Current suppression of Baha'is in Iran

[RJM]

Interfaith Org Code of Conduct
https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/7047/

1) We aim to uphold a good standard of conduct in the forums.

Please respect other members and avoid making posts that may be seen as personally offensive. We don’t allow flame wars here.

Please note that this applies both to public postings and Private Messages.

 

[badger]

It has been offered that when people explain away injustices, and defend oppression of people, you will not find a reasonable discussion.

Regards Tony

Hello Tony!

You need a big capacity Indian or Harley and some black leathers, and the picture would be perfect.
When I saw your pics at first, I'll swear that you were all dark hair 'n' beard......

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Hello Tony!

You need a big capacity Indian or Harley and some black leathers, and the picture would be perfect.
When I saw your pics at first, I'll swear that you were all dark hair 'n' beard......

Hello OB, I hope both you and your wife are well and happy, my wife wanted longer hair, so I granted that wish.

Posting in forums has turned me grey.

Regards Tony

 

[badger]

Hello OB, I hope both you and your wife are well and happy, my wife wanted longer hair, so I granted that wish.

Posting in forums has turned me grey.

Regards Tony

 

[badger]

Hello OB, I hope both you and your wife are well and happy, my wife wanted longer hair, so I granted that wish.

Posting in forums has turned me grey.

Regards Tony

Your Wifey should let you have a Hsrley, Tony, or if that's a fiscal stretch then a big single cylinder.

 

[Ahanu]

But you also wanted the names of honest Bahais outlawed for writing about Bahai?
OK, you obviously need to be taught about such things, please would you find access to and read about these amazing people?
They are all open folks, Bahais who use their own names on the internet, but outlawed because they wrote too much, so I'm told.
One of the most open, wise and well informed Bahais that has posted on another forum, openly names himself as Sen McGlin, should you ever have the chance to read his work you'll learn a lot about Bahai, whoever you are. ( @Aupmanyav .... did I spell his name correctly?)
...John Walbridge.
...Juan Cole.
.... these folks all believe in Bahai, support Bahai, are all out there with their real names ( OK @RJM ?) but were outlawed, shunned, or called 'covenant breakers'....whatever you call it....
...and others........ the above names are amongst the most outstanding Bahai history authorities I have ever read, and afaik are all outlawed for it.
Now.... you've challenged me to be less vague, so I've answered you exactly.

After reading criticism of Juan Cole's work, why should I believe he is honest, accurate, or, to use your lavish praise, one of "the most outstanding Baha'i history authorities" we have ever read? Baha'i Faith in America as Panopticon 1963 - 1997 is riddled with factual errors.

Bahá'í Faith in America as Panopticon 1963-1997, by Juan Cole (bahai-library.com)

 

[Aupmanyav]

One of the most open, wise and well informed Bahais that has posted on another forum, openly names himself as Sen McGlin, should you ever have the chance to read his work you'll learn a lot about Bahai, whoever you are. ( @Aupmanyav .... did I spell his name correctly?)

If the person is a Bahai (rebel or loyal), for Aup., both are wrong. Aup. believes neither in Allah nor in messengers. Yes, the spelling is correct.

 

[badger]

After reading criticism of Juan Cole's work, why should I believe he is honest, accurate, or, to use your lavish praise, one of "the most outstanding Baha'i history authorities" we have ever read? Baha'i Faith in America as Panopticon 1963 - 1997 is riddled with factual errors.

Bahá'í Faith in America as Panopticon 1963-1997, by Juan Cole (bahai-library.com)

Mud slinging at Juan Cole ..... 'riddled with errors' ....... eh?
Meh........

Let's see how accurate you are........ show us all where Juan was wrong about Bahai, then we can look at how much you know, eh?

 

[badger]

If the person is a Bahai (rebel or loyal), for Aup., both are wrong. Aup. believes neither in Allah nor in messengers. Yes, the spelling is correct.

I'll be your messenger, Aup....... Imagine that........ Badgerism!

 

[mrym]

After reading criticism of Juan Cole's work, why should I believe he is honest, accurate, or, to use your lavish praise, one of "the most outstanding Baha'i history authorities" we have ever read? Baha'i Faith in America as Panopticon 1963 - 1997 is riddled with factual errors.

Bahá'í Faith in America as Panopticon 1963-1997, by Juan Cole (bahai-library.com)

Agree.... Still, there will be some people who consider Cole a hero of some sort. Azalis? covenant breakers? God knows.

 

[Ahanu]

Mud slinging at Juan Cole ..... 'riddled with errors' ....... eh?
Meh........

How you have construed my words as a mudslinging statement is beyond me, because I am in no way attacking Cole's character - just stating his work referred to above is factually inaccurate in many places. Since this is the case, it can be said to be riddled with errors. Am I a mudslinger because I merely disagree with @badger and stated a fact?

 

[Ahanu]

Let's see how accurate you are........ show us all where Juan was wrong about Bahai, then we can look at how much you know, eh?

Refer to the link that was shared in my previous post.

 

[badger]

How you have construed my words as a mudslinging statement is beyond me, because I am in no way attacking Cole's character - just stating his work referred to above is factually inaccurate in many places. Since this is the case, it can be said to be riddled with errors. Am I a mudslinger because I merely disagree with @badger and stated a fact?

Because you didn't go to read any of Cole's work, you just went straight to read criticism of it. YOu wrote:-
'After reading criticism of Juan Cole's work, '

Look, just show one serious error in Juan Cole's writings about Bahai.

 

[badger]

Refer to the link that was shared in my previous post.

That's not about Bahai, but the Bahais of and in one country. THere are as many differing opinions about that as there are people who know about it.
Juan wrote:-
Note: The opinions expressed in this review are personal and may not properly be attributed to any Bahai institution or member thereof.

Now let's see what Juan got wrong about the Bahai Faith.

 

[badger]

Agree.... Still, there will be some people who consider Cole a hero of some sort. Azalis? covenant breakers? God knows.

Agree.... Still, there will be some people who consider Cole a hero of some sort. Azalis? covenant breakers? God knows.

I haven't read Juan's writings about the Bahais in America........ Have you? Have you?

Bahá'í Faith in America as Panopticon 1963-1997, by Juan Cole (bahai-library.com)

 

[Ahanu]

Because you didn't go to read any of Cole's work, you just went straight to read criticism of it. YOu wrote:-
'After reading criticism of Juan Cole's work, '

Look, just show one serious error in Juan Cole's writings about Bahai.

Actually, I have read some of his works in the Baha'i library here. I also know he has translated some of the Writings. He has also translated the works of well-known Baha'is here.

He states many Baha'is wish to establish a theocracy:

"Many Baha’is believe that their ecclesiastical institutions will eventually supplant the U.S. government (and other governments), so that a Baha’i theocracy will abolish the separation of religion and state. This belief is contested by Western Baha’i liberals, but has recently been favored by the Universal House of Justice (Universal House of Justice 1996c; Haukness 1996; Watler 1996; Johnson 1997). Only Baha’is may vote in Baha’i elections, and presumably only Baha’is would be allowed to vote in the unlikely event of a theocratic Baha’i government being established in the U.S. This policy would create religious minorities with less than full civil rights, as was and sometimes still is common in the Muslim Middle East. That late twentieth-century American Baha’is should advocate theocracy is ironic, since in the nineteenth century Middle East, its founding fathers Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha argued for a separation of religion and state and for multi-party democracy as a way of gaining more tolerance for the new religion in Shi`ite Iran (Cole 1992). The theocratic ideal is clearly a radical Middle Eastern one, and is paralleled in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Most contemporary Baha’is do not realize that the various stances taken on this issue over the period of a century by Baha'u'llah, `Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi contain some contradictions, and it is a late theocratic vision, present most radically in pilgrim's notes of remarks attributed to Shoghi Effendi in the 1950s, that many Baha’i institutions now uphold (Robarts 1993).

Baha’is invest their religious institutions with great authority, since many do not see them--as Protestants would--as a mere church, but rather as an embryonic theocracy (in this they resemble the Khomeinists)."
​

Factually inaccurate.

 

[badger]

Actually, I have read some of his works in the Baha'i library here. I also know he has translated some of the Writings. He has also translated the works of well-known Baha'is here.

He states many Baha'is wish to establish a theocracy:

"Many Baha’is believe that their ecclesiastical institutions will eventually supplant the U.S. government (and other governments), so that a Baha’i theocracy will abolish the separation of religion and state. This belief is contested by Western Baha’i liberals, but has recently been favored by the Universal House of Justice (Universal House of Justice 1996c; Haukness 1996; Watler 1996; Johnson 1997). Only Baha’is may vote in Baha’i elections, and presumably only Baha’is would be allowed to vote in the unlikely event of a theocratic Baha’i government being established in the U.S. This policy would create religious minorities with less than full civil rights, as was and sometimes still is common in the Muslim Middle East. That late twentieth-century American Baha’is should advocate theocracy is ironic, since in the nineteenth century Middle East, its founding fathers Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha argued for a separation of religion and state and for multi-party democracy as a way of gaining more tolerance for the new religion in Shi`ite Iran (Cole 1992). The theocratic ideal is clearly a radical Middle Eastern one, and is paralleled in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Most contemporary Baha’is do not realize that the various stances taken on this issue over the period of a century by Baha'u'llah, `Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi contain some contradictions, and it is a late theocratic vision, present most radically in pilgrim's notes of remarks attributed to Shoghi Effendi in the 1950s, that many Baha’i institutions now uphold (Robarts 1993).

Baha’is invest their religious institutions with great authority, since many do not see them--as Protestants would--as a mere church, but rather as an embryonic theocracy (in this they resemble the Khomeinists)."
​

Factually inaccurate.

Bahai does hope to become a theocracy, Ahanu...... we've found that in another thread.
A system of government, with Courts (Houses of Justice) in every locality, country and the World, with a police force, and military, with civil, criminal laws and punishments, sentences. And since only Bahais could vote, then any such Bahai governments could never be moved or changed for any other system.

Cole 1 Ahanu 0

 

[badger]

Oh dear......... As far as I know, nobody ever tried to debate about Bahai (in my time here), and arthra's posts to remind of feasts and other activities were interesting.... always left in peace........ until the thread about unfair judgements/sentences upon three ladies in Iran.

And now Juan Cole's very clear ideas are to be criticise...... To be absolutely clear about the piece of Cole's that has been shown, here is a statement that was produced by the Bahai bosses in the past:-

‘The Dispensation of Baha’u’llah,’ a letter that is entirely devoted to explaining the principles underlying the Bahai Administrative Order,
'He thinks your question is well put: what the Guardian was referring to was the theocratic systems, such as the Catholic Church and the Caliphate, which are not divinely given as systems, but man-made, and yet, being partly derived from the teachings of Christ and Muḥammad are in a sense theocracies. The Bahai theocracy, on the contrary, is both divinely ordained as a system and, of course, based on the teachings of the Prophet Himself '.
" Inasmuch as the Order of Bahá’u’lláh is an integral part of the divine Revelation that He, as a Manifestation of God, has given us, one could say that this Order is essentially theocratic, but inasmuch as it is entirely devoid of any kind of clergy or priesthood, it is not at all a "theocracy" in the sense in which the term is generally used and understood. (Universal House of Justice"
The Baha’i Commonwealth of the future, of which this vast Administrative Order is the sole framework, is, both in theory and practice, not only unique in the entire history of political institutions, ..............................

If any wish to see the whole piece, I'll show it, but it's big.

 

[Ahanu]

Cole 1 Ahanu 0

Tallying scores is quite childish for a civilized discussion about the issues, @badger. Are we going to have a civilized discussion or descend into tallying scores? If so, I would prefer not to have a discussion with you.

Bahai does hope to become a theocracy, Ahanu...... we've found that in another thread.

Well, you said it yourself: Sen McGlinn is one of the "most outstanding Baha'i history authorities" in your book of thought, isn't he? He believes church-state relations in the Baha'i Faith are similar to today's England - which is a departure from Cole's approach.

Both models are factually inaccurate. Both views assume there is one model of church-state relations. However, there is a third position that exists:

". . . this approach denies that Baha'u'llah intended to advocate for any singular particular model of relationship between Baha'i institutions and civil institutions, and that, consistent with his notion of social change and the principle of unity in diversity, He envisioned a future with a multiplicity of models of institutional relationships between church and state."
-Roshan Danesh, Dimensions of Baha'i Law​

I believe this is the Baha'i position that makes the most sense of the Writings on this issue.

 

[badger]

Tallying scores is quite childish for a civilized discussion about the issues, @badger. Are we going to have a civilized discussion or descend into tallying scores? If so, I would prefer not to have a discussion with you.

It's called humour..........

Well, you said it yourself: Sen McGlinn is one of the "most outstanding Baha'i history authorities" in your book of thought, isn't he? He believes church-state relations in the Baha'i Faith are similar to today's England - which is a departure from Cole's approach.

Definitely........ Sen has cleared up and informed about so many Bahai subjects that he has my absolute respect. Now see if you can do better.

Both models are factually inaccurate. Both views assume there is one model of church-state relations. However, there is a third position that exists:

". . . this approach denies that Baha'u'llah intended to advocate for any singular particular model of relationship between Baha'i institutions and civil institutions, and that, consistent with his notion of social change and the principle of unity in diversity, He envisioned a future with a multiplicity of models of institutional relationships between church and state."
-Roshan Danesh, Dimensions of Baha'i Law​

I believe this is the Baha'i position that makes the most sense of the Writings on this issue.

Neither Juan nor Sen would argue against a paragraph written by Roshan.... they would just acknowledge his opinion.
The Bahai position is what Bahauallah wrote! Quote Bahauallah if you will, please, or Abdul Baha, Shogi Effendi or UHJ.
The names I wrote down (which I don't think you thought I could?) are/were excellent writers about Bahai.