Are Baha'is allowed to debate with Covenant-Breakers???

All research or scholarship questions
Keyvan
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 2:58 am
Location: Los Angeles

Postby Keyvan » Sat Oct 22, 2005 9:48 pm

Anonymous wrote:Dearest Keyvan,

You wrote:

the POINT of this Dispensation IS the Administrative Order. its not just some machine to fight against. one in which you can pick and choose if you like or not.


Where in the Writings of Baha'u'llah does He say that the point of His Dispensation is Administrative Order?

With loving Baha'i regards





The essence of all that We have revealed for thee is Justice

(Baha'u'llah, Words of Wisdom, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 156)

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

Postby majnun » Sat Oct 22, 2005 11:27 pm

Good point Matt, but in the
hidden word, you surely remember
that "insaf" is what is prefered to the eyes of the top authority.
Insaf is a word that means "equilibrium" (not justice).

Majnun.

Guest

Postby Guest » Sun Oct 23, 2005 4:32 pm

Dearest Farid,

You wrote:

I see a mistake in the way you are using the Golden rule. Golden rule although may read something like this: " don't want to others what you do'nt want for yourself", does not mean , eg:
- since I do'nt like to be kept in prison, I shouldn't want criminals to be kept in prison.


The Golden Rule is essentially about treating people equitably. If I believe someone is guilty of a crime, of course I should not want this person to escape prison, and I would not ascribe a condition in which some could escape prison and not others without violating the Golden Rule.

And then you wrote:

I have a second issue with what you said. If I am not mistaken, you said that Abdulbaba had authority over administrative issues and not spiritual ones. Then you said that he erred in interpreting "men" literally as males and thus excluded women.
Now this is where I want your help: is this an administrative issue or spiritual issue? based on what you are saying, the ruling is about an administrative body and the interpretaion done is over the meaning of a word which doesn't have to do with spirituality.


This is precisely my point! One who only should have had administrative authority should not be "under the color of spirituality" ascribing a discriminatory condition to women that does not apply to men. If Abdul-Baha had said, "I" believe as the administrative successor to Baha'u'llah, charged with the promulgation and spreading of the Faith, have decided that women are not currently prepared to serve on the UHJ, so we should exclude them only temporarily until such a time that they advance to the level in which they are capable of leading the Faith, I still may have disagreed with this assessment, but at least he would have had a legitimate right to make this decision as an administrative successor (sort of like withholding the 95 Allah-u-Abhas from the West on a temporary basis).

The problem comes when Abdul-Baha mixes his personal opinions with "spirituality" in which his personal views take on the imprimatur of Baha'u'llah. When he does this, he goes well beyond the role of administrative successor and potentially binds the Faith into actions that would not have been intended by the Manifestation of God. And when you have clear expressions of the Manifestation of God saying "O ye men" means "O ye men and women" in His Revelation, this intent of the Manifestation must override the personal view of Abdul-Baha, unless we are talking about an "administrative" action that is temporal in nature to help spread the Faith.

With loving Baha'i regards,

-Matt

Guest

Postby Guest » Sun Oct 23, 2005 10:14 pm

Matt

thanks for your post.

you had in your post

One who only should have had administrative authority should not be "under the color of spirituality" ascribing a discriminatory condition to women that does not apply to men


I think Abdulbaha has not made this law because of any spiritual reason.
I haven't read anywhere that the reason of this was of spititual type.
In other words, he is not saying that women are not spiritually capable or worthy of this position. We know how contradictory this is with many other writings of Abdulbaha. So this is so far-fetched to me.
Let's look at another examle. Bahaullah has exempted women when they are in physical restrictions from some obligatory duties. Now one can deduce that by doing this, Bahaullah is alluding to that when women are under these physical condions, they are not spiritually ready. But also we can look at it as taking it easy on women when they are not physically ready, which does't have to do with spirituality at all. It's the same story with the one with UHJ memebership.
We know that membership of UHJ is just a position of service not a social status or benefit of any kind. So exempting women from this is taking it easy on them on this type of service. You used the word "discrimintation".
Discrimiation to me is more about taking some benefits or rights from someone. Service is on the other hand when you benefit others. A UHJ memebership in my opinion is not necessarily a higher level of service. You can be a member of nothing and yet serve the faith more than anybody else. So we cannot even say that the privilege of service is less for women than women. Women serve the world when they raise good kids which might be greater than membership in UHJ in the eyes of God.


On the Golden rule, I have to say that what you wrote was not satisfactory to me. Treating people equitably is not a result of practicing Golden rule. Justice has its own system of operation in today's world.
Never in a court Golden rule is practiced to reach justice. Although I may not want a punishment for a criminal,due to Golden rule, law has its own way of operation. Golden rule works on an individual level to create fairness. Golden rule is very clear: do to others as you want to be done to you[if you where in their shoes].
But if you are changing the problem you had with the ruling of Abdulbaha form "not observing Golden rule" to " not observing equity", then it's fine and you can do it, and I will try to answer shortly why I don't think this ruling violated observation of equity. Men and women have differences.
If in US women cannot apear topless in public, it does not mean they are being discrimnated againt. There is a reason for that. In the same way, there is a reason that women cannot be a UHJ member. As you know is Islam , women were treated differently in many aspects than women. It does not mean Muhammad discriminated against them. It was due to differences between men and women in differnt arenas of life. It's the same story here. I do'nt think you believe that Islam discriminated againt women by, e.g. giving them less of inheritance.

Farid

farid
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 12:48 am
Contact:

Postby farid » Sun Oct 23, 2005 10:22 pm

two of the "Women" in above post should be change to "men"
I hope it does not cause confusion. It's easy to tell. sorry

I want to add something here. Matt, you know that Bahaullah allowed men to have two wives. Do you say that He discriminated again women by doing this , since he did'nt treat them equally? We had Bahai figures who were practcing this law and had two wives. Bahaullah himself had 3 or 4 wives.
You know that Abdulbaha changed it to one wife. Which one of these two laws do you think fits better with the world today? Bahaullha's or Abdulbaha's?
Look at how much the laws concerning women has changed in the "God's Religion" from Islam to Babi to Bahai. This does not mean previous treatments of women were discriminatory. Abdulbaha's law is also chageable in the next dispensation.


Farid

Guest

Postby Guest » Mon Oct 24, 2005 1:18 am

Dearest Farid,

you wrote:

A UHJ memebership in my opinion is not necessarily a higher level of service. You can be a member of nothing and yet serve the faith more than anybody else. So we cannot even say that the privilege of service is less for women than women. Women serve the world when they raise good kids which might be greater than membership in UHJ in the eyes of God.


This diminishing and limiting of the role and contribution of women is discriminatory in a non-benign sense. It really is about the greater range of contributions women can make to the Faith, and why discrimination against them restricts this range. If Baha'ullah himself does not restrict the range of their contribution, then how can we?

And why don't you address the issue of how Baha'u'llah could mean "O ye men" to meand "O ye men and women" elsewhere in His Revelation? If men and women are to teach the cause when Baha'ullah says "O ye men" and men and women are to read the Word of God when he says "O men", than how do you exempt women when He says "O ye men of justice"?

We should not blame Abdul-Baha for this oversight, because how could he have known in 1908 that women would progress at such a rapid rate? How would he have known that we would have 100 years later in 2005 women Heads of State, Secretaries of State, legislators who make law, brain surgeons, rocket scientist, astronauts, producers, directors, professors, attorneys, engineers, investment bankers, CEOs, business owners, etc.? Certainly, we cannot blame Abdul-Baha for living in a generation in which he could not foresee the pace of the advancement of women.

Only a Manifestation of God could have forseen this rapid rate of advancement. Only a Manifestation of God would have known that women would have demonstrated the capacity to serve on th UHJ 100 years later. So when Baha'ullah tells us "O ye men of justice", we know that He means "O ye men [and women] just like He means this elsewhere in His Revelation when this pattern of speech is used.

You also wrote:

Matt, you know that Bahaullah allowed men to have two wives. Do you say that He discriminated again women by doing this , since he did'nt treat them equally? We had Bahai figures who were practcing this law and had two wives. Bahaullah himself had 3 or 4 wives.


I don't know if this is any different in the Quran when Muhammad tells us that you can "only" do this if you can treat each wife fairly (not favor one over the other). I think the reality is that most women do not believe that you can treat them fairly if they were both your wives, so this is the controlling factor rather than the permission to do so if you "could" treat them fairly.

And you wrote:

Abdulbaha's law is also chageable in the next dispensation.


Wrong. A non-Manifestation of God has no power to make "Revealatory law" that is binding until the next Manifestation of God since he has no power to Reveal the Word of God. This Revealatory power was reserved by God for Manifestations of God, and we all know that Abdul-Baha has informed us that he did not reach this station (Abdul-Baha in London, P. 125). The most a non-Manifestation of God like Abdul-Baha can do is guide and manage the Faith to facilitate growth. Anything more than that which requires us to discriminate against a class of people that is unrelated to the growth of the Faith (this discrimination is actually hindering growth), must be limited to the Word of God itself, or you are saying that Baha'u'llah has been superseded by a non-Manifestation of God.

With loving Baha'i regards,

-Matt

farid
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 12:48 am
Contact:

Postby farid » Mon Oct 24, 2005 4:27 am

Matt

you said:

This diminishing and limiting of the role and contribution of women is discriminatory in a non-benign sense.


I don't believe it is a diminishing or liming of women's role. You probably have seen some people who believe in God but do'nt believe he is just. A woman of this sort can say He is not just since He has put the burdon of pregnancy and childbirth on them. Such a man , might say that He is not just since women's contribution in raising children and thus the world is greater. Now what you are saying seems to me something of this sort . You are saying that role and contribution of women is diminshed by this exclusion. But I am saying , there is no way we can know this for sure. You are limiting contribution and role of a Bahai to serving in an administrative body. I do'nt look at this this way.

And why don't you address the issue of how Baha'u'llah could mean "O ye men" to meand "O ye men and women" elsewhere in His Revelation?


Because again I don't see it the way you see it. You are assuming that the only reason Abdulbaha has said this is because of the use of the word "men". In other words it seems to me you are saying that Abdulbaha has acted as a linguist here. So you are reducing the issue to a literary one. I do'nt know why you are making such an assumption. If you have some source for this, I like to read about it.
Besides, the same word can have different meanings at differnt places and differnt meanings can be intended by author from them. Abdulbaha had the authority to make such meanings clear.

I don't know if this is any different in the Quran when Muhammad tells us that you can "only" do this if you can treat each wife fairly (not favor one over the other).


I said this in response to the problem you had with equity. you said that women and men should be treated equitabley. I said, it does not mean that they should be treated eqully. so you cannot find this fault in Abdulbaha's ruling, in this same way you cannot find this fault in diffenent laws Islam had for two sexes. Why didn't Bahaullha eg allow a woman to take two husbands too? so he didn't treat them equally.

A non-Manifestation of God has no power to make "Revealatory law" that is binding until the next Manifestation of God since he has no power to Reveal the Word of God. This Revealatory power was reserved by God for Manifestations of God, and we all know that Abdul-Baha has informed us that he did not reach this station (Abdul-Baha in London, P. 125).


This issue was addressed by Keyvan and Worrier in detail and I also think the way they do. So I don't repeat them.

Farid

Guest

Postby Guest » Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:25 am

Dearest Farid,

You wrote:

Why didn't Bahaullha eg allow a woman to take two husbands too? so he didn't treat them equally.


I think one need only look at Arab and Persian society in 1850 in which women whose husbands died in war, etc. were left alone to fend for themselves without education or a trade and not enough "single" men willing to marry them (the age of marriage there is typically quite young compared to the West). So as an act of compassion, the Manifestation allowed others who could afford to take care of these women who already had families to do so, if they could treat them fairly. Allowing multiple wives was "never" intended as a sexual gratification fantasy of men that would make women unequal. This is the perverted view of men in the West who think of women as sex objects, and thus "the more the merrier".

So treating women "equitably" in this context today, especially in the West, where women have equaled men in most respects because of educational and employment opportunities, means treating them "equally" as well. Single women (my mother included) can raise a successful family without a man if they have a marketable trade or education, and they therefore no longer need the compassion of married men to survive well with their families in 2005.

Again, Abdul-Baha may not have been able to foresee this rapid advancement of women, but his lack of capacity should not hinder us from following God's law in treating women equitably by not discriminating against them in any position of leadership within the Faith.

It is simply hypocritical to suggest that the motherly duties of women are "so" great that they cannot serve on the UHJ but "not" so great as to prevent them from serving in equally demanding positions on the ITC or NSAs of the world.

With loving Baha'i regards,

-Matt

Guest

Postby Guest » Mon Oct 24, 2005 1:25 pm

Dearest Farid,

You also wrote:

You are assuming that the only reason Abdulbaha has said this is because of the use of the word "men". In other words it seems to me you are saying that Abdulbaha has acted as a linguist here. So you are reducing the issue to a literary one. I do'nt know why you are making such an assumption.


Abdul-Baha wrote:

The House of Justice, however, according to the explicit text of the Law of God, is confined to men; this for a wisdom of the Lord God's, which will erelong be made manifest as clearly as the sun at high noon. -- Selections from the Writings of 'Abdu'l-Bahá, rev. ed., (Haifa: Bahá'í World Centre, 1982), sec. 38, pp. 79-80


So you see, it was a linguistic issue for Abdul-Baha in that he believed the "explicit text" (O ye men of justice) precluded women from serving on the House. Unfortunately, his linguistic training did not include researching the Revelation of Baha'u'llah for occurrences in the same pattern of speech to discern that Baha'u’llah intends to include women when he says "O ye men" or "O men".

But again, we do not blame Abdul-Baha for his lack of linguistic training, but we should blame ourselves when armed with the tools of linguistic science, fail to harmonize this science with our religion, turn our backs on the intent of the Manifestation of God to include women on the House of Justice, and favor a linguistic error made by a man who has confessed that he is "only" a man (Abdul-Baha in London, P. 125).

With loving Baha'i regards,

-Matt

farid
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 12:48 am
Contact:

Postby farid » Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:08 pm

Matt

I start with your quote:

Again, Abdul-Baha may not have been able to foresee this rapid advancement of women, but his lack of capacity should not hinder us from following God's law in treating women equitably by not discriminating against them in any position of leadership within the Faith.



Many of the laws are left to UHJ as you know. Abdulbaha, nor the Guardian did'nt rule on them. these are the laws that could change due to the changes of society. On the other hand, those laws who were set, were not to be affected by changes in society at least before the next manifestaion comes.

So treating women "equitably" in this context today, especially in the West, where women have equaled men in most respects because of educational and employment opportunities, means treating them "equally" as well.


Yes, but there are differnces betweem women and men-biological, and psychological--that are independent of time .


It is simply hypocritical to suggest that the motherly duties of women are "so" great that they cannot serve on the UHJ but "not" so great as to prevent them from serving in equally demanding positions on the ITC or NSAs of the world.


why don't you look at this as an exemption, the way Bahaullhah exempted women from obligatory duties at times of restriction. women are not exempt from work at such times. So can you say that what Bahaullah did was hypocritical?


Again, Abdul-Baha may not have been able to foresee this rapid advancement of women,

But remember Abdulbaha said that the reason will someday become clear as sun. This can mean one of two things : that Abdulbaha knew of a reason that was not clear and known at that time, but he was aware of it. Or he knew that there is a reason to it that will become clear, although he also was not aware of it, he just knew there is a reason to it.
So you have two choices: you can say that this statement of Abdulbaha(that the reason will become manifest as sun someday) was a lie. In this case you cannot say : we do not blame Abdul-Baha for his lack of linguistic training , since if this was the case, Abdulbaha lied about it.
Now you may want to help me know why he would do that? why he would say there is a reason for it that someday will become clear, if there is no reason. No reason has yet become known to us to explain this as clearly as sun. So this ruling still holds.
Your other choice is simply to say that he was aware of things that we are not aware of , so he could forsee waht wee still can't.

Farid

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

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:06 pm

Anonymous wrote: Again, Abdul-Baha may not have been able to foresee this rapid advancement of women, but his lack of capacity should not hinder us from following God's law in treating women equitably by not discriminating against them in any position of leadership within the Faith.



Isn't this interesting? We're arguing with a guy who despises the Master so much that he does not even read 'Abdu'l-Baha's Writings! Okay, you don't agree with Him so you don't read His Writings. But don't be so arrogant to the point that you forget that you have NOT studied 'Abdu'l-Baha yet still try to tell us Baha'is about what 'Abdu'l-Baha said/thought. If you were not so prejudiced, and had you done your homework, you would have SEEN that 'Abdu'l-Baha FORSAW many events, i.e. the Red Summer of 1919, the Titanic sinking, etc. Shoghi Effendi FORSAW (i.e. predicted) many things as well, and it can be proven because it is in print. What can we attribute this phenomenon to? The power of the Lesser Covenant, that is right. There may have been people in the past with extraordinary foresight and maybe predicted ONE thing, but 'Abdu'l-Baha and the Guardian CONSISTENTLY foresaw things happening, and we have proof of that. It would be very foolish to try to deny this fact.

THEREFORE, your statement "Abdul-Baha may not have been able to foresee this rapid advancement of women" is unfounded and absurd. If this why true, why would 'Abdu'l-Baha say: "When women participate fully and equally in the affairs of the world...war will cease"? Does He say if? No! He says: WHEN.

Your "arguments," if you can call them that, have been weak from the beginning, and that makes sense because Baha'u'llah does not endorse Divine Assistance to those who attack His Cause. Because if you were right, many would have already been convinced by your naive "attacks." But none are. Think about that.


—Warrior

Guest

Postby Guest » Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:09 pm

Dearest Farid,

You wrote:

Now you may want to help me know why he would do that? why he would say there is a reason for it that someday will become clear, if there is no reason.


There are only four possible explanations for this:

(1) Abdul-Baha believed that one day women would demonstrate their capacity to serve which confirms the wisdom of excluding them, at least temporarily, until they demonstrated this fact;

(2) Abdul-Baha believed that women would progress, but not at the rapid rate that we have witnessed, and therefore the wisdom of excluding them from the House would be made manifest during the time of the next Manifestation of God, which is to be 1000 years later.

(3) Abdul-Baha really was baffled by what he thought was the "express" intent to exclude women from the House because of the "O ye men" language, and therefore deferred judgment to a later time when he believed the wisdom of this will be made manifest; or,

(4) Abdul-Baha, knowing that he is "only" a man and therefore prone to human error, is testing the Faith to see if when his error is made manifest as clear as the noon day sun, will we follow God through His Manifestation as we are instructed to do, or will we follow Abdul-Baha who is "only" a man just like us? "Wisdom", in this sense, is the wisdom of not ascribing partners with God, because there is no other god beside God, the Self-Subsisting, the All-Sufficing.

With loving Baha'i regards,

-Matt

Guest

Postby Guest » Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:35 pm

Dearest Baha'i Warrior,

You wrote:

What can we attribute this phenomenon to? The power of the Lesser Covenant, that is right. There may have been people in the past with extraordinary foresight and maybe predicted ONE thing, but 'Abdu'l-Baha and the Guardian CONSISTENTLY foresaw things happening, and we have proof of that.


This illustrates the fallacy of the lesser Covenant. If anytime we encounter someone who can predict more than one event, we put them at the center of our Covenant with God, what sort of religion of God would we be? A religion of black magic and hocus-pocus fortune-telling?

Come on, Warrior, I know you think more of the religion of God than that. This religion of God needs no miracles, no fortune-telling, just pure guidance on how to cultivate as many virtues of God before the death of our body.

You also wrote:

Isn't this interesting? We're arguing with a guy who despises the Master so much that he does not even read 'Abdu'l-Baha's Writings!


I must confess, that I am biased in favor of the Writings of the Manifestations of God. After all, I spent four years in isolation in which all I had to read were the Words of Baha'u'llah and the Bab. Imagine that, Warrior, all day, every day, for four years!

When I came out of this isolation and began reading the words of Abdul-Baha, I was naturally disappointed, as his words didn't seem to resonate as fully as the Words of the Bab or Baha'u'llah. Nonetheless, I enjoyed reading Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi, and I encourage everyone to read the words of these great men.

I am very much aware of the full scope of Abdul-Baha's writings on women, and I know he held them in very high esteem. But in 1908, he simply could not imagine what we see today only 100 years later, and quite naturally could have believed that it would take 1000 years for women to reach the stage in which they would be prepared to lead the Faith.

So even if he could have predicted the sinking of the Titanic, he certainly could not predict "everything". Otherwise, he would be a Prophet and Manifestation of God rather than "only" a man just like us, just like he has informed us (Abdul-Baha in London, p.125)

With loving Baha'i regards,

-Matt

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

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:50 pm

Anonymous wrote: So even if he could have predicted the sinking of the Titanic, he certainly could not predict "everything". Otherwise, he would be a Prophet and Manifestation of God rather than "only" a man just like us, just like he has informed us (Abdul-Baha in London, p.125)


Correction: He would not predict "everything." Why? Because the Writings tell us Faith should not be based on miracles. He could and did foresee everything, but due to the aforementioned reason, He did not.

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

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Mon Oct 24, 2005 4:26 pm

Also, just as an extension to my previous post (above), I would like to point out the FACT that men are SUPERIOR to women in some things, just as women is SUPERIOR to man in some things.

We have countless quotations from both Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha that say: in the eyes of God, both men and women are equals. However, this has to reconciled with many quotes from both Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha where each One mentions that men are SUPERIOR to women in some things, and vice versa. For example, let us look at two quotes that state that women is superior to man in some respects:

From Paris Talks:

"In some respects woman is superior to man. She is more tender-hearted, more receptive, her intuition is more intense."

From 'Abdu'l-Bahá in London:

"The woman has the greater moral courage than the man; she also has special gifts which enable her to govern in moments of danger and crisis. Taken in general, women today have a stronger sense of religion than men. The woman's intuition is more correct; she is more receptive and her intelligence is quicker."


This should mean, then, that men are superior to women in some respects, right? Baha'u'llah, in His Law-i-Tibb, states:

"Say: O friends! Fear and anguish are womanly qualities but if the friends of God meditate on the world and the apparent disharmony in it the power of the oppressors will not frighten them and they will fly with the wings of longing to the Light of Heaven."


So, to the unbiased observer, as the beloved Guardian would put it, it is evident from this quote that man is superior to women with respect to COURAGE. How many times do you see a girl jump out of her skin when she sees a little spider crawling on the wall? Many. How many times do you see a man react in that same way? Not many.

Baha'u'llah says:

"Should any king take up arms against another, all should unitedly arise and prevent him."

How is this quote relevant? Well, in the future, if a tyrant arises, it is the obligation of those in charge to destroy him and prevent him from causing further harm. Since by nature women "is more tender-hearted" than man, who do you think will be more efficient at taking down the tyrant and taking immediate action? i.e. who are more likely to immediately call for the overthrow of the tyrant? Men, of course. Men by nature, as 'Abdu'l-Baha states, are more aggressive. Some aggressiveness is not bad, otherwise Godf would not have “created” it. Some aggressiveness is needed good, but it will be balanced by the more feminine attributes of the future. However, there will be times that call for this type of action, and the men of the UHJ are better suited for it.


This is of course only speculation. The reason why men are better suited as members of the UHJ will be clear in the future. But it cannot be denied that men are superior in some things, and that this may very well be the reason God intended man to serve on the UHJ. Of course, both men and women become more spiritually "refined" by the influence of religion, but it will always be the case that men are more aggressive than women.

Also, look at physiology. Did you ever notice that women go through menopause and men don't? I have personally witnessed many menopausal women go haywire for no apparent reason (even in public). Apparently, something minor triggers it. This can happen to all women, no matter if they are normally rational or not. Consequently, they tend to hold grudges much longer than men (this happens many times even before the onset of menopause). So, what is my point? We cannot depend on women being on the UHJ if even spiritual and rational women are prone to becoming possessed/emotional at times.

Okay, I know this isn't a very popular thing to say, but you have to admit it is a good argument. Again, I am not saying men are superior to women! Men by nature have some bad qualities just as women do, and both have good qualities. While most of these bad qualities can be overcome by the civilizing influence of religion, as the Guardian says, physiologically we will always be distinct, even if that's just a small distinction. If that wasn't the case, then surly some day the majority of men would be more "tender-hearted" and compassionate than women. But, obviously that won't happen because those are innate characteristics; that is, women don’t have to take a class on how to be compassionate.

So, in conclusion, both men and women both have superior and inferior qualities, and realizing this, we should not say: "Why aren't women allowed to serve on the UHJ, this is so unfair!" Then maybe the men should complain: "I don’t agree with this, that the Writings say that when there is a shortage of teachers, girls should be the first to be educated. This is discrimination because Baha’u’llah has said that both men and women are equal; therefore, my son should have this same opportunity!” That would certainly be just as childish to think. Let us be concerned more with our spiritual bodies rather than our physical ones, and dispense with such idle talk.


—Warrior

Guest

Postby Guest » Mon Oct 24, 2005 5:02 pm

Dearest Baha'i Warrior,

You wrote:

Since by nature women "is more tender-hearted" than man, who do you think will be more efficient at taking down the tyrant and taking immediate action? i.e. who are more likely to immediately call for the overthrow of the tyrant? Men, of course.


These stereotypes and generalizations about a whole class of people unfairly taints those in that class who don't fit the stereotype. It's sort of like saying black people prefer hip hop so we shouldn't train them in classical music or Mexicans prefer to drive low-riders so we shouldn't sell them hybrid electric cars.

Do you know what Condi Rice advised Bush concerning Sadam Husein? It certainly wasn't "let's avoid military conflict" sort of advice.

And what about Margaret Thatcher? Do you remember how she sent nearly the entire British fleet to defend the Falkland Islands?

The idea of all women, or anyone else, conforming neatly to some stereotype is a lazy man's way of looking at people, who doesn't want to take the time and energy to evaluate people on an individual basis to discern their fitness to serve in some capacity.

For every stereotype that you can give me, there is someone in that class who does not fit that stereotype. So for you to make blanket judgments against an entire class of people is wrong, God tells us it is wrong (Golden Rule), so how can any man tell us it is right?

With loving Baha'i regards,

-Matt

farid
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 12:48 am
Contact:

Postby farid » Mon Oct 24, 2005 5:34 pm

Matt

You are all focused on one thing: that the reason women were excluded was their lack of some social development. I don't think this is the reason and I tell you why.
--If this was the reason, as I said before, this could be left to UHJ as many other things are to be decided according to its time.by them Abdulbaha saw tremendous development of women in his own time, much more than we have seen in our time . Even if he wanted to predict the future based on the rate of development of women at his time, it wasn't hard for him or any other wise person.

--if this was the reason, then this is not a reason that has been absent from us during the last 100 or more years. Unveiling of women happened in Bab's time and women got equal inheritance by Bahaullah and also the right to vote. These were huge jumps for them. This in my opinion is not a reason that we don't know of now and will be clear to us someday. From the tone of Abdulbaha's writing, I think he is talking of a reason that is different from this and might have to do with some issues that can happen in future and we are completely unaware of.

what do you have to say about worrier's good exampleo of Bahaullah's descrimination againt men in the matter of education? what do you say about his discrimantion on women when he exempts them from some obligatory duties? How is that you don't see these as discrimination?

Farid

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

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Mon Oct 24, 2005 6:26 pm

farid wrote: what do you have to say about worrier's good exampleo of Bahaullah's descrimination againt men in the matter of education? what do you say about his discrimantion on women when he exempts them from some obligatory duties? How is that you don't see these as discrimination?


Good point, Farid. Of my whole argument, Matt just responds to one little thing. Apparently, he avoids all the good points that are made, and just repeats his own little argument. Yes, there are always exceptions to the rule, but generally most women are not Margaret Thatchers.

You say:

"The idea of all women, or anyone else, conforming neatly to some stereotype is a lazy man's way of looking at people."

Stereotypes are not always bad. If I have a stereotype that rowdy, rebellious teenagers are irresponsible and therefore dangerous around kids, then I will not hire a teenager who wears a t-shirt depicting little infants being butchered up (pardon my macabre example, but it gets the point across), and who himself indulges in hard drugs to babysit, because there is a very good chance that if I leave my kid with him, upon my return I'll find my kid in a bad state (injured, dead) due to negligence or abuse. So some "stereotypes" can be harmful, sure, like all black people listen to hip hop, but also NOT having some "stereotypes" can likewise be harmful, as I have demonstrated. So having an idea of "something conforming to a fixed or general pattern" is GOOD, because even if I am wrong about that teenager being dangerous, STILL the chances of my kid being harmed are far less if I leave him with a caring, loving Baha'i couple, say.


Plus, I wasn't even talking about stereotypes. I am telling you: there are qualities that differ between men and women—don’t escape from my main points. Therefore, it would be a very good guess that BECAUSE of THIS fact (men and women differ with respect to different attributes), men can serve on the UHJ and women can't.


—Warrior

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

too much rhetoric

Postby majnun » Mon Oct 24, 2005 6:40 pm

Dear Friends (Matt, Farid, Keyvan, Warrior....)

Many arguments are presented here, representing different
viewpoints. The way we write demonstrate how we are wired
internally, the way we connect ideas one after another to express
what we express.

The ideas presented in here fly in too many directions, far away now
from the initial question. This is why this tread should be closed, and we
should restart a fresh one, because in this passionate debate, we lost the simplicity of the non rethorical approach.

Majnun.

Guest

Postby Guest » Mon Oct 24, 2005 6:43 pm

Dearest Farid,

You wrote:

what do you have to say about worrier's good exampleo of Bahaullah's descrimination againt men in the matter of education? what do you say about his discrimantion on women when he exempts them from some obligatory duties? How is that you don't see these as discrimination?


Here is what Baha'u'llah said:

Unto every father hath been enjoined the instruction of his son and daughter in the art of reading and writing and in all that hath been laid down in the Holy Tablet.


I don't see any discrimination here.

I think what Warrior is referring to is a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi that attempts to redress the inequality in education between men and women in practice, which has led to inequality in other areas.

As to "women in their courses", obviously Baha'u'llah did not use the "O ye men" pattern of speech to describe this condition and used the word "women". A woman during her courses (menstruation) are exempted from certain duties out of compassion for their unique burden during this "brief" period of time that makes it "physically" more difficult for them than men to carry out these duties. Some women lose "a lot" of blood during this period and therefore need to eat and drink to replace the nutrients lost. Requiring them to fast during this period would therefore unecessarily subject them to a health risk, which is why the sick and the elderly are "also" exempted.

"Compassion", which is one of the virtues of God that we are all supposed to cultivate is not in the same league as invidious discrimination that prevents one from holding a particular position of leadership within the Faith simply because of their gender, and not because of any physical difficulty associated with a brief period of menstruation.

With loving Baha'i regards,

-Matt

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

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Mon Oct 24, 2005 8:33 pm

Anonymous wrote: I think what Warrior is referring to is a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi that attempts to redress the inequality in education between men and women in practice, which has led to inequality in other areas.


Don’t think, know. Matt, now I know why you are against 'Abdu'l-Baha: because apparently you haven't read much more than a paragraph of His Writings (and this is why so many Christians hate the Faith, because they are so prejudiced that they won’t even pick up a Holy Book other than their own). And: Wrong, I was not referring to Shoghi Effendi; I was referring to the Master:

"The question of training the children and looking after the orphans is extremely important, but most important of all is the education of girl children, for these girls will one day be mothers, and the mother is the first teacher of the child. In whatever way she reareth the child, so will the child become, and the results of that first training will remain with the individual throughout his entire life, and it would be most difficult to alter them. And how can a mother, herself ignorant and untrained, educate her child? It is therefore clear that the education of girls is of far greater consequence than that of boys. This fact is extremely important, and the matter must be seen to with the greatest energy and dedication."

—'Abdu'l-Bahá, from a Tablet - translated from the Persian and Arabic


So, Matt, you claim that 'Abdu'l-Baha favors males over females. Prove it. Because as you have seen, I just cancelled out your argument.

Matt, ask yourself: if you were a girl, would you rather receive education and have the chance of becoming a great doctor/scientist/scholar some day—someone who contributes to knowledge—or would you rather have the boys be favored because of their gender, and yourself only have the chance to become a UHJ member...even though it is highly unlikely? Which would you pick? (Hint: The first option is much more likely.)

Most of the quotes I have read about “gender superiority” by 'Abdu'l-Baha praised women for their superior qualities, not men. In fact, I haven't even come across any statements where He states that men are superior to women with respect to a certain attribute. So, there are countless passages in which the Master says that women are better than men, not vice versa! So then how do you conclude from one little exemption that He favors men? If He does somehow favor men, as you claim, show me other Text in which ‘Abdu’l-Baha favors men (that DON’T have to do with the UHJ). You can't find any, because they don't exist! And even if ‘Abdu’l-Baha did say men were superior in many other things—which I doubt He did—then that would only balance His statements of His praise for women!

Again, Matt, you are fighting a losing battle. The evidence I have provided that the Faith prefers WOMEN over MEN is overwhelming. So, then, if you despise 'Abdu'l-Baha, I must concluded that you are offended by the fact that ‘Abdu’l-Baha prefers FEMALES over MALES.


—Warrior


____
Other quotes by the Master. Ask yourself: Are these things someone says who is in FAVOR of women? Yes or no?, don’t escape the question:

“Now in this greatest of centuries the bounty of the All-Bountiful hath encompassed the girls as well”

“Until now, in Persia, the means for women's advancement were non-existent. But now, God be thanked, ever since the dawning of the Morn of Salvation, they have been going forward day by day. The hope is that they will take the lead in virtues and attainments, in closeness to the Court of Almighty God, in faith and certitude ö and that the women of the East will become the envy of the women of the West.”

(Comment: Apparently, ‘Abdu’l-Baha is gladdened by the fact that women are advancing in society.)

“Our hearts rejoiced at thy letter concerning a school for girls.”

(Comment: Matt, did you hear that? The Master’s heart REJOICED because girls started receiving an education.)

The school for girls taketh precedence over the school for boys, for it is incumbent upon the girls of this glorious era to be fully versed in the various branches of knowledge, in sciences and the arts and all the wonders of this pre-eminent time, that they may then educate their children and train them from their earliest days in the ways of perfection.”

“Devote ye particular attention to the school for girls, for the greatness of this wondrous Age will be manifested as a result of progress in the world of women. This is why ye observe that in every land the world of women is on the march, and this is due to the impact of the Most Great Manifestation, and the power of the teachings of God.”

>>>>>(Comment: See that? “The greatness of this wondrous Age will be manifested as a result of progress in the world of women.”)<<<<

As you see, there are millions of quotes where ‘Abdu’l-Baha places the PRIORITY on women, because THEIR advancement will advance the CAUSE, NOT the advancement of MEN. Read that quote again and memorize it.

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

This is shirk

Postby majnun » Mon Oct 24, 2005 8:51 pm

Dear Friends :

Citing sacred writings in public to prove
a viewpoint, it is shirk.
Let's close this debate.

Majnun.

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

Re: This is shirk

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Mon Oct 24, 2005 8:58 pm

Dear Majnun:

Citing sacred writings to defend one's Faith is in fact encouraged by Baha'u'llah. In order for truth to be distinguished from falsehood, one must always go to the source. If someone says something contrary to the Writings, and we post a quotation that disproves it, it is not to "prove" ourselves right, it is more for the benefit of others. Because if we did not have people defending the Faith in various ways (through their rebuttals to attacks, sacrificing their lives, etc.), the Cause would have not gotten to where it is today. You may want to refer to a quote I had provided in a previous post in which the Blessed Beauty says that anyone who arises to defend his Faith will be the envy of the Concourse on High. Right now, we are defending the Master and the Lesser Covenant.


—Warrior

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

I dont think so

Postby majnun » Tue Oct 25, 2005 1:34 am

Although I admire the lucidity and the
cleanness of your conscience, i disagree on that point.

I think we should rely on our own conscience, think by ourselves,
instead of becoming tape decks of the writings, cause if we take
this habit of becoming parrots, we ain't no different from muslims
who constantly use koranic citations to prove themselves right. This is only
an intellectualisation of the writings, and it show how not to do, to others.

Using citation only shows we have read certain parts of the written revelation. It is impersonal. The result could only be a huge labyrinth
of citations used for various reasons. Even Baha'u'llah did not like to
use many citations by others, because it only shows that a certain knowledge is aquired. To understand Baha'u'llah and Abdul Baha, we've got get the ability to read between the lines, sometimes, you know, the non-literal stuff they wrote about.

Majnun.
.

Guest

Postby Guest » Tue Oct 25, 2005 11:13 am

Dearest Baha'i Warrior,

You wrote:

Matt, ask yourself: if you were a girl, would you rather receive education and have the chance of becoming a great doctor/scientist/scholar some day—someone who contributes to knowledge—or would you rather have the boys be favored because of their gender, and yourself only have the chance to become a UHJ member...even though it is highly unlikely? Which would you pick?


Why are these the only choices?

What about the choice to treat women and men equally in educational opportunities and in leadership of the Faith?

You also wrote:

Again, Matt, you are fighting a losing battle. The evidence I have provided that the Faith prefers WOMEN over MEN is overwhelming. So, then, if you despise 'Abdu'l-Baha, I must concluded that you are offended by the fact that ‘Abdu’l-Baha prefers FEMALES over MALES.


I guess you are missing the point entirely.

I am not interested in whether Abdul-Baha favored a particular sex over another, I am interested in exposing his humanity and capacity for human error in his interpretation of the Word of God.

Since I have demonstrated this error quite clearly in his linguistic oversight in regarding "O ye men" to exclude women when women are "obviously" not excluded elsewhere in the Revelation of Baha'u'llah when the "O ye men" pattern of speech is used, we must cease this "man worship" and re-commit ourselves to our Covenant with God. Man worship, idol worship, animal worship are all the same thing in the eyes of God, so worshiping Abdul-Baha as though he were a God and free from error is blasphemous and disrespectful of the pure station of the Manifestation of God.

So please do not attempt to portray my humanizing of Abdul-Baha as an effort to despise him since I think highly of him and value many of his writings. I even have a portrait of Abdul-Baha hanging on my wall!

Nonetheless, I recognize the distinction between "admiration" and "worship" and therefore could never put Abdul-Baha on the same level as God who is free from error.

With loving Baha'i regards,

-Matt

Mitch

response to Majnun

Postby Mitch » Wed Oct 26, 2005 1:14 am

Majnun, I don't have the answer to "which religion is true." Maybe none of them. Maybe a lot of them are okay, up to a point (but not too far). I think less organization is probably better, though. The more organization there is, the more that aspect takes on a life of its own.

As for your other questions, I haven't thought a lot about these issues. My gut reaction is to be against them both (but more against nuclear weapons than Pepsi, which I drink sometimes anyway). On the other hand, I can see why Iran would want nuclear weapons (Israel has them too), or why some school district might need Pepsi's money. So I guess I'd want to cut them all some slack in how I judge them.

farid
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 12:48 am
Contact:

Postby farid » Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:00 pm

Matt

Since I have demonstrated this error quite clearly in his linguistic oversight in regarding "O ye men" to exclude women when women are "obviously" not excluded elsewhere in the Revelation of Baha'u'llah when the "O ye men" pattern of speech is used, we must cease this "man worship" and re-commit ourselves to our Covenant with God.


As I said before, although on the surface it seems to you it was a linguistic issue, when you think about it deeper, you see it couldn't be .
I am repeating what I said before:

a-Abdulbaha was aware of the reason for it. so it was not like he just made a misktake without knowing it;since he was aware of the reason of this ruling, when he says its reason will become clear later

b-Abdulbaha knew arabic better than many arabs, he was 8 years old when he left iran to baghdad. Even those who have criticized Bahaullahs arabic skills, testified that his sons knew it very good. So , it's very childish to think somebody like him who knew Bahaullah's writings better than anybody else, and also arabic language to the perfection, would not see that, and you see this from the translaiton of those writings. It just needs some fairness and alittle trouble of thinking more deeply to undersgtand how unlikely this is.

c-words although may look the same on the surface, they have different meanings . you know most english words have a couple of meanings, which can be known only in the context. this is the same with this case. Abdulbaha made it clear for us what was inteneded from the arabic word "rejal" (men) here. He had the power to clear the ambiguous for us.

so your analysis of men being used and intended as men and women elsewhere in the writings, is quite basesless . who says that a word should mean the same everywhere?

Farid

Guest

Postby Guest » Wed Oct 26, 2005 7:43 pm

Dearest Farid,

who says that a word should mean the same everywhere?


Baha'u'llah does!

Go find me elsewhere in the Writings of Baha'u'llah where "O ye men" did not include women, and then let's see if it is as ambiguous as you think it is.

Abdul-Baha's understanding Arabic is not relevant, it is his understanding of linguistics, in which he has no expertise, that is relevant to his understanding of the meaning of this particular pattern of speech.

If he believes the reason may become clear in the future, this does not necessarily mean he understands the reason or that he understands what Baha'u'llah intended. It may well be the case that he simply had a "personal" view that women were not ready to serve but thought eventually they may be ready in the future. The fact that he did not clearly state that this was his personal view, does not mean that he did not hold this view, and a faulty belief that women would not be ready until the next Manifestation of God would make a clear enunciation of his personal view by him unnecessary.

But we do have elsewhere in the writings of Abdul-Baha an admission of this sort, in which he states the unequal education of women has led to their second-class station, not their capacity. Anyone who believes that women are not educated would obviously not believe that they are ready to serve on the UHJ.

Also, I agree with Baha'i Warrior in an earlier post when he said Abdul-Baha had certain stereotypes about the nature of women, which he believed would make them unsuited to take down a tyrant, for example. These 1908 views were not unique among men, and some men still hold these views today, despite the Margaret Thatchers and the Condi Rices.

We must acknowledge that Abdul-Baha was human and a product of his time and environment. Otherwise, we will simply hurt the legitimacy of the Faith and its growth by applying 1908 thinking toward women in 2005.

With loving Baha'i regards,

-Matt

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

personal message to Mitch

Postby majnun » Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:00 am

.
Thanks for your prompt response.

Yes Mitch, it is a personal choice.

Until the year 2001 ad, i was a ferocious anti religious guy.
I never liked religion. I still see spikes and difficulties in all of them.
I wont criticize hem here. The main difficulty i had here was at the
start, i had to reorganize the labyrinth of scriptures presented in
such an aloof and unprofessional manner.

Most baha'i website present the scriptures backward, starting with the "Wolf" on top of the list. It's the last chapter the messenger wrote in his life. So i went for a chronological approach, thank to the dating
of many writings by mister Tahardzadeh 4 well known books.

Some cookoos will tell you you can read any scriptures in any way
you want. I say these people are candidates to knitting in a rocking
chair, they go nowhere, except being experts in the usual bla bla bla.
They evolve not.

What i liked in moving with the chronological way, is that the psychology of individuals is the base for opening minds, then the social and political isssues are treated much more later, when we are ready to understand them more clearly. It seems to me the messenger (teacher) prepared a long study to be done by us, with steps placed in a precise logical order.

Therefore, as a student, i am a partisan of the cronological approach, in this religion. In a way we could say that in general, the baha'i scriptures have not been placed in order, like the books of the Bible are now.

But there is a big book (about 50 $ or less) now availuable wich align the scriptures of Baha'u'llah chronologically, as they were written, in time.
The opening chapters offers an exploration of the hidden psychology of individuals. It found them quite funny. At least, it is not "scientology".

Whatever i study in any "spiritual programs", i still have to take a shower, do the lawn and put out the garbage ounce in a while, like most people do.

I hope to see you around friend,

Majnun.

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

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:11 pm

Anonymous wrote:It may well be the case that he simply had a "personal" view that women were not ready to serve but thought eventually they may be ready in the future.


According to the Writings, that would be wrong. 'Abdu'l-Baha did not flaw as He did not have that capability, being under the protection of the Covenant. He did, therefore, NOT “THINK” that women would be "ready in the future," in your words. If you read His Writings, it is VERY explicit that women are equals to men with the EXCEPTION of membership on the UHJ:

"According to the ordinances of the Faith of God, women are the equals of men in all rights save only that of membership on the Universal House of Justice, for, as hath been stated in the text of the Book, both the Head and the members of the House of Justice are men. However, in all other bodies, such as the Temple Construction Committee, the Teaching Committee, the Spiritual Assembly, and in charitable and scientific associations, women share equally in all rights with men. (from a newly translated tablet)."


Anonymous wrote:Anyone who believes that women are not educated would obviously not believe that they are ready to serve on the UHJ.


...And anyone who believes that women are not educated would obviously not believe that they are ready to serve IN ANY OTHER BODY OR IN ANY OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY.

Therefore, there has to be ANOTHER REASON why women can't serve on the UHJ. It clearly DOES NOT have to do with education, and 'Abdu'l-Baha Himself noted that when women get the same educational OPPORTUNITIES as men, THEN they will even rise above MEN (and also SPIRITUALLY). He already saw this process unfolding when He came to America. Surly, EVEN (and I say EVEN) if He could not see in the future, any educated person would have been able to deduce that women would get the same chances for education as men in LESS THAN 1,000 YEARS!

So, this time, you are flawed logically.

So when you are attacking 'Abdu'l-Baha, you are attacking Baha'u'llah also because "['Abdu'l-Baha] as attested by the above-cited extracts from His Tablets, affirmed that the ineligibility of women for election to the Universal House of Justice had been set out "in the text of the Book" and "in the explicit text of the Law of God". In other words, this provision was established by none other than Baha'u'llah Himself."


.....Anyway, let's look at the Kitab-i-Aqdas BECAUSE IT IS VERY EXPLICIT IN THE KITAB-I-AQDAS THAT MEN CAN ONLY SERVE ON THE UHJ

It is easy for an American who does not know the first thing about Arabic to say: When Baha'u'llah said "Men of the UHJ," he meant men and women. Wrong! Go learn Arabic.

Baha'u'llah used the word "Rajl baytolat" which means “MEN OF THE UHJ.” (“Rejal” is singular for men, “rajl” is plural) In Arabic, REJAL (plural) means MAN as in the BIOLOGICAL SEX man. And women (plural) is NESAA, means BIOLOGICAL SEX women. THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM THE WORD "MAR" which is "man" but can mean both men and women. It is like saying "O Son of man." BUT Baha'u'llah EXPLICITLY states "RAJL BAYTOLAT" meaning BIOLOGICAL SEX MEN OF THE UHJ. If you want to say Baha’u’llah meant women as well, you have to first go conquer all the Arab countries and change the meaning of the word to mean both men and women. But, don't take my word for it, go and look the Arabic up yourself. Anyone who tries to dispute this fact is a fool because in the first place you don't even know Arabic, so go learn Arabic and then you'll maybe complain a bit less.

Matt, I hope you know that even though you think you are worshiping Baha'u'llah, you are doing the opposite! There is an expression in Farsi, "khar khoditee." If you say 'Abdu'l-Baha says something contrary to Baha'u'llah, I will prove to you that that's WRONG through the originally revealed Text. This is a power that can be used against anyone who tries to attack Baha'u'llah's Cause. Abdu'l-Baha did not even say ONE LITTLE WORD that goes against what Baha'u'llah has said, and if you think otherwise, SHOW ME IN ARABIC. Don’t know Arabic? Too bad, go learn it. You can never know what Baha’u’llah EXACTLY meant, word for word, by reading the English.

Keep in mind what the Bab said:

"I swear by the righteousness of Thy Lord, the Lord of all created things, the Lord of all the worlds! Were a man to rear in this world as many edifices as possible and worship God through every virtuous deed which God's knowledge embraceth, and attain the presence of the Lord, and were he, even to a measure less than that which is accountable before God, to bear in his heart a trace of malice towards Me, all his deeds would be reduced to naught and he would be deprived of the glances of God's favour, become the object of His wrath and assuredly perish. For God hath ordained that all the good things which lie in the treasury of His knowledge shall be attained through obedience unto Me, and every fire recorded in His Book, through disobedience unto Me. Methinks in this day and from this station I behold all those who cherish My love and follow My behest abiding within the mansions of Paradise, and the entire company of Mine adversaries consigned to the lowest depths of hell-fire. "


Pardon my bluntness, but if you are fooling yourself that you are "worshipping" Baha'u'llah yet you reject the lesser Covenant, remember that you are bearing a huge "trace of malice" toward Baha'u'llah Himself! Don’t think that God is forgiving in this respect.


—Warrior

farid
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 12:48 am
Contact:

Postby farid » Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:17 pm

Matt
I like to ask you a question I asked you beofre more explicitly

you said that Abdulbaha didn't have the authority to rule out in a spiritual matter. and you also said that excluding women from UHJ was an spiritual one. now this is my question:

--Did Abdulbaha had the power to limit number of wives to 1 or not?
--Was it a spiritual issue or not?
-- if you say this was not a spiritual matter, then what's your clear
criterion to distinguishe between spiritual issue and nonspiritual ones?
-- if you say that yes, this one also was a spirutal one, then do you
believe that Bahais can practice polygomy today?

Farid

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

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:34 pm

Farid,

Believe it or not, I knew someone would bring up the issue of wives in order to prove that 'Abdu'l-Baha said stuff contrary to Baha'u'llah. Again: WRONG!

Baha'u'llah says in the Aqdas that a man can have more than one wife, true. BUT IF YOU READ ON FURTHER, BAHA'U'LLAH THEN SAYS THAT A MAN CANNOT TREAT BOTH WOMEN EQUALLY WITH JUSTICE! YOU HAVE TO RECONCILE DIFFERENT THINGS TOGETHER, DON'T JUST LOOK AT THE SURFACE!!

Why did Baha'u'llah have 3 wives then? 1. He COULD treat them equally, 2. HE WAS NOT BOUND TO HIS OWN LAWS!!

'Abdu'l-Baha interprets that to mean a man can only have one wife. B/c Baha'u'llah says YES, you can have MORE THAN 1 WIFE, but since YOU cannot treat them both with the same amount of justice, THEN YOU CAN ONLY HAVE 1.

'Abdu'l-Baha just confirms this. He does not say anything CONTRARY, ANYTHING that goes against what Baha'u'llah was saying.

The KORAN, even though it was not interpreted as so, also said this same thing (that a man cannot show justice to both wives). MANIFESTATIONS OF GOD SAY THINGS THAT NEED INTERPRETATION, THAT IS WHY WE HAVE THE MASTER, THE BELOVED GUARDIAN, AND THE UHJ! If we didn't have these interpreters, we'd have people saying: "No, Baha'u'llah clearly meant this..." Luckily, since we have the Interpreters, nothing these people (covenant breakers, etc.) say can be taken seriously and consequently should be religiously ignored. :)


In conclusion, 'Abdu'l-Baha just put together what His Father was saying. If you have a problem with this, you have a problem with Baha'u'llah. And you know what that means! (Read the quote by the Bab posted above) :wink:


—Warrior


PS

So in the Aqdas in a footnote you will see:

"Know thou that polygamy is not permitted under the law of God, for contentment with one wife hath been clearly stipulated. Taking a second wife is made dependent upon equity and justice being upheld between the two wives, under all conditions. However, observance of justice and equity towards two wives is utterly impossible. The fact that bigamy has been made dependent upon an impossible condition is clear proof of its absolute prohibition. Therefore it is not permissible for a man to have more than one wife."

So, as clearly seen, the Master NEVER, without exception, states anything contrary to Baha'u'llah's Writings. The Master is telling us in plain english what Baha'u'llah said. We should be thankful of this, as this is a blessing God has given us, and there is nothing further you can say. Sure, people will quote an isolated verse by itself (this is a problem that keeps people from becoming Baha'is, i.e. ignoring the text 4 verses later after "Seal of the Prophets," for instance), but the more educated ones (both academically as well as spiritually) will know that many times you have to look to other verses to get a clearer understanding on certain topics. It is perverted, in my opinion, to take a verse by itself and argue your position and at the same time ignore other facts that are important and contribute to a clearer understanding of that quote, especially if its to advance your own self interests.

farid
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 12:48 am
Contact:

Postby farid » Thu Oct 27, 2005 4:18 pm

Worrier
I wonder why you got this impression from my post. I think you didn't read my post patiently. Did I say something to the effect of what you suggested? what was that? I only asked some questions. You have to take your time and read the posts carefully to avoid such mistakes.

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

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Thu Oct 27, 2005 4:26 pm

then why do you even bring that subject up, especially when we are discussing something totally different? to cause another debate? let sleeping dogs lie

farid
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 12:48 am
Contact:

Postby farid » Thu Oct 27, 2005 4:40 pm

worrier
so you didn't understand my point. Well the best way at such times is to ask first. When Matt answers my questions, you'll see what my point is.

Guest

Postby Guest » Thu Oct 27, 2005 5:21 pm

Dearest Baha'i Warrior,

You wrote:

Baha'u'llah used the word "Rajl baytolat" which means “MEN OF THE UHJ.”


This is not an Arabic language issue, it is a pattern of speech or manner of speaking issue that is unique to Baha'u'llah.

Baha'u'llah also uses "Rajl" in "O ye men of insight" (Aqdas, P. 196), but we know that "both men and women are to assist Baha'u'llah in teaching His Cause. Similarily, He use "Rajl" in "O men of understanding" (Aqdas, Para. 2) , yet both men and women are to drink their fill of divine wisdom and utterance.

Hiding behind the Arabic language does not change the unique pattern of speech Baha'u'llah used to refer to "both" men and women. You may criticize Baha'ullah's use of the Arabic language, but neither you or Abdul-Baha can change what He clearly intended.

With loving Baha'i regards,

-Matt

Guest

Postby Guest » Thu Oct 27, 2005 5:39 pm

Dearest Farid,

You wrote:

>>--Did Abdulbaha had the power to limit number of wives to 1 or not?
--Was it a spiritual issue or not?
-- if you say this was not a spiritual matter, then what's your clear
criterion to distinguishe between spiritual issue and nonspiritual ones?
-- if you say that yes, this one also was a spirutal one, then do you
believe that Bahais can practice polygomy today?<<

Abdul-Baha did not have the spiritual power to limit the number of wives to one, but I agree with his assessment that it is impossible to treat more than one wife fairly, so "spiritual" wisdom would necessitate the taking of one wife to keep harmony in the family.

This is a "spiritual" issue since it concerns how you treat people, which is what most spiritual issues are about. The Golden Rule, which is supposed to be the "summation" of all the Commandments of God is essentially about treating people well.

Even though I think this is clearly a spiritual issue, based on the Golden Rule and the sum total of all of the guidance we have received from God, it would be ill-advised to practice polygamy today.

What you have to remember, Farid, is that Baha'u'llah was responding to a culture in which many men "already" had numerous wives because of the reasons of compassion that I mentioned in an earlier post. To completely outlaw more than one wife at that time would have caused extreme hardship for a great number of families who would have been divided and separated in which women would have had no way to provide for their children. So Baha'u'llah, out of compassion, which is one of the virtues of God that we are to cultivate, discouraged polygamy rather than outlaw it by noting the impossible condition for most men concerning equal treatment of wives. He therefore essentially "phased out" polygamy, and Abdul-Baha is just recognizing this fact.

With loving Baha'i regards,

-Matt

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

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Thu Oct 27, 2005 5:51 pm

Anonymous wrote:This is not an Arabic language issue, it is a pattern of speech or manner of speaking issue that is unique to Baha'u'llah.



Ha ha ha, nice try! You go tell that to a Baha'i Arab (or even a non-Baha’i one at that), and he will laugh you out of the room. That is absolutely wrong, I am sorry. Baha'u'llah revealed that statement in Arabic, and He assigned to it a masculine pronoun. If He meant "men" in general, which could have also meant women, he would have used “Mar,” which means "adam" or "man" and can mean both. You can fight it all you want, but Baha'u'llah clearly uses a pronoun that is specifically MALE and anyone who knows Arabic will tell you this. And, no, again—nice try, Baha'u'llah didn't attach any other meanings to this word. What you say is absurd and unfounded, because, again, if He meant both men and women, He would have used "Mar," but He didn't.

That's like me telling you "Here are the keys to my car" but you say I said "Here are the keys to my house" and you argue that when I said "car" I really meant "house." Except in this case you are perverting what Baha’u’llah said, and that is a much more grievous transgression.


Anonymous wrote:Hiding behind the Arabic language does not change the unique pattern of speech Baha'u'llah used to refer to "both" men and women. You may criticize Baha'ullah's use of the Arabic language, but neither you or Abdul-Baha can change what He clearly intended.



This is amazing! You don't even realize that you are insulting Baha'u'llah when you accuse me of "hiding behind the Arabic language." This is an ignorant statement and an insult to the revealed Text. If you knew any Arabic then you wouldn't have said this, and you certainly wouldn't have said that had you actually noticed that there is a greater importance attached to the language that the Word of God is originally revealed in than to its translation into another language.

You say: "You may criticize Baha'ullah's use of the Arabic language, but neither you or Abdul-Baha can change what He clearly intended." My response: neither can you! 'Abdu'l-Baha did not change what Baha'u'llah said, and I am not changing what Baha'u'llah has said. It is very childish to try to tell someone who knows Arabic what Baha'u'llah actually meant in Arabic. And then to make up some story that when Baha'u'llah says something that is very, very explicit, you attach a different meaning to it. Baha'u'llah is directly addressing the men of the UHJ, and you can be stubborn, but I hope you know it is blasphemy to try to change what Baha'u'llah said that is plain as day.

"They pervert the text of the Word of God" (4:45)

—Warrior

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

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Thu Oct 27, 2005 6:41 pm

Just wanted to make another point. It seems like many people who attack the Covenant are so blinded by hate that they fail to realize that Baha'u'llah has stated Himself that when you attack His Cause, you are only strengthening it:

"How utterly unaware they seem to be of the truth that such adversity is the oil that feedeth the flame of this Lamp!"

If you want just one proof that your efforts are futile, here it is:

If you receive the American Baha'i, note how many thousand people convert to the Baha'i Faith every month (granted, it isn't that much). Then, look at "orthodox baha'is," "gay baha'is," "covenant breaker baha'is," etc. How many converts do they get in a month? Even if they get any, it outweighs the number that drop out because they realize how useless it is. Even the covenant breakers/"orthodox baha'is" can't maintain a steady “leader.” As seen in the above quote, those who attack the Faith only make it grow! So in a way, Matt, you're helping out Baha'u'llah, if you want to think of it that way :wink:


The beloved Guardian says:

"However, such denunciations as those your minister made publicly against you and the Baha'i Faith can do no harm to the Cause at all; on the contrary they only serve to spread its name abroad and mark it as an independent religion."


Also, I know of a quote by Baha'u'llah (don't know if it is translated) where He states that no one can harm His Cause, and His Faith will never die, and that if Baha'is don't do their job, He will send others to do it. Just look at these "orthodox Baha'is," etc. Their kids will grow up and not care (especially if their kids learn not to hate from better role models/mentors). Their numbers are very small and they will last maybe another 100 years or so at best. So, then, either Baha'u'llah was wrong (God Forbid! that's impossible!) when He said that His Cause can never die out, OR that these people are wrong. Obviously, it is the Baha’i Faith that is getting thousands of converts a month. Just something to think about.


—Warrior

Guest

Postby Guest » Thu Oct 27, 2005 6:49 pm

Dearest Baha'i Warrior,

You wrote:

That's like me telling you "Here are the keys to my car" but you say I said "Here are the keys to my house" and you argue that when I said "car" I really meant "house."


If I say, "give me the keys to my car so I can go inside and take a shower", I am sure you would understand that my "house" keys must be on the same key ring as the key to my "car".

Again, you can criticize, and say, "Gee, he used the specific Arabic word for 'car', so he must mean get into his 'car' and take a shower," but we all know that there is no shower in my car, so when I said "keys to my car", I intend for this to mean the "keys to my house" as well.

With loving Baha'i regards,

-Matt

Guest

Postby Guest » Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:05 pm

Dearest Baha'i Warrior,

You wrote:

If you receive the American Baha'i, note how many thousand people convert to the Baha'i Faith every month (granted, it isn't that much).


But tell me, Warrior, how many more thousands go inactive, drop-out or resign. How come this number is not reported in the American Baha'i? Wouldn't such a report be a more honest assessment of how the Faith is really doing, or are you saying you don't care about the truth?

I obviously do not care what the Orthodox Baha'is or any other so-called Covenant Breaker group is doing since I am not a member of any of these groups. But I do know if the Baha'i Faith keeps playing fast and lose with the truth and the Word of God, and continues to disrespect the clear intentions of the Manifestation, it will not amount to much as a “spiritual” institution, and people of real spiritual capacity will simply ignore the Faith altogether.

With loving Baha'i regards,

-Matt

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

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:10 pm

Anonymous wrote:Again, you can criticize, and say, "Gee, he used the specific Arabic word for 'car', so he must mean get into his 'car' and take a shower," but we all know that there is no shower in my car, so when I said "keys to my car", I intend for this to mean the "keys to my house" as well.


Man, that didn't make any sense!

But you are right in one thing: I am saying "Gee, he used the specific Arabic word," in your words, because that is the whole point! The whole conterversy you guys have started is over one word!

Again, you are a person who does not know Arabic! Don't go around trying to tell others what Baha'u'llah said in His native tongue. And further, don't insult His native tongue either! I say this for your own sake.


—Warrior

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

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:23 pm

Anonymous wrote:But tell me, Warrior, how many more thousands go inactive, drop-out or resign. How come this number is not reported in the American Baha'i? Wouldn't such a report be a more honest assessment of how the Faith is really doing, or are you saying you don't care about the truth?


You are quickly forgetting that the Baha'i Faith is the second most widespread of the world's independent religions. This is according to the Encyclopedia Britannica. The Faith is still in its stage of infancy, and for this stage it is doing pretty good! Sure, there are those who drop out and become inactive, but that does not change the fact and many of those thousands of converts become strong supporters of the Faith of Baha'u'llah!


Anonymous wrote:I obviously do not care what the Orthodox Baha'is or any other so-called Covenant Breaker group is doing since I am not a member of any of these groups.



....So then, where did Baha'u'llah's religion go? You don't belong to any group, yet doesn't Baha'u'llah refer to His Faith and the fact that it will never die out? I hope He didn't mean His Faith begins with you! Because as far as I understand, during Baha'u'llah's time, He had a significant following. What happened to that following (i.e. His Faith)? What you are saying is that those people died out and incorrectly turned to 'Abdu'l-Baha. And that is wrong, because Baha'u'llah's Faith never dies! However, if you are saying those who reject the Lesser Covenant are right, show me your Faith. That’s right, you can’t, because you don’t care, as you say (what a great attitude)! Baha’u’llah’s religion is social, it is meant for everyone. Antisocial people who claim they have Faith in Him yet reject everything that came after Him are obviously the last thing Baha’u’llah would have thought of as a “religion.”


—Warrior

Guest

Postby Guest » Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:35 pm

Dearest Baha'i Warrior,

You wrote:

Man, that didn't make any sense!


Well let me go a little slower.

You said:

What you say is absurd and unfounded, because, again, if He meant both men and women, He would have used "Mar," but He didn't. That's like me telling you "Here are the keys to my car" but you say I said "Here are the keys to my house" and you argue that when I said "car" I really meant "house."


And I replied:

If I say, "give me the keys to my car so I can go inside and take a shower", I am sure you would understand that my "house" keys must be on the same key ring as the key to my "car".

Again, you can criticize, and say, "Gee, he used the specific Arabic word for 'car', so he must mean get into his 'car' and take a shower," but we all know that there is no shower in my car, so when I said "keys to my car", I intend for this to mean the "keys to my house" as well.


So when Baha'u'llah uses "rajl" (like "car keys") instead of "mar" (like "car and house keys") in "O ye men of Justice", he means "O ye men [and women]", because he uses "rajl" (like "car") in "O ye men (rajl) of insight" and "O ye men (rajl) of understanding" in other places in the Aqdas (para. 2 and p. 196) and we know from the context (like taking a shower) of those verses that He intended for "men" (rajl) to mean "men and women" (mar) because both men and women are to teach the Faith and both men and women are to drink their fill of divine wisdom and divine utterance.

Does it make sense now?

With loving Baha'i regards,

-Matt

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

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:49 pm

Anonymous wrote:So when Baha'u'llah uses "rajl" (like "car keys") instead of "mar" (like "car and house keys") in "O ye men of Justice", he means "O ye men [and women]", because he uses "rajl" (like "car") in "O ye men (rajl) of insight" and "O ye men (rajl) of understanding" in other places in the Aqdas (para. 2 and p. 196) and we know from the context (like taking a shower) of those verses that He intended for "men" (rajl) to mean "men and women" (mar) because both men and women are to teach the Faith and both men and women are to drink their fill of divine wisdom and divine utterance.

Does it make sense now?



No, still doesn't make sense. Because, if He uses "Rajl" then He is specifically referring to men. Even in other passages. Those other passages you are referring to—assuming you are not making them up—also mean men if they do indeed use "Rajl." Fact: Rajl means a man. So no, I guess women can't "drink their fill of divine wisdom and divine utterance," as you say, in that context. Again: unless we are talking about transexual pronouns, Rajl is always Rajl! Man! Plain and simple! Wherever you see a "rajl," unless you are making it up, I promise you it means a man! There would be no reason for Baha'u'llah to be the first one to start using Rajl to mean women as well. There would be no wisdom in that. And that is why He did not! What you are saying is that Baha'u'llah set out to confuse people! And you know what my response is: WRONG! :wink:


—Warrior

Guest

Postby Guest » Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:05 pm

Dearest Baha'i Warrior,

You wrote:

....So then, where did Baha'u'llah's religion go? You don't belong to any group, yet doesn't Baha'u'llah refer to His Faith and the fact that it will never die out? I hope He didn't mean His Faith begins with you! Because as far as I understand, during Baha'u'llah's time, He had a significant following. What happened to that following (i.e. His Faith)?


His religion is in the hearts of men (which, again, we know means "men and women").

The group that I belong to is the "People of Baha", which unfortunately means something entirely different than the Baha'i Faith.

Here is what Baha'u'llah said about who is reckoned among the "People of Baha":

Every receptive soul who hath in this Day inhaled the fragrance of His garment and hath, with a pure heart, set his face towards the all-glorious Horizon is reckoned among the People of Bahá in the Crimson Book.


I do not seek a following, I only seek the truth. If the result of my truth-seeking is that others feel compelled to seek the truth as well, then this is the work of God, not my own.

I have inhaled the fragrance of the garments of God through Baha'u'llah and every Manifestation of God, and with a pure heart, I have set my face towards the all-glorious Horizon. So what more do I need? What will I gain by turning away from the Horizon of God and seeking the following you suggest?

It seems to me, that you are suggesting that ego gratification is more important than seeking God. As stated by the Bab, even if I were the only person on Earth to inhale the fragrance of His garment, that would be sufficient unto God. So why are you pre-occupied with who else has turned toward the all-glorious Horizon?

With loving Baha'i regards,

-Matt

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

rajl ?

Postby majnun » Thu Oct 27, 2005 11:19 pm

friends;
where is located that word "rajl"
i did not see it.

thanks,
majnun

farid
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 12:48 am
Contact:

Postby farid » Fri Oct 28, 2005 4:00 am

Matt



Baha'u'llah also uses "Rajl" in "O ye men of insight" (Aqdas, P. 196), but we know that "both men and women are to assist Baha'u'llah in teaching His Cause. Similarily, He use "Rajl" in "O men of understanding" (Aqdas, Para. 2) , yet both men and women are to drink their fill of divine wisdom and utterance.


1- o ye men of insight :(arabic) ya olol afkar : (my translation) those of you who possiess power of thought.
2- o men of understanding:(arabic) ya olol albab :(my translation) those of you who possess wisdom.
, there is no use of the word rajol here.

Despite what you said, the word rajol is not used in any of these cases. I don't understand why you said it. I hope you really seek the truth as you claim , but how can you say something which is so not true then?

farid
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 12:48 am
Contact:

Postby farid » Fri Oct 28, 2005 4:26 am

Matt
about two wives:
you say that abdulbaha didn't have the power to explicily say that wives should be limited to one. well, if he hadn't said anything on this issue, some bahai men would marry two wives and Bahi's would be known to practice this. so you see the spiritual ruling of Abdulbaha is what you prefer in this case.
you said that the reason Bahaullah brought it down to 2 was to reduce it gradually. ok, it's fine . I do'nt have a problem with that, though I think there is more to it. But , if Abdulbaha didn't have the power to change 2 to 1, then Bahaullah should have put a time limit himself, something like, practicing up to 2 wives for 150 years, and after that, one wife. But he did'nt do it himself why? because his successor had the power to it at the right time.

farid
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 12:48 am
Contact:

Postby farid » Fri Oct 28, 2005 4:28 am

Worrier ,
you said :

BUT IF YOU READ ON FURTHER, BAHA'U'LLAH THEN SAYS THAT A MAN CANNOT TREAT BOTH WOMEN EQUALLY WITH JUSTICE!


Can you please quote the exact words of Bahaullah ?

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

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Fri Oct 28, 2005 1:32 pm

farid wrote:Can you please quote the exact words of Bahaullah ?


Farid, you can go look it up yourself, I don't have time to look up everything for you

If 'Abdu'l-Baha says that Baha'u'llah stated that, then that should be good enough for you if you are a true Baha'i. Again, here is the quote i had provided above from Abdu'l-Baha:

"Know thou that polygamy is not permitted under the law of God, for contentment with one wife hath been clearly stipulated. Taking a second wife is made dependent upon equity and justice being upheld between the two wives, under all conditions. However, observance of justice and equity towards two wives is utterly impossible. The fact that bigamy has been made dependent upon an impossible condition is clear proof of its absolute prohibition. Therefore it is not permissible for a man to have more than one wife."

so go look it up it's there

Also i agree with Majnun that we should just drop this and start a new thread. those that are against wont be convinced, and it is not our duty to convince them anyway.

besides, we should be focusing more of our attention on the non-Baha'is who are pure in heart, rather than those who have turned away from the truth and come to message boards to create a disturbance among the Baha'is


—Warrior

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

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Fri Oct 28, 2005 2:12 pm

Farid:

I don't have the Aqdas in front of me, but I will find the quote and tell you what page it is on later.

But there are many quotes by Baha'u'llah that make it clear that He is talking to the men of the UHJ. Observe:

"We exhort the men of the House of Justice and command them to ensure the protection and safeguarding of men, women and children. It is incumbent upon them to have the utmost regard for the interests of the people at all times and under all conditions. Blessed is the ruler who succoureth the captive, and the rich one who careth for the poor, and the just one who secureth from the wrong doer the rights of the downtrodden, and happy the trustee who observeth that which the Ordainer, the Ancient of Days hath prescribed unto him."


So my question is: if by "men" Baha'u'llah referrs to both men and women, then why in the same sentence mention different words for "men," "women," and "children"? This very sentence is proof that He means "men."

If Baha'u'llah meant "men" of the UHJ to mean both men and women, then why wouldn't He use that same word again in that same sentence, rather than using a different word for "women"? It is obvious that sentence is very direct; He is addressing "men" of the UHJ, and then He exhorts them to protect men, women, and children.


"In this day, it is encumbent upon all souls, when they hear the call from the Dawning-Place of Creation, to leave behind the people of the world and their opinions and arise and say: "Yes, O my Desire!" and then to say: "I obey! O Beloved of the Worlds."


—Warrior

Guest

Postby Guest » Fri Oct 28, 2005 7:07 pm

Dearest Baha'i Warrior,

So my question is: if by "men" Baha'u'llah referrs to both men and women, then why in the same sentence mention different words for "men," "women," and "children"? This very sentence is proof that He means "men."


Are you suggesting that women are not capable as well as men in protecting women?

In other words, isn't it possible to read that verse as follows:

"We exhort the men [and women] of the House of Justice and command them to ensure the protection and safeguarding of men, women and children."


The rule of translation that most scholars use, and Shoghi Effendi himself "claimed" to use, was "mutas mutandis", which means that "men" means both "men and women" in the Word of God unless it is "impossible" to include both men and women and still have the verse make any sense (e.g., "women in their courses" [menstruation] makes it "impossible to include men since men do not menstruate).

So "Son of Man" in the Hidden Words, for example, would not make any sense at all if you applied this to just men since these Hidden Words are part of the Revelation of God that all people should follow.

At some point, Warrior, you just have to use common sense and the Golden Rule to understand that "no" Manifestation of God would suggest that the Revelation of God only applies to men or that it is OK to discriminate against women in the leadership of the Faith.

With loving Baha'i regards,

-Matt

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

Postby majnun » Fri Oct 28, 2005 7:58 pm

.
Dear Warrior friend:

Your person recently mentionned a personal reserve,
meaning that you feel you lost too much time.
Please dont forget that sometimes forums may become
sort of "voiding" because we put so much energy in our
mutual responses.

May i suggest a suggestion ?
Take a few days off. Please yourself any way you like.
Then come back.
I would miss your great sense of humor and your lucidity
if you dont. Life is meant to be enjoyed, not suffered.


Majnun.
.

farid
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 12:48 am
Contact:

Postby farid » Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:11 pm

Worrier

first you said:

BUT IF YOU READ ON FURTHER, BAHA'U'LLAH THEN SAYS THAT A MAN CANNOT TREAT BOTH WOMEN EQUALLY WITH JUSTICE!


then you said:

Farid, you can go look it up yourself, I don't have time to look up everything for you


later you said:

I don't have the Aqdas in front of me, but I will find the quote and tell you what page it is on later.


If you didn't only have the aqdas, I could give you lots of links you could get it online. but it seems you don't have time . So there is no way you can do it. But I want to remind you that you never looked up anything else for me before, so why did you say?:
I don't have time to look up everything for you


Just to let you know two things

-in case you dont know it, anybody who is quoting something from somebody, , especially from writings, is responsible to provide the sources for it .
-I have studied all of Aqdas and I never saw what you are claiming. that's why I asked you about it in case somehow I have missed it.
-if you have made a mistake , instead of bringing excuses like not having time or the book (how can a bahai not possess a copy of the mother book of his religon anyway? ), be honest enough to admit it. All of us make mistakes , what really is bad is insisting on your mistake when you are aware of it.

farid
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 12:48 am
Contact:

Postby farid » Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:25 pm

Matt

I asked you why you said the word rajol is used in the two cases, when it's not and you still haven ot answered that post.
How comes you are so quick in finding mistake in others, even in somebody like Abdulbaha, but you don't even like to admit your own mistake? how do you claim that you are seeking the truth then when you don't have the courage to correct your own mistake ? why do you claim something you don't have slightest information about just to prove yourself? is it really the way to truth ?

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

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:32 pm

Majnun:

Thank you for the kind words. Actually, I'm either studying all day or in class, so this is kind of a break for me (this and lifting weights). Not a very exciting life but it will pay off.

Matt:

You said: "Are you suggesting that women are not capable as well as men in protecting women?" Where did I say such a thing? In fact, where did I even imply that? Maybe you can show me how I could have even suggested that, because my point was (I guess you missed it) that since this quote, in the very same sentence, addresses the men of the UHJ and tells them to protect both the men and women, then this is proof that Baha'u'llah was referring to only the men of the UHJ, not the women. As you said yourself, in the Writings Baha'u'llah uses the word man ("Mar") to mean both men and women, so why would He suddenly throw in the word women? He did this to distinguish the men of the UHJ from the men, women, and children that are not on the UHJ. Otherwise, by your argument (that when Baha'u'llah always uses the word ‘man’ He also means women), then He would have said:

We exhort the men of the House of Justice and command them to ensure the protection and safeguarding of men.

instead of:

"We exhort the men of the House of Justice and command them to ensure the protection and safeguarding of men, women and children."


This is yet again very good evidence that Baha'u'llah was specifically referring to men. We are taking this sentence by itself, and it should not be compared to "O Son of Man" because they are in different contexts. Again, this sentence is not saying:

We exhort the men and women of the House of Justice and command them to ensure the protection and safeguarding of men, women and children

"O Son of Man" is in a sense a "poetic" usage of the word man, in the tradition of the King James version of the Bible. However, when Baha'u'llah states "We exhort the men," He is not speaking "poetically," if you will, but rather very directly. This is evidenced by the fact that in the very same sentence Baha'u'llah identifies men, women, and children, and does not just refer to them all as men. So, there is no way Baha’u’llah could have meant men and women of the UHJ, because if He had said that, it would have been redundant saying “men, women, and children” since “men of the UHJ” means men/women.

Therefore, I have given undeniable evidence that Baha’u’llah is referring to just men. And as I have also proven, if He meant women also (i.e. if He was in “poetic mode”), then why would He suddenly turn off “poetic mode” in the very same sentence and refer to men and women individually as opposed to calling them just men?


—Warrior

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

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:37 pm

Farid:

You said:

"-in case you dont know it, anybody who is quoting something from somebody, , especially from writings, is responsible to provide the sources for it ."

And I said:

"I don't have the Aqdas in front of me, but I will find the quote and tell you what page it is on later."

Guest

Postby Guest » Sat Oct 29, 2005 12:46 am

Dearest Baha'i Warrior,

You wrote:

"O Son of Man" is in a sense a "poetic" usage of the word man, in the tradition of the King James version of the Bible. However, when Baha'u'llah states "We exhort the men," He is not speaking "poetically," if you will, but rather very directly.


Poetically?

I don't think this is poetry, Warrior, it is a "pattern of speech", just like "O ye men". So if "Son of Man" can include women when there is no question that a son is not a daughter and a man is not a woman, then certainly "O ye Men" or "Exhort the Men" can also mean women and men.

By trying to pick and choose what you think is poetic and what you think is not, you are rendering an arbitrary interpretation of the Word of God that is likely to to error. The key to a systematic non-arbitrary translation and interpretation of this pattern of speech is to ask yourself, "is it impossible to include women when I see the word "men" in the context of this verse? " If the answer is "no", then "men" means "men and women" in the Word of God.

In Aqdas, 129, for example, it reads:

The inscription on these rings should read, for men: "Unto God belongeth all that is in the heavens and on the earth and whatsoever is between them, and He, in truth, hath knowledge of all things"; and for women: "Unto God belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatsoever is between them, and He, in truth, is potent over all things".


It is "impossible" to include women when the word "men is used in this verse, or the the two different inscriptions on the burial rings would lose their distinction since there is "different" inscription for women.

In sharp contrast to that verse, it is not "impossible" to include women in the verse "O ye men of Justice" or "Exhort the men", since, from the context, the verse still makes sense if women are included when we see the Word "men".

With loving Baha'i regards,

-Matt

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

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Sun Oct 30, 2005 9:32 am

Anonymous wrote:I don't think this is poetry, Warrior, it is a "pattern of speech", just like "O ye men". So if "Son of Man" can include women when there is no question that a son is not a daughter and a man is not a woman, then certainly "O ye Men" or "Exhort the Men" can also mean women and men.


First of all, I never said it was poetry; I used the word "poetry" for a lack of a better term. And, no, if Baha'u'llah uses the word "men" in a certain context, it can mean just men. And the Arabic proves this, because Baha'u'llah uses a different word for "O Son of man" than He does for "We exhort the men of the House of Justice." Actually, I do not have access to the Arabic right now, but if someone (preferably some other other than Matt so that this can be impartial) can look up the Arabic for these two cases, it would be appreciated.

Anyway, Matt, the reason we have to turn to 'Abdu'l-Baha is because He tells us in plain english what Baha'u'llah meant, even though we can always go back to the original language and see that that is what Baha’u’llah indeed meant.

Also, I'd like you to consider that had Baha'u'llah stated: We exhort the women of the House of Justice and command them to ensure the protection and safeguarding of men, women and children, then you certainly would not see "feminists" complaining about that. Men surely would not have complained if they could not serve of the UHJ. In fact, I don't see men protesting that their sons should have the same educational opportunities as their daughters in all circumstances. The problem with "feminism" is that equality means that women have to do exactly everything that men do, otherwise society is perceived as being "chauvinistic." And, also, I don't see "feminists" complaining about things like "reverse discrimination” or things that adversely affect men. I even doubt they’d complain if all men were fired from their jobs and women took their place. I'd also like you to consider the fact that Baha'u'llah was not a "feminist," even though you may be, and that 'Abdu'l-Baha was even critical of "feminism."


Just wondering, do you ever read the Hidden Words? Have you come across this one before?

"O REBELLIOUS ONES!

My forbearance hath emboldened you and My long-suffering hath made you negligent, in such wise that ye have spurred on the fiery charger of passion into perilous ways that lead unto destruction. Have ye thought Me heedless or that I was unaware?"


Elsewhere in the Hidden Words, He states: "The comb, too, have I given thee that thou mayest dress My raven locks, and not lacerate My throat." In short, you should not try to give the Writings of Baha’u’llah your own interpretation and use them to attack His Faith. He sent 'Abdu'l-Baha to do that, not you. And we already have our Institutions that do the interpreting, so even if you are right, for the same of argument, that doesn't mean anything. Because by that very quote we know that there is supposed to be a UHJ and that is what Baha'u'llah intended. You think there should have been women serving on the UHJ also, so that is what has turned you away from Baha'u'llah (at least that apparently is one of the things). Think about it: Baha'u'llah's Faith is perfect and is not prone to error, as you suggest. However, in contrast, those who claim to supposedly "believe" in Baha'u'llah are, in fact, very, very prone to error. When you say that the UHJ is not authentic, what you are really saying is that Baha’u’llah was flawed and that He could create a religion that could err. Religion only become corrupted when a new Revelation comes to renew it, not before. And those that try to pervert the Word of God and disrupt the Faith by doing so never succeed. History shows this.


—Warrior

farid
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 12:48 am
Contact:

Postby farid » Sun Oct 30, 2005 11:43 am

Worrier
since it seems you still have not found a copy of Aqdas in English and also don't have access to hidden words in Arabic, you can use these links:

for English Aqdas: http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/
hidden words in Arabic: http://reference.bahai.org/ar/t/b/

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

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Sun Oct 30, 2005 1:06 pm

farid:

what is that supposed to mean? "since it seems you still have not found a copy of Aqdas in English." you should speak more friendly toward your fellow Baha'i brothers and not try to be sarcastic with them. just because i won't find you a quote does not mean i don't have the Aqdas.

—Warrior

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

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Sun Oct 30, 2005 6:05 pm

Also, just as a follow-up to my last post.

I had posted from the Hidden Words:

"O REBELLIOUS ONES!

My forbearance hath emboldened you and My long-suffering hath made you negligent, in such wise that ye have spurred on the fiery charger of passion into perilous ways that lead unto destruction. Have ye thought Me heedless or that I was unaware?"


This is a recurring theme in both the Koran and the Writings of Baha’u’llah, that people may try to rebel against God, but God always wins.

Also, if you (anyone) is going to make a decision that is unpopular i.e. Baha'u'llah did not appoint 'Abdu'l-Baha to take His place/interpret His Writings, the UHJ is wrong, etc., bear in mind that Hidden Word, and also remember what the Holy Koran says about those who scheme against God and His Manifestations:

"God’s hand is above their hands." 48:10

"They schemed and God schemed, and God is the best of schemers." 3:54

But there is still time to change your ways. Again, the Hidden Words:

"O MOVING FORM OF DUST!

I desire communion with thee, but thou wouldst put no trust in Me. The sword of thy rebellion hath felled the tree of thy hope. At all times I am near unto thee, but thou art ever far from Me. Imperishable glory I have chosen for thee, yet boundless shame thou hast chosen for thyself. While there is yet time, return, and lose not thy chance."



Just some friendly advice :D


—Warrior

farid
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 12:48 am
Contact:

Postby farid » Mon Oct 31, 2005 12:20 am

Worrier
It was not sarcastic. You said you didn't have a copy of Aqdas and later you told Matt that you didn't have Arabic hidden words, so I thought you might not know how to get them in internet. Also you said:

Baha'u'llah says in the Aqdas that a man can have more than one wife, true. BUT IF YOU READ ON FURTHER, BAHA'U'LLAH THEN SAYS THAT A MAN CANNOT TREAT BOTH WOMEN EQUALLY WITH JUSTICE! YOU HAVE TO RECONCILE DIFFERENT THINGS TOGETHER, DON'T JUST LOOK AT THE SURFACE!!


which indicates you exactly know where the quote is , so naturally I thought you still have not got a copy of Aqdas, or you would write the quote. You also told Matt that you did'nt have Arabic hidden words, so I decided to give you those links in case it might help. I don't know what was sarcastic in that.


Return to “Discussion”