Question about hair length?

All research or scholarship questions
Guest

Question about hair length?

Postby Guest » Mon Jun 13, 2005 12:44 am

I figure it is more toward the prevailing times but should I not grow my hair below my ears?

I see images of Abdul Baha with long hair. Is it possible to grow my hair and keep the sides trimmed? It seems clear that I am not to grow my hair below my ears but the back of my hair is already below my ears when it is short.

I know this is very trivial just seeing what everyone thought...

Jasper/Mat

Keyvan

Postby Keyvan » Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:44 am

for a while now ive been wondering why Abdul Baha had long hair . im curious if anyone knows why myself

Jonah
Site Admin
Posts: 403
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 1:25 pm
Location: St Catharines, Ontario (near Niagara Falls)
Contact:

Postby Jonah » Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:10 am

I used to wear my hair long, when I had more of it. :-) At the time I researched this back and front, and asked numerous people, and in the end this is what I came up with: it seems that Baha'u'llah did not necessarily legislate that men should keep their hair short. There are too many other interpretations of the verse, and there are also enough reports of Baha'is of His time who wore their hair long, including of course 'Abdu'l-Baha.

In 1996 I put this question to the erudite members of Talisman I, and here I compiled some of the best responses and guesses. I left some names with permission; for the rest, I replaced names with initials.

First, here's the quote, Kitab-i Aqdas para. 44:

"Shave not your heads; God hath adorned them with hair, and in this there are signs from the Lord of creation to those who reflect upon the requirements of nature. He, verily, is the God of strength and wisdom. Notwithstanding, it is not seemly to let the hair pass beyond the limit of the ears. Thus hath it been decreed by Him Who is the Lord of all worlds.


-----

Echos of the early sixities you invoke with this idea: Short back and sides was regarded then as the Baha'i way. Well, take a look at the example of the Master and notice two things: his hair is long, but the ears are not covered by the hair but swept behind.

My dear friend Naysan Faizi pointed this out to his Father, Hand of the Cause Faizi as to why his hair which was short in Naysan's opinion, should be allowed to grow long as the example of the Master. The response was a classic: "Well, you become like Abdu'l-Baha and you can grow your hair as long as you like. But until that day comes get your hair cut."

[D.C.]

-----

The meaning of this verse is not clear, as far as I know. My old Aqdas teacher (Vahid Rafati) had no explanation for it, which tells me that the Persian Baha'i tradition did not have a standard explanation. I do recall that Browne comments on the Baha'i men in Akka in the 1880s wearing their hair pulled back behind their ears and then cut off in the back at roughly the level of the ear lobe. If there is a cultural reference to this verse, it is probably that the Shi'ite ulama tended to shave their heads and dervishes wore theirs long, I think.

John Walbridge

-----

I think we want to be a bit careful here, as there is no "rule" as yet. What Baha'u'llah provided was a general statement which cannot be construed as a specific law (hence, as John says, noone able to tell you what it means). As Ian Semple used to explain there are at least 6 ways for the House of Justice to legislate on this subject: 1. shorter than ear lobes all around; 2. Long hair on back, but short sideburns; etc. Since the House of Justice has not legislated on the matter, and there was no Baha'i "rule", Abdu'l-Baha was in compliance with societal standards of His time -- and the same goes for us, for the time being.

[A.H.]

-----

One inescapable observation is that Abdu'l-Baha Himself was not in compliance with this rule, judging by the published photographs.

[R.W]

-----

Didn't Baha'u'llah change his mind about all this in a later Tablet and say that men are free concerning the cut of hair and beard, as long as they don't make themselves the "playthings of the ignorant"?

Tony Lee

-----

It is of interest that Haydar Ali records that 'Abdu'l-Baha told him to stop shaving his head as this was against the law of the Aqdas, yet there was an established 'Baha'i' hairstyle with long hair combed behind the ears. This style was not simply contemporary usage but group specific and identifying.

It is actually physically impossible not to have hair growing below the level of the ears without shaving the head to some extent.

One of the themes of the Aqdas is the abolishing of clerical/lay or 'estate' distinctions. I think this passage probably needs to be seen in the context of abolishing sumptuary expression of such social distinctions.

Jackson Armstrong-Ingram

-----

I think the passage you are thinking of might be The seventh Glad-Tidings:

The choice of clothing and the cut of the beard and its dressing are left to the discretion of men. But beware, O people, lest ye make yourselves the playthings of the ignorant. (Tablets of Baha'u'llah, page 23)

If this is the one, there's nothing here to alter the Aqdas law regarding the cut of the hair.

Sen McGlinn

-----

Shoghi Effendi has made clear that, unlike the prohibition on shaving the head, this law forbidding the growing of the hair beyond the lobe of the ear pertains only to men. The application of this law will require clarification by the Universal House of Justice. (Baha'u'llah: Aqdas: Notes, pages 197-198)

Some have interpreted this as meaning Baha'u'llah prohibited body hair for men below the level of the ears. Yet He wrote, "The choice of clothing and the cut of the beard and its dressing are left to the discretion of men." (TB, p. 22) Pictures show 'Abdu'l-Baha with a long beard and hair that rested on His shoulders.

Lawrence Hautz told how on his way to visit the Guardian, he intended to shave off his moustache to obey the Aqdas. He forgot to do so, and discovered the Guardian with the same style of moustache, so he asked about the law of hair beyond the ear. He told us the Guardian explained that this refers only to hair growing inside the ear. In some cultures, such as Chinese, it was stylish not only to let hair grow there, but even to braid it.

Why does this law apply only to men? Maybe because that much hair may be a problem only for men. For example, nobody had to say anything about beard styles for women!

John Cornell

-----

I thought the "hair thing" and some other ordinances about personal cleanliness were respnoses to the kind of disgusting appearance (long dirty hair, foul clothing...) and bizarre behavior that some middle eastern mendicant and ascetic sects used as part of their bag of tricks to frighten and scare superstitious commoners and even gain political control over some villages.

[E.P.]

------

The text pairs this injunction with the one forbidding shaving the head. It has always seemed to me that a possible context for this is the general stress on eliminating clerical status and estate distinctions in society seen in the aqdas/writings. Dress and hairstyle were important indicators of estate (membership in one of the traditional 'classes' of society) in Persia. Shaving the head was associated with the ulama (and paradoxically with the lowest classes), and what were called in 17th century England 'lovelocks' were associated with the higher strata of the laity. The latter had actually gone rather out of fashion by the time the Aqdas was written (although they had been all the rage in Baha'u'llah's youth), but in iconographic usages the style was still used (along with dress) to indicate social standing..

The Baha'i community surrounding Baha'u'llah had developed its own sartorial indicators among which was a distinctive hairstyle for men: longish to long hair carefully combed behind the ears. Haydar-Ali records in his memoirs that he had become used to shaving his head while in exile in the Sudan and that one day 'Abdu'l-Baha came across him while he was doing it. 'Abdu'l-Baha asked him why he was shaving his head as this was forbidden in the Aqdas and he records that he then stopped. Obviously 'Abdu'l-Baha had no problem with the traditional Baha'i hairstyle as he wore it all his life. By the late 1800s many Baha'is in the Holy Land (as many educated and/or higher social strata middle easterners generally) had adopted Western hairstyles and clothes. However, the idea that a western mens hairstyle of c.1900 is legislated by the Aqdas cannot be sustained either on historical grounds nor because of the simple logic that the average human hair line extends below the lobe of the ear no matter how short the hair is cut _unless_ at least part of the head is shaved...and thus we come full circle.

Jackson

-----

Speaking of superceded laws, wasn't the Tablet in which Baha'u'llah states that men are to be allowed their choice in the style of their hair and beard written after the Kitab-i Aqdas? And so, shouldn't that command supercede the law of the Aqdas concerning not growing the hair beyond the ears? And if not, why not?

Tony Lee

-----

Could it be that the hair is not to flow loosely in front of the ear? The Aqdas quote says nothing about ear lobes: ".....it is not seemly to let the hair pass beyond the limit of the ears..." Looking at the pictures of the Master in my office and reading this specific verse, I get the feeling He meant not to let the hair go wild. The Master's hair is always neatly brushed off the face and held in check by his turban. I would think, for example, many Native American men wear their hair extremely long, but it is always clean, neat and kept tidy -- in braids on either side of the head -- behind the ear -- or tied at the nape of their neck -- also behind the ear. To me this would be fine according to the Aqdas, as the hair is not "beyond the limit of the ear" -- in other words, the hair is kept neatly in check behind the ear. Does that make sense?

A.M.

-----

From Notes in the Aqdas, pages 197-198: "Shoghi Effendi has made clear that, unlike the prohibition on shaving the head, this law forbidding the growing of the hair beyond the lobe of the ear pertains only to men. The application of this law will require clarification by the Universal House of Justice."

Lawrence A. "Larry" Hautz used to tell about his being the first Western pilgrim to Haifa after World War II. He wanted to shave his mustache before meeting the Guardian, in order to not have hair below the ear. He didn't manage to shave and was embarrassed until he saw that Shoghi Effendi had almost the identical style of mustache. He asked about the law on hair below the ear, and says the Guardian told him that this refers only to hair that grows on or out of the ear.

A year ago we discussed this on Talisman. One person observed that hair grows only on or in men's ears and not on women's ears, just like facial hair. Hence the law does not bother with hair on/in women's ears any more than it would worry about how women trim their beards! :-)

John Cornell

Hasan
Posts: 194
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 10:03 am
Location: Lima - Perú
Contact:

Postby Hasan » Mon Jun 13, 2005 8:52 am

This topic is interesting; but the House has the final say.

When I was 15 to 18 years old, my hair was longer than the level of my ears’ lobes and always remains clean! Many bahá'í people criticized me for that! (?), I respond, when is it specified? And, see Abdu'l-Bahá's long hair on His shoulders, no problem.

I have some doubts about this law.

John Cornell says:
A year ago we discussed this on Talisman. One person observed that hair grows only on or in men's ears and not on women's ears, just like facial hair. Hence the law does not bother with hair on/in women's ears any more than it would worry about how women trim their beards!


Also some women have facial hair (also in the ears). If some women have facial hair and some old women have notable facial hair (little mustaches and beard), so, logical questions could arise: why this law is not for both genres? Why this law refer to men?

I see no problem, this law probably concern to the prohibition of some custom related to grow facial hair (as in women is seen bad, and in men could not be that case; so, no necessity to mention it for women).

Another thought comes to my mind (at least for now): "LONG HAIR FOR MEN IS NOT FORBIDDEN!" I also think the hair in any part of the ear is forbidden, and I think the main issue of this law is the cleanliness or neatness of the people's bodies, as to see moderation in men’s mustache and beard. The House has the final say (as I said).

Cheers,

Has

Guest

Postby Guest » Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:22 pm

Thank You Very Much!!!!

After reading the Hands of the Cause's thoughts and all of your thoughts it seems clear that it is more personal preference if it is kept neat and off of the ear. Which makes my wife happy since she wishes to see me with longer hair.

Any of you know where I could find a turban to cover it during its growing out phase? I know its silly. My wife just thought I would look good with longer hair like I had in my youth:) Since she has to see my mug more then I do figured if its not against the teachings why not:)

Thanks again!!

Jasper/Mat

Jonah
Site Admin
Posts: 403
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 1:25 pm
Location: St Catharines, Ontario (near Niagara Falls)
Contact:

Postby Jonah » Tue Jun 14, 2005 7:29 am

This is the kind of thing that a lot of people have asked over the years -- why hasn't anyone written to the House, I wonder? This would be an opportune time for you to solve the issue once and for all by writing the House and noting these various other interpretations and counter-examples. (Besides Abdu'l-Baha, E.G. Browne notes that the Baha'is had long hair when he visited Kirman. I had thought it was in <a href=http://bahai-library.com/books/ayatp/>A Year Amongst the Persians</a>, but can't find it there now...)

I'm curious, but not curious enough to take the time to pen a decent letter. :wink:

-Jonah

Hasan
Posts: 194
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 10:03 am
Location: Lima - Perú
Contact:

Postby Hasan » Tue Jun 14, 2005 10:15 am

Jonah wrote:I'm curious, but not curious enough to take the time to pen a decent letter.


Yeah, me too. But I think, long, decent and clean long hair is not a problem for now, does any man went to the World Centre with long hair and any House member told him "long hair is forbidden"?
It seems the House has not yet pronounced, if they do so, this communication would be for the whole world.

Guest

Postby Guest » Tue Jun 14, 2005 10:50 am

I will get out the pen and give it a try. I think no on has beofre mainly because it seems so trivial:) But it is important to me to stay within the writings as much as possible. And if it is not allowed there is no reason to grow my hair out. No need to be rebellious anymore way too old for that:)

Jasper/Mat

Hasan
Posts: 194
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 10:03 am
Location: Lima - Perú
Contact:

Postby Hasan » Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:14 am

Anonymous wrote: I think no on has beofre mainly because it seems so trivial:)


Dear Jasper, I don't think "trivial" is a good word, I prefer "is not the time" to promulgate on this issue, because God's laws in the Most Holy Book are not trivial.

Anonymous wrote: But it is important to me to stay within the writings as much as possible. And if it is not allowed there is no reason to grow my hair out. No need to be rebellious anymore way too old for that:)


Yeah, but, it will be your interpretation of the law, since there is not clear statement, then it will be not a "rebellion", all are just speculations not rebellions.

cheers

Has

Guest

Postby Guest » Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:36 pm

Maybe this law was Baha'u'llah's way of abrogating the law of Moses concerning the prohibition of cutting the hair in that region of the head that allowed it to grow in locks down past the ears, what Hasids call peyez. This law was commanded by Moses to distinguish His people from the idol worshipers who used to shave their heads there. Maybe Baha'u'llah is simply trying to say that all us men should just get normal haircuts so as to not distinguish ourselves by some style of hair. As for me, I buzz my hair with a #2 clip. It allows me to keep some hair, in which Baha'u'lah says there are signs, but at the same time not have to deal with styling it so that I can take the emphasis off of that part of my appearance. That's not to say we shouldn't be concerned with our appearance at all-of course we must appear in the utmost cleanliness-but I think we live in a culture that tries to compensate for a lack of inner living with fashion and style. Gentlemen, I can tell you from a dozen years of exerience that if you want the benefit of hair without having to worry about all of this just keep your heads buzzed. Oh, and one more thing: when we talk about following the example of the Master we're not talking about His appearance. It's a well known fact that 'Abdu'l-Baha didn't like having His picture taken because it emphasised the personality. If we were meant to follow His personal ways we'd all be eating nothing but bread and cheese, wearing turbans and fezez and 19th century Persian attire. When the Master said "Look at Me. Follow Me. Be as I am." He was talking about following the example of His peerless virtues.

brettz9
Posts: 1358
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 12:12 pm
Contact:

Postby brettz9 » Tue Jun 14, 2005 8:29 pm

well said, guest... :)

So, if 'Abdu'l-Baha paced about, you're saying we don't need to do so? :)

Brett

majnun
Posts: 247
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 11:56 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Postby majnun » Wed Jun 15, 2005 2:51 am

.
When the four lads of England came up,
the idolatry for them was so great, every body
had to wear long hair by 1966. This is when classical
religions were kicked off.

Twas an idea of Brian Epstein, to make guys
comb their hair like women do. He later committed
suicide.

Like the Muslim community, Baha'is are shielded
from idolatry. What the rest of the people do is
relatively mild and of no consequence on us.
The main thing to catch from
the Beatles era is that it won't come back again, and
that hair lenght will never be used again a a sort
of personal hijab for people in seach of an identity.
Real identity lies in Valley no 1. Would anyone
really enjoy wearing his hair like mister Trhiller theese days ?
Au revoir, sargeant Pepper.

Majnun.

Baha'i Warrior
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:07 am
Location: U.S.A.

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Sun Aug 14, 2005 6:58 pm

Actually, Baha'is have written the House of Justice concerning this issue. The answer can be found in your own Baha'i library:

http://bahai-library.com/?file=uhj_laws_not_binding

Notice that this letter dates back to '74. One of the Laws "not at present binding upon the friends in the western world," accoring to this letter, is "the shaving of one's head and the growth of men's hair xxxii below the lobe of the ear."

Not many Baha'is know about this. Again, remember this is back in '74. Why is that important? Some of the Laws the House determined not to be binding upon the friends (in the West) have been revisited, and are now applicable. For example, the letter I just referred to says that the recitation of the Greatest Name 95 times a day is not applicable, however, a recent letter from the House of Justice (1999) says that it is again applicable:

http://bahai-library.com/?file=uhj_furt ... tion_aqdas

Also note that what is being discussed here is the West. If you do not live in the West, you still have to cut your hair.

One problem a prominent Baha'i once told me is that Baha'is are not well-versed when it comes to the Writings. This creates a problem, where many Baha'is try to guess about certain issues among each other. I would highly recommend that Baha'is, especially the youth, read the Writings of the beloved Guardian, as they are very applicable to today, especially to the West.

Also, maybe it is just how I was raised (a Baha'i), but I am rather shocked that Baha'is would compare themselves to the Master or the Blessed Beauty. Who are you, little man, to question the judgment of the Blessed Beauty? I don't mean to offend anyone, but if He wanted His Son to grow His hair long, there was a reason. We know that the Blessed Beauty forbid His other sons to grow their hair long. And we also know that the Blessed Beauty and the Master were not bound to the Law.

Again, it all comes down to: How important is the Faith to you? Sure, you can grow your hair. Yes, this Law in part may have had to do with hygiene, but who are we to say that was the only reason? Unless the UHJ states so, it is not so. You can do many things, you can smoke. We know the Master even Himself on occasions smoked. BUT we also know much He was repulsed by it:

"I wish to say that, in the sight of God, the smoking of tobacco is a thing which is blamed and condemned, very unclean, and of which the result is by degrees injurious. Besides it is a cause of expense and of loss of time and it is a harmful habit."

We also know that, in one case, the Master walked into a room full of Baha'i men smoking, and, extremely upset, walked right out of the room.

Still want to smoke? Go ahead. Want to grow your hair? Go ahead. No one is stopping you. But we should be more concerned with what we can do as opposed to what we can't do. Because, Baha'u'llah's Law should be good enough for you.

Again, as a disclaimer, I absolutely do not mean to offend anyone here, I am just trying to be blunt to get the message across. Sometimes one needs to be blunt.

Baha'i Warrior
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:07 am
Location: U.S.A.

Re: The 70's wont come back

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Mon Aug 15, 2005 10:17 am

It will be a crime when the UHJ declares that Westerners are to abide by this law. So why not just abide by it now? You don't have to, but it is good practice for when the law becomes reinstated in the West (as I just proved in my message above, laws are being made applicable again).

Think about it. The Blessed Beauty forbade His other sons to grow their hair long, except for 'Abdu'l-Baha. There was a reason He wanted His Son to grow His hair long—there was wisdom behind it. So Baha'is, in my opinion, should avoid looking at the picture of the Master and saying, "Well.....maybe Baha'u'llah meant it could be long, just not 'wild', etc. etc." In my view, this is blasphemy. Just remember that before such a thought comes to mind.

We also know from the Writings that the very bodies of the Messengers of God are the most perfect human bodies, materially. Therefore, again, Baha'is should avoid this kind of behavior, at least that's my opinion. Instead, we should humble ourselves before God and be submissive.

Also, you mention that men can look like women with long hair. This is more than true. Perhaps the Blessed Beauty wanted to save us from ourselves, making ourselves look like women! Well, that is just speculation.

There is an Islamic hadith saying that the end of the world will come when men start to dress like women and women dress like men. In a way, this has come true.

brettz9
Posts: 1358
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 12:12 pm
Contact:

Postby brettz9 » Tue Aug 16, 2005 2:49 am

Dear BW,

Although there are some laws which the House of Justice has stated will benefit us even though they are not strictly-speaking binding (such as teaching children to recite the verses of God), and there are some laws applicable now in the East and not in the West (e.g., the 95-day engagement period limitation), this does NOT mean that all of the laws listed as not binding in the West are by necessity therefore also in fact binding now in the East. Rather in some cases, they clearly are not binding in the East either. For example, clearly the law for the death penalty or burning of the arsonist is not practiceable by the Bahá'í community in the East either!

As far as the cut of the hair, let us look at the notes to the Aqdas on this point:

Shoghi Effendi has made clear that, unlike the prohibition on shaving the head, this law forbidding the growing of the hair beyond the lobe of the ear pertains only to men. The application of this law will require clarification by the Universal House of Justice.

(Note 69)


Note, it doesn't say that the law will require clarification only in the West. If it requires clarification, how can Easterners even follow it now? Maybe we cannot understand what the law is even referring to. For example, some have suggested that this law may even simply only refer to the locks of hair grown out on the SIDE of the ear, by orthodox Jews (in order perhaps to establish the independence of the Faith as some other laws such as forbidding the kissing of hands can do).

Also, just because some laws are being gradually implemented in the West (and the East) does not mean that all of them will be implemented in the near future. Remember, the laws of Bahá'u'lláh are meant for at least a 1000 year period.

And even if it is a good thing for Bahá'ís to practice, there is a reason why the House of Justice has determined that the law should not be applicable (similar perhaps to how the House of Justice says that the exemptions to some of the laws are also given for good reason). If you burden people too much who are not ready for it, it can be just as bad (or even in some cases worse) as not challenging them enough. If the House of Justice does not think it is worth pushing now, who are we to do so?

When the delegates at the U.S. National Convention appealed the House of Justice to apply for their benefit the law of Huqúqu'lláh at Mr. Khadem's urging, the House of Justice, while thanking them for the spirit of this appeal, said that the time was not yet right for it. "Thus far and no farther" might also be a command as well as a description.

Or the importance advised by prominent Bahá'ís such as Rúhíyyih Khánum about not burdening the people one is teaching beyond their capacity (as she mentioned, as I recall, that it was not her duty to tell some tribal people she visited to wear more clothes, but to share with them the Message of Bahá'u'lláh (but that in good time, they would realize such things on their own).

There was a story that 'Abdu'l-Bahá was to have told about Abraham and how He got angry with a guest? who showed his belief in idolatry, and when Abraham was getting angry at the man with this in His mind, God rebuked Abraham for saying how patient God had been for all this time (thousands of years) in allowing their idolatry to continue, and Abraham could not wait a short time to correct them.

Now maybe, when the law is more clear (such as not shaving the head), it would not be improper to tactfully bring up the future law, but it is for THAT person to judge it. Again, God allows the exception for a reason. We should spend most of our energies worrying about how well we are following the laws that are challenging for us, especially when no one around us is jeopardizing the reputation of the Faith by egregiously breaking any BINDING laws...

As far as smoking, this is from a letter from the Research Department of the House of Justice:

Bahá'ís must be careful not to go beyond the Teachings in this matter and try to enforce as a law a matter in which Bahá'u'lláh has deemed it wise to allow freedom of decision. The Tablet of Purity is not an accurate translation, and it is clear from the original that 'Abdu'l-Bahá does not state that smoking is prohibited. To letters inquiring about this subject the Guardian's secretary replied on his behalf that Bahá'ís had no right to prevent anyone from smoking; that Bahá'ís were free to smoke but it was preferable for them not to do so; and that an issue should not be made of this matter.

(online here)


You can read the full context where it does refer to the evils of smoking, but you should be able to see the point here as far as not pushing this on others. Remember what you cited about 'Abdu'l-Bahá walking out of the room, was only a pilgrim's note...Even if He did do this, there could be a number of other reasons (or specific to that situation)...

As far as 'Abdu'l-Bahá's hair, assuming His did not in fact follow the outward law, I wonder whether it may have something to do with the symbolism in the Hebrew Bible about the Nazarene...the special consecrated members of the community who were to grow their hair long (though others, as I recall could not)...You might want to look this up for us, if you like...

best wishes,
Brett

p.s. Sorry to the folks who may have already covered some of this earlier (I haven't read this thread fully), as it looks like some of this may have already been said here before...

Baha'i Warrior
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:07 am
Location: U.S.A.

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Tue Aug 16, 2005 10:28 am

Brett,

This whole discussion is about hair. I do not know who asked the question; Baha'i or non-Baha'i. I was just giving some of my input, from my personal experience.

For instance, about smoking, I do not go up to Baha'is and say: "Hey you shouldn't be doing that." I would not say that to a teenager or an elder. But if they came up to me and asked me what the Writings have to say about smoking, I would tell them what 'Abdu'l-Baha had to say about it, which was very negative, though it is not illegal. By providing the quote of 'Abdu'l-Baha, I was not trying to "push this on others," as you say. I was just trying to point out that you can do a lot of things, but they are not necessarily conducive to spiritual growth.

Also, we know how material things can have a great impact on the spirit. One of those things in cleanliness. The Master says:

Their avoidance is necessary for purity, cleanliness, the preservation of health, and freedom from addiction[290] ... Among these latter is the smoking of tobacco, which is dirty, smelly, offensive, an evil habit, and one the harmfulness of which gradually becometh apparent to all.
...
My meaning is that in the sight of God, smoking tobacco is deprecated, abhorrent, filthy in the extreme; and, albeit by degree, highly injurious to health.

More quotes: http://bahai-library.com/books/bluehaze/8.html

So before a Baha'i decides whether or not he should smoke, it is not a crime to let him know what 'Abdu'l-Baha thought of it, especially if he asks. I am not saying to stress it, but it is a very good thing to inform, especially if questions like this are posted on a message board.

Cleanliness is so important, such an important virtue, that the Blessed Beauty says that if even your clothes are "sullied " with dirt, your prayers will not ascend to God.

Smoking does not have to be prohibited because in the future Baha'is will be mature enough not to do it, as its harm will "gradually becometh apparent to all." But for right now, as you say, we should not burden Baha'is with such things. I have always stood by that. But we are obligated to tell them as it is if they inquire. It would be a great injustice if we did not.

Baha'i Warrior
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:07 am
Location: U.S.A.

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Tue Aug 16, 2005 11:07 am

Also, I just would like to officially apologize if I offended anyone, especially new Baha'is. So to conclude this discussion about hair length, which "Anonymous" started, yes you may grow your hair.

-Hey, when I was in high school I had my hair long. That's back when I listened to rock. Man, the first thing I'd always do when I went to Barnes and Noble was hit the Music section and check out all the new rock magazines. Man, those guys looked so cool with their hair long. I wanted to be just like them, you know. Good ol' days!

brettz9
Posts: 1358
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 12:12 pm
Contact:

Postby brettz9 » Tue Aug 16, 2005 5:23 pm

Yes, I don't think the fact that something is not prohibited should mean that we cannot speak on the subject in certain circumstances (even should speak on the subject, as you say).

I don't think you would have offended anyone by what you said, either. My main point was just to say that I don't think we can even clearly say what Bahá'u'lláh has exactly forbidden here. For smoking, we know what smoking is, at least!

Baha'i Warrior
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:07 am
Location: U.S.A.

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Wed Aug 17, 2005 6:54 pm

Yeah, I think I was wrong about a few things. No one caught this, I said that Baha'u'llah forbid His other sons to grow their hair long, but actually I believe the Purest Branch had his hair long also.

Also, Mishkin Qalam, Baha'u'llah's caligrapher, had very long hair (I think he looked cool with it). I can't find his picture online but I saw it in a Baha'i publication once. Of course that may have been due to Islamic tradition, because even the Master attended mosques till the day He passed.

So what Baha'u'llah exactly meant by that we can only speculate, but the UHJ would probably be able to elaborate more on that. I remember a lot of Baha'i adults telling me when I was a teenager that Baha'is (men) are forbidden from have their hair long and stuff, shows how important it is to always back your argument up with a source. I wonder if anyone asked the House what that passage exactly means.

MarvPeck
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:59 pm

Re: Question about hair length?

Postby MarvPeck » Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:03 pm

It's been a while but I'd like to add to this:

Here is a link to a picture of the Purest Branch
http://8c.img.v4.skyrock.net/8ca/rasta7 ... _small.jpg


Here is a link to Mishkín-Qalam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mishkin-Qalam-1.JPG


I've had long hair most of my life. I've wondered about this a long time.
I never heard any reference to ear hair. That was a new one to me.
I tend to think that it's OK to have long hair that is tied in a pony tail.
Of course, that's just me. We'll have to wait and see what the House says.
Marv Peck


Return to “Discussion”