An introduction.

[RJM]

Allowances have to be made for the tribal cultures at the time of writing of ancient scriptures, where laws often excluded women, etc.

The scriptures themselves cannot be changed, but they don't have to be literally enforced by intelligent people who understand that the essential truths contained by them, are not license to enforce medieval or bronze age tribal laws in modern societies.

After following this thread and only now checking when the Bahai scriptures were written I am surprised to learn the Bab died only in 1892.

Bahai proudly does identify as a 'modern religion'. It is a bit of a shame that followers of the Bahai scriptures can justify some very un-modern laws by saying: Well it doesn't really matter. Bahai is going to create a perfect world, so ...

 

[Cino]

I think Baha'u'llah died in 1892, the Bab passed on earlier.

 

[RJM]

I think Baha'u'llah died in 1892, the Bab passed on earlier.

Oh, sorry.

 

[RJM]

He wrote a LOT of stuff, didn't he?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahá'u'lláh

" ... Bahá'u'lláh wrote many texts, of which only a part has been translated into English until now.

There have been 15,000 works written by him identified; many of these are in the form of short letters, or tablets, to Bahá'ís, but he also wrote larger pieces including the Hidden Words the Seven Valleys, the Book of Certitude (Kitáb-i-Íqán) and the Kitáb-i-Aqdas. The total volume of his works are more than 70 times the size of the Qur'an and more than 15 times the size of the combined Old and New Testaments of the Bible ..."

 

[Cino]

Indeed, yes. Frustratingly, his predecessor the Bab's works are almost completely untranslated. Not even his main work, the Bayan, exists in English translation. There is a French typescript draft of one version of the Bayan, which was scanned as a PDF available on the web, but hard to read, the quality is very bad.

This is the equivalent situation of the original transcripts of Jesus' and John the Baptist's sermons and correspondence still existing - and only very little of it is accessible or even translated. Or Lao Tsu's sketchpad. Or the Buddha's notebooks from his time studying with Alara Kalama and Udaka Ramaputta. Argh! Frustrating for anyone interested in religions!

 

[Ahanu]

You Baha'is who value women's rights so much, are badly represented by an all-male House of Justice

Consider the Baha'i teaching that the education of girls should be given first priority over boys in a situation where parents lack the material means to educate both of their children:

Girls must be educated. "Women's lack of progress and proficiency," the Baha'i Writings assert, "has been due to her need of equal education and opportunity. Had she been allowed this equality, there is no doubt she would be the counterpart of man in ability and capacity."2 So important is the education of girls, that if a lack of resources forces a choice, parents are advised to consider giving first priority to the education of their daughters. Girls must be prepared not only to participate fully in the affairs of the world, but also to fulfill their responsibilities as mothers and first educators of the next generation.

The issue people raise about "an all-male House of Justice" is similar to raising an issue regarding the following question: Does the quote above mean Baha'is do not value the education of males as much as females?

Women hold many roles of leadership in the Baha'i Faith. One only needs to look at Baha'iyyih Khanum's role in the Baha'i community when Abdu'l-Baha left Haifa for Egypt, Europe, and the United States:

"At the time of His [Abdu'l-Baha's] absence in the western world, she was His competent deputy, His representative and vicegerent, with none to equal her."
-Shoghi Effendi

"And when . . . the ban on Abdu'l-Baha's confinement was lifted . . . He with unhesitating confidence, invested His trusted and honoured sister with the responsibility of attending to the multitudinous details arising out of His protracted absence from the Holy Land."
-Shoghi Effendi

She held such an important role for the Baha'i community that after Abdu'l-Baha's ascension, Baha'is in Nayriz thought she was the leader:

"One night Jinab-i-Fadil-i Qasru'd-Dashti said, 'The contents of the Tablet seem to indicate the Greatest Holy Leaf would be in charge of affairs . . .'"
-Rouhani, Khatirat-i-Talkh va Shirin
​

Anyway, back to the issue of "an all-male House of Justice." One possibility I find intriguing for the reasoning behind this is voting. Women tend to vote more than men in the United States. If such is also the case in the Baha'i Faith (in which women and men elect their leaders), then the interests of women are more likely to be represented, so in reality males elected to serve are carrying out the interests of women (as if they are serving them). Also, percentage-wise the Baha'i Faith has more elected female members than modern nations do today in their governmental bodies, according to one survey completed back in 1995:

"The survey found that women compose about 30 percent of the elected membership of national-level Bahá'í governing councils, for example, and some 47 percent of the membership in special Bahá'í appointed positions for the sub-national regional level. The average percentage of women members in the world's parliaments is about 10 percent, according to the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

While the percentages in the Bahá'í community fall short of an idealized 50 percent, they reflect the earnest efforts of a highly diverse worldwide community to live up to and put into practice a religious value that often runs counter to the traditions and culture in society at large, said those who conducted the survey.

"The equality of women and men is a cardinal principle for Bahá'ís," said Rebequa Getahoun, one of the team that conducted the survey for the Bahá'í International Community's Office for the Advancement of Women. "But for the vast majority of the Bahá'ís of the world today, many of whom are the first in their generation to become Bahá'ís, the values and habits they have been brought up with are difficult to shake.

"In this sense, the results of this survey are really rather dramatic," said Ms. Getahoun. "The fact that women compose some 30 percent of our elected governing councils at the national level shows the degree to which Bahá'ís - who use secret ballots when voting - have already begun to overcome traditional prejudices."

​

 

[Ahanu]

Indeed, yes. Frustratingly, his predecessor the Bab's works are almost completely untranslated. Not even his main work, the Bayan, exists in English translation. There is a French typescript draft of one version of the Bayan, which was scanned as a PDF available on the web, but hard to read, the quality is very bad.

This is the equivalent situation of the original transcripts of Jesus' and John the Baptist's sermons and correspondence still existing - and only very little of it is accessible or even translated. Or Lao Tsu's sketchpad. Or the Buddha's notebooks from his time studying with Alara Kalama and Udaka Ramaputta. Argh! Frustrating for anyone interested in religions!

If I remember correctly, the goal is to translate Baha'u'llah's works first. The Bab's works will be fully translated into English after that monumental task has been completed. Honestly, I think it would be nearly impossible to properly translate the Bab's works into English. Consider the fact he probably deliberately broke conventional grammatical rules according to whatever "mode" he was writing in:

"The Bāb often puts the wrong case ending on a word, particularly for sound masculine plurals, which makes it difficult to understand his intended meaning. This seems to occur more frequently when he writes in what he calls the "mode of verses" (sha’n āyāt) and less frequently or not at all when he writes in the "scientific mode" (ṣuwar `ilmiyya). Certainly, therefore, people who read the Bāb’s "scientific" works (like al-Muhammadaḥifa al-dhahabiyya) will have to concede that he was capable of writing in standard Arabic prose, but he often chose not to do so.

The reason why he chose to often violate those standards will require a fuller study of his prose, which goes beyond the aim of this commentary. Perhaps when writing in the "mode of verses" he did not pay much attention to the niceties of grammar since he was writing or dictating so rapidly. The process of this kind of ecstatic writing might be similar to extemporaneous spoken-word poetry in which the speaker does away with grammar for the sake of rhythm, rhyme, and meaning. The Bāb seems to suggest this when he differentiates his "verses" from his other modes of writing and tells his readers that he is writing them very quickly and in accordance with what comes naturally (bil-fiṭra).

On the other hand, his frequent violation of the rules governing case endings is reminiscent of similar irregularities occurring in the Qur’an. For Muhammad, there was no fixed grammatical standard for him to abide by and since the Qur’an was the first extended work in Arabic it became a model for the development of Arabic. However, grammarians went to some lengths to try and explain why a word that had the correct case in several instances was suddenly improperly declined in a similar grammatical position [for examples of grammatical irregularities in the Qur’ān, see Abū’l-Faḍl’s Kitāb al-farā’id, p. 469-77, that contains a transcription of a nineteenth-century Arab Christian’s critique]. Unlike Muhammad, however, the Bāb was certainly aware of the rules of grammar that had been standard for over a thousand years. For example, in a letter to a certain "Iṣfahānī," he quotes the rules on case endings in a statement attributed to `Alī: "Every subject is nominative, every object of a verbal clause is accusative, and every second term of a genitive construct is genitive" [from the letters of the Bāb in the possession of E.G. Browne, cited in Vahīd Ra’fatī, "Nigāhī bih chand zamīnih az tajallī-yi adab-i fārsī dar āthār-i bahā’ī," Khushih-hā, v. 1, p. 66]. Therefore, he may have deliberately violated the rules of grammar to further enhance the Qur’anic flavor of his "verses." For an example of the Bāb possibly mimicking the grammatical irregularities of the Qur’an in our present text, see his conjugation of the verb dhāqa and his declension of the word ābā’ earlier in the treatise. The former seems to resemble a violation of Arabic verb conjugation in verse 63:10 (the dropping of a middle letter of a root) while the latter is another example of the irregular use of case endings."

Your best bet is to learn Persian and Arabic. Even then the Bab's works would be a difficult read for someone seeking to learn the language, because his A Treatise on Grammar seems to throw hints to the reader that he is about to write in an unconventional manner:

"As I claimed in the opening paragraph, the title of the treatise [A Treatise on Grammar] is somewhat misleading since it purports to discuss grammar (al-naḥw wa al-ṣarf).[13] Therefore, anyone seeking a text in which the Bāb discusses the finer points of grammar or explains some of the more peculiar elements of his syntax, morphology, and style will be disappointed. Generally, the Bāb did not write about the mechanics of his Arabic, unlike a later claimant to divine revelation, Bahā’u’llāh.[14] Further, the Bāb composed this treatise before members of the Shī`ī clerical establishment began to criticize his Arabic prose, so we would not expect to see a rebuttal of their criticisms in this text.[15] The Bāb does signal, however, his view of Arabic grammar as a hindrance to his revelatory creativity by way of allegory. Near the beginning of the text, he equates syntax (al-naḥw) with Adam and morphology (al-ṣarf) with Eve. The ubiquitous speaker (the Bāb switches between the third and first person) gives them a place in Paradise, but warns them to not approach the tree of origination (shajarat al-bad’). As in the Biblical story, they disobey and are cast out of Paradise. The main lesson seems to be that Arabic grammar is an important part of revelation, but it can be discarded if it encroaches upon the expression of divine truth. In a similar vein, the Bāb councils the recipient of his treatise to accustom the children of believers to his Arabic style from an early age. The recipient should do this by writing down the Bāb’s scripture for them in beautiful handwriting in order that they will know, upon reaching the age of maturity, that the Bāb is transcendent (tanzīh) above the limitations of exposition (ḥadd al-bayān)."
[/QUOTE]

 

[Cino]

The issue people raise about "an all-male House of Justice" is similar to raising an issue regarding the following question: Does the quote above mean Baha'is do not value the education of males as much as females?

I think that challenging male privilege is not the same as putting men at a disadvantage.

Women hold many roles of leadership in the Baha'i Faith. One only needs to look at Baha'iyyih Khanum's role in the Baha'i community when Abdu'l-Baha left Haifa for Egypt, Europe, and the United States:


She held such an important role for the Baha'i community that after Abdu'l-Baha's ascension, Baha'is in Nayriz thought she was the leader:

"One night Jinab-i-Fadil-i Qasru'd-Dashti said, 'The contents of the Tablet seem to indicate the Greatest Holy Leaf would be in charge of affairs . . .'"
-Rouhani, Khatirat-i-Talkh va Shirin

Things never change, do they? "You've done a great job filling in for the men, now kindly step back" - Mary Magdalene, Joan of Arc...

Anyway, back to the issue of "an all-male House of Justice." One possibility I find intriguing for the reasoning behind this is voting. Women tend to vote more than men in the United States. If such is also the case in the Baha'i Faith (in which women and men elect their leaders), then the interests of women are more likely to be represented, so in reality males elected to serve are carrying out the interests of women (as if they are serving them). Also, percentage-wise the Baha'i Faith has more elected female members than modern nations do today in their governmental bodies, according to one survey completed back in 1995:

This is called a "glass ceiling". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_ceiling A specific demographic, in this case women, is prevented from reaching the top rangs.

So are you saying the Baha'i women themselves are to blame, for not being pushy enough? I had the impression that even if every institution below the House of Justice has a representative proportion of women on it, since the House of Justice itself already proclaimed their interpretation of the Baha'i scriptures years ago that it could only ever be staffed by men, there would be no women to even run for this office, since they could not be elected?

Edited to add: I want to stress that I started this discussion about my misgivings about some characteristics of the Baha'i faith because @od19g6 invited this. I hope my comments are not perceived as unfairly bashing a religion which is not my own. I respect everyone's right to believe and practice as they see fit, and if what I write comes across as a personal attack, then please let me know so I can review my engagement.

 

[RJM]

Are the Baha'u'llah's words considered fixed scripture, or are things decided on an ongoing basis?

 

[Ahanu]

Edited to add: I want to stress that I started this discussion about my misgivings about some characteristics of the Baha'i faith because @od19g6 invited this. I hope my comments are not perceived as unfairly bashing a religion which is not my own. I respect everyone's right to believe and practice as they see fit, and if what I write comes across as a personal attack, then please let me know so I can review my engagement.

Okay.

I think that challenging male privilege is not the same as putting men at a disadvantage.

Show us how an "all-male House of Justice" upholds male privilege. I think you're looking at the whole thing backwards. Why? Let me give you another reason why I think the Baha'i Faith has an "all-male House of Justice."

God doesn't choose the privileged; He chooses the weak. It is reported Abdu'l-Baha said women are the strongest wing:

"After contrasting the general position of the Eastern and the Western women, and then describing how in many respects the Eastern woman has the advantage of her Western sister, 'Abdu’l-Bahá turned and said to the visitor: "Give me your reasons for believing that woman today should have the vote?"

Answer: "I believe that humanity is a divine humanity and that it must rise higher and higher; but it cannot soar with only one wing." 'Abdu’l-Bahá expressed his pleasure at this answer, and smiling, replied: "But what will you do if one wing is stronger than the other?"

Answer: "Then we must strengthen the weaker wing, otherwise the flight will always be hampered."

'Abdu’l-Bahá smiled and asked: "What will you say if I prove to you that the woman is the stronger wing?"

The answer came in the same bright vein: "You will earn my eternal gratitude!" at which all the company made merry.

'Abdu’l-Bahá then continued more seriously: "The woman is indeed of the greater importance to the race. She has the greater burden and the greater work. Look at the vegetable and the animal worlds. The palm which carries the fruit is the tree most prized by the date grower. The Arab knows that for a long journey the mare has the longest wind. For her greater strength and fierceness, the lioness is more feared by the hunter than the lion.

"The mere size of the brain has been proved to be no measure of superiority. The woman has greater moral courage than the man; she has also special gifts which enable her to govern in moments of danger and crisis. If necessary she can become a warrior."

Following Abdu'l-Baha's lead here, we should reflect on all the atrocious wars fought in our planet's history. Who most often led the charge? Men. A proverb from the Maori of New Zealand sums up the list of reasons behind war, and the list is short: "Men die for women and land." Here's an interesting fact to support this proverb: Eight percent of men (or 1 in 12 men) in central Asia share identical Y chromosomes, showing they must have descended from one man. In order to have so many living descendants today, such a man would obviously have to have a lot of women and be a man of war. Only one male fits the shoe here - Genghis Khan, who led one of the largest military expansions in history. He reinforced loyalty to himself with women as spoils of war, and, of course, he saved the most beautiful women for himself.

High levels of testosterone are linked to aggression. You can see the link between aggression and testosterone in comparisons between bonobos and chimpanzees. The former female-dominated group have much lower levels of testosterone than their aggressive cousins. The same is true for human beings. That is, testosterone in an adult male is 20 times higher than that of an adult woman. This is the fuel for status and aggression. Genghis Khan apparently had an abundant supply. But this supply of testosterone in us isn't static or fixed. Throughout our long history things have become less violent - meaning we should be able to notice a drop in average levels of testosterone, and, in fact, this is the case. We can trace the softening of our own facial features over the last 300,000 years.

This softening process will continue into the future with the Baha'i Faith leading the charge. Abdu'l-Baha seems to anticipate a matriarchal society, which has not ever existed in our past:

The most momentous question of this day is international peace and arbitration, and universal peace is impossible without universal suffrage. … the mothers will not sanction war nor be satisfied with it. So it will come to pass that when women participate fully and equally in the affairs of the world, when they enter confidently and capably the great arena of laws and politics, war will cease; for woman will be the obstacle and hindrance to it. This is true and without doubt.
​

​

By establishing men - the weakest wing - in the Universal House of Justice, we will see proof of Baha'u'llah's power as an educator. So now we see why it is said the reason for choosing men for this position will become quite evident in the future: in a matriarchal society it will become manifest that an institution led by men did not go down the warpath their male ancestors led us down time and time again. The people of the future will wonder and proclaim: "Then it is clear and evident that this glorious Being was a true Educator of the world of humanity and that He was aided and assisted by a divine power."

​

 

[Ahanu]

Are the Baha'u'llah's words considered fixed scripture, or are things decided on an ongoing basis?

The Universal House of Justice is "charged with applying the Bahá’í teachings to the requirements of an ever-evolving society and is thus empowered to legislate on matters not explicitly covered in the Faith’s Sacred Texts."

 

[Thomas]

Hi Ahanu —

Show us how an "all-male House of Justice" upholds male privilege.

sadly, the same way as any non-full-representative governance body holds up the privilege of its members — such as all male, all white, all male and white, etc., etc. It's inarguable that if there were not an a priori process of exclusion, no matter how discreet, then the governing body would comprise a cross-section of the body governed. Ergo, any gov. body that is all male speaks of some kind of exclusion programme, else there would be women members on the panel...

The problem is then the gov body projects a paradigm that reflects itself ... a classic example is the ideas underpinning the Theory of Evolution — survival of the fittest, emergence of the strongest — which emerged from an all-white, male, rich educated elite who saw themselves as naturally the best, the fittest, the strongest and God's elected right in running the world.

Only now is evolution being seen as more random, more complex and more symbiotic.

It is reported Abdu'l-Baha said women are the strongest wing

No offence against Abdu'l-Baha here, but my hackles rise at this kind of statement ...

As a one-time member of an Hermetic Order that championed the idea of the Feminine, the Lady, the Priestess, an order which modelled itself on courtly chivalry, was an order that was intrinsically sexist if not actually misogynist, something I only figured out a long way in. Let me state emphatically this is exactly the kind of thing men say when they want to put women in a manageable box, and it is sexist, if not misogynist.

To say women are the strongest/ men are the weakest is nonsense. Were that so, women would have emerged in the dominant position in gender politics. Women have been kept 'in their place' by male priority and male force. 'I hunt therefore you depend on me'. When it comes to a stand-up punch-for-punch fight, men have a raft of advantages.

That's why most domestic abuse is men hitting women, not the other way round. That's why men rape women, and instances of females raping males is rare.

Apologies to you, Ahanu, because I respect your posts, but my lionesses, my three daughters, would have this idea for breakfast ...

 

[Thomas]

And ... of course speaking as a Roman Catholic, a church which is largely dependent on women, I cannot tell you the number of times I have witnessed patriarchy in action making grandiose claims about the wonder, the glory, the special graces of the feminine, all discreetly saying 'you're everything wonderful, but not well equipped to deal with the world ...'

 

[Thomas]

And ... (High-Horsing now) ... if any Scripture suggests a radical rethink of our gender politics, it's the New Testament Scripture of Revelation —
1.0: The Incarnation
1: Archangel Gabriel spoke directly to Mary ...
1.2: ... and asks for her assent ...
1.3: ... Joseph was informed in a dream, ie one step removed.
1.4: Elizabeth and
1.5: Anna figure in the Lucan (Mary's) testimony.

2.0: The Resurrection
2.1: The first to know is Mary Magdalene,
2.2: The 'apostle to the apostles'.

And somehow we end up with an institution run entirely by men, in which women are very much second-class citizens.

 

[Cino]

Show us how an "all-male House of Justice" upholds male privilege.

That's funny Made me smile. Not entirely sure it was intentional, but it worked anyhow. Thank you for the good humor.

I mentioned male privilege in the context of you pointing out the commendable Baha'i emphasis on girls' education. You asked a rhetorical question (whether this was disadvantaging boys), and my answer was that no, challenging prevailing male privilege (by educating girls first) is a good thing for all.

The concept of privilege is not immediately obvious to those of us who are privileged. It does not mean that every member of the privileged group enjoys a carefree life, for example.

I think you're looking at the whole thing backwards. Why? Let me give you another reason why I think the Baha'i Faith has an "all-male House of Justice."

God doesn't choose the privileged; He chooses the weak. It is reported Abdu'l-Baha said women are the strongest wing:

Here's the thing: Nowadays it is no longer a question to most of us what is wrong with the following sentence: "Women are delicate and beautiful, therefore they should not be car mechanics or engineers or leaders, leave that to men who are strong and competitive"

No-brainer, right? It's patronizing and based in cliché.

"Women are the strong wing, the sensible ones, so they should leave the task of running the House of Justice to brutish men, so men can learn to behave properly"

This has the same structure, and the same result. Women are somehow different - better, more pure, more refined - and therefore they must step down to let the men rule.

Both arguments put women on a pedestal, ostensibly to praise and flatter them, with the effect of limiting what they are allowed to do.

Abdul Baha's words are (unintentionally, but effectively) being reduced to just a new cliche about women, and then slotted into the same old rationalization why the the girls can't go into the boy's treehouse.

Apart from all that - do you really believe that the right remedy against Ghengid Khan characteristics ist to shut out precisely the demographic who (according to your analysis) would already have the right characteristics? That seems ... Paradoxical. If men have such a bad track record when left among themselves, leaving them among themselves even more will help?

 

[wil]

By establishing men - the weakest wing

What a game we play with words...

 

[RJM]

challengingprevailing maleprivilege (by educating girls first) is a good thing for all.

Why isn't it sexist and patronising? Why not educate girls and boys equally? Are we going to get the 'affirmative action' line about historical inequality?

 

[Cino]

Why isn't it sexist and patronising? Why not educate girls and boys equally? Are we going to get the 'affirmative action' line about historical inequality?

No worries, enough privilege will remain for the boys/men even if for once girls got an early start in education: they can have a bad day without people ascribing it to their being male, they can be clumsy drivers without people ascribing it to them being male, they don't have to worry that their co-workers will think they were hired for their gender, and if they never get promoted, nobody will think it is because they are male, and if their career goes well, nobody will assume they had an affair with their boss. Their salary will not be less than that of women in the same position. When they interview for a job, nobody will think for a moment whether they plan to have kids in the near future. If they decide not to have kids, nobody will question their masculinity, and if they do become dads, people will praise them for spending time with their kids instead of taking it for granted. They will not be expected to spend a lot of time, effort, and money on their appearance. Every major religion, every influential political party, every corporate hierarchy will be controlled mostly by people of their gender. They will not be interrupted when they say something, people will listen to them, even if they just repeat what a women said a moment ago but was ignored for it (I witnessed this last one many times in my work, it makes me cringe every time it happens).

 

[RJM]

No worries, enough privilege will remain for the boys/men even if for once girls got an early start in education: they can have a bad day without people ascribing it to their being male, they can be clumsy drivers without people ascribing it to them being male, they don't have to worry that their co-workers will think they were hired for their gender, and if they never get promoted, nobody will think it is because they are male, and if their career goes well, nobody will assume they had an affair with their boss. Their salary will not be less than that of women in the same position. When they interview for a job, nobody will think for a moment whether they plan to have kids in the near future. If they decide not to have kids, nobody will question their masculinity, and if they do become dads, people will praise them for spending time with their kids instead of taking it for granted. They will not be expected to spend a lot of time, effort, and money on their appearance. Every major religion, every influential political party, every corporate hierarchy will be controlled mostly by people of their gender. They will not be interrupted when they say something, people will listen to them, even if they just repeat what a women said a moment ago but was ignored for it (I witnessed this last one many times in my work, it makes me cringe every time it happens).

No @Cino

That's not good enough.
For sex, substitute race. Say clumsy driving or making mistakes at work is ascribed to being Irish, for instance?

So are you saying that because females are weak and/or (historically) disadvantaged, they require special treatment and preferential education? Affirmative action treatment?

What do you do, when you run out of minorities to favour?

 

[RJM]

Sorry. I mean affirmative action may be temporarily justified to give a disadvantaged section of people a leg-up into the mainstream. It's always going to be controversial. So, if that's how it's going to be for women in the early 21st Century let's just come out and say it?