enjoined upon you and do not differ with regard to the >ordinances ordained in the Book. Then hold fast to the sure handle of God, >the omnipotent, the magnificent, the All-Praised. In truth, in this tablet >the dove warbles the songs of everlasting life and speaks to you from the >kingdoms of the spirit. Herein is guidance and a reminder to the believers. >Thus does God single out for his compassion whomever he pleases, and reveals >to you from the heaven of glory mighty and wondrous fruits. > Say: People of the earth, the lamp of light has been ignited >within the >glass of sanctity, whereby the concourse of eternal life has been illumined. >Fear God, and do not veil yourselves from him. The ark of God has been >fashioned by the hands of the angels of paradise. So cling to it, people of >the Bayan. It is better for you than the treasures and the glorious and >sparkling gems found in the earth. The sun of beauty has risen to the >zenith, but you are lying in the beds of heedlessness, deprived of this >grace that even the eyes of the near ones have never seen. Fear God, then >set out on the paths of radiant acquiescence in the days of God, the >powerful, the splendid, the All-Praised. If you do not know his paths, we >shall teach them to you in truth by virtue of a letter that God revealed to >me so as to complete his proof to all those who are in the realm. > Know that radiant acquiescence has infinite stages. We shall >instruct you >in them by means of the words God makes to flow from my pen. This shall >enable you to dispense with all that the ancients and moderns possess. >Whoever wishes to tread the path of radiant acquiescence must be content >with God, his creator, and with what he has ordained for him and written >with an exalted pen in truth, and with whatever he has specified in holy and >guarded tablets. > He must be content with himself. But no one can attain this state >until he >has severed himself from all who are in the heavens and the earth, if you be >among the mystic knowers. For if a human being commits the least iniquity >within himself, he will not be content with himself. This is that which we >have shown you in truth, so that you might be content and might ascend to >the station wherein honey and poison are the same, since both are decreed by >the mighty, the ordainer. Were someone to worship God from all eternity and >yet abhors within himself any of the calamities and adversities that have >afflicted him, his name shall not be entered in the tablets as among those >who are content with the holy and radiant pen. For those who claim in >themselves the love of God but who regret their tribulations in his path >cannot rightly be called content. This is what we say to you in truth, that >you might be steadfast in love. How can someone assert that he has the love >of God in his heart and then despise what befalls him from his beloved, the >mighty, the generous? Or that he is content with the friends of God in the >land and is humble before the believers? For if he deems himself above the >believers, it is as though he has grown haughty toward God. We take refuge >in God from that, concourse of the sincere! Whoever is content with God, >his lord, will be content with his servants, who have believed in him and >his signs on the day whereon all who are in the heavens and the earth have >swooned. For a servant's satisfaction with God cannot be demonstrated save >by his satisfaction with the friends of God, who have detached themselves >from everything but God and depended on him > Await, then, the day whereon the trump shall be sounded, the dove shall >warble, the gates of paradise shall be thrown open, and God shall come with >a wondrous Cause. Therefore, hasten to him, people of the Bayan, and do not >hesitate for less than an instant. This is the basis of radiant >acquiescence. Do not differ regarding it, concourse of near ones. At that >time you will discover the breezes of radiant acquiescence from the east of >sanctity. You shall be overcome by yearning and you shall be transformed >upon the seat of the mighty, the trustworthy. > Beware, people of the Bayan, that you do not delay within >yourselves. Do >not veil yourselves from the beauty of God, the glorious, the All-Praised. >By God, it is better for you to stand in his presence once than to possess >all that is on earth and in the heavens. But you, who have asked of God, >rejoice in yourself, for you have arrived at the city of radiant >acquiescence and wended your way to the squares of sanctity. At this time, >we bear witness to you that you have soared into the heaven of contentment. >You have avoided your own regions and drawn near to the precincts of God, >the mighty, the generous. You have emigrated from your homeland and >journeyed unto God, until you arrived in the place that is visited by the >people of the pavilions of eternity at morn and eve. Blessed are you and >those like you, whom God has enabled to attain to the shore of eternity >along the crimson sea. They hastened to the melodies of God from behind the >veils of power. Then they made pilgrimage to the place around which >circumambulate the bushes of Sinai, wherein all beings, whether among the >ancients or the moderns, have removed their sandals. > Then know that your love for God is God's good-pleasure with you >and your >good-pleasure with him. This is the religious path that was ordained by the >right hand of God's wisdom, and it shall not change with a change of >prophets, nor is it renewed by the advent of a new messenger. Rather, all >enjoin this upon the people, and it is a trust of God deposited in the >hearts of the sincere. This is what suffices you above all else. Whoever >attains this flowing spring shall never forsake an iota of the Book, and >shall only be pleased with what God desires for him. Thus do we set forth >for you the verses in truth, so that you might attain certitude. After you >revive your spirit by means of the warbling of the dove and renew the temple >of your soul with the robe of immortality, then return to the house of God >in your own land and spread the glad-tidings from us among those who rejoice >in the gladness of the spirit. Remind them of the verses of God and be as >the breezes of spring to the people of your homeland, whereby they may renew >their souls and spirits. This is what we command you in truth if you are >among those who hear. You shall never be capable of this unless you turn >toward God with your entire being and unless you reject all that is in the >hands of the people. > Once you have renewed yourself then you will be able to renew the >people. >This is what the dove counsels you in truth, so that you might be among the >reformers who have been encompassed by the guidance of God, who have tasted >the sweetness of love and drunk from the springs that flow from the >direction of a mighty throne. > Then remind for us all those who believe in God and his verses in your >land, as well as those who have emigrated unto God and entered into the >precincts of God, the glorious, the noble. Among them is K, who has >surpassed all others in virtue, and whom we are at this time mentioning in >the book as among the myriad of saints. Also among them is Q, who emigrated >toward God in his days and was among the devout. They include H, who >emigrated and then returned with our permission, who was immersed in the >ocean of love. R heard the melodies of the dove and entered under the >shadow of God, the mighty, the knowing. Among them are they who emigrated >and returned, but whose names we have not mentioned, all of whom have >attained a high station with regard to virtue, which none among the creation >can comprehend. God will manifest to them the fruits of their deeds and >they shall soar with sapphire wings into the garden of the holy, the >generous. Some made the journey with their hearts, and their names were >inscribed by the pen of power upon glorious and inaccessible tablets. The >doors of paradise shall be thrown open before their faces, and they shall >enter therein by virtue of our peace and compassion, where they shall >reside. By God, were he to manifest to the people of the heavens and the >earth an incalculably small portion of what he has decreed for those who >journeyed and emigrated unto God, all would be led to the wondrous and >sacred shore. But all have been veiled as a result of what they have >committed in the days of God, and they were another, evil people. > Say: Concourse of believers, be patient at what has befallen you >and be not anxious concerning the harm and suffering that have >afflicted you. He shall bestow full recompense upon the >long-suffering. The world and its people shall pass away, and all >shall return to their abode in the fire, nor is there any escape for >them from the vengeance of the lord, the conquering, the subduing, >the mighty, the omnipotent. Say: People of the earth, do you not >see the transformations occurring in the land, and the changes the >earth is undergoing, such that no second goes by without most affairs >therein suffering an alteration? Therefore, what sign reassures your >hearts and souls? Woe unto you! Upon what basis have you acted in >this vain life? For you have advanced toward your base selves, and >turned away from the one who created you, nourished you, and showed >greater compassion to you than has any other. Say: By God, you are >only as a wayfarer resting in the shade of a tree. But that shade is >of necessity ephemeral, and you must not repose your confidence in it >or in anything that will pass away. Put your trust in what does not >perish, in what endures in the immortality of God, the everlasting, >the eternal, the glorious. Have you found that your mornings are >like your evenings, or that your youth is like your old age? All this >is a reminder to you, Muslims. The contradictions apparent in all >things were only ordained to remind you of the impermanence of your >selves, so that you might become aware of it and not be obdurate. >Hold fast instead to the cord of God, then firmly grasp the firm >handle of the Bayan. This is what was writ for you by the finger of >the glorious, the true. Thus have we taught you the gems of >knowledge, acquainted you with the wonders of wisdom, spoken to you >of the realities of mystical insight, and shown you the paths of >paradise_so that thereby your hearts and the hearts of the mystic >knowers might be reassured. Praise be to the lord of the worlds, and >mercy be upon you, followers of the Bayan. Behold, I desire to sever >myself from all names, and to call out to my lord with the melodies >that enthrall the hearts of the unitarians. Praise be to you, O God, >my God. Send to your lovers what will refresh their hearts and calm >their souls, so that they might make mention of you aloud just as >they make mention of you in their hearts. That is within your power, >which encompasses both the easy and the hard. My beloved, raise the >standards of your triumph and victory above the people of your >kingdom, that they might gather together in the shade of your >loving-kindness. These are the scattered, who have dispersed through >your lands, and shall never find for themselves a refuge save with >you, or a sanctuary other than you, or an asylum except for you. >Then gather them beneath the shadow of the tree of your >loving-kindness and honor them with your grace, and verily you are >the most generous of the generous. You know, my beloved, what your >enemies have done to your friends, such that they usurped from them >everything you had bestowed upon them by your munificence and >inflicted on them that of which no ear had ever heard. In every land >their blood was shed, and on every pyre their bodies were cremated. >How many a little one was left with no elder, how many a mother >wailed for her son, and how many a son wept for his father. You have >reckoned all of that, and were witness to it. In truth, my God, you >witness and see how tyranny has encompassed your earth and your >countries such that the traits of justice will not be visible to >anyone. All have followed the demons, and affairs have nearly >reached the point where your name and attributes have been lifted >from the earth. All have adopted a deity for themselves other than >you. You are, concerning all this, knowing, informed. The darkness >of heedlessness has encompassed all the people of your earth, such >that were any of your servants to mention your name, they would >ridicule him. My heart, and the breasts of the unitarians, have >burned at this. By your glory, my beloved, I shall never find any of >your servants following your path, nor shall I ever perceive from >them the fragrance of your love. All have adopted this world for >themselves as a protector, save for those who returned to you and >were among the returnees. Every day I associate with the servants, >and I see them heedless of you, such that they turn their faces >toward every countenance but not toward your illumined visage, and >they turn toward every city save the city of your glorious divinity. >It is as though it was not you who had created them and nourished >them. Thus have we found affairs to be among those idolaters. >Abasement has reached the point where your friends will be unable to >make mention of you, and when they wish to recite your words they >will have to hide in their homes. Thus have the hearts of the lovers >been filled with sorrow. If you accept this state of affairs for >yourself, O my God, then woe betide your pure ones in your land. How >can they hear from your enemies what does not befit your station? >Would that all of them were struck blind so as not to see it, and >struck deaf so as not to hear what is inappropriate to your radiant >beauty. In truth, were you to leave them in this condition, by your >might, the evidences of your sovereignty would be effaced in your >kingdom, the pillars of your rule in your land would be demolished, >and your name and epithet would be erased throughout all creation. O >my God and my beloved, do not make them wait, after matters have come >to this. Rather, reveal them what will turn them toward you. Then >remove this lad who has arisen against you with his entire being, and >those who followed him in his passions, so as to purify your >sanctified land from those infidels. I know, O my God, that you >desired this every year, but it did not occur because you changed >your mind, and this is the evident truth. Then send down, O my God, >your fixed decrees and effective laws, which can never be repelled by >a change of mind or altered by selfish passion. Then fix all this, >my beloved, upon glorious and preserved Tablets and in a holy and >wise book that shall never be effaced and which shall not be subject >to limitations, but rather in which matters shall be inscribed by the >mighty pen of command. Then decree thereafter, my God, what is good >for your servants, for in your hand is all good. In truth, you are >the ruler, the judge, the knowing, the giving, the wise. How long, O >my God, will you forebear toward your own enemies? By your glory, >your patience has reached the point where your servants complain of >the wonders of your might, rather they have become convinced it does >not exist, whereas I remain certain that you are powerful over all >things. In truth, you are the most powerful of the powerful. You >know that my anxiety was not for myself, nor for the abasement of >your lovers. Rather, I see that all have risen in opposition to you >and your beauty, and have ridiculed your verses. For this reason, my >breast burns, my inmost soul cries out, and my eye weeps. In truth, >you know what is in my soul, and you encompass all things. Therefor, >my beloved, forgive me and my offenses, which I have committed in >your presence, for my very mention of you is a sin unmatched by >anything in the heavens or on earth. Then forgive my parents, my >loved ones, my kith and kin. In truth, you are the most merciful of >the merciful. Then forgive the one who hurried unto you and arrived >in your presence, and his parents. Do not seize hold of them, my >beloved, for their offenses and sins. Rather, show compassion to >them and show them forbearance. In truth, you are the most clement >of the clement, and the most generous of the generous. This is a >Book from Baha to all who are in the heavens and on earth. Praise be >to God, lord of the worlds. > > ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 1998 1:16 PM To: Milissa Kafes; Talisman Cc: SManeck@berry.edu Subject: Re: Shunning and religious tolerance Dear Milissa: First of all, I dispute the assertion that `Abdu'l-Baha developed the shunning system. The *system* works this way: someone is declared a covenant breaker, and anyone who continues to associate with him or her is then *also* declared a covenant breaker. I have seen no evidence that `Abdu'l-Baha implemented any such interlocking system. In `Abdu'l-Baha's time, incidentally, there also was no system by which "administrative rights" could be removed. In fact, I believe the system is contradictory to the explicit text of the Most Holy Book, which forbids shunning people as ritually impure on the basis of their religious beliefs. It is true that `Abdu'l-Baha did excommunicate some people, including Mirza Asadu'llah Isfahani and his son Farid, and it is true that he waged a long and bitter fight against the Muhammad `Ali schismatics, but the latter is a different issue anyway. These various systems of control were instituted by Shoghi Effendi in the form we have them today, as stop-gap measures at a time when the authority of the guardian was very weak (most of the old-time Baha'is who now present themselves as Guardian fundamentalists didn't actually obey him much or pay much attention to him when he was alive; maybe guilt is part of their current fundamentalism). Since Shoghi Effendi was supposed to interpret theological texts, however, and had no authority to legislate at all (as he repeatedly and explicitly said), none of his stop-gap measures need necessarily be continued as the community matures. As for his excommunication of his relatives, I don't have the whole story. However I think we have to realize that in a Middle Eastern context a lot of them expected him to do them special favors, and some were probably jockeying for position as heir apparent. Shoghi Effendi was extremely upright and judicious and probably really angered them by not treating them like royalty or letting them use their "connections" to advance themselves in the faith. I would want to know personal details of each case before deciding he was necessarily in the wrong. The comment about the marriage to a low-born Christian girl was an unfortunate piece of snobbery that he no doubt later regretted. The Nuri family after all had been rather high up in Qajar society, and a certain aristocratic tinge continued to affect their thinking about themselves. But remember that Shoghi Effendi himself married a woman who was from a family that had been middle-class Christians originally, so in his better moments he was able to put aside such hereditary prejudices. Unfortunately, we don't have a good biography of Shoghi Effendi and the materials for it are not really available, and as a historian I can tell you that without context it is very difficult to make such judgments. I can however absolutely guarantee you that none of the Baha'i holy figures would have dreamed of threatening people with shunning because of their email messages, and that the current crew in Haifa has a completely new and very weird mindset. They had Stephen Birkland, that great and learned Theologian, write Steve Scholl complaining about Scholl's conception of God. But when Auguste Forel asked Shoghi Effendi if he could be a Baha'i and an agnostic, Shoghi Effendi gave him permission. Something has gone very wrong. The ad hoc measures Shoghi Effendi took, some of which looked necessary in the 1940s, may be part of the problem, since they were more suited to a patrimonial system of "villages" than to a world religion. But what is really problematic is that these policies have been set in stone by successors who find them merely instrumentally useful, regardless of principle. Some of the letters they have written commanding that people be shunned demonstrate a realy chilling sadism; they are obviously taking pleasure in playing god. I don't think the problem lies with history, but with the present. Shoghi Effendi predicted that without a living guardian, the Baha'i system would be mutilated and the universal house of justice would lose its bearings. He obviously predicted the future very well in that instance, even if he was wrong about the imminent evaporation of the cities. The real issue is, now that the problem has become apparent, what can be done about it? I believe that constitutional change would help. The Baha'is need a bill of rights that is based on texts like Secret of Divine Civilization, which would restore their right of privacy, freedom of conscience and speech, right to due process, to an impartial tribunal, to face their accusers, to see the evidence against them if they are charged, and so forth. The problem is arbitrariness in Baha'i governance, the running roughshod over people's rights. The problem can be fixed; it is not a problem with Baha'i scriptures. It is a problem with the narrowmindedness and arrogance of the people now running the religion. But they won't live forever, and whether they can reproduce their cult-like political culture into the next generation is not clear. The difference between the views of the last generation of Baha'i academics and the generation that came to maturity in the '80s indicates that a major change may be in the offing. cheers Juan ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 1998 1:23 PM To: SManeck@berry.edu; Ian Kluge; talisman@umich.edu; Michael Furst Subject: Re: Germany, Russia & the Baha'i Faith Susan: The German government has not *itself* bought into the xenophobia against non-Germans, and has been in the forefront of the fight to combat racist groups with xenophobic overtones. Now you have slandered the poor German government. What you are missing is the obvious. It is that because of the catastrophic experience Germans had with authoritarian utopianism, they are extremely nervous about any group that seems paranoid and controlling and which abuses the civil rights of its adherents. In fact, Germans do not have the equivalent of the US first amendment, and Nazi propaganda is illegal there in a way it is not in the U.S. To the extent that German officials have been concerned about the Baha'i faith, it is because they know about its repressive aspects, partially through the book of Ficicchia, an ex-Baha'i who encountered them. cheers Juan At 11:40 AM 2/8/98 EST, SManeck@berry.edu wrote: >MIchael Furst writes: > >> I think its a little disengenuous to suggest that the main reason for the >> German government's concerns about Scientology is due to money worries. >> There have been some 2oth Century experiences with repressive movements in >> Germany that were, to say the least, disasterous; there is real (and >> justifiable, IMO) fear about the recurrance of similar events. >> > >I think you are all missing the obvious. The German government would >likely discourage the Baha'i Faith as part of the general pattern of >xenophobia which is sweeping the country right now. When I was in >Germany most of the Baha'is were Iranians. > >Susan > > > > ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 1998 2:00 PM To: SManeck@berry.edu; talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: Control of media? The question here is rights. Rights don't depend on a person's attitudes. Human beings, even Baha'is and ex-Baha'is, have rights by virtue of being human beings. The letter from Henderson to the NSA of Australia injured Nima Hazini's rights in a number of ways. 1) It injured Hazini's right to freedom of conscience, since it implied that there was something wrong with his declining to disavow Baha'u'llah when he withdrew from the Baha'i organization. 2) It injured Hazini's right to privacy, since obviously his movements were tracked, as was his joining a Sufi order. He is not a Baha'i. How did Mr. Henderson know he was going to Australia or that he had joined a Sufi order? How was that any of his business? What gives the Baha'i organization the right to spy on people, Baha'is or non-Baha'is? 3) It injured Hazini's right to free association, since it implicitly encouraged the Australian Baha'i authorities to discourage Australian Baha'i youth from associating with Mr. Hazini. As for the possibility that Mr. Henderson's actions in this regard were "rogue" actions, for which he might be reprimanded (by his colleagues on the National Spiritual Assembly or by the Universal House of Justice?), you have no way of knowing this. You are simply speculating. I would place a rather large bet that if the Hazinis appealed all this to the universal house of justice, the latter would support Mr. Henderson's actions (as they have supported him in a number of other questionable cases). And just let me repeat that a person's human rights cannot be withdrawn simply because they hold unpopular views. "Taking responsibility" seems to be Baha'i rightwing doublespeak for withdrawing human rights from dissidents. Dissent can be good, and it, too, is a human right. In any case, I'm unaware that Mr. Hazini has ever been publicly critical of the Baha'i administration. He certainly, obviously, was privately dismayed enough by it to dissociate himself from it, as a number of Baha'i intellectuals have been in the past two years. cheers Juan >Actually, I think Mr. Henderson's letter was *highly* problematic. >In fact I would be very surprised if he were not 'called on the >carpet' for it. I just don't think you presented what it is said >very accurately. I also think that there are some who refuse to take >adequate responsibility for provoking these kinds of reactions from >members of the Institutions. > >Susan > > ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 1998 7:11 PM To: Mark A. Foster; Talisman Cc: SManeck@berry.edu Subject: Re: Shunning and religious tolerance The problem with Mark's statement of the situation is that Baha'is do not only shun "insiders." In New Zealand late in 1996, the universal house of justice declared a woman a non-Baha'i even though she had already resigned from the Baha'i faith, because she was in contact with a woman who had never been a registered Baha'i but was descended from Shoghi Effendi. In the instance of the descendent of Shoghi Effendi, covenant-breaking appears now to be considered to run in blood lines and to be hereditary! So in New Zealand, at the order of the Baha'i authorities (and I read the letter truly to relish all this in a way that struck me as sadistic), *two* non-Baha'is are being shunned by the Baha'i community. Actually, I believe this shunning may be in contravention of Anglo-Saxon libel law, and that the Baha'i authorities might well be open to a lawsuit from the non-Baha'is they have declared shunned. But, as Milissa says, even if only "insiders" were shunned, there is no obvious difference between that and Sunnis shunning Shi`ite Muslims or Catholics shunning Protestants. This shunning business is in fact a major contradiction within the Baha'i faith, which has such high and universalistic ideals on the outside but such weird practices on the inside. And I believe it is contrary to everything Baha'u'llah himself stood for. The Aqdas incidentally says that *all* human beings are ritually pure. The language of disease, used in referring to covenant breakers, suggests the opposite, that they are ritually impure. I think we may conclude that the Baha'i faith as a movement is multi-faceted and self-contradictory. It proclaims universalism but in some respects acts very narrowly; it proclaims universal love but in fact instills hatred toward some human beings; it proclaims the unity of science and religion but in fact insists on scriptural fundamentalism; it proclaims the value of political liberty and the advent of Reason among the people, but in fact is run like a one-party state. The trick is to keep in view both sides of the story simultaneously. It wouldn't be fair to say that Baha'is "don't really" believe in human unity. Plenty do. It wouldn't be fair to say all Baha'is are narrow-minded, though some key leaders are. It is a complex movement with many sides to it. And what else should we expect from the offshoot of Twelver Shi`ism via esoteric Shaykhism and messianic Babism, a religion born at the interstices of Shi`ite gnosticism and 19th century modernity? Of a religion that for most adherents in Iran became a sort of closed ethnic group? Of a religion that was for most of the 20th century practiced by only a few thousand Americans, many of them a little wacky, who established traditions of cult-like authoritarianism? The real question is whether the contradictions will strangle the religion in its cradle, or whether it can outgrow them and achieve its potential as a world religion. As long as its leaders ride roughshod over human rights, I see little chance of the latter. cheers Juan ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 1998 7:23 PM To: talisman@umich.edu Subject: New Zealand shunning of non-Baha'i You mean I never shared this with the Talismanians? Here it is in all its glory: cheers Juan ------------------------------------ >National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of New Zealand >P O Box 21551 (180 Candia Road) >Henderson Auckland 1231 >New Zealand > >Telephone: (09) 837-4866 >Facsimile: (09) 837-4896 >Email: natbahaiofnz@attmail.com > >16 December, 1996 >Ref 1695/96 > >To the Baha'is of New Zealand > >Dear Baha'i Friends > > Lamentable Situation Calls for Loyal Response > >With heavy hearts, the National Spiritual Assembly announces to the Baha'i >community that Ms Pauline Smith, of Masterton, has broken the Covenant and >been expelled from the Faith by the Universal House of Justice. Ms Smith has >unfortunately not heeded the guidance and warnings she has been given over a >period of some months, and has decided to maintain contact and association >with known Covenant-breakers, who are some of the relatives of Shoghi >Effendi, and in particular, Ms Parvine Afnan Shahid. > >Ms Smith, who had known about the Faith for some years in New Zealand, went >to the United Kingdom where she continued learning about the Faith from >believers she met there. While in England she also happened to meet the >family of Covenant-breakers and became friends with them. Ms Smith later >became a Baha'i in England and, soon afterwards, returned to New Zealand (in >1995). Since then, there have been attempts by the institutions of the Faith >to counsel Ms Smith about her association with Ms Shahid, who intends to >come to live in Masterton from early 1997. The Universal House of Justice says: > > "It has been determined that Parvine Shahid, who is the granddaughter > of the notorious Covenant-breaker Nayyir Afnan, is infected with the > spirit of Covenant-breaking and should be treated as a > Covenant-breaker."(1) > >Friends wishing to know more about the history of Ms Shahid's family should >refer to a book by Mr Adib Taherzadeh, entitled *The Covenant of >Baha'u'llah* which provides full information about this matter. A four page >summary of relevant details is being sent to all Local Spiritual Assemblies >and groups, and is available from the National Office on request. > >A fundamental principle of the Faith is that no believer can have any >contact or association with a believer who has been deemed by the Head of >the Faith to break the Covenant, whether by correspondence, telephone, or in >person. Strict adherence to this rule is obligatory. The essential reason >for this is to preserve the unity of the Baha'i Faith. It is because of >division within themselves that the religions of the past have not fulfilled >their purpose to unify mankind. For a further elaboration of this principle >please see the attached extracts from a letter of the Universal House of >Justice dated 9 December 1996, to a believer in Masterton [not supplied]. > >Over the next few months the National Spiritual Assembly will implement, in >collaboration with the Arm of the Learned and working through the Local >Spiritual Assemblies and assistants, a systematic deepening programme on the >Covenant aimed at every believer in New Zealand. In the meantime, the >friends are urged to rededicate themselves to study of 'Abdu'l-Baha's Will >and Testament, and to familiarise themselves with guidance regarding >firmness in the Covenant, which is found in such publications as *Lights of >Guidance*. All communities were recently sent a copy of a publication >entitled *The Power of the Covenant* which consists of a set of three >booklets. This provides further reference material for any questions you may >have about this matter. Audio cassette tapes on the subject of the Covenant >are also available from the Audio-Visual Unit. The National Spiritual >Assembly urges you to make a concerted effort to study deeply the subject of >the Covenant, individually and in groups. > >Meeting this challenge represents a new stage in the growth of the Faith in >New Zealand. These words of a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi >provide reassurance of the progress that comes from a crisis: > > "He urges you not to be discouraged or depressed, but rest assured > that Baha'u'llah will assist you. Every set-back this Cause receives > is invariably a means of ensuring a future victory, for God will > never permit His Faith to be put out or uprooted."(2) > >As the believers strengthen their understanding of the Covenant and more >faithfully adhere to its provisions, such firmness will not only increase >their own understanding of Baha'u'llah's Revelation and provide protection >for our national community, but will also give additional impetus to >deepening our commitment to achieving the purpose and goals of God's plan. > >We are fully conscious of the distress and shock that many believers will go >through as a result of this severe test and we do not underestimate the >severe challenge this poses. > >The Universal House of Justice says: > > "We are confident that the dearly loved New Zealand believers will > not allow this lamentable situation to deflect them from their > meritorious endeavours to further develop their Baha'i community and > to maintain its unity."(3) > >Be assured of the ardent prayers of this institution for your reassurance, >comfort and strength of faith. > >Warmest Baha'i love >NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY > >Suzanne Mahon >Secretary > >enc: Extract from a letter of the Universal House of Justice to an >individual believer, 9 December 1996 >______________________________ > >1. From a letter dated 12 December 1996 from the Department of the > Secretariat, Universal House of Justice, to the National Spiritual > Assembly of the Baha'is of New Zealand[.] > >2. From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, dated 26 January > 1950 to the Local Spiritual Assembly of Panama, quoted in The > Compilation of Compilations: Volume l, #323. > >3. From a letter of the Universal House of Justice dated 12 December > 1996 to the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of New > Zealand. > > -------- letter ends, fax begins ---------- > > >Universal House of Justice >Baha'i World Centre >12 December 1996 > >Transmitted by fax: 64-9-8374898 >The National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of New Zealand > >Dear Baha'i friends, > >We regret to have to advise you of the determination which has been made, in >consultation with the Hands of the Cause of God, that Pauline Smith of >Masterton has broken the Covenant. You are now requested to convey this >information to the Local Spiritual Assembly of Masterton and to the Baha'is >within your jurisdiction, and to provide them with the necessary guidance. > >Before this determination was made, Pauline Smith had been counselled over >an extended period in an attempt to assist her to understand the nature of >the spiritual obligations undertaken by one who chooses to become a member >of the Baha'i community. When the efforts had proven fruitless, she was >warned of the consequences of her conduct in allying herself with those who >have endeavoured for decades to undermine the unity of the Faith, at which >time she submitted a resignation from the Faith in an apparent attempt to >avoid being designated as a Covenant-breaker. > >We are confident that the dearly loved New Zealand believers will not allow >this lamentable situation to deflect them from their meritorious endeavours >to further develop their Baha'i community and to maintain its unity. > >With loving Baha'i greetings >The Universal House of Justice > >cc: Hands of the Cause of God > International Teaching Centre > Board of Counsellors in Austalasia (by fax) > Counsellors David Chittleborough, Violette Haake, Bruce > Saunders, and Heather Simpson (all by fax) ---------- From: Milissa Kafes[SMTP:mbkafes@bestweb.net] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 1998 11:24 PM To: Talisman Subject: To whom it may concern To Whom it may concern-- Whoever forwarded my Talisman posts to Mr Poirier, would you at least have the decency to ask me first? I don't appreciate having my posts forwarded to Baha'i authorities. You want me to believe that the Faith doesn't really spy on people, right? Then don't do this please, as I really do want to believe you. It felt like I was being "ratted" on. If the object was not to report me, then basic common courtesy was ignored. Either way, I am Quite peeved and truly yours, Milissa Boyer Kafes mbkafes@bestweb.net ************************************************************************** * ".....who could imagine..... * * that you would freak out, somewhere in Kansas......" * * * * --Frank Zappa * ************************************************************************** ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Sunday, February 08, 1998 11:41 PM To: Dean Betts Cc: talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: New Zealand shunning of non-Baha'i That's right from the point of view of the Baha'i authorities. However, there is U.S. case law on shunning, and it is not my impression that the courts would look kindly on a religious body having a non-adherent shunned, since it is probably a form of libel as traditionally defined in Anglo-Saxon law. I'm afraid we are, on this terrain, a very, very long way away from Baha'u'llah's ideals of universal love and openness to all and the unity of humanity. My guess is that non-Baha'i institutions, both governmental and civil society, will eventually force the religion's leaders to start behaving in a civilized fashion if the religion ever becomes big and important enough for them to care one way or another. It is a sad thing that the impulse for open-mindedness and love and justice does not come from within the religion's leadership itself. It is even more sad that persons who engage in such invidious activities are now the primary ambassadors of Baha'u'llah to the world, giving the world a most unfortunate and inaccurate picture of the sort of ideals the latter preached. cheers Juan At 07:20 PM 2/8/98 -0500, Dean Betts wrote: >So resigning from the Faith will not *necessarily* prevent one from being >declared a CB. > >>>We regret to have to advise you of the determination which has been made, in >>>consultation with the Hands of the Cause of God, that Pauline Smith of >>>Masterton has broken the Covenant. > >>> she submitted a resignation from the Faith in an apparent attempt to >>>avoid being designated as a Covenant-breaker. >>> >> > > >**************************************************************************** > Verily, He is the Merciful, the Compassionate. Praise be to God, the >Lord of all the worlds. > - Baha'u'llah >**************************************************************************** > > > > > ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Monday, February 09, 1998 1:34 AM To: Ian Kluge; talisman@umich.edu Subject: RE: Re Russia Dear Ian: Your way of citing the words of your interlocutors, without any quotation or other markings, makes it difficult to know where their message left off and yours began; since these messages may circulate well beyond the Talisman circle, where your views are unknown, the ensuing confusion could be troublesome to you. It is better if you mark the other person's message. Your expression of "respect" for my "courage" in leaving the Baha'i faith, although apparently intended as a compliment, is not, you should know, received as such. I resigned, not because I recognized that I was incapable of behaving as I was required to by Baha'i principle, but because the behind the scenes interrogation and false and outrageous heresy charges launched against me caused the scales suddenly to fall from my eyes so that I saw clearly that the Baha'i faith was at least in some respects being run, behind the scenes, as a cult. That Baha'u'llah's lovely faith of openness, love and world unity could have deteriorated into a cult shattered my faith in the religion. There was no "courage" involved, just a sudden, head-spinning, anguished and very painful realization. Nor did I perform any "duty;" rather I rejected the legitimacy of the demands of the Baha'i organization to be able to control the email traffic of adherents. I consider my email traffic an extension of my academic free inquiry and publishing, interference in which I cannot in good conscience accept from an external body. Moreover, I do not believe that such a demand is compatible with the spirit of Baha'u'llah's revelation, and I hold that whoever is making it has departed from the Baha'i faith. I find your rationale for the Baha'i persecution of Baha'i intellectuals active on email lists very clear, even if I reject it. What is interesting, however, is that clearly someone has explained all this to you in a succinct and non-threatening way. I'd like to note that no one in the Baha'i administration ever expressed themselves in this way on the subject to me. They remained silent until suddenly they declared me in contravention of the covenant, like a cobra that waits for a movement and then strikes mercilessly. In accordance with the Tablet of the City of Radiant Acquiescence, I have striven to accept what happened contentedly. Not being Candide, I do not think it was all for the best. I do think some good things have come out of it all, though, and that more may. I would also say that I found your discounting of the great psychological pain the Baha'i authorities have inflicted on Michael McKenney, myself, and many other devoted Baha'i thinkers in their foolish and self-defeating quest to control the Internet to be unworthy of you. It does you no harm to admit the pain involved here, even if you think it justified. And your trading on ancestors' persecution could be seen as a form of posturing, I'm afraid. Have *you* ever lived for any considerable time outside a cozy Western suburb? Have you ever been within visual range of a mortar explosion? Ever been expelled from a country for your religious beliefs? Ever been interrogated by the secret police of a dictatorship? If not, you have no personal basis for dismissing the existential anguish of the devoted Baha'i intellectuals who have been silenced, persecuted or driven out of the religion by persons of high office and low character. I have a rather good basis for comparing the actions of the Baha'i officials to those of Middle Eastern dictators, and I find some interesting similarities. Of course, the Baha'i officials use psychological methods of manipulation and threat rather than violence; but then, so too do the ayatollahs and generals in the region. cheers Juan ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Monday, February 09, 1998 12:33 PM To: Ian Kluge; talisman@umich.edu Cc: jrcole@umich.edu Subject: RE: Re Russia Dear Ian: That was a reply I can respect. Just to clarify, I agree that Hitler or Stalin are silly comparisons for the way that the Baha'i faith is being run, as a matter of scale or degree of seriousness. If they have been evoked, it has been in a playful, pop culture kind of way. I think the Baha'i Right does have elements of "authoritarian populism" (the political scientists' euphemism for things like national socialism). The term I used was "Stalinist tinge." The demand for "party loyalty" on an almost Leninist model (which is how I would identify what you intuited about the religion's governance) is an example. Lenin laid down virtually the same rules as are in the uhj's so-called Letter on Individual Rights and Responsibilities. No dissent outside party caucuses. Ironically, I have evidence that some powerful Baha'is in Haifa have confused this Marxist idea of party loyalty with that in parliamentary systems like the British, where room for maneuver within the party is far greater except at the level of cabinet minister, and where party loyalty would never be enforced on an ordinary party member who held no post (unlike the case with Leninism). I'm afraid that, yes, the Baha'i authorities are attempting to control the internet. Its advent meant the outbreak of free speech in the community, and for the first time persons with more liberal views could be heard. The technique the Baha'i conservatives developed to deal with this was to monitor the lists, identify particularly eloquent and persuasive liberals, and then to send the counselors after them with threats that if they did not fall silent they would be declared covenant breakers. This has happened to at least a dozen people that I know of, and I probably only know of a small fraction, since I'm no longer in close contact with the community. Since it is a small community and the number of eloquent thinking people in it is fairly small, silencing them one by one has not actually been all that difficult. Compare the quality of discussion on SRB to what it was two years ago and you will see what I mean. The intelligent voices are gone, silenced or coopted or browbeaten. However, as you say, in the long run this is a stupid strategy that will fail, and which has been very costly for the community. It was also unnecessary. The conservatives control all the major institutions and have things set up so they can continue to do so. They should have just let people speak their minds. Nothing bad would have happened. And if the liberals had in fact been persuasive over the long run, wouldn't that have suggested that they were right? What I cannot understand is why it is all right to shunt aside `Abdu'l-Baha's many and forceful pronouncements on freedom of conscience and speech and to reshape the Baha'i faith as a sort of religious one-party state? Isn't that disobedience to the Center of the Covenant? Isn't it therefore a contravention of the Covenant? Finally, I think we have to come back to the original point that started this discussion. If the Baha'i administration is going to behave as it did in New Zealand, what standing does it really have to complain about the Shi`ite shunning of Iranian Baha'is? After all, Shi`ites consider Baha'is covenant breakers, heretics and apostates. If it is all right for Baha'is to shun people, including non-adherents, on such grounds, then why complain when someone else does it? Obviously, some Shi`ites have gone beyond shunning to violence, which all right thinking persons would condemn. But most discrimination against Baha'is in Iran is much more subtle than that, and of precisely the same sort as Baha'is practice against certain classes of people. Seems to me a clear case of hypocrisy. cheers Juan ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Monday, February 09, 1998 9:29 PM To: talisman@umich.edu Cc: jrcole@umich.edu Subject: Re: Shunning and religious tolerance 1) I note that no one here, including Susan, has responded to explain to me how what the Baha'i authorities did to that poor new Baha'i in New Zealand is any different from a Shi`ite ayatollah ordering his flock to shun an Iranian Baha'i family (let's say the Baha'i family even had a recent convert from Shi`ism in it). I think this question deserves an answer. And if there is no essential difference (as I do not believe there is), then how is the Baha'i faith an advance on Shi`ite Islam in this regard? Since Shi`ism hasn't achieved the unity of humankind by such methods, why should we think the Baha'i faith will? 2) It is a typical response by those religious leaders or adherents who tend to the cult side of the spectrum, when the policies of their leaders are criticized, to attack the critic. I heard a Scientology leader compare the Cult Awareness Network, which had publicized the former's misdeeds, to the Nazis and the KKK. For those with a cult-like mindset, the world is black and white. There are only loyal Baha'is and covenant breakers. There is no one in the middle. And outside the faith there are only friends of the faith and disaffected enemies. Obvously, the Baha'is on Talisman are all normal people, since cultists wouldn't have anything to do with the list. But there are lots of members of the community for whom the religion shades over into cultism. 3) I maintain a very complex attitude toward the Baha'i institutions, on which I have many friends serving. I think the NSA of the United Kingdom, for instance, a generally wonderful group of people and don't know of anything they've done in the 1990s that I would be critical of. Wendi Momen and Barney Leith are in my view spiritual heroes. My dear friend Sammi Smith is some kind of official--assistant or ABM or something in Thailand, and from everything I know of her she is going around spreading light and cheer and helping other Asian women with development. On the Universal House of Justice, I think Hushmand Fatheazam a spiritual giant and a genuine human being. As for my attitude toward the US NSA, it is the same as that expressed by the Baha'i uhj in May of 1994: They think they are running the US community the way the board members of a corporation would run the company. Most of them have been involved at one time or another in activities or policies of which I deeply disapprove, though no doubt they've accomplished some good along the way (since the accomplishments or activities of the NSA are kept secret, the good and bad they do is difficult to gauge). I think it is fairly obvious that the uhj in 1994 was desperately trying to send the signal to the American community to vote the incumbents out, but unfortunately no one listened to them. 4) Susan's citation of the last paragraph of the Will and Testament in a way so as to appear to forbid Baha'is to hold their own opinions is the worst sort of perversion of the text, and I have explained to her before that she has misinterpreted it. Poor `Abdu'l-Baha has been coopted by a cult reading of his words. 5) If I ever did decide to return to the Baha'i faith, merely admitting I was wrong would be no bar. I've been wrong lots. I was wrong about the nature of Baha'i governance for 25 years. The problem is that I would have to be convinced that I really had been wrong to lose my faith. Nothing I've seen since I left does anything to change my mind. My problem was never with Baha'u'llah, to whom I owe practically everything and whom I love a great deal (even as I am annoyed with him for not founding a better religion). My problem is with his trustees, who want us all to be sort of like Persian Amish. Susan may be willing to do so, but most thinking people are unwilling to surrender the autonomy of their selves or their conscience to individuals they've never even met, and who appear sometimes to do sinister things. cheers Juan At 05:29 PM 2/9/98 EST, SManeck@berry.edu wrote: >Dear Millissa, > >To my statement: > >> >No, what I am taling about is behaviour not belief. But as you >> >suspect the phrase from the Will and Testament I am referring to are >> >the following: > >You wrote: >> >> Can we really separate beliefs and behaviors? It seems hard to in this >> Electronic Age. If you put any of your beliefs in a email, then it becomes >> a behavior.................. > >What I'm suggesting is that whether or not we belief a particular >decision is right 'Abdu'l-Baha seems to be asking that we behave as >*though* it was right. That may indeed have ramifications for >expressing belief. But I wouldn't take it as far as you do here. > >> Is mere public disagreement considered opposition? If the Guardian said >> something that Joe Baha'i didn't agree with and he said so publicly, but he >> still went along with it and did not try to get others to not obey, would >> this still be considered opposition? > >I think there are a number of factors that go into a decision by the >House to consider disagreement opposition. Obviously deliberate >disobedience or, worse, encouraging others to do the same would an >expression of the kind of "opinion" [ra'i] which Abdu'l-Baha >prohibits. But there seem to be other considerations as well. > >1) The correspondence from the House decries "constant" disagreement, >so the amount and volume seem to play into it. For instance, I >stated, "I don't like shunning Covenant Breakers." Now I doubt very >seriously if I am going to get a phone call from a Counselor about >this. Probably even Brent won't contact me, except as a friend. ;-} >But if I were to announce at every given opportunity "Shunning is >wrong and the House should get rid of it, and if they don't it just >proves there are trying to make the Faith into a cult." That kind of >talk would get me in trouble. > >2) Applying pressure tactics to get things changed would be >considered "opposition" in all probability. For instance, say passing >around what the House considers an "oppositional petition" has been >condemned. Likewise the House will not answer correspondence which >has first been posted on a public e-mail forum as they regard this as >an attempt to pressure the House. > > > How do these quotes work in a >> situation where you feel that an injustice has been done, not merely >> something that is a bad policy decision? For example, lets say that the UHJ >> has made a decision based on faulty information and you provide correct >> information but they disregard it and you know for a fact that the >> information they have is wrong. Is it moral to go along with it, even if >> you know an innocent person will be canned? It doesn't seem right that God >> would want you to go along with something that you know is wrong, so I have >> to believe that with the statements above (even if they are hyperbole) are >> not without some exceptions. > >Most injustices of the kind I think your alluding to occur not >because the House itself made an injust decision, but because they >refused to overturn the decision of a lower body. In other words they >felt upholding the authority of the lower Institution was more >important than seeing to it that an individual receives justice. We >have to remember that the House is not omniscient. You may well have >"informed" them but that may not be enough evidence to override >other misinformation which they might have been given. The House is >not usually in the position to determine whose side of the story is >true and they *must* rely on local authorities to handle matters in >most cases. Therefore they are extremely reluctant to overturn the >decision of say, an NSA. I think we have to abide by their wisdom in >this matter and recognize that avoiding injustice for the individual >in question can lead to a greater injustice for the community as a >whole. > >> I can see the value in this approach (its the same idea as regards the >> Supreme Court) but I wonder why Divine Guidance would be hindered in a >> democratic institution? > >Because secular democratic institutions rely upon self-interested >powerblocks exercising the most pressure. But we are called to be >selfless to make our Institutions work properly. Its a spiritual >issue. > >Why does God work on the "trickle-down >> theory" of Divine Guidance? > >I don't think that follows, although in practice I think that has >largely been the way it works. But I think that is mostly because we >have not had the courage to speak directly to the Institutions. We >rather talk about them. But Divine Guidance to the House of Justice >can even come from you, Milissa, if its done in the proper spirit. > >> This might be off topic, but this makes me think of something I have always >> wondered about. Why doesn't God pick a more effective method of Divine >> Guidance? It would be no trouble for him/her to speak directly to each and >> everyone of us without a mediator at all.....a Manifestation, a Guardian or >> a UHJ. > >Well, Milissa, as I'm sure you know that is not a question that can >ever be answered, "Why does God choose to do this rather than >something else?" But my guess is it has something to do with >answering the question, "How would Thy true lovers be recognized?" >Or perhaps more importantly, ever come into being? > >with love, Susan > > ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 1998 12:12 AM To: talisman@umich.edu Subject: two wrongs make a wrong Not only, as Milissa says, do two wrongs not make a right, but in this case both wrongs were committed by the same parties! So they especially don't make a right. Susan has started making the ultra logical argument that if the Baha'i institutions ever act wrongly, and if anyone criticizes them for that, then the very criticism justifies the wrong done in the first place!!! What I hear from her is, "My country, right or wrong." I was taught in grade school that this sentiment was always immoral; it seems Susan had a less rigorous ethical education. She has justified: the expulsion of Michael McKenny, the false charges of covenant breaking against the Talismanians, the false charges against the Dialogue editors, the harrassment of Nima Hazini (and she even slandered poor Nima in the process). And on what grounds? "My religion, right or wrong." It was a bad sentiment in 19th century jingoistic America. But for it seriously to be put forward as an ethical standard by an adherent of a religion that aims at uniting humankind and providing justice for all is so tragic that one wants to weep. And let me get this straight. Susan Maneck apparently puts forth seriously, an argument that the fact that Dr. Hossein Danesh was charged by *three* of his women patients with taking advantage of them and that the Royal College of Physicians found these charges plausible and that he paid a large fine and promised never to practice psychiatry again--the fact that these matters were discussed on Talisman is said by Dr. Maneck to justify Dr. Ghadirian standing up in front of a large audience of Baha'is in London (and before that in Montreal) and making false and quite frankly libellous statements about Juan Cole (and really about all Talisman and Irfan listmembers)! Dr. Danesh's case was reported in the newspapers and is a matter of public record. No one can know the entire truth of the matter. But that *three* such accusations were launched and that his professional association took them so seriously certainly cannot be ignored. And to think that people like Michael McKenny or Linda Walbridge were chased out of the Baha'i faith, having loyally served and sacrificed for the religion, while Dr. Danesh was protected by the Canadian NSA and then actually appointed to run the prestigious (and cushy) Landegg Academy in Switzerland--all of this left a very bad taste in Linda Walbridge's mouth, and I don't blame her. cheers Juan ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 1998 12:17 AM To: talisman@umich.edu Subject: criticism and attacks Alas, Susan is falling into the typical stance of the Baha'i Right. First of all, any criticism of any policy of any Baha'i institution is branded a scurrilous "attack" and "slander" and so forth. It is ruled out of court that these institutions might ever be naughty and in need of being criticized so that they can improve their performance. There is a difference between "attacks and slander" and criticism. And this difference is what makes liberty possible, what makes it possible for human beings to be more than slaves to their rulers, whether civil or ecclesiastical. For instance, if I say, "X is ugly and smells bad," that is an attack. If I say, "Bob Henderson falsely accused the editors of Dialogue magazine of "negative campaigning" and Firuz Kazemzadeh violated their rights to privacy by reading their private correspondence out on the floor of the National Convention," then that is not an "attack." It is a criticism. They certainly performed the actions indicated, and these actions certainly rode roughshod over the rights of the editors. That doesn't mean they are unredeemable. It means they overstepped their authority and acted badly. My point in making the criticism is to attempt to persuade them to stop acting like that, not merely to have the satisfaction of condemning them. And if I say that when the editors appealed to the universal house of justice, the latter body, instead of making a fair and equitable decision, sided in a knee-jerk fashion with Kazemzadeh and Henderson and unjustly punished the editors for a crime it was never proven they committed, then that is also a criticism of the uhj, not an attack. An attack on the uhj would take the form of saying, e.g., "the Baha'i universal house of justice always does evil things and one hopes it will be abolished." But the universal house of justice has done many wonderful things. At the height of the Reagan cold war, its members courageously issued the beautiful Peace Statement. The uhj has promoted community development in the 3rd world. It cooperated in the campaign, which Firuz Kazemzadeh spearheaded, finally to pass the anti-Genocide bill in the U.S. Congress. So it has done many positive things, and hundreds of thousands if not millions of people look to its members for spiritual guidance. I think it generally does an ok job at leading the religion. But it really did egregiously wrong the Dialogue editors, and it has a history of having some kind of hang-up with Western Baha'i intellectuals, and its members obviously really dislike open discourse, especially liberal Baha'i discourse. So I think there is a blind spot here, an area of performance that needs working on. And I think public criticism is the best way to work on the blind spots, and this is something `Abdu'l-Baha implicitly endorses in the Secret of Divine Civilization when he says that the whole point of having elected officials is that they might be deterred by the threat of being unelected from acting unjustly. When elected officials declare themselves infallible in all their doings and above criticism, and try to make criticism impossible, they remove that bulwark against tyranny that `Abdu'l-Baha thought so crucial. So if all that is an "attack" and makes me an "enemy," so be it. I'm already an "enemy" to most of the ayatollahs in Iran because I "attacked" them over their treatment of the Iranian Baha'is. "Attacking" (i.e. criticizing) the ayatollahs is also frowned upon over there. So I can be the "enemy" of all religions, "attacking" tyranny, injustice, and the abuse of basic human rights wherever any religious leadership commits those things. But I actually think those religions will be better off for having been "attacked." Susan's way, of personal love and devotion even to people who occasionally act like tyrants toward others, is the way of medieval nuns toward the Pope. That's fine if it works for her, and even admirable in a way. But it is also an acquiescence in slavery and an abdication of personal conscience and autonomy. It is not a way I would wish on the whole world; in fact, it is a way that I would fight bitterly against if anyone attempted to impose it on me. Moreover, despite what she keeps implying, it is not the way of Baha'u'llah, who rather had nasty things to say about tyrants. cheers Juan ---------- From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 1998 9:46 AM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: `Abdu'l-Baha's "Treatise on Leadership" Pt. 1 Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 02:08:00 -0500 From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: H-Bahai `Abdu'l-Baha's "Treatise on Leadership" Pt. 1 The "Treatise on Leadership" or *Risalih-'i Siyasiyyih* appears to have been written by `Abdu'l-Baha during the Tobacco Revolt of 1890-1892 in Iran. It was published in Bombay in 1893/1311. To my knowledge it was only published once again after that, in Tehran, by private hands (Muhammad Labib), in the early 1930s. It was translated into French by Hyppolite Dreyfus early in the 20th century, but his translation remained in manuscript. Therefore, this work has been completely absent from Western Baha'i culture and consciousness, and even has largely been absent from the consciousness of Baha'is in the Middle East. The Tobacco Revolt broke out because Nasiru'd-Din Shah granted a monopoly on the marketing of Iranian tobacco to a British entrepreneur, Major Talbot, in return for royalties (and apparently some bribes). The monopoly hurt Iranian tobacco merchants, money lenders, and farmers, and provoked widespread protests throughout Iran, in all the major cities. The newly laid telegraph lines allowed the dissidents to coordinate with one another between cities. The merchants built alliances in the revolt to the modern intellectuals, such as Sayyid Jamalu'd-Din al-Afghani and Aqa Khan Kirmani, as well as to some of the Shi`ite ulama. The latter worried about Western influence over Iran weakening Islam, and were outraged that the Shah's troops would mistreat or even expel Sayyids or descendants of the Prophet who protested the actions of local British Tobacco company officials. It has never been possible for me to find out what role if any the Baha'i community played in the revolt in Iran. Certainly, large numbers of Baha'i merchants and tobacco farmers would have been hurt by the British monopoly. Two prominent Baha'is were arrested during the revolt, but apparently they had nothing to do with it. Shaykhu'r-Ra'is, a secret Baha'i, does appear to have been imprisoned during the Revolt, in the Nadiri fortress near Mashhad, and he may have played a role in the early stages of the rebellion (so I`timadu's-Saltanih implies). In my view, the "Treatise" is a complex document that makes the strongest case for the separation of religion and state ever made in a Middle Eastern context, and is in that respect reminiscent of Hobbes, Locke and Jefferson. I believe that the work also represents a reversal of some of Baha'u'llah's attitudes and policies. Baha'u'llah had insisted repeatedly on parliamentary democracy in his own response to the Tobacco Revolt, *The Tablet of the World*. He also condemned Qajar tyranny and complained that Nasiru'd-Din Shah not only hadn't called a parliament but did not even have an agricultural policy. He indicated that both absences were at the root of the revolt. `Abdu'l-Baha moves away from this insistence on parliamentarism to a more Prussian view of the need for all subjects to support the monarch and to strengthen the state against external enemies and against theocratic forces within, who threaten to fatally weaken it. In making this shift, `Abdu'l-Baha radically reinterprets the earlier Baha'i vision of 19th century Middle Eastern history, as we shall see. I will be posting the translation serially, and commenting on it. Today I will begin with the work's preface. Comments on style and wording, or passages that seem unclear, will be most welcome. Of course, substantive comments are also. cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan ---------------------------------- trans. Juan R. I. Cole, 2/9/98 First Installment: ----------------------------------- Treatise on Leadership `Abdu'l-Baha He is God. Praise and benediction is owed to the pure Lord, who made the appearance of the sacred perfections of the human realm the foundation for his creation. Thus might the invisible Essence become visible in the court of perception by means of modalities, effects, laws, deeds, essences and mysteries. And thus might the lights of the reality of the saying, "I was a hidden treasure and loved to be known" become apparent from the dawning-place of the morn of vision. Praise and glorification are also due to the complete individual reality of the great one, who is the sun of the reality of the divine world, the most great luminary of the human realm, the center of the divine self-disclosure, and the dawning-place of the attributes of the one true Lord. By means of his appearance, the secret of "thus I created the creation, so that I might be known" became a reality. "And thou beholdest the earth blackened, then, when We send down water upon it, it quivers, and swells, and puts forth herbs of every joyous kind."(1) In these days and times, events contrary to all religious laws and destructive of both human society and of the divine foundation have occurred as a result of the actions of some ignorant, unwise insurgents and fomenters of turmoil. They made the perspicuous divine religion a pretext, and by their sedition over water pipes they have brought shame upon the people of Iran before the nations of the world, whether they be friends or strangers. Praise be to God! They claim to be shepherds, but they bear the characteristics of wolves. They read the Qur'an, but they desire to behave like rapacious beasts. They have a human form, but they approve of bestial conduct. "When it is said to them, 'Do not corruption in the land,' they say, 'We are only ones that put things right.' Truly, they are the workers of corruption but they are not aware."(2) It has therefore become imperative that a brief discourse be delivered concerning the foundation stone of the divine religion, and to alert the friends to be wise and awake. ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 1998 9:09 PM To: SManeck@berry.edu; talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: individual/institutional At 01:39 PM 2/10/98 EST, SManeck@berry.edu wrote: >Juan writes: > >> But, oh, I forgot, it is covenant breaking to try to resolve >> problems. Sorry. > >Dear Juan, > >Is that really what you are trying to do? Yes, Susan. I really am trying to resolve problems. I think the U.S. Baha'i community is like one big alcoholic family, in which one of the parents has a real problem, and in which everyone else is attempting to pretend the problem isn't there. I think the first step to resolving problems is to recognize them, to state them publicly, to acknowledge them. I am in an unusual position to do so, since I am no longer in the community yet am intimate with it, and moreover have thick skin and can take the ensuing heat. In any alcoholic family, by the way, there is usually at least one child who strenuously denies there is any problem at all, and I'm afraid you are increasingly falling into that pattern. The problem is that while this approach does help keep peace in the family in the short term, it keeps the problem from being addressed and so is very destructive in the long term. >Let me try to illustrate for you the difference between >constructive criticisms and attacks. Constructive criticism always >leave plenty of room for those being criticized to 'clean up their >act' without being humiliated. How about if I simply don't accept your definition of constructive criticism? I'm 45, a full professor, know several languages, have lived lots of countries, am relatively well-read, and am a social scientist by profession. I maintain that I have a perfect right to define constructive criticism for myself, and don't need you dictating to me what it is or is not. Constructive criticism is any criticism that points to a problem and suggests a means of resolving it. In the case of LSA or NSA members acting as plaintiff, jury and judge all rolled into one, which does happen, I have to point out that it happens before I can suggest a solution. And the solution I suggest is that anyway Baha'u'llah and Shoghi Effendi envisaged most of these sorts of personal status issues being handled by Baha'i judges, so why not institute them? It's just free advice from a Unitarian-Universalist friend of the faith. In other cases, the problem is that there is a systematic ideology or commitment in the Baha'i institutions' political culture to acting in a way that tramples on people's God-given rights. In such instances, the only constructive criticism I can offer is to denounce these actions and to suggest they not be repeated. Unconstructive criticism would be to denounce things that can't be helped. Attacks are generally calculated only >to create disatisfaction on the part of the body of believers or >defensiveness on the part of members of the Institutions. No, an "attack" would be aimed at destroying something. The Baha'i community is very precious to me, and most of the friends I have are still in it, though I'm meeting some very nice Unitarians, and I also have my academic and Pakistani circles. Anyway, the last thing I want is to do any damage to the community. Hell, I've been invited by a powerful US government agency to address them in May on the persecution of the Iranian Baha'is, and I intend to be quite forthright about what has been done to them and how egregiously it violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. An "attack" is what the ayatollahs do to the Baha'i faith in Iran. As for the rest, I don't need to "create" dissatisfaction with how the Baha'i faith is being run, since the Baha'is in power are largely doing that. All I am doing is occasionally (I don't spend much time on this any more) articulating what might be going wrong. And then I am suggesting how it might be fixed. That is constructive. If the Institutions get defensive whenever a problem is identified and articulated, then that is their members' insecurity at work, and maybe the Baha'is should elect someone who is less insecure and more able to deal with criticism and also more able to resolve the problems rather than shooting the messenger. >You wrote: > > You need some qadis or judges to settle these >> sorts of things. The assistants or ABMs are not in a position to interfere >> with the functioning of an LSA, having only advisory power, and if an LSA >> desires to act invidiously by supporting one of its members against a >> community member, then it can and there is absolutely nothing anyone can or >> will do to stop that. > >Had you managed to leave out the word "invidiously" this could >have passed simply as a criticism. Susan, had I left out the word "invidiously," there would have been no *reason* for any criticism. The fact is that these institutions do sometimes act invidiously, which is to say, unfairly--don't recuse themselves when self-interest is at stake, and so forth. So how could that be fixed? You don't allow the problem to be stated, viewing its statement as an illegitimate "attack," and so then you cannot even think about how things might be made better. > It is also quite common, where there is a divorce >> that involves a person who serves on the LSA with a spouse who is not on the >> LSA, that the LSA sides heavily with its own member against the "lay" >> spouse. My files are bulging with such cases, and, again, in the present >> system there is absolutely nothing the spouse can do about it. Appeals to >> the NSA have been fruitless. > >That's a simple criicism. Everything I've said is a simple criticism. As for the rest of your quotes, they are constructive criticisms, as well. The Baha'i authorities should stop acting inquisitorially against intellectuals like Linda Walbridge and Michael McKenny. It might help if they stopped promoting counselors onto the uhj, since these people seem especially unable to deal with freedom of conscience (something `Abdu'l-Baha absolutely insisted on). It is true that it used to be you couldn't just be declared a "non-Bahai" by fiat. As for the following: > Some of the letters they have written commanding >> that people be shunned demonstrate a realy chilling sadism; they are >> obviously taking pleasure in playing god. I don't think the problem >> lies with history, but with the present. Shoghi Effendi predicted >> that without a living guardian, the Baha'i system would be mutilated >> and the universal house of justice would lose its bearings. > >This is an attack not only on the Supreme Institution but upon the >continuing efficacy of Covenant itself. You'll have to take this problem up with Shoghi Effendi. He is the one who used the word mutilated for a uhj without a living Guardian on it. >Here are some more examples of "attacks": > >> First of all, the repressive and authoritarian policies of the >> current Baha'i authorities, which are directly contradictory to the >> key scriptural texts of the Baha'i revelation, are simply not in >> doubt. This is not an "attack." After The LA study class notes, Dialogue, the MacEoin Affair, Salmani, the Encyclopaedia, and Talisman I, I think we may conclude in a perfectly objective and unobjectionable manner that repressive and authoritarian actions have been taken by Baha'i authorities. That is a criticism. Let me make it a constructive criticism: They should stop acting that way. > since >> the favorite means of cult-like social control employed by the >> Baha'i authorities is to silence people by threatening them with >> being shunned, and to warn them that they must not let anyone know >> they have been threatened. > Again, they do do this, and I am a primary source for the practice, and you know very well that they do it. That is a criticism. The constructive criticism: They should stop acting in that weird way. >Now what part of this don't we understand? > >Susan Well, obviously you don't understand English. You need a dictionary that has a proper definition of "constructive" and "criticism," and which might enable you to distinguish between that and what the Ayatollahs do to the Baha'i faith in Iran, which really is an attack. cheers Juan ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 1998 2:07 AM To: talisman@umich.edu Subject: `Abdu'l-Baha's Treatise on Leadership, pt. 2 In the next section of the text, `Abdu'l-Baha establishes the need in human society for the faculty (quvvih) of leadership. Leadership, in turn, he says, is of two sorts. There is civil leadership, exercised by kings, ministers, generals, etc. And there is religious leadership, exercised by prophets, saints, the religiously learned, and so forth. `Abdu'l-Baha's theory of civil and religious leadership being always properly differentiated and complementary contradicts the theocratic sentiment in Shi`ite Islam and in the Babi heritage. It accords with Baha'u'llah's own vision, since the latter in many passages condemned theocracy and insisted that religion only wanted men's hearts, whereas rule was left to kings and civil parliaments. Moreover, it has two other contexts. Said Amir Arjomand has demonstrated in his *Turban for the Crown* that many Shi`ite religious thinkers in the Qajar period (19th century) also held that the state and the religious institution were different and complementary, like two wings of a bird. This is explicit in Mulla `Ali Kani, and is a specifically Qajar formulation of the relationship of religion and state. Of course, Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha are arguing for a far stricter wall between religion and state than did Kani. That brings us to the other context. `Abdu'l-Baha was familiar with the U.S. conception of the separation of religion and state from many sources, including Draper (a professor at New York University who wrote on the rise of European civilization). Indeed, Draper argued that the separation of religion and state set the stage for the end of medieval intellectual oppression and the beginning of 19th century progress. `Abdu'l-Baha had made a similar argument (though it is subtly stated) in *A Traveller's Narrative*. cheers Juan Cole History University of Michigan ------------------------------------------------------------ `Abdu'l-Baha, *Treatise on Leadership*, pt. 2 It is clear and apparent that in the fabric and nature of all beings, a faculty and a potentiality exist for the manifestation of two sorts of perfections. One is inborn perfections, which are unmediated and are purely the creation of God. The other sort is acquired perfections, which are under the shadow of the training provided by a true educator. Contemplate the external essences. For a natural freshness and delicacy exist in trees, flowers and fruit, which are nothing but a divine bestowal. The other is a verdure and sweetness that are added to this description, which become visible as a grace bestowed by the gardener’s cultivation. For, if left to itself, this plant-life would become bramble and jungle. Neither rose nor blossom would open, and no fruit would be given. It would be fit to be set afire and cleared. But when it comes under the shadow of the care and cultivation of a gardener, it becomes a garden and a rose-bower, an orchard and a flower bed. It brings forth blossoms and fruit, and covers the earth with roses and fragrant herbs. Human society is the same way. It, likewise, if left to its own devices, will become like a horde of vermin, and come under the rubric of beasts and predators. It learns rapacity, sharpness of claw, and bloodthirstiness, and is consumed in the flames of deprivation and tyranny. The human race learns its lessons as children in the school of the world, and falls ill and is enfeebled because of chronic diseases. The sacred temples of the prophets and holy ones are the tutors in the assembly of the All-Merciful. They are the physicians in the hospital of the Lord. They are harbingers of grace, and are the sun in the ethereal sphere of guidance. When the radiant flame of spiritual and physical perfection that lies, in reality, beneath the glass of the human lamp is laid low and extinguished, it is reignited by the divine fire. Chronic diseases vanish by the grace of the effulgence of the All-Merciful and the Christ spirit. This glorious proof clearly establishes that human society requires the education and nurturing of a true educator, and that human souls need a master, a disciplinarian, a restrainer, an encourager, a guide and an attractor. For the garden of his creation can never find embellishment, delicacy, grace and blessing save by means of the cultivation carried out by the gardener of loving-kindness, of the effulgences of the One true God, and of the just leadership provided by the government. This figure who restrains and prohibits, who impels and disciplines, this leader and guide, is of two sorts. The first protector and restrainer is the faculty of leadership that is related to the corporeal world, and which bestows external happiness on the human realm. It safeguards human life, property and honor, as well as the glory and distinguished qualities of society. This is a magnificent category. The center that builds up or tears down these agencies of leadership, and the pivot around which this divine gift circles, is the just monarch, along with accomplished plenipotentiaries, wise ministers, and intrepid military leaders. The second sort of educator and master of the human race is represented by the spiritual, holy authority, heavenly, revealed books, divine prophets, celestial souls, and the learned in the All-Merciful. For these sites of revelation and dawning-places of inspiration are educators of hearts and spirits, rectifiers of morals, improvers of character, and encouragers of the virtuous. That is, these holy beings are like spiritual faculties that save human souls from the disgrace of moral vices, the darkness of wicked characteristics, and the filth of the worlds of being. They illumine human realities with the light of the traits of the plane of true humanity, with divine attributes and with virtues and characteristics from the kingdom of God. Thus might the radiant reality of the verses, "So blessed be God, the fairest of creators," (Q. 23:14) and of "We indeed created man in the fairest stature" (Q. 95:4) be realized in the sacred human essence. Thus, by means of the glorious effulgences of these dawning-places of the divine verses, the pure and subtle human realities become a center for holy, divine attributes. The foundation of these sacred functions stands upon spiritual and godly affairs and conscious realities. They have no relationship to corporeal concerns, affairs of political leadership, or worldly matters. Rather, the holy faculties of these good and pure souls are in reality the life, consciousness, and identity of the obedient heart and spirit, not of water and clay. The standards of the signs of these pure realities are raised up in the spiritual, life-giving heavens, not in the dusty earth. There is no way for the affairs of the government and the subjects, of ruler and ruled, to enter in here. They are specially favored with the holy and divine breezes and with spiritual and everlasting effulgences. They do not interfere in any other sphere, nor do they steer the steed of their resolve into the arena of governmental leadership. For the affairs of leadership and government, of kingdom and subjects, already have a respected object of authority, an appointed source, whereas a different holy center and distinct wellspring exists with regard to guidance, religion, knowledge, education, and the promulgation of good morals and of the virtues of true humanity. These latter souls have nothing to do with affairs of civil leadership, nor do they seek to interfere in them. Thus, in this most great cycle of the maturity and adulthood of the world, this matter has been put into the text of the divine Book as one might put lead into the structure of a building. By virtue of this incontrovertible text, and this brilliant proof, all must comply with and submit to the commands of the government, and all must follow and obey the throne of sovereignty. That is, they must be sincere subjects and willing servants in obeying and serving the monarchs. Thus is it written in the Book of the Covenant and of faith and the last will and testament of Baha’u’llah, whose decree is decisive, whose dawn is luminous, and whose morn is true and shining with the explicit text. The command that is recorded is as follows: "O ye the loved ones and the trustees of God! 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. Verily He is the All-Knowing, the All-Wise. It is incumbent upon everyone to aid those daysprings of authority and sources of command who are adorned with the ornament of equity and justice."(*3) Also, in a frank epistle that he wrote addressing one of the Muslim clerics, he says in one blessed passage: "It is now incumbent upon His Majesty the Shah—may God, exalted be He, protect him—to deal with this people with loving-kindness and mercy. This Wronged One pledgeth Himself, before the Divine Kaaba, that, apart from truthfulness and trustworthiness, this people will show forth nothing that can in any way conflict with the world-adorning views of His Majesty. Every nation must have a high regard for the position of its sovereign, must be submissive unto him, must carry out his behests, and hold fast his authority. The sovereigns of the earth have been and are the manifestations of the power, the grandeur and the majesty of God. This Wronged One hath at no time dealt deceitfully with anyone. Every one is well aware of this, and beareth witness unto it. Regard for the rank of sovereigns is divinely ordained, as is clearly attested by the words of the Prophets of God and His chosen ones. He Who is the Spirit (Jesus)--may peace be upon Him--was asked: "O Spirit of God! Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not?" And He made reply: "Yea, render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's." He forbade it not. These two sayings are, in the estimation of men of insight, one and the same, for if that which belonged to Caesar had not come from God, He would have forbidden it. And likewise in the sacred verse: "Obey God and obey the Apostle, and those among you invested with authority." By "those invested with authority" is meant primarily and more especially the Imams---- the blessings of God rest upon them! They, verily, are the manifestations of the power of God, and the sources of His authority, and the repositories of His knowledge, and the daysprings of His commandments. Secondarily these words refer unto the kings and rulers--those through the brightness of whose justice the horizons of the world are resplendent and luminous. We fain would hope that His Majesty the Shah will shine forth with a light of justice whose radiance will envelop all the kindreds of the earth. It is incumbent upon every one to beseech the one true God on his behalf for that which is meet and seemly in this day. "O God, my God, and my Master, and my Mainstay, and my Desire, and my Beloved! I ask Thee by the mysteries which were hid in Thy knowledge, and by the signs which have diffused the fragrance of Thy loving-kindness, and by the billows of the ocean of Thy bounty, and by the heaven of Thy grace and generosity, and by the blood spilt in Thy path, and by the hearts consumed in their love for Thee, to assist His Majesty the Shah with Thy power and Thy sovereignty, that from him may be manifested that which will everlastingly endure in Thy Books, and Thy Scriptures, and Thy Tablets. Hold Thou his hand, O my Lord, with the hand of Thine omnipotence, and illuminate him with the light of Thy knowledge, and adorn him with the adornment of Thy virtues. Potent art Thou to do what pleaseth Thee, and in Thy grasp are the reins of all created things. No God is there but Thee, the Ever-Forgiving, the All-Bounteous. "In the Epistle to the Romans Saint Paul hath written: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God." And further: "For he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." He saith that the appearance of the kings, and their majesty and power are of God. Moreover, in the traditions of old, references have been made which the divines have seen and heard. We beseech God--blessed and glorified be He--to aid thee, O Shaykh, to lay fast hold on that which hath been sent down from the heaven of the bounty of God, the Lord of the worlds. [ESW 89-91]" Therefore, divine friends, endeavor with heart and soul, and show forth with pure and true intentions the miracle of wishing the government well and obeying the state. ---------- From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 1998 11:08 AM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Baha'u'llah and the New Testament Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 02:03:40 -0500 From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: Baha'u'llah and the New Testament Dear Sen: I am sending along some passages that I wrote originally in conjunction with my paper on Baha'u'llah's image of Jesus, but most of which were cut from the published version. I think they may shed some light on the sort of issues you are encountering. The short answer is that I think Baha'u'llah was at that point using a local Baghdadi manuscript copy of the Arabic New Testament ultimately derived from the Alexandrian Vulgate; and I think his copy was not a very good or accurate one. Of course, anyone who knows manuscript culture knows that most manuscripts are riddled with errors. A printed Arabic Bible was available in the Middle East at the time the Book of Certitude was written, around 1862: Kitab al-Muqaddas (London: Richard Watts, 1831), "printed according to the version published in Rome in the year 1671 for the benefit of the Eastern Churches." Stephen Lambden writes in his paper, "Prophecy in the Johannine Farewell Discourse," that "The Arabic text of Walton's Polyglott was basically a selective revision of the Arabic of the Paris polyglott of 1625-45 (10 vols.) . . . Printed editions of the Arabic Gospels/New Testament (16th century C.E. onwards) represent varieties of a 13th century Arabic recension known as the "Alexandrian Vulgate." The new Protestant translation carried out in Beirut was not printed until the 1860s, and would not have been available to Baha'u'llah at the time he was writing Essence of Mysteries and the Book of Certitude in 1861-62; see Issa Saliba, "The Bible in Arabic: The 19th Century Protestant Translation," Muslim World 65 (1975):254-263; I am grateful to Dr. Khazeh Fananapazir for the latter reference. Baha'u'llah quotes from the New Testament throughout his writings in the period 1863-1892, after his declaration as a manifestation of God, and most of these citations are probably to the Beirut Protestant printed Bible and are unproblematic. Baha'u'llah's earliest quotations from the New Testament, however, present some textual problems; these are contained in two works, Jawahir al-Asrar (Essence of the Mysteries, c. 1861, printed in Baha'u'llah, Athar-i Qalam-i A`la Volume 3 [Tehran: Baha'i Publishing Trust, 1972]:4-88) and Baha'u'llah, Kitab-i Iqan (Hofheim-Langenhain: Baha'i-Verlag, 1980), written in 1278/1862 and translated as The Kitab-i-Iqan: The Book of Certitude, trans. Shoghi Effendi Rabbani (Wilmette, Ill.: Baha'i Publishing Trust, 1970 [1931]). The quotations in the Essence of the Mysteries occasionally resemble the Watts edition, but diverge elsewhere and include some tortured or idiosyncratic renderings (e.g. Jn 15:26, AQA 3:11). The quotation of Jn 16:5-6, concerning the Paraclete (AQA 3:12), is from a corrupt text, since it ends in the middle of a sentence ("But because I am going to Him who sent Me, and none of you asks me, `Where are you going?' because I have said these things to you." The last phrase in the original reads "But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart." It seems unlikely that anyone with the full sentence in front of him would have truncated it in this way, and I therefore conclude that Baha'u'llah's manuscript was defective here. As a comparison of the quotation of Mt 24:29-31, quoted both in Essence of the Mysteries and the Book of Certitude with the 1831 Watts edition shows, Baha'u'llah draws upon a text that belonged to somewhat the same translation tradition, but which differs from the printed Arabic Bible in ways that could best be explained if Baha'u'llah had before him, not a published book, but an Arabic manuscript of the New Testament. Most likely it was simply a late Iraqi copy of the Alexandrian vulgate. It is also possible that Baha'u'llah did not have a complete text of the NT before him, but a sampling of passages compiled by Shi`ite millenarians interested in Jesus' prophecies. To make this point, let me quote the version of the minor apocalypse in the Book of Certitude, which largely agrees with Watts; I will show in brackets the occasional variants with the latter, marked "W*": "Wa li'l-waqt min ba`d diq tilka al-ayyam tazlam ash-shams wa al-qamar la yu`ti daw'ahu wa al-kawakib tatasaqit min as-sama' wa quwwa:t al-ard [W* quwwat as-sama'] tartajj hina'idh tazhar `alamat ibn al-insan fi as-sama' wa yanuh [W* hina'idh] qaba'il al-ard wa yarauna ibn al-insan atiyan `ala sihab as-sama' ma`a quwwa:h [W* quwwah] wa majd kabir [W* kathir] wa yursilu mala'ikatahu ma`a sawt safur al-`azim [W* ma`a buq wa bi hataf `azim]." The many similarities of phrasing and vocabulary underline that the two versions must have a common origin. The differences derive from two factors. One is copyist error, so that Baha'u'llah's MS gives "powers of the earth (quwwat al-ard)" instead of the correct "powers of the heavens (quwwat as-sama'; Gr. dunameis ton ouranon), and drops out the word "hina'idh" (then) at one point. The other is a different redactor or editor of the Arabic MS who has preferred to render a few words or phrases differently. Thus, "great glory" is translated literally as majd kabir in Baha'u'llah's text, while Watts's edition has the more idiomatic "much glory (majd kathir)"--though the copyist could also be responsible here. The phrase "with a great trumpet" has also been translated entirely differently in the two. Juan Cole History University of Michigan ---------- From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 1998 11:10 AM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Treatise on Leadership, pt. 2 Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:06:12 -0500 =46rom: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: Treatise on Leadership, pt. 2 Dear Frank: Many thanks for your kind words. The Persian text has been republished by H-Bahai on the Web and is available at: https://h-net2.msu.edu/~bahai/areprint/abtext.htm I also struggled over whether it was va lulih or valvalih . The typography of the 1934 edition supports va lulih since the typesetter has left a clear space after the vav (p. 3). Moreover, if lulih can be used to refer to the sort of water pipes in which tobacco was smoked, then in this particular case it was the lulih that caused the valvalih in the first place. :-) It is also possible that this is a visual pun that can be read both ways simultaneously. With regard to Peter Terry's question as to whether the strong anticlericalism of this treatise may help account for its having not been kept available to the Baha'is, I really cannot answer the question. There is a fair amount of anticlericalism throughout the Baha'i scriptures, so one wonders if this was really the crucial factor. Ahang Rabbani or Iskandar Hai might know better what were the internal dynamics in Iran affecting this text. In the next section of the text, `Abdu'l-Baha establishes the need in human society for the faculty (quvvih) of leadership. Leadership, in turn, he says, is of two sorts. There is civil leadership, exercised by kings, ministers, generals, etc. And there is religious leadership, exercised by prophets, saints, the religiously learned, and so forth. `Abdu'l-Baha's theory of civil and religious leadership being always properly differentiated and complementary contradicts the theocratic sentiment in Shi`ite Islam and in the Babi heritage. It accords with Baha'u'llah's own vision, since the latter in many passages condemned theocracy and insisted that religion only wanted men's hearts, whereas rule was left to kings and civil parliaments. Moreover, it has two other contexts. Said Amir Arjomand has demonstrated in his *Turban for the Crown* that many Shi`ite religious thinkers in the Qajar period (19th century) also held that the state and the religious institution were different and complementary, like two wings of a bird. This is explicit in Mulla `Ali Kani, and is a specifically Qajar formulation of the relationship of religion and state. Of course, Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha are arguing for a far stricter wall between religion and state than did Kani. That brings us to the other context. `Abdu'l-Baha was familiar with the U.S. conception of the separation of religion and state from many sources, including Draper (a professor at New York University who wrote on the rise of European civilization). Indeed, Draper argued that the separation of religion and state set the stage for the end of medieval intellectual oppression and the beginning of 19th century progress. `Abdu'l-Baha had made a similar argument (though it is subtly stated) in *A Traveller's Narrative*. cheers Juan Cole History University of Michigan ------------------------------------------------------------ `Abdu'l-Baha, *Treatise on Leadership*, pt. 2 It is clear and apparent that in the fabric and nature of all beings, a faculty and a potentiality exist for the manifestation of two sorts of perfections. One is inborn perfections, which are unmediated and are purely the creation of God. The other sort is acquired perfections, which are under the shadow of the training provided by a true educator. Contemplate the external essences. For a natural freshness and delicacy exist in trees, flowers and fruit, which are nothing but a divine bestowal. The other is a verdure and sweetness that are added to this description, which become visible as a grace bestowed by the gardener=92s cultivation. =46or, if left to itself, this plant-life would become bramble and jungle. Neither rose nor blossom would open, and no fruit would be given. It would be fit to be set afire and cleared. But when it comes under the shadow of the care and cultivation of a gardener, it becomes a garden and a rose-bower, an orchard and a flower bed. It brings forth blossoms and fruit, and covers the earth with roses and fragrant herbs. Human society is the same way. It, likewise, if left to its own devices, will become like a horde of vermin, and come under the rubric of beasts and predators. It learns rapacity, sharpness of claw, and bloodthirstiness, and is consumed in the flames of deprivation and tyranny. The human race learns its lessons as children in the school of the world, and falls ill and is enfeebled because of chronic diseases. The sacred temples of the prophets and holy ones are the tutors in the assembly of the All-Merciful. They are the physicians in the hospital of the Lord. They are harbingers of grace, and are the sun in the ethereal sphere of guidance. When the radiant flame of spiritual and physical perfection that lies, in reality, beneath the glass of the human lamp is laid low and extinguished, it is reignited by the divine fire. Chronic diseases vanish by the grace of the effulgence of the All-Merciful and the Christ spirit. This glorious proof clearly establishes that human society requires the education and nurturing of a true educator, and that human souls need a master, a disciplinarian, a restrainer, an encourager, a guide and an attractor. For the garden of his creation can never find embellishment, delicacy, grace and blessing save by means of the cultivation carried out by the gardener of loving-kindness, of the effulgences of the One true God, and of the just leadership provided by the government. This figure who restrains and prohibits, who impels and disciplines, this leader and guide, is of two sorts. The first protector and restrainer is the faculty of leadership that is related to the corporeal world, and which bestows external happiness on the human realm. It safeguards human life, property and honor, as well as the glory and distinguished qualities of society. This is a magnificent category. The center that builds up or tears down these agencies of leadership, and the pivot around which this divine gift circles, is the just monarch, along with accomplished plenipotentiaries, wise ministers, and intrepid military leaders. The second sort of educator and master of the human race is represented by the spiritual, holy authority, heavenly, revealed books, divine prophets, celestial souls, and the learned in the All-Merciful. For these sites of revelation and dawning-places of inspiration are educators of hearts and spirits, rectifiers of morals, improvers of character, and encouragers of the virtuous. That is, these holy beings are like spiritual faculties that save human souls from the disgrace of moral vices, the darkness of wicked characteristics, and the filth of the worlds of being. They illumine human realities with the light of the traits of the plane of true humanity, with divine attributes and with virtues and characteristics from the kingdom of God. Thus might the radiant reality of the verses, "So blessed be God, the fairest of creators," (Q. 23:14) and of "We indeed created man in the fairest stature" (Q. 95:4) be realized in the sacred human essence. Thus, by means of the glorious effulgences of these dawning-places of the divine verses, the pure and subtle human realities become a center for holy, divine attributes. The foundation of these sacred functions stands upon spiritual and godly affairs and conscious realities. They have no relationship to corporeal concerns, affairs of political leadership, or worldly matters. Rather, the holy faculties of these good and pure souls are in reality the life, consciousness, and identity of the obedient heart and spirit, not of water and clay. The standards of the signs of these pure realities are raised up in the spiritual, life-giving heavens, not in the dusty earth. There is no way for the affairs of the government and the subjects, of ruler and ruled, to enter in here. They are specially favored with the holy and divine breezes and with spiritual and everlasting effulgences. They do not interfere in any other sphere, nor do they steer the steed of their resolve into the arena of governmental leadership. For the affairs of leadership and government, of kingdom and subjects, already have a respected object of authority, an appointed source, whereas a different holy center and distinct wellspring exists with regard to guidance, religion, knowledge, education, and the promulgation of good morals and of the virtues of true humanity. These latter souls have nothing to do with affairs of civil leadership, nor do they seek to interfere in them. Thus, in this most great cycle of the maturity and adulthood of the world, this matter has been put into the text of the divine Book as one might put lead into the structure of a building. By virtue of this incontrovertible text, and this brilliant proof, all must comply with and submit to the commands of the government, and all must follow and obey the throne of sovereignty. That is, they must be sincere subjects and willing servants in obeying and serving the monarchs. Thus is it written in the Book of the Covenant and of faith and the last will and testament of Baha=92u=92llah, whose decree is decisive, whose dawn is lumino= us, and whose morn is true and shining with the explicit text. The command that is recorded is as follows: "O ye the loved ones and the trustees of God! 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. Verily He is the All-Knowing, the All-Wise. It is incumbent upon everyone to aid those daysprings of authority and sources of command who are adorned with the ornament of equity and justice."(*3) Also, in a frank epistle that he wrote addressing one of the Muslim clerics, he says in one blessed passage: "It is now incumbent upon His Majesty the Shah=97may God, exalted be He, protect him=97to deal with this people with loving-kindness and mercy. This Wronged One pledgeth Himself, before the Divine Kaaba, that, apart from truthfulness and trustworthiness, this people will show forth nothing that can in any way conflict with the world-adorning views of His Majesty. Every nation must have a high regard for the position of its sovereign, must be submissive unto him, must carry out his behests, and hold fast his authority. The sovereigns of the earth have been and are the manifestations of the power, the grandeur and the majesty of God. This Wronged One hath at no time dealt deceitfully with anyone. Every one is well aware of this, and beareth witness unto it. Regard for the rank of sovereigns is divinely ordained, as is clearly attested by the words of the Prophets of God and His chosen ones. He Who is the Spirit (Jesus)--may peace be upon Him--was asked: "O Spirit of God! Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not?" And He made reply: "Yea, render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's." He forbade it not. These two sayings are, in the estimation of men of insight, one and the same, for if that which belonged to Caesar had not come from God, He would have forbidden it. And likewise in the sacred verse: "Obey God and obey the Apostle, and those among you invested with authority." By "those invested with authority" is meant primarily and more especially the Imams---- the blessings of God rest upon them! They, verily, are the manifestations of the power of God, and the sources of His authority, and the repositories of His knowledge, and the daysprings of His commandments. Secondarily these words refer unto the kings and rulers--those through the brightness of whose justice the horizons of the world are resplendent and luminous. We fain would hope that His Majesty the Shah will shine forth with a light of justice whose radiance will envelop all the kindreds of the earth. It is incumbent upon every one to beseech the one true God on his behalf for that which is meet and seemly in this day. "O God, my God, and my Master, and my Mainstay, and my Desire, and my Beloved! I ask Thee by the mysteries which were hid in Thy knowledge, and by the signs which have diffused the fragrance of Thy loving-kindness, and by the billows of the ocean of Thy bounty, and by the heaven of Thy grace and generosity, and by the blood spilt in Thy path, and by the hearts consumed in their love for Thee, to assist His Majesty the Shah with Thy power and Thy sovereignty, that from him may be manifested that which will everlastingly endure in Thy Books, and Thy Scriptures, and Thy Tablets. Hold Thou his hand, O my Lord, with the hand of Thine omnipotence, and illuminate him with the light of Thy knowledge, and adorn him with the adornment of Thy virtues. Potent art Thou to do what pleaseth Thee, and in Thy grasp are the reins of all created things. No God is there but Thee, the Ever-Forgiving, the All-Bounteous. "In the Epistle to the Romans Saint Paul hath written: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God." And further: "For he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." He saith that the appearance of the kings, and their majesty and power are of God. Moreover, in the traditions of old, references have been made which the divines have seen and heard. We beseech God--blessed and glorified be He--to aid thee, O Shaykh, to lay fast hold on that which hath been sent down from the heaven of the bounty of God, the Lord of the worlds. [ESW 89-91]" Therefore, divine friends, endeavor with heart and soul, and show forth with pure and true intentions the miracle of wishing the government well and obeying the state. ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 1998 12:07 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Ideas? Frederick: No one tells me these things. You are wise to let things cool till trb is decided. I don't actually think little listservs are all that bad for the purpose. The messages get forwarded around all over the place, and some of them have an impact. And it is a small enough operation that shutting it down doesn't seem worth the effort of the institutions. Detweiler would be a godsend if he could (stupidly) provoke the interest of the press in the Great Baha'i Cyberspace Inquisition. These people are their own worst enemies, and they have *no* idea how fascist they are or would sound in the real world. cheers Juan ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 1998 3:36 AM To: talisman@umich.edu Subject: Treatise on Leadership pt. 2 Fyi - Juan --------------------- 1) I think . . . 's reading of Dreyfus is nuanced and correct. Remember that Dreyfus was living at the time in the hyper-Jacobin Third Republic, and that politicians who attended mass regularly were not eligible to serve on the French Cabinet. It was this governmental commitment to positivism that he was dissatisfied with, not the general idea of a separation between the religious institution(s) and the civil state. 2) Bill's question about `Abdu'l-Baha's views of the sovereignty of the state is a very good one but I am not sure how to answer it. He did rule out the intervention of religious institutions in the affairs of state, and as you say he expresses this as a universal 'good' or normative value, for all times and places. Obviously, he did not approve of theocracies. I'm not sure, however, that this position would rule out *secular* forces working to change an unjust government. `Abdu'l-Baha advocated a parliament in his Secret of Divine Civilization, in a book published in Bombay in 1882 and illicitly smuggled back into Iran, an action that was quite illegal in the Ottoman and Qajar empires of the time. But he did so in an anonymous book that did not represent itself as being from a religious leader. Later, around 1907, he even instructed the Baha'is to try to elect some of their members to the Iranian Majlis or parliament, which had by then been established (he seems to have had quite different rules for people living under absolute monarchies and those living in Republics, as he indicated in letters to the U.S. community). But `Abdu'l-Baha's emphasis on peace and love and avoidance of contention did set him against revolution, and it seems to me that some of the same contradictions were there in his stance as in the stance of the Quakers in the 13 colonies during the Revolutionary War, whom Tom Paine criticizes for their unwillingness to support the revolution. In times of revolution against tyranny, pacifism looks an awfully lot like reactionary politics. (I say this as one who is a conscientious objector). 3) . . . I would say that `Abdu'l-Baha's distinction between the "tashri`" of the religious bodies and the executive power of the state is *not* identical to a distinction between the legislative and executive branches of government. Although in 20th century Arabic tashri` did come to mean legislation even by civil parliaments, `Abdu'l-Baha is using it in an older and technical sense to mean "deciding on the import of the shari`ah or religious law." I can prove this from passages later in the Treatise on Leadership, when we get there. `Abdu'l-Baha contrasts this function of religious institutions in tashri` or ruling on the meaning of the religious law, from *all* civil government, including both the executive branch of the state and the legislative branch. When speaking of civil legislation, he uses the word qanun or civil law, not shari`ah. He expected shari`ah to govern its sphere, but to be supplemented by qanun or civil law, passed by civil parliaments. Remember that the Aqdas doesn't actually have all that much law in it, so that for a whole society to function there would have to be substantial civil legislation (taqnin) in addition to it. `Abdu'l-Baha believed that a good government was one that honored the rights of its subjects and ruled with justice. Of course it should also honor the revealed law in spheres where that was applicable. But for both Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha, the touchstone of whether a state was legitimate was not how religious it was, but how just it was. `Abdu'l-Baha believed that the Tobacco Revolt of 1891-1892 was unfair to Nasiru'd-Din Shah, whereas he believed that the later Constitutional Revolution of 1905-1907 had at least some legitimate goals. If a state that incorporated the religious law into its civil laws and implemented them were a theocracy, then the U.S. is a theocracy or at least has been at some points in its history. The Ten Commandments, after all, were incorporated into Anglo-Saxon civil law. I'm unaware that the Baha'i scriptures ever use the word theocracy, and as far as I can tell its holy figures were opposed to most features of the systems that historians have refer to as theocratic (contemporary Iran is a theocracy, e.g.). cheers Juan Cole History University of Michigan ---------- From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 1998 10:05 AM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Treatise on Leadership pt. 2 Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 02:25:11 -0500 From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: Treatise on Leadership pt. 2 Thanks to Sen, Bill and Peter for their comments. 1) I think Sen's reading of Dreyfus is nuanced and correct. Remember that Dreyfus was living at the time in the hyper-Jacobin Third Republic, and that politicians who attended mass regularly were not eligible to serve on the French Cabinet. It was this governmental commitment to positivism that he was dissatisfied with, not the general idea of a separation between the religious institution(s) and the civil state. 2) Bill's question about `Abdu'l-Baha's views of the sovereignty of the state is a very good one but I am not sure how to answer it. He did rule out the intervention of religious institutions in the affairs of state, and as you say he expresses this as a universal 'good' or normative value, for all times and places. Obviously, he did not approve of theocracies. I'm not sure, however, that this position would rule out *secular* forces working to change an unjust government. `Abdu'l-Baha advocated a parliament in his Secret of Divine Civilization, in a book published in Bombay in 1882 and illicitly smuggled back into Iran, an action that was quite illegal in the Ottoman and Qajar empires of the time. But he did so in an anonymous book that did not represent itself as being from a religious leader. Later, around 1907, he even instructed the Baha'is to try to elect some of their members to the Iranian Majlis or parliament, which had by then been established (he seems to have had quite different rules for people living under absolute monarchies and those living in Republics, as he indicated in letters to the U.S. community). But `Abdu'l-Baha's emphasis on peace and love and avoidance of contention did set him against revolution, and it seems to me that some of the same contradictions were there in his stance as in the stance of the Quakers in the 13 colonies during the Revolutionary War, whom Tom Paine criticizes for their unwillingness to support the revolution. In times of revolution against tyranny, pacifism looks an awfully lot like reactionary politics. (I say this as one who is a conscientious objector). 3) To Peter Terry I would say that `Abdu'l-Baha's distinction between the "tashri`" of the religious bodies and the executive power of the state is *not* identical to a distinction between the legislative and executive branches of government. Although in 20th century Arabic tashri` did come to mean legislation even by civil parliaments, `Abdu'l-Baha is using it in an older and technical sense to mean "deciding on the import of the shari`ah or religious law." I can prove this from passages later in the Treatise on Leadership, when we get there. `Abdu'l-Baha contrasts this function of religious institutions in tashri` or ruling on the meaning of the religious law, from *all* civil government, including both the executive branch of the state and the legislative branch. When speaking of civil legislation, he uses the word qanun or civil law, not shari`ah. He expected shari`ah to govern its sphere, but to be supplemented by qanun or civil law, passed by civil parliaments. Remember that the Aqdas doesn't actually have all that much law in it, so that for a whole society to function there would have to be substantial civil legislation (taqnin) in addition to it. `Abdu'l-Baha believed that a good government was one that honored the rights of its subjects and ruled with justice. Of course it should also honor the revealed law in spheres where that was applicable. But for both Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha, the touchstone of whether a state was legitimate was not how religious it was, but how just it was. `Abdu'l-Baha believed that the Tobacco Revolt of 1891-1892 was unfair to Nasiru'd-Din Shah, whereas he believed that the later Constitutional Revolution of 1905-1907 had at least some legitimate goals. If a state that incorporated the religious law into its civil laws and implemented them were a theocracy, then the U.S. is a theocracy or at least has been at some points in its history. The Ten Commandments, after all, were incorporated into Anglo-Saxon civil law. I'm unaware that the Baha'i scriptures ever use the word theocracy, and as far as I can tell its holy figures were opposed to most features of the systems that historians have refer to as theocratic (contemporary Iran is a theocracy, e.g.). cheers Juan Cole History University of Michigan ---------- From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU] Sent: Friday, February 13, 1998 10:30 AM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Treatise on Leadership, pt. 3 Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 01:59:00 -0500 From: jrcole@UMICH.EDU (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: Treatise on Leadership, pt. 3 In this section, `Abdu'l-Baha condemns the role of the Shi`ite religious leadership in the Tobacco Revolt of 1891-92. In an interview with a British consular official on October 29, 1891, Prime Minister Aminu's-Sultan said of the protests in Tabriz a few months earlier, "It is now proved that the mujtahid at Tabriz has played a greate mischief all through the late Regie [Tobacco Monopoly] disturbances, he had held communications with the Chief Mujtahid at Samara and the Ulemas of Mashad, and that he has secret communications with the Russian Consul-General at Tabriz." (Quoted in Keddie, Religion and Rebellion in Iran, pp. 66-67). Also in Shiraz, a leading clergyman, Sayyid `Ali Akbar, denounced the British monopoly over the marketing of tobacco from the pulpit. He was exiled by the Shah to Ottoman Baghdad, provoking further disturbances, since it was said in Shiraz that the shah had ostracized a scion of the Prophet for the sake of a British middle manager. In Isfahan, Aqa Muhammad Taqi Najafi Isfahani, whom Baha'u'llah branded the "son of the Wolf" because he and his father had persecuted the Baha'is, took the side of the Iranian merchants who were angry about the way the monopoly cut them out of tobacco marketing and also money-lending to the peasants for the purpose of putting in tobacco (Homa Natiq, Bazarganan, p. 299). Nasiru'd-Din Shah and his prime minister, Aminu's-Sultan, were extremely unhappy with this clerical interference in affairs of state. In the passage below, `Abdu'l-Baha delights in pointing out that the ulama had for decades painted the Babi-Baha'i movement as a cause of sedition and as a constant danger to the Iranian state. But now the Shi`ite clergy themselves had become seditious, whereas, `Abdu'l-Baha implies, the Baha'is were law-abiding, peaceful citizens. `Abdu'l-Baha also suggests that any economic hardship being felt by Iranians was in any case not because of the shah's own policies but because of those of his subordinates, and that, further, the turmoil of the revolt itself was bad for the economy, a downturn that could be laid at the feet of the seditious Shi`ite religious leaders. He also seems to enunciate a somewhat secular policy that obedience to the state takes precedence over most obligations of religion. (This idea goes all the way back in Persian thought to the Zoroastrian Sasanian thinkers!) On the substance, it is in fact clear that the Shah himself strongly backed the Tobacco Monopoly granted to Major Talbot, and the court received substantial royalties from the concession. It is therefore simply not true that the shah was blameless. As to whether the Tobacco Monopoly might not have been a good thing for Iran if it had been allowed to operate, I have my doubts. Its terms were more stringent and far more favorable to the Western concessioneers than the similar Ottoman Tobacco Regie. Most economists consider monopolies inefficient and costly to the consumer, as this one appears to have been. The monopoly certainly hurt significant sectors of the Iranian population, provoking country-wide coordinated urban disturbances for the first time since the Babi movement. `Abdu'l-Baha, a pacifist, saw these disturbances and this opposition to the shah's policies as illegitimate. As we shall see, however, he did not conceive of the state as having no obligations to the citizenry, nor the citizenry as wholly lacking in rights. He simply did not approve of violent protest, and he opposed the interference of the religious institutions in the affairs of state--both major features of the Tobacco Revolt. cheers Juan Cole History Univ. of Michigan ------------------------------------------ `Abdu'l-Baha, "Treatise on Leadership," pt. 3 Therefore, divine friends, endeavor with heart and soul, and show forth with pure and true intentions the miracle of wishing the government well and obeying the state. This matter is more important than the obligations of the manifest religion or the decisive texts of the exalted Book. It is well known that the state naturally desires the ease and repose of subjects, and seeks the bounty and happiness of the people. It wants to safeguard the just rights of dependents and the lowly, and attempts by every means to curb the evil deeds of transgressors. For the honor and prosperity of the subjects depends upon the power, grandeur and might of the glorious governmental authority and the triumphant state, and the success and affluence of the populace is the object of the gaze of the honored ruler. This matter is self-evident. If there has been a lessening in the repose of the people or a decrease in the well-being of high and low, this was the fault of the incompetence of subordinates, and of the tyranny and ignorance of some malicious persons, who appear in the clothing of learned clerics but are actually versed in the arts of ignorance, and who instigate public turmoil in the beginning and the end. "Turmoil was asleep; cursed be the one who awakens it." For fifty years, in by-ways, from pulpits, and in councils and gatherings in the presence of government officials, this gaggle of imbeciles--that is, the clerical leaders--has launched charges against this oppressed community of fomenting discord. They accused them of opposition, saying that this community wreaks destruction in the world and corrupts the morals of human beings, that they are instigators of sedition everywhere, are absolutely pernicious, are the sign of rebellion and the standard of insurgency, the foe of religion and state, and the enemy of the very life of the subjects. It is an exigency of divine justice that the reality of every community become clear and apparent, so that in world councils it might become obvious and evident who is the reformer and who the workers of corruption, and which people are the instigators of sedition and which the malefactors. And God knows the worker of corruption from the reformer. How good it would be if a touchstone could be found that would cover the face of every dissembler with soot. Now, divine friends, fall to giving thanks for the evidences of divine grace, insofar as true justice has torn away the veil from the deeds of every religious group, and the hidden secrets of souls have become apparent. Praise be to God, then thanks be to God! ---------- From: Eric D. Pierce[SMTP:PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu] Sent: Friday, February 13, 1998 9:45 AM To: talisman@umich.edu Subject: fwd: Re: find talisman (#66 subscribers) #66 subscribers (3 duplicate addresses) ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date sent: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 16:00:29 -0500 (EST) From: "X.500 Query Program" Subject: Re: find talisman To: pierceed@csus.edu ------- "talisman, User Groups" Also Known As: talisman Owner: Joshua S Greenbaum, College of Literature Science and the Arts More Info (URL): quit quit Errors To: nobody, System Groups Requests To: Juan R Cole, College of Literature Science and the Arts Associated Domain: umich.edu Others May Join: FALSE E-Mail Members: 0002005383@mcimail.com 102164.1365@CompuServe.COM aelyria@goodnet.com AErfani@aol.com ahriazati@CCGATE.HAC.COM ali.m.afnan@btinternet.com arsalan@pobox.alaska.net babak.mohajerin@aus.deuba.com belove@sover.net bjorling@galesburg.net bmathieu@micron.net bn872@freenet.carleton.ca brburl@mailbag.com burlb@bmi.net candy@pc.jaring.my capra@lords.com Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk cjh@interaccess.com d_nordberg@hotmail.com dann.may@sandbox.telepath.com Dayyan9@aol.com donc@commonlink.net FARIVAR.SANEI@vslib.cz fdbetts@mindspring.com fglaysh@hotmail.com firouz@au.ac.th forumbahai@es.co.nz frpsm@mahidol.ac.th Harris632@aol.com hart@lycosemail.com healy@pipeline.com iankluge@netbistro.com jcornell@lightspeed.net jharnick@nornet.on.ca JoySafari@aol.com k0mputer@worldnet.att.net ken_joyce@hotmail.com lgl@island-resort.com Martin.Roberts@utas.edu.au mbkafes@bestweb.net mfoster@qni.com mibon@mailhost.cinet.co.cn mibon@mailhost.cinet.com.cn mirele@xmission.com mlustig@uni-duisburg.de ncarre@waldenu.edu neil@nkelley.demon.co.uk nelements@hotmail.com nineteen@door.net nineteen@onramp.net pacificwindows@clear.net.nz payamA@aol.com Phekda@juno.com PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu quanta@mail.mindspring.com quanta@mindspring.com raya@ism.net roger.borseth@MCI2000.com rwittorf@usbnc.org salik@unforgettable.com schuette@s.imap.itd.umich.edu seanm@bwc.org sindiogi@nmsu.edu steve.ua@ix.netcom.com talishman@usa.net thelmako@spidernet.com.cy tjcarter@mindspring.com tommycarter@usa.net winters@interlog.com Last Modified: Fri Feb 13 08:57:57 1998 Modified By: Joshua S Greenbaum, College of Literature Science and the Arts ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- From: Bill Garlington[SMTP:wilgar@sirius.com] Sent: Friday, February 13, 1998 8:47 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Pacifism Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 13:31:20 -0500 From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: Pacifism Dear Peter: I think you are confusing "pacifist" with "absolute pacifist." A pacifist is someone who is generally opposed to violence, whether civil or military, as a means of resolving disputes. A revolutionary or a militarist favors such means (as in Marxism or fascism). `Abdu'l-Baha certainly was a pacifist in this broad sense. He condemned warfare and he disallowed revolution and seditious civil violence. Baha'u'llah even suggested that Iran's army be reduced to only 10,000 men, making it more of a border police than an army. It is true that Baha'u'llah taught that if a country arose as an aggressor, the other nations should combine to constrain it. However, Baha'u'llah does not stipulate that they should take up arms for this purpose, though he also does not absolutely disallow it. There might be other means of restraint, as, e.g., with economic embargoes, etc. In any case, one may be a pacifist generally and yet allow that there are extreme cases when one may be left with no other option but violence. This is "pacifism as the default" position. It should be remembered that Mahatma Gandhi, generally thought of as a pacifist, held this form of it. He helped recruit Indians to fight for the British in WW I! Absolute pacifism is the belief that violence is never allowable under any circumstance, as, e.g., with the Amish. This is a relatively rare position within the pacifist movement. I am not saying that `Abdu'l-Baha was an absolute pacifist. cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 14, 1998 10:11 AM To: talisman Subject: Re: Dr. Juan Cole on Bahai censorship & denial of civil rights.... Mike Buonsanto wrote in message <34E4B226.E0B9FF9D@oceanus.haystack.edu>... >I don't think non-Baha'is should have any fear of how they would be >treated in a possible future Baha'i-dominated world, as long as the >Baha'is obey what is written in the Writings. And should non-Bahais take the example set during the interest polling for talk.religion.bahai as a taste of what to expect, as a taste of what it means to "obey what is written in the Writings"? Two principles just >quoted in SRB are (quotes from 'Abdu'l-Baha in the Promulgation of >Universal Peace): > > "Baha'u'llah also taught that prejudices - whether religious, >racial, patriotic or political - are destructive to the foundations of human development. Prejudices of any kind are the destroyers of human happiness and welfare. Until they are dispelled, the advancement of the world of humanity is not possible... > Seventh, Baha'u'llah taught that an equal standard of human rights >must be recognized and adopted. In the estimation of God all men are >equal; there is no distinction or preferment for any soul in the >dominion of His justice and equity..." > >In other words, Baha'is are forbidden to be prejudiced against someone >because of their religious or other beliefs, whatever they may be, and >they must accord them equal human rights! What of the "equal human rights" of those who wanted talk.religion.bahai and voted YES last year? What of the human rights of covenant breakers, which the Writings also claim should be protected? HYPOCRISY Writ Large is all I see.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai: https://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm. The last Call For Votes (CFV) for talk.religion.bahai has been posted to the newsgroups specified in the CFV: news.announce.newgroups news.groups alt.religion.bahai soc.culture.israel soc.rights.human talk.religion.misc soc.religion.bahai You may now vote at this time. The interest poll ends on February 18th. The CFV is also available directly from the impartial third-party votetaker, Rebecca G. McQuitty, via email: mcq@wco.com ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Saturday, February 14, 1998 2:06 PM To: talisman@umich.edu Subject: Treatise on Leadership, pt. 3 FYI cheers Juan ----------------------------- >Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 01:59:00 -0500 >From: jrcole@UMICH.EDU (Juan R. I. Cole) >Subject: Treatise on Leadership, pt. 3 > > >In this section, `Abdu'l-Baha condemns the role of the Shi`ite religious >leadership in the Tobacco Revolt of 1891-92. In an interview with a British >consular official on October 29, 1891, Prime Minister Aminu's-Sultan said of >the protests in Tabriz a few months earlier, "It is now proved that the >mujtahid at Tabriz has played a greate mischief all through the late Regie >[Tobacco Monopoly] disturbances, he had held communications with the Chief >Mujtahid at Samara and the Ulemas of Mashad, and that he has secret >communications with the Russian Consul-General at Tabriz." (Quoted in >Keddie, Religion and Rebellion in Iran, pp. 66-67). Also in Shiraz, a >leading clergyman, Sayyid `Ali Akbar, denounced the British monopoly over >the marketing of tobacco from the pulpit. He was exiled by the Shah to >Ottoman Baghdad, provoking further disturbances, since it was said in Shiraz >that the shah had ostracized a scion of the Prophet for the sake of a >British middle manager. In Isfahan, Aqa Muhammad Taqi Najafi Isfahani, whom >Baha'u'llah branded the "son of the Wolf" because he and his father had >persecuted the Baha'is, took the side of the Iranian merchants who were >angry about the way the monopoly cut them out of tobacco marketing and also >money-lending to the peasants for the purpose of putting in tobacco (Homa >Natiq, Bazarganan, p. 299). > >Nasiru'd-Din Shah and his prime minister, Aminu's-Sultan, were extremely >unhappy with this clerical interference in affairs of state. In the passage >below, `Abdu'l-Baha delights in pointing out that the ulama had for decades >painted the Babi-Baha'i movement as a cause of sedition and as a constant >danger to the Iranian state. But now the Shi`ite clergy themselves had >become seditious, whereas, `Abdu'l-Baha implies, the Baha'is were >law-abiding, peaceful citizens. > >`Abdu'l-Baha also suggests that any economic hardship being felt by Iranians >was in any case not because of the shah's own policies but because of those >of his subordinates, and that, further, the turmoil of the revolt itself was >bad for the economy, a downturn that could be laid at the feet of the >seditious Shi`ite religious leaders. > >He also seems to enunciate a somewhat secular policy that obedience to the >state takes precedence over most obligations of religion. (This idea goes >all the way back in Persian thought to the Zoroastrian Sasanian thinkers!) > >On the substance, it is in fact clear that the Shah himself strongly backed >the Tobacco Monopoly granted to Major Talbot, and the court received >substantial royalties from the concession. It is therefore simply not true >that the shah was blameless. As to whether the Tobacco Monopoly might not >have been a good thing for Iran if it had been allowed to operate, I have my >doubts. Its terms were more stringent and far more favorable to the Western >concessioneers than the similar Ottoman Tobacco Regie. Most economists >consider monopolies inefficient and costly to the consumer, as this one >appears to have been. The monopoly certainly hurt significant sectors of >the Iranian population, provoking country-wide coordinated urban >disturbances for the first time since the Babi movement. `Abdu'l-Baha, a >pacifist, saw these disturbances and this opposition to the shah's policies >as illegitimate. As we shall see, however, he did not conceive of the state >as having no obligations to the citizenry, nor the citizenry as wholly >lacking in rights. He simply did not approve of violent protest, and he >opposed the interference of the religious institutions in the affairs of >state--both major features of the Tobacco Revolt. > >cheers > >Juan Cole >History >Univ. of Michigan > > >------------------------------------------ >`Abdu'l-Baha, "Treatise on Leadership," pt. 3 > >Therefore, divine friends, endeavor with heart and soul, and show forth with >pure and true intentions the miracle of wishing the government well and >obeying the state. > >This matter is more important than the obligations of the manifest religion >or the decisive texts of the exalted Book. It is well known that the state >naturally desires the ease and repose of subjects, and seeks the bounty and >happiness of the people. It wants to safeguard the just rights of >dependents and the lowly, and attempts by every means to curb the evil deeds >of transgressors. For the honor and prosperity of the subjects depends upon >the power, grandeur and might of the glorious governmental authority and the >triumphant state, and the success and affluence of the populace is the >object of the gaze of the honored ruler. This matter is self-evident. If >there has been a lessening in the repose of the people or a decrease in the >well-being of high and low, this was the fault of the incompetence of >subordinates, and of the tyranny and ignorance of some malicious persons, >who appear in the clothing of learned clerics but are actually versed in the >arts of ignorance, and who instigate public turmoil in the beginning and the >end. "Turmoil was asleep; cursed be the one who awakens it." > >For fifty years, in by-ways, from pulpits, and in councils and gatherings >in the presence of government officials, this gaggle of imbeciles--that is, >the clerical leaders--has launched charges against this oppressed community >of fomenting discord. They accused them of opposition, saying that this >community wreaks destruction in the world and corrupts the morals of human >beings, that they are instigators of sedition everywhere, are absolutely >pernicious, are the sign of rebellion and the standard of insurgency, the >foe of religion and state, and the enemy of the very life of the subjects. >It is an exigency of divine justice that the reality of every community >become clear and apparent, so that in world councils it might become obvious >and evident who is the reformer and who the workers of corruption, and which >people are the instigators of sedition and which the malefactors. And God >knows the worker of corruption from the reformer. How good it would be if a >touchstone could be found that would cover the face of every dissembler with >soot. Now, divine friends, fall to giving thanks for the evidences of >divine grace, insofar as true justice has torn away the veil from the deeds >of every religious group, and the hidden secrets of souls have become >apparent. Praise be to God, then thanks be to God! > > ---------- From: Bill Garlington[SMTP:wilgar@sirius.com] Sent: Saturday, February 14, 1998 4:46 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Treatise on Politics & Iranian background Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 15:12:43 -0500 From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: Treatise on Politics & Iranian background The central thesis of `Abdu'l-Baha's "Treatise on Politics," that leadership in human societies is always divided between civil and religious leaders, and that each of these should stay out of the others' business, was not new with him in 19th century Iranian thought. In fact, it has deep roots in Qajar social and religious thought. The alliance of the Qajar dynasty of Iran and the Shi`ite ulama was at that point a century old, and up until the Tobacco Revolt most members of both social orders would probably have said it was a success. Hajj Muhammad Na'ini, e.g., wrote from a Shi`ite clerical point of view on "the incumbency of monarchy," the need for monarchy in Shi`ite society (Arjomand, Shadow of God, p. 249). Although some ulama sometimes opposed the Shah's policies the vast majority of them never opposed his legitimacy. In nineteenth-century Qajar Iran some of the clergy developed a theory of the state as having two wings, that of civil governance and that of religious learning. The sovereign in his own sphere of civil rulership and military action, and the clergy in their sphere of interpreting and implementing the sacred law, each represented an aspect of authority that had once been conjoined in the Imam. Arjomand has translated some of the "Gift of Kings" by the clerical thinker, Sayyid Ja`far Kashfi (d. 1851): "Thus it becomes clear that the mujtahids and the rulers both hold the same office, which office is the office of imamate, transferred to them from the Imam through vicegerency, and consisting of two pillars [rukn]: knowledge of the prophetic matters, which is called religion; and the implementation of the same in the course of imposing order upon the world, which is termed kingship or sovereignty. These two pillars are also referred to as "the sword" and "the pen" or "the sword" and "knowledge." Both these pillars were found in combination in the imam... and they should similarly coexist in the person who is his deputy. But the 'ulama' and the mujtahids, because of the contention of the rulers with them leading to sedition and anarchy, have abandoned sovereignty and the organ of the sword. Similarly the rulers, be-cause of their inclination from the beginning of sovereignty toward the baser world--that is, mere worldly sovereignty consisting solely in the imposition of order in the world--have foregone the acquisition of the knowledge of religion and understanding of the prophetic matters, and have made do with the science of politics only. Thus, the function of vicegerency inevitably be-came divided between the 'ulama' and the rulers . . . In some ages, [the rulers and the ulama'] cooperated with mutual consensus and ruled and directed the subjects through partnership and cooperation .... At other times, they became mutually antagonistic and parted from each other. Consequently religion and sovereignty, which must be conjoint, became separated from each other. The knowledge of the ulama' and the endeavor of mujtahids became stagnant because of disorder. Similarly, the sovereignty of the rulers, because of its divorce from the upholding of religion and the traditions of the sacred law, became sheer sovereignty. The matter of politics and vicegerency... became disturbed, and both groups fell short of [discharging] the office of vicegerency . . . In these times when "knowledge" and the "sword" have become separated from each other, and knowledge is lodged with the 'ulama' and the mujtahids and the sword with the [political] leaders and the rulers, the instructions of he covenant which relate to the organ of knowledge and the conditions of the 'ulama' regard the mujtahids and men of knowledge; and those which relate to the organ of the sword and the affair of sovereignty and politics and order regard the kings and rulers. As we have mentioned, the rulers who act according to those clauses [of the covenant] which relate to and regard them is of course the "specified deputy" [na' ib-e kha.ss] of the Imam. Similarly, mujtahids who act according to those clauses which relate to and regard hem, of course they too are the "specified deputy" of the Imam. And this covenant is the proof of the "specified vicegerency" [niyabat-e khassa] of these two groups of men." (trans. Said Amir Arjomand, *Shadow of God*, pp. 225-227). Kashfi saw the religious leaders as special representatives of the Imam solely in religious matters, and the civil rulers as special representatives of the Imam in military and civil rule. But most religious leaders would not have been willing to go so far, holding a theory that they were the *general* representatives of the Twelfth Imam. This had the effect of allowing a 'cohabitation' between the religious establishment and the state (which most did not valorize in the same way as had Kashfi). Only the *specific* representative of the Imam *in both the religious and civil spheres* would have had the right to rule as theocrat or Imam, and there was no specific representative of the Imam who had authority over both realms of human life. In fact, this was the danger posed by Shaykhism, Babism, and much later Khomeinism. In each of these latter movements, a *specific* representative of the Imam appeared to have been identified. Neither the Shaykhi leaders nor the Bab took that specific viceregency to the point of claiming the right to rule, but in the end Khomeini did. `Abdu'l-Baha in the "Treatise on Politics," to the contrary, denies that even the Imams were owed temporal rule, and insists that the sort of division discussed by Kashfi was the eternal and ever-present reality of human society. cheers Juan Cole History University of Michigan ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 1998 2:32 AM To: talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: for the record On unmoderated lists it is almost impossible to call a halt to a thread, but since I started this one what seems like years ago in cyberspace terms, perhaps my friends on Talisman will honor my wishes that the discussion move on. I notice nobody seems to want to discuss the difficult things, like `Abdu'l-Baha's Jeffersonian theology in the "Treatise on Politics." The Ayyam-i Ha are coming up, a time of giving and joy, and then the fast, a time of self-denial, reflection, and calm. To everything there is a season. Even a seasoned and dedicated kvetcher such as myself knows that this is not the season for kvetching. Those of you who are Baha'is are stuck with being Baha'is the rest of your lives, in my view, unless and until the uhj gives you a personalized pink slip such as I received. Go work for world unity, universal love, service to humankind, equality of rights for women and men, the unity of the religions, the narrowing of the gap between rich and poor--all those tough things that being a Baha'i is really about. And let's try being nice to one another for a while. In cyberspace, the clash of opinions cannot be postponed for ever, given how immediate and hot a medium it is. But at least lets try for the clash to produce the spark of truth . . . cheers Juan ---------- From: Bill Garlington[SMTP:wilgar@sirius.com] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 1998 3:08 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: "Treatise on Politics," pt. 4 Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 13:31:57 -0500 From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: "Treatise on Politics," pt. 4 Having set out his thesis that leadership is intrinsically of two incommensurate sorts, civil and religious, and that neither of the two should ever interfere in the legitimate sphere of the other, `Abdu'l-Baha now turns to presenting a series of case studies to prove his point, drawn from Iranian, Ottoman, and sacred history. The first case study involves the influence of the Shi`ite clergy at the end of the Safavid state, which was overthrown in 1722. Muhammad Baqir Majlisi (d. 1699,)the Shaykhu'l-Islam of Isfahan, and his grandson Mir Muhammad Husayn Majlisi are thought to have had a great deal of influence with the last Safavid shah, Sultan-Husayn (r. 1694-1722). At their instance, Sufis in the line of Mulla Muhsin Fayz Kashani were persecuted, thousands of Hindu merchants and moneylenders were expelled from Isfahan, and, it is asserted in the chronicles, the Sunni tribespeople of the Safavid empire's eastern territories, Baluchistan and what is now northern Afghanistan, were mistreated because they weren't Shi`ites. Since these Sunni tribespeople became increasingly upset with their treatment by the empire, and eventually overthrew it, `Abdu'l-Baha suggests that the Majlisi policies toward them had not only been a mistake but a fatal mistake, and the shah would have been better off pursuing secular policies of even-handedness toward all religious communities in Iran. (`Abdu'l-Baha had made these points at greater length earlier, in his *Traveller's Narrative*.) After the Afghan invasion, there followed a confusing period of political turmoil lasting four decades, in which the country was the scene of repeated predations by pastoral nomadic tribes, in which the cities were emptied of much of their population, peasants fled, and Iran was thrown into a profound economic Depression. The Afghan presence in the leadership even raised the question of whether Iran might not revert to Sunnism, and the Shi`ite ulama fell on hard times indeed. The second case study involves the rise of the Qajar dynasty. `Abdu'l-Baha is in part making his remarks in hopes of winning over Nasiru'd-Din Shah, the crown prince, and other Qajar nobles to a favorable view of the Baha'i faith, and in hopes of convincing them that the Shi`ite ulama are unreliable partners. From 1764-1779, the Zand dynasty, based in Shiraz, restored a semblance of order to the country, and reestablished the strong links of patronage between the state and the Shi`ite ulama. But after 1779 another power struggle broke out. Aqa Muhammad Khan Qajar, the founder of the Qajar dynasty, challenged the Zands. He began by consolidating his hold over Mazandaran and then Gilan in the North. When he besieged Tehran, the notables of the town said they considered themselves under the Zand ruler who was then in Isfahan, and would surrender to Aqa Muhammad if he took that city. So he took Isfahan, and Tehran surrendered to him. By 1785 the Qajars ruled most of Iran, but Shiraz and the south, where remaining Zand generals and pretenders to the throne continued to mount challenges, were often in rebellion. During the years Aqa Muhammad struggled to defeat the Zands and establish a new state, especially before it became apparent that he was going to win, the vast majority of townsmen appear to have sided with the Zands against him, and `Abdu'l-Baha's assertion that these included the Shi`ite clergy is plausible. Some of the clerics, like Aqa Muhammad Baqir Bihbahani, had lived in southern Iran and so had probably developed ties of clientelage with the Zand rulers. There is a story that he once made a disrespectful remark to Aqa Muhammad Khan Qajar in Shiraz, when the latter was still under the control of the Zands, but that when the Qajar ruler met him in Tehran, he decided to make peace with him (Algar, *Religion and State*, p. 43.). Aqa Muhammad Khan Qajar at last defeated the final Zand pretender to the throne, Lutf `Ali Khan, in 1794 at Kirman. The Qajar dynasty thereafter ruled till 1925. In bringing up these events, `Abdu'l-Baha is reminding Nasiru'd-Din Shah and the Qajar nobility generally that the Usuli ulama had initially sided with the opposing Zand dynasty. cheers Juan Cole History University of Michigan ----------------------------------- `Abdu'l-Baha, *Treatise on Politics,* pt. 4 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. Toward the end of the dynasty of the Safavid kings [1501-1722], may they rest in peace, the religious leaders sought influence over the political affairs of Iran. Raising their standard, they contrived and sought a way until they opened the door to an ill-omened movement that proved harmful and wrought enormous destruction. Iran became pasturage for wandering Turkmen tribes and the arena for Afghan raiding and conquest. The blessed earth of Iran was subdued by neighboring peoples, and the glorious clime fell into the hands of strangers. The formerly triumphant state was effaced and the brilliant dynasty was ended. Tyrants began their encroachments, and the ill-intentioned set their sights on the property, honor and life of others. Persons were killed, wealth was pillaged, the grandees were targeted, and their possessions were expropriated. Civilized Iran became wilderness. The bejeweled crown of the glorious kings became the seat of demons. The reins of government fell into the hands of predators. The royal family was made prisoner, enchained beneath the sword of the bloodthirsty; their wives were taken captive, and their children made hostages. This was the fruit of the interference in political affairs of religious leaders and of those accomplished in the unassailable revealed law. On another occasion, at the beginning of the reign of Aqa Muhammad Khan [Qajar, r. 1785-1797], the religious leaders of the people once again interjected themselves into political affairs, and thereby covered Iran's peoples with the dust of abasement. They put forward their judgment with regard to the appointment of the monarch, singing a siren song that confused the minds of the people. They thus provoked turmoil and commotion, and raised the standard of contention. The tempest of rebellion arose, and the path of sedition and discord became ascendant. Anarchy and chaos showed their faces, and the wave of rebellion reached the apex of the heavens. The tribal chieftains put forward claims to sovereignty and planted the seeds of enmity in the country's fields They fell upon one another, and security and safety vanished, and the covenant and testament were abrogated. Neither life nor property remained, and public order was no more. Finally, the decisive events at Kirman took place, and pernicious trouble-makers were defeated. ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Monday, February 16, 1998 2:49 AM To: talisman@umich.edu Subject: "Treatise on Politics," pt. 4 FYI - Juan --------------------------- >Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 13:31:57 -0500 >From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) >Subject: "Treatise on Politics," pt. 4 > > > >Having set out his thesis that leadership is intrinsically of two >incommensurate sorts, civil and religious, and that neither of the two >should ever interfere in the legitimate sphere of the other, `Abdu'l-Baha >now turns to presenting a series of case studies to prove his point, drawn >from Iranian, Ottoman, and sacred history. > >The first case study involves the influence of the Shi`ite clergy at the end >of the Safavid state, which was overthrown in 1722. Muhammad Baqir Majlisi >(d. 1699,)the Shaykhu'l-Islam of Isfahan, and his grandson Mir Muhammad >Husayn Majlisi are thought to have had a great deal of influence with the >last Safavid shah, Sultan-Husayn (r. 1694-1722). At their instance, Sufis >in the line of Mulla Muhsin Fayz Kashani were persecuted, thousands of Hindu >merchants and moneylenders were expelled from Isfahan, and, it is asserted >in the chronicles, the Sunni tribespeople of the Safavid empire's eastern >territories, Baluchistan and what is now northern Afghanistan, were >mistreated because they weren't Shi`ites. Since these Sunni tribespeople >became increasingly upset with their treatment by the empire, and eventually >overthrew it, `Abdu'l-Baha suggests that the Majlisi policies toward them >had not only been a mistake but a fatal mistake, and the shah would have >been better off pursuing secular policies of even-handedness toward all >religious communities in Iran. (`Abdu'l-Baha had made these points at >greater length earlier, in his *Traveller's Narrative*.) > >After the Afghan invasion, there followed a confusing period of political >turmoil lasting four decades, in which the country was the scene of repeated >predations by pastoral nomadic tribes, in which the cities were emptied of >much of their population, peasants fled, and Iran was thrown into a profound >economic Depression. The Afghan presence in the leadership even raised the >question of whether Iran might not revert to Sunnism, and the Shi`ite ulama >fell on hard times indeed. > >The second case study involves the rise of the Qajar dynasty. `Abdu'l-Baha >is in part making his remarks in hopes of winning over Nasiru'd-Din Shah, >the crown prince, and other Qajar nobles to a favorable view of the Baha'i >faith, and in hopes of convincing them that the Shi`ite ulama are unreliable >partners. > >>From 1764-1779, the Zand dynasty, based in Shiraz, restored a semblance of >order to the country, and reestablished the strong links of patronage >between the state and the Shi`ite ulama. But after 1779 another power >struggle broke out. Aqa Muhammad Khan Qajar, the founder of the Qajar >dynasty, challenged the Zands. He began by consolidating his hold over >Mazandaran and then Gilan in the North. When he besieged Tehran, the >notables of the town said they considered themselves under the Zand ruler >who was then in Isfahan, and would surrender to Aqa Muhammad if he took that >city. So he took Isfahan, and Tehran surrendered to him. > >By 1785 the Qajars ruled most of Iran, but Shiraz and the south, where >remaining Zand generals and pretenders to the throne continued to mount >challenges, were often in rebellion. During the years Aqa Muhammad >struggled to defeat the Zands and establish a new state, especially before >it became apparent that he was going to win, the vast majority of townsmen >appear to have sided with the Zands against him, and `Abdu'l-Baha's >assertion that these included the Shi`ite clergy is plausible. Some of the >clerics, like Aqa Muhammad Baqir Bihbahani, had lived in southern Iran and >so had probably developed ties of clientelage with the Zand rulers. There >is a story that he once made a disrespectful remark to Aqa Muhammad Khan >Qajar in Shiraz, when the latter was still under the control of the Zands, >but that when the Qajar ruler met him in Tehran, he decided to make peace >with him (Algar, *Religion and State*, p. 43.). Aqa Muhammad Khan Qajar at >last defeated the final Zand pretender to the throne, Lutf `Ali Khan, in >1794 at Kirman. The Qajar dynasty thereafter ruled till 1925. In bringing >up these events, `Abdu'l-Baha is reminding Nasiru'd-Din Shah and the Qajar >nobility generally that the Usuli ulama had initially sided with the >opposing Zand dynasty. > >cheers > >Juan Cole >History >University of Michigan > > >----------------------------------- >`Abdu'l-Baha, *Treatise on Politics,* pt. 4 > > > 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. > Toward the end of the dynasty of the Safavid kings [1501-1722], may >they >rest in peace, the religious leaders sought influence over the political >affairs of Iran. Raising their standard, they contrived and sought a way >until they opened the door to an ill-omened movement that proved harmful and >wrought enormous destruction. Iran became pasturage for wandering Turkmen >tribes and the arena for Afghan raiding and conquest. The blessed earth of >Iran was subdued by neighboring peoples, and the glorious clime fell into >the hands of strangers. The formerly triumphant state was effaced and the >brilliant dynasty was ended. Tyrants began their encroachments, and the >ill-intentioned set their sights on the property, honor and life of others. >Persons were killed, wealth was pillaged, the grandees were targeted, and >their possessions were expropriated. Civilized Iran became wilderness. The >bejeweled crown of the glorious kings became the seat of demons. The reins >of government fell into the hands of predators. The royal family was made >prisoner, enchained beneath the sword of the bloodthirsty; their wives were >taken captive, and their children made hostages. This was the fruit of the >interference in political affairs of religious leaders and of those >accomplished in the unassailable revealed law. > On another occasion, at the beginning of the reign of Aqa Muhammad Khan >[Qajar, r. 1785-1797], the religious leaders of the people once again >interjected themselves into political affairs, and thereby covered Iran's >peoples with the dust of abasement. They put forward their judgment with >regard to the appointment of the monarch, singing a siren song that confused >the minds of the people. They thus provoked turmoil and commotion, and >raised the standard of contention. The tempest of rebellion arose, and the >path of sedition and discord became ascendant. Anarchy and chaos showed >their faces, and the wave of rebellion reached the apex of the heavens. The >tribal chieftains put forward claims to sovereignty and planted the seeds of >enmity in the country's fields They fell upon one another, and security and >safety vanished, and the covenant and testament were abrogated. Neither >life nor property remained, and public order was no more. Finally, the >decisive events at Kirman took place, and pernicious trouble-makers were >defeated. > > ---------- From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 1998 10:25 AM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Treatise on Leadership pt. 5 Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 01:52:42 -0500 From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: Treatise on Leadership pt. 5 `Abdu'l-Baha's third case study in why "the leaders of the manifest religion and the pillars of the mighty divine law" must not intervene "in the world of political leadership" concerns the Jihad movement of the mid-1820s. Russian expansion into the Caucasus had brought large numbers of Muslims under tsarist rule, many of them very reluctant subjects of St. Petersburg. In some areas, such as Chechnya, the Russians pursued what can only be called a genocidal policy against the mountaineer guerillas who opposed them [there is nothing new under the sun]. In the Russo-Iranian War of 1810-1813, Russia had defeated the Qajars and had detached the Azerbaijani provinces of Talish, Qarabagh, Baku and Shirvan, among others, from Iran. These former Iranian subjects, Shi`ite Muslims, chafed under Russian rule and their sporadic resistance was put down with brutality. Stories of this brutality circulated in Iran, enraging the populace there. Increasingly in the 1820s, prominent members of the Shi`ite clerical hierarchy took up the call for a holy war or jihad against the Russians to push them back out of Azerbaijan. The Shi`ite religious leaders did not believe that they had the right to wage the holy war on their own, but that as *general* deputies of the Imam they could authorize the shah to do so. This movement, supported by heir apparent `Abbas Mirza, gained such momentum that it forced the hand of Fath-`Ali Shah, who went to war in 1826. Some of the ulama, like Agha Sayyid Muhammad Isfahani, rode with the army, but he and some other prominent ones left while the fighting was still going on. Sources sympathetic to the shah say that the ulama fled, whereas sources sympthetic to the ulama say that the shah and his son sent them away for fear of their gaining influence. The dedication of the clerics to antiimperialism was apparently neither broad nor deep, when it came to their local interests. The ulama of Tabriz joined an anti-Qajar movement that involved opening the gates of Tabriz to the Russians in 1827 and cooperating with them; the Russians decided that they could not garrison such a large city and soon withdrew, and the Qajars recaptured it. `Abbas Mirza was bitter against the Shi`ite religious leaders he felt had betrayed him. Fath-`Ali Shah very badly lost the war against the Russians, who gained new territories in Azerbaijan (Nakhchivan and Erivan/Armenia) and won a favorable settlement, with reparations, in the 1828 Treaty of Turkmanchai. The Russian army had superior weaponry, tactics, and discipline. Although `Abbas Mirza had attempted to reorganize the Iranian army--which had included an undisciplined tribal cavalry--along modern lines, his reforms had been too little too late. The Shi`ite religious leaders who talked Iran into a war against a superior enemy only brought themselves into disrepute. It was not until Nasiru'd-Din Shah acceded the throne as a young man in 1848, in the midst of the Babi uprisings, that he fully restored the Qajar partnership with the Shi`ite clerics, whom he felt he needed as bulwarks against the Babi "rabble." cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan -------------------- `Abdu'l-Baha, "Treatise on Leadership," pt. 5 A third such incident occurred during the reign of the late [Fath-`Ali] Shah [r. 1797-1834]. The leaders of religion hurled themselves into it with quaking and howling, and raised the standard of misfortune. They began a campaign for holy war against Russia, faring upon the highways to the accompaniment of drumbeats and tambourines, until they reached the border. When they began the attack, throwing stones, they were met with a fusillade of gunfire on the battlefield. Casting aside considerations of shame and good name, they chose to flee in disgrace. ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@UMICH.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 1998 7:35 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: H-Bahai Logs FAQ It is customary to circulate this information from time to time to list members: The "user name" when you log on to the H-Bahai message logs is not your own name but is rather H-Bahai with that spelling and punctuation. The password is listpass The logs have to be put up manually and sometimes H-Net hasn't yet gotten the most recent month entered. Please be patient. cheers Juan Cole co-editor, H-Bahai ---------- From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU] Sent: Friday, February 20, 1998 1:52 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: "Treatise on Leadership," pt. 6 Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 13:04:44 -0500 =46rom: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: "Treatise on Leadership," pt. 6 The fourth case study `Abdu'l-Baha offers from 19th century Middle Eastern history for the disastrous effects of the interference of religious leaders and institutions in civil government is the first Ottoman Constitutional Revolution of 1876 and the subsequent Russo-Ottoman War of 1877-78. `Abdu'l-Baha notes that Sultan Abdulaziz (r. 1861-1876) was overthrown in a popular revolution in spring of 1876 by a political coalition that included the Muslim clergy and seminary students. After his deposition, Abdulaziz committed suicide, in late May 1876. After one of his sons turned out to be mentally unstable, he was succeeded later that summer by Sultan Abdulhamid II (r. 1876-1909), upon whom reformers initially imposed a constitution and a parliament. In January, 1877, war broke out between the Ottomans and the Russians, and the war went very badly for the Ottomans; the Russians advanced through the Balkans, took Edirne/Adrianople, and threatened Istanbul. The losses of Ottoman troops and civilians were very high. (There is not a good book in English about this war, and there needs to be, by the way). The Great Powers brokered a peace in 1878 that involved substantial Ottoman relinquishment of territory in the Balkans at the Treaty of Berlin (Romania, Serbia and Montenegro went from being vassal states to being independent). In the aftermath of the war disaster, Sultan Abdulhamid took advantage of the country's demoralization to insist that it had been caused by the Constitutionalist movement, and he prorogued parliament and more or less suspended the Constitution, ruling as a despot until 1908, when the Young Turk movement forced him to restore both. `Abdu'l-Baha is correct that the religious leaders and seminary students did play a role in the spring, 1876, revolution against Abdulaziz. And no doubt they were on the jingoistic side during the war with Russia. But in other respects his account is problematic. First of all, religious forces were not the main impetus behind the First Ottoman Constitutional movement. It was mainly supported by intellectuals like the young Ottomans, as well as by reform-minded high officials such as Midhat Pasha. Sunni Muslim religious extremism may have played a role in the outbreak of the Russo-Ottoman war, insofar as massacres of Christians in the Balkans (against which Gladstone spoke out so forcefully in England) did figure in the restlessness of Christian-majority Ottoman vassal states in that region, which in turn forced Russia's hand. But it was not as if the Istanbul ulama launched a jihad against Russia. The account here seems patterned after the 1825-26 Jihad movement in Iran against Russia. Second, `Abdu'l-Baha's narrative demonstrates attitudes *quite* different >from those he and Baha'u'llah exhibited at the time. Baha'u'llah had denounced Abdulaziz as a tyrant in the Lawh-i Fuad and in the Kitab-i Aqdas, and had predicted he would be deposed. In fact, Baha'u'llah's own comment on the fall of Abdulaziz was: "We have seized them all by means of our own sovereignty: thus was it revealed in the Tablet of Fuad. Blessed are those endued with insight. We seized the first [Ali Pasha, d. 1871] as we had avowed in the Book. And we seized the second [Sultan Abd=FClaziz, d. 1876] along with his courtiers, with a wrath at which the hearts of the profligate trembled. They awoke, and nothing could be heard in their palaces save an empty echo and the croaking of the raven." Baha'u'llah clearly did not see Abdulaziz as 'wronged' by the Revolution, but rather as having gotten his just deserts. And `Abdu'l-Baha in his 1875 Secret of Divine Civilization had been advocating precisely the sort of government, parliamentary and constitutional, that was established in 1876-1878, and it is difficult to believe that he was, at age 32, really dismayed at the advent of the First Ottoman Constitutional period. In this period he wrote to the reformer Sayyid Jamalu'd-Din "Afghani", "I read your splendid article printed in the newspaper Misr, which refuted some English newspapers. I found your replies in accord with prevailing reality, and your eloquence aided by brilliant proof. Then I came across a treatise by Midhat Pasa, the contents of which support your correct and magnificent article. So, I wanted to send it along to you." This was probably a response to Sayyid Jamalu'd-Din's articles condemning the Anglo-Afghan war. The Ottoman official Midhat Pasha was among the leading revolutionaries in 1876, was the first prime minister under the new system, and later met with `Abdu'l-Baha in Beirut in 1879. It is not credible to me that `Abdu'l-Baha had really viewed the revolution and constitutional period so unfavorably in the mid-1870s, though he may have been dismayed at the role played by the Sunni clergy in Istanbul. After Abdulhamid suspended the parliament, and after Nasiru'd-Din Shah in Iran turned against the idea of cabinet government, both the Ottoman and Iranian states turned reactionary politically. They became again absolute monarchies. In the late 19th century, the events of 1876-78 came to look very different, as a series of disasters, and it was hard to disentangle the parliamentary experiment from the defeat by Russia (which was itself antidemocratic and a bastion of absolute monarchy, and whose strength against the Ottomans served as an advertisement for the advantages of autocratic reaction). Moreover, in the meantime the `Urabi movement in Egypt, wherein a similar grassroots constitutionalist movement had been launched, eventuated in the British occupation of that country. So one could draw the conclusion that constitutionalist movements supported by religious leaders had the effect of weakening Middle Eastern states and opening the door to imperialist predations by the European powers, and that for the moment antiimperialism required everyone in the region to pull behind the monarch in order to remain independent. This appears to be the position `Abdu'l-Baha had reached by the time of the Tobacco Revolt. Browne and some other scholars tended to see such discrepancies as evidences of some sort of dishonesty or hypocrisy in Baha'i leaders. But Browne was not a trained historian. Historians know that people change their minds about things, and change the emphasis they give to various factors, over time. By 1892 or so, `Abdu'l-Baha may have been more worried about a European takeover of Iran than about immediately implementing a parliamentary system. After all, the cancellation of a major concession to a British subject *could* have resulted in British military action against Iran, which neighbored British India in the south. Moreover, `Abdu'l-Baha had become worried that populist and constitutionalist movements, the goals of which he and Baha'u'llah approved of in principle, gave too much of an opening, in the late 19th century, to the illegitimate influence of religious leaders on civil politics. =46inally, `Abdu'l-Baha frequently argued in such works as Traveller's Narrative and SDC on the basis of Realpolitik. He wished to convince both the Baha'is and the government officials who might read this treatise that the intervention by religious leaders in civil politics posed a great danger to the well-being and stability of the state. What more powerful image could he evoke than that of Sultan Abdulaziz, dead in his baths at his Istanbul palace, by his own hand, while turbanned seminarians demonstrated in the streets of Istanbul? He was saying to Nasiru'd-Din Shah, 'do you really want to risk such an eventuality by continuing your alliance with the fractious Shi`ite religious leaders against the law-abiding Baha'is?' cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan ----------------------------------------------------------- `Abdu'l-Baha, "Treatise on Leadership," pt. 6 The greatest object lesson lay in the sad events associated with the late Sultan Abdulaziz [r. 1861-1876], the wronged. At the end of his life the religious leaders mounted a rebellion and raised aloft the banner of enmity. In a frenzy, they launched a movement, seeking an entree into and participation in decision-making. They instigated riots and contended with officials of the state. They made the manifest religion and the mighty revealed law a pretext and spoke of the welfare of the nation, seeking to depose the cabinet ministers. They undermined the structures of equity and chivalry. They exiled persons of good will and delighted the malicious. They caused the nation=92s true ones to be considered odious, and elevated traitors to beloved figures among the people. When they succeeded in achieving their purposes, they adopted a different tactic. Now they demonstrated opposition to the throne itself, and insolently raised their own hands against the ruler and the government. They issued a religious ruling deposing him, then turned to subversion and lashing out. They cast away the oar of manliness and stirred up the dust of tyranny. They committed the injustice of disgracing the perspicuous faith and the law of the lord of messengers. The flame of regret and sorrow burst forth in the hearts of the people of the world as a result of this movement, and the breasts of the world=92s inhabitants were seared at the wrong done that glorious monarch. In the end, they insisted on combat. They practiced with talon and claw, strapped on weapons and announced the war. They spread rumors that Russia=92s was a miserable government, that its armies and troop= s wore a spiritless mien, that its officers were cowards, its men incompetent, its state incapable of launching an onslaught, and its regime impotent. "We," they said, "are a victorious people and a resplendent nation. Let us wage holy war, and demolish the foundations of opposition. We shall attain celebrity throughout the world, and shall altogether delight the nations and communities thereof." When the results of this movement became apparent, the fruits of these notions became manifest. Vengeance incarnated itself, the poison of repeated chastisement took physical form, and calamity befell both government and subjects. The earth was dyed red with the blood of innocents, and the cadavers lent the battlefield a horrifying aspect. The generality of subjects quaffed from the cup of affliction, and three hundred thousand young men=97the cynosures of the women of the empire=97downed the hemlock of annihilation. What great edifices were leveled into the dust, and how many ancient families faced extinction or dire poverty! Thousands of well-ordered villages were ground into the earth, and populated regions were rendered wasteland. Treasuries were cast to the wind, and the wealth of the state and the people was wiped out. A million subjects were forced to emigrate, and a huge number of the empire=92s notables and the great had = to leave their homesteads upon losing their property. Small children and the elderly wandered in the desert, bereft of leadership and of personal effects. The quarrelsome religious leaders who had raised the cry of "War, to war!" and "Let us wage a holy war!" whimpered, at the first assault, "Where is our refuge?" and "To where can we flee?" By making war but a little they forewent rich compensation and glorious rewards, rather turning their faces and fleeing. They had brought this greatest of catastrophes to pass. Praise be to God! Shall persons who are unable to manage or train up their own households, who are wholly uninformed both with regard to domestic and foreign affairs, interfere in the proceedings of the kingdom and its subjects, or intervene in the intricacies of political matters? ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Saturday, February 21, 1998 5:13 PM To: talisman@umich.edu Subject: Treatise on Leadership pt. 5 Reposted by request (and thanks for the requests!). I'm also told that amazon.com will start taking orders for my book, *Modernity and the Millennium: The Genesis of the Baha'i Faith in the 19th Century Middle East* (Columbia University Press, 1998) next month (it is due out in May or June). It also treats many of the themes I've been talking about with regard to the "Treatise on Leadership", and there will be a simultaneous paperback edn. Enjoy! cheers Juan ------------------- >Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 01:52:42 -0500 >From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) >Subject: Treatise on Leadership pt. 5 > > >`Abdu'l-Baha's third case study in why "the leaders of the manifest >religion and the pillars of the mighty divine law" must not intervene "in >the world of political leadership" concerns the Jihad movement of the >mid-1820s. Russian expansion into the Caucasus had brought large numbers of >Muslims under tsarist rule, many of them very reluctant subjects of St. >Petersburg. In some areas, such as Chechnya, the Russians pursued what can >only be called a genocidal policy against the mountaineer guerillas who >opposed them [there is nothing new under the sun]. In the Russo-Iranian War >of 1810-1813, Russia had defeated the Qajars and had detached the >Azerbaijani provinces of Talish, Qarabagh, Baku and Shirvan, among others, >from Iran. These former Iranian subjects, Shi`ite Muslims, chafed under >Russian rule and their sporadic resistance was put down with brutality. >Stories of this brutality circulated in Iran, enraging the populace there. > >Increasingly in the 1820s, prominent members of the Shi`ite clerical >hierarchy took up the call for a holy war or jihad against the Russians to >push them back out of Azerbaijan. The Shi`ite religious leaders did not >believe that they had the right to wage the holy war on their own, but that >as *general* deputies of the Imam they could authorize the shah to do so. >This movement, supported by heir apparent `Abbas Mirza, gained such momentum >that it forced the hand of Fath-`Ali Shah, who went to war in 1826. Some of >the ulama, like Agha Sayyid Muhammad Isfahani, rode with the army, but he >and some other prominent ones left while the fighting was still going on. >Sources sympathetic to the shah say that the ulama fled, whereas sources >sympthetic to the ulama say that the shah and his son sent them away for >fear of their gaining influence. The dedication of the clerics to >antiimperialism was apparently neither broad nor deep, when it came to their >local interests. The ulama of Tabriz joined an anti-Qajar movement that >involved opening the gates of Tabriz to the Russians in 1827 and cooperating >with them; the Russians decided that they could not garrison such a large >city and soon withdrew, and the Qajars recaptured it. `Abbas Mirza was >bitter against the Shi`ite religious leaders he felt had betrayed him. > >Fath-`Ali Shah very badly lost the war against the Russians, who gained new >territories in Azerbaijan (Nakhchivan and Erivan/Armenia) and won a >favorable settlement, with reparations, in the 1828 Treaty of Turkmanchai. >The Russian army had superior weaponry, tactics, and discipline. Although >`Abbas Mirza had attempted to reorganize the Iranian army--which had >included an undisciplined tribal cavalry--along modern lines, his reforms >had been too little too late. The Shi`ite religious leaders who talked Iran >into a war against a superior enemy only brought themselves into disrepute. >It was not until Nasiru'd-Din Shah acceded the throne as a young man in >1848, in the midst of the Babi uprisings, that he fully restored the Qajar >partnership with the Shi`ite clerics, whom he felt he needed as bulwarks >against the Babi "rabble." > >cheers > >Juan Cole >History >U of Michigan > >-------------------- >`Abdu'l-Baha, "Treatise on Leadership," pt. 5 > > >A third such incident occurred during the reign of the late [Fath-`Ali] Shah >[r. 1797-1834]. The leaders of religion hurled themselves into it with >quaking and howling, and raised the standard of misfortune. They began a >campaign for holy war against Russia, faring upon the highways to the >accompaniment of drumbeats and tambourines, until they reached the border. >When they began the attack, throwing stones, they were met with a fusillade >of gunfire on the battlefield. Casting aside considerations of shame and >good name, they chose to flee in disgrace. > > ---------- From: Bill Garlington[SMTP:wilgar@sirius.com] Sent: Sunday, February 22, 1998 2:03 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: treatise on leadership, pt. 7 Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 02:17:02 -0500 From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: treatise on leadership, pt. 7 The next passage of `Abdu'l-Baha's "Treatise on Leadership" finally clarified something that had remained mysterious to me for a long time, and which profoundly affects our understanding of his later Will and Testament. He speaks of tashri` . Now, the word for revealed law such as is in the Qur'an or al-Kitab al-Aqdas is shari`ah . In classical Muslim lexicons, I'm not aware of the word tashri`, which literally would mean 'to legislate.' Modern standard Arabic, on the other hand, has two words for 'legislation:' tashri` and taqnin (to make a law or qanun). But tashri` has been secularized in this sense, referring to the civil legislation of a secular parliament. It would anyway not make sense for a civil parliament to be said to legislate (tashri`) divine revealed law (shari`ah). No one can legislate shari`ah except the Prophet, who is called sha:ri`. So why does `Abdu'l-Baha refer below to the Shi`ite religious leaders of Iran as sources (mas.dar) of *tashri`* regarding the divine ordinances (ah.ka:m-i ila:hiyyih)? That makes no sense if we translate tashri` as legislation. The clergy cannot legislate divine ordinances, only God and the Prophet can do that. There is only one resolution to this philological puzzle, it seems to me. `Abdu'l-Baha is not using 'tashri`' to mean 'legislation' at all! He is using it as a synonym of istinba:t. or ijtiha:d. He is using it to mean, 'establishing the purport of the revealed law.' And, luckily, `Abdu'l-Baha makes it quite explicit that this is precisely what he does mean by tashri`, since he glosses it himself here: "that is, whenever the government questions them about the exigencies of the revealed law and the reality of the divine ordinances affecting both general and specific issues, they must communicate the conclusions to which their jurisprudential reasoning (mustanbat.) has led them about the commands of God." Now, `Abdu'l-Baha has already made it crystal clear that he doesn't want religious leaders intervening in *civil* affairs. When he said they should carry out tashri`, he therefore could not possibly have meant that they should be legislating in the area of civil law. He writes below of the religious leaders, "Otherwise, what expertise do they have in political matters, the protection of the subjects, the managing of serious affairs, the welfare and prosperity of the country, the implementation of the civil regulations (qava'id) and secular laws (qanun) of a realm, or foreign affairs and domestic policy?" Rather, he envisages the state acknowledging that certain matters are covered by the religious revealed law (shari`ah), and that when in doubt the state will ask the religious leaders what the purport of the revealed law is in a particular case. But religious leaders *may not* seek to implement the law directly, themselves, but must depend on the civil state to do so. Moreover, there is a large arena of civil politics and civil law, enacted by the state, about which the religious leaders are not to issue their own rulings (ra'i zadan). The system sounds very much like the way Egypt and Pakistan operate today, incidentally. This passage, on p. 30 of the 1934 edition of the Risalih-'i Siyasiyyih, is absolutely invaluable, since it also throws a flood of illumination on `Abdu'l-Baha's *Will and Testament*. The Baha'i system is more complicated than the Muslim. Baha'u'llah revealed a divine legal system (shari`ah). But he also established houses of justice that would enact legislation (qanun) specifically for the Baha'i community in personal status and other areas not covered by the shari`ah. So there is religious shari`ah and religious qanun. But `Abdu'l-Baha *also* envisages that there will be a *civil* state that has its own executive, legislature and judiciary. And just as he forbids the Shi`ite religious leaders from seeking to intervene directly in civil affairs or from directly implementing religious law, so he forbids houses of justice from the same thing. He says on p. 16 of the 1960 Karachi edition of the Persian Will and Testament, "i:n bayt al-'adl mas.dar-i tashri` ast va hukumat quvvih-'i tanfidh" : "this [universal] house of justice is the authority for establishing the purport of the divine law, and the government is the agency for its implementation." Of course, the untechnical English translation of the *Will and Testament* gives, "This House of Justice enacteth the laws and the government enforceth them." This translation makes it seem as though the house of justice is envisaged as acting in place of the civil parliament. But tashri` as `Abdu'l-Baha was using it *simply did not mean to enact legislation*! It meant to engage in jurisprudential reasoning about the purport of the revealed law. The parallelism between the below passage (in which `Abdu'l-Baha employs the concepts of tashri` and tanfidh to *exclude* Shi`ite religious leaders from a direct role in civil governance or legislation) and the passage from the *Will and Testament* is exact. The untechnical translation and Baha'i folk tradition, however, have managed to turn `Abdu'l-Baha on his head, reading the tashri`/tanfidh distinction he carefully erects to combat theocracy as a *warrant* for Baha'i theocracy in the future. cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan --------------------------------------------- `Abdu'l-Baha, "Treatise on Politics," Pt. 7 Were you to refer to history, you would find innumerable, and, indeed, infinite numbers of such occurrences, the cause of which in every instance was the interference of religious leaders in political affairs. These souls are the authorities (masdar) in establishing the purport (tashri`) of divine laws (ahkam-i ilahiyyih), not with regard to their implementation (tanfidh). That is, whenever the government questions them about the exigencies of the revealed law and the reality of the divine ordinances affecting both general and specific issues, they must communicate the conclusions to which their jurisprudential reasoning has led them about the commands of God, and that which is in accord with the revealed law. Otherwise, what expertise do they have in political matters, the protection of the subjects, the managing of serious affairs, the welfare and prosperity of the country, the implementation of the civil regulations and secular laws of a realm, or foreign affairs and domestic policy? ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Monday, February 23, 1998 4:00 AM To: talisman@umich.edu Cc: irfan1@umich.edu; bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: Deepest Appreciation and Best Wishes *The Baha'i Studies List* Greetings from Ottawa. If you are well, it is well. I would like to express my deepest thanks to all those Baha'is who did not oppose the formation of Talk.Religion.Bahai this time. By doing so they proved that there is freedom of thought and expression within Baha'i cyberspace. No one has any legitimate ability to contradict that, and certainly not anyone who failed to take advantage of things this time round and vote for the newsgroup. Inasmuch as one of the major reasons for my continuing to post in Baha'i cyberspace has been to uphold the principle of freedom of speech, inasmuch as hundreds of NO voters last time round have just upheld that principle and as I've other things to do, I'm quite delighted to get on to those other things. I hope the new wind blowing continues to waft spring freshness over this section of humanity. May the future surpass our brightest dreams. All the Best, Michael p.s. could anyone responsible noticing I am subscribed to any Baha'i e-mail list kindly unsubscribe me. mm -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 23, 1998 7:57 AM To: bahai-st; talisman Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.religion.bahai fails 109:65 *The Baha'i Studies List* Guy Macon wrote in message <6cradk$lud$8@news01.deltanet.com>... > >Interesting... > >Here is my theory: >There was some sort of effort to generate NO votes last time, >that we did not detect, but there was no such effort this time. Last time it was done on the BCCA lists and probably through public denunciation at Bahai meetings and word of mouth.... This time, all mention of trb was again prohibited on soc.religion.bahai, I was summarily denied the right to post to the BCCA lists, though people who threatened me were allowed to continue to do so.... The majority of the 65 NO voters were regular posters to bahai-discuss.... 65 is indeed better than 691. I concede some Bahais have learnt something about free speech and conscience.... In that sense, I consider this a victory.... In so far as the BCCA lists were used, I consider the Bahai administration itself complicitous in this defeat.... >The NO vote campaign generated a bunch of YES votes. >There never was enough interest for group passage. 109 is 100+.... 65 NO votes were still cast primarily for political reasons by intolerant Bahai fundamentalists.... That should not be lost sight of. They're not voting on technical reasons. >We have met my primary goal; a fair vote. I would have to say, a fairer vote.... but not a fair one. I do not challenge the RESULT but I do disagree with most of the interpretation of it thus far.... Much of the 157 could not come back because they had no access to alt.religion.bahai and therefore couldn't stay in touch to know a vote was under way given any discussion of it was banned from soc.religion.bahai, where they heard of it the first time. To construe Bahais as innocent lambs here is quite mistaken.... Srb passed in 1992 236: 48.... There were many attempts to constrict and undermine the scope of this proposal and vote. They have again been successful.... >It would be interesting to see how many votes were unique to the >last vote, how many were unique to this one, and how many were >cast in both CFVs. I agree. I would also think most of the NO voters would be found on both lists.... -- Frederick Glaysher - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Cheryll & Wade Schuette[SMTP:schuette@s.imap.itd.umich.edu] Sent: Monday, February 23, 1998 9:14 AM To: talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.religion.bahai fails 109:65 Fred Glaysher wrote: [snip] > 65 NO votes were still cast primarily for political >reasons by intolerant Bahai fundamentalists.... That should not >be lost sight of. They're not voting on technical reasons. These conclusions are not supported, and their affirmation as fact encourages strife among many people who think and care about these issues, and who I think would help more if THEIR message were ever acknowledged. >Srb passed in 1992 236: 48.... It seems unlikely that THOSE 48 votes were cast by "intolerant fundamentalists". On a statistical basis, 48 is about the same as 65, ie, you're into the noise level of resistance to practically any vote here. Maybe, maybe, you could argue that there were 15 or so new, unexpected "no" votes, although that's not at all clear. Even if so, leaping to the conclusion that these are from enemies or "intolerant fundamentalists" is unwarranted. The vote trend, overall, seems encouraging to continued efforts to evolve a new newsgroup, to continue consultation on it, and continue to understand and PROPERLY segment the sources of opposition and meet their arguments/objections with changes or superior logic. The "everyone who opposes me is an intolerant fundamentalist" tack seems counter-productive. Better would be "Ok, much closer. Help me out here. What still needs to be changed to make this fly?" Wade Schuette Ann Arbor ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Monday, February 23, 1998 8:14 PM To: pierceed@csus.edu; Mzarg@aol.com Cc: talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: fwd: Membership Dear Michael: Hi! How are you doing? Talisman is sort of a club I set up for my Baha'i (read Wilmette/Haifa) friends, and out of respect for their feelings I insist that posters not post what they consider to be covenant breaking material on the list. cheers Juan >------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- > >> From: Mzarg@aol.com >> Date sent: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 01:20:58 EST >> To: talisman@umich.edu >> Subject: Membership >> >> If this Talisman exists, I am interested in discussions. >> Michael Zargarov >> Former Wilmette/Haifa Bahai > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 1998 3:57 PM To: talisman Subject: Re RESULT talk.religion.bahai 109: 65 -----Original Message----- From: Cheryll & Wade Schuette To: talisman@umich.edu Date: Monday, February 23, 1998 8:13 AM Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.religion.bahai fails 109:65 [clip] > The vote trend, overall, seems encouraging to continued efforts to >evolve a new newsgroup, to continue consultation on it, and continue >to understand and PROPERLY segment the sources of opposition and meet >their arguments/objections with changes or superior logic. I appreciate your sharing your point of view. I too am encourage by the RESULTS. I find my faith slightly restored.... > The "everyone who opposes me is an intolerant fundamentalist" tack >seems counter-productive. Better would be "Ok, much closer. Help me >out here. What still needs to be changed to make this fly?" Now, now, I've never said everyone.... Thank you for the advice. Bahais have made progress and that's what counts.... And many did vote for toleration and respect of others' opinions.... Sincerely, I consider it a victory for the Faith.... -- Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 1998 4:25 PM To: talisman Subject: Re: Dr. Juan Cole on Bahai censorship & denial of civil rights.... I wrote some days ago: >What of the "equal human rights" of those who wanted >talk.religion.bahai and voted YES last year? What of the human rights >of covenant breakers, which the Writings also claim should be >protected? HYPOCRISY Writ Large is all I see.... It seems to me I should admit that experience has provided a corrective. There has been growth on these matters.... -- Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 1998 4:16 PM To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca Cc: talisman Subject: Re: Deepest Appreciation and Best Wishes From: McKenny Michael To: talisman@umich.edu > I would like to express my deepest thanks to all those Baha'is >who did not oppose the formation of Talk.Religion.Bahai this time. >By doing so they proved that there is freedom of thought and >expression within Baha'i cyberspace. Mmmm.... I can't quite go that far, but it is an improvement, one I find heartening.... > No one has any legitimate ability to contradict that, and >certainly not anyone who failed to take advantage of things this time >round and vote for the newsgroup. Not sure what you mean here in the first sentence. Hope I'm not contradicting you. > Inasmuch as one of the major reasons for my continuing to post >in Baha'i cyberspace has been to uphold the principle of freedom of >speech, inasmuch as hundreds of NO voters last time round have just >upheld that principle and as I've other things to do, I'm quite >delighted to get on to those other things. I hope more than just this Bahai has learned from you a thing or two.... > I hope the new wind blowing continues to waft spring freshness >over this section of humanity. May the gods keep you. I think of Robert Hayden's lines from his "The Year of the Child": "May you walk with beauty before you, beauty behind you, all around you, and The Most Great Beauty keep you His concern." > May the future surpass our brightest dreams. Given the past, broadly speaking, I have my doubts.... My own spiritual struggles.... -- Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: Susan Maneck[SMTP:smaneck@BERRY.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 1998 11:37 PM To: Multiple recipients of list H-BAHAI Subject: Treatise on Leadership, pt. 8 Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 02:15:24 -0500 From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: Treatise on Leadership, pt. 8 `Abdu'l-Baha was certainly opposed to the Shi`ite religious authorities intervening in politics in Nasiru'd-Din Shah's Iran. And he appears to say that his opposition stems from general principle rather than from immediate considerations. That is, he says that leadership in human societies is always and everywhere divided into civil governance and religious authority, and that it is always a disaster for the religious authority to intervene in the affairs of civil governance or to try to govern in its own right. `Abdu'l-Baha makes it clear that he is positing a general principle, valid for all "ages and eras," past and future: "Thus, note that in every age and era some irreligious leaders of religion were responsible for oppression, hindrances, sieges, violence, torment, and renewed tyranny. Whenever opposition to the state has arisen, it has all been as a result of the hints, innuendoes, allusions, and gestures of these rebellious individuals." He now turns away from case studies of modern Middle Eastern politics and looks at sacred history. Not only have leaders of religious institutions wrongly intervened in civil politics, but they have even been responsible for persecuting the prophets, such as Jesus and Muhammad. Finally, `Abdu'l-Baha appears to realize that he has said some harsh things about the religious leaders of the various religions, and he digresses a bit to underline that there *are* good religious leaders. He just appears to feel that they are rather more rare than the rebellious, tyrannical and seditious sort. I personally find it hard not to agree with him. cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan ----------------------------------------------- `Abdu'l-Baha, Treatise on Leadership, pt. 8 Likewise, in all previous ages and eras, there were persons who became centers of opposition to the friends of God and to the believers in the divine verses, who outwardly were adorned with the ornament of religious learning but in whose hearts piety and the fear of God had dwindled. They appeared learned but in reality were ignorant. They spoke of self-denial but their souls were irreligious. Their bodies carried out ritual worship, but their hearts were asleep. For instance, in the time when the spirit-giving soul of Christ bestowed life on the body of the world, and the holy breaths of Jesus revivified contingent beings, the rabbis of the children of Israel such as Anas and Caiaphas voiced opposition to and rejected that gem of existence, that beauty of the seen world, that praised spirit. They went so far as to declare him an infidel, desiring his ruin, persecuting him, and inflicting harm on him. They punished his disciples and applied the severest sanctions to them. They issued rulings of imprisonment, exile and death, even resorting to torture, and by means of the severest torment they martyred him and caused his most pure blood to flow. This opposition, harshness and punishment all derived from the religious leaders of the community. Consider, in addition, the days of that mystery of existence, the promised beauty, who was confirmed in the station of the praised one_Muhammad, the Messenger of God. There were opponents, obstinate and haughty, among the Jewish rabbis and there were intransigent Christian monks, and ignorant and envious pagan soothsayers. These opponents included Abu `Amir Rahib, Ka`b b. Ashraf, Nadr b. Harith, `As b. Wa'il, Yahya b. Akhtab, and Umayyah b. Hilal. These leaders of the people arose to curse, kill and beat that dawning sun of prophethood. They were so perverse in their persecution of that lamp unto the world of humanity that he said and spoke forth with majesty, "No prophet was persecuted as I was persecuted." Thus, note that in every age and era some irreligious leaders of religion were responsible for oppression, hindrances, sieges, violence, torment, and renewed tyranny. Whenever opposition to the state has arisen, it has all been as a result of the hints, innuendoes, allusions, and gestures of these rebellious individuals. Likewise, in these days, if you look carefully, what was promulgated and what occurred was as a result of the iniquity of the unjust religious leaders, who lack all piety, are devoid of the law of God, and who boil with the heat of envy and jealousy. As for the learned who are pure of heart and soul, each of them is a divine mercy and gift, a candle of guidance, a lamp of providence, a lightning bolt of reality, a guardian of the revealed law, a balance of justice, a sovereign of trustworthiness, a true morn, a towering palm tree, a shining dawn, a shimmering star, a spring of mystical insight, a fountain of the sweet water of life, a nurturer of souls, a bearer of glad tidings to hearts, a guide to the peoples, a crier of truth among humankind, and a most great sign. Each is the highest banner, the essence of being, the grace of existence, the manifestation of purity, and the dawning sun of sanctity. They abhor the being of ephemeral dust and the self and passion of the human world. They sit in the corner in the councils of existence, drunk with the praise and magnification of the Lord of love. They are unmoveable pillars bowing and genuflecting toward the house of God in the gathering of effulgence, encompassed by the beatific vision. They are as an impregnable fortress for the manifest religion and as the sweet waters of the Euphrates for the thirsty. They are the path of salvation to the lost, the birds of thanksgiving in the gardens of divine unity, the radiant candles of the divinely learned in the councils devoted to God's uniqueness. They are the heirs of the prophets, privy to mysteries. They are the cloisters of the heaven of asylum for the leader of the hosts of the righteous at the convent dedicated to the mention of God. They consider seclusion from others attainment to the threshold of divinity. All others are as a lifeless body or a static mosaic on a wall. It is written in the Qur'an, "And God has led him astray out of a knowledge." (45:22). ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 1998 2:17 AM To: Mark A. Foster; Talisman Subject: Re: Only *one* Guardian Mark: It is true that Baha'u'llah did not envisage there being a line of guardians. And it is also true that both he and `Abdu'l-Baha thought that the universal house of justice could function without the presence of a guardian. The question, however, is what precisely are the boundaries of the legitimate authority of the universal house of justice, according to the Baha'i texts. Baha'u'llah never endows the houses of justice with theological functions or the authority to expel believers because of their mere opinions. `Abdu'l-Baha was very explicit that the function of tabyin or authoritative Interpretation was lodged in himself and in the guardians. The function given to the universal house of justice by Baha'u'llah is legislation. `Abdu'l-Baha expanded that somewhat to include jurisprudence (istinba:t.) and resolving obscure legal matters. But `Abdu'l-Baha forbade the houses of justice from attempting to engage in authoritative Interpretation. Shoghi Effendi reaffirmed this clear distinction of functions: "From these statements it is made indubitably clear and evident that the Guardian of the Faith has been made the Interpreter of the Word and that the Universal House of Justice has been invested with the function of legislating on matters not expressly revealed in the teachings. The interpretation of the Guardian, functioning within his own sphere, is as authoritative and binding as the enactments of the International House of Justice, whose exclusive right and prerogative is to pronounce upon and deliver the final judgment on such laws and ordinances as Bahá'u'lláh has not expressly revealed. Neither can, nor will ever, infringe upon the sacred and prescribed domain of the other. Neither will seek to curtail the specific and undoubted authority with which both have been divinely invested." When the living guardianship actually ended in 1957, to the surprise of everyone, the question arose of what to do about authoritative Interpretation. There were several possibilities: The Baha'is could just have accepted that the age of authoritative Interpretation had ended, and become more open and universalistic. They could have tried to somehow continue the guardianship. This was the tack of the Remeyites, and it ended in sectarianism and a betrayal of key provisions of Baha'i law. The universal house of justice rejected the continuance of the guardianship. But what the new Baha'i authorities did do was to attempt to make the problem go away with illogical sleights of hand. So, for instance, it was held that the corpus of the guardian's writings could be interpreted in a fundamentalist manner and could themselves substitute for the living guardian. But this position ignores the fact that the Guardian was always writing for a particular time and place and would not have wanted his writings to be essentialized and misused in this literalist and rigid fashion. He explicitly said that letters to individuals should *not* be made the basis of general policy! The universal house of justice rejected the notion that it could, itself, Interpret authoritatively outside the area of law. However, Rightwing Baha'is have been clamoring for some time to have it take over completely the functions of the guardianship, despite the clear scriptural obstacles to its doing so. In the meantime, the universal house of justice (often via the newly invented "counsellors") has been interfering in Interpretive matters in a wholly unwarranted way, under the cover of the "covenant," a Trojan horse by which they can intrude on the very realm of "Interpreter of the Word" that Shoghi Effendi pronounced "exclusive" to the Guardianship! And then, to add insult to injury, the Guardian's pious hope that the universal house of justice would never intrude on that sphere is invoked to deny that it could have done so! Such casuistry may suffice when the religion is tiny and has few educated and alert members, but in the long run it is too thin a tissue to veil reality. Shoghi Effendi wrote, "Divorced from the institution of the Guardianship the World Order of Bahá'u'lláh would be mutilated and permanently deprived of that hereditary principle which, as `Abdu'l-Bahá has written, has been invariably upheld by the Law of God." I think any fairminded person will simply have to admit that this "mutilation" has indeed occurred in history, for whatever reason. The question is how the Baha'is will deal with the fact that their institutions are crippled, or, if we wish to be more p.c., are "interpretively challenged." The denial, the de facto usurpations, the erection of fundamentalist and untenable orthodoxies, the authoritarianism and arbitrariness, that have been tried so far among the religion's top leadership, may be read as the anguished cries of a wounded hierarchy, feeling still the phantom pain that an injured soldier feels in the toes of his amputated leg. These 'solutions' will not succeed, and if pursued, will only condemn the religion to being another Manichaeanism, a stillborn 'world religion' that spread far but not wide, and that ultimately disappeared because of its own rigidity and haughtiness. Or the 'mutilation' can be approached with humility. The Baha'is had something they no longer had. In its absence, caution, humility, openness and tolerance must be substituted for certainty, and the arrogance of certitude must be jettisoned. Look at the Christians. Their very prophet, the son of God, was mutilated, not just their covenant. Yet they glory in that mutilation, for it underlines the frailty of humankind and its need to be forgiven and succored. I pray that ultimately my Baha'i friends will find their way forward, eschewing stiff-necked pride and arrogance in 'the efficacy of the covenant' or 'the infallibility and divine guidance of the supreme institution,' whereby they wish to disenfranchise and subjugate members of other religions. I hope instead they can come to see the true lessons of the 'mutilation' God visited on them, which was visited on them precisely because they had waxed too prideful, too haughty, too overbearing toward their fellow creatures, branding them 'covenant breakers' or vile rejecters of the word of God. Yet Baha'u'llah had charged them to love and serve all humankind, and had cautioned them that we are all created of the same dust. And peace it is, until the coming of the dawn. cheers Juan ---------- From: Susan Maneck[SMTP:smaneck@BERRY.EDU] Sent: Friday, February 27, 1998 2:17 PM To: H-BAHAI@H-NET.MSU.EDU Subject: Baha'i Studies website Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 18:51:55 -0500 (EST) From: Jonah Winters Subject: Baha'i Studies website Dear Friends, Yes, please do visit the ABS website and send me any comments/suggestions you might have about its content, format, appearance, etc. One correction: a recent letter left a small but significant letter off of the URL. The address is https://www.bahai-studies.ca/~absnam. Thank you, -Jonah =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Jonah & Kari Winters/33 Endean Avenue/Toronto, ON/M4M-1W5/(416)461-3527 Baha'i Academics: https://www.interlog.com/~winters ---------- From: Susan Maneck[SMTP:smaneck@BERRY.EDU] Sent: Friday, February 27, 1998 2:26 PM To: H-BAHAI@H-NET.MSU.EDU Subject: "Treatise on Leadership," pt. 9 Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 19:42:29 -0500 From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: "Treatise on Leadership," pt. 9 In this part of the "Treatise on Politics," `Abdu'l-Baha expands on the theme of the distinctness and the complementarity of state authority and religious authority, which he likens to "milk" and "honey." Obviously, these two elements cannot genuinely intermix and remain always separate, but they do go well together. He says that civilization requires laws and interconnectivity, and that these are provided by the state in some respects, and by religion in others. The revealed law (shari`ah) does some of this work, whereas the social order and civil law (qanun) provided by the state does the rest. Not only do religion and the state regulate behavior and establish essential networks among people, making human society possible, but they also come as cures for the maladies that beset the social order. Human societies in `Abdu'l-Baha's view are unstable and prone to falling prey to illnesses. Religion cures some types of illness, while the state cures others. In `Abdu'l-Baha's view, this differentiation between religion and state is not a distinction between what is godly and what is profane. Rather, *both* religion *and* the state are rooted ultimately in divine authority: "Thus, it is evident and has been established that the one who legislates ordinances, order, canon law and civil laws among humankind is God, the Mighty, the All-Knowing." God is depicted as the ultimate divine physician, and religion and state are scalpel and forceps, are tools whereby the ground of being mysteriously reconstitutes contingent being in a healthful manner. The key difference between prophetic law and civil law is that civil law is a matter of human reason, custom, and trial and error: "For this reason, European law is still imperfect and incomplete, still in the realm of change and alteration or repeal and amendment even though it is in reality the result of several thousand years of thinking by constitutional scholars and political philosophers. For the learned of the past had not discovered the harmfulness of some laws, whereas later scholars became aware of it. Therefore, some laws are amended, some are reaffirmed, and some are altered." For this reason, `Abdu'l-Baha rejects the proposition put forward in the European Enlightenment that revealed law may be safely jettisoned and humankind can depend solely on reason. The unalterable moral anchor of the revealed law in any particular dispensation plays an irreplaceable part in rendering human society orderly and healthy. On the other hand, he also rejects the proposition put forward by medieval theocrats and their 19th century descendants, that civil law and civil government should be swept away and replaced solely by religious institutions and law: "The revealed law is like the shining sun, and the civil government is like April clouds. These two radiant stars are like two points in a constellation above the horizon of the contingent world that shine down on the people of the world. The one illuminates the realm of spirit, and the other renders the arena of the world a rose garden." Religion and the state have two separate domains of social action. Religion concerns individual conscience, moral values and spirituality. The state concerns building an orderly and civilizationally advanced civil society. Neither must impede the other, neither must interfere in the other's affairs. They are like "two helping spirits in the ether, which aid one another." One cannot shore up the authority of the state by persecuting religion (as the Jacobins attempted to do in France during the Revolution, or as the Germans attempted to do under Bismarck during the Kulturkampf against Roman Catholicism). But the religious also cannot further religion's goals by attempting to overthrow or take the place of the state, as various theocratic movements had attempted to do. cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan --------------------------------------------------------- 'Abdu'l-Baha, "Treatise on Politics," pt. 9 By its nature, human society needs rules and relationships. For without these ties, security and protection cannot be had, nor can security or prosperity. In their absence, the sacred honor of human beings is nowhere in evidence, and the beloved of hopes remains invisible. The country and the clime would never be populated, nor would cities and villages be arranged and embellished. The world would not be well-ordered. Human beings would not have been able to develop and grow. Repose for the soul and tranquillity for the conscience would not have been easy to attain. The splendors of human beings would never have become manifest, nor would the candle of divine bestowal have been lighted. The essence of human beings would not have been to discover the reality of the contingent world nor to become aware of the universal wisdom of God. The fine arts would not have become widespread, nor would the great inventions have been discovered. The earth would not have become the observatory of the heavens, and the astonishing technologies and wonders of the mind and thought would not have come to pass. The east and west of the world could not associate with one another, nor would steam power be able to unite scattered regions. These rules and relationships, which form the foundation for the edifice of well-being and are as a shield of grace, are none other than the revealed law and a social order that can serve as a guarantor of prosperity, a force for purity, and a protector of human society. For society in general is like a single human being, insofar as both specific essences as well as different, contradictory and opposed elements coexist therein. Necessarily, it is susceptible to accidents and given to illnesses. When debilitating diseases befall it, a skillful physician is required to diagnose the malady, to examine its symptoms minutely, and to meditate upon the causes for it and the exigencies of nature. He will investigate principles, results, means and desiderata, and distinguish between particulars and universals. Therefore, he will think upon what the precipitating circumstances of this disease might be, and the etiology of the malady. He will treat and cure it. From all this it is known that the healing cure and the sufficient medicine arises from the same reality of nature, from constitution and illness. In the same way, society and the edifice of the world are susceptible to essential infirmities and are under the sway of a variety of illnesses. Order, laws, and divine ordinances are like a salvational remedy, and a cure for the people. Can a knowledgeable person imagine that he can, all by himself, identify the chronic illnesses of the world and come to know the variety of diseases that afflict contingent existence; that he can diagnose the maladies of the people of the earth or the painful condition of human society; or that he can uncover the hidden mysteries of ages and centuries? Could he discover the necessary relationships that derive from the realities of things, or legislate an order and laws that would constitute a quick cure or a complete remedy? There is not the slightest doubt that it is impossible. Thus, it is evident and has been established that the one who legislates ordinances, order, canon law and civil laws among humankind is God, the Mighty, the All-Knowing. For no one but the incomparable Lord is aware and informed of the realities of existence, the abstrusities of every being, the hidden mystery, and the recondite enigmas of eras and ages. For this reason, European law is still imperfect and incomplete, still in the realm of change and alteration or repeal and amendment even though it is in reality the result of several thousand years of thinking by constitutional scholars and political philosophers. For the learned of the past had not discovered the harmfulness of some laws, whereas later scholars became aware of it. Therefore, some laws are amended, some are reaffirmed, and some are altered. Indeed, let us go to the heart of the matter. The revealed law is like the spirit of life, and civil government is like the power of salvation. The revealed law is like the shining sun, and the civil government is like April clouds. These two radiant stars are like two points in a constellation above the horizon of the contingent world that shine down on the people of the world. The one illuminates the realm of spirit, and the other renders the arena of the world a rose garden. One causes the sea of conscience to throw up pearls, the other makes the earth into a heavenly paradise. One renders a heap of dirt the envy of the heavens, the other makes the mansion of darkness into the delight of the world of lights. The cloud of mercy arises and rains down the droplets of bounty, and the breaths of grace diffuse perfume and musk. The dawn breeze wafts and delivers a fragrance that nourishes the soul. On the earth the law of the highest heaven takes hold and the pleasing season of spring arrives. The divine spring-time bestows a wondrous freshness on the garden of the world, and the pre-existent sun of grandeur bestows a new radiance throughout the horizon of contingent being. Soiled dust becomes sandalwood and ambergris, and the blackened furnace becomes the rose bower of the All-Merciful and the garden of illumination. The point is this, that these two most great signs are like milk and honey, like two helping spirits in the ether, which aid one another. Thus, disregard for the one is a betrayal of the other, and slighting obedience to one is rebellion against the other. ---------- From: Susan Maneck[SMTP:smaneck@BERRY.EDU] Sent: Friday, February 27, 1998 2:31 PM To: H-BAHAI@H-NET.MSU.EDU Subject: `Abdu'l-Baha and consistency Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 20:13:07 -0500 From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: `Abdu'l-Baha and consistency Actually, Susan, I did not say that `Abdu'l-Baha changed his mind on the proper functioning of the state and its relationship to religion. I find him consistent in arguing for a separation of religion and state from Secret of Divine Civilization (1875) through the "Treatise on Leadership" (1892?). Indeed, one finds this same principle in Baha'u'llah's Tablet to the Kings in fall, 1867, and in the rest of Baha'u'llah's writings. Baha'u'llah tells Sultan Abdulaziz neither he nor his religion desires a jot or a tittle of the latter's civil sovereignty. And he tells Nasiru'd-Din Shah that the ruler has a responsibility to treat all religious groups equally, just as a great tree bestows its shade equally on all who sit beneath it. Baha'u'llah goes so far as to say that implementing the shari`ah consists of dealing with people *justly*. `Abdu'l-Baha consistently adopts the same line, though I argue that his formulation is more Lockean whereas Baha'u'llah's early formulation is more Hobbesian. What I said was that `Abdu'l-Baha appears to have become more cautious in his 50s about the immediate desirability of constitutional movements in the late nineteenth century Middle East. He appears, in his early 30s, to have supported the reform movements in Istanbul and Tehran of the early 1870s. The one in Istanbul eventuated in a constitutional regime, which he simply cannot have been unhappy about, and he clearly was close to constitutionalists like Namik Kemal, Bereketzadeh Ismail Hakki Effendi, and Midhat Pasha. By 1892 `Abdu'l-Baha had seen several such movements end in failure, in a return to royal reaction, in disastrous wars with European powers, the loss of lands to the Europeans, and an at least temporary strengthening of the hands of xenophobic and reactionary Muslim clergy. So he is skeptical of the Tobacco revolt and urges Baha'is not to participate in it. What I am saying is that this change (and there certainly was a change) could be explained in a number of ways. Some will accuse `Abdu'l-Baha of political expediency, of turning reactionary to curry favor with Nasiru'd-Din Shah as soon as the clergy make their alliance with the liberal intellectuals in the Tobacco Revolt. I disagree. For a progressive who lived through the Russo-Ottoman War of 1877-78 and the `Urabi Revolution of 1881-1882, both of which ended in disaster for Muslim constitutionalists, the Tobacco Revolt might look ominous in appearing to risk provoking British intervention. And `Abdu'l-Baha's anticlericalism has to be taken into account. So it may have seemed to him that while constitutionalism and restraints on the Shah's absolutism might ultimately be desirable, these goals would have to be postponed in the face of the twin threat of imperialist occupation and populist theocracy. As for the general point that people do change their minds about things, including their worldview, I can't imagine that anyone who has actually written a biography from primary sources can be in doubt that this does happen, and quite frequently. Need I remind you that in our own time, Ronald Reagan began as a Democrat and Boris Yeltsin was once a Communist? Michael Novak, a 60s liberation theologian whom I admired in my youth, later became a resident scholar at the rightwing American Enterprise Institute. My interviews with older South Asians have revealed to me the depth of the loyalty many of them still had to the British Empire in their youths in the 1940s, and how as of 1947 they became rather quickly committed to Indian or Pakistani nationalism. Your last question seems to me theological rather than historical, but it is in any case premised on a misunderstanding of my larger point. I have not posited any radical discontinuities in `Abdu'l-Baha's views on the necessity of the separation of religion and state. On that matter, he is completely consistent. The inconsistency appears to come from Horace Holley and later theocratic Baha'is who misunderstood or did not know of or overturned `Abdu'l-Baha's clear stance. cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 27, 1998 7:02 PM To: talisman Subject: Fw: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.bahai FYI Frederick Glaysher -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,news.groups Date: Friday, February 27, 1998 1:49 PM Subject: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.bahai >It seems to me, if looked at closely, the RESULT shows trb being >defeated basically by twenty Bahais and an odd selection of people >with really no interest in the Bahai Faith to begin with who probably >voted NO for very arbitrary and questionable reasons.... 13 people >have never posted to Usenet at all.... > >I'm cc this to Rebecca McQuitty in the hope that she might be able >to disqualify some of these votes. It is at least interesting to consider >how arbitrary and unfair the defeat of trb was.... 109 votes do >constitute 100+. > >Why should 30, 40, or so votes from people who really don't give a >damn be allowed to defeat not only this proposal but others? > >-- >Frederick Glaysher > >------------ >X = voted NO on 1st & 2nd vote for talk.religion.bahai; 26 people >B = Bahai; 20 people >SRB = messages all or primarily to soc.religion.bahai > ---- = not a single hit on dejanews.com. > >techy indicates interests appear to be in computer technology >or technical subject matter > >BCCA = frequent poster to the Bahai Computers and >Communications Assn's bahai-discuss > >number with hits = number of messages to Usenet on dejanews.com > > > Voted No > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >-- >X,B abir [at] comtrol.com Abir >Majid >X,B andrew.pemberton-pigott [at] ualberta.ca Andrew >Pemberton-Pigott BCCA > babboo [at] writeme.com Peter >Buchy techy >B barneyk [at] ziplink.net Michael "Barney" >Kennedy 4 hits >B,SRB bobbymitchell [at] totacc.com Bobby >Mitchell 8 hits > centiped [at] grey.xs4all.nl Roelf >Renkema techy > d [at] idiom.com >d techy >---- David.Robinson [at] Eng.Sun.COM David >Robinson 0 hits >---- djull [at] mindspring.com >David Jull 0 hits > dwolff [at] world.std.com David "Not a Bahai" >Wolff esparantoist >B,SRB EdvardJ [at] simi.is Edvard T. >Jonsson > Ekkehard.Uthke [at] gmx.de Ekkehard >Uthke techy >B,SRB fdbetts [at] mindspring.com >Dean Betts > forbes [at] cheerful.com Forbes >Benning 2 hit >X,B Gata [at] aol.com Shirley >Macias >X globe99 [at] Mlink.NET Derrick >Jobidon 1 hit >B gpoirier [at] acca.nmsu.edu G. Brent >Poirier BCCA >X,B Graham [at] fragrant.demon.co.uk Graham >Sorenson BCCA >X hcwtcurtis [at] email.msn.com Larry D. >Curtis 1 hit > hfung [at] lerami.lerctr.org Hank >Fung trains & techy >---- hhouse [at] mailcity.com Harry >House 0 hits >B hymanfam [at] samoatelco.com William M. Hyman SRB >moderator? BCCA >X,B iskandar [at] acsu.buffalo.edu >Iskandar Hai >X jasmine [at] fl.net.au Jasmine >Taylor Pagan >---- jjam [at] hplabsz.hpl.hp.com Jim >S. Jam 0 hits >X judd.rook [at] pnn.com Judd A >Rook 1 hit >X kimdv [at] best.com Kim >DeVaughn 0 hits >X,---- krc1 [at] mail.enter.net >Phil Thomas 0 hits >X,B ksm8p [at] avery.med.virginia.edu kavian >milani >X lcs [at] zk3.dec.com Larry >Smith techy >X LSEAMANS [at] MU3.MILLERSV.EDU Lynne >Seamans techy >---- marcus9 [at] usa.net Marcus >Davidson 0 hits >B,SRB mehyar22 [at] siol.net Mehyar >Badii-Azandahi 3 hits > mlcook [at] jerez.cca.rockwell.com Michael >Cook techy, 2 hits > mlocher [at] ibm.net Maximilian Greer >Locher 2 hits >X,B momen [at] northill.demon.co.uk Moojan >Momen >X naddy [at] mips.rhein-neckar.de Christian >Weisgerber techy >---- nigel [at] nigelshomes.com Nigel >Austin-Weeks 0 hits >X nightbrd [at] humboldt1.com Douglas >Myers 0 hits >B, SRB ongang [at] mail.indigo.ie Ann >O'Neill 2 hits > pan [at] syix.com >Pan Pagan >X patl [at] cag.lcs.mit.edu Patrick J. >LoPresti techy >B persia [at] persia.com Robert >Moldenhauer BCCA, 0 hits >X petcook [at] total.net Peter >Cook 0 hits >X,B pewatler [at] cyf-kr.edu.pl Miguel >Watler SRB >X,---- ph289jk [at] prism.gatech.edu Joseph Khoury >BCCA secretary, 0 hits >---- polzer [at] uran.informatik.uni-bonn.de Andreas >Polzer 0 hits > red [at] rahul.net >Red alt.politics.white-power >---- riazor [at] nutecnet.com.br Irlandes Fernandes Gonzaga >Junior 0 hits > rmp [at] heehaw.com Rafael >Palmeiro 1 hit >B roger.borseth [at] mci2000.com Roger >Borseth BCCA >SRB rossdee [at] ramhb.co.nz Ross >Deeley techy >B samoasys [at] samoatelco.com Jane C. >Hyman SRB moderator? >X shohre [at] itis.com Shohre >Mansouri 0 hits > shrao [at] nyx.net Shrisha >Rao Hindu? >X stainles [at] bga.com Dwight >Brown non-Bahai? >X steiners [at] primenet.com Jason >Steiner Christian? > steve [at] Watt.COM Steve >Watt techy >---- stronguv [at] freenet.edmonton.ab.ca >Donald Strong techy 0 hits >B,SRB Sunday122 [at] aol.com Sunday >Marie Witte 6 hits >---- talishman [at] usa.net T. Albert-Ishmael >Anderson 0 hits >X tlawson [at] amug.org Todd C. >Lawson Sandra-Bullock fan >X,---- todd.kutches [at] attws.com Todd >Kutches 0 hits > wdmaddox [at] rice.edu Bill >Maddox Freemasonry > wpagel [at] wazoo.com Karen L. >Pagel (1 on SRB) 2 hits > > > > ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Saturday, February 28, 1998 6:37 PM To: quanta@mindspring.com; Nancy Carre; Dean Betts Cc: talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: freedom of speculation ;) Dear Quanta: My point about the end of the guardianship is that the requirements given in `Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament for the selection of a guardian are both clear and inescapable, and that the basic requirements cannot any longer be met. To maintain otherwise is a) to disregard the text of the 'controlling legal authority' in this issue--the Will and Testament or b) to read it in an illogical and legally unwarranted manner. And that is why I suggested that such a discussion was not suitable to a list that is dedicated to, among other things, a rational and academic consideration of Baha'i studies. It would be like having a list dedicated to the academic study of the U.S. Constitution and then to have people talking about how a monarchy could be restored in the U.S. It makes no sense. I believe that such illogical speculation is quite different from the sort of comments I send over to talisman, which attempt to analyze texts such as the "Treatise on Leadership" carefully, and so I would hope you don't think I've been involved in illogical and anti-rational speculation in that regard! very warmest regards and happy Ayyam-i Ha (or, enjoy lunch while you can!) cheers Juan At 02:30 PM 2/28/98 +0000, quanta@mindspring.com wrote: >Well, Dear Juan, >Are we not all speculating on some issues one way or another? >So, why ask others to refrain while enjoying same privilege as well? > >cheers ;) >q. > >> There is no logical and textually-based way to escape this problem, >> and I will therefore ask that talismanians, who are dedicated to the >> scholarly study of the Baha'i faith with reason and textual >> argumentation, refrain from further speculation on this issue. > >=================================================== >"When diverse shades of thought, temperament and >character are brought together under under the power >and influence of one central agency; then, will the >glory of human perfections be made manifest." -Abdu'l'Baha >p. 55 Advent of Divine Justice (pocket version) > > ---------- From: Bill Garlington[SMTP:wilgar@sirius.com] Sent: Sunday, March 01, 1998 5:48 PM To: H-BAHAI@H-NET.MSU.EDU Subject: "Treatise on Leadership," pt. 10 Date: Sun, 01 Mar 1998 16:33:09 -0500 From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: "Treatise on Leadership," pt. 10 `Abdu'l-Baha now reiterates that the shari`ah or revealed law needs an external institution, the civil state, which will protect it and allow its implementation. He quotes Baha'u'llah's *Kitab-i Mubin* (Athar-i Qalam-i A'la, vol. 1) to confirm that civil government (here Iran's monarchy) is bestowed by God and therefore has its own, separate, divine legitimation apart from the shari`ah or revealed law. In Islamic principles of jurisprudence, one interprets the texts according to whether they appear to have a *general* or a "specific* purport. If there is a saying from the Prophet that Zayd shouldn't eat dates, they felt, this statement could not be generalized to a prohibition on eating dates. It was specific to Zayd. `Abdu'l-Baha points out that the statements of the Prophet ("Rulership is the gift of the Lord of grandeur, and government is a mercy of the Lord of divinity") and of Baha'u'llah on the divine origins of the civil state are not specific to any particular state, but expressed as *general* precepts of universal validity. Why is it that the revealed law needs a state to implement it or to foster the prerequisites for its implementation? Why can't religious institutions administer the shari`ah directly? `Abdu'l-Baha appears to believe that for the latter to attempt to do so without state permission or backing would constitute a form of vigilanteism in the worst sense of the word. *Legitimate* practical implementation of law has been bestowed by God on the *civil* state, not on religious institutions. Religious institutions and leaders must concern themselves with spirituality and morals, not with governance and rule, he says. They are simply not to intervene in affairs of state or in politics in a direct sort of way. In the Tobacco Revolt, Shi`ite clerics preached against the granting of a monopoly on the marketing of tobacco to a British entrepreneur. `Abdu'l-Baha says they are wrong to have done so. They should not have taken a position on this affair of state. If the state comes to them and asks them about the moral or ethical implication of the shari`ah or revealed law in any particular instance, they may reply. But they are not to volunteer comment on politics. Practical implementation (the root he uses is n f dh) is the strict prerogative of the civil state, which is itself ordained for this purpose by God himself. Now, from a Shi`ite point of view, there is an obvious objection to what `Abdu'l-Baha is saying. Most Shi`ites believed that the Prophet's cousin and son-in-law `Ali, and his lineal descendants through Fatima (the Prophet's daughter) should have exercised civil rule as well as religious viceregency. If, as `Abdu'l-Baha asserts, it has been wrong in every time and place for religious institutions to intervene in civil rule, then what about the Imams? Moreover, the Usuli Shi`ite clergy believed themselves to be the general representatives of the 12th Imam, and for some this station authorized their intervention in affairs of state. Rather astonishingly, `Abdu'l-Baha replies to this implicit critique of his position by *denying* that the Shi`ite Imams were owed authority over the civil government! Just as Baha'u'llah had, in the Book of Certitude, argued that the Mahdi (the Return of the 12th Imam, whom Babis and Baha'is believe to be Sayyid `Ali Muhammad Shirazi the Bab) properly exercised spiritual rather than temporal authority, `Abdu'l-Baha extends this argument to *all* the Imams: "As for the station of the Imams and of the near ones at the threshold of grandeur, it is that of spiritual honor and glory. Their right is to the authority of the All-Merciful, and their crown of glory is the dust of the divine path." Again, `Abdu'l-Baha's argument is that the separation of religion and state is an eternal principle in the revealed religions, and it is always and everywhere illegitimate for religious institutions to seek to usurp the civil state's God-given prerogative of implementing law and of exercising governmental sovereignty. On these grounds, the Shi`ite clergy were wrong to intervene in the Tobacco Regie, and Baha'is would also be wrong to do so. (Many Baha'is were merchants, and those in Shiraz and its environs had substantial tobacco holdings, and many must have been hurt by the Tobacco Monopoly and tempted to join in the protests against it; probably some actually did so). cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan -------------------- `Abdu'l-Baha, "Treatise on Leadership," pt. 10 The divine revealed law, which is the life of existence, the light of the visible world, and is consonant with the ultimate goal, requires an agency that will implement it, decisive means, a manifest protector, and a firm promulgator. There is no doubt that the wellspring of this mighty institution is the edifice of the state and the sword of rulership. When the one becomes strong and triumphant, the other becomes manifest and refulgent. Whenever the one achieves paramountcy and radiance, the other is rendered perspicuous and luminous. Thus, a just government is ipso facto a government in accordance with the divine law, and a well-ordered realm is an all-encompassing mercy. The glorious crown is wrapped in divine confirmations, and the regal diadem is adorned with the gems of heavenly bounty. In the Manifest Book (Kitab-i Mubin), it is clearly said, "Say: O God, king of kings, you bestow rule on whomever you please, and take it away from whomever you please." Therefore, it is evident and obvious that this bestowal is a divine gift and a grant from the Lord. In the same way, the authentic saying of Muhammad has it that "The ruler is the shadow of God on earth." Given these texts, which are like a mighty edifice, how clear is the falsehood of the words of any vexatious usurper, which are mere imagination unsupported by proof or evidence. Note that in the blessed verse quoted above as well as in the clear saying of the Prophet, the statement is absolute rather than conditional, with generalized purport rather than being limited to a specific case. As for the station of the Imams and of the near ones at the threshold of grandeur, it is that of spiritual honor and glory. Their right is to the authority of the All-Merciful, and their crown of glory is the dust of the divine path. Their gleaming scepter is the lights f the bounty of God. Their royal throne is the seat of hearts, and their exalted and great crown is in the kingdom of God. They are the monarchs of the world of spirit and heart, not that of water and clay. They are sovereigns of the realm of the placeless, not of the graveyards of the contingent world. No one can usurp or plunder this glorious station or this pre-existent grandeur. With regard to the human world, on the contrary, their throne is a mat on the floor, and their place of honor is at the lowly row of shoes by the door. The apex of their honor lies in the lowest depths of servitude, and the palace of their sovereignty is a secluded corner. They see grand chateaux as dusty graves, and consider the world's pomp to be an unbearable hardship, looking upon wealth and riches as pain and torment. For them, unparalleled pageantry is but a hardship for the conscience and the soul. Like grateful birds in this realm of vainglory, they content themselves with a few kernels of grain. In the garden of divine unity, upon the branches of detachment, they eloquently sing the praises and glorification of the Living and pre-existent God. Indeed, this was the principle referred to in the sound tradition, "Rulership is the gift of the Lord of grandeur, and government is a mercy of the Lord of divinity." The ultimate conclusion is this, that complete rulers and just kings must, out of gratitude for this divine grace and these glorious marks of favor, be justice incarnate. They must be the personification of reason as a grace from the Unknowable, the very image of the sun of loving kindness, the cloud of compassion, the banner of God, and the sign of the All-Merciful. ---------- From: Juan R. I. Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 1998 3:25 AM To: T.ALBERT-ISHMAEL ANDERSON; talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: Covenant Breakers The point is that there were about 170 individuals subscribed to Talisman I, including numbers of LSA members, assistants, ABMs, and even occasionally NSA members from outside the US. There was, I believe, one CB subscribed. (This is not counting, of course, the loyal and committed Baha'is who were later falsely and outrageously accused of contravening the covenant by reason of their postings). Since Talisman@indiana.edu was run off a listserv, subscriptions were automatic, anyway, and Indiana University rules were not such that potential subscribers could be excluded because of their religious views, which would have been a form of discrimination. Talisman differed from the AOL, Microsoft, Compuserv and other Baha'i chatrooms, and even from Soc.Religion.Bahai in this regard. All of these places in cyberspace had hugely more covenant breakers signed up, and in all of those places the CB's posted freely and frequently, nor was there anything the Baha'is could do about it but ignore them. Counsellor Birkland's attack on talisman@indiana.edu in winter of 1996 therefore can only have been an unfair singling out of this list. Why didn't he come on AOL and warn *its* Baha'i chatroom that the covenant was being endangered by the presence of CBs and imply that everyone should sign off? Especially since no Remeyites or others had ever dared actually post anything on talisman, because it was fairly obvious that the high powered Baha'i academics would easily defeat them in debate. It was a ploy on Birkland's part. He had been instructed to attempt to destroy talisman, and that was his opening gambit. It failed so miserably that in its aftermath he looked a bit silly. He did manage in the end to decommission the Indiana service (at a rather high cost to the faith), but he never did succeed in destroying talisman--in fact as far as I can tell he multiplied the talismans. Nor did he succeed in preventing the sorts of statements to which he and his handlers had objected from being made. But, well, the Baha'i administration is a bureaucracy, and bureaucracies are not good at dealing with new situations. Everybody, including the intellectuals, was caught off guard at the dynamics of the new medium, and none of us could imagine our email traffic being taken so seriously as to eventuate in formal heresy charges! As the Information Revolution unfolds, either the Baha'i faith will find a way to adapt to it more productively, or it will recede back into obscurity. Because this is the Wave of the next millennium, and whoever doesn't catch it is going to be road kill. cheers Juan At 03:24 PM 3/2/98, T.ALBERT-ISHMAEL ANDERSON wrote: >Hmm! "almost no covenant breakers" on talisman@indiana.edu sounds very much like "almost pregnant". >Juan R. I. Cole wrote: >> >> Dear Dean: >> > >>Being savvy about cyberspace, they knew that the >> list was distinguished from others in having almost no covenant breakers >> signed up and in being a high powered intellectual environment where they >> dared not actually say anything. > >> >> Enjoy the fast! >> >> cheers Juan > > > >____________________________________________________________________ >Get free e-mail and a permanent address at https://www.netaddress.com > > ---------- From: Alison and Steve Marshall[SMTP:forumbahai@es.co.nz] Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 1998 7:52 PM To: talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: Turn and Caugh, Please. Hi Burl, Loved the humour, and won't even try to match it. Here's my experience of Steve Birkland's short stay on Talisman. He posted the following message: On 22/1/96 [day/month/year format] -0500 he wrote: >I have become aware of the presence on Talisman of one of the National >Directors of a group of Covenant-breakers. Apparently he has not posted >anything; however, he has told someone known to me that he is archiving all >the Talisman messages. I am providing the list owner with his name. > Although he has never been a member of our Baha'i community and therefore >has not been declared a Covenant-breaker, he is part of a body bent on >undermining the unity of the Baha'i Faith. This creates a serious concern >for Baha'i participants on the list in the light of the explicit Baha'i >Teachings on the Covenant. I wrote to him privately, on 24/1/96, saying: >Hi Stephen, > >Thanks for the information. Perhaps you could provide the list with the name and email address of this person -- then those who wish to filter that person's messages out of their email can do so. If you're unwilling to post the person's name to the list, could you send a private message, giving their name and address? On 7/5/96 I wrote: >Any closer to getting the name of the National Director of a group of Covenant-breakers who is/was on Talisman? I'm still hoping to hear back from you about this: On 22/5/96 I wrote: >No need to reply now, Steve -- I know you're busy at the moment. Talisman is closing so I no longer need the information. On 13/10/96 -- while writing about another matter, and having forgotten that I'd told Steve there was no need to reply -- I wrote: >I sent this to you on 7 May 1996. Have not heard back from you. Could I at least have acknowlegement of receipt. On 22/10/96 I got a lovely letter from Steve Birkland, apologising for not responding, and reassuring me it was not intentional. That was nice, but the process was most unsatisfactory. And it happens a lot. I can see people nodding. Steve Birkland was only on Talisman for a short time, and I felt that he didn't really engage in consultation. I prefer it when people to stick around and discuss the issues. Thanks for doing that Burl. -------------------------------------- Incidentally, here's Juan's response to Steve Birkland's post. >Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 15:38:01 -0500 (EST) >From: Juan R Cole >To: SBirkland@aol.com >cc: talisman@indiana.edu >Subject: Re: From Birkland 1/22 > >Steve: This sort of thing was bound to happen. The Baha'i Faith over >the years has attracted a certain number of wackos, flakes, and wierdos, >some of whom have schismatic tendencies. > >My problem is that Baha'is seem to want to allow this fact to hold >hostage our ordinary, daily Baha'i activities. We have to constantly be >under siege and looking over our shoulders for Remeyites and Mullas. > >Now, let us imagine what would happen if a covenant-breaker posted on >Talisman? Surely the Baha'i scholars here, many with knowledge of the >Arabic and Persian texts of the central Covenantal documents, can defeat >in debate anyone so foolish as to confront us with silly schismatic ideas? > >As for the "archiving" of messages, well and good. These are public and >are being archived by many persons. The messages bespeak the public >devotion to the Faith of a large number of Baha'i intellectuals. What >harm can come of that? > >The way to deal with these flakes is not to cower in intellectual and >spiritual bunkers but to take them on in public, reasoned and scriptural >debate. > >The same phenomenon, incidentally, could easily exist on soc.rel.bahai, >which is put out over trumpet and which can be archived. Many of the >uninformed and sometimes narrow-minded postings that appear there would >do far more damage to the Faith if widely publicized than Talisman postings ka kite ano, Steve -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alison & Steve Marshall, Aotearoa | "Fanaticism consists in redoubling forumbahai@es.co.nz (New Zealand) | your efforts when you have forgotten Try: https://www.rightwords.co.nz/ | your aim." - George Santayana ---------- From: Bill Garlington[SMTP:wilgar@sirius.com] Sent: Monday, March 09, 1998 2:12 AM To: H-BAHAI@H-NET.MSU.EDU Subject: "Treatise on Rulership," final installment Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 01:10:54 -0500 From: Juan Cole Subject: "Treatise on Rulership," final installment In the last passages of `Abdu'l-Baha's "Treatise on Rulership," he speaks at length about the relationships between the monarchical government and its subjects. He stresses that the subjects have rights (huqu:q), as does the government, and that these rights are mutual. Although it is now difficult to recognize, this assertion was quite radical in Qajar Iran, and probably would have been rejected by most of the Iranian nobility. Peasants were referred to by Nasiru'd-Din Shah as 'rabble,' and I doubt he thought they had *rights*. However, the emphasis of the treatise is not on those rights, but rather on their mutual character--the subjects also owe it to the state to keep it strong and stable and able to care for their needs and (I think it is implied) repel foreign incursions. `Abdu'l-Baha does not address the problem of what might be done by the subjects if an absolute monarch declines to honor the rights of the subjects (as Iranian Tobacco growers and merchants felt that Nasiru'd-Din Shah had not, in unilaterally giving away their sector of the economy to a British monopoly). We do know that Baha'u'llah himself felt that the Ottoman state had trampled on his rights in exiling him to Akka, and that in response he circulated letters of protest to tens of thousands of people, as well as calling for a change in the way the empire was governed, asking for a parliament. Likewise, Baha'u'llah in the Tablet of the World, written in the summer of 1891 when the Tobacco Revolt was at its height, tells Nasiru'd-Din Shah that all the trouble derived from his having not called a parliament yet. `Abdu'l-Baha seems in the "Treatise" not to be in as much a hurry as Baha'u'llah had been to see an Iranian parliament, and appears to think it is more important at that point to strengthen the Qajar state against imperialist powers without and clerical theocrats within. It is worth noting that `Abdu'l-Baha appears to have thought that there were different rules of comportment for subjects of a monarchy as opposed to citizens of a republic or constitutional country. For instance, in a letter to an early American Baha'i he remarks that in a republic citizens have a duty to be active in public affairs. Early Western Baha'is belonged to political parties and ran for political office, and this appears to have been all right with `Abdu'l-Baha. Also, once Iran adopted a constitutional form of government in 1906, `Abdu'l-Baha gradually lifted his ban on Baha'i participation in politics in Iran, and actually urged the Baha'is to attempt to elect at least two Baha'is to parliament. My point is that the political quietism obvious in the "Treatise on Leadership" must be seen in the context of discouraging Baha'i participation in the Tobacco Revolt and its aftermath in 1892-93. It is not characteristic of the Baha'u'llah period in this extreme form, nor is it characteristic of `Abdu'l-Baha's later positions once he was addressing Baha'is who were citizens of constitutional regimes in both the U.S. and post-1905 Iran. cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan ---------------------------------------------------- "Treatise on Rulership," by `Abdu'l-Baha, final installment A government that causes its people to flourish must be obeyed, and obedience to it is a cause of nearness to God. Divine justice requires the observation of mutual rights, and the divine precept commands the safeguarding of mutual justice. The subject has the right to expect from the ruler security and kind treatment. The one led has the right to expect that the leader will look on him with the eye of protection. The protection afforded by kings eventuates in the ruled being cared for, and the people take refuge in the safekeeping of the monarch. Justice is the path of every ruler who acts responsibly toward his subjects. For the subject, government is a secure fortress. The trustworthy shelter of rulership should be an impregnable sanctuary and an exalted asylum for the rights of the subjects. It must expend every effort in protecting and safeguarding the innocent, and must give all its attention to securing the honor and happiness of its dependents and subjects. For the subject is a divine repository, and the poor are the trust of the Lord of Oneness. In the same way, subjects are obliged to obey and show forth truthfulness. They must perform the duties of servanthood and be sincere in their service. Good intentions and gratitude are requisite, such that they pay their taxes with entire thankfulness and bear annual imposts with complete approbation. In order to further exalt the station of the monarchs, augment the power of the government, and increase the glory of the throne of rulership, they must sacrifice their property and their lives. For the benefit of these transactions, and the fruit of this obedience, accrues to the subjects in their entirety, such that all share and participate in this great good fortune and this noble station. Rights are mutual, and affairs require justice from all parties involved, and all are under the protection of the just Lord. The state and the government are like the head and the brain, while the people and the subjects are like limbs and members. When the parts of the head and brain, which are the center of the senses and the faculties, and which manage the entire body and all the limbs, gain overwhelming power and complete influence, they then raise the standard of preservation and deploy means for defense. They attend to requisite needs, they prepare for desirable outcomes, and they arrange for the limbs and members to be completely at rest and relaxed. If their influence or power should wane, the body would become a wasteland and the corporeal realm would lack peace and security. A thousand kinds of affliction would beset the body, and the prosperity and repose of all its organs would disintegrate. Likewise, when the agencies of the government are influential and its commands prevail, the country is embellished and the subjects find repose. But if its power is shaken, then the edifice of prosperity and comfort for the subjects is shaken and razed. For the government is the requisite protector, guard, strengthener, governor, defender and prohibiter. When the government serves as the shepherd of its subjects and the subjects arise to fulfill the functions allotted to followers, the ties of conciliation are made strong and the means of binding them together are established. When the power of the country and the potency of the entire population are established and gathered together at a single point as one individual, there is no doubt that it attains the greatest influence. When the rays of the sun fall on the surface of a round, concave glass, all the heat is concentrated in its center. In this way it becomes penetrating, concentrated, and capable of setting a fire, such that a hard, refractory body, even on that might ordinarily by nonflammable, will be finished if it is placed before this point. Note that wherever a government is resplendent or an empire is triumphant, it subjects subsist in the utmost honor and happiness. The dependents and ordinary folk in every great country are extremely well cared for, are advancing through all stages with the greatest rapidity, and are continuously exalted in their knowledge, wealth, commerce and industry. This principle is renowned and accepted among all the wise and learned, nor does any doubt attach thereto. Divine friends! Listen with the ear of wisdom, and avoid the instigators of sedition. If you perceive in anyone the odor of turmoil, even though he might outwardly appear to be a person of some gravity or a peerless religious leader, know that he is rather an antichrist, and any opponent of the glorious law is an enemy of God. One who undermines the edifice is a breaker of the covenant and is barred from the threshold of the All-Merciful. A person who is well informed and insightful is like a radiant lamp, and is a cause of the prosperity and well-being of the macrocosm and the microcosm. Compelled by faith and the social compact, such a one strives for the good and for the repose of the people of the world. Divine friends, the divine law has an era of youth, and the wondrous Cause has a springtime. The new age is the beginning of a first development. This age is the chosen age of the one God. The horizons of the contingent world are illumined by the attributes of the luminary of the apex of mystical insight. The east and the west of the globe are perfumed by the breaths of holiness. The face of the new creation is fair and comely, and the temple of the wondrous Cause is vigorous and fresh in the highest degree. Hearken with the ears of wisdom to the divine counsel and advice, and show forth a miracle with true intentions, sincerity of character, good disposition, and good fortune. Thus might it be established in world society and the council of nations, that they are the shining candle of the world of humanity and the rose in the garden of the divine realm. Mere speech bears no fruit, and the sapling of vain hopes remains barren. Action is required. Potentially, all things have talent. All things are exquisite. Some are easy to acquire, others are difficult to attain. But what good is mere potentiality? Human beings must be in actuality the sign of the All-Merciful and the standard of the Lord. Peace be upon those who follow the guidance. ---------- From: Juan Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 1998 9:43 PM To: talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: "Treatise on Rulership," final installment From another list. cheers Juan --------------------------------------- >Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 01:10:54 -0500 >From: Juan Cole >Subject: "Treatise on Rulership," final installment > > >In the last passages of `Abdu'l-Baha's "Treatise on Rulership," he speaks >at length about the relationships between the monarchical government and >its subjects. He stresses that the subjects have rights (huqu:q), as does >the government, and that these rights are mutual. Although it is now >difficult to recognize, this assertion was quite radical in Qajar Iran, and >probably would have been rejected by most of the Iranian nobility. >Peasants were referred to by Nasiru'd-Din Shah as 'rabble,' and I doubt he >thought they had *rights*. However, the emphasis of the treatise is not on >those rights, but rather on their mutual character--the subjects also owe >it to the state to keep it strong and stable and able to care for their >needs and (I think it is implied) repel foreign incursions. `Abdu'l-Baha >does not address the problem of what might be done by the subjects if an >absolute monarch declines to honor the rights of the subjects (as Iranian >Tobacco growers and merchants felt that Nasiru'd-Din Shah had not, in >unilaterally giving away their sector of the economy to a British >monopoly). We do know that Baha'u'llah himself felt that the Ottoman state >had trampled on his rights in exiling him to Akka, and that in response he >circulated letters of protest to tens of thousands of people, as well as >calling for a change in the way the empire was governed, asking for a >parliament. Likewise, Baha'u'llah in the Tablet of the World, written in >the summer of 1891 when the Tobacco Revolt was at its height, tells >Nasiru'd-Din Shah that all the trouble derived from his having not called a >parliament yet. `Abdu'l-Baha seems in the "Treatise" not to be in as much >a hurry as Baha'u'llah had been to see an Iranian parliament, and appears >to think it is more important at that point to strengthen the Qajar state >against imperialist powers without and clerical theocrats within. > >It is worth noting that `Abdu'l-Baha appears to have thought that there >were different rules of comportment for subjects of a monarchy as opposed >to citizens of a republic or constitutional country. For instance, in a >letter to an early American Baha'i he remarks that in a republic citizens >have a duty to be active in public affairs. Early Western Baha'is belonged >to political parties and ran for political office, and this appears to have >been all right with `Abdu'l-Baha. Also, once Iran adopted a constitutional >form of government in 1906, `Abdu'l-Baha gradually lifted his ban on Baha'i >participation in politics in Iran, and actually urged the Baha'is to >attempt to elect at least two Baha'is to parliament. > >My point is that the political quietism obvious in the "Treatise on >Leadership" must be seen in the context of discouraging Baha'i >participation in the Tobacco Revolt and its aftermath in 1892-93. It is >not characteristic of the Baha'u'llah period in this extreme form, nor is >it characteristic of `Abdu'l-Baha's later positions once he was addressing >Baha'is who were citizens of constitutional regimes in both the U.S. and >post-1905 Iran. > >cheers > >Juan Cole >History >U of Michigan > >---------------------------------------------------- >"Treatise on Rulership," by `Abdu'l-Baha, final installment > > A government that causes its people to flourish must be obeyed, and >obedience to it is a cause of nearness to God. Divine justice requires the >observation of mutual rights, and the divine precept commands the >safeguarding of mutual justice. The subject has the right to expect from >the ruler security and kind treatment. The one led has the right to expect >that the leader will look on him with the eye of protection. The >protection afforded by kings eventuates in the ruled being cared for, and >the people take refuge in the safekeeping of the monarch. Justice is the >path of every ruler who acts responsibly toward his subjects. For the >subject, government is a secure fortress. The trustworthy shelter of >rulership should be an impregnable sanctuary and an exalted asylum for the >rights of the subjects. It must expend every effort in protecting and >safeguarding the innocent, and must give all its attention to securing the >honor and happiness of its dependents and subjects. For the subject is a >divine repository, and the poor are the trust of the Lord of Oneness. > In the same way, subjects are obliged to obey and show forth >truthfulness. > They must perform the duties of servanthood and be sincere in their >service. Good intentions and gratitude are requisite, such that they pay >their taxes with entire thankfulness and bear annual imposts with complete >approbation. In order to further exalt the station of the monarchs, >augment the power of the government, and increase the glory of the throne >of rulership, they must sacrifice their property and their lives. For the >benefit of these transactions, and the fruit of this obedience, accrues to >the subjects in their entirety, such that all share and participate in this >great good fortune and this noble station. Rights are mutual, and affairs >require justice from all parties involved, and all are under the protection >of the just Lord. > The state and the government are like the head and the brain, while the >people and the subjects are like limbs and members. When the parts of the >head and brain, which are the center of the senses and the faculties, and >which manage the entire body and all the limbs, gain overwhelming power and >complete influence, they then raise the standard of preservation and deploy >means for defense. They attend to requisite needs, they prepare for >desirable outcomes, and they arrange for the limbs and members to be >completely at rest and relaxed. If their influence or power should wane, >the body would become a wasteland and the corporeal realm would lack peace >and security. A thousand kinds of affliction would beset the body, and the >prosperity and repose of all its organs would disintegrate. Likewise, when >the agencies of the government are influential and its commands prevail, >the country is embellished and the subjects find repose. But if its power >is shaken, then the edifice of prosperity and comfort for the subjects is >shaken and razed. For the government is the requisite protector, guard, >strengthener, governor, defender and prohibiter. When the government >serves as the shepherd of its subjects and the subjects arise to fulfill >the functions allotted to followers, the ties of conciliation are made >strong and the means of binding them together are established. When the >power of the country and the potency of the entire population are >established and gathered together at a single point as one individual, >there is no doubt that it attains the greatest influence. When the rays of >the sun fall on the surface of a round, concave glass, all the heat is >concentrated in its center. In this way it becomes penetrating, >concentrated, and capable of setting a fire, such that a hard, refractory >body, even on that might ordinarily by nonflammable, will be finished if it >is placed before this point. Note that wherever a government is >resplendent or an empire is triumphant, it subjects subsist in the utmost >honor and happiness. The dependents and ordinary folk in every great >country are extremely well cared for, are advancing through all stages with >the greatest rapidity, and are continuously exalted in their knowledge, >wealth, commerce and industry. This principle is renowned and accepted >among all the wise and learned, nor does any doubt attach thereto. > Divine friends! Listen with the ear of wisdom, and avoid the >instigators >of sedition. If you perceive in anyone the odor of turmoil, even though he >might outwardly appear to be a person of some gravity or a peerless >religious leader, know that he is rather an antichrist, and any opponent of >the glorious law is an enemy of God. One who undermines the edifice is a >breaker of the covenant and is barred from the threshold of the >All-Merciful. A person who is well informed and insightful is like a >radiant lamp, and is a cause of the prosperity and well-being of the >macrocosm and the microcosm. Compelled by faith and the social compact, >such a one strives for the good and for the repose of the people of the world. > Divine friends, the divine law has an era of youth, and the >wondrous Cause >has a springtime. The new age is the beginning of a first development. >This age is the chosen age of the one God. The horizons of the contingent >world are illumined by the attributes of the luminary of the apex of >mystical insight. The east and the west of the globe are perfumed by the >breaths of holiness. The face of the new creation is fair and comely, and >the temple of the wondrous Cause is vigorous and fresh in the highest >degree. Hearken with the ears of wisdom to the divine counsel and advice, >and show forth a miracle with true intentions, sincerity of character, good >disposition, and good fortune. Thus might it be established in world >society and the council of nations, that they are the shining candle of the >world of humanity and the rose in the garden of the divine realm. Mere >speech bears no fruit, and the sapling of vain hopes remains barren. >Action is required. Potentially, all things have talent. All things are >exquisite. Some are easy to acquire, others are difficult to attain. But >what good is mere potentiality? Human beings must be in actuality the sign >of the All-Merciful and the standard of the Lord. Peace be upon those who >follow the guidance. > > ---------- From: Teri Rhan[SMTP:trhan@serv.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 1:58 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: srb moderators Subject: Re: bahai-faith@coollist.com created Dear Fred, I've posted your previous 2 messages about your new email list and felt that was pushing it a bit about it but I have to draw the line here. This is not a newsgroup for soliciting technical support. Good luck with your new list, I wish that sincerely. Teri Rhan trhan@serv.net Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai On Tue, 10 Mar 1998, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > >A new unmoderated mailing list on the Bahai Faith has been > >created: bahai-faith@coollist.com > > > >Those interested can subscribe to it at https://208.141.98.157/ > > I've received the following reply from Jonathan Grobe, > group-mentor: > > >Sorry I don't have the facilities to do this. You need some special > >software running on a host (for example mail2news). Ask your ISP, > >on the mailing list, on alt.religion.bahai, on news.groups and > >news.admin.misc. You might also ask Russ Albury for advice. > >The bit.* hierarchy coordinator used to do this but the current > >coordinator will only do it for faculty/staff at American University. No > >one that I know is doing it generally. > > Anyone have the facilities and know-how? > > Frederick Glaysher > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 1998 9:05 AM To: talisman Subject: : Re: Fw: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.bahai In terms of antagonism, we might consider this partial list of NO voters. I've deleted those who are techies or whatever and kept only those who are Bahais or those who voted NO in both interest polls. How do you explain such antagonism? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- X = voted NO on 1st & 2nd vote for talk.religion.bahai; 26 people B = Bahai; 20 people SRB = messages all or primarily to soc.religion.bahai ---- = not a single hit on dejanews.com. techy indicates interests appear to be in computer technology or technical subject matter BCCA = frequent poster to the Bahai Computers and Communications Assn's bahai-discuss number with hits = number of messages to Usenet on dejanews.com Voted No --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- X,B abir [at] comtrol.com Abir Majid X,B andrew.pemberton-pigott [at] ualberta.caAndrew Pemberton-Pigott BCCA B barneyk [at] ziplink.net Michael "Barney" Kennedy 4 hits B,SRB bobbymitchell [at] totacc.com Bobby Mitchell 8 hits B,SRB EdvardJ [at] simi.is Edvard T. Jonsson B,SRB fdbetts [at] mindspring.com Dean Betts X,B Gata [at] aol.com Shirley Macias X globe99 [at] Mlink.NET Derrick Jobidon 1 hit B gpoirier [at] acca.nmsu.edu G. Brent Poirier BCCA X,B Graham [at] fragrant.demon.co.uk Graham Sorenson BCCA X hcwtcurtis [at] email.msn.com Larry D. Curtis 1 hit B hymanfam [at] samoatelco.com William M. HymanSRB moderator? BCCA X,B iskandar [at] acsu.buffalo.edu Iskandar Hai X jasmine [at] fl.net.au Jasmine Taylor Pagan X judd.rook [at] pnn.com Judd A Rook 1 hit X kimdv [at] best.com Kim DeVaughn 0 hits X,---- krc1 [at] mail.enter.net Phil Thomas 0 hits X,B ksm8p [at] avery.med.virginia.edu kavian milani X lcs [at] zk3.dec.com Larry Smith techy X LSEAMANS [at] MU3.MILLERSV.EDULynne Seamans techy ---- marcus9 [at] usa.net Marcus Davidson 0 hits B,SRB mehyar22 [at] siol.net Mehyar Badii-Azandahi 3 hits X,B momen [at] northill.demon.co.uk Moojan Momen X naddy [at] mips.rhein-neckar.de Christian Weisgerber techy X nightbrd [at] humboldt1.com Douglas Myers 0 hits B, SRB ongang [at] mail.indigo.ie Ann O'Neill 2 hits X patl [at] cag.lcs.mit.edu Patrick J. LoPresti techy B persia [at] persia.com Robert Moldenhauer BCCA, 0 hits X petcook [at] total.net Peter Cook 0 hits X,B pewatler [at] cyf-kr.edu.pl Miguel Watler SRB X,---- ph289jk [at] prism.gatech.eduJoseph KhouryBCCA secretary, 0 hits B roger.borseth [at] mci2000.com Roger Borseth BCCA SRB rossdee [at] ramhb.co.nz Ross Deeley Bahai? techy B samoasys [at] samoatelco.com Jane C. Hyman SRB moderator? X shohre [at] itis.com Shohre Mansouri 0 hits X stainles [at] bga.com Dwight Brown non-Bahai? X steiners [at] primenet.com Jason Steiner Christian? B,SRB Sunday122 [at] aol.com Sunday Marie Witte 6 hits X tlawson [at] amug.org Todd C. Lawson Sandra-Bullock fan X,---- todd.kutches [at] attws.com Todd Kutches 0 hits Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: LaAeterna To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Thursday, March 12, 1998 7:49 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.bahai >I think the part that disturbs me the most about this forwarded series of >messages is the antagonism evident in the postings about alt.religion.baha'i. >I never have understood why there must be such a confrontational attitude >towards those who wish for a non-moderated environment within which to discuss >different aspects of the faith? >Nancy ---------- From: Bill Garlington[SMTP:wilgar@sirius.com] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 1998 10:02 AM To: H-BAHAI@H-NET.MSU.EDU Subject: H-NET JOB GUIDE INDEX ********************************************************************* H-NET JOB GUIDE INDEX March 9, 1998 ************************************************************************ The Index to the H-Net Job Guide follows. To order the actual Job Guide send the following message to: LISTSERV@H-NET.MSU.EDU GET H-NET JOBGUIDE or view it at https://www.matrix.msu.edu/jobs On some mail systems, you will have to send the command get h-net jobguide f=mail to receive the Guide. If you still have trouble, please contact help@h-net.msu.edu. When applying for a job, please mention you saw it on H-Net. Please submit jobs to hjobs@h-net.msu.edu. Jobs must be submitted by Noon on Friday for inclusion in the following Monday's Guide. Funds to prepare this Guide are provided by Michigan State University and the National Endowment for the Humanities. ************************************************************************ *** INDEX ************************************************************************ **** AFRICAN AND MIDDLE EASTERN HISTORY 1. University of St Andrews (UK) Temporary Lectureship/Middle East in the Middle Ages -------------------------------------------------------------------------- AMERICAN HISTORY 2. Belmont University (TN) Assistant Professor, US History/World Civilization 3. Binghamton University (NY) 19th Century U.S. Political History 4. Idaho State University (ID) US Western Regional History 5. Idaho State University (ID) US History Any Field 6. Lectureship in North American History (UK) University of Sussex 7. Richard Stockton College-New Jersey (NJ) American History 8. Richard Stockton College-New Jersey (NJ) US History 9. SUNY College at Geneseo (NY) US History 10. The Polis Center, Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis (IN) Visiting Research Associate, 20th Century American Urban Religious History Crosslistings: * Indiana Historical Society Summer library assistant, department of printed collections * Three Rivers Community Technical College World/US History Instructor * University of New Mexico Albuquerque Visiting Assistant Professor of Chicana/o History * University of Toledo Murray Professor of Catholic Thought -------------------------------------------------------------------------- AMERICAN STUDIES/PUBLIC HISTORY 11. University of Birmingham (UK) Lecturer in American Literature Crosslistings: * Chicago Historical Society Research Specialist * Chicago Historical Society Project Coordinator, My History Is Your History * University of Toledo Murray Professor of Catholic Thought -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHROPOLOGY/ARCHAEOLOGY 12. National University of Ireland (Ireland) Professorship of Archaeology Crosslistings: * Boston University Social Science * Slippery Rock University Sociology/Anthropology & Social Work -------------------------------------------------------------------------- AREA STUDIES/ ETHNIC STUDIES 13. The University of the West Indies (The West Indies) Spanish Language and Literature 14. University of Cincinnati (OH) Director, Judaic Studies Program 15. University of New Mexico Albuquerque (NM) Visiting Assistant Professor of Chicana/o History 16. University of Oregon (OR) Japanese literature/Film/Gender Studies 17. University of Surrey (UK) Lecturer in Russian Studies 18. University of West Florida (FL) Assistant Professor/Dean Africana Studies 19. Verde Valley School (AZ) Native American Studies Crosslistings: * Northern Illinois University Director Center for Black Studies * Syracuse University Director Latino-Latin American Studies Program -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ART AND ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY 20. Middle Tennessee State University (TN) Art Historian 21. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (VA) Director, MFA in Arts Administration -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ASIAN HISTORY 22. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MA) Instructor in Chinese History 23. Pace University, New York (NC) Adjunct Professor, Asian History 24. Southern Connecticut State U (CT) Associate or Assistant Professor of the History of Southeast Asia 25. The London School of Economics and Political Science (UK) International History of Cold War East Asia Crosslistings: * University of Oregon Japanese literature/Film/Gender Studies -------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMUNICATION/MASS COMMUNICATION 26. Adams State College (CO) Assistant professor of Communications 27. Emory University (GA) Journalism 28. Florida Community College Jacksonville (FL) Associate Vice President of Marketing & Communications 29. Kansas Wesleyan University (KS) Assistant Professor in Communications 30. Pittsburg State University (KS) Communication/Public Relations 31. Quincy University (IL) Director of Television 32. Savannah State University (GA) Mass Communication 33. Savannah State University (GA) Mass Communication/Broadcast Journalism 34. Southern Utah University (UT) Lecturer of Communication 35. SUNY Plattsburgh (NY) Assistant Professor in Mass Communication 36. Valencia Community College (FL) Speech Humanities Crosslistings: * New York University Senior Director, Division of Arts, Sciences and H -------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPOSITION 37. Buena Vista University (IA) Composition 38. Indian Hills Community College (IA) English Composition Instructor 39. Missouri Western State College (MO) Composition 40. North Central Bible College (MN) English/Composition 41. Rhodes College (TN) Assistant Professor in Composition/Rhetoric 42. Shippensburg University (PA) English 43. St. Louis Community College at Florissant Valley (MO) English Instructor/Assistant Professor Crosslistings: * Ohio Northern University Journalism/Professional Writing -------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT CHAIRS/DEANS 44. Kennesaw State University (GA) Dean, College of Arts, Humanities and Social Scie 45. New York University (NY) Senior Director, Division of Arts, Sciences and H 46. Northern Illinois University (IL) Director Center for Black Studies Crosslistings: * University of West Florida Assistant Professor/Dean Africana Studies -------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENTS CHAIRS/DEANS (SOCIAL SCIENCES) Crosslistings: * Kennesaw State University Dean, College of Arts, Humanities and Social Scie -------------------------------------------------------------------------- EUROPEAN/RUSSIAN HISTORY 47. Hartwick College (NY) 19th or 20th Century European or Eurasian History 48. The New School Social Research (NY) Modern European History 49. University of Oxford (UK) University Lectureship in the History of the Renaissance and Reformation 50. University of Oxford (UK) Junior Lectureship in Modern Irish History Crosslistings: * Oxford Fellowship/Tutorship in Modern History * University of Toledo Murray Professor of Catholic Thought -------------------------------------------------------------------------- FELLOWSHIPS/GRANTS/INTERNS 51. Indiana Historical Society (IN) Summer library assistant, department of printed collections 52. Oxford (UK) Fellowship/Tutorship in Modern History 53. Pepperdine University (CA) Visiting Fellows/Second Cultural Enrichment 54. South Bank University London (UK) Postgraduate Research in the Social Sciences -------------------------------------------------------------------------- FILM 55. University of Southampton (UK) Lecturer in Film Crosslistings: * University of Oregon Japanese literature/Film/Gender Studies ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- GENERAL SOCIAL SCIENCES 56. Boston University (MA) Social Science 57. University of Durham (UK) Lecturer in Sociolinguistics Crosslistings: * University of Surrey Lecturer in Russian Studies -------------------------------------------------------------------------- GENERAL/WORLD 58. Mercer County Community College (NJ) History 59. Miami University (Hamilton Campus) (OH) Visiting Instructor/Assistant Professor, World History 60. Santa Catalina School (CA) World History/Economics 61. The University of the West Indies (Jamaica) Lecturer in History Education 62. Three Rivers Community Technical College (CT) World/US History Instructor Crosslistings: * Adams State College Assistant Professor in World Civilization/American Government/Comparative Latin America * Boston University Social Science * The London School of Economics and Political Science International History of Cold War East Asia -------------------------------------------------------------------------- GEOGRAPHY 63. Bermuda College (Bermuda) Geology and Geography 64. Elon College (NC) Assistant Professor in Geography 65. The University of the West Indies (Jamaica) Lecturer/Senior Lecturer in Social Studies 66. University of Newcastle upon Tyne (UK) Temporary Lectureship in Human Geography 67. University of Newcastle upon Tyne (UK) Lectureship in Physical Geography -------------------------------------------------------------------------- HISTORY OF SCIENCE/MEDICINE/TECHNOLOGY Crosslistings: * Lectureship in North American History University of Sussex -------------------------------------------------------------------------- HUMANITIES 68. Boston University (MA) Humanities/Rhetoric 69. Southeastern Oklahoma St University (OK) English Humanities/Languages 70. University of Toledo (OH) Murray Professor of Catholic Thought Crosslistings: * Valencia Community College Speech Humanities -------------------------------------------------------------------------- HUMANITIES COMPUTING/DISTANCE EDUCATION/EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY 71. Southampton Institute (UK) Internet Development Officer 72. Southampton Institute (UK) Learning Systems Developer 73. Southampton Institute (UK) Educational Developer 74. Troy State University Ft Walton Beach (FL) Distance Education -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LATIN AMERICAN HISTORY 75. Syracuse University (NY) Director Latino-Latin American Studies Program Crosslistings: * Adams State College Assistant Professor in World Civilization/American Government/Comparative Latin America * The University of the West Indies Lecturer in History Education * University of New Mexico Albuquerque Visiting Assistant Professor of Chicana/o History ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- MEDIEVAL/ANCIENT HISTORY 76. The University of Arizona (AZ) Assistant Director of the Division for Late Medieval and Reformation Studies 77. University of Southampton (UK) Lecturer in Medieval Literature and Culture Crosslistings: * University of St Andrews Temporary Lectureship/Middle East in the Middle Ages * University of Toledo Murray Professor of Catholic Thought -------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITICAL SCIENCE/INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 78. Adams State College (CO) Assistant Professor in World Civilization/American Government/Comparative Latin America 79. Beaver College (PA) Political Science/Peace Studies 80. Brigham Young University-Hawaii (HI) Political Science/Public Administration 81. Central College Iowa (IA) Political Science 82. Eastern Mediterranean University (Turkey) International Relations 83. Huston-Tillotson College (TX) Political Science 84. International Research and Exchanges Board (Hungary) Senior Lecturer in Public Policy 85. Laurentian University (Canada) Visiting Assistant Professor, Canadian Politics and Public Administration 86. Laurentian University (Canada) Visiting Assistant Professor, Canadian Politics and Public Administration 87. Northwestern University (IL) Director, Center for International/Comparative Studies 88. Ohio University (OH) American National Politics 89. The University of Hull (UK) Lectureship in International Relations 90. The University of Manchester (UK) Research Fellowship in Philosophy/Politics Crosslistings: * Boston University Social Science * The London School of Economics and Political Science International History of Cold War East Asia -------------------------------------------------------------------------- PROFESSIONAL NON-TEACHING POSITIONS/ARCHIVES/MUSEUMS 91. Chicago Historical Society (IL) Program Assistant, History Programs 92. Chicago Historical Society (IL) Research Specialist 93. Chicago Historical Society (IL) Project Coordinator, My History Is Your History 94. National History Day, Inc. (MD) Outreach and Program Coordinator 95. The Indiana Humanities Council (IN) Executive Director 96. The Rhode Island Historical Society (RI) Director, Goff Institute 97. Vermont Folklife Center (VT) Archivist for Oral History Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------- RHETORIC Crosslistings: * Boston University Humanities/Rhetoric * Rhodes College Assistant Professor in Composition/Rhetoric * Southern Utah University Lecturer of Communication -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SOCIOLOGY 98. Buena Vista University (IA) Sociology 99. Elmira College (NY) Sociology/Criminal Justice 100. Linn-Benton Community College (OR) Sociology 101. Savannah State University (GA) Sociology 102. Slippery Rock University (PA) Sociology/Anthropology & Social Work 103. Thomas More College (KY) Sociology 104. University of Glasgow (UK) Teaching Assistant in Sociology 105. University of Wisconsin Oshkosh (WI) Sociology Crosslistings: * Boston University Social Science -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TEACHING/ADMINISTRATION OF FRESHMAN WRITING/ADVANCED WRITING 106. Butte College (CA) Reading Instructors 107. Highland Community College Illinois (IL) English Instructor 108. New York University (NY) Director of the Writing Center 109. Ohio Northern University (OH) Journalism/Professional Writing 110. Prestonsburg Community College (KY) Developmental English 111. Valencia Community College (FL) College Prep English Crosslistings: * Southeastern Oklahoma St University English Humanities/Languages -------------------------------------------------------------------------- TESOL 112. Asian Inst of Technology (Thailand) English Language/Education 113. St. Cloud State University (MN) College ESL Director 114. TESOL (VA) Executive Director, TESOL 115. University of Arkansas Little Rock (AR) English as a Second Language 116. University of Cincinnati (OH) Foreign Language Education/English as a Second Language 117. University of Toledo (OH) English Education 118. World University Service Canada (Vietnam) English as a Second Language Teachers -------------------------------------------------------------------------- WOMEN/GENDER 119. University of California Riverside (CA) Womens Studies Crosslistings: * University of Oregon Japanese literature/Film/Gender Studies ---------- From: Juan Cole[SMTP:jrcole@UMICH.EDU] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 1998 11:17 AM To: H-BAHAI@H-NET.MSU.EDU Subject: new mailing list From: "Frederick Glaysher" Subject: new mailing list Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 08:12:10 -0500 A new unmoderated mailing list has been created. Efforts are being made to connect it to alt.religion.bahai. If anyone might have the technical ability to lend a helping hand, it would be greatly appreciated.... Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -- Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: Eric D. Pierce[SMTP:PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 1998 6:06 AM To: talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: : Re: Fw: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.baha > From: "Frederick Glaysher" > To: "talisman" > Subject: : Re: Fw: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.bahai > Date sent: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 08:05:27 -0500 > How do you explain such antagonism? Might part of it have something to do with the same objections that non-Baha'is on Usenet had to many of your "t.r.b." messages, which were characterized by: * undercutting of the attempts that your cosponsors were making to legitimize the "pro-t.r.b." effort, * weak/inconsistent presentation of positive arguments for t.r.b., * excessive paranoia and hostility, * frequent lack of objectivity, * a willingness to twist people's words and jump to ridiculously wild and irrational conclusions in order to impugn many of the people that have expressed objections to your arguments. Your posting of the "no" list in connection of the above question is quite offensive, and seems to be a bald revenge tactic. I think a lot of people are wondering if you have become mired in an unending cycle of conflict, and are dependent on a false sense of powerlessness and victimization. For those who have dared to voice dissent over their experience of the onerous weight of perfectionistic posturing, fundamentalism and their child: the culture of administrative abuse in the community, maintaining a sense of integrity requires *consistent* criticism of all forms of unethical behavior and speech, including the manner in which you have highjacked the need for openness and criticism, and used it to grind old axes, nurse personal grudges and provide comfort to those who would maintain a dysfunctional mindset and engage in high drama rather than legitimately expore new and innovative approaches to bringing about progressive change in the community. --------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- From: Eric D. Pierce[SMTP:PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu] Sent: Friday, March 13, 1998 9:15 AM To: talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: Fw: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.baha On 13 Mar 98 at 8:21, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > From: "Frederick Glaysher" > To: "talisman" > Subject: Re: Fw: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.baha > Date sent: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 08:21:46 -0500 > Thank you for your message of Bahai love and tolerance.... Isn't honesty the most primary "virtue"? At least I take the time to actually tell you what I think, even if it is unvarnished. If you think that cowing people with your dysfunctional bullshit will result in "love and tolerance", you're wrong. People will just write you off as a fruitcake, and try to avoid any contact with you. That isn't "tolerance", it's "out of sight, out of mind". Your behavior invites people (your supposed opponents) to perpetuate a cycle of dehumanizing, dysfunctional "in-group/out-group" behavior. You need to: ------------- TAKE RESPONSIBILTY FOR *STOPPING* *THE* *LIES* THAT EVERYONE BUYS INTO ABOUT THIS STUFF ------------- > May I repost this to alt.religion.bahai and bahai-faith@coollist.com? Absolutely, please send everything. That way your smug little group of people that have exiled themselves from the sane world will get their daily fix of self-righteousness. > I am sure many would benefit from your example.... How are they benefiting from *your* "example"? > > Frederick Glaysher Fred, your most recent post once again precisely illustrates many of the points that I criticised you about. eg, you exhibit antagonism, then get all irritated when other people get antagonistic with YOU. Also, if you don't want anybody to answer your question, then why did you ask it? Everyone knows that you have had hassles with Baha'i publication review. Everyone knows that you have had hassles with fundamentalists and narrow minded authoritarian administrators. SO WHAT. Because of those experiences, you have had an excuse to whine about things, but a ***LOT*** of people are getting sick of listening to your repetitive, picky whining OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER again. Actually, on a personal level, I am not at all antagonistic or intolerant to you. I think you have made good (if largely unoriginal) points about various problems in the Baha'i community, but I would really like to see you learn how to move on to actually dealing with "solutions", and not just keep whining. Have a spectacularly wonderful day, Eric D. Pierce Sacramento ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- From: Juan Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Friday, March 13, 1998 6:14 PM To: talisman@umich.edu Subject: 'Treatise on Leadership' pt. 9 A request was made that I repeat this posting. I remain glad to talk to the talismanians about the meaning of it all. The bottom line is the permanent separation of religion and state as a central principle of `Abdu'l-Baha that cannot be abrogated and that applies to all religions including most especially the Baha'i faith. cheers Juan ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 19:42:29 -0500 From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: "Treatise on Leadership," pt. 9 In this part of the "Treatise on Politics," `Abdu'l-Baha expands on the theme of the distinctness and the complementarity of state authority and religious authority, which he likens to "milk" and "honey." Obviously, these two elements cannot genuinely intermix and remain always separate, but they do go well together. He says that civilization requires laws and interconnectivity, and that these are provided by the state in some respects, and by religion in others. The revealed law (shari`ah) does some of this work, whereas the social order and civil law (qanun) provided by the state does the rest. Not only do religion and the state regulate behavior and establish essential networks among people, making human society possible, but they also come as cures for the maladies that beset the social order. Human societies in `Abdu'l-Baha's view are unstable and prone to falling prey to illnesses. Religion cures some types of illness, while the state cures others. In `Abdu'l-Baha's view, this differentiation between religion and state is not a distinction between what is godly and what is profane. Rather, *both* religion *and* the state are rooted ultimately in divine authority: "Thus, it is evident and has been established that the one who legislates ordinances, order, canon law and civil laws among humankind is God, the Mighty, the All-Knowing." God is depicted as the ultimate divine physician, and religion and state are scalpel and forceps, are tools whereby the ground of being mysteriously reconstitutes contingent being in a healthful manner. The key difference between prophetic law and civil law is that civil law is a matter of human reason, custom, and trial and error: "For this reason, European law is still imperfect and incomplete, still in the realm of change and alteration or repeal and amendment even though it is in reality the result of several thousand years of thinking by constitutional scholars and political philosophers. For the learned of the past had not discovered the harmfulness of some laws, whereas later scholars became aware of it. Therefore, some laws are amended, some are reaffirmed, and some are altered." For this reason, `Abdu'l-Baha rejects the proposition put forward in the European Enlightenment that revealed law may be safely jettisoned and humankind can depend solely on reason. The unalterable moral anchor of the revealed law in any particular dispensation plays an irreplaceable part in rendering human society orderly and healthy. On the other hand, he also rejects the proposition put forward by medieval theocrats and their 19th century descendants, that civil law and civil government should be swept away and replaced solely by religious institutions and law: "The revealed law is like the shining sun, and the civil government is like April clouds. These two radiant stars are like two points in a constellation above the horizon of the contingent world that shine down on the people of the world. The one illuminates the realm of spirit, and the other renders the arena of the world a rose garden." Religion and the state have two separate domains of social action. Religion concerns individual conscience, moral values and spirituality. The state concerns building an orderly and civilizationally advanced civil society. Neither must impede the other, neither must interfere in the other's affairs. They are like "two helping spirits in the ether, which aid one another." One cannot shore up the authority of the state by persecuting religion (as the Jacobins attempted to do in France during the Revolution, or as the Germans attempted to do under Bismarck during the Kulturkampf against Roman Catholicism). But the religious also cannot further religion's goals by attempting to overthrow or take the place of the state, as various theocratic movements had attempted to do. cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan --------------------------------------------------------- 'Abdu'l-Baha, "Treatise on Politics," pt. 9 By its nature, human society needs rules and relationships. For without these ties, security and protection cannot be had, nor can security or prosperity. In their absence, the sacred honor of human beings is nowhere in evidence, and the beloved of hopes remains invisible. The country and the clime would never be populated, nor would cities and villages be arranged and embellished. The world would not be well-ordered. Human beings would not have been able to develop and grow. Repose for the soul and tranquillity for the conscience would not have been easy to attain. The splendors of human beings would never have become manifest, nor would the candle of divine bestowal have been lighted. The essence of human beings would not have been to discover the reality of the contingent world nor to become aware of the universal wisdom of God. The fine arts would not have become widespread, nor would the great inventions have been discovered. The earth would not have become the observatory of the heavens, and the astonishing technologies and wonders of the mind and thought would not have come to pass. The east and west of the world could not associate with one another, nor would steam power be able to unite scattered regions. These rules and relationships, which form the foundation for the edifice of well-being and are as a shield of grace, are none other than the revealed law and a social order that can serve as a guarantor of prosperity, a force for purity, and a protector of human society. For society in general is like a single human being, insofar as both specific essences as well as different, contradictory and opposed elements coexist therein. Necessarily, it is susceptible to accidents and given to illnesses. When debilitating diseases befall it, a skillful physician is required to diagnose the malady, to examine its symptoms minutely, and to meditate upon the causes for it and the exigencies of nature. He will investigate principles, results, means and desiderata, and distinguish between particulars and universals. Therefore, he will think upon what the precipitating circumstances of this disease might be, and the etiology of the malady. He will treat and cure it. From all this it is known that the healing cure and the sufficient medicine arises from the same reality of nature, from constitution and illness. In the same way, society and the edifice of the world are susceptible to essential infirmities and are under the sway of a variety of illnesses. Order, laws, and divine ordinances are like a salvational remedy, and a cure for the people. Can a knowledgeable person imagine that he can, all by himself, identify the chronic illnesses of the world and come to know the variety of diseases that afflict contingent existence; that he can diagnose the maladies of the people of the earth or the painful condition of human society; or that he can uncover the hidden mysteries of ages and centuries? Could he discover the necessary relationships that derive from the realities of things, or legislate an order and laws that would constitute a quick cure or a complete remedy? There is not the slightest doubt that it is impossible. Thus, it is evident and has been established that the one who legislates ordinances, order, canon law and civil laws among humankind is God, the Mighty, the All-Knowing. For no one but the incomparable Lord is aware and informed of the realities of existence, the abstrusities of every being, the hidden mystery, and the recondite enigmas of eras and ages. For this reason, European law is still imperfect and incomplete, still in the realm of change and alteration or repeal and amendment even though it is in reality the result of several thousand years of thinking by constitutional scholars and political philosophers. For the learned of the past had not discovered the harmfulness of some laws, whereas later scholars became aware of it. Therefore, some laws are amended, some are reaffirmed, and some are altered. Indeed, let us go to the heart of the matter. The revealed law is like the spirit of life, and civil government is like the power of salvation. The revealed law is like the shining sun, and the civil government is like April clouds. These two radiant stars are like two points in a constellation above the horizon of the contingent world that shine down on the people of the world. The one illuminates the realm of spirit, and the other renders the arena of the world a rose garden. One causes the sea of conscience to throw up pearls, the other makes the earth into a heavenly paradise. One renders a heap of dirt the envy of the heavens, the other makes the mansion of darkness into the delight of the world of lights. The cloud of mercy arises and rains down the droplets of bounty, and the breaths of grace diffuse perfume and musk. The dawn breeze wafts and delivers a fragrance that nourishes the soul. On the earth the law of the highest heaven takes hold and the pleasing season of spring arrives. The divine spring-time bestows a wondrous freshness on the garden of the world, and the pre-existent sun of grandeur bestows a new radiance throughout the horizon of contingent being. Soiled dust becomes sandalwood and ambergris, and the blackened furnace becomes the rose bower of the All-Merciful and the garden of illumination. The point is this, that these two most great signs are like milk and honey, like two helping spirits in the ether, which aid one another. Thus, disregard for the one is a betrayal of the other, and slighting obedience to one is rebellion against the other. ---------- From: Juan Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Friday, March 13, 1998 7:45 PM To: talisman@umich.edu Subject: theocracy Dear Dean: No, but I do think it is at variance with the writings of David Hoffman. :-) In all seriousness, there is nothing in Shoghi Effendi's *writings* requiring or predicting a theocracy or merging of church and state. What is envisaged is that the state will honor basic religious laws and principles, and will consult with Baha'i institutions about their ethical implications for civil legislation and executive decision-making. But the civil state must, according to `Abdu'l-Baha, retain its own autonomy in the sphere of governmental implementation. There are other visions of the future in pilgrim's notes *attributed* to Shoghi Effendi. But they are not supposed to have authority in Baha'i law (Baha'u'llah said that hadiths had absolutely ruined Islam). In fact, unreliable pilgrim's notes fathered on Shoghi Effendi have come to over-rule the clear text of `Abdu'l-Baha's 'Treatise on leadership' (which hasn't even been published for 70 years and was never translated). In the meantime, you can buy a set of tapes on theocracy by David Hoffman for only $60 from the Baha'i publishing trust. cheers Juan At 05:35 PM 3/13/98 -0500, you wrote: >Juan: >Do you think the permanent separation of religion and state as a central >principle of `Abdu'l-Baha is at variance with any of the writings of Shoghi >Effendi? >Dean > >At 05:14 PM 3/13/98 -0500, you wrote: > >>I remain glad to talk to the talismanians about the meaning of it all. The >>bottom line is the permanent separation of religion and state as a central >>principle of `Abdu'l-Baha that cannot be abrogated and that applies to all >>religions including most especially the Baha'i faith. >> > > >**************************************************************************** > Verily, He is the Merciful, the Compassionate. Praise be to God, the >Lord of all the worlds. > - Baha'u'llah >**************************************************************************** > > > > > ---------- From: Bill Garlington[SMTP:wilgar@sirius.com] Sent: Sunday, March 15, 1998 1:50 AM To: H-BAHAI@H-NET.MSU.EDU Subject: Baha'u'llah and Hinduism: Commentary, pt. 1 Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 00:41:36 -0500 From: Juan Cole Subject: Baha'u'llah and Hinduism: Commentary, pt. 1 By popular request, I will begin now serializing Baha'u'llah's dialogue on Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, and world religions with Manakji Sahib via Mirza Abu'l-Fadl, which must have occurred between 1878 and 1882. I will intersperse the commentary with the relevant translated text and gradually work through both. Some of you will have seen parts or all of this work, though note that the commentary has been revised, and to those I apologize for the use of bandwidth. However, it is my impression that many here have not seen these works, and anyway, perhaps our resident Hinduism experts such as Bill Garlington, Paul Johnson, John Keegan and others will contribute to the thread in such a way as to make it worthwhile reprising this important and little-known text. cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan --------------------------------- Juan Cole: On Hinduism and Zoroastrianism, pt. 1 It is well known that Baha'u'llah responded to the concerns of, and recognized the validity of the religions of Zoroastrians, Jews, Christians and Muslims. The relationship of the Baha'i Faith to the Eastern traditions of Hinduism and Buddhism is more complex, primarily, I would suggest, because the Near Eastern religions constitute a "family" of theological language-games that have interacted with one another intensively through history, whereas the South Asian traditions are quite different. Still, Baha'u'llah's son and successor, `Abdu'l-Baha (1844-1921), recognized that the Hindu figure Krishna was a `prophet,' and said that the Buddha was a major Manifestation of the Eternal Truth. The Baha'i belief that all the great religions of the world are grounded in the same Unknowable Essence has led Baha'is to recognize Hinduism and Buddhism as true and valid expressions of humankind's yearning for the Absolute Truth, and to affirm them as predecessor traditions to the universal religion that Baha'is wish to implement as a precondition for world unity. One Baha'i scholar, Moojan Momen, has written a book aimed at showing some similarities between Baha'i and Hindu beliefs, and at suggesting ways in which obvious theological conflicts between the two might be resolved. It has not been widely recognized, however, that Baha'u'llah himself was familiar with Hinduism and that he responded to questions about Hinduism (and Zoroastrianism) put to him by the Zoroastrian agent in Iran, Manakji Limji Hataria (1813-1890). These questions and Baha'u'llah's replies are contained in a letter sent to one of Baha'u'llah's major disciples, Mirza Abu'l-Fadl Gulpaygani (1844-1914). The subjects discussed center on comparative religions, and Manakji repeatedly outlines what he understands to be Hindu doctrines and asks for Baha'u'llah's responses to them. I should say at the outset that these responses tended to be oblique, with much remaining implicit, but that they do clearly constitute a dialogue of Baha'u'llah with Hinduism, as well as with the other traditions covered. Here I am most interested in the former. The letter to Mirza Abu'l-Fadl, containing asides by Baha'u'llah's amanuensis, Mirza Aqa Jan Khadimu'llah, was printed in volume seven of the anthology, The Heavenly Repast (Ma'idih-'i Asmani) in 1972 or 1973 by the Iranian Baha'i scholar, `Abdu'l-Hamid Ishraq-Khavari. The tablet brings to the fore questions of what Baha'u'llah means by the unity of the world religions, and how he approaches this subject theologically and philosophically. ---------- From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 1998 2:30 AM To: H-BAHAI@H-NET.MSU.EDU Subject: Baha'u'llah on Hinduism, pt. 2 Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 00:03:45 -0500 From: Juan Cole Subject: Baha'u'llah on Hinduism, pt. 2 Cole, "Baha'u'llah on Hinduism," pt. 2 Earlier I employed the term "theological language-games," and did so quite deliberately. I see a strong resemblance between Baha'u'llah's way of speaking about the diverse theologies of previous religions and the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein's conception of "language games." Manakji's questions about Hinduism are posed as a general problem of how to understand the varying doctrines and truth-claims of the great world religions, and this, too, is a question Baha'u'llah addresses here. Hinduism, India and Nineteenth-Century Iranian Culture Zoroastrianism and Hinduism ultimately have a common origin in the religious ideas and myths of the Aryan or Indo-European peoples who gradually spread into eastern Iran at some unknown time (possibly as early as the third millennium B.C.) and then into India (around 1200 B.C.) and western Iran (after 1000 B.C.). Among the eastern, cow-herding Iranians of Khurasan and Sistan, a prophet arose named Zarathustra (Zoroaster to the Greeks) who authored the Gathas, hymns in an Old Persian that is close to Sanskrit. His birth date is impossible to know, and specialists have argued for such disparate centuries as 1200 B.C. and 600 B.C. Zoroaster reformed the polytheistic Indo-Iranian religion, preaching one, ultimately triumphant good God who was engaged in a struggle with a doomed evil god for supremacy in the cosmos. Human beings were in the middle of the struggle and were obligated to enlist in the ranks of the good God by speaking only the truth, thinking good thoughts, and doing good deeds. Many Zoroastrian ideas, such as its proto-monotheism, ethical precepts, belief in resurrection of the body, and the coming of a future prophet-savior, became influential among other Near Eastern religions. Zoroastrianism gradually became the majority religion in Iran, and was for the most part the state religion of the Sasanid dynasty (A.D. 224-636). The advent of Islam in Iran from the seventh century displaced Zoroastrianism; many priestly and noble families fled to Gujarat in India, becoming known as Parsis, and over the next four centuries most Zoroastrians in Iran became Muslims, on the whole voluntarily. Most Muslim jurisprudents dismissed Zoroastrians as fire-worshippers and dualists, refusing to recognize them as fellow monotheists, or their prophet as a messenger of God. A small Zoroastrian community survived, especially around Yazd. In the nineteenth century, with the influence on Iran of European ideas about nationalism, many Iranian modernist intellectuals grew interested in the religion of their ancient past, and some even learned the Middle Persian or Pahlavi in which most of the commentaries on the ancient scriptures were written. Hinduism is not so much a single religion as a vast set of religious and cultural practices pursued in India, most of them rooted in texts produced around 1200-500 BC called the Vedas, the scriptures of the invading Aryan people who probably arrived in the subcontinent at the beginning of that period. The early gods and rituals of the Vedas were later added to. Devotion grew up to the fabled prince Rama or Ram, with his loyal wife Sita and dedicated helper, the monkey-god Hanuman, as chronicled in the huge epic, the Ramayana. Important philosophical schools were created, such as that embodied in the pantheistic Upanishads and the Yoga schools. Around 200 BC an anonymous sage composed the beautiful Bhagavad-Gita, centering on the teachings of the divine Krishna (who is supposed to have been a contemporary of Solomon's in the 900's BC). Although Hinduism went into a stark decline in India with the rise of the religion of the Buddha (563-483 BC), it experienced a widespread revival in the early medieval period, and gradually supplanted Buddhism in the land of its birth as well as surviving the immense impact of Islam from the eighth century onward. From about AD 1000 the most important Muslim conquerors derived from the Central Asian lands of what we would now call Iran, Afghanistan and Uzbekistan. Even though many of the invaders were Turkic, the court language they had adopted was Persian, and they introduced it into India as a lingua franca. Persian, an Indo-European language, had the advantage of being linguistically close to the Indian languages that had evolved from Sanskrit (such as Hindi), and so formed a useful medium of communication with their Hindu subjects for the Muslim states of the Delhi Sultanate, the Lodis, and the Mughals. Persian was to Muslim-ruled northern India, circa 1200-1835, what Latin was to medieval Europe. Not only was Baha'u'llah familiar with Hinduism, but he clearly expected that his nineteenth-century, literate, Persian-speaking audience would be, as well. A substantial literature on Hinduism existed in Arabic and Persian, especially the latter given that Persian was the primary literary and governmental language of Muslim-ruled India between the thirteenth and the nineteenth centuries, and continued to be vital in the subcontinent during Baha'u'llah's own lifetime. The great medieval Iranian savant Abu Rayhan Biruni (973-1048) authored, around AD 1030, a wide-ranging description of Hinduism that became a classic. Medieval and early modern Muslim political ascendancy in North India led to a vast amount of translation from Sanskrit sources into Persian. Indeed, given the very large number of Hindu scribes and others fluent in Persian during this period, and the much smaller number of learned Brahmins with mastery of Sanskrit, it is likely that the majority of literate North Indian Hindus themselves read their holy books in Persian during Mughal times (1525-1803). The number of Muslim scholars of Persian who collaborated with Hindu pandits in making Sanskrit works available in that language was considerable. Nizamu'd-Din Panipati rendered the widely influential Yoga Vasistha into Persian late in the sixteenth century at the behest of the then crown prince Jahangir (later a Mughal emperor). The Mughal prince Dara Shikuh (1615-1659) himself did much to expound Hindu tenets in Persian, as well as translating important works such as the Upanishads. Since many Hindus also wrote in or translated into Persian, very large numbers of such manuscripts circulated among the literate classes, and many of these books demonstrably reached Iran. Persian descriptions of Hinduism, though varying in quality, were also quite numerous. An example of this literature is the anonymous School of Religions (Dabistan-i Madhahib), which examines Zoroastrianism, Hinduism and both branches of Islam at some length, and includes a brief description of Christianity. The author was probably a Zoroastrian of Iranian extraction, brought up in Patna, North India. From the School of Religions, which was lithographed at least three times in the nineteenth century, a Persian-speaking reader could learn of the four ages (sing. yuga) into which Hindus divided the history of the current universe, the first of which lasted about 1.7 million years and the last of which (our own) will endure for 400,000 years. Such a cycle, over four million years long, itself formed a small part of mega-cycles, each of them a day in the life of the god Brahma. The author also described the Hindu belief in an ultimate Lord or God beyond the gods, called Visnu, and His self-manifestation in a series of ten avatars. He reports that "They therefore assert, that for the purpose of satisfying the wishes of his faithful servants, and tranquillizing their minds, he has vouchsafed to manifest himself in this abode, which manifestations they call an Avatar and hold this to be no degradation to his essence . . . they have said, `Avatars are rays issuing from Vishnu's essence.' But these sectaries do not mean that the identical spirit of Ram, on the dissolution of its connection with his body, becomes attached to the body of Krishna." to be continued . . . ---------- From: Juan Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 1998 6:56 PM To: Loni BramsonLerche Cc: talisman@umich.edu; irfan1@umich.edu Subject: Re: Russia and Germany I am grateful, as always, for solid information. However, Dr. Bramson-Lerche has, no doubt without meaning to, mischaracterized my original postings. I said that there are those in the German government who are suspicious of the Baha'i faith, just as they are suspicious of Scientology. I also said that the Baha'i faith was not included among the four official religions recognized in Russia, and that in the debate over which religions should be recognized, the Baha'i faith had been criticized in the Russian press as a "hierarchical" and "authoritarian" organization. I saw the allegations in news reports at Clarinet but these are not archived so I can't look them up. Under the new Russian law, religions that are not officially recognized may continue to operate, but their precise status and permitted activities are a matter for negotiation with local authorities rather than being an automatic right. I stand by both my previous statements. And let me express, as Naw Ruz approaches, my warmest wishes to my Baha'i friends for a joyous and success-filled new year, and for the attainment in their religion of the true Baha'i values of universal love, tolerance, unity, and individual God-given rights--such as will remove the doubts raised about their organization in democratic countries. cheers Juan ---------- From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 1998 7:47 PM To: H-BAHAI@H-NET.MSU.EDU Subject: revealed legislation Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 18:26:29 -0500 From: Juan Cole Subject: revealed legislation Dear Iskandar: Many, many thanks for providing this very important and useful citation. I'd like to note for anyone who is listening that it would be helpful if books like Muntakhabati were indexed so that we could find such passages when needed more easily. For those who do not have access to vol. 1 of Muntakhabati, the passage reads: dar amr-i mubarak jami`-i in abvab masdud ast zira marja`-i makhsus ta`yin shudih ast kih an marja` makhsus-i hallal-i jami`-i mushkilat ast va dafi`-i jami`-i ikhtilaf va hamchunin bayt-i `adl-i `umumi dafi`-i jami`-i ikhtilaf ast. Anchih bayt-i `adl biguyad qabul va har nafsi mukhalifat nimayad mardud vali hanuz bayt-i `adl-i `umumi kih sha:ri` ast ta'sis nashudih ast . Literally, I would translate this passage thusly: "In the blessed Cause, all these doors are closed, since a specific source [of authority=`Abdu'l-Baha and the guardians] has been appointed, who is especially charged with resolving difficulties and preventing all strife. Also, the general house of justice prevents strife. Whatever the house of justice says is to be acepted, and anyone who rises in opposition is rejected. But the general house of justice, which is a sha:ri`/legislator, has not yet been established." I am still not convinced that `Abdu'l-Baha meant to say that the house of justice may legislate shari`ah, a word that in Arabic and Persian usually means revealed (manzul or munazzal) law. I know that `Abdu'l-Baha made a distinction between the revelation (tanzi:l) received by the Manifestation of God and the inspiration (ilha:m) received by himself, and if `Abdu'l-Baha did not receive revelation, then it is hard to see how it could be said that the house of justice does. The use of the word sha:ri`, which I admit does startle and intrigue me, is not, alas, decisive here. You could say, for instance, that someone was sha:ri`-i qanun, a legislator of canon law or civil law. I wonder if someone can further resolve this issue by finding any instance where `Abdu'l-Baha uses the word shari`ah to refer to the sort of law the house of justice makes. Certainly in the Will and Testament, he refers to its laws only as qanun and hukm, not shari`ah. I have not had time to get to Dehkhoda on the various meanings of tashri`, which `Abdu'l-Baha used in the "Treatise on Politics" to mean jurisprudential reasoning. Iskandar: please feel free to share. Does this latter meaning, by the way, appear there? I am most grateful to you for doing the spadework to advance this discussion, at the end of which I hope we all may attain better understanding of technical terms in the Baha'i scriptures. cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan ---------- From: Juan Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Friday, March 20, 1998 1:40 PM To: Dean Betts Cc: Mark A. Foster; talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: Risali-yi Siyasiyyih vs. David Hoffman? Dear Dean: Unfortunately, there is another way to read this. Chance got away with disagreeing with Hoffman only because he was also a member of the house of justice, and thus couldn't easily be touched. Since Chance is no longer on the uhj, and Hoffman's allies have since then managed to promote onto that body former counselors who agree with Hoffman, the Hoffman stance has now become a new orthodoxy in Haifa. Baha'i intellectuals who have consistently posted messages to internet groups disputing the theocracy thesis have been brutally silenced, and I believe this was one of the reasons Michael McKenny was tossed out of the Baha'i faith. Ironically, of course, `Abdu'l-Baha himself was strongly anti-theocracy. cheers Juan At 06:27 AM 3/20/98 -0500, Dean Betts wrote: >Thanks, Mark. I would love to have seen the discussion between Chance and >Hoffman referenced below. Who says we can't have disagreement within the Faith? > ---------- From: Bill Garlington[SMTP:wilgar@sirius.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 1998 9:59 AM To: H-BAHAI@H-NET.MSU.EDU Subject: Baha'u'llah on Hinduism, pt. 3 Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 00:32:43 -0500 =46rom: Juan Cole Subject: Baha'u'llah on Hinduism, pt. 3 Many thanks to Todd Lawson, Paul Dodenhoff, Bill Garlington and Nima Hazini for their comments on pt. 2. I agree entirely that the popular, Bhakti-devotional side of Hinduism needs more acknowledgment in my introduction. And I am especially grateful to Todd for bringing up the importance of the Sufi idea of 'the unity of being' and the way it resonated in India with Hindu ideas of pantheism or panentheism. And to Nima, I say that some of what is reported about the 17th century Iranian philosopher and traveller in India, Mir Findiriski, especially his vegetarianism, sounds more like Hindu than Zoroastrian influence. If there are requests, especially after this coming weekend, I would be glad to post more on Mir Findiriski, whom Baha'u'llah mentions in the Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, and who, I think, was an important influence on him. I have his edition of the Laghu Yoga Vasistha in the Harvard dissertation Nima mentioned, as well as a recently published selection of his poetry. Herewith, I continue with my introduction to the subject of Baha'u'llah's views on Hinduism in his dialogue with Manakji Sahib. -------------------- Cole, "Baha'u'llah on Hinduism," pt. 3 The vast Persian literature on India was also widely read in Iran itself. Mansoureh Ettehadieh Nizam-Mafi has demonstrated that of the 48,439 manuscripts calligraphed in the Qajar period according to the bibliographer Munzavi, 1,538 (comprising 309 distinct titles) consisted of histories of India. Of these, 751 were written prior to the late eighteenth century and subsequently recopied, and 787 were authored during the Qajar era. Only 1,986 manuscripts were produced on Iranian history in this period. Thus, about 44 percent of all history manuscripts produced in Iran during the Qajar era were about India! And we have not considered the many other categories of manuscripts that might treat Hinduism extensively, including the History of Religions, Legends and Stories, and Mysticism. Moreover, in the nineteenth century at least 912 Persian books were printed in India, many of them dealing with Indian and Hindu themes, compared with 2,569 books printed in all of Iran. All of this is to say that India bulked large in the educated Iranian imagination in the nineteenth century, and knowledge of it and Hinduism was quite common among readers. This general phenomenon can be witnessed in Babi-Baha'i circles, as well. Two of the major Babi leaders, Sayyid Hindi and Sayyid Sa`id Basir, were from India. The great Baha'i historian Asadu=EDllah Fadil Mazandarani says of Sayyid Hindi that: "he was a man who engaged in spiritual discipline and had arrived at exalted spiritual stations. He was learned in the sciences of the Muslims and the Hindus, as well as other peoples and communities. He produced sermons, prayers and verses. He considered himself to be in contact with the inner mystery of the most high Lord and to be inspired by the inspirations of the realm above. He applied wondrous [Babi] disciplines and ideas, especially those pertaining to raj`at [the return of personality attributes], to the philosophy of the Hindus, and he promulgated the doctrine of reincarnation." Mazandarani adds that Sayyid Hindi was close to Baha=EDu=EDllah. Thus, a qu= ite wide-ranging importation of Hindu ideas into Babism had been effected in the late 1840s and early 1850s, though these were mediated by South Asian Sufism, and Baha=EDu=EDllah certainly was intimately aware of Sayyid Hindi= =EDs writings. In one composite manuscript of Babi and Baha'i material that came into British Orientalist E.G. Browne's possession, a "Persian account of the Indian Saint Ramchand" is sandwiched among works by `Abdu'l-Baha and Mirza Abu'l-Fadl Gulpaygani, and other Babi and Baha'i writers, indicating an interest in Hinduism among adherents of these movements. The Baha'i poet and constitutionalist, Shaykhu'r-Ra'is, in a poem about the underlying unity of the religions, wrote, "The Hindu came walking gracefully,/ Chanting, `Ram, Ram,'/ From this saying the intent emerged:/ "There is no god but God.'" Further, Baha=EDu=EDllah spent a little over a year at a Khalidi Naqshbandi convent in Sulaymaniyyah (now Iraqi Kurdistan) in the mid-1850s. The Khalidis were a branch of the Mujaddidi Naqshbandi order based in Delhi, and the former=EDs founder, Mawlana Khalid Shahrizuri, had studied in India with Shah `Abdu=EDl-`Aziz. The Mujaddidis, such as Mirza Mazhar Jan-i Janan and Shah `Abdu=EDl-`Aziz, accepted Hinduism as a true religion and saw its avatars as prophets in the Islamic sense. We cannot be sure that Baha=EDu=EDllah discussed Hinduism with his Naqshbandi friends, but here is another point at which he intersected with a local Muslim group sympathetic to aspects of Hinduism. That Baha'u'llah himself was familiar with at least some of the Persian literature on Hinduism is indisputable. At one point he answers a questioner who asked about the paucity of records about human history before Adam, and here Baha'u'llah defends a "long chronology" wherein the world is of very great antiquity. He explains, "among existing historical records differences are to be found, and each of the various peoples of the world hath its own account of the age of the earth and of its history. Some trace their history as far back as eight thousand years, others as far as twelve thousand years. To any one that hath read the book of Juk it is clear and evident how much the accounts given by the various books have differed." The "book of Juk" could also be transliterated as the "book of Jug," a reference to the Persian translation of the Yoga Vasistha (Jug-Basisht), a work on Hindu mysticism probably written in the thirteenth century of the Common Era. Cast in the form of a dialogue purportedly between the Vedic sage Vasistha and his pupil Rama, this work shows influences of Vedanta, Yoga and even Mahayana Buddhism. As noted above, Nizamu'd-Din Panipati carried out a translation of this book in the late 1500s. The Safavid-era Iranian mystic Mir Findiriski (d. 1641) selected and commented on portions of Panipati's rendering of the Yoga Vasistha. Mir Findiriski gained a reputation at the court of Shah `Abbas (r. 1588-1629) at early seventeenth-century Isfahan for asceticism, and he is said to have become, after his journeys in India, a vegetarian and an adorer of the sun who refused to go on pilgrimage to Mecca lest he be forced to sacrifice sheep. The Yoga Vasistha appears to have been a popular work among those with Indo-Persian interests from about 1600 onward. It contains passages discussing the untold cycles of time in which Hindus believed, the multiplicity of universes, and the end of each in a cosmic night. The long-lived sage, Bhusunda, is depicted as recalling a succession of 11,000-year epochs in the earth's history before the advent of humans, when lava, forests, or demons predominated. He adds, "During my lifetime I have seen the appearance and disappearance of countless Manu[s] (the progenitor of the human race). At one time the world was devoid of the gods and demons, but was one radiant cosmic egg. At another time the earth was populated by brahmana (members of the priest class) who were addicted to alcohol, sudra (servant class) who ridiculed the gods, and polyandrous women. I also remember another epoch when the earth was covered with forests, when the ocean could not even be imagined, and when human beings were spontaneously created." Baha'u'llah's wording makes it clear that he was familiar with the Yoga Vasistha in its Persian rendering, and it is remarkable that he felt no need to explain the reference to his readers, suggesting again that many literate Persian-speaking intellectuals read this work as late as the nineteenth century. ---------- From: Bill Garlington[SMTP:wilgar@sirius.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 1998 9:40 PM To: H-BAHAI@H-NET.MSU.EDU Subject: world religions and numbers Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 11:42:51 -0500 From: Juan Cole Subject: world religions and numbers With regard to Stephen Friberg's posting on world religions, just a couple of comments and questions: 1) What do *you* think the criteria for world religions are? Does Sikhism fit your criteria? Why or why not? Does the Unification Church? Why or why not? 2) "Independence" is not as straightforward as you make it out. Sikhs now reject identification as Hindus, but I'm not sure this would have been so universally true in earlier centuries. Ahmadis insist they are Muslims, but they have been thrown out of Islam by the Pakistan government, the Islamic Conference Organization, the Saudi government (which will not allow them to come on pilgrimage if they identify themselves as Ahmadis), etc. They have their own prophet, their own caliph and governing structure, a modernist ideology, etc. By a Weberian definition, they are an independent world religion, regardless of their unrequited desire to remain within the general rubric of Islam. From a Weberian point of view, the Mormons are certainly a world religion in their own right, with distinctive rituals, history, scriptures, etc. That they locate themselves within Christianity is a secondary matter. And after all many Baha'is when proselytizing represent their religion as 'the true Christianity' or 'the true Islam.' When I arrived in Pakistan in 1981 the local Baha'is drew me aside and gave me strict instructions that the faith should be represented as a form of Islam. So the pronouncements of the central authorities far away about independence don't always translate into genuine independence at the local level (and the vast majority of Indian 'Baha'is' are actually Hindus who have added an avatar to the mantel piece). 3) There are not 6 million Baha'is in the world. In the late 1980s the Baha'i authorities were claiming 5 million, as is apparent in the statistics they provided the Britannica World Book. Since 1988 world-wide Baha'i membership has been completely stagnant. In all that time only 200,000 declaration cards have been signed world-wide (many in Eastern Europe), a number that is more than offset by deaths, withdrawals and disfellowshipings. So the Baha'is simply have not added a million additional members in the past decade, and there are still only at most 5 million, in fact probably less. The supposed '5 million' includes at least 60,000 U.S. Baha'is for whom the authorities no longer have valid addresses or for other reasons are likely no longer to be Baha'is. It includes a supposed 300,000 Baha'is in Iran. But in 1978 there were only 90,000 registered Baha'is in Iran, and the rest were simply sympathizers. 30,000 have emigrated under horrific pressure, and these are most likely to have been from the registered group. There have been thousands of apostasies reported in Iranian newspapers, of Baha'is forced to adopt Islam. Of the original 90,000, it may well be that only 50,000 are left. And the sympathizers, who had neglected event to formally declare, are unlikely for the most part to remain highly identified with the Baha'i faith, still less so their children. The 'five million' includes also 2 million Indian 'Baha'is,' a good 3/4s of which can be discounted as having signed up thinking they were joining a club. So the original '5 million' figure is extremely soft. My guess is that it is closer to 2-3 million (including children--an average of 10,000-15,000 Baha'is in each of the approximately 180 countries of the world). Since we know that the membership numbers in places like Scotland and Holland are only a few hundred; and that in Japan they are only a couple thousand; and since the Baha'i faith is widely banned in the populous Muslim world; there would have to be *a lot* of countries where the numbers were substantially higher than 15,000 to make up the average. I'm not in fact sure that there are. cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan ---------- From: Juan Cole[SMTP:jrcole@UMICH.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 1998 12:36 PM To: H-BAHAI@H-NET.MSU.EDU Subject: Re: world religions and numbers From: "Frederick Glaysher" Subject: Re: world religions and numbers Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 06:35:46 -0500 >(and the vast majority of Indian 'Baha'is' are actually Hindus who >have added an avatar to the mantel piece). . . The 'five million' includes >also 2 million Indian 'Baha'is,' a good 3/4s of which can be discounted as >having signed up thinking they were joining a club Most Western Bahais are completely unaware of the multiplicity of religious views in India. Hence, the numbers sound good.... The reality is a culture where, as the Upanishads put it, "three hundred and three, and three thousand and three gods," all of whom are "One" exist and are revered and worshipped.... That for a few the Bahai Faith has joined the pantheon of shrines they visit is not necessarily convincing.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com ---------- From: Juan Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Friday, April 03, 1998 1:37 AM To: Mark A. Foster Cc: talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: Baha'u'llah and Hinduism pt. 2 Dear Mark: `Abdu'l-Baha's mention of Krishna in *Paris Talks* as a prophet is consistent with what he wrote with his own pen. In Compilation of Compilations, vol. 1, p. 15, we find the following from the writings of `Abdu'l-Baha: "Blessed souls whether Moses, Jesus, Zoroaster, Krishna, Buddha, Confucius, or Muhammad were the cause of the illumination of the world of humanity. How can we deny such irrefutable proof? How can we be blind to such light?..." Now, all the Western prophets mentioned here were 'Prophets endowed with Constancy,' or Major Manifestations of God (Moses, Zoroaster, Jesus and Muhammad) who contributed to the founding of civilizations. Moreover, `Abdu'l-Baha so categorizes the Buddha in Some Answered Questions. So why would he make a list of 5 Prophets endowed with Constancy and arbitrarily include two figures (Krishna and Confucius) whom he did not consider to have that station? Isn't it more likely that he is listing those who constituted in his mind the Seven Most Prominent Manifestations in world history during and since the Axial Age? To my knowledge neither Baha'u'llah nor `Abdu'l-Baha referred to Krishna as 'the' or 'a' founder of 'Hinduism' nor do they even so much as mention the Bhagavad Gita. All one can infer from what they say is that they thought someone named Krishna had been a major Manifestation of God in India. If one does not insist on taking religious statements literally or legalistically, their identification of Krishna as a Manifestation of God is certainly in consonance with the Vaisnava Hindu tradition as it developed from 400-200 BC in the wake of the composition and spread in popularity of the Gita. cheers Juan ---------- From: Bill Garlington[SMTP:wilgar@sirius.com] Sent: Friday, April 03, 1998 10:00 AM To: H-BAHAI@H-NET.MSU.EDU Subject: Krishna Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 00:45:16 -0500 From: Juan Cole Subject: Krishna Dear Mark: `Abdu'l-Baha's mention of Krishna in *Paris Talks* as a prophet is consistent with what he wrote with his own pen. In Compilation of Compilations, vol. 1, p. 15, we find the following from the writings of `Abdu'l-Baha: "Blessed souls whether Moses, Jesus, Zoroaster, Krishna, Buddha, Confucius, or Muhammad were the cause of the illumination of the world of humanity. How can we deny such irrefutable proof? How can we be blind to such light?..." Now, all the Western prophets mentioned here were 'Prophets endowed with Constancy,' or Major Manifestations of God (Moses, Zoroaster, Jesus and Muhammad) who contributed to the founding of civilizations. Moreover, `Abdu'l-Baha so categorizes the Buddha in Some Answered Questions. So why would he make a list of 5 Prophets endowed with Constancy and arbitrarily include two figures (Krishna and Confucius) whom he did not consider to have that station? Isn't it more likely that he is listing those who constituted in his mind the Seven Most Prominent Manifestations in world history during and since the Axial Age? To my knowledge neither Baha'u'llah nor `Abdu'l-Baha referred to Krishna as 'the' or 'a' founder of 'Hinduism' nor do they even so much as mention the Bhagavad Gita. All one can infer from what they say is that they thought someone named Krishna had been a major Manifestation of God in India. If one does not insist on taking religious statements literally or legalistically, their identification of Krishna as a Manifestation of God is certainly in consonance with the Vaisnava Hindu tradition as it developed from 400-200 BC in the wake of the composition and spread in popularity of the Gita. cheers Juan ---------- From: Bill Garlington[SMTP:wilgar@sirius.com] Sent: Monday, April 06, 1998 8:56 AM To: H-BAHAI@H-NET.MSU.EDU Subject: Baha'u'llah and Hinduism, pt. 5 Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 01:18:01 -0400 From: Juan Cole Subject: Baha'u'llah and Hinduism, pt. 5 I continue with my paper on the dialogue about world religions between Manakji and Baha'u'llah. In the next intallment I will begin posting the Tablet itself for those of you who haven't seen it. cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan ------------------ Manakji's Questions Let us turn now to the correspondence between Manakji Limji Hataria and Baha'u'llah. Manakji was a Parsi, or Indian Zoroastrian, of the nineteenth century, born near Surat in northwestern India. From the age of fifteen he earned his own way, becoming a commercial agent, and he came to Iran in 1854 via the Gulf and Iraq. He met Baha'u'llah in Baghdad at that time. In Yazd, Kirman and Tehran he labored to restore the houses of worship of the Zoroastrians, to ameliorate the conditions of that people, and to found schools. In 1864, Manakji went back to India, and there he reported on the straitened conditions of Zoroastrians in Iran to his co-religionists. In British India, where Bombay spun a web of international commerce, the Zoroastrians had emerged as a wealthy community of merchants, agents, go-betweens and investors, enjoying religious freedom. Manakji Sahib (`Sahib' being an Indian honorific) convinced the Parsis to send him back to Tehran as their philanthropical agent. With Bombay monies, he and his wife opened three schools in Tehran, but they found they needed to hire outsiders as teachers. Mirza Abu'l-Fadl Gulpaygani, trained as a Shi`ite clergyman, lost his job as seminary teacher when he became a Baha'i in 1876, and took on employment from 1877-1882 as a teacher at Manakji's school and as the agent's secretary. It seems likely that the correspondence between Manakji and Baha'u'llah occurred sometime during this period. Another, shorter letter of Baha'u'llah to Manakji in pure Persian is better known and was even translated into English early in the twentieth century. Manakji, a great collector of Persian manuscripts, commissioned and edited a major chronicle of the Babi period, Mirza Husayn Hamadani's New History of the Bab (Tarikh-i Jadid), which was completed around 1882. I will here present a commentary on the exchange between Baha'u'llah and Manakji, in hopes of understanding the codes of discourse being employed. Baha'u'llah signals at the very beginning that he felt it unwise to reply in a straightforward manner to some of the Parsi agent's direct questions, since he would have necessarily been forced openly to make pronouncements at variance with the doctrines held by the Shi`ite clergy in Iran. This issue arose because Baha'u'llah was writing to someone outside the Baha'i community, someone whose correspondence might be read by employees (including Shi`ites) were the letter left carelessly on a desktop. Major points of interest are Baha'u'llah's attitudes to Zoroastrianism and Hinduism. He was clearly well-versed in the former, like some other nineteenth-century Iranian thinkers who looked upon the pre-Islamic religious heritage of Iran as a source of glory to be recovered. Many Iranians were fired by nineteenth-century archeological discoveries and decipherments concerning the ancient Achaemenids, Iranian rulers of most of the civilized world in the two centuries before the rise of Alexander the Great. In his first question, Manakji outlines three possible types of sacred history, and asks Baha'u'llah which he prefers. The first type is the Zoroastrian, wherein, he says, it is maintained that there were altogether twenty-eight prophets, including Zoroaster himself. These prophets, he says, all affirmed the same religion, and none arose to abrogate the essential laws and customs of the community. Manakji derives this view of his tradition largely from the apocryphal Dasatir, a Sufi-influenced work of Zoroastrian mysticism probably produced in the seventeenth century C.E., wherein sacred history started with a very ancient figure named Mahabad, who was succeeded by other holy figures not mentioned in the ancient Zoroastrian scriptures. Many Parsis adhered to such a chronology in Manakji's own day. This schema involves many prophets but one unchanging Law. In contrast, he says, Hindus conceive holy history in quite different terms. Manakji continues, "several of the bearers of a revelation to the Hindus said, `I am God. All creatures must enter under My authority. When discord and alienation afflict them, I shall advent myself and efface it'" (p. 149). Without naming either, Manakji has here paraphrased for Baha'u'llah the words of Krishna in the Bhagavad-Gita: "Though myself unborn, undying, the lord of creatures, I fashion nature, which is mine, and I come into being through my own magic. Whenever sacred duty decays and chaos prevails, then, I create myself, Arjuna. To protect men of virtue and destroy men who do evil, to set the standard of sacred duty, I appear in age after age." These Hindu avatars, Manakji explains, say that within them is the same soul that animated their predecessors. Further, they bring a new law. Manakji makes an analogy between the Hindu schema (as he understands it) and that of the Judeo-Christian tradition, wherein Jesus abrogated the laws of Moses, who had in turn brought new laws not revealed in the time of Abraham. In regard to history, then, the Hindu cycle of successive avatars and the Christian belief in consecutive patriarchs and prophets leading up to the advent of Christ, have in common a doctrine that religious law can be changed by a new messenger of God. Manakji does not say so, but obviously Hinduism differs from the Christian tradition in having a more cyclical conception of time, as opposed to the Near Eastern idea of time as linear. Still, both of these views of sacred history contrast to Manakji's version of Zoroastrianism in accepting the possibility that aspects of divine legislation may be changed or abrogated over time. Finally, he says, an Arabian Prophet came, who rejected all the previous revelations and insisted that the law he legislated be followed. Manakji is here referring to the Prophet Muhammad and to Islam, though he errs in suggesting that Muhammad did not accept previous prophets. This statement appears odd, but Manakji was probably reasoning from what Muslim informants told him. Many Muslims after the earliest period were, it is true, not very comfortable with their Judeo-Christian heritage. As a result, they developed a doctrine of the corruption of previous scriptural texts, saying the Jews and Christians had introduced alterations into the Bible after the advent of Islam. Muslims therefore typically did not read the Bible, and accepted from the biblical tradition only those aspects of it directly enshrined in the Qur'an itself or incorporated into the corpus of sayings attributed to the Prophet. Manakji, then, sees three different paradigms for prophetic history in the world religions. In some traditions, prophets come serially but affirm a single unchanging Law. In some others, avatars or prophets come sequentially, and can abrogate the laws revealed by previous holy figures. Finally, some traditions wholly reject their predecessors and accept nothing from previous prophets. Manakji wants to know of which view of holy history Baha'u'llah approves. Baha'u'llah in his reply draws on the theophanology, or ideas about the Manifestations of God, that he had developed some twenty years earlier in the Book of Certitude. He points out that in Judaism, Moses brought divine legislation, but was succeeded by a large number of prophets who acted as vehicles for revelation without altering the Mosaic law. He therefore sees the situation Manakji describes for (Dasatir-influenced) Zoroastrianism as mirrored in Judaism. This schema of serial prophets with no alteration of the divine law, then, holds good for particular religious traditions, and is a special case within a larger tableau of progressive revelation. Major prophets like Moses and Zoroaster legislate, and whereas minor successors like David do not, major new prophets such as Jesus and Muhammad can arise to abrogate the past divine law and institute a new one. Baha'u'llah goes on to challenge Manakji's third category, of the new legislating prophet (Muhammad) who altogether rejects his predecessors, maintaining that the Arabian Messenger of God never adopted the position attributed to him by the Parsi leader. He proves it by quoting Qur'an 3:1, "Alif. Lam. Mim. God! There is no god but He, the Living, the Merciful. In truth He sent down to thee `the Book,' which confirmeth those which precede it. For He hath send down the Torah and the Evangel aforetime, as man's Guidance; and now hath He sent down the Salvation." Muhammad therefore affirmed the Pentateuch and the New Testament, and saw the Qur'an as a further installment in this series. That is, the Muslim idea of serial revelations with new religious laws being instituted from time to time by `Prophets endowed with constancy' is not materially different from the Christian or the Hindu schemas. Baha'u'llah therefore disallows the third case as based on a misunderstanding, and he folds the first case (of sequential non-legislating prophets) into the second. He succeeds in eliminating Manakji's three-fold distinction among religious traditions and incorporating them into a single, over-arching theory of progressive revelation. The final question concerned which sort of messenger from the divine is superior among the three types. Baha'u'llah says that in some ways all messengers from God, whether legislating prophets or not, are equal as theophanies and bearers of revelation, and this is what the Qur'an means when it says, "We make no distinction between any of His Messengers" (2:285). On the other hand, clearly the legislating Manifestations in some ways enjoy precedence, and this is why the Qur'an also says, "And We preferred some of the Messengers over others" (2:253). ---------- From: Bill Garlington[SMTP:wilgar@sirius.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 1998 10:34 AM To: H-BAHAI@H-NET.MSU.EDU Subject: Baha'i sources on Buddhism, Hinduism From: terrys@megalink.net Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 18:25:21 -0400 Subject: Baha'i sources on Buddhism, Hinduism Dear friends: Earlier in the discussion of Buddha, Confucius and Krishna a couple of Baha'i sources were cited. I thought you might want to read a few other sources. The first source cited, from the "Compilation of Compilations," seems to be extracted from 'Abdu'l-Baha's talk to the Japanese YMCA in Oakland, California, on 7 October 1912, found in English translation on pages 343-348 of "The Promulgation of Universal Peace" (second edition, 1982). Inasmuch as this English transcription of 'Abdu'l-Baha's talk is not "authoritative" while the Persian original of this talk was corrected by 'Abdu'l-Baha and is regarded as "authoritative" I thought I would find the original and report its contents to you. The original refers to Buddha in four places, as a "divine prophet" as a "divine Manifestation" as a "blessed soul" and a "holy soul" (please see pages 594-597 of "Khitabat" in the 1984 reprint). In "Some Answered Questions," chapter 43, 'Abdu'l-Baha states (p. 189, U.S. edition of 1964) that "independent Prophets are founders; they establish a new religion" and He equates these with "Manifestations of universal Prophethood"; when asked about Buddha, 'Abdu'l-Baha responds that Buddha "also established a new religion" and according to the criterion just established, this would indicate that Buddha was an independent Manifestation of God. In the same talk, cited above, 'Abdu'l-Baha mentions Confucius once, and calls Confucius a "blessed soul" (please see page 346 in the English translation, and page 596 in the Persian original). And in "Some Answered Questions" (same chapter, same page), 'Abdu'l-Baha states that "Confucius renewed morals and ancient virtues" but He does not indicate that Confucius established a new religion, which was His only stated criterion for an independent Prophet, also called a Manifestation of universal Prophethood. Furthermore, in the same talk, 'Abdu'l-Baha mentions Krishna once, calling Krishna a "blessed soul" (please see page 346 in the English translation, and page 596 in the Persian original). 'Abdu'l-Baha makes no mention of Krishna in "Some Answered Questions." Another source which bears upon this subject is a letter of Shoghi Effendi, dated 4 April 1935 (a source supplied by the Research Department of the Baha'i World Centre), in which he remarked: "As to the six great religions that have preceded the Cause, that of Brahma is to be counted among them. The date of the appearance of the Founders of these religions--with the exception of Christ and Muhammad--has not been yet definitely ascertained. Historians differ in their views on this point." When Shoghi Effendi was asked which religion was older, the Sabaean or the Hindu, in a letter dated 9 November 1940 (supplied as above) he replied: "there is nothing in the Teachings that could help us in ascertaining which of these two Faiths is older. Neither does history seem able to provide a definite answer to this question. The records concerning the origin of these religions are not sufficiently detailed and reliable to offer an conclusive evidence on this point." Shoghi Effendi also wrote a letter dated 28 July 1936 (published in "Baha'i News," No. 105, p. 2), in which he gave the following list of religions: "the Baha'i Revelation which constitutes the ninth in the line of existing religions, the latest and fullest Revelation which mankind has ever known. The eighth is the religion of the Bab and the remaining seven are: Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and the religion of the Sabaeans...These religions are not the only true religions that have appeared in the world but the only ones still existing. There have always been divine Prophets and Messengers, to many of whom the Qur'an refers. But the only ones existing are those mentioned above." I hope that these citations from Baha'i sources will be useful to all of you in your discussion of the Prophets of God. With best wishes, Peter Terry ---------- From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU] Sent: Thursday, April 09, 1998 12:58 AM To: H-BAHAI@H-NET.MSU.EDU Subject: Krishna & Baha'u'llah Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 23:36:00 -0400 From: Juan Cole Subject: Krishna & Baha'u'llah Peter Terry wrote: >The first source cited, from the "Compilation of Compilations," seems to be >extracted from 'Abdu'l-Baha's talk to the Japanese YMCA in Oakland, >California, on 7 October 1912, found in English translation on pages >343-348 of "The Promulgation of Universal Peace" (second edition, 1982). But I am not sure why. The Compilation of Compilations identifies this passage in which `Abdu'l-Baha lists Krishna, Buddha and Confucius with the Western Manifestations of God, as being from a Persian *Tablet*, not a talk. Unfortunately, no citation is given for this Tablet. It is likely that `Abdu'l-Baha was simply repeating in his talks what he had already written in this Tablet. cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan ---------- From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU] Sent: Saturday, April 11, 1998 3:12 PM To: H-BAHAI@H-NET.MSU.EDU Subject: Baha'u'llah, Hinduism and the Tablet of Unity Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 14:42:34 -0400 From: Juan Cole Subject: Baha'u'llah, Hinduism and the Tablet of Unity With regard to Steve Friberg's excellent questions, I would have to make a simple rather than a complex response. I believe there are at least three distinct approaches to the world religions in play in this discussion. 1) There is Baha'u'llah's pluralist approach, which is nominalistic and semiotic, and non-creedal. That is, Baha'u'llah is perfectly aware that different religions maintain different creedal propositions about theology, & etc. But for him those differences are not ultimately important. This is because he believes that words are merely signs (dala'il, isharat) or signifiers that *point* toward the transcendent Reality (haqiqah) or the Signified. Moreover, they always do so imperfectly and inadequately. Worse, the very *meanings* of these secondary signs are not fixed, but rather they have different connotations and even denotations to various people, depending upon what spiritual and intellectual maqam/station they have reached, and on the degree of their spiritual perception (idrak). Thus, different religions have different ideas about the Absolute (al-Haqq, God), in part because they use different 'signs' to point toward It, and in part because the theologies are formulated from within distinctive maqams/stations at particular historical points of time in a particular culture. Human beings wrangle over religion because they become attached to the outward form of the words (dogmas), to the signifier/sign rather than to the Signified (which is beyond all signs). So for Baha'u'llah there is no difficulty whatsoever accepting Hinduism into his discourse about the world religions. He is not worried that one will have to thereby adopt dogmas extracted as propositions from the Bhagavad Gita. This is the meaning of the famous Tablet of Unity (Lawh-i Ittihad), which Shoghi Effendi translated in Gleanings and which I would translate as follows: "Diverse religions! Turn your attention to unity, and bask in the light of harmony. For the sake of God, assemble in one place and cast out from among you those things that produce conflict, so that the entire world can attain to the rays of the most great luminary, and come to dwell in a single city and seat themselves in a common space. This wronged one from his earliest days until the present has had no other goal than what has just been mentioned. There is no doubt that adherents of all faiths turn their faces toward the most exalted horizon and are carrying out the commands of the Absolute Truth. In view of the exigencies of their specific era, the laws and ordinances of each religion came to differ. All, however, were from God, and derived from him--though a few religious movements did result from human obstinacy. Yes, with the aid of certainty smash the idols of delusion and disharmony, and cling to unity and concord! This is the most exalted word that was revealed from the archetypal Book. To this testifies the tongue of grandeur in its exalted station. That individual and all the friends must devote themselves to reforming the world and removing contention from among its peoples. Exert yourselves mightily in this. He, in truth, is the Helper, the Wise. And He is the Compassionate, the Generous." Now, Baha'u'llah in calling for whatever produces strife to be cast out is not requiring that everyone pretend to speak from the same station, use the same signs, or attain dogmatic conformity imposed by some external body. As in the Tablet for Jamal-i Burujirdi, he recognizes that there will inevitably be differences in expressed theologies. He is voicing the hope that the members of various religions will *recognize* their underlying unity and understand that the signs are not important while the Signified is. 2) One can also have an Inclusivist, dogmatic belief in the unity of religions. (This is similar to Catholic Vatican teaching after Vatican II). In such an approach, truth can be captured in some dogmas which must be imposed on all believers, and to which they must publicly all assent. These dogmas are universally true, regardless of one's spiritual station or degree of perception, and anyone who hesitates about them is doing so as a result of some sort of spiritual or rational disorder. The dogmas are not mere signs, but actually express the absolute truth, and to reject them in whole or part is to make oneself an infidel. It may be admitted that other religions, such as Hinduism, have part of the truth, albeit in a partial and corrupt form, such that all the corrupt parts must be carefully identified and excluded. Thus, it becomes important to raise questions about whether Krishna was really a Manifestation of God (as `Abdu'l-Baha seems clearly to have thought he was), and to reject the Bhagavad Gita as corrupt or unreliable--lest one be forced to accept the dogmas associated with it, since religious truth is essentially dogmatic. This way of thinking, which it seems to me is completely different from that of Baha'u'llah himself, seems common in the contemporary Baha'i faith. 3) Then there is the academic approach to the History of Religions, in which Krishna's historicity itself would be questioned, in which the Bhagavad Gita would be seen as the late work of rishis or religious literati, and in which the Gita's teachings and mindset would be seen as completely different from and incommensurable with Western religious traditions such as the Qur'an. I think all three approaches have been broached in the discussion so far. It seems to me that the answers to Stephen's questions will be very different depending on which approach we take. If we begin with Baha'u'llah's pluralism, then 'prophet' and 'avatar' are simply signs with cultural baggage that point toward a religious phenomenon. Baha'u'llah, being the ultimate Synthesist or 'lumper' believed that these religious signs, despite their differences, had basically the same sorts of Referent. Thus, Baha'u'llah would certainly have said that the human figures Hindus call avatars are 'prophets,' and `Abdu'l-Baha used the very word for Krishna. Baha'u'llah says explicitly in the Qur'an that some prophets have emphasized their humanity (Muhammad said, "I am but a man like you") while others have stressed divinity (as Krishna is depicted doing in the Gita). A dogmatic inclusivist point of view, on the other hand, would stress the difference between the Western idea of prophet (navi, nabi) and the South Asian notions of avatar, buddha, etc. Incidentally, I think suggesting that Krishna may have been a minor prophet (which seems counter-intuitive anyway) just begs the question, since it implies in Baha'u'llah's schema that he would stand under the shadow of a major prophet. Who would that be? Ram? Mirza Abu'l-Fadl Gulpaygani gives a number of criteria for someone being a major manifestation of God in Fara'id and *Miracles and Metaphors*. If he still means anything in the Baha'i theological tradition, it might be worthwhile examining his statements in this context. In the Tablet I retranslated above, Baha'u'llah makes it clear that *most* religious traditions worship the same Absolute Truth. I don't know of anything about Sikhism that would disqualify it from being in that company by Baha'u'llah's criteria. >(4). Do the traditions (say, about Krishna) in the Hindu family of >religions reflect the existence of pre-historical "prophets" or are they >due to a slow accumulation of understanding that is then "concretized" in >the form of an invented personage of great authority? Or both? This seems to me to be a different sort of question, phrased in a way that it could only be answered from the point of view of the secular, academic History of Religions discipline. From that point of view, the answer, with regard to Krishna, would probably be 'yes.' But if /Krishna/ is anyway only an imperfect 'sign' that points to some sacred Signified in the South Asian past, then such considerations are anyway not the most important thing about him. cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan ---------- From: Juan Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 12:05 AM To: Dean Betts Cc: talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: Tablet on Hinduism Dean: To my knowledge, Baha'u'llah never mentioned the Buddha by name or directly, although since he knew the Persian literature about Indian religions, he certainly must have known *about* him. However, it should also be remembered that Baha'u'llah's corpus of writings is vast, and that we have by no means seen everything, and it is not impossible that he mentioned the Buddha in an unpublished Tablet. After all, if anyone had asked me if he knew about Hinduism before about 4 years ago, I probably would have said, 'no.' Buddha is first mentioned to my knowledge in Baha'i literature by Mirza Abu'l-Fadl Gulpaygani in his Fara'id of 1898. The next mentions come in SAQ in the first years of the 20th century by `Abdu'l-Baha. cheers Juan ---------- From: Bill Garlington[SMTP:wilgar@sirius.com] Sent: Friday, April 17, 1998 9:31 AM To: H-BAHAI@H-NET.MSU.EDU Subject: Baha'u'llah/Manakji, pt. 1 Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 01:18:23 -0400 From: Juan Cole Subject: Baha'u'llah/Manakji, pt. 1 I will be interspersing between my analyses of this tablet my translation of it. This section deals with the different schemas for sacred history Manakji sees in the history of religions, and with Baha'u'llah's assertion that they can all be seen ultimately as one, and that they accord with the view of successive advents of manifestations of God put forward in the *Book of Certitude*. cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan ---------------------------------- Baha'u'llah On Hinduism and Zoroastrianism trans. Juan R. I. Cole In his letter, Mirza Abu'l-Fadl, glory be upon him, had made inquiries. As for that learned man [Manakji], he has also written. His particulars and that which he possesses have become known and obvious, and what he dispatched is likewise clear. In regard to his questions, there was no utility in mentioning them one after another, or in gracing all with answers, for this would have been contrary to wisdom and would have necessitated a contradiction of what is current among the people. Rather, in what was revealed from the heaven of bounty especially for him were answers in inimitable style, of the utmost concision and brevity. It appears that he [Manakji] neglected to heed them properly, for had he done so he would have borne witness that not a single letter had been omitted, and would have spoken forth, saying "In truth, this utterance is self-evident and unchallengeable." his questions were as follows: **"First, the Mahabadi prophets, including Zoroaster, came to twenty-eight persons, and each of them exalted the religion and faith of the others, and did not abrogate it. Every individual who became manifest bore witness to the correctness and validity of the ordinances and commands of his predecessor, nor was there any talk of rescinding them. They said, `It came to us from God, and we delivered it to his servants.' On the other hand, several of the bearers of a revelation to the Hindus said, `I am God. All creatures must enter under my authority. When discord and alienation afflict them, I shall advent myself and efface it. _ Each one who is manifested will say, "I am that same one who was within the first."' These returned founders of a religion, as with Abraham, Moses and Jesus, said, `Past messengers spoke rightly, and in that time the law was thus. But now it is different, in accordance with my instructions.' Then an Arab Legislator said, `With my appearance, all past religions have become irrelevant. The law is my law.' Of these two groups, which do you prefer, and the leaders of which do you rank above the other?"** First of all it may be observed that in one station, the ranks of the prophets may differ one from another. For instance, consider Moses, the Author of a Book and of a sacred code of law. Those prophets and messengers who were sent after that holy one were enjoined to implement his laws, for these ordinances were not at variance with the requirements of those times, as is apparent from the books that are appended to the Pentateuch. As for the allegation that the revealer of the Qur'an said that upon his appearance all the past systems of law and religion were abrogated, and that the Law was his alone, that wellspring of celestial wisdom never spoke any such words. To the contrary, he confirmed the truth of that which had been revealed to the prophets and messengers from the heavens of the divine Will by his words: "Alif. Lam. Mim. God! There is no god but he, the Living, the merciful. In truth he sent down to you `the Book,' which confirms those which precede it. For he has sent down the Law . . . " and so on, to the end of the verse. He said that all derive from God, and to God do they return. In this station, all prophets are one soul, insofar as they did not utter a single message, word or command from their own selves. That which they spoke stemmed from the absolute Truth, and they called all the people to the most exalted horizon, bestowing upon them the glad tidings of eternal life. In this manner, the seemingly contradictory statements reported by Manakji Sahib may be resolved into a single word, and into harmonious letters. As for his question, about which of these groups is to be preferred, and which leaders are to be considered exalted over the others, in the former station the sun of the verse, "we make no distinction between any of his messengers" is resplendent, whereas the latter is the station of "And we preferred some of the messengers over others." In a blessed, all-encompassing, and exalted passage that we revealed in past times lies hidden and concealed the very matter to which he adverted: "The All-Knowing Physician has his finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceives the disease, and prescribes, in his unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age has its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needs in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age you live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements." Every equitable person will bear witness that these words must be reckoned as mirrors of divine knowledge, and that therein may be found reflected with perfect clarity all that pertains to the question that was asked. Blessed is the one endued with insight by God, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise ---------- From: Juan Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Saturday, April 18, 1998 5:45 PM To: talisman@umich.edu Subject: Baha'u'llah and Hinduism, pt. 4 >Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 18:01:47 -0500 >From: Juan Cole >Subject: Baha'u'llah and Hinduism, pt. 4 > > > >Below is part 4 of my paper on Baha'u'llah and Hinduism. >With regard to X's question: >Baha'u'llah believes that human beings have constant ethical choices, and >that if they are open to what is best in themselves (i.e. the divine signs >within them) they will find the strength to fight nafs wa hawa, or self and >passion, the animal, instinctual drives that lead human beings to act in an >ungodly manner. Baha'u'llah's psychology seems to me mainly Aristotelian >and similar to that of Avicenna (an Aristotelianizing Neoplatonist). There >is a place for environment in all this, insofar as people are suggestible. >Thus, Baha'u'llah at one point says that if it weren't for the whisperings >of the ulama, everyone in Iran would have become a Baha'i in the 19th >century. Obviously, he believes that a Shi`ite social and cultural >environment, which predisposed people to respect the views of their ulama, >affected their ability to see the truth independently. > >With regard to Return or raj`at, Baha'u'llah implies in the Book of >Certitude that once people have made their ethical choices in any >particular historical moment, they come to be the Return of previous >historical actors. Thus, the Meccan elite who denounced Muhammad was the >return of the rabbinical elite who denounced Jesus (these are Baha'u'llah's >terms of discourse). Both chose for convention over charismatic, prophetic >truth. > >In the next section, I make some comments about Baha'u'llah's cosmology, in >which I argue that he appealed to the Hindu 'long chronology' of the >creation of the cosmos against the biblical/quranic and Zoroastrian 'short >chronology' (the latter holding that the earth is 6,000 years old or 12,000 >years old). > >cheers > >Juan Cole >History >U of Michigan > >----------------------------------------------------- > > Even more remarkable, Baha'u'llah clearly prefers the Yoga view of >cosmology to a literal reading of the biblical-quranic short chronology, >which would result in a world only six to eight thousand years old. Even >the longer Zoroastrian figure for the age of the earth, 12,000 years, >strikes him as too limited. I would suggest that the intellectual context >for this insistence on a long chronology is three-fold. First, Baha'u'llah >accepts the common Aristotelian, Neo-Platonic and Avicennian premise that >the cosmos is eternal. This belief had remained a point of dispute in >Islamic thought between the philosophically minded and the scripturalists. >The great mystic and clergyman Abu Hamid al-Ghazzali (d. 1111) had attacked >the Muslim philosophers for daring to contradict a literal reading of the >Qur'an, wherein the world was brought into being at a particular point in >time by God's creative word and so is not eternal or pre-existent. The >later Andalusian follower of Aristotle, Averroes, strongly defended his >master, but to little avail in the Islamic West. In the Arab world, >al-Ghazzali's view largely won out. In Iran, however, the influence of the >Avicennian peripatetics remained strong, so that many thinkers, Baha'u'llah >among them, continued to accept the eternality of the universe. He wrote, >in the tablet that mentions the Yoga Vasistha, that God's "creation hath >ever existed, and the Manifestations of His Divine glory and the Day >Springs of eternal holiness have been sent down from time immemorial." >Second, some gnostic Shi`ite sayings attributed to the Imams speak of >cycles of human history preceding that of Adam. Shaykh Ahmad al-Ahsa'i >cites a saying by Imam Muhammad Baqir that God created a thousand thousand >worlds and a thousand thousand Adams and that we exist in the last of these >worlds and the last of these Adamic cycles; elsewhere Shaykh Ahmad quotes >Imam `Ali, who was asked whether creatures existed who worshipped God >before Adam, and is said to have replied, "Yes, there were in the heavens >and on earth creatures of God who sang God's praises." Third, the >discovery by nineteenth-century European geologists and paleontologists >that the world, and life, is very old, was becoming known among Middle >Eastern intellectuals from the 1870s, and by the 1880s Darwinism was >beginning to create controversy at regional institutions such as the Syrian >Protestant College (later the American University in Beirut). Both the >philosophical view of the eternality of the world and the modern scientific >chronology that pushed the earth's age back, first to millions and then to >billions of years are relatively compatible with Hindu cosmology, but are >impossible to reconcile with the short chronology of the biblical tradition >if taken literally. For a nineteenth-century Middle Eastern thinker with a >philosophical, inquiring bent, such as Baha'u'llah, the Yoga chronology was >a useful foil to the more limited cosmological conceptions of >Zoroastrianism and the Abrahamic traditions. > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 19, 1998 8:42 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: [bahai-faith] makelist.com I hope moving the bahai-faith list here will prove beneficial to all. For me, the greatest advantage ought to be less involvement on my part in fiddling around with the technical side of things.... What little I have had to do during the last several days has been much easier than at coollist.com. I would think many other people will find the email subscription and archive useful. Again, I'm particularly interested in the fact people can post without be subscribed members so that perhaps I won't have to forward so much from alt.religion.bahai itself. Posters can just "cc" this list. 7 people are now subscribed here with 11 invitations outstanding. Has anyone had any trouble switching over to here? Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: Eric D. Pierce[SMTP:PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu] Sent: Monday, April 20, 1998 6:35 AM To: FG@hotmail.com Cc: talisman@umich.edu Subject: fwd: failure notice (bahai-faith@makelist.com) Looks like it won't work. EP ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date sent: 20 Apr 1998 18:32:45 -0000 From: MAILER-DAEMON@findmail.com To: PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu Subject: failure notice Hi. This is the qmail-send program at findmail.com. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. : Sorry, you are not allowed to post to this mailing list. Please contact bahai-faith-owner@makelist.com. --- Below this line is a copy of the message. Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9879 invoked by uid 7770); 20 Apr 1998 18:32:45 -0000 Received: from csus.edu (130.86.90.1) by 209.185.96.136 with SMTP; 20 Apr 1998 18:32:45 -0000 Received: from sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu (sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu [130.86.182.240]) by csus.edu with ESMTP id LAA06426; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 11:32:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from DSS_486/MAILQUEUE by sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu (Mercury 1.21); 20 Apr 98 10:32:45 -800 Received: from MAILQUEUE by DSS_486 (Mercury 1.21); 20 Apr 98 10:32:41 -800 From: "Eric D. Pierce" To: talisman@umich.edu Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 10:32:41 PST8PDT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: test/ Re: Fw: Please "cc" bahai-faith@makelist.com Reply-to: pierceed@csus.edu CC: bahai-faith@makelist.com Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.40 Message-ID: <1544285F6E@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu> This is a test to see if a "cc"'d message from a non-subscriber will get through to Fred's new list. > -----Original Message----- > From: FG > To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com > Date: Monday, April 20, 1998 7:13 AM > Subject: Please "cc" bahai-faith@makelist.com > > > >Please consider sending a courtesy copy "cc" to bahai-faith@makelist.com > >when posting to alt.religion.bahai or to Bahai topics on > >talk.religion.bahai. > >That would ensure people who have only email capabilities would still be > >able to follow along with the discussion. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Eric D. Pierce Information Technology Consultant Client-Server Database/PC Network Server Student Services Lassen Hall 1008 California State University, Sacramento Sacramento, CA 95819 - USA desk phone (916) 278-7586 internet email: PierceED@csus.edu la casa (home): EPierce@ns.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU] Sent: Thursday, April 23, 1998 2:38 AM To: H-BAHAI@H-NET.MSU.EDU Subject: Baha'u'llah and Hinduism, pt. 6 Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 12:39:20 -0400 From: Juan Cole Subject: Baha'u'llah and Hinduism, pt. 6 I continue with the discussion of Baha'u'llah's Tablet to Manakji. cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan ---------------- In his answer to Manakji's first question, Baha'u'llah does not directly address himself to the Hindu examples adduced. I think we must read this silence as assent. That is, Baha'u'llah's approach to other religious traditions was highly ecumenical, as is witnessed by his acceptance of the validity of Zoroaster and of the Bible, of neither of which most Iranian Shi`ites approved, and he seemed entirely willing to have examples from Hinduism constitute part of the discourse about the world religions. The Yoga Vasistha, with which Baha'u'llah was familiar, also briefly summarized the story of Krishna and Arjuna. There is nothing in Manakji's paraphrase of the Bhagavad-Gita to which Baha'u'llah had any reason to object, given his own ideas. Manakji's characterization of the Hindu conception of the avatar consists in the bearer of revelation: 1) proclaiming his divinity, 2) insisting that all accept his authority 3) coming when social discord and disaffection are prevalent, 4) declaring himself the return of his predecessor, and 5) instituting a new revealed law. The precise contours of Hindu theology are lost in this sort of summary, such that the ideas of Rama and Krishna as incarnations of Vishnu, and of reincarnation and karma, are not described in any detail. What is reported sounds remarkably like Baha'u'llah's own prophetology as developed in the Book of Certitude. Baha'u'llah wrote, "Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: "I am God!" He verily speaketh the truth and no doubt attacheth thereto." For Baha'u'llah, messengers from the Eternal Truth are not merely prophets, but are theophanies, manifestations of the names and attributes of God in this world. Their theophanic status authorizes them to employ theopathic language (identifying themselves with God), though this discourse is in some sense metaphorical and does not imply an identity of essence between them and God. Seen in this way, Krishna's pronouncement that he is God would therefore be unexceptionable. Baha'u'llah also very emphatically taught that the commands revealed by the Manifestation of God must be obeyed implicitly. Baha'i scriptures say that Manifestations of God are sent especially at times of social and spiritual unrest. The advent of the theophany is called a Day of God, and is identified with eschatological symbols such as the darkening of the sun and the fall of the stars (which Baha'u'llah interprets figuratively). In the times leading up to the appearance of the Manifestation, Baha'u'llah says, "the break of the morn of divine guidance must needs follow the darkness of the night of error. For this reason, in all chronicles and traditions reference hath been made unto these things, namely that iniquity shall cover the surface of the earth and darkness shall envelop mankind." The idea that the deterioration of moral order precedes a new irruption of divine presence and grace, then, is held in common by the Bhagavad-Gita and the Book of Certitude. The Baha'i Faith does not believe in reincarnation, so on the face of it the idea of an avatar as the reincarnation of a preceding theophany would be an alien one. In fact, the Babi and Baha'i religions accept the idea of an eternal return that resembles the doctrine prevalent among ancient stoics and Neoplatonists. Human beings are seen possess a soul (nafs) on the one hand, and on the other attributes (sifat). Although the soul upon death goes on to another plane of existence in the journey toward God, never returning to earth, its complex of personality-attributes can recur later in history. Baha'u'llah writes, in interpreting a verse of the Qur'an that identifies Muhammad with past prophets, "If thou sayest that Muhammad was the "return" of the Prophets of old, as is witnessed by this verse, His Companions must likewise be the "return" of the bygone Companions, even as the "return" of the former people is clearly attested by the text of the above-mentioned verses." Baha'u'llah, then, says that all the founders of the major religions possessed a unity on the plane of attributes. Each was a `return' of the others. He quotes esoteric Shi`ite sayings attributed to the Prophet Muhammad, wherein he says, "I am all the Prophets," and "I am the first Adam, Noah, Moses, and Jesus." Something very like the Hindu belief that each avatar is a return of his predecessors, then, also exists in the Baha'i Faith, though the return is phenomenological (having to do with appearances) rather than ontological (having to do with being). Finally, Baha'u'llah did acknowledge the authority of the major Manifestations of God, such as Zoroaster, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, to legislate new religious laws and to abrogate former ordinances. This exercise of matching Baha'u'llah's teachings with those of Krishna as reported by Manakji can only be, of course, heuristic. Baha'u'llah's cautious silence has made it necessary for us to attempt to reconstruct the Baha'i-Hindu dialogue implied in this tablet. The exercise is made all the more plausible when we consider Baha'u'llah's reference, elsewhere, to the Yoga Vasistha, with its implication that basic Hindu ideas were well enough known among the literate Iranians of the time so that they could be referred to with no further explanation. What can be said is that Baha'u'llah replied to Manakji's set of distinctions among Hinduism and other religious traditions by downplaying the differences and subsuming the various schemas of sacred history under his own conception of progressive revelation. ---------- From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU] Sent: Friday, April 24, 1998 12:02 PM To: H-BAHAI@H-NET.MSU.EDU Subject: pilgrim's notes and theocracy Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 00:37:03 -0400 From: Juan Cole Subject: pilgrim's notes and theocracy With regard to the pilgrim's notes of Fugita and Parsons in 1920 posted here, I would like to urge extreme caution with regard to their evidentiary value. (I say this not only because in Baha'i law pilgrim's notes are considered worthless, but on other grounds as well). What I have found in studying the original Persian texts has been that how technical terms about politics are understood and translated is extremely important, and that frequently early 20th century Iranian translators rendered the original Persian into English in a misleading fashion. These misunderstandings occurred in part because the translators often simply did not have the sort of training in comparative political philosophy and comparative religions that would allow them to find the most appropriate terms in the target language. And they occurred in part because the meanings of Arabic, Persian and Turkish words were in great flux in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as Bernard Lewis and Ami Ayalon have demonstrated. Nowhere was this more true than in the areas of politics and law. The vision of society expressed in those pilgrim's notes is on the surface directly contrary to that of *The Treatise on Leadership* (Risalih-'i Siyasiyyih) all along the line, and I do not believe that `Abdu'l-Baha is likely to have made such a 180 degree turn in his thinking. But I think if the English is looked at with an eye to what the underlying Persian probably was, we can see that these texts actually are in accord with the "Treatise on Leadership" (see below). However, that Western Baha'is were receiving this sort of view from `Abdu'l-Baha's translators does help fill in the puzzle of where the theocratic subculture in American Baha'i history may have come from, and how it gradually became dominant. (Though one suspects that some of the impetus for understanding `Abdu'l-Baha in this way came from American millenarianism to begin with.) Let me just indicate where I would raise questions about the underlying Persian: I) Fugeta Notes: 1)7 December 1919, pp. 17-18: >Abdul Baha: It is the same Beit-ul-Adl. (What does this mean? It could mean anything.) >Beit-ul-Adl will be established. It is like parliament. But if it is 'like a parliament' then it is not Parliament. >It takes its place, This phrase is ambiguous. 'It takes its place among social institutions'? >but this is a parliament which has the utmost of authority and power. When `Abdu'l-Baha says this sort of thing in the "Treatise on Leadership" he means that religious institutions govern the spiritual realm, which he views as the real site of power and authority, rather than the material realm, which he considers as dust. >Abdul Baha: There will be constitutional monarchs, but they will have no >independent power. Baha'o'llah says that in each country there should be >one head (king) but there will not be a supreme king for the whole world. In other words, each country will have a constitution, a king/head of state, and a civil parliament, as is implied by the words 'constitutional monarchy.' >The universal Beit-ul-Adl will be the supreme authority. The supreme religious authority. >Abdul Baha: In each country the executive of that country will carry out >the decision of the International Beit-ul-Adl. We have already seen in the "Treatise on Leadership" that `Abdu'l-Baha expects the civil state to consult with the religious institutions on issues having to do with religious law, and then is responsible for implementing the decision or judgment of the religious institution. If the house of justice were a genuine theocracy it would not have to depend on civil governments to implement its decisions. >Abdul Baha: Yes! The real true King is God. The others are but >figureheads. This is precisely what Shi`ites believe about the Hidden Imam. It does not imply actual, practical, day to day rule by a religious institution. It is a spiritual principle. In the "Treatise on Leadership" `Abdu'l-Baha says that kings rule by virtue of God's will. 2)2 January 1920, pp. 41-42: >Abdul Baha: . . . In the cause of Baha'o'llah >there is the Beit-ul-Adl (House of Justice). Political affairs are not >explicitly settled in the tablets. They are referred to the House of >Justice. This is just repeating Ishraq 8, where umur-i siyasiyyih are given to the house of justice. The translator has misleadingly rendered this phrase as 'political affairs,' but as we have seen before, that is not what it meant in the 1880s in Persian [when Baha'u'llah established the technical terms to which `Abdu'l-Baha is referring]. It meant something like 'affairs of leadership,' and, here, specifically religious leadership. > . . . The political affairs are not definitely >fixed by Baha'o'llah. This is the object of what is said in the Book of >Akdas. Baha'o'llah says: 'Political affairs are referred to the House of >Justice.' Whatever they think wise according to the requirements of time >and place ought to be carried out. But the command of worship is to be >found in the Book. Political things will not remain unchanged. The >politics of one hundred years ago are quite impracticable today. For >example, there was slavery one hundred years ago. Could that be carried >out now? Again, the translator is rendering umur-i siyasiyyah or affairs of [religious] leadership as 'political affairs,' giving an altogether wrong impression of what `Abdu'l-Baha is talking about. And note that the one example he gives of umur-i siyasiyyih is whether slavery is allowed or not. In Middle Eastern terms, this is actually not a matter of politics at all, but of law. And it further indicates that umur-i siyasiyyih has to do with the house of justice leading through legislating. >The members of the House of Justice will be inspired. Note that he says 'inspired' (mulham). Ilha:m is different from wah.y, the revelation received by prophets endowed with constancy. cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan ---------- From: Bill Garlington[SMTP:wilgar@sirius.com] Sent: Saturday, April 25, 1998 3:05 PM To: H-BAHAI@H-NET.MSU.EDU Subject: pilgrim's notes and theocracy Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 14:26:48 -0400 From: Juan Cole Subject: pilgrim's notes and theocracy Dear Arash: Many thanks for your comments on my analysis of the pilgrim's notes. I assure you that I am simply interested in understanding Baha'i texts as consistent with one another. But I also recognize, as a historian, that traditions change over time, and that perhaps they are not consistent. I am perfectly open to information that would change my views about how they evolved. But it seems to me that what is being suggested is that there might be a Tablet from `Abdu'l-Baha written shortly before his death in which he says something like this: "With regard to the issue of the relationship of religion to the state, I have decided to completely reverse my and Baha'u'llah's previous positions. I am aware that Baha'u'llah wrote Sultan `Abdu'l-`Aziz in 1867 promising him that the Baha'i faith wanted not a jot or a tittle of his sovereignty. I am aware that in 1869 Baha'u'llah praised Queen Victoria for running a constitutional monarchy. I am aware that in the 1891 Tablet to the World Baha'u'llah called upon Nasiru'd-Din Shah to institute a British-style parliamentary system in Iran as a way to resolve the Tobacco Revolt. I am aware that Baha'u'llah repeatedly denied that his religion had any designs on secular governmental power, and explicitly said that he had no wish to institute a government on the earth. I am aware that in Baha'u'llah's Book of the Covenant he said Baha'is must never forcibly intervene in state affairs and he even insisted that this principle could never be abrogated. I am aware that in my own Treatise on Leadership I raised the non-interference of religion in civil politics to the level of an eternal principle that should be and should have been adhered to in all religious dispensations, and demonstrated that any time religious leaders (pishvayan) intervene in civil politics, it has resulted in disaster. I even demoted the Shi`ite Imams to merely spiritual leaders. I am aware that when Muzaffaru'd-Din Shah instituted secular courts in Iran just prior to the Constitutional Revolution I called them the foundation stone of the Most Great Civilization. I am aware that when Iran's first civil Parliament met in 1906, I characterized it as the very body that Baha'u'llah had predicted in the Most Holy Book. I am aware that in my talks in the West I frequently adumbrated avoidance of interference in politics by religious institutions as an essential Baha'i principle. "However, in 1920 I decided to abrogate all these works and to throw out the principle of non-interference of religion in politics. I decided that in fact all civil governments should be supplanted by Baha'i spiritual assemblies or houses of justice. I decided that instead of a British-style parliamentary system such as Baha'u'llah and I had appeared to be supporting, in fact I want to see the world ruled as a theocracy the principal institution of which I have characterized as infallible and unchallengeable. It is true that I issued no new major epistle on the subject to effect this remarkable about-face. I abrogated nearly 60 years of Baha'i scripture in a little private talk with Fugita, my gardener." Now, of course, such a reversal is possible. But I find it so unlikely that I prefer to see the oral translations as likely flawed than to believe it is the case. With regard to the second pilgrim's note posted, it is simply a restatement of Baha'u'llah's Ishraq 8. Ishraq 8 says that the house of justice is given authority within the Baha'i millet/religious community over umur-i siyasiyyih [affairs of leadership], can legislate new law and repeal its own laws, but cannot abrogate Baha'u'llah's revealed law (referred to as `ibadat or those things having to do with worship). Baha'u'llah came to political consciousness under Qa'im-Maqam and his legacy in the 1830s, when siyasat was still understood in the classic Islamic sense of 'leadership.' That is the way he used the word in the 1880s in the Ishraqat. The modern Western idea of 'politics' (the origins of which Habermas has explained are in the European 18th century with the rise of a free press and a public sphere) barely existed in the Middle East at the time Ishraqat was written. When Iranian authors of the 1880s and early 1890s wish to refer to the Western concept of 'politics' they use it as a loan word, 'pulitik' in Persian. By 1920, however, siyasat had been decisively adopted by journalists as the equivalent of the modern Western notion of 'politics.' So I am arguing that *Baha'u'llah's* contemporaries of the 1880s (including `Abdu'l-Baha) would easily have understood the house of justice's authority over umur-i siyasiyyih in the millet as an authority over the affairs of leadership inside the religion. And I am saying that this sense of 'leadership' had become archaic by 1920, so that younger Western-educated Baha'is, often brought up in Haifa, now understood it to mean 'politics', and to translate it that way, even when `Abdu'l-Baha used it in the old, archaic way, paraphrasing Baha'u'llah. That such linguistic shifts occur should not be so hard to understand. When I was in high school, I could still read Nietzsche's *The Gay Science* without giggling at the title. I remember when 'a gay young man' was just a happy go lucky one. But if I absent-mindedly alluded to *The Gay Science* with insufficient foregrounding and context in a conversation with one of my less well-read students nowadays, what do you think he would assume it was about? I am saying that a similar shift occurred 1886-1920 in the meaning of umur-i siyasiyyih. And it did mislead the young Baha'i intellectuals brought up in the twentieth century in the aftermath of the Constitutional Revolutions in Iran and the Ottoman Empire, when they looked back at Ishraq 8 or at `Abdu'l-Baha's quotations from or paraphrases of it. As for the other pilgrim's note, the English is manifestly not very good, and to appeal to it for technical knowledge of `Abdu'l-Baha's thinking on church-state relations would be very risky. If the alleged Persian text can be produced for our examination, and if it does actually demonstrate the sort of reversal implied, then that will be very interesting. In the meantime I have the same view about it as a historical document that Baha'i law has about it as a legal one. I think it so likely to be full of mistranslations as to be worthless. cheers Juan ---------- From: Bill Garlington[SMTP:wilgar@sirius.com] Sent: Monday, April 27, 1998 6:31 PM To: H-BAHAI@H-NET.MSU.EDU Subject: umur-i siyasiyyih/affairs of leadership Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 15:15:46 -0400 From: Juan Cole Subject: umur-i siyasiyyih/affairs of leadership With regard to our discussion of Ishraq 8 and its echoes in `Abdu'l-Baha's 1920 talk to Fugita & Parsons, it seems to me that one important distinction that was confusing the translators has to do with *domain*. That is, when you say something like "David is in charge," the meaning of the sentence is only clear if listeners understand the implicit domain in which David has authority. If it is a quote from the Book of Chronicles in the Bible, it means David was king. If it is uttered in a restaurant, it means he is manager. If in the Vatican it might mean we have a new pope. So to speak of umur-i siyasiyyih or affairs of leadership is implicitly to specify a domain. And I think it is very clear that in the Baha'i scriptures *more than one domain* is specified with regard to this phrase. I thought the following passage relevant. Fadil Mazandarani, ed. Amr va Khalq. 4 vols. in 2, Bahai-Verlag, 3:275 from a Tablet of `Abdu'l-Baha: "According to incontrovertible divine texts we are commanded to obey the existing government and never to intervene in affairs of [governmental] leadership [umur-i siyasi]. Nor are we to express our own judgments. For the Cause of God has had and has absolutely no connection to affairs of [governmental] leadership [umur-i siyasiyyih]. Matters of leadership are the concern of those in charge of affairs [awliya'-i umur]. What relationship do they have with individuals who must strive to make conditions more orderly, to encourage high character and moral perfections?" Also 3:271 gives a letter written in response to the Tehran Baha'is' desire to hold an election under the supervision of the hands of the cause for a 'spiritual assembly' (mahfil-i rawhani). They wanted to hold an open election. `Abdu'l-Baha forbade it on the grounds that for Baha'is to elect such an assembly in Iran at that point (mid-1890s?) might be misunderstood as expression of a desire for a civil parliament, or even an attempt to erect a quasi-governmental body. He adds, "This matter of elections will be permitted when its reality is clear and it can be done with the permission of the civil state. For even though the intent of this spiritual assembly has to do with managing spiritual affairs, observers will not represent it as such, rather a hundred thousand calumnies will be uttered about it." It seems to me obvious that in Ishraq 8 when Baha'u'llah put umur-i siyasiyyih or affairs of leadership in the hands of the house of justice, he was referring to the affairs of leadership regarding the Baha'i community (millet). `Abdu'l-Baha's use of precisely the same term (umur-i siyasiyyih) in a context where he is *forbidding* Baha'is now and always (*absolutely*=qati`an, *never*=abadan) to intervene in such matters makes it clear that he is speaking of leadership in a different *domain*, that of civil governance. For the same person to turn around and say, well, I was only speaking of the present but in the future Baha'is will not only intervene in politics but actually will take it over and run it theocratically, just beggars my imagination. I know that folk Baha'i culture deals with such inconsistencies by a 'stage' theory, in which principles adhered to in one stage can be abrograted in another 'stage.' However, it seems to me that if `Abdu'l-Baha did have such a stage theory, he would have written it down somewhere, and would have expressed himself quite differently (avoiding all the 'absolutelys' and 'nevers' when he attacks intervention of religion in political affairs). And stage theory anyway strikes me as illogical and as also dangerous. Perhaps in some future stage racism would also be allowed, even though it is not now? Although I think a careful study of `Abdu'l-Baha's Persian texts on the subject shows him in fact consistently anti-theocratic, the question of how the Great Reversal was effected becomes clearer if linguistic shifts and mistranslations of the 1920s are taken into account. But there must be more to it than that. The Muslim Brotherhood, with its theocratic goals, was founded in Egypt in the 1920s, and such ideas were 'in the air' in places like Palestine. I wonder if they had an influence on young intellectuals like Hussein Rabbani? cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan ---------- From: Mark A. Foster[SMTP:mfoster@qni.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 4:42 PM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] test: bahai-faith@makelist.com: would a non-subscriber please post to it? At 08:30 AM 4/29/98 -0400, you wrote: >I'd appreciate it if a non-subscriber would post again to >bahai-faith@makelist.com. The list seems to be up and >running well now. The bug that prevented non-subscribers >from crossposting to it has been fixed but remains untested. If you receive this message, it is working. I am posting it from an unsubscribed account. Mark Foster ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: Bill Garlington[SMTP:wilgar@sirius.com] Sent: Thursday, April 30, 1998 9:07 AM To: H-BAHAI@H-NET.MSU.EDU Subject: siyasiyyih/leadership Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 02:32:35 -0400 From: Juan Cole Subject: siyasiyyih/leadership Dear Arash: I don't think people are as self-conscious about the words they use as your abstract models demand, and I think human communication is far less transparent and far more open to misunderstanding than you seem to suggest (the events of the past 3 years should have anyway demonstrated that). With the language of Ishraq 8 and its later paraphrasing by `Abdu'l-Baha, you have several problems, of ambiguous or unspecified domain, and of older but overlapping meanings of words living on as calques in later quotations and paraphrases. I can remember, 25 years ago, discussing a passage from St. Paul with someone, which forbade 'party spirit.' My friend insisted that the passage meant to forbid raucous celebration. But anyone who knew U.S. political vocabulary from the revolutionary period would know that the Founding Parents very much disliked the idea of the Republic becoming infested with 'party spirit' or factionalism. For my friend, in the '70s, that phrase had become an archaism, not immediately transparent. Party is a word with *lots* of meanings, and so is spirit. So the phrase is open to misunderstanding even by relatively literate young persons. Note that my friend simply did not stop to think about the ambiguity of the phrase, but assumed he was reading it correctly, and even rejected my alternative reading once it was brought to his attention. In the same way, in late 19th/early 20th century Iran, both umur or affairs and siyasiyyih (leadership, politics, sanctioning, policy) had lots of potential meanings. `Abdu'l-Baha would not have thought he needed to do a lot of explaining in quoting from Ishraq 8 to young Baha'is, whereas in fact its phrases had all become confusingly multivalent with the rise of a political press and constitutional movements in the Middle East. (Millat, e.g., had also gone from meaning millet or a religious community to meaning 'nation.') That's the best I can do. It seems to me eminently plausible, and I have seen the same thing happen lots of times even in English. And it seems, moreover, the only plausible explanation for the difference in emphasis we find between Baha'u'llah/`Abdu'l-Baha on noninvolvement of religion in politics, and many Baha'is of the 20th century who became (often militant) theocrats. As for evidence of how older Baha'is read Baha'u'llah on these things, we have Mirza Abu'l-Fadl's response to Reverend Easton, the Brilliant Proof, which Kalimat has just republished. Easton charged that the Baha'i faith would bring back absolutism and despotism [saltanat-i istibdadiyyih] (I cite the 1912 first edition, which was 'written in Syria' in late 1911), pp. 15-16, Persian pp. 13-14. Mirza Abu'l-Fadl in rebuttal insists that even Baha'i religious institutions, the houses of justice, are to be 'elected by the people.' [bi intikhab ta`yin kunand]. He goes on to cite the Glad-Tidings on the need for monarchy to be constrained by constitutionalism, explaining, "That is to say, hereditary sovereignty should be limited by a national parliament [mashvirat-i milliyyih] and representative assembly [majalis-i niyabiyyih]. In this way national problems [maha:m-i dawlat] and questions of citizenship [umur-i ra`iyyat] will find solution through the cooperation of these two bodies, so that the country and nation [mulk u millat] may attain perfection and the people [ummat] arrive at the highest pitch of welfare and prosperity." He adds that in one of the supplements to the Aqdas "He has illustrated the form of constitutional government and representative assembly [majlis-i niyabi va ijra-yi mushavirat] by the British government. The form of that great government has therefore met with His approval and sanction. Consequently, the fear that despotism will be restored is caused by ignorace concerning the commandments of this Most Great Manifestation . . ." Mirza Abu'l-Fadl uses quite different language for the houses of justice than for the majalis niyabiyyah or Representative Assemblies/Parliaments, and he takes very seriously Baha'u'llah's preference for British-style parliamentary politics. I think he is a most effective witness to the pre-theocratic Old Thinking on politics among Baha'is. This is appropriate, since he became a Baha'i in 1876 when he heard of the first Ottoman Constitutional Revolution, which confirmed Baha'u'llah's predictions in the Tablet of Fuad. By the way, even the translation of The Brilliant Proof makes my point about misunderstandings arising from words being in flux. In the 19th century, the ra`iyyat had been the subjects [i.e. of the king], but the translator mistakenly rendered 'affairs of the subjects' as 'questions of citizenship.' With the end of absolute monarchy in the Ottoman Empire and Iran, people were no longer subjects, but citizens, so that ra`iyyat was invested with an altogether new meaning, whereas Mirza Abu'l-Fadl had absent-mindedly referred to the old one of 'subjects.' And the translator correctly renders mashvirat or consultation as 'parliament,' but of course that hadn't been what it meant in the 1850s. cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan ---------- From: LaAeterna[SMTP:LaAeterna@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, May 03, 1998 10:27 AM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: [bahai-faith] moderators vs censors I had a very interesting experience with srb just this past week. I sent in a post discussing female circumcision and asking what was the UHJ's position on this barbaric practice. My post posed the rhetorical question: when do we as Baha'is stop deferring to cultural mores and peak out firrmly against those which harm or injure people? The post was rejected because I had used the acronym UHJ and I was told in a very rude way I could speak out against the issue myself if I felt so strongly about it. To say I was flabberghasted at this type of "moderating" was putting it mildly indeed. Has anyone else experienced anything similar? What IS moderating, anyhow...I'm beginning to think it is censorship based on the limited understanding of the Teachings of the few whose task it is to review posts by the readership. Nancy ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: Bill Garlington[SMTP:wilgar@sirius.com] Sent: Sunday, May 03, 1998 6:42 PM To: H-BAHAI@H-NET.MSU.EDU Subject: Baha'u'llah and Hinduism, pt. 7 Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 18:12:10 -0400 From: Juan Cole Subject: Baha'u'llah and Hinduism, pt. 7 I continue with the analysis of Baha'u'llah's Tablet to Manakji regarding Hinduism and the world religions. Juan Cole History U of Michigan -------------------- Manakji next asks a question about the relationship of God to the world, and outlines four positions. The first is metaphysical monism, which states that all visible beings are identical with the Absolute Truth. In India the Upanishads advocate this position, and it was systematized by the great Hindu theologian Shankara Carya (b. 788 C.E.) . The second is metaphysical dualism, wherein God and the creation are recognized as different from one another, and prophets are seen as mediators between the divine and mundane realms. The prophetic religions of the Near East tended to adopt this position. There did also exist in India important theists who differentiated between creator and creation (such as Ramanuja [d. 1137 C.E.]), and even full-fledged dualists such as Madhva (1238-1317 C.E.), who made an absolute set of distinctions between the Lord (Ishvara) and the human soul. The third position identifies God only with the celestial spheres, and not with the entirety of creation. The fourth is the deist position, that God created Nature from eternity, and it thereafter regulates itself (pp. 151-52). Baha'u'llah replies that of the four stances outlined, i.e. monism, metaphysical dualism, Neoplatonic panentheism, and deism, the second is "closer to piety" (p. 152). The Arabic word taqwa has connotations of the "fear of God" as well as piety, and Baha'u'llah appears to mean by this phrase that metaphysical dualism, the assertion that the creation is other-than-God, best ensures that proper reverence for the ineffability of the Unknowable Essence is maintained. Baha'u'llah admits, however, that the other stances can also be maintained, not on the level of being or ontology, but on that of manifestation. That is, all things are manifestations of God's names and attributes, and therefore it is possible to see God in all things. Baha'u'llah's stance here resembles that of the Sufis who rejected existential monism, the unity of being between God and creatures, but agreed that great mystics can attain a state wherein a non-ontological unity of the divine and the phenomenal world is apparent to them. Of course, it would have been equally possible for Baha'u'llah simply to say that the Shankara school of monism is incorrect as ontology, and he elsewhere says as much about Sufi pantheism. But his approach is to stress commonalities, to show the ways in which seemingly opposing theological positions can be reconciled. Thus, monism of the sort found in the Upanishads and Shankara's writings is not simply a propositional error, but is rather an accurate description of a valid mystical perception. Because the universe is itself theophanic, it is possible to see the manifestations of God in each created thing. Nevertheless, in Baha'u'llah's view God's necessary being continues to be sharply distinguished from the contingent being of created things. ---------- From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU] Sent: Monday, May 04, 1998 9:45 AM To: H-BAHAI@H-NET.MSU.EDU Subject: Baha'u'llah and Hinduism, pt. 7 Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 02:15:27 -0400 From: Juan Cole Subject: Baha'u'llah and Hinduism, pt. 7 Dear John: Baha'u'llah usually speaks about the divine didactically, rather than autobiographically, being a prophet and all. I think the two places one finds Baha'u'llah's comments on mystical unity with God most clearly stated are in the Book of Certitude, in that section beginning 'O my brother', which is called in the U.S. the 'Tablet of the True Seeker;' and in *The Seven Valleys*, though it is not stated autobiographically. Any good library should have these works in English, and they are also on the Web. In the 7 Valleys at one point Baha'u'llah speaks of transcending *both* the unity of being *and* the unity of perception, the two major stances Sufis had taken on the God/universe problem in ontology. As for the Tablet to Manakji, I will be posting it on H-Bahai serially through May; part 1 already appeared in April. I will put the section on the God/world relationship up soon. You would probably get closer to an autobiographical account of a sense of unity with the divine in a theistic tradition in some of the Sufis of Islam, such as Ibn al-`Arabi and Rumi. But autobiography was not a very common genre in Islamic civilization, and most accounts of such experiences are reworked as 3rd person teaching stories or as allegory (as with Attar's Parliament of the Birds). cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan ---------- From: LaAeterna[SMTP:LaAeterna@aol.com] Sent: Monday, May 04, 1998 9:12 AM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] fw Re: why did you choose the bahai faith? I was born into the faith--my parents were pioneers in the 40's and 50's and I had the opportunity to grow up surrounded by the Faith and the wonderful believers. But I drifted away in my teens and early 20's (that's sometimes what happens when you take things for granted) and I explored other faiths (which shows how little I understood progressive revelation). I came back when I was about 24, feeling like a "born again Baha'i." The first thing that brought me back was the logic of it all--everything Baha'u'llah wrote makes sense and fits in with the manner in which we are beginning to think as a species: humanity is one, men and women are equal etc. The next was that the words of Baha'u'llah spoke to me personally, creating in me a need for the comfort and the beauty He fills His Tablets with. I have done alot of comparison shopping; the Baha'i faith was the only one that fir the bill for me. Now--there is a problem with the *Baha'is* themselves, unfortunately, and I have chosen to distance myself from the groupings that have been created. I don't like the antagonism and the self-righteous inquisitional thinking. However, they'll grow out of that...:) Nancy ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 07, 1998 7:28 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: [bahai-faith] Re Leaving faith At least sent to soc.religion.bahai today, if not posted.... tricia@glonet.co.nz wrote in message <"eZWjl.A.8GE.bjSU1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >> I also have to say good-bye to the Baha'i Faith, as I can no longer >> stand the supremacist attitudes of many of the members, the >> evangelicism and hypocracy. >> Sincerely, >> Christopher E. Nason > >I am saddened by this "running away" attitude of some believers, it >seems to me that it would be more productive to have shown the >community where it has gone wrong, for how the heck do folks learn >about their actions without having them shown glaringly to them? How can anyone "show" an intolerant, self-righteous "community" where it has gone wrong when they distort and manipulate all information available and twist it to suit themselves? THOUSANDS have left the Bahai faith for the very same reasons given by this person and it's been happening for DECADES.... What saddens me is the way so many Bahais misinterpret this type of decision by other Bahais implying as you do that he or they are "running away" when the truth is they have been DRIVEN away by the pervasive atmosphere of intolerance and fanaticism of Bahai "community" life.... >I don't mind if you run away, but God may do. After all it is HIS >KINGDOM now ours, and its YOUR QUALITIES that he is trying to bring >in to the community. And his qualities that many Bahais DRIVE out.... > >Its all up to you of course. > >TeeCee >With Loving Baha'i Greetings > >TeeCee > >TeeCee Publishing >P. O. Box 9110 >Hamilton >New Zealand >Ph/Fax: 64-7-846-7484 >email: tricia@glonet.co.nz Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: LaAeterna[SMTP:LaAeterna@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, May 07, 1998 9:36 AM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Re Leaving faith That Baha'is are 'leaving the faith" is only one of the symptoms of the "end," of which Baha'u'llah wrote (as well as Abdul'Baha and Shoghi Effendi). "Great, great is the Cause! The hour is approaching when the most great convulsion will have appeared. I swear by Him Who is the Truth! It shall cause separation to afflict everyone, even those who circle around Me..." (Advent of Divine Justice, p. 81). Abdul'Baha wrote that the Tablet of the Holy Mariner foretells the future and that we are to take heed of its warnings. A careful reading shows the Crimson Ark (the Faith) being trampled in the dust by those who profess to believe. In the Tablet of the Houri, Baha'u'llah writes of the Holy Maiden (the Holy Spirit) coming to Him and exclaiming that He has no heart (which indicates to me that He is stating that the cause will become a hollow Faith whose outward appearance is healthy but which is empty inside)...He also writes in this Tablet that He has no mother or sisters to mourn for Him...which I understand to mean the Faith will have been abandoned in favor of the rituals and outward social life, leaving the true spirit alone, dead, unmourned (because it is not understood). Nancy ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: rmsolem@mke.ab.com[SMTP:rmsolem@mke.ab.com] Sent: Thursday, May 07, 1998 4:52 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Can't unsubscribe I applaud your online Baha'i efforts. I just need a bit of advice. I've been with the cool-list thing and then the current makelist version. The only problem I have is that I subscribed at work and then decided that I can't really get to reading all the postings here so I wanted to unsubscribe. Unfortunately my employers email system won't send empty email messages. I've tried everything. Any suggestions or contacts at makelist I can ask for help with? Robert Solem ---------- From: clarence sevdy[SMTP:sevdy@webtv.net] Sent: Friday, May 08, 1998 4:06 AM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: [bahai-faith] Whining to strangers Why do you spread your own dirty laundry on other peoples N.G.s ? Could you become obsessed with Nichiren Shoshu,Mormons , or some Christian fundamentalist fruitcake group? Are you and Derrick Evanson both part of some nightmarish anti-Baha'i multi-personality thing? Just curious.Enquiring minds,etc..............Clarence Sevdy ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 08, 1998 6:16 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: [bahai-faith] New site: "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" I've created a new web site devoted to the Bahai Faith, especially the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet polls for talk.religion.bahai. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: K. Paul Johnson[SMTP:pjohnson@vsla.edu] Sent: Friday, May 08, 1998 9:49 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: New site: "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Dear Fred, I'll check out your website, but need to tell you that I don't hold copyright, Gnosis does, and Jonah Winters is in violation of copyright if he has not sought their permission. I feel sure you will have no trouble getting it, and think the address is Gnosis@well.com-- if not you can find it by a search engine. Thanks for your interest in the piece, Paul ---------- From: K. Paul Johnson[SMTP:pjohnson@vsla.edu] Sent: Friday, May 08, 1998 10:01 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: New site: "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Dear Fred, I just remembered that Gnosis once told me copyright reverts to the author after they publish a piece, so I guess his applies to the web as well. Thus I give permission to reprint, and that's all you should need. If there's a problem, let me know. Paul ---------- From: Bill Garlington[SMTP:wilgar@sirius.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 1998 7:30 PM To: H-BAHAI@H-NET.MSU.EDU Subject: Baha'u'llah/Manakji, pt. 2 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 00:36:22 -0400 From: Juan Cole Subject: Baha'u'llah/Manakji, pt. 2 I continue with the posting of my translation of Baha'u'llah's letter via Mirza Abu'l-Fadl to Manakji Sahib, from Ma'idih-i Asmani, vol. 7. This is the discussion of the God/world relationship, in which Baha'u'llah prefers metaphysical dualism (God's being is unlike the world's being) as closer to piety or the fear of God. He does allow a position similar to the 'unity of perception' in Sufism, wherein one speaks of God as present in all things, but only on the level of signs (semiotics), not of being (ontology). This issue is especially important in any dialogue between the Sankara sort of Hindu monism and the monotheistic religions to India's West. cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan ------------------------------------------ Another question of that peerless gentleman: "There are four groups in the world. one says that all the visible realms, from the atom to the sun, are identical with the Absolute Truth, and nothing can be seen save the Truth. Another asserts that the essence of the Necessarily Existent is the Absolute Truth, and prophets are mediators between God and the creation who serve to guide the people to the Eternal Truth. Yet another faction says that the spheres of creation are themselves the Necessarily Existent, and that all other things are their effects and fruits, which become apparent and flow, rather like a pool that becomes full, such that rushes come and go along its banks. Finally, one sect holds that the Necessarily Existent has created Nature such that by its effect and bounties everything from the atom to the sun go and come, having neither a beginning nor an end, just as the rain falls and nourishes the grass and vanishes. All things are obedient to those messengers and rulers who legislate laws and ordinances for the sake of organizing the realm and administering the cities. prophets have behaved in one way, rulers in another. The prophet says that God has commanded the people to submit and be obedient. Rulers deal with the people by means of cannon and sword. Which of these four groups is acceptable in the sight of the Eternal Truth?" All these passages are, by the Life of God, contained in and encompassed by the utterance to which the tongue of the All-merciful gave voice in past times. For it said, "Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age you live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements." In this Day, the King of manifestation has appeared, and the Speaker on Sinai is speaking forth. Whatever he says constitutes a firm foundation for the edifices of the cities of knowledge and wisdom among the people of the world. Whoever has clung to him is accounted among the people of insight before the supreme Countenance. This most exalted word was revealed by the exalted Pen: "This Day is the day of seeing, for the visage of God is manifest and luminous above the horizon of appearance; and this Day is the day of hearing, for the divine call has gone out. All must in this day cling to and speak forth in accordance with what has been revealed in the day-spring of the scriptures and the dawning-place of revelation. It is therefore clear that the answer to the question has been given in the kingdom of utterance by the source of divine knowledge. Blessed are they that know." Of the four positions that were mentioned, it is obvious that the second stance was and is the closest to piety. For the prophets and messengers do serve as intermediaries for the divine emanation, and whatever reaches the creatures from the Eternal Truth is by means of these temples of sanctity and essences of abstraction, these mines of knowledge and manifestations of the divine command. The other positions can also be argued, for in one station all things were and are manifestations of the divine names and attributes. As for what was stated about the kings, in reality they are manifestations of God's name, "the Mighty," and are dawning-places of his name "the Powerful." The robe that is appropriate to those august temples is justice. If they attain to adornment by it, the people of the world shall enjoy the greatest ease and bounties. Any soul who has quaffed the wine of divine knowledge can elucidate such questions by means of clear proofs in regard to the outer world and by obvious, apparent signs in regard to the soul. Nevertheless, today a new Cause has appeared, and a different discourse is appropriate. Even the practice of asking questions and having them answered had lapsed during the first nine years of his dispensation. This is what he said: "Today is not the day for questions. When you hear the call from the dawning-place of glory, say: `I am coming, O God of the names and cleaver of the heavens! I bear witness that you has become manifest and has made manifest whatever you desired, as a command from you. In truth, you are the Omnipotent, the All-Mighty." The answer to everything that the gentleman wrote is clear and obvious. The intent of that which has been revealed in his regard from the heaven of divine grace is that he should hearken to the delightful cooing of the dove of eternity and the chanting of the inhabitants of the highest paradise, should praise the sweetness of this call, and should follow it where it leads. (One day a word was heard from the blessed lips that demonstrates that a time will come when he will prove successful in an endeavor that will gain for him undying fame. After the arrival of his letter at the inaccessible and most holy Court, the Blessed Beauty said, "O servant in attendance! Although Manakji has written as an outsider, and has asked questions, nevertheless the aroma of love may be perceived in his letter. Ask the Eternal Truth that he might attain to what is beloved and pleasing to him. In truth, he is Powerful over all things." From this utterance of the All-merciful wafts a sweet-smelling fragrance. In truth, he is the Omniscient, the All-Perceiving.) ---------- From: Juan Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 1998 11:16 AM To: derekmc@ix.netcom.com Cc: bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us; irfan1@umich.edu; talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: Juan's Book and inevitable errors Derek: The argument is not that there was a direct link between Saint Pierre and Saint Simon and Baha'u'llah, but rather that traditions of writing about peace and international unity existed in the Greater Mediterranean that form a broad context for understanding Baha'u'llah's thinking on the subject. Likewise, the Saint Pierre tradition of thinking about collective security may have been influential on the statesmen who implemented it for the first time in the peace treaties that concluded the Crimean War of 1854-1856--a treaty, with the provisions of which Baha'u'llah was clearly intimately apprised. And when someone like the Ottoman notable, Munif Pasha, writes articles in the 1860s in Istanbul about the near advent of perpetual peace, he (as a member of French Freemasonry) has the same broad context. Moreover, establishing context does not detract from originality, which, it seems to me, comes from the way one *mixes* existing motifs and adds a few new ones to the mix. It is clear from the Dead Sea Scrolls, now, that Jesus, too, had a context in religious ferment among Jews in Palestine in the century before he lived. But his exact mix of ethics, pacifism, spirituality, and eschatology is not precisely replicated in any one of his forebears. In fact, it may be said that no truly interesting cultural innovation occurs completely de novo or in a vacuum, but rather comes out of a complex set of previous debates. cheers Juan Cole ---------- From: Eric Joseph Hadley-Ives[SMTP:ejhadley@artsci.wustl.edu] Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 1998 12:14 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Leaving Faith Thanks for your site at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm which I enjoyed. I wish to put a link to it from my Baha'i page. I'll assume you have no objections unless you tell me otherwise. - Eric ---------- From: Juan Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 1998 1:26 PM To: DEREK COCKSHUT Cc: DEREK COCKSHUT; bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us; irfan1@umich.edu; talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: Juan's Book Dear Derek: Well, obviously we do see religion quite differently, as Baha'u'llah predicted about human beings generally, since all are at different spiritual stations (maqams) and have different degrees of perception (idrak) of divine realities. I think it is relatively seldom that two people understand religion exactly the same way, are at precisely the same position on the Path. All we can do is to attempt to put up with one another with loving tolerance. Baha'u'llah himself says in the Iqtidarat that the purpose of religion is to be a vehicle for the acquisition by human beings of the divine attributes--love, knowledge, forgiveness, compassion, nurturing, etc. (there are, as you know, 100 major names of God in the Islamic traditions). Since Knowledge and Reason are such central divine attributes, and since they are so highly praised in the Baha'i scriptures (see, e.g., the beginning of the Secret of Divine Civilization), it seems to me that the enterprise of applying them to the History of Religions is very much in the spirit of the Baha'i Writings. Indeed, I believe `Abdu'l-Baha's discussion of the Prophet Muhammad's adoption of Sasanian technology via Salman at the Battle of the Trench in SDC forms a model for such work. And that is what I set out to do. Shoghi Effendi also urged such work and study on the Baha'i youth in the *Advent of Divine Justice*, in a passage that inspired me, when I was 19, to my current career. Perhaps we can agree that the social ideals of Baha'u'llah and their broader context deserve a great deal more attention from thinking people of all faiths than they have received. It is my humble hope that my inadequate book will help provoke more of that than there has been in the past, and that persons of all persuasions, including Baha'is, will thereby benefit. cheers Juan Cole ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 1998 11:10 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: New site: "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Hi Fred: The following is how my browser shows your site (an example - it is different each time). I have chopped it after the first few lines that look OK. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au An age is called Dark not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it. -- James Michener, "Space" ====================================================================== !bĘśIÓŠŠ ípŃéţ_ĆC°2n,˛î§ľdFDZaA˘©Š"'0ë ԢՊѲjuÓ°¨ŃŻÉĽ:ŚůµlĆ)<,|ESćZ#mănxKD‰…xń"k@äŐżŘĚ6\±! ‹#,ŚŁ4㯄•$¶@ą2âË,®`Ü©)Äúm#8 —ş?îćM°ÖşUC˙Ęš-K ‹ čŢ˝{u= Computers (PC) Collectibles Cooking Education Fantasy Fashion & Style Freebies Games Games (Role Playing) Gardening Genealogy Girl Power Holidays Humor Health (General) Health (Holistic) Health (Women's) Men's Issues Moms Movies Music (Alternative) Music (General) Music (Jazz & Blues) Parenting Personal Finance Pets Real Audio/Midi Religion (Christianity) Religion (Earth) Romance Science (Natural) Science Fiction Small Business Spirituality Sports (Extreme) Sports (General) Sports (Outdoor) Sweet Confections Teen Television Thrift Travel Web Design Women's Issues Writing Writing (Poetry) Zines Featured Pods Content on Tripod member pages is not the responsibility of Tripod, Inc. You got sass? We got sass. Zine Pod. Click here. inevitable. Therefore, this is a blessed church because its pulpit is open to every religion, the ideals of which may be set forth with openness and freedom." Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, 197. Abdul-Baha on Freedom of Conscience, Speech, & Liberty ---------- From: Nima Hazini[SMTP:wahdat@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 1998 11:11 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: your site Dear Mr. Glaysher: Let me commend you on the formation of your new site on the Baha'i faith and religious freedoms. Ditto! Ironically the value of religious freedoms and conscience within the Bahai movement is something that seems to be have been lost on Bahais of late (and especially among the leadership), as we're both well aware. I noticed in your logs under Juan Cole that there were two messages that mentioned my case. As I was not privy to the discussions (I unsubscribed from Talisman and Irfan long ago), I was wondering if you have all the specific discussions between Juan Cole and Susan Maneck (and anyone else) that discussed my situation or where my name was mentioned, and, if possible, to forward them to me, since other than the ones on your site I haven't seen any of them. Also, it might be worth your while to contact Steven Scholl (or Eric Pierce who has saved all the messages from the last 9 months of Talisman I) and solicit him for his magesterial 5 part missive to the universal house of justice entitled "Crisis of Faith." This is an important document that would make a valuable contribution to your site. Thank you. May this message find you well. Best wishes, Nima Hazini It is He who is revealed in every face, sought in every sign, gazed upon by every eye, worshiped in every object of worship and pursued in the seen and the unseen. Not a single one of His creatures can fail to find Him if they look within to their source, origin and primordial nature. Ibn `Arabi, Futuhat al-Makkiyyah ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com ---------- From: Nima Hazini[SMTP:wahdat@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 15, 1998 9:08 AM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Re your site (Bahai) Dear Mr Glaysher: A clarification to your reply: I am a non-Bahai. I formally resigned from the Baha'i religion about a year-and-a-half ago since it has become increasingly apparent to me that the values and techings of the Baha'i Founders have been supplanted by a rigid, uncompromising fundamentalism from the top. And, yes, while there are many individual Baha'i administrators who are among individuals of high moral calibre, rectitude and moderation, exemplifying the best of what their Founders taught, their voices unfortunately have been drowned by those less so who have strait-jacketed the Baha'i faith into what it was never intended by its Founders. As such, I have chosen to follow a different path and one which I feel accords more fully with the true spiritual intent of the teachings and universalism of Baha'u'llah: i.e. Sufism. My case, which is mentioned among the logs under Juan Cole, is the following: last winter the American NSA sent a highly slanderous letter to the Australian NSA the conclusion of which was to encourage Baha'is, and especially the youth, in Australia to shun me because I had left the Baha'i faith and "become a follower of Sufism." I had neither informed the NSA of my current affiliation or that I was temporarily moving to Australia - which raises the issue of spies and informants in the Baha'i community. The letter is sent, btw, one full year after I had withdrawn and had severed any formal contact with the Baha'i community and a few weeks before I arrived in Australia last November. Implicit in the letter was the US NSA's deeming it wrong somehow that I *did not* renounce Baha'u'llah when I resigned. As if there is something wrong with that. Anyhow, it seems that my situation was discussed in cyberspace in my absence, and I was merely wondering if you've kept any of the old messages. May this message find you well. Best regards, Nima Hazini It is He who is revealed in every face, sought in every sign, gazed upon by every eye, worshiped in every object of worship and pursued in the seen and the unseen. Not a single one of His creatures can fail to find Him if they look within to their source, origin and primordial nature. Ibn `Arabi, Futuhat al-Makkiyyah ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com ---------- From: White Cloud[SMTP:sscholl@jeffnet.org] Sent: Friday, May 15, 1998 11:48 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Crisis of Faith, pt. 1 Dear Fredrick, I am fwding my statement to the UHJ that was posted on talisman awhile back. Hope it is of use to your site. Best wishes, Steve ------- 15 May 1996 To the Universal House of Justice The National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States Counselor Stephen Birkland Talisman Dear Friends, Over the last few weeks Baha'is around the world have been informed about the removal of David Langness' Baha'i rights, the denunciation of David by Firuz Kazemzadeh and Stephen Birkland from the floor of the US National Convention, and of the withdrawal of his Baha'i membership by Prof. Juan Cole. As a friend and colleague of both of these loyal lovers of Baha'u'llah, I am devastated by these sad events I can not in good conscience remain silent in the face of such injustice. I have known David and Juan for over 15 years. I have worked with them professionally and have benefited from their generosity of spirit and the brilliance of their insights and wisdom. I value their friendship and love them as my dear brothers. With David I worked in a professional capacity as director of publications for the Hospital Council of Southern California, where David served with great distinction as a spokesperson on health care issues. David also serves as a leading advocate for homeless Americans, serving on the Board of Directors of the Homeless Healthcare Project and with Robin Williams, Whoopi Goldberg and Billy Crystal on the Board of Comic Relief. David has distinguished himself to the non-Baha'i world as a passionate leader for social justice and political reform in America. He also has led many missions of mercy and relief to troubled corners of the globe. For example he spearheaded major relief efforts to the Philippines and to El Salvador. He has been sought out by national media such as the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, National Public Radio, Time magazine and the major networks to speak as a leading authority on the crucial issues facing the American political and social welfare system in the face of the conservative revolution taking place in the United States. I have learned a tremendous amount from David. Much of it of a professional nature, but the more important lessons came from seeing how he dealt with difficult moral and ethical issues in his professional, personal, and Baha'i life. I have rarely seen a person more humble regarding the good works he has accomplished in his life. I feel that I have been blessed by our friendship. As an example of David's character, I will share one story. After the editors of "Dialogue" magazine were attacked by the NSA for seditious behavior back in 1988, many of us descended into depression and "inactive status." David was one of the few who stayed active. He continued his personal teaching of the faith, was a popular Baha'i speaker at firesides, the Bosch Baha'i school, and other venues. In his local community, Los Angeles, he remained an active Baha'i and strong defender of the faith and its institutions. He has spent long hours writing an important introduction to the Baha'i faith, THE SEEKER'S PATH: MYTH, MATURITY, AND THE BAHA'I TEACHINGS, which is scheduled for publication by One World this summer. Those close to David, the members of his local community, recognized his devotion to the faith, his maturity, and his wide experience, and elected him to serve as a member of the Los Angeles LSA, where he served with distinction until he and Teresa moved from Los Angeles a few years ago. I think this speaks volumes of David's character and devotion to the Baha'i administrative order. I first became friends with Juan as I began my undergraduate studies in History of Religions in the late 1970s. Juan was at that time pursuing his graduate studies at UCLA. It was largely through his encouragement and example that I saw the merit of pursuing my graduate studies in Islamic philosophy and mysticism so as to prepare myself for service to the Baha'i faith through the field of Baha'i studies. Over the years, Juan provided me with loving support and guidance as I pursued my studies. When I began my publishing company, Juan was the first person I signed as an author. I have had the great fortune to work with him in an author/publisher relationship. Juan's brilliance is a source of constant enrichment to me personally, and his groundbreaking Baha'is studies will be a lasting treasure and resource to future Baha'i scholars. I believe that he stands with Alessandro Bausani as the two foremost thinkers that the Baha'i community has produced in this century. Juan's accomplishments are many and outstanding. He has served with distinction as Director of the Center for Middle Eastern and North African Studies at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, one of the top Middle East studies departments in the nation. He was a Fullbright scholar and has served on the Board of Directors of the American Institute of Iranian Studies and on the American Council of Learned Societies, and Middle East Studies Association. He is author and editor of several important academic studies including his books COLONIALISM AND REVOLUTION IN THE MIDDLE EAST (Princeton University Press, 1993) and ROOTS OF NORTH INDIAN SHI'ISM IN IRAN AND IRAQ (University of California Press, 1991). He has published two books of translations of Iranian Baha'i scholar Mirza Abu'l-Fadl Gulpaygani (both from Kalimat Press) and two translations of the Arabic writings of Kahlil Gibran (White Cloud Press). He has penned dozens of articles for prestigious academic journals such as the International Journal of Middle East Studies, Iranian Studies, Comparative Studies in Society and History, Middle Eastern Studies, The Muslim World, Encyclopaedia Iranica, Encyclopedia Philosophique Universelle, and The Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East. Juan is known by his academic colleagues as an eloquent and persuasive representative of the Baha'i faith and a staunch defender of the Iranian Baha'is, and he is a recognized expert on the Middle East in general by the press and the United States government. Juan's great love for Baha'u'llah is evident in all of his work, even in his most demanding academic studies that uncover the context and setting of Baha'u'llah's world reforms. His translations of Baha'u'llah's mystical tablets show us that he is not merely a dry academic historian but that he is also an inspired mystic and poet whose soul has been lit by the fire that burned on Sinai and that he has been transformed by the spirit of the Abha Beauty. Juan has not only provided me with guidance but he has been an invaluable friend, colleague and mentor to younger Baha'is entering the field of Baha'is studies. He has given us his time, encouragement, criticisms, and friendship. He is our true brother. It is to my lasting benefit that I have been able to call these men my friends. I wish to state publicly that I believe David and Juan have been completely open and honest in their dealings with the Baha'i administration and that the Baha'i institutions have falsely accused them of crimes against the Covenant and, in David's case, unjustly removed his Baha'i rights. Moreover, the Baha'i institutions have disregarded their own policies in attacking and vilifying these loyal servants. In doing so, I believe that the Baha'i institutions have acted in a manner that is contrary to the letter and spirit of the Baha'i teachings. My reasons for this belief are rooted in my personal knowledge of many of the events that are reported in the communiqués of the NSA and House of Justice. In the House's letter of 10 April, old distortions and half truths are publicly declared and David is accused by the Supreme institution of the Baha'i faith to be "insincere" and "duplicitous." I believe that a more complete accounting of the events that led us to this tragic state of affairs will demonstrate that although there may be faults on the part of all involved parties, it is the Baha'i institutions who have acted in violation of their own clear policies and in violation of the foundational principles and values of the Baha'i sacred writings. The House of Justice letter to the US NSA of 10 April regarding David's case demonstrates that the House of Justice continues to accept as truth the false statements and distortions propagated by the National Spiritual Assembly surrounding the publishing activities of "Dialogue" magazine and Kalimat Press. In doing so, the House of Justice continues to ignore the facts of the case as presented in our appeal letters. Indeed, one of the most frustrating aspects of our appeal process to the House of Justice is that they have simply refused to address the specifics of our appeals and the evidence we have presented that contradicts the NSA's account of our actions and motives. In doing so, the House of Justice has relied on the campaign of backbiting and gossip that has been directed at us for over 15 years by prominent Baha'i administrators. The easiest way for me to address these issues is to respond directly to accusations made against us by the Universal House of Justice and the NSA. Let me begin by first addressing David's loss of pilgrimage rights. In his appeal to the House of Justice that was posted on Talisman, David attempted to reconstruct the events that led to his removal of pilgrimage rights and his confusion as to who was sanctioning and why. The House of Justice letter of 10 April 96 is unsatisfactory as it attempts to dismiss David's detailed accounting of events with the following statement: "The inaccuracies and distortions of this communication are too many and subtle to enter into here." As one of the four "Dialogue" editors sanctioned (Anthony Lee and Payam Afsharian rounded out the list), I, too, was confused as to who was taking action and why. The communications from the NSA and House to us were contradictory. On 8 June 1988 the NSA wrote to the four of us that, "Considering the seriousness of the matter, the National Spiritual Assembly has withdrawn, and will not extend, invitations to you for pilgrimage to the Baha'i World Centre for the time being. In so doing, the National Assembly is carrying out the specific instructions of the Universal House of Justice." At that time some of us who received this letter remained unsure of what exactly we had done to receive such a reprimand and what exactly were the specific instructions of the House of Justice concerning our case. Payam Afsharian sought clarification from the House of Justice as to why he had been sanctioned. Their response to Payam indicated to us that the House was not fully involved in the case and the sanctions, leaving the impression that it was an NSA action. In response to Payam's query, the Dept. of the Secretariat of the House of Justice wrote: "The Universal House of Justice has received your letter of 17 December 1991 in which you ask what you may do "to regain Baha'i status". It has asked us to say that, to the best of its information, your administrative rights have not been removed and you are a Baha'i in good standing. Concerning your question about pilgrimage to the Holy Places at the World Centre, as the instruction of the National Spiritual Assembly indicated, the restriction placed on you and a few others, in the heat of the problems which arose from the actions of the editors of "Dialogue" in connection with the intended publication of the article "A Modest Proposal", was temporary, and you may apply, if you wish, to come on pilgrimage. As to your request to know what you did to have caused the problems which came to a head in the Spring of 1988, the House of Justice feels that this matter has been discussed exhaustively with you and others concerned by the National Spiritual Assembly and its representatives both orally and in writing (letter dated 9 Sept. 1992). Our reading of this letter was that the House of Justice was unsure of our Baha'i status as it was under the jurisdiction of the NSA and that any questions should be raised with the NSA and not the House of Justice. National Center staff also interpreted the letter to Payam in such fashion and communicated this impression to David. It should also be noted that we had very good reason not to trust the communications of the NSA sent to us by the Secretary General. The Secretary General had a history of attacking us, distorting our words and actions, and failing to provide us with full information on issues surrounding our case and appeals. Because of the Secretary General's track record for partial or dishonest communications, we did not accept this statement at face value and thus some of us sought further clarification. Unfortunately, no clear guidance came and, indeed, the House of Justice letter to Payam added to the confusion. The House of Justice could have easily cleared up the matter during David's three-day visit in June 1988. A member of the House and ITC representative could have met with David to discuss events that led up to the crisis and stated clearly and unequivocally that the House of Justice had taken this action. Instead, David was shunned by the members of the House and ITC. I found this shunning of David difficult to comprehend as it runs so contrary to the examples of Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi, and even the House in earlier years. Baha'u'llah's response to believers that he felt might be trouble-makers was to take them with him into exile and have them share his imprisonment. The House could have easily ended the confusion on our part by spending 30 minutes with David during his three-day visit to the Baha'i World Centre. Or they could have ended our confusion by stating directly to Payam what they are now stating. But it is unfair to call David insincere and duplicitous in light of the fact that those of us who were sanctioned and the NSA's own staff remained uncertain about jurisdictional issues due to the House's inability to communicate clearly. I am also disturbed by the manner in which the NSA and House of Justice have taken certain passages from our appeals and twisted their meaning in order to give the appearance that we are being devious in our actions. What comes across time and again in the letters from the House in response to our appeals are vague accusations that are never substantiated with specific examples. On the other hand, our appeals supplied the House with concrete evidence of lies and unethical behavior on the part of the NSA. To these specific charges (which I will discuss below) the House has remained silent and continues to misrepresent the actions and motives of those of us involved with "Dialogue" magazine and Kalimat Press. As an example of how the House of Justice has twisted our words to make us appear insincere or duplicitous, I refer to my second appeal letter to the House of Justice of 26 April 1988 and their response to me on 21 June 1989. Selectively quoting words from my appeal letter, the House of Justice writes that I "assume that all is due to the machinations of certain individuals in positions of responsibility" and that I lack any "awareness that there may have been faults" on my side; that I characterize the "Dialogue" staff as "Baha'is who are innocent of any wrongdoing." I find this statement offensive and a sign of the House of Justice's intransigence in dealing with us. In several of my letters to the National Assembly and the House of Justice, I have openly acknowledged that I am not without fault in this dispute. In these letters I acknowledged that feelings of mistrust have developed in my heart toward individual members of the National Assembly; I recognized that I did not always agree with National Assembly policies and decisions affecting "Dialogue" and have expressed these disagreements in language that has offended; and that I regret some of my actions. However, what I actually stated in my appeal letter of 26 April 1988 to the House of Justice was that "in our activities associated with the preparation, review and publication plans for the article 'A Modest Proposal' we were innocent of any wrongdoing." I maintain that we did not do anything to circumvent the authority of the National Assembly nor did we act in any way contrary to established Baha'i guidelines concerning publishing, nor did we have any intent or motivation to undermine the authority of the National Spiritual Assembly specifically or the Baha'i administration generally. Once we were aware of the National Assembly's concerns about the article, we did everything possible to work with them to alleviate their concerns. For example, we requested to meet with two representatives of the NSA to go over the article word by word. This meeting was held in Los Angeles and we agreed to make changes to the article based on the recommendations of the two NSA members. We met extensively with Counselor Fred Schechter to find a way to achieve reconciliation. We made proposals to the Counselor and the NSA on ways to achieve understanding and harmony. I personally wrote to each member of the NSA and invited them to contact me at any time if they had any questions or concerns about our activities. I invited each NSA member to contribute an article to "Dialogue". In May 1987 the NSA summoned Anthony Lee, Payam Afsharian, Richard Hollinger and myself to Wilmette where they presented their concerns about our activities. We patiently answered all their concerns and felt that we had laid to rest some of the false impressions held by several NSA members, particularly Firuz Kazemzadeh. Following this meeting, I wrote to the NSA and acknowledged that there may still be some lingering concerns between us and that we needed to build bridges of confidence, so I suggested that the NSA should ask us to do something for them, give us a publishing project to work on together. I believe a similar letter was written by Kalimat Press. We (Kalimat Press and "Dialogue") felt that if we could work with the NSA on such projects it would be a first step toward better understanding of each other. My hope was that we could come to recognize that we are all co-workers in the Cause of God. I also suggested that the "Dialogue" editorial board and NSA meet at the Bosch school to pray together and consult with each other, and recommended the calling of a "review summit" where various independent Baha'i writers, publishers, and Baha'i institutions might brainstorm to find a way to make review a more effective and less arbitrary process. The response to each of these attempts to achieve reconciliation and common ground was met with silence. Every attempt on our part to achieve common ground and a true reconciliation only led to further attacks on our motives and characters. Our appeals to the House of Justice came from our concern for the integrity of the institution of the National Spiritual Assembly as well as concern for our Baha'i rights and the economic viability of our work. We appealed to the House of Justice because the Constitution of Universal House of Justice states that the Supreme Institution of the Baha'i Faith is responsible "to safeguard the personal rights, freedom and initiative of individuals," and "for ensuring that no body or institution within the Cause abuse its privileges." I remain convinced that violation of Baha'i law, abuse of authority and privileges, and disregard of Baha'i teachings and values has occurred and that the National Assembly is the perpetrator of such violations. So much of what happened over the years took place in heated discussions off the record. For example the meeting between the NSA and Payam Afsharian, Anthony Lee, Richard Hollinger and myself in Wilmette in May 1987 and the hostile interrogation of the editors of "Dialogue" by three representatives of the NSA in a hotel room in Los Angeles the following year. However, the above attempts on our part to faithfully obey and to work out a true reconciliation with our detractors are on record. Furthermore, there is one crucial element of the controversy that can be used by any objective person or body as evidence of duplicity and corruption. It is my belief that the National Assembly lied to the 1988 National Convention delegates and observers about our activities, particularly that as editor of the magazine I "widely distributed" "A Modest Proposal" to "dozens and dozens" of delegates, that the article was intended as a "dissident manifesto," a petition aimed at undermining the authority of the National Assembly, and that "A Modest Proposal" was an attempt at electioneering. I claim that I did not circulate the article to any delegates and that the only delegates who received copies from me prior to the convention were Anthony Lee, a "Dialogue" editorial board member, and Sheila Banani, an advisor to the magazine. I ask that the House of Justice poll the delegates from the 1988 convention to see if I am lying on this matter or whether the NSA is lying. I stand by my belief that this is one of the key proofs that we can turn to to demonstrate truth from falsehood in this case. --more-- ----------------- Steven Scholl, Publisher White Cloud Press, PO Box 3400, Ashland, OR 97520 phone/fax 541-488-6415 e-mail: sscholl@jeffnet.org https://www.jeffnet.org/whitecloud ---------- From: White Cloud[SMTP:sscholl@jeffnet.org] Sent: Friday, May 15, 1998 11:48 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Crisis of Faith. pt. 2 continued from part 1 The House of Justice further states to me in their June 1989 that we are somehow violating a Baha'i principle and canvassing support within the community to bring pressure to bear on Baha'i institutions. "A Modest Proposal" is thus seen as a dissident manifesto because I offered seven reviewers the opportunity to become co-signers of the article and that this somehow "changes the circulation from an attempt 'to elicit critical feedback for improving it' into an effort to raise a petition" (UHJ letter to Scholl, 21 June 1989). First, I know of no Baha'i law forbidding circulation of petitions within the Baha'i community to communicate the will of believers to their institutions. In fact, Baha'i history records many instances when such petitions (stirrings at the grassroots) were received with careful consideration by the Central Figures or Baha'i institutions. But the fact is that in this case "A Modest Proposal" was from the beginning envisioned as a "Dialogue" article and not as a petition to the NSA. Why would we only ask seven more people to sign it? Previously, I submitted to Wilmette and Haifa the letter I sent to our outside reviewers. There is no indication in that letter that this article was envisioned by its original authors as a petition and never, God forbid, as a dissident manifesto. I urge the House of Justice to contact any of the outside reviewers, many who are employees of the NSA or serving within the appointed branch of the administration, and ask them if I or any other "Dialogue" staff member ever spoke of this effort with the language or even subtle intentions that the NSA and House of Justice accuse us of having. If the NSA had honest concerns about the article, all they needed to do was tell us about them in a direct and honest manner. If they did not like it that we had co-signers, we would have gladly removed the offensive list of names or even run the article under one name, no name, or as being from "The Editors." Or they could have simply banned the article for "security reasons" and the whole matter would have turned into one more annoyance to the "Dialogue" staff, and another example of the administrative attempts to suppress any open discussion of difficult issues facing the Baha'i community. However, since the dissident manifesto/petition angle seems to be a late development in the NSA's list of ever-changing accusations (it appears to have emerged after the "negative electioneering" charge was abandoned due to utter lack of credibility), the entire argument takes on the quality of after-the-fact scrambling for a sufficiently vague but ominous sounding accusation; one that has no merit but may eventually be used to expel us from the faith. In the 21 June letter to me, the House of Justice attempts to make the case that the work of Kalimat Press and "Dialogue" magazine is implicitly an attempt to undermine the Baha'i administrative order by working outside of the boundaries of the Baha'i administration. I do not see how the House of Justice and the NSA can insinuate that we were attempting to work outside of normal Baha'i channels any more than George Ronald or One World Publications or any other of the growing number of independent Baha'i publication companies. The Baha'i institutions formulated the rules for independent Baha'i publishers. Kalimat Press and "Dialogue" accepted these rules and abided by them. Every book published by Kalimat and every article dealing with the Baha'i faith published in "Dialogue" was approved for publication by the NSA's Review Board. The House of Justice has no grounds for declaring that we have acted contrary to the letter or spirit of the law in this regard. I am sorry but the Baha'i institutions cannot have it both ways. It is unfair to demand that we abide by review and then once we publish appropriately censored materials to claim that they are proof of seditious intent on our part. So, yes, it is surprising to me that some of the friends have surmised that we were attempting to create and alternative to the Baha'i administration through our publishing activities. But it is truly shocking that the Universal House of Justice should be among those who have interpreted our faithful efforts in such a partisan and unfair manner. These are some of the specific events and background that we have previously noted in our appeals and which have never been addressed by the House of Justice. More recently, the House of Justice also twisted David's meaning and intent by taking out of context his reference to kangaroo courts and show trials in his Talisman posting. But in the midst of all these unsubstantiated accusations and false reports on our behavior by the Baha'i authorities and the denial of our Baha'i rights of due process, it appears to me that a show trial has taken place and the verdict has been rendered by removing David's rights even though he has not violated any Baha'i law and never disobeyed any Baha'i institution. He was asked to make a retraction of his Talisman statement or lose his rights. He retracted and still lost his rights. Where is justice in all of this? Furthermore, it is important to note that unethical behavior and outright lies are commonly used by the Secretary General and Secretary for External Affairs of the NSA in their attempt to curtail the good work and honest efforts of Baha'is around the country. In is not merely a matter of the lone case of the Los Angeles heretics, who currently have scattered to the four corners of the globe. It has long been noted by mutual friends that the Secretary for External Affairs is particularly vindictive in his attacks on "the LA group." National center staff and national committee members have been warned against associating with us because we are clearly "enemies of the faith" and most likely Covenant-breakers. These statements were made with the implied threat that Baha'is may lose their jobs due to association with trouble makers. Other friends have noted that Prof. Kazemzadeh's view of us is irrational and unshakable. In his mind we are beyond rehabilitation. This type of backbiting and gossip is carried out constantly by prominent Baha'is in positions of authority. I have even heard that the Secretary General has intimated to National Center staff that members of the DIALOGUE staff are closet homosexuals. We have heard over and over again for the last 15 years these kinds of personal attacks being made against us by members of our NSA. I have heard from senior staff members at the National Center in Wilmette that the method used by the Secretary General in particular is to skillfully target his victims (people who have questioned his behavior and personal agendas) and then begin to drop suggestions of grave concern about the targeted victim to other NSA members and senior staff. He then manufactures a crime and when he announces that there is an evil Baha'i in our midst, the groundwork has been laid for discrediting and discarding any Baha'i who interferes with his quest cult of personality. Recently the NSA removed the administrative rights of Mouhebet Sobhani over questions that emerged concerning the World Congress. In The American Baha'i it was stated that Mr. Sobhani and another Persian Baha'i living in the United States had been spreading "outrageous, scandalous, and erroneous accusations about how the National Assembly administered" travel arrangements for the World Congress. In brief, Mr. Sobhani was accused by the NSA of accusing the Secretary General of the National Assembly of "enriching himself as a result of stealing millions of dollars from the World Congress." This charge against Mr. Sobhani was communicated to the House of Justice by the Secretary General and became the basis for Mr. Sobhani's removal of rights. The only problem is Mr. Sobhani claims that he did not make this charge against the Secretary General. I have read the correspondence between Mr. Sobhani and the NSA on this matter and it becomes clear that Mr. Sobhani raised some serious questions about the handling the World Congress by the NSA, but he never made these "outrageous" accusations. The charge appears to have been created by the Secretary General as a way of discrediting Mr. Sobhani and passed on to the House of Justice as fact, similar to the manufacturing of the charge that I spread "A Modest Proposal" to national convention delegates as way of discrediting the NSA and electioneering for office. Other examples of corruption at the National Center abound. National Teaching Committees have been chastised and disbanded for preparing accurate national convention reports that reflected poorly on the NSA. National center staff and Baha'is around the country have been asked to become informants on persons felt to be suspect. Many Baha'is with whom I have spoken feel the Secretary-General consistently uses his authority to carry out his personal agenda, frequently leading him to abuse the rights of individual Baha'is. There are numerous examples of senior staff at the Baha'i National Center being fired for raising concerns and objections to actions of the Secretary-General which they felt were in contradiction to Baha'i principles. The firing of Anna Lee Strasburg, I believe, was a particularly outrageous example of how the Secretary-General manipulates a situation to discredit honest servants of the Baha'i administrative order. The perception of those at the Baha'i National Center who were very close to the situation is that the Secretary-General's motivation for terminating Ms. Strasburg was his total intolerance for any expression of views contrary to his own, or for the expression of concerns about his actions which he interpreted as questioning his authority, even when those views and concerns were offered in forums expressly convened for the purpose of consultation at the national center. Mr. Henderson construes any divergence from his positions or actions as acts of disloyalty to him personally, while portraying them as acts of disloyalty to the National Assembly. Actions such as the firing of Ms. Strasburg has led to a serious decline of morale among National Center staff, and long-time employees have left the National Center rather than work in such a poisoned atmosphere. Other long-time senior staff who have voiced concerns about the Secretary General's behavior have become persona non grata and have been ostracized and marginalized and are fearful of retribution from the Secretary General. Many employees feel that the climate at the administrative offices is spiritually sick. Above I noted that we felt that we could not always know whether the actions of the NSA that were being directed to us by the NSA as a body or by Mr. Henderson acting on his own or in consultation with his step-father, Firuz Kazemzadeh. This is not just a wild paranoid perception of those of us who have been maligned by leaders within the Baha'i administration. Examples of Henderson's renegade acts are fairly well known, especially by those who work at the National Center. For example, for sometime the Secretary General placed the contributions being sent in from around the country for the Arc projects into an account rather than transferring them expeditiously to the House of Justice. He then funneled the interest from this account to the National Spiritual Assembly. He did this action without the approval or knowledge of the NSA. Only through the courageous reporting of this fact by a few staff members to the NSA treasurer was the NSA made aware of the situation. When this was made known, the NSA repaid the House of Justice the interest and the practice was stopped. I believe it was shortly after this that NSA member Juana Conrad was sent to work at the National Center offices. I was told by high ranking Baha'is and NSA staff that this was done to "keep an eye on Bob." In these and many other cases, we see a pattern in which the Secretary General has acted in ways that are disturbing. In the personal cases noted above we see how he has advanced false accusations against individual Baha'is who have threatened or questioned his actions, then refuses to allow the accused to know what evidence has been brought against them so that they may develop their appeal, and he then is in a position to serve as lead prosecutor and judge in their show trial. This tactic is in direct violation of Baha'i administrative procedures and policies. For example, the NSA of the US has stated that: 1. A Baha'i accused of wrongdoing has a right to know that he is accused of, and 2. He has a right to know what evidence has been presented against him. (letter to an individual believer from the US NSA 8 January 1985) This policy is being violated in our case and others. What I am formally requesting with this letter is that the House of Justice and the NSA abide by established Baha'i laws, policies, and procedures in handling the case of David Langness and the editors of "Dialogue". I am requesting that the case against the "Dialogue" editors be reopened and that we be provided with all relevant documents including the following: 1. All communications between the NSA and the World Center concerning our actions. 2. A tape or transcript of Firuz Kazemzadeh's 1988 National Convention denunciation of the "Dialogue" staff. 3. All reports from Counselors Schechter and Birkland to the NSA and House of Justice concerning our actions and any relevant communications from the World Center to the Counselors pertaining to our case. 4. A tape or transcript of Firuz Kazemzadeh and Stephen Birkland's 1996 National Convention denunciations of David Langness. 5. Any and all evidence that exists in our files at the National Center and the World Center including any other letters of complaints that have been received about us that have led to a prejudicial attitude toward us on the part of the Baha'i institutions. The charges made against us have been made public by the NSA via their misleading convention reports and postings on Talisman. I feel that justice calls for the reopening the case as the conflict has never been resolved and is the source of disunity within the community. If the Baha'i institutions refuse to release all relevant documentary evidence, then, again, I think it will be clear that the best beloved of all things in the sight of Baha'u'llah is not a goal for the institutions of his faith. I would also suggest that the House of Justice establish an independent Commission of Inquiry to investigate the corruption that exists within the National Spiritual Assembly. It is my belief that I have only exposed the tip of the iceberg and that there are many more such cases. I have heard many stories of gay and lesbian Baha'is losing their rights under suspicious circumstances where Baha'i administrative policies were ignored and outrageous lies and distortions have been asserted as facts and become the basis for sanctions. It is also widely known that good friends of NSA members have been hired to serve the community and betrayed the trust of the friends. Such betrayals have included theft of Baha'i properties and sexual misconduct at Baha'i schools. Such misconduct has been treated with the utmost leniency and the true nature of such violations of trust have been hidden from the community. And I have heard too many accounts of dedicated Baha'is from all over the country who have had a shadow cast upon their character and activities by NSA members and members of the appointed institutions. In the wake of Juan Cole's resignation of Baha'i membership, I have heard the sad story of how Michael Sours, who has authored several books dealing with the Baha'i Faith and Christianity, was publicly chastised at the Louhelen School by the Secretary for External Affairs, who openly questioned Michael's firmness in the Covenant. I have never met or communicated with Mr. Sours, but I have been impressed by his work and dedication to presenting the Baha'i Faith to the Christian West. I was saddened to learn that Mr. Sours has followed other Baha'i intellectuals into voluntary exile from Baha'i activity. It has been reported to me that Mr. Sours is now totally cut off from the Baha'i community and is pursuing his art and writing projects on non-Baha'i themes so as not to have to bother with the types of intransigence and intimidation that brought Juan to make his break with the faith. I know of dozens of other such stories and have been personally informed by many well-known Baha'i authors, intellectuals, and scholars that they will not write on Baha'i topics as they do not wish to go though such trials. --more-- ----------------- Steven Scholl, Publisher White Cloud Press, PO Box 3400, Ashland, OR 97520 phone/fax 541-488-6415 e-mail: sscholl@jeffnet.org https://www.jeffnet.org/whitecloud ---------- From: White Cloud[SMTP:sscholl@jeffnet.org] Sent: Friday, May 15, 1998 11:49 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Crisis of Faith pt 3 continued from part 2 I suggest that the Commission of Inquiry be composed of independent Baha'is (i.e. persons without affiliation with the US NSA or US Counselors) who will be regarded by all parties as unbiased and fair. As the precipitating issues revolve around Baha'i scholarship and publishing, at least some Commission appointees should be qualified academics. Persons such as Amin Banani, Heshmet Moayyad, and Todd Lawson come to mind. It would also be well for some appointees to have national administrative experience and perhaps members of the NSA of the United Kingdom and Canada, who have extensive experience with scholarship issues, could serve on the Commission. Through The American Baha'i, believers could be invited to share any experiences or concerns with the Commission. I feel that something along these lines will be required if there is to be a true healing of the American Baha'i community. As I have noted, it has been the Baha'i institutions that have publicly attacked loyal Baha'is through the bully pulpit of the National Convention, removal of rights announcements in the American Baha'i, through whispering campaigns, and through their postings on Talisman. I believe that a public process of accounting must take place. It is now popular for Baha'is and Baha'i institutions to claim that Baha'i scholars and intellectuals are attempting to force the Baha'i Faith to conform to western democratic values and procedures. First, I want to make it absolutely clear that in all of our appeals we drew solely on the sacred texts and established policies of the Baha'i administrative order. We did not appeal on the grounds of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Our appeals have always been grounded in Baha'i law, values and principles. As I noted above, our appeals were based on the Constitution of the Universal House of Justice and not the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, I think almost the exact opposite case must be made in that it appears to me that it is the Baha'i institutions who have adopted old world political tactics in dealing with Baha'i scholars, intellectuals, and writers. Scholars such as Juan Cole have attempted to work within the framework of the Baha'i system and do their research in a way that is consistent with the principles of the faith and the principles of intellectual honesty and discipline established within academic discourse. Karl Mannheim, the founder of the sociology of knowledge, makes the following distinction between political discourse vis-a-vis academic discourse: "Political discussion possesses a character fundamentally different from academic discussion. It seeks not only to be in the right but also to demolish the basis of the opponent's social and intellectual existence. . . Political conflict, since it is from the very beginning a rationalized form of the struggle for social predominance, attacks the social status of the opponent, his public prestige, and his self-confidence" (Ideology and Utopia, p. 38). This political approach of attacking the character and public prestige of perceived enemies of the faith is clearly the method being used by Baha'i institutions in their attacks against scholars and intellectuals. It is a sad irony that in such attacks they accuse their targets of being enmeshed in partisan political practices found in "Western liberal democratic values and traditions." Over the years the Baha'i institutions have painted a false portrait of who my friends and I are. Many Baha'is who do not know us or who are unfamiliar with our work will take such vague but dire warnings at face value and conclude that we are misguided at best and enemies of the faith at worse. However, many hundreds of deepened and dedicated Baha'is have a very different perception of us than do the Baha'i authorities. Following the demise of "Dialogue" I received hundreds of phone calls and letters in support of our work. They came from all over the world and from Baha'is at the highest levels of service and responsibility within the faith. The chairman of a European National Assembly wrote to me saying: "Of course I have heard various things about the situation with "Dialogue" and have read the letter from the House of Justice to the American Baha'is to which you refer . . . I do hope that all misunderstandings are now cleared up, as the magazine does provide an interesting medium for discussion and comment. Interestingly, our own NSA promotes this magazine along with all other magazines-we do not find it at all threatening or too controversial-many of the points raised are heard in everyday consultation here, even at national convention . . ." A European Baha'i scholar and widely published author wrote: "Although the material you sent me shocked and saddened me, it described a situation not altogether foreign to my own experience here, when I incorporated some of the details and much of the spirit which animated A MODEST PROPOSAL in several articles that appeared in the [national newsletter] . . . There was an enthusiastic response from lots of ordinary Bahais, but, as I learned soon afterwards, a negative reaction from the powers-that-were. . . . "The point is that people in the Bahai community are very conservative in matters religious and social, and so long as this attitude prevails, there won't even be the sort of Liberal-traditionalist tensions that exist in say, the Anglican communion, because the Liberal trend in the Bahai community is so weak. How, nearly seventy years since Abdul-Baha's death, has this come to pass? We might well ask ourselves this question, but the fact remains that at this point in time the Bahai faith is being expressed in a very narrow and fundamentalist form throughout its institutions, worldwide. What you say about the negative situation which would exist if DIALOGUE and Kalimat folded seems to me absolutely correct. "That's the reality. I know through my work [at the national institute] people who have ended up bitter and scarred through their struggle in the contemporary political environment in the Bahai community. "As you pointed out in your letter to the House of Justice, many good and caring people simply no longer see the relevance of the Bahai community to contemporary developments, and have taken their creativity and commitment elsewhere. The rump that remain - well what can one say of them? They'll still be preaching their same old tired message when the world is unified and virtually running the sort of order Baha'u'llah envisaged. A genuine Bahai who is true to the cause of the founder of his faith should be ardently seeking the stones which Baha'u'llah said he would raise if the Bahais failed.... "As for me, I take no active part in the community other than to give the occasional session to the youth here - sessions usually swamped by 10 students. I feel at a loss as to how to live my life spiritually and ideologically these days, but I know I cannot go back into the ranks of Bahais and pretend, pretend..." Another prominent European Baha'i administrator and widely published author and translator of the sacred texts wrote: "I read the issues [of dialogue] with great interest. I was impressed by their high standard. The articles deal with questions that are relevant and challenging. DIALOGUE is really an open forum for different, even controversial, views. It is a new type of journal, we have never had before. I think we need such a journal which is in touch with society and which provokes an interchange of thought. . . . "What I found really important and necessary was the discussion on politics and all questions which derive from it. There is nothing more appropriate to write than to quote from a letter you published (issue 1, p. 37): 'Whether or not all views are accepted is irrelevant-the stimulation of thought will give us all new intellectual vigor to meet the challenges put to us by the Universal House of Justice in 1983.' "The journal is provocative and treats the issues more interestingly than the Baha'i magazines published by the institutions. . . . "I do hope that you will continue as, for a new dimension of understanding, such an open forum for the exchange of thoughts is indispensable." The general manager of one of the national Baha'i Publishing Trusts wrote: "I was saddened to learn of your trials and difficulties with DIALOGUE. I am sure you anticipated some of them, change is a painful thing and I believe DIALOGUE is a force for positive change in the Baha'i Community. I will pray for DIALOGUE and hope that from your efforts the "spark of truth" will emerge. . . ." A Baha'i publisher from the South Pacific wrote: "I want you to know that other people, even people on this side of the world, know something of what has gone on with you, and sympathise with your struggle. Whatever happens, at least it's down on record and the matter is kept alive in somebody's mind. "I think you have been treated very badly. Issues aside, you've been treated badly as human beings. If it was me I would be devastated. . . ----------------- Steven Scholl, Publisher White Cloud Press, PO Box 3400, Ashland, OR 97520 phone/fax 541-488-6415 e-mail: sscholl@jeffnet.org https://www.jeffnet.org/whitecloud ---------- From: White Cloud[SMTP:sscholl@jeffnet.org] Sent: Friday, May 15, 1998 11:49 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Crisis of Faith, pt. 4 cont. from part 3 Clearly there are differences of opinion about our character and the sincerity and value of our Baha'i activities. Baha'u'llah warned us that it is the leaders of religion in every age who corrupt the pure teachings of the Manifestation of God. Baha'is assume that corruption within the Baha'i administrative order is not possible. However, I think it is naive to think that there can ever be perfection in this world. Ever. Abdu'l-Baha states this quite clearly. A major theme of The Kitab-i Iqan is the dangers posed "by the leaders of religion in every age" and Juan and others have posted many of Abdu'l-Baha's concerns over tyranny and corruption by those in authority. The Master also notes that because of the slippery ego, corruption can enter the Baha'i system, even if it is divine in its origin. There is a very strong statement from Abdu'l-Baha on how those in authority within the Baha'i community are vulnerable to the disease of corruption by power. Speaking in Haifa in 1915, Abdu'l-Baha observed that: "Holding to the letter of the law is many times an indication of a desire for leadership. One who assumes to be the enforcer of the law shows an intellectual understanding of the Cause, but that spiritual guidance in them is not yet established. "The alphabet of things is for children, that they may in time use their reasoning powers. "Following the spirit" is a guidance by and through the heart, the prompter of the spirit. The Pharisees were extremely orthodox, holding strictly to the law. They were the cause of the condemnation and ultimate crucifixion of Jesus. . . . "The ones in real authority are known by their humility and self-sacrifice and show no attitude of superiority over the friends. "Some time ago a tablet was written stating that none are appointed to any authority to do anything but to serve the Cause as true servants of the friends--and for this no tablet is necessary; such service when true and unselfish requires no announcement, no following, nor written document. "Let the servant be known by his deeds, by his life! "To be approved by God alone should be one's aim. . . . "Envy closes the door of Bounty, and jealousy prevents one from ever attaining to the Kingdom of Abha. No! Before God! No one can deprive another of his rightful station, that can only be lost by one's unwillingness or failure to do the will of God, or by seeking to use the Cause of God for one's own gratification or ambition. "No one save a severed soul or a sincere heart finds response from God. By assisting in the success of another servant in the Cause does one in reality lay the foundation for one's own success and aspirations. "Ambitions are an abomination before the Lord! "How regrettable! Some even use the affairs of the Cause and its activities as a means of revenge on account of some personal spite, or fancied injury, interfering with the work of another, or seeking its failure. Such only destroy their own success, did they know the truth." Star of the West, vol. 6, no. 6 (June 24, 1915) Even sterner is the Master when he warns "What deviation can be more complete than falsely accusing the loved ones of God!" Another disturbing aspect of these recent events is how the Baha'i institutions have complained about how "the LA group" has undermined the authority of the NSA by its disrespectful attitude and hostile publishing activities. Yet at the same time it is very clear that an even more blistering campaign of gossip is being carried out by the House of Justice and some of the Counselors. For example, in several private conversations with different Baha'is around the country, Counselor Birkland has acknowledged that the US NSA has a problem with corruption. He has stated that Baha'is should not be concerned, that everything is under control and that there will be "an elegant solution." The implication being that the House of Justice will find a way to get some of the most offensive members off the NSA via retirement or re appointment. As for the "elegant solution" coming down from Haifa, many recent pilgrims and visitors to the Baha'i World Centre have returned home with interesting stories to tell. Several have spoken of the very blunt criticisms of the US NSA by individual House of Justice members and ITC members. The story line goes something like this: "Yes, the House of Justice is aware of the problems and corruption surrounding the American NSA. Haven't the Baha'is read the May 19th letter? Why don't the delegates do something about this? What more can we say? Wasn't this statement clear enough? We are waiting for the Baha'is to reform the system via election." From the pilgrims' tales I have heard, it seems clear that the House of Justice too believes there is a problem and is now attempting to control the situation by supporting their May 19th communiqué with a stream of backbiting about the NSA in hopes that the word will spread. This seems contrary to the high ideals espoused by the House and is a troubling development within the Baha'i community. Our position has always been that it is time for the establishment of open discourse within the faith via uncensored publications and the development of scholarship and journalism. This path seems much more honest and healthy than the culture of deceit that dominates the Baha'i community in the late twentieth century. This is culture of deceit has existed for some time now in the Baha'i faith. It is a fact of life that those of us involved with Kalimat Press and "Dialogue" were very much aware of. It has always been our position that in such a climate of gossip and backbiting our only chance for protection is to be open and honest about our beliefs and actions. We have never shied away from directly stating our views in private correspondence with the Baha'i institutions and through our published works. We have nothing to hide or be ashamed of. I am proud of what we accomplished with "Dialogue" magazine and I am proud of the way we handled ourselves in the face of such hostility. In the course of 18 months we became the largest paid subscription publication in the Baha'i world, surpassing World Order, which had a 50 year head start on us. Finally, I feel it only fair to state what my sense of the current situation calls for. The Baha'i institutions have invited the world to study the Baha'i faith as a model of unity in a world of crisis. Talisman is a public forum with several non-Baha'is on board. These events have already gone beyond the Baha'i community through the participation of these interested non-Baha'is in the Talisman discussions. One non-Baha'i on Talisman has already indicated that he plans to develop a story on these events for a prominent national magazine. I have also discussed this situation with my Catholic, Jewish, and Buddhist colleagues, who are interested to hear about these developments which are so contrary to the public image of the Baha'i faith as a religion of tolerance, peace, compassion, and unity. I think that it is for the good that this controversy is spilling outside of the Baha'i community. The Baha'i community has asked the world to regard it as a major player on the world stage and the Baha'is have begun to be more visible in world affairs. It is important that non-Baha'is see the entire picture so that they can judge between Baha'i public relations and the true state of Baha'i community relations. Baha'is are doing good works in the world. No one can doubt this. But it is also clear that there is a darker side to the Baha'i faith, a hidden Baha'i faith, that appears in these cases dealing with intellectual honesty, academic integrity, and and open community. The dark side of the Baha'i faith is the role of censorship and harrasment of Baha'i authors, the punishment of any Baha'i who publicly offers critical analysis of Baha'i institutions, the threat of shunning and ex-communication to force conformity, the use of informants, and sanctioning of faithful Baha'is who are seen as "dissidents" by a frustrated and over-sensitive American administration that has presided over thirty years of stagnation and no growth. The crisis of the present hour is a test that we must face with faith and courage. I believe that these troubling patterns within the Baha'i community primarily reflect that we are passing from one phase of development to a new one. The old ways no longer work and adjustments need to be made. These adjustments do not mean we should lose heart or faith in the fundamental verities of Baha'u'llah's new world order, but we must work to find new ways that meet the challenges of the crisis. Sadly, we have lost one of the most learned champions for a Baha'i renewal that is firmly rooted in the writings of Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha. Perhaps if justice is truly served, a loyal servant of the Blessed Perfection such as Juan Cole will be able to return to the community. This is my hope and prayer. Whatever happens I remain confident that Juan, David, and others who have been unjustly accused and slandered over the years will eventually be vindicated as honest and faithful Baha'is. The NSA and House of Justice in their statements concerning those of us who have been working for constructive change within the Baha'i community appear to have raised unity and obedience above all other Baha'i values and principles-indeed, it appears that many fundamental Baha'i principles are being sacrificed in the name of unity and obedience. Yet it is clear that for Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha it is not a constricted and forced unity through conformity that is the Baha'i ideal. Nor would Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha, who were prisoners of conscience, desire to see the elimination from the Baha'i community of personal conscience, freedom of expression, the independent investigation of truth, and the harmony of religion and science. These are not western liberal democratic values and traditions, these are Baha'i values and traditions that cannot be sacrificed on the altar of personal ambitions of Baha'i administrators or dictatorial behavior of Baha'i institutions. 'Abdu'l-Baha notes that truthfulness is the foundation of all virtues and Baha'u'llah has made it clear that "the purpose of justice is the appearance of unity." In other words, there cannot be true unity if truthfulness is abandoned and justice is not adhered to in the conduct of our affairs. This is what I am seeking by writing this letter: that truthfulness and justice be the guiding lights in dealing with these difficult issues so that the light of unity, a unity that embraces diversity and preserves human honor, will make it possible for a new beginning. I know that the four Baha'is who are currently under investigation for undermining the Covenant have acted out of love and loyalty to the Covenant of Baha'u'llah in all their activities. It will be tragic if the Universal House of Justice supports or takes further actions against them. I urge the members of the House of Justice to prayerfully look into their hearts to see if there might be a more just and honorable way to deal with these disputes. With love, Steven Scholl White Cloud Press PO Box 3400 Ashland, OR 97520 Phone/fax 541-488-6415 e-mail: sscholl@jeffnet.org ----------------- Steven Scholl, Publisher White Cloud Press, PO Box 3400, Ashland, OR 97520 phone/fax 541-488-6415 e-mail: sscholl@jeffnet.org https://www.jeffnet.org/whitecloud ---------- From: Harold Shinsato[SMTP:shinsato@inxight.com] Sent: Friday, May 15, 1998 3:30 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: THANKS! Fred, I have been able to reach your website, and enjoyed it a great deal. I also want to thank you for your efforts in creating and maintaining this list. The Baha'i Faith requires that it's members make these kinds of efforts to ensure the vitality of the Covenant. Thank you also for your work in finding a good host for this site. This has certainly turned out better than coollist was. I had great trouble at first using makelist, but I was able to subscribe when you sent me another message a few days ago without a single hitch or glitch. Again, many thanks. May your efforts to seek justice and freedom of conscious thrive. Regards, Harold Shinsato Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > I'd appreciate it if anyone else having trouble reading my > web site let me know. I'm assuming the problem here is probably with > Ron's system for some reason as no one else has mentioned > anything like this while there have been 600+ hits in one week.... > > Frederick Glaysher > Usenet: alt.religion.bahai > > Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com > List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > > The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: Burl Barer[SMTP:burlb@bmi.net] Sent: Monday, May 18, 1998 12:19 PM To: Frederick Glaysher; talisman; bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Article on the Covenant, part 2 At 06:42 AM 5/18/98 -0400, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >Rick Schaut has always impressed me as an extreme Bahai fanatic. I'd >never bother reading anything he'd write on the covenant, or much of >anything else for that matter.... HA HA HA HA HA. Rick is a polite, considerate, gentleman who is both well-read and well-mannered. I would be most interested in reading what he has to say. Warm regards, Burl Barer ---------- From: Bud Polk[SMTP:cybrmage@dave-world.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 1998 2:22 PM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: [bahai-faith] What is the agenda? Dear friends, I was browsing around and found this list. I am wondering what agenda Fred Glaysher - the listowner - has. There's a statement that the list is unmoderated and for discussion of Baha'i history, theology, etc. But the majority of the posts are attacks - direct or indirect - on soc.religion.bahai. Where is the discussion of history, theology, etc.? I find it interesting that there have been 216 posts and 167 are from Glaysher (77.3%). The next highest was a person who posted 16 times (7.4%). I'm on many lists and I am a listowner. I've never seen a list where 3/4 of the posts were from one person - listowner or otherwise. What is Glaysher's agenda? I also visited Glaysher's site on freedom of conscience. I wondered what the agenda was at that website. What audience - Baha'is or non-Baha'is? Among the links, one is to a website maintained by a Muslim who calls Baha'u'lllah an "anti-christ." What's the agenda here? The site sows doubt, confusion and misinformation Both this list and Glaysher's websites are trojan horses to my mind - attacks on the Faith disguised as a voice of "conscience." But I defend Glaysher's right to maintain this list (even though it appears he is mainly talking to himself) and to maintain the website. He is free to say whatever he wants. It's an interesting tatic that Galysher uses - when anyone disagrees with him that person is yet another example of "censorship." Or he calls the posts attacks ad hominem - a little hard to swallow after his attack on Rick Schaut. Best regards, Bud Polk cybrmage@dave-world.net ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 1998 8:27 AM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Bahai: new mailing list & web site I'd like to let you know there's a new unmoderated mailing list on the Bahai Faith for those who only have email service preventing them from accessing alt.religion.bahai or talk.religion.misc: bahai-faith@makelist.com Although it does not automatically forward all messages from alt.religon.bahai, many are forwarded or sent "cc" or courtesy copy to the mailing list. Full subscription email and web addresses are given below. The list will accept messages posted to in by non-subscribers, allowing anyone to post to it from any Usenet, web, or mailing list source. It also offers an archive of all messages. Those who can access only the talk.* hierarchy will find many messages forwarded or crossposted on talk.religon.misc. I might note that anyone with access to talk.religion.misc can simultaneously crosspost to talk.religon.misc and alt.religion.bahai allowing people on alt.religion.bahai to receive, read, and crosspost back to talk.religon.misc. For those who wish, dialogue could also be carried on in this way with people on alt.religon.bahai. There is also a new web site: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm I have placed on it important passages from the Writings, controversial documents, some messages censored by soc.religion.bahai, messages to and from the Universal House of Justice, and postings by myself and others on freedom of speech or suppression thereof in the Bahai Faith. It contains many links to sites of various opinion on the Faith. I hope these two additions to cyberspace will help defend the sanctity of the individual conscience among Bahais and serve to help us all understand and explore the much-neglected profundity of Abdu'l-Baha's teachings on these perennial dilemmas of human experience in preparation for the third interest poll on talk.religion.bahai in late August or early fall of this year. -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: K. Paul Johnson[SMTP:pjohnson@vsla.edu] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 1998 5:11 PM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Fw: Internet - norms and values (normen en waarden) As a witness to the rise and fall of Talisman I, may I offer some comments on passages from the letters of the House: > ------------------------------------------ > > >From a letter of 20 July 1997: > > Not surprisingly, the abuse of Internet discussions on the Faith and > its Teachings has had the effect of greatly distressing friends who > became aware of it. "Perceived" abuse would be more accurate, as the way this is stated implies that the original "wrong" was the way more liberal or critical Baha'is discussed certain issues. My recollection is rather that all went smoothly until more conservative/fundamentalist Baha'is came on board, were outraged, and started an atmosphere of contention. That the response has included, as your letter > suggests, a degree of intemperate criticism, inappropriate comment and > unjust accusation is lamentable, but also not surprising, for > contentiousness begets contention. This has the ring of blaming the victim, since the vast majority of personal attacks were made against the people who are implicitly accused of "starting the trouble" and they rarely responded with comparable ferocity. When they did, it was after continued personally hostile treatment from their fellow believers. Thus I would say that the contentiousness of the conservative/fundamentalists was what led to the contention by the scholars. Going back over the files of Talisman, one would find that Scholl, Cole, Linda Walbridge, Hazini, and other supposed "contentious" people were actually getting along just fine until attacks from the right wing started. And even when under attack they never matched their antagonists' level of hostility as I recall. You should be confident that the > House of Justice will not permit a climate of intolerance to prosper > in the Baha'i community, no matter from what cause it arises. I'd love to believe that but cannot in light of the evidence. snip > >From a letter dated 8 Feb 1998 > > Some of the protagonists in the discussions on the Internet have > implied that the only way to attain a true understanding of historical > events > and of the purport of the sacred and historical records of the Cause > of God is through the rigid application of methods narrowly defined in > a materialistic framework. They have even gone so far as to stigmatize > whoever proposes a variation of these methods as wishing to obscure > the truth rather than unveil it. This is quite a misrepresentation of the discourse I remember from Talisman. I do remember when Mark Foster told me that he had been writing to the House accusations of this nature about Cole et al. I was horrified at this turn of events, which ended a year or two of friendly relations between us. Juan, John and others never said "the only way to attain a true understanding" was through either rigidity or materialism. They said rather that the only way to write about history, *if one is a historian responsible to the professional standards of the field*, is by adhering to those standards. And the attacks they got from fellow Baha'is who were not historians stigmatized them as "weak in the Covenant" etc. No one was stigmatized for "proposing a variation on those methods." All published Baha'i histories have varied from those methods more or less, and they were not attacked. It was rather those who consistently attacked the use of scholarly standards in approaching Baha'i history who were (rightly, IMO) accused of wanting to stifle the search for truth. > snip Lots of reasonable comments here, but-- > unscholarly attacks and calumnies which may periodically be injected > into their discussions by the ill-intentioned. Discussion with those > who sincerely raise problematic issues, whether they be Baha'is or > not, and whether -- if the latter -- they disagree with Baha'i > teachings, can be beneficial and enlightening. However, to continue > dialogue with those who have shown a fixed antagonism to the Faith, > and have demonstrated their imperviousness to any ideas other than > their own, is usually fruitless and, for the Baha'is who take part, > can be burdensome and even spiritually corrosive. It's so easy to see "fixed antagonism to the Faith" and easy to be blind to one's own fixed antagonism to anyone who questions certain elements of the Faith. Easy to accuse others of imperviousness to alternate ideas, easy to be blind to one's own rigidity. I am sorry for the breakdown in communication that has occurred, but can see here a consistent note of placing most of the burden of blame on the wrong shoulders. Fortunately there are thousands of pages of documents from Talisman I which will allow future historians to disentangle the facts of the matter from the interpretation they have received. Cheers, KPJ ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 1998 7:30 AM To: talisman; bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: [bahai-faith] fw Re: Article on the Covenant, part 2 & "horrid reasoning of Covenant breakers" -----Original Message----- From: Burl Barer To: Frederick Glaysher ; talisman ; bahai-faith @ makelist.com Date: Monday, May 18, 1998 12:20 PM Subject: Re: Article on the Covenant, part 2 >At 06:42 AM 5/18/98 -0400, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >>Rick Schaut has always impressed me as an extreme Bahai fanatic. I'd >>never bother reading anything he'd write on the covenant, or much of >>anything else for that matter.... > > HA HA HA HA HA. > >Rick is a polite, considerate, gentleman who is both well-read and >well-mannered. I would be most interested in reading what he has to say. > >Warm regards, >Burl Barer > I cite as evidence: -----Original Message----- From: Rick Schaut To: Baha'i Discuss Date: Saturday, October 11, 1997 12:01 PM Subject: RE: Breakdown of UseNet ( Was talk.religion.Badi ) >Dear Keith and Friends, > >> From: Keith James [SMTP:kjames@vision.net.au] >> I would like to see just how many pro-votes there are and allow [TRB] >> to form. If it turns out to be a place of dissention, then only the >> steadfast >> Baha'is will stick with it and it will eventually drop out. It could >> in >> fact be a very effective teaching tool, demonstrating the qualities >> and >> virtues of Baha'is. >> >This doesn't quite capture the possibilities for talk.religion.bahai. >First, let's understand that what happens in unmoderated USENET is >multiple asynchronous discussions. Unlike a moderated newsgroup, a post >to an unmoderated newsgroup, for all practical purposes, is either a >part of a discussion or an invitation to join a discussion. > >Secondly, the texts regarding successorship within the Faith are so >clear that anyone who would choose to become a Covenant breaker can only >be motivated by a desire to cause dissension and strife. To engage such >a person in any form of discussion, whether it be in one's home or in a >USENET newsgroup, is to allow them an opportunity to spread that >dissension and strife. When someone's sole desire is to pick a fight, >it's best to simply walk away no matter how hard that person hits you >the first time. > >So, my fear regarding any unmoderated newsgroup bearing the name >"Baha'i" is that it could become a forum for Covenant breakers where any >attempt I make to respond to their claims is, itself, a violation of the >very principles I am sowrn, as a Baha'i, to uphold. This, I don't wish >to be put in the position of having to choose between violating some >very core principles of the Baha'i Faith regarding dissension and unity, >and allowing the horrid reasoning of Covenant breakers to stand >uncontested. > >I would submit that it was this very reason that TRB was voted down six >months ago. The issue was raised then, and the proponents of the >newsgroup swept it asside by repeated insistence on the binding nature >of what are, in reality, only rough guidelines regarding voting for or >against the formation of USENET newsgroups. Even now, we see a lot of >talk about "subversion" of democratic principles and the "breakdown" of >USENET, but still no proponent of talk.religion.bahai has deigned to >address this issue in terms that are satisfying for Baha'is. It is >swept aside, and, until such time as someone wishes to address the issue >of Covenant breakers, the proposed formation of talk.religion.bahai will >get voted down again. > > >Warmest Regards, >Rick Schaut ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: Cheryll & Wade Schuette[SMTP:schuette@s.imap.itd.umich.edu] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 1998 8:16 AM To: talisman@umich.edu; bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] fw Re: Article on the Covenant, part 2 & "horrid reasoning of Covenant breakers" >>At 06:42 AM 5/18/98 -0400, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >>>Rick Schaut has always impressed me as an extreme Bahai fanatic. I'd >>>never bother reading anything he'd write on the covenant, or much of >>>anything else for that matter.... >> [and Burl replied] >>Rick is a polite, considerate, gentleman who is both well-read and >>well-mannered. I would be most interested in reading what he has to say. >> [and Fred replied to that] >I cite as evidence: [ cite deleted from this reply] Good cite -- now we can see what the phrase "extreme Bahai fanatic" refers to. Wade ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: K. Paul Johnson[SMTP:pjohnson@vsla.edu] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 1998 4:16 PM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] All religions unified this century? (Baha'i) Hi Fred, Sure, feel free to use it. I visited your website from home last night through Internet Explorer, whereas at work I use text-only Lynx. Attractive site, nice picture of you looking much less ferocious than I'd imagined, well done. Cheers, Paul ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Friday, May 22, 1998 5:44 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Bahai: new mailing list - web site Greetings from Ottawa. Thanks for the info. I'm responding at once, without reading the details. I've just got back from a week in Quebec City. I'll try to reply in more detail when I read through your material, though I really don't have much time, and I really am now much more involved in the Pagan scene. May this find you very well, and may the future surpass our best hopes. Michael > >I'd like to let you know there's a new unmoderated mailing list on the >Bahai Faith for those who only have email service preventing them from >accessing alt.religion.bahai or talk.religion.misc: > >bahai-faith@makelist.com > >Although it does not automatically forward all messages from >alt.religion.bahai, many are forwarded or sent "cc" or courtesy copy >to the mailing list. Full subscription email and web addresses are >given below. The list will accept messages posted to it by >non-subscribers, allowing anyone to post to it from any Usenet, >web, or mailing list source. It also offers an archive of all >messages. > >Those who can access only the talk.* hierarchy will find many >messages forwarded or crossposted on talk.religion.misc. I might >note that anyone with access to talk.religion.misc can >simultaneously crosspost to both talk.religion.misc and >alt.religion.bahai allowing people on alt.religion.bahai to receive, >read, and crosspost back to talk.religion.misc. For those who wish, >dialogue could also be carried on in this way with people on >alt.religion.bahai. > >There is also a new web site: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of >Conscience: > >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > >I have placed on it important passages from the Bahai Writings, >controversial documents, some messages censored by soc.religion.bahai, >messages to and from the Universal House of Justice, and postings by >myself and others on freedom of speech or suppression thereof in the >Bahai Faith. Following Abdu'l-Baha's respect for the individual's >conscience, I provide many links to sites of various opinion on the >Faith. > >I hope these two additions to cyberspace will help defend the sanctity >of the individual's God-given conscience among Bahais and serve to help >us all understand and explore the much-neglected profundity of >Abdu'l-Baha's teachings on these perennial dimensions of human >experience >in preparation for the third interest poll on talk.religion.bahai in >late >August or early fall of this year. > >-- >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: >https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 7:00 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: [bahai-faith] Bahai-faith: 16 subscribers There are currently 16 subscribers on bahai-faith: bintyaya@aol.com FG@hotmail.com harris632@aol.com house@usq.edu.au jeffery.decker@usa.net laaeterna@aol.com leonid@magnet.at lucien.dol@xtra.co.nz mjavid@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca mrscotty@mninter.net owner@sociologist.com pjohnson@vsla.edu shinsato@inxight.com starjo@arach.net.au stephenb@polarnet.ca whitbrandt@mailcity.com Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: Bud Polk[SMTP:cybrmage@dave-world.net] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 1998 11:52 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Would this be you? Glaysher, Frederick J, 3212 Avon Manor Rd, Rochester, MI 48307-5422 Phone: (810)853-6998 - right outside the Detroit Metro area? Bud ---------- From: Eric D. Pierce[SMTP:PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 11:09 AM To: talisman@umich.edu Cc: jrcole@umich.edu Subject: Re: Threatening Bahai email (was Re: Tips for newbies) I seem to recall him posting on both SRB and talisman some time ago about his struggle dealing with mental health issues. EP On 26 May 98 at 17:33, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > From: "Frederick Glaysher" > To: "talisman" , > "bahai-faith @ makelist.com" > Subject: Threatening Bahai email (was Re: Tips for newbies) > Date sent: Tue, 26 May 1998 17:33:43 -0400 > This person Bud Polk, who points out he has posted to soc.religion.bahai, > has sent me a threatening email... ---------- From: Bud Polk[SMTP:cybrmage@dave-world.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 6:27 PM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Threatening Bahai email > This person Bud Polk, who points out he has posted to soc.religion.bahai, > has sent me a threatening email, Fred, get a grip. I sent a message titled "Would this be you?" in the body of the message was your name, your home address and your phone number - period, nothing else - no threat. Anyone can obtain that publically available information at which indexes all the white page phone books in the U.S. Just wanted know if I had the right Fred in case I want to snailmail him sometime. If I were malicious, I could have posted the infor publically. > in addition to the one posted using my > wife and son's names, demonstrating very personal information about me > that I have never posted online anywhere.... You posted your wife's name dozens of times when you posted to soc.relgion.bahai as "Frederick Glaysher" (@MOA.net). Any one can check the archive and see for themselves. You posted your son's name to your new website under the message "2nd RESULT: Talk.Religion.Bahai Feb 22, 1998." Again, anyone can go to the website and check. > If any Bahai or non-Bahai knows this individual I would appreciate it if you > would ask him to desist. If you believe he might be dangerous or > unbalanced, please contact me immediately. > > Email addresses he has used are > > cybrmage@dave-world.net > > cybrmage@mail.dave-world.net > > Frederick Glaysher > Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Anyone who knows me - Baha'i or non-Baha'i knows that I am gentle as a lamb. You can call a friendly email a "threat" but that doesn't make it so. When you use the Internet, you leave footprints. I do - everyone does. Respectfully, Bud Polk ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: Cheryll & Wade Schuette[SMTP:schuette@s.imap.itd.umich.edu] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 10:15 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Threatening Bahai email (was Re: Tips for newbies) >This person Bud Polk, who points out he has posted to soc.religion.bahai, >has sent me a threatening email, in addition to the one posted using my >wife and son's names, demonstrating very personal information about me >that I have never posted online anywhere.... > >If any Bahai or non-Bahai knows this individual I would appreciate it if you >would ask him to desist. If you believe he might be dangerous or >unbalanced, please contact me immediately. > >Email addresses he has used are > >cybrmage@dave-world.net > >cybrmage@mail.dave-world.net > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc > Fred, I attached below a message from Bud Polk in the SRB archives, indicating that he has a mood disorder, but doesn't seem to be dangerous. He sounds fairly stable to me inthat message. I'm digging more. In fairness, you take a great deal as a threat or personal assault that many other people would just ignore, from what I've seen over the last two years of reading your emails. I am not saying that a substantive threat should be ignored, nor that I would not assist in all ways possible to deal with one -- a Baha'i couple just had their hous firebombed a week ago inFlint, and hate crimes are real -- but I'd like to see what exactly his threat was, in his own words, before jumping to the conclusion that it was, in fact, substantive. Would you share the message? best regards, Wade Schuette ---------- From: Cheryll & Wade Schuette[SMTP:schuette@s.imap.itd.umich.edu] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 10:18 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Threatening Bahai email (#2) >This person Bud Polk, who points out he has posted to soc.religion.bahai, >has sent me a threatening email, in addition to the one posted using my >wife and son's names, demonstrating very personal information about me >that I have never posted online anywhere.... > >If any Bahai or non-Bahai knows this individual I would appreciate it if you >would ask him to desist. If you believe he might be dangerous or >unbalanced, please contact me immediately. > >Email addresses he has used are > >cybrmage@dave-world.net > >cybrmage@mail.dave-world.net > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ============ Fred, here's another informative post from Bud Polk I came across. Again, he sounds like he sometimes talks angry, but has it under control. Wade -------------------- On 3 Oct 97 at 21:53, JSDanek wrote: > Hi, > How do bahai's deal with anger? Is it possible to get rid of > it? Is it > caused from self-righteousness? Any help would be appreciated. > Thanks. > Jacob I believe the Baha'i ideal is to develop spiritually to the point where one no longer experiences anger because he is so immersed in the love of God and all created things. I suspect there may be some people in this world who are beyond feeling and expressing anger. In my 47 years on this Earth and in my 25 years as a Baha'i, however, I have never met one. I do not believe anger is simply an emotion. I believe anger has physical, emotional, intellectual and spiritual components. When a person is angry, his heart rate increases, his muscles tense. He feels some of the emotions we describe as anger -- annoyance, frustration, hurt, fear, aggression. He thinks angry thoughts. He may feel and express either the dark side or the bright side of his spirit. Many things trigger anger -- oneself, loved ones, friends, acquaintances, strangers, pets, situations, institutions, injustice. What matters is whether one expresses anger appropriately or inappropriately, assertively or aggressively. Anger repressed or inapproriately expressed may lead to physical or emotional problems. A chronically angry person may develop an ulcer. That person may have problems with relationships and intimacy or other emotional problems. I believe that chronic anger may indicate deep-rooted psychological issues which require therapy. The appropriate expression of anger is constructive. When I feel hurt or neglected by wife, I express my anger and the reasons behind it. She may get angry in turn. Then we talk things through which leads to greater intimacy. When traffic is heavy and I will be late for an appointment, honking and swearing at other drivers is inappropriate. So I do deep-breathing exercises to relax and discharge the anger. Sometimes I read something in the newspaper which makes me angry and with which I disagree. I write a constructive letter to the editor expressing my own opinion. A public policy issue may anger me. So I write elected officials in support of or in opposition to proposed legislation. I am a naturalist and ardent environmentalist. I have seen people dump toxic chemicals and construction debris into wetlands. I witnessed the poaching of an endangered species in a national park. These wanton and illegal acts made me furious, sent me into to a rage. I did not confront the offenders. I wrote down license plate numbers and descriptions of the vehicles and the people. Then I called the authorities. The poachers were caught. Sometimes I express anger inappropriately. I get very angry and blow up at something my eight-year-old son has done. Later I apologize and we talk about what he did and how I responded. This is constructive for both of us. Anger is a normal part of the human experience. How one deals with it can be constructive or destructive. Anger presents an opportunity for personal and spiritual development. Bud Polk mailto:cybrmage@dave-world.net ---------- From: Cheryll & Wade Schuette[SMTP:schuette@s.imap.itd.umich.edu] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 10:24 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Threatening Bahai email (#3 - website) >This person Bud Polk, who points out he has posted to soc.religion.bahai, >has sent me a threatening email, in addition to the one posted using my >wife and son's names, demonstrating very personal information about me >that I have never posted online anywhere.... > >If any Bahai or non-Bahai knows this individual I would appreciate it if you >would ask him to desist. If you believe he might be dangerous or >unbalanced, please contact me immediately. > Here's Bud Polk's web site, which I tracked down. https://www.pendulum.org/links.htm Again, he certainly seems to be energetic about seaching out ways to cope with anger and depression, which, probably, makes him healthier than most people, and therefore, safer and less of a risk. Why don't you simply ask him where he got your family info? some amazingthings are on-line, like, know anyone working for Century One real estate? Alta Vista finds things one wouldn't expect or forgets are out there. regards, Wade ---------- From: K. Paul Johnson[SMTP:pjohnson@vsla.edu] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 9:34 AM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Threatening Bahai email Dear Fred and Bud, The email in question was not threatening, but it was a form of harassment IMO and there was a threat implied. That is "I know where to come after you and your family if I want to harm you." Whenever I've seen this kind of tactic used on the Net it has been by defenders of authoritarian religious groups harassing their critics. Bud, why else would you send Fred such a message? If you insist that it was just to confirm his address, I'll decline to believe that. His wife and kid have nothing to do with your ability to write to him. PJ ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: Juan Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 10:44 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: greetings Dear Frederick: I like your new Web page quite a lot. Also I appreciate what you are doing for free discourse in the community. I put the links in at my Web site. I just signed on to Talisman and thought I might try to do something with it this summer. It seems to me more effective for you to send specific messages for the talisman community to talisman than to copy them with everything from your other list. Some people have signed off talisman recently apparently because they perceive a flood of non-relevant messages. Also in the old days we had a rule that two messages a day from any one poster was all that was polite. Please believe me that I have every desire to have your uncensored voice heard on the list. I am just giving some thought to the most effective way to accomplish that. best wishes Juan ---------- From: Juan Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 11:01 AM To: talisman@umich.edu Subject: censorship Frederick Glaysher's report of censorship practices at SRB mirrors my own experience. The moderators at SRB report directly to a local spiritual assembly and an Auxiliary Board Member about policy, and receive policy directives from counselors occasionally. They fashioned a 'charter' a year and a half ago that Usenet accepted, which forbids posting messages that challenge the 'covenant.' Since most things one could reasonably say about the Baha'i faith in the presence of conservative Baha'is would be branded by them as challenging the covenant, this excludes quite a lot, and accounts for the generally rather low level of discourse on SRB. To be fair, occasionally SRB will let some critical thinking through briefly, and then call a halt to the discussion before it gets to the nitty gritty. It is not a completely censored operation. SRB is conceived of by the moderators and by the Baha'i institutions as a tool for teaching the faith, not for serious discussion of issues in the community or texts. Why they think that the often silly and illogical and reactionary things that get said there would attract anyone is beyond me, however. Most of my colleagues at the university who have looked in on SRB have recoiled from the fundamentalist and triumphalist tone. (This translates as, they found the Baha'is incredibly stuck up and narrow minded). What the Baha'is involved in SRB don't realize is that in a pluralist democracy like the U.S., the attractive message for most people is pluralism and liberty. That was the message `Abdu'l-Baha preached here, which is obvious to anyone who bothers to read Promulgation of Universal Peace. The antiliberal conservatives in control of the institutions of the faith here are peddling, instead, control, conformity, and medieval notions of morality. And that is why there are so few Baha'is in the U.S. The Baha'is are not being true to the essence of their own religion. Instead, they've started talking like fundamentalists. Only a few percent of Americans characterize themselves as fundamentalists. That persuasion is not a growth sector of the population, moreover, since it depends largely on being poorly educated, whereas we are moving to a high-information society. Pitching the Baha'i faith as a form of fundamentalism is in the end a rather stupid strategy. cheers Juan ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 31, 1998 8:26 AM To: talisman; bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: [bahai-faith] Antinomies One of William Butler Yeats' Frustrators came to me in the night and recited, "All the gains of man come from conflict with the opposite of his true being. Has not Baha'u'llah taught you this?" Upon waking, I was somewhat distrubed by this revelation and rummaged around my study for my copy of Yeats' A Vision, whereupon I also read "Dante suffering injustice and the loss of Beatrice, found divine justice and the heavenly Beatrice...." I fell upon my knees and recited the Tablet of Ahmad.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: Jonathan Grobe[SMTP:grobe@worf.netins.net] Sent: Sunday, May 31, 1998 6:00 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Cc: shogieffn@netbridge.net Subject: New user (fwd) [I am forwarding this to Fred Glaysher, who may be able to help you] Could you answer this query Fred? Other than having created alt.religion.bahai I am not Bahai and have little knowledge on that subject. Jonathan Grobe. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 31 May 98 13:48:42 PDT From: shogieffn To: grobe@netins.net Subject: New user Dear Mr. Grobe. We are a small Bahai group located in Lincoln City, Or. and have the desire to link to other Bahai news-groups in the area. Would you please help us to with your involvement, our members are struggling! Thanks. Katheen Potter ---------- From: Juan Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Monday, June 01, 1998 1:02 AM To: Ian Kluge Cc: talisman@umich.edu Subject: institutions and circumstances associated with birth of Faith Dear Ian: When I agreed to the entreaties of many individuals to continue Talisman at the University of Michigan listserv, I thought of it as a place where the sorts of discussions that had happened on Talisman I might be continued. Those had seemed to me a breath of fresh air and absolutely vital for reinvigorating what is all too often a stagnant intellectual life in the U.S. Baha'i community. One of the features of Talisman I was that people got down to brass tacks, and really communicated with one another, despite their disagreements. Oh, there was flaming and posturing (plenty of both), but even that helped us get to know one another. At the end of it all, we were still all in the same community, all friends despite our differing world views. Of course, that camaraderie and friendly disagreement was rather ended by the narrow-minded on the Baha'i Right. But still, Talisman I was a wonderful moment for the community, and I'd like to think something of its spirit can be kept alive. Maybe I'm fooling myself, and after what happened to Linda Walbridge, Steve Scholl, Michael McKenny and many others, the atmosphere that would allow such dialogues has been poisoned irretrievably and quite deliberately. But I'm game at making the try, and it seems to me all the more imperative to forge ahead precisely as a monument to the martyrdoms of the precious and spiritual faiths of Linda Walbridge, Steve Scholl and Michael McKenny, who met their Karbala at the hands of bigots. But this business of Baha'u'llah's words not being susceptible of historical understanding isn't in the old Talisman spirit at all. When you say something like that, you aren't communicating any more. (I would argue that you also aren't making any common sense, but that is a different matter). All you are doing is saying that you are not obliged to treat my arguments seriously because they are produced from premises you do not accept. But I'm afraid any time any of us does not take the arguments of another seriously because we have already foreclosed them, then we are no longer using our reasons, and are no longer engaged in the sort of Socratic excercise that the intellectual life demands. Besides, your arguments about premises are refuted by Baha'u'llah himself. He himself said that he had been obliged to use *human* language to communicate his truths. And he set out norms for scriptural interpretation in Tablets such as the Commentary on the Surah of the Sun and the Tablet on Figurative Interpretation, in which he condemned narrow literalism such as is employed by U.S. fundamentalists to approach scripture. He himself when speaking retrospectively, e.g., of the tablets to the monarchs, sets them in historical context. And why in the world do you think Shoghi Effendi was so eager to have people study Arabic, Persian, Islamics, and history in order better to understand the Tablets if those skills in fact were useless in approaching them? Now, I understand that people have many uses for scripture. They want to use it to back up their own opinions, or to shore up the authority of their religious leaders, or, sometimes, to induce hallucinatory experiences. I can't help them with any of that. But they also do sometimes want to know *about* the scripture, when and how it was produced, under what circumstances, what the connotation of the words was in the original, in order better to appreciate its meaning. And that is what an academic like myself can help with. It is obviously something you are not interested in. That's your privilege. I don't get paid for sharing what I know, and my feelings aren't hurt if anyone is uninterested in it. I was given a project beginning when I was 19 (I won't talk about the exact way in which it was given to me, but a mystical experience was involved), and I remain committed to it, though my reasons for the commitment have changed. Here's the proof text for the project. It is from Shoghi Effendi's *Advent of Divine Justice*. It turned out that it wasn't even a project possible of completion for me as a believer, but given the great souled martyrs to open-mindedness, such as Linda Walbridge, Steve Scholl and Michael McKenny, my own sacrifice of faith was not mentionable. And besides, a very similar project was undertaken by my hero Ralph Waldo Emerson in the 19th century, and an Emersonian framework for it is perfectly respectable. A lot of people have over the years since 1972 attempted to pressure me into relinquishing the project, from the Egyptian secret police to a hand of the cause, from academic mentors and colleagues to the 'counselors' of the ITC. Lots of things tried to get in the way, from anti-Baha'i prejudice on the part of those around me to the rightwing Baha'i understanding of 'infallibility.' I am not relinquishing the project. cheers Juan Shoghi Effendi, Advent of Divine Justice, p. 49 they must study for themselves, conscientiously and painstakingly, the literature of their Faith, delve into its teachings, assimilate its laws and principles, ponder its admonitions, tenets and purposes, commit to memory certain of its exhortations and prayers, master the essentials of its administration, and keep abreast of its current affairs and latest developments. They must strive to obtain, from sources that are authoritative and unbiased, a sound knowledge of the history and tenets of Islám--the source and background of their Faith--and approach reverently and with a mind purged from preconceived ideas the study of the Qur'án which, apart from the sacred scriptures of the Bábí and Bahá'í Revelations, constitutes the only Book which can be regarded as an absolutely authenticated Repository of the Word of God. They must devote special attention to the investigation of those institutions and circumstances that are directly connected with the origin and birth of their Faith, with the station claimed by its Forerunner, and with the laws revealed by its Author. ---------- From: John Whitbrandt[SMTP:whitbrandt@mailcity.com] Sent: Monday, June 01, 1998 2:37 AM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: [bahai-faith] Threatening email I've been lurking here for awhile, and I must say that I do agree with Frederick. While there is no obvert threat in the letter I must question the purpose of sending such a letter. It seems to me that unless the party sending the letter is some long lost friend, that such behavior is totally inappropriate. Get your FREE, private e-mail account at https://www.mailcity.com ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: Juan Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 3:01 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: bahai-faith @ makelist.com; talisman Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Fw: fw Juan Cole: censorship Dear Miguel: 1) While it is true that both the internet and the Baha'i faith are global in nature, it is also true that a) the vast majority of internet connections are in free, educated and relatively well off societies such as the U.S. and b) the vast majority of literate Baha'is in the world live in the U.S. and Canada. It therefore makes at least a little sense for both the Baha'i faith's administration and for SRB to adopt policies that don't drive off hundreds or thousands of thinking people. 2) I was not arguing against the legitimate laws of the Baha'i religion, which I respect. I was arguing that when the administration gets to the point where they threaten to have university professors declared covenant breakers for running an Indiana University listserv and for making non-fundamentalist postings, then the administration has become not only intellectually bankrupt but also repressive and corrupt in a manner that betrays the basic teachings of the religion's holy figures. And when you betray what you are supposed to be standing for, you guarantee your own stagnation or decline. Case in point. From May 1, 1997 till May 1, 1998, the *gross* increase in the number of Baha'is in the U.S. was about 1,500. Subtract withdrawals (formal and informal), deaths, and persons subjected to administrative sanctions, and you probably are pretty close to stagnant. This stagnation is a result of the Baha'i administration not standing for what the religion stands for, of it being overly controlling and overly centralized and exclusivist. You get invited into the Baha'i faith being assured it believes all religions are one, all humankind is one, that there should be universal peace, love, and harmony, that women and men are equal, and that there should be unity of science and religion. And then you find out that Baha'is actually are busy shunning other people, are quick to put anyone within the community into the category of 'covenant breaker' who has a different outlook (as Doug Martin did to me beginning in the early 1980s, backbiting me behind the scenes), demand conformity, believe cities are about to be evaporated, believe women should be subordinate to the men on the uhj, believe that all of modern biological science, based on Darwin is wrong because scripture says so, and in general often behave in ways that are intolerant and narrow-minded, chasing people out of the religion, so that it remains tiny. (How many Baha'is are there in Poland, *really*?) It is not just a problem of people failing to live up to their scriptural values, as with most religions. It is a problem of people being committed to the diametric opposite of their scriptural values. A child could formulate it. It is a problem of people being mean when they were commanded to be nice. It is a problem of people being narrow and exclusive when they were commanded to be universal and inclusive. And the meanest of all are people like Doug Martin and Farzam Arbab, who now control the levers of power by virtue of having clawed their way on to the House. cheers Juan ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: John[SMTP:aeiou@sometimesy.net] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 1998 4:30 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: SRB censored 5-25-98 Frederick Glaysher wrote in message <6l5to6$fu9@news3.newsguy.com>... >You're attempting to shift the subject from the threatening email >to me, by a Bahai, whom you're apparently defending, and >accusing me for standing up to it and other such shameful, >disgraceful attacks of suppression by soc.religion.bahai. Blaming >the victim in this context does work. Ron House remarked on this >tactic by Bahais many months ago. I refer you and others to his >message on my web site: > >Here again you're going off on tangents. You asked TWICE Mr. Little >for me to post a copy of Bud Polk's threatening email. I provided it >days ago on alt.religion.bahai. Your silence does not speak well for you.... > Hi Frederick, I've been following along here and would like to comment. Bud Polk originally posted a message questioning the agenda of your mailing list. You responded by doing a DejaNews search for his past postings and then you posted one of his past posts in an apparent attempt to embarress him. At least this is the way it appeared to me. He then sent you a private e-mail showing you that he could play the same game as you by gathering private information about you gathered from the same internet sources you used to find his old post. I don't understand why you feel threatened by this. Oh well, I hope you're not offended by my observations. I may misunderstand the situation. Good luck to you in resolving this issue in a positive manner. Thanks, John ---------- From: Juan Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Monday, June 08, 1998 1:56 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: talisman Subject: Re: Ad hominem attacks? Dear Fred: The rule on Talisman is that one may not flame fellow list-members on Talisman. Dr. Maneck is not a member of talisman, and I did not flame her; I simply intimated that I have good reason not to waste my time debating her. I came back on this list in hopes of spending some time this summer renewing old friendships and having a good time. Let's try to move forward to some good feelings, and was suggested by others. cheers Juan ---------- From: Juan Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Monday, June 08, 1998 2:00 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Ad hominem attacks? Frederick: Look, we're on the same side and I admire you. The hardliners will only delight if we fight. I would like to point out in the interests of fairness that I handled the Schuette thing privately and no one knew anything about it. And maybe you misunderstood me, but I wasn't asking for a 'public' apology, though that you made one only made you look like a statesman. Let's try to be allies, o.k.? In a relationship of allies, everyone understands that sometimes you may be forced to rule against an ally for abstract reasons of principle. This happened all the time between France and the U.S. during the Cold War, even though they were allies. Doesn't mean I don't have very warm feelings toward you and what you have accomplished. cheers Juan At 08:07 AM 6/8/98 -0400, you wrote: >In my opinion, Juan owes Susan Maneck an apology >for his unkind words on her a week or two ago.... > >Why have none of you remarked on that? > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > > > ---------- From: Juan Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Monday, June 08, 1998 1:56 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: talisman Subject: Re: Ad hominem attacks? Dear Fred: The rule on Talisman is that one may not flame fellow list-members on Talisman. Dr. Maneck is not a member of talisman, and I did not flame her; I simply intimated that I have good reason not to waste my time debating her. I came back on this list in hopes of spending some time this summer renewing old friendships and having a good time. Let's try to move forward to some good feelings, and was suggested by others. cheers Juan ---------- From: Juan Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Monday, June 08, 1998 2:48 PM To: Ian Kluge Cc: 'Alison and Steve Marshall'; talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: removing obstacles to full rights for women (uhj) Dear Ian: Not only is there a logical contradiction between `Abdu'l-Baha's mandate of equal rights under the law for women and men and the current exclusion of women from the right of eligibility to serve on the universal house of justice--but there is also a logical fallacy in your rebuttal of my argument to that effect. You are engaging in what is technically called 'begging the question,' which is that you assume the conclusion that you are arguing for as a premise! The *question* is, "what do the phrases 'equality of women and men' and 'equal rights under the law' mean and what does their meaning imply?" I say they meant for `Abdu'l-Baha equal rights under the law and that they imply eventual service of women on all Baha'i administrative bodies. That is, my formal logical argument would take this form: If `Abdu'l-Baha mandated that women and men should ultimately, in the Baha'i system, enjoy equal rights under the law; And *if* eligibility to serve on a Baha'i house of justice is a legal right within the Baha'i juridical system; Then women must ultimately have the right of eligibility to serve on all houses of justice. I believe both the minor and the major premise can be proven from Baha'i scripture, and that therefore the conclusion must follow, and any other conclusion is illogical. Note that I acknowledge in this formulation that `Abdu'l-Baha took a gradualist approach to the implementation of full rights for women, especially in the Middle East. It is therefore not illogical for the universal house of justice to rule that it is not yet time for women to serve on that body. What is illogical is the argument that women must be excluded for all time. What is further illogical is an attempt to prevent prominent Baha'is from stating publicly that women may serve in the future. And here are some proof texts for the premises asserted above: Selections from the Writings of `Abdu'l-Bahá, p. 249: Yet another of the teachings of Bahá'u'lláh is the equality of men and women and their equal sharing in all rights. Paris Talks, by `Abdu'l-Bahá, p. 161: In the animal kingdom we see that the male and the female have equal rights; and that they each share the advantages of their kind. Now in the two lower kingdoms of nature we have seen that there is no question of the superiority of one sex over the other. In the world of humanity we find a great diffference; the female sex is treated as though inferior, and is not allowed equal rights and privileges. This condition is due not to nature, but to education. In the Divine Creation there is no such distinction. Neither sex is superior to the other in the sight of God. Why then should one sex assert the inferiority of the other, withholding just rights and privileges as though God had given His authority for such a course of action? If women received the same educational advantages as those of men, the result would demonstrate the equality of capacity of both for scholarship. In some respects woman is superior to man. Paris Talks, by `Abdu'l-Bahá, p. 182: In this Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, the women go neck and neck with the men. In no movement will they be left behind. Their rights with men are equal in degree. They will enter all the administrative branches of politics. They will attain in all such a degree as will be considered the very highest station of the world of humanity and will take part in all affairs. Rest ye assured. Do ye not look upon the present conditions; in the not far distant future the world of women will become all-refulgent and all-glorious, For His Holiness Bahá'u'lláh Hath Willed It so!" It is true that in this letter `Abdu'l-Baha excepts women from service on 'the house of justice' (not defined); but we know that by 1913, when the letter was written, he had already reversed himself on women's service on the Chicago LSA, having at first forbidden it to Corinne True and then during his visit in 1912 having said women could in fact serve. He seems to have thought that women's service on houses of justice of all sorts should be phased in gradually, as women became more educated and used to dealing with public life, and as the social acceptance of mixed-sex gathering (controversial in the Middle East and India even today) increased. For after his perhaps very temporary exclusion of women from 'the house of justice' he goes on to say: "When the women attain to the ultimate degree of progress, then, according to the exigency of the time and place and their great capacity, they shall obtain extraordinary privileges. Be ye confident on these accounts. His Holiness Bahá'u'lláh has greatly strengthened the cause of women, and the rights and privileges of women is one of the greatest principles of `Abdu'l-Bahá. Rest ye assured! Ere long the days shall come when the men addressing the women, shall say: `Blessed are ye! Blessed are ye! Verily ye are worthy of every gift. Verily ye deserve to adorn your heads with the crown of everlasting glory . . ." This passage, also from Paris Talks, strongly implies that in future women will attain the right even of eligibility to serve on the house of justice. Otherwise it is illogical. He had already in the previous passage promised them full legal equality with men in all spheres of society. Now he is promising them *more* in the future. What 'more' could possibly be left but service on the house of justice? As for the second premise, that eligibility for election to a house of justice at any level is a juridical right within the Baha'i legal system, this is apparent in a 1954 cablegram from Shoghi Effendi, in *Messages to the Baha'i World*: "Full rights have been accorded to Baha'i women residing in the cradle of the Faith, to participate in the membership of both national and local Baha'i Spiritual Assemblies, removing thereby the last remaining obstacle to the enjoyment of complete equality of rights in the conduct of the administrative affairs of the Persian Baha'i community" (p. 65). Shoghi Effendi is forthright that Iranian women's inability to participate in Baha'i Spiritual Assemblies (i.e. houses of justice) had detracted from their enjoyment of complete equality of rights in the conduct of administrative affairs, and he appears to have seen the removal of this 'obstacle' to equality of rights between the sexes as a good thing. How much greater a good thing would it be for women to be admitted to the Universal House of Justice, thus *removing the last remaining obstacle to the enjoyment of complete equality of rights in the conduct of the administrative affairs of the world-wide Baha'i community*!! I also agree that `Abdu'l-Baha made an exception for military service, but military service is not usually defined as a civil 'right'. In fact, as a conscientious objector during the Vietnam War, I argued to the U.S. government that my conscience did not permit me to kill Vietnamese peasants on behalf of Late Capitalism. I was not waiving a *right*; I was arguing against assuming an obligation of citizenship on the grounds that assuming it would result in a coercion of my religious conscience and so violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. (Ironically, even Nixon's America recognized the validity of this argument from individual conscience, whereas the Baha'i authorities do not accept such an argument (and had to look up the word 'conscience' in the dictionary!) cheers Juan ---------- From: Juan Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Monday, June 08, 1998 3:34 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Fw: "Investigation" of Withdrawals (was Leaving Faith) Dear Frederick: As usual, this decision to delete your sig line by SRB is absolutely outrageous. They are attempting to keep all the readers of SRB throughout the world from knowing about your Web page because they don't like some of the links!! I wonder if it is possible to work with freedom-friendly Net organizations to change the situation from the outside. It sure as hell ain't going to change from the inside. the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Center for Democracy and Technology, and the Voters Telecommunications Watch are only a few whose goals include freedom of expression on the entire Internet and Usenet. cheers Juan ---------- From: Juan Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 3:32 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Ad hominem attacks? Dear Frederick: I don't have any hidden agenda. I am a very straightfoward person, and that is what gets me in trouble. I admire your values and the way you have fought for them, and I am glad to help you. On the other hand, I have already told you frankly that I think you have a problem with needing gratuitously to insult your correspondents, even correspondents who are generally sympathetic to you, and I think probably that cyberspace has exacerbated it. I do not tell you this to disparage you, but to urge you to recognize the problem and seek to resolve it, since it will be difficult for you to accomplish the things you wish to do unless you overcome it. So, whenever a Talisman *subscriber* comes to me and can demonstrate that you have called them names or whatever, I will be forced to side with them. If someone comes to me complaining that you bested them in debate, or are a secret covenant breaker, or hurt their feelings by your interpretation of the Baha'i scriptures, then I will tell them to lump it. That is, you have my full support except when you tell someone on our list their grandma wears army boots. Those are my rules, and you can depend on me to stick to them rigorously. Does this help with trust? I hope so, it is all I can do or say. cheers Juan ---------- From: Rachel Butson[SMTP:maryam@netlink.com.au] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 1998 8:05 PM To: talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: discussions of problems Dear Talismanians, I have been lurking on this thread, but this last couple of posts has made me remember an old post I tried to put on SRB. It or a rejection letter never appeared so I have mostly assumed there was a problem with my client, its length - in my more cynical moments I wonder if it is censorship...but I do think the length of it was a problem as I do normally receive rejection letters - not silence. At anyrate, I am merely a grassroots ex-Baha'i. No one of note, young and prolly very immature, but I wanted to relay my experience. I've noticed a number of posts just recently referring to the tone and content of critical posts as well as the suggestion that srb should be a type of public teaching face of the Faith not for addressing some of the more controversial issues implying the discussion of which would frighten away seekers, or give a bad reputation to the Faith on the internet. This is obviously not a new theme, as anyone who has been around on the internet long enough will know, however I'm going to lend my (interfering non-Baha'i *smiles*) two cents. Rather than reply to any one post, I am going to address a couple of points more generally, hoping to at least try and practice the philosophy of Baha'i consultation where the suggestion is dissociated from the suggestion maker so that feelings aren't hurt, nor attacks perceived to be made. As I mentioned in another post, I very strongly discourage the evolution of srb into a vehicle solely for propogation purposes. To briefly touch on my own background: there was a period of about two years before I converted to Islam, where I struggled deeply with many issues. I felt I had no forum to try and find answers to these issues (some of which I have since raised on the list), and even though there was some freedom on srb, I still was cautious and wary feeling that if someone discovered my identity, then it would have negative repurcussions for my standing in the community. I was no big fish either, just an average grassroots young Baha'i. Someone asked why bother to criticise the Faith if you don't agree with it - just leave or become a better model. Well I wanted to be convinced otherwise. I wanted definitive answers to my doubts, and not feeling I *could* raise them in the Baha'i community I delved into a world of books. As I wrote to someone else, explaining my conversion, "I began to find it difficult to marry the more sociological / anthropological views of events in the Middle East, esp. Iran in the nineteenth century to which I was being introduced, with the more commonly held Baha'i viewpoints - they are issues I still have not resolved personally." The more I started to read, to research, to try and find some explanations that the standard Baha'i line wasn't giving me (I'm not talking about the Writings, for which I still have a reverential awe, (somewhat puzzling for a converted Muslim believe me), but rather the popular perceived "history" of the religion), the more I discovered a black hole in which one side was labelled fundamentalist administrators and the other covenant-breaking academics. I must admit at the time I put this into a mental filing folder of "well that's all happening in America and they are obviously on the extreme edge of things over there". I didn't recognise any of the "war" in my own experience so didn't pay too much heed to it, but still I found no answers to my questions. In hindsight I wish I had paid more attention. I began to ask my university lecturers if I could write essays on Babi / Baha'i & Islamic issues and was referred to two historians in particular. (I won't name names as I feel that even the mention of names at this juncture automatically places someone inside a "camp" and causes acrimonious feelings), except to say that when I started to read their works I felt like I was getting closer to my pot of gold. They tended to raise more questions than give definitive answers, but I felt at least there was an exploration - at least I had an avenue in which to try and puzzle out truth. None of you will imagine the depth of my surprise I felt when I discovered that both of these historians had left the Faith. I had at last found people who were addressing the types of problems I was having, respected, knowledgeable people and they left the Faith??? Even just the other day I was doing some background research for an essay, and came across a paper written by a chap in a book entitled "Authority and Political Culture in Shi'ism". As I started to glance through it, I thought "gee I am enjoying this, this is good, but I have a gut feeling this guy is a Baha'i" (neither my essay, nor this book was related to the Baha'i Faith so it was not an entirely obvious observation). Just today I found out that he too is another "ex" Baha'i academic, not entirely of his own choosing apparently. The reason I bring this all up, is that the one thing that I found is that the current manifestation of the Baha'i Faith seems to allow very little room for exploration of controversial topics. Those who try to provide that "better model" instead of just walking away, those who try to tackle questions and issues that sometimes make us feel uncomfortable tend to be made to feel less of a Baha'i, as someone whose faith in Baha'u'llah isn't strong enough, as someone creating disunity, and it only takes one public reference to covenant breaking to make us all jump back like we had touched an electric fence - and yes, even I, who left the Faith, still felt alarm at one recent (10th May 1998) post which implied it. It is an entirely effective weapon. I deeply worry when "a" interpretation of the Faith is equated with the covenant in such a way that to question that interpretation of the Faith turns into attacking the covenant. For those who have read any Catholic theology I ask you, if the Baha'i Faith had a John Hicks - would he too have to leave the Faith? He has written some of the most exciting works on pluralist theology, on reevaluating Christian doctrines of incarnation, trinity, atonement because (as he argues) they are no longer needed to assert the supremacy of the religion - all ideas that could certainly pose a perceived threat to the Catholic "party" line - but for me and for many others they are exciting and thought-provoking questions that he asks. He may not be right, but the fact that he forces his readers to *think* about these issues, means that humanity and Christianity can only be the better for it. It is also too easy to polarise the debate. Those who pose controversial theories, those who ask questions normally swept under the rug, those who try and address them in alternative ways are not *by definition* negative, critical "people of denial" trying to create disunity and havoc. For my whole two years of questioning and time out of the Faith, I hold no animosity towards it. I don't want to attack it. I don't want to destroy it. I think that the fundamental verities of the Faith are the most marvellous and beautiful principles human beings could ever try to enact! I don't even have an interest in changing the secondary authoritative sources - the administrative body etc. It seems perfectly reasonable to me for Baha'is to implement the model constitution that the Founder of their Faith and subsequent heads designed. No, what I would like to see, and even take part in (yes *laughing* non-Baha'is can be interested in Baha'i matters) is the freedom to explore and build Baha'i theology. Your Founders wrote the framework, but it will be centuries of Baha'is that build the world religion. I never resolved those issues I faced and I am still vitally engaged in the quest to do so. I may die with them unanswered, only God truly knows, but being a Baha'i was so much a part of my identity that even having left the Faith and converted to another religion, I can never truly leave it behind. The ironic thing is that having left the Faith I now feel I have the freedom to pose those questions on forums such as srb and mailing lists. Please don't take it away. I had no alternative, perhaps others like me who have been struggling might read what greater minds have to offer and find solace in them. But if greater minds are silenced to present the single song of a "party line" they too, I predict, will leave the Faith and try and struggle with those questions on their own. Are we all just weak Baha'is? My faith was amazingly strong, but it was placed in the wrong thing. It was placed in an unstudied but unswervingly loyal popular conception of the Baha'i Faith - the one I fear srb will only present if it is turned into a "teaching tool". The one that lashes out when it feels attacked and removes all obstacles in its path. Lastly, can I humbly remind those of you who would see the thrust of my post as disunifying - well for all my life I said that Baha'is believe in unity *in diversity*! There can be no true Godly unity in one single inviolable, unchallengeable, publically infallible interpretation, there is only the enforced silencing of Voltaire, Spinoza, Galileo, Tahireh, and whoever it is in the Baha'i future who dares to believe in "the next Manifestation". Will the Baha'i Faith be the first religion to tread a different historical path? Maryam ---------- From: Milissa Boyer Kafes[SMTP:mbkafes@bestweb.net] Sent: Thursday, June 18, 1998 7:58 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: "Bahai Hate Mail" page added PRIVATE MSG Hi Frederick-- you must have the thickest skin in the universe! Anyway, I don't know why you bother. For me, I have posted a couple of times on soc.religion.bahai and have gotten a couple of nasty emails and it just ruins my whole day! If I were you I would have given up. Don't you think you would be happier as a non-Baha'i? I mean you just seem so hurt and angry all the time. I can relate to that. It just hurts me to witness. Btw, are you officially still a Baha'i? If you are, I worry that your webpage could get you into trouble. I don't want to see you declared a CB. Maybe its time to move on. Just some thoughts from a sympathetic Baha'i Love Milissa ************************************************************************** * ".....who could imagine..... * * that you would freak out, somewhere in Kansas......" * * * * --Frank Zappa * ************************************************************************** ---------- From: Juan Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Saturday, June 20, 1998 2:46 PM To: Burl Barer Cc: talisman@umich.edu; irfan1@umich.edu Subject: Re: Furutan, Mazandarani, and Khadem Dear Burl: I would love to have a set of accounts from all involved in the suppression of Hand of the Cause Fadil Mazandarani's *History of the Manifestation of the Truth*. Unfortunately I do not find people forthcoming about giving out the details of such dastardly deeds. There seems to be a cover story among the upper echelons of the Baha'i power elite that the Baha'i faith is an open-minded, tolerant religion that encourages scholarship and demands absolute honesty in the examination of history. Since one really has to choose either the cover story or the reality, the reality gets rather suppressed. Furutan's account, of course, would be valuable, but would only contain one side. I would love to see it. Since all email messages posted to Talisman are forwarded for examination and filing to the International Teaching Center, that self-appointed watchdog of Orthodoxy, will any of the following people (who also are responsible for forcing me out of the Baha'i faith) please inform Mr. Furutan that I would very much appreciate an account of the entire Mazandarani affair for my files: Hartmut Grossman Don Rogers Fred Schekter Kasier Barnes Joan Lincoln Kimiko Schwaren Joy Stevenson (now retired) Shapur Monadjem Laureta King Accounts may be sent to me at Juan Cole Department of History University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1003 I would note, however, that you haven't said anything to dispute my account, which was that Furutan and his buddies made Fadil Mazandarani sign a sworn statement abjectly apologizing for daring to publish The History of the Manifestation of Truth vol. 3, insofar as it contained early Babi primary sources at variance with Nabil. The good news is that we are with the Information Revolution entering a glorious new era in which primary sources cannot be suppressed by the narrow-minded for such moronic reasons. All of Mazandarani's history will be scanned, and it will be made available to everyone who wishes to read it, and no one can do anything to stop that. Sometimes when very powerful and very narrow-minded people begin trying to run your life in a way that is completely inappropriate, the only thing you can do is give them the back of your hand and walk away. cheers Juan ---------- From: Island Business Center (Bill Hyman)[SMTP:billh@samoatelco.com] Sent: Monday, June 22, 1998 8:24 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Cc: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: FW: Notifying srb posters of censorship Dear Mr. Glaysher: I think most of the posters to soc.religion.bahai know that it is moderated, and they like it that way. I have an aversion to the posting of Covenant Breaker material on a channel which has the name of the Bahai Faith. As you know this has happened on this unmoderated channel. Bill Hyman ___________ >I'm looking for someone with bulk mail software who would be willing to stripmine all the address for posters to soc.religion.bahai since its founding in 1992 and inform them of the act of the moderator Bill Hyman to censor my signature file, apparently in order to prevent them from learning about the existence of my web site.... I'd appreciate hearing from any Bahai or non-Bahai who would be willing to lend a hand in this regard.... Frederick Glaysher Get your FREE, private e-mail account at https://www.mailcity.com ---------- From: Negar Mottahedeh[SMTP:motta003@maroon.tc.umn.edu] Sent: Monday, June 22, 1998 2:54 PM To: H-BAHAI@H-NET.MSU.EDU Subject: Baha'u'llah on Hinduism Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 13:15:11 -0400 From: Juan Cole Subject: Baha'u'llah on Hinduism This installation deals with the question of the relationship of law to jurisprudence. Manakji reports that Islam, with its developed discipline of the principles of jurisprudence, strikes many Hindus and Zoroastrians in India as leaving too much room for judicial activism and tinkering with the explicit laws of the scriptures. Baha'u'llah does not really resolve the issue, only pointing out that in the Baha'i faith a discipline such as the principles of jurisprudence was unnecessary at that time, given that the Prophet was alive and could answer questions about the meaning and application of the law. But he does seem unsympathetic to some of the abuses of the Shi`ite mujtahids or jurisprudents (who, after all, engaged in finding loopholes ["hiyal" or tricks] that allowed merchants to charge interest on loans despite the quranic prohibition on usury. All this suggests an Akhbari tinge to Baha'u'llah's views of law, but I know of no other evidence for it. (The Akhbaris were a school of law, largely defeated by 1850, that disallowed most forms of jurisprudential reasoning and tended to be hadith literalists). cheers Juan Cole History U of Michigan ---------------------- Manakji's next question is more practical. He notes that in Islam, a distinction exists between the law as a field of study (fiqh) and the sources (usul) of law (at least the Qur'an and the sayings of the Prophet, though most schools accepted other sources, as well). In Islam the classical example for this sort of question is the prohibition on alcoholic beverages. The Qur'an itself only forbids wine, so the question arises of whether this narrow interdiction in the source text has any wider implications. According to the jurisprudence (fiqh) worked out by Muslim clergymen in the medieval period, a specific law can have wider application. For instance, the reason given in the revealed texts for the prohibition of wine is that it clouds the mind. By analogy, then, all substances that cloud the mind should also be forbidden, including, e.g., barley beer. Disagreements arose about the precise extent to which such analogies could be taken, and the Muslim science of the principles of jurisprudence is notorious for its openness to abuse or to idiosyncratic rulings by individual clergymen. The Shi`ite Akhbari school rejected the science of the principles of jurisprudence altogether, relying solely on a literalist understanding the two main sources, the Qur'an and the sayings of the Prophet and the Imams. Manakji contrasts the tension in Islam between legal fundamentalism and judicial activism to the situation in Hinduism and Zoroastrianism, where he says that the textual sources have primacy. In the latter religions, he says, law is not conceived to exist apart from its scriptual sources (p. 154). Ironically, Manakji argues that Hinduism and Zoroastrianism are much more "fundamentalist" (in the modern Western Protestant sense of scriptural positivist) than Islam, which rather has developed a sophisticated scholastic apparatus for legal interpretation. Baha'u'llah takes a stance critical of the way the principles of jurisprudence had become a license in Shi`ite Islam for interpreters of the law, or mujtahids, to define the law in a high-handed way. He points out that in Islam an early proponent of the principles of jurisprudence was the Sunni, Abu Hanifah, and since Baha'u'llah was from a Shi`ite background this statement may be a way of questioning its validity. He goes on, however, to play down the difference between legal strict constructionists and believers in the principles of jurisprudence. He says that since the Manifestation of God (himself) is alive and can be asked about the meaning of the law, there was no need among Baha'is in the 1880s for a discipline such as the principles of jurisprudence (pp. 155-56). ---------- From: Island Business Center (Bill Hyman)[SMTP:billh@samoatelco.com] Sent: Monday, June 22, 1998 8:24 PM To: FG@hotmail.com Cc: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: [bahai-faith] FW: Notifying srb posters of censorship Dear Mr. Glaysher: I think most of the posters to soc.religion.bahai know that it is moderated, and they like it that way. I have an aversion to the posting of Covenant Breaker material on a channel which has the name of the Bahai Faith. As you know this has happened on this unmoderated channel. Bill Hyman ___________ >I'm looking for someone with bulk mail software who would be willing to stripmine all the address for posters to soc.religion.bahai since its founding in 1992 and inform them of the act of the moderator Bill Hyman to censor my signature file, apparently in order to prevent them from learning about the existence of my web site.... I'd appreciate hearing from any Bahai or non-Bahai who would be willing to lend a hand in this regard.... Frederick Glaysher Get your FREE, private e-mail account at https://www.mailcity.com ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: Milissa Boyer Kafes[SMTP:mbkafes@bestweb.net] Sent: Monday, June 22, 1998 10:13 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: "Bahai Hate Mail" page added PRIVATE MSG Hi Fred-- sure you can post it if you really think it would help anything. Peace MBK -----Original Message----- From: FG To: Milissa Boyer Kafes Date: Monday, June 22, 1998 7:04 AM Subject: Re: "Bahai Hate Mail" page added PRIVATE MSG >May I repost your message for the benefit of >others? I believe it could help both Bahais and non-Bahais >a lot.... > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Milissa Boyer Kafes >To: Frederick Glaysher >Date: Thursday, June 18, 1998 7:58 PM >Subject: Re: "Bahai Hate Mail" page added PRIVATE MSG > > >>Hi Frederick-- >> >>you must have the thickest skin in the universe! >> >>Anyway, I don't know why you bother. For me, I have posted a couple of >>times on soc.religion.bahai and have gotten a couple of nasty emails and it >>just ruins my whole day! If I were you I would have given up. >> >>Don't you think you would be happier as a non-Baha'i? I mean you just seem >>so hurt and angry all the time. I can relate to that. It just hurts me to >>witness. >> >>Btw, are you officially still a Baha'i? If you are, I worry that your >>webpage could get you into trouble. I don't want to see you declared a CB. >>Maybe its time to move on. >> >>Just some thoughts from a sympathetic Baha'i >> >>Love >>Milissa >> >>************************************************************************** >>* ".....who could imagine..... >>* >>* that you would freak out, somewhere in Kansas......" * >>* >>* >>* --Frank Zappa >>* >>************************************************************************** >> >> >> > ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 1998 2:18 AM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] FW: Notifying srb posters of censorship Island Business Center (Bill Hyman) wrote: > > Dear Mr. Glaysher: > > I think most of the posters to soc.religion.bahai know that it is moderated, > and they like it that way. > I have an aversion to the posting of Covenant Breaker material on a channel > which has the name of > the Bahai Faith. As you know this has happened on this unmoderated channel. > > Bill Hyman I think Bill's losing the plot. The point, as I always understood it, of the Baha'i Faith, was to make the world a better place, to tell people that God had sent a new manifestation, and to practice His teaching of love and tolerance. But to Bill, it has all shrunk down to a petty question of stopping Baha'is reading covenant-breaking material - in spite of the fact that the UHJ has said in writing that Baha'is should not try to censor the CB'ers. Make no mistake, Bill isn't simply 'shunning' the CB'ers, he is trying to stop others from reading their work. Why else would he object to posting links that others COULD follow (but don't HAVE TO follow) that contain references to CB material? All he is authorised to do, as a Baha'i, is not read it himself, yet he tries to stop others locating it of their own free will. Instead of a gospel of love, it has become nothing but a control-freak thing. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au Utopia (n): The rule of law without the rule of lawyers. ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 3:32 PM To: talisman Subject: Juan's double standard? >Juan wrote: > >This was why I made the rule that on Talisman we are to respect each >other's basic sincerity and motives, despite all our differences. It is >the only way to have a cyber-community that is at all useful. So, I'd like >to remind everyone that bringing the other person's character into it is >off-limits. Reply to arguments, please. Does this include your comments about Susan Maneck, for which you've never apologized that I know? Or is there to be a double standard on talisman? Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: Juan Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 5:32 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: talisman Subject: Re: Juan's double standard? Dear Fred: I believe in free speech and in holding people accountable for their actions. I therefore am very reluctant to have a rule on talisman that *nobody* can be criticized (which tends to be the rule on most Baha'i lists except that somehow it remains perfectly acceptable to criticize Baha'i liberals). But you can't have a cyber-community if the *posters* flame each other. The rule on Talisman is that we don't insult the character of other subscribers to Talisman. Subscription creates the community of discourse. You can say what you like about Boris Yeltsin, Slobodan Milosevic, and for all I care, Susan Maneck. She is not on talisman. I've already explained this to you before and wish you would give it a rest. As for apologies, I won't go into what happened between us. But she is the one who owes me an apology, and I think she knows it. cheers Juan At 03:32 PM 6/24/98 -0400, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >>Juan wrote: >> >>This was why I made the rule that on Talisman we are to respect each >>other's basic sincerity and motives, despite all our differences. It is >>the only way to have a cyber-community that is at all useful. So, I'd like >>to remind everyone that bringing the other person's character into it is >>off-limits. Reply to arguments, please. > > >Does this include your comments about Susan Maneck, for >which you've never apologized that I know? Or is there to be a double >standard on talisman? > > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > > > > ---------- From: logan, richard[SMTP:nineteen@door.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 9:08 PM To: Juan Cole; Frederick Glaysher Cc: talisman Subject: Re: Juan's double standard? Juan you aren't one of those people who are always right in a dispute are you? ---------- >From: Juan Cole >To: "Frederick Glaysher" >Cc: "talisman" >Subject: Re: Juan's double standard? >Date: Wed, Jun 24, 1998, 4:32 PM > >As for apologies, I won't go into what happened between us. But she is the >one who owes me an apology, and I think she knows it. > >cheers Juan ---------- From: Dean Betts[SMTP:fdbetts@mindspring.com] Sent: Thursday, June 25, 1998 12:39 AM To: logan, richard; Juan Cole Cc: talisman Subject: Re: Juan's double standard? Or, dear Juan, do you refuse to recognize when you (however infrequently) are wrong? Another question: do you consider yourself a "perfectionist"? At 08:08 PM 6/24/98 -0500, logan, richard wrote: >Juan you aren't one of those people who are always right in a dispute are >you? > >---------- >>From: Juan Cole >>To: "Frederick Glaysher" >>Cc: "talisman" >>Subject: Re: Juan's double standard? >>Date: Wed, Jun 24, 1998, 4:32 PM >> > >>As for apologies, I won't go into what happened between us. But she is the >>one who owes me an apology, and I think she knows it. >> >>cheers Juan > **************************************************************************** Verily, He is the Merciful, the Compassionate. Praise be to God, the Lord of all the worlds. - Baha'u'llah **************************************************************************** ---------- From: Juan Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Thursday, June 25, 1998 1:01 AM To: logan, richard Cc: talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: Juan's double standard? Richard: Since neither you nor anyone else here has *any* information about what may have transpired between Maneck and myself, you have no basis for such a comment. Kindly butt out. As for being wrong, I gladly admit to having been wrong lots. While on Talisman-1, I defended the universal house of justice as morally infallible. cheers Juan At 08:08 PM 6/24/98 -0500, logan, richard wrote: >Juan you aren't one of those people who are always right in a dispute are >you? > >---------- >>From: Juan Cole >>To: "Frederick Glaysher" >>Cc: "talisman" >>Subject: Re: Juan's double standard? >>Date: Wed, Jun 24, 1998, 4:32 PM >> > >>As for apologies, I won't go into what happened between us. But she is the >>one who owes me an apology, and I think she knows it. >> >>cheers Juan > ---------- From: Juan Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Friday, June 26, 1998 1:13 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: trying PRIVATE: Well, Fred, I consider you a friend and ally, even if for some strange reason you've developed a dislike of me. I admire your stand for liberty against tyranny, I'm grateful to you for seeing alt.relgion.bahai through to establishment (if I'm not mistaken this comes from the campaign for talk.religion.bahai which in turn I seem to remember being the one to suggest it to you), and I love your web page. I wish you would stop and think whether Susan Maneck may not have done something really dastardly to me such that she really had a lot of nerve coming back and trying to debate me, and needed to be told off. I've more or less been forbidden to broadcast the details by the H-Bahai editorial board, so I can't say more. But I think you may take her lack of reply as guilt on her part. If you want to throw away a valuable alliance just because the Talismanians won't put up with my allowing subscribers to go around calling other Talismanians names, then so be it. As for the vote on trb, I did try to vote for it; I also spread around the information to dozens of people encouraging them to vote for it. If my vote didn't get counted, it means that somehow I screwed up the address or something. I don't find Usenet very user friendly with regard to simple things like being clear about where one sends things. cheers Juan At 09:09 AM 6/26/98 -0400, you wrote: > >-----Original Message----- >From: Juan Cole >To: Frederick Glaysher >Date: Thursday, June 25, 1998 12:57 PM >Subject: Re: Juan's double standard? > > >>PRIVATE >> >>Well, Fred, I've said it before and I'll say it again. These unjustified >>diatribes against me are just delighting the critics of the both of us. > >Diatribe is a loaded word you're using to protect yourself from your >own hypocrisy regarding Susan. My comments are quite justified >given your even harsher criticism of her. In terms of delighting the >literalists, it's in the best interest of free speech and conscience >for us not to be perceived as working together.... Which, as far >as I'm concerned, we're not.... > >You neglected to explain why you chose not to vote YES last >time around, if we're on the same "side...." > >>My message to you about Wade was *private*; no one needed to know I had >>said anything at all to you. > >I may have inadvertently mentioned it or whatever you're referring to. >It's difficult to keep 40 or more messages every morning in the right >order. But what are you hiding? Why shouldn't people know.... > >And it is in fact the case that flaming is >>destructive of discussion lists when aimed at other posters. > >Irrelevant in the original context of your worse flaming of Susan, >which you continue to dismiss or avoid while joining forces with Wade >to bash me and assassinate my character.... > >> >>I repeat that I am your ally. But with friends like you . . . > >You're neither my ally nor friend.... So please don't pretend. >And I am not yours. You have your own agenda, and it is not mine.... > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > > > ---------- From: L-Soft list server at H-Net - Humanities On-Line (1.8c)[SMTP:LISTSERV@H-NET.MSU.EDU] Sent: Saturday, June 27, 1998 8:38 AM To: Fred Glaysher Subject: Farewell from H-Bahai Your name has been removed from the subscriber list of H-Bahai. Although you are no longer a subscriber, we wanted you to know that we appreciated your being a part of the H-Bahai forum. If you requested that you be removed from the list, please accept our thanks for participating. You can still follow some of H- Bahai's activities on our web page, at: https://h-net.msu.edu/bahai If you have any thoughts about how we could improve our service to you and to others, we would appreciate your sharing them with us.. Please drop a note to any of the editors listed below. If you DID NOT send an UNSUB command or request removal from H- Bahai please try at once to contact one of the editors or write to H-NET's technical assistance address at: help@h-net.msu.edu We automatically delete subscribers if mail to them is returned over a period of time or if there is some other recurrent problem with e-mail delivery. By getting in touch with us, you can help us solve the problem and ensure smooth future delivery of postings from H-Bahai. Of course, if you are unsubscribing because you are going to be away for an extended period, we look forward to welcoming you back in the future! Sincerely, Prof. Juan R. Cole, University of Michigan, jrcole@umich.edu Prof. Susan Maneck, Berry College, smaneck@berry.edu. Editors ---------- From: Dan Beckett[SMTP:dobie1@telusplanet.net] Sent: Friday, June 26, 1998 5:22 PM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: [bahai-faith] E-Mail Subscription danbeckett@hotmail.com ---------- From: David Grabiner[SMTP:grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu] Sent: Saturday, June 27, 1998 5:41 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: BULK MAIL soc.religion.bahai "Frederick Glaysher" writes: > Christopher Biow wrote in message <35a0e877.79612990@enews.newsguy.com>... > >That is irrelevant. If Frederick sends Unsolicited Bulk Email (spam) to all > >s.r.b posters since 1992, that is gross net abuse. Many will complain and > >he will lose accounts that are in any way involved with such abuse, > >including accounts he holds at Hotmail, at Newsguy, at Tripod, at FindMail, > >and at any other reputable provider. > >If performed in conjunction with a new t.r.b CFV/RFD, this would also > >constitute gross, abusive campaigning and would likely invalidate the > >attempt to establish the new 'group. > What if I sent individual email messages? I believe I heard once on > news.groups that that is all right in terms of a newsgroup proposal. Spam is *unsolicited* bulk Email. Sending messages to everyone who has posted to s.r.b, or who voted on it, is abusive, whether you send the messages manually or automatically. Sending messages to a few people who have expressed an interest in being additional proponents for the group is fine; that's how many groups get started. > I won't bulk mail if you and others on news.groups really think it's not > the way to respond if it would adversely affect the third interest poll. (One reason it is not the way to respond is that it is a violation of your user agreement. I don't know where your main account is, but Hotmail has been very active in stopping bulk Email.) > I, however, do not see anything wrong with bulk mail. I receive it every > day in may mailbox in front of my house and my emailbox. The difference between the two is a matter of cost. If you send a postal mail, you have paid the Post Office for the cost of delivery, and the Post Office owns all the resources used to send it. If you send an Email, most users pay for the dial-up connection to receive it; some users even pay for every message received. In addition, the ISP which ereceives the mail always pays; such costs are passed indirectly to the customers who pay flat rates. This is fine if the recipients have consented to the costs, even in bulk; mailing lists of people who have signed up to discuss a topic are a good example. Likewise, replies to individual posts or Emails are solicited by the recipient; I have no objection if you write back to me. But it is not reasonable if the costs are impose on unwilling recipients. The costs involved need not be trivial. As a professor, I need to Email my students, and I was once unable to do that because an overload of bulk Email jammed the mail server here. I have no specific interest in the Bahai issues, and will not vote on the group. I do have an interest in maintaining the usability of Email, and picked up on this message because of the "Bulk Mail" in the subject line. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu https://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 27, 1998 9:45 PM To: SRB; bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: [bahai-faith] Bill Hyman's specious reasoning and excuses for censorship Your unjust actions against me are clearly intended to prevent others from even hearing about the existence of my web site and preventing them, as srb has done in the past, from knowing about the interest polls for talk.religion.bahai. I shall therefore continue emailing every single new poster to soc.religion.bahai until I am permitted to post to srb using the signature file of my choice. Since you and the other "moderators" have hardened your hearts, obstinately clinging to your censorious ways, seeking always new devices to justify your infamy, I see no alternative but to resist and circumvent your tyranny.... "If he exercises his anger and wrath against the bloodthirsty tyrants who are like ferocious beasts, it is very praiseworthy...." Abdu'l-Baha, SAQ, 215 Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: Island Business Center (Bill Hyman) To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Cc: FG@hotmail.com Date: Sunday, June 28, 1998 5:13 PM Subject: [bahai-faith] Glaysherspam Dear Mr. Glaysher: You were informed by one of the moderators of soc.religion.bahai that your submissions would be accepted if they conformed to its charter. It was considered against the charter to advertise your web-site which points to another web-site which has pointers to Covenant Breaker material. This was checked and confirmed by the srb moderating team. The bahai-faith@makelist.com address, which was also in your latest signature, has posted Covenant Breaker material so advertising this address was also considered to be against the charter. All you have to do is change your present "signature" and your submissions to soc.religion.bahai will be assessed, as are all submissions, to confirm that they meet the requirements of the charter. I hope that if you do get TRB approved that you are able to find a way to prevent CB material being posted. I will vote against it unless this is guaranteed. Give me that guarantee, and I will vote for it. Bill Hyman Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 09:56:39 -0400 From: "Frederick Glaysher" Add to Address Book Subject: [bahai-faith] "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" To: "bahai-faith @ makelist.com" Reply To: bahai-faith@makelist.com [The following message has been sent this morning to 75 people who have posted to soc.religion.bahai since Bill Hyman imposed his censorship on my signature file, thereby effectively banning me from srb and isolating these Bahais in a cult-like manner.] I am emailing you directly because the moderators of soc.religion.bahai have censorsed my signature file, effectively banning me from srb, in an apparent effort to prevent you from hearing about the existence of my web site and the approaching third interest poll for talk.religion.bahai after August 28th. More information about their decision can be found at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb22.htm Permit me to mention for those who might be interested that my web site "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" focuses on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai and censorship at soc.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ©1995-1998 WhoWhere? Inc. All Rights Reserved. Get your FREE, private e-mail account at https://www.mailcity.com ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: Island Business Center (Bill Hyman)[SMTP:billh@samoatelco.com] Sent: Saturday, June 27, 1998 5:35 PM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: [bahai-faith] Glaysherspam Dear Mr. Glaysher: You were informed by one of the moderators of soc.religion.bahai that your submissions would be accepted if they conformed to its charter. It was considered against the charter to advertise your web-site which points to another web-site which has pointers to Covenant Breaker material. This was checked and confirmed by the srb moderating team. The bahai-faith@makelist.com address, which was also in your latest signature, has posted Covenant Breaker material so advertising this address was also considered to be against the charter. All you have to do is change your present "signature" and your submissions to soc.religion.bahai will be assessed, as are all submissions, to confirm that they meet the requirements of the charter. I hope that if you do get TRB approved that you are able to find a way to prevent CB material being posted. I will vote against it unless this is guaranteed. Give me that guarantee, and I will vote for it. Bill Hyman Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 09:56:39 -0400 From: "Frederick Glaysher" Add to Address Book Subject: [bahai-faith] "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" To: "bahai-faith @ makelist.com" Reply To: bahai-faith@makelist.com [The following message has been sent this morning to 75 people who have posted to soc.religion.bahai since Bill Hyman imposed his censorship on my signature file, thereby effectively banning me from srb and isolating these Bahais in a cult-like manner.] I am emailing you directly because the moderators of soc.religion.bahai have censorsed my signature file, effectively banning me from srb, in an apparent effort to prevent you from hearing about the existence of my web site and the approaching third interest poll for talk.religion.bahai after August 28th. More information about their decision can be found at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb22.htm Permit me to mention for those who might be interested that my web site "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" focuses on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai and censorship at soc.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ©1995-1998 WhoWhere? Inc. All Rights Reserved. Get your FREE, private e-mail account at https://www.mailcity.com ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com !