Quote from Bahaullah

P

Postmaster

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,312
Reaction score
3
Points
0
What do Baha'is make of this law by Bahaullah?

“Whoever intentionally burns a person’s house, burn him, and whoever kills another mortal, kill him…and even if life punishment is prescribed for them it is sufficient”

Bahaullah went about writing civil laws to compliment his new found religious movement. I know he was living in Persia in the mid 1800s but don't you think he went alittle far with the kill him part? Is this the best way Bahaullah could deal with murderers? By implementing retaliation tactics?
 
It is completely just.

It can seem harsh to us who try to focus so much on forgiveness.

But always offering forgiveness is one thing.
But to not punish those who have no remorse, is a crime against those they will continue to hurt.

I think we often forget about the victims.

I have learnt there needs to be a fear of acting in wickedness.

Much better if ones heart finds love, and seeks to live by it.

But for those who choose wickedness, or would, and it can be an easy option today for many, and many suffer because of it, and the criminals admit it's easy.

I thing it is completely right that there needs to be that fear there to deter us from commiting wickedness.
At least for those that would otherwise.

For many do, it is a fact, and where they ignore love, what else can be done.
Punishment, it does deter the wicked.
Love and forgiveness needs to be offered, for it is the only cure, but fear and punishment is a deterent.

We can just say lock people up in prison, and look at the world today and prisons.
Is it right to give someone a sentence and they are released after time having no remorse for their crime and maybe more hardened and having even less feelings of others but learnt more of crime?

Rehabillitation, may sometimes work, teaching love to these sometimes broken people, but what of those who dispite even these efforts will go out and hurt others again?

I think what is just about the piunishment of an eye for an eye, is that people learn the justice of maybe others feelings.

For whereas if we discovered love we would think of others feelings, for those who commit wickedness, they feel that fear of what they would cause to another.
Isn't that right?

Isn't that even what we call empathy.

Isn't that putting fear in it's right place?

For fear exists, and what do we fear, do we fear being mocked, and being treated unkindly.
And some people even fear to walk down the street.
Isn't that the wrong place for fear in anyone?

But if we fear anything, shouldn't it be of doing wickedness, isn't that actually a good place for fear in us all?
 
To me it shows Bahaullah was a flawed person, people expect perfection from all religious leaders but it probably has never been the case.

That phase I would never accept though, fair enough put someone in prison for a crime but you should never take it upon yourself to retaliate also working towards forgiving and helping a person who commits such an evil act should be promoted.
 
I don't think it is teaching to retaliate.

I think it's talking of law and justice, for the benefit of the community.

Doesn't he teach to turn the other cheek for ones own goodness, but out of love for others to not see them persecuted?

What do we do if a whole people are being terrorised, raped, house and people and children burnt.

Do we sit back and leave them to it, glad it's not happening to us.
Do we send them people to persuade them in love.

What if they reject and even kill these people.

Is it not out of love, to save the persecuted people, from the wicked.
Isn't even more righteous to go and slay these wicked people, than let them continue to wickedly persecute others?
 
Are you telling me there is no better way of dealing with a murderer then to kill them?
 
That's not what i've said.

I've said there is a better way of dealing with a murderer than killing them.

I'm not even suggesting to kill them in most circumstances where there is an alternative.
But in some circumstances it may be neccesary for the good of others, maybe even a deterent to them.
 
Actually postmaster... the law you quote partially is in the Aqdas and is not to be implemented with out the full guidance of the Universal House of Justice. Baha'is don't go around interpreting for themselves, that would show our "flaws" now wouldn't it? Here it is from the Aqdas:

Kitáb-i-Aqdas


[SIZE=+2]Notes[/SIZE]
  1. Should anyone intentionally destroy a house by fire, him also shall ye burn; should anyone deliberately take another's life, him also shall ye put to death. ¶62
    The law of Bahá'u'lláh prescribes the death penalty for murder and arson, with the alternative of life imprisonment (see note 87).
    In His Tablets 'Abdu'l-Bahá explains the difference between revenge and punishment. He affirms that individuals do not have the right to take revenge, that revenge is despised in the eyes of God, and that the motive for punishment is not vengeance, but the imposition of a penalty for the committed offence. In Some Answered Questions, He confirms that it is the right of society to impose punishments on criminals for the purpose of protecting its members and defending its existence.
    With regard to this provision, Shoghi Effendi in a letter written on his behalf gives the following explanation:
    In the Aqdas Bahá'u'lláh has given death as the penalty for murder. However, He has permitted life imprisonment as an alternative. Both practices would be in accordance with His Laws. Some of us may not be able to grasp the wisdom of this when it disagrees with our own limited vision; but we must accept it, knowing His Wisdom, His Mercy and His Justice are perfect and for the salvation of the entire world. If a man were falsely condemned to die, can we not believe Almighty God would compensate him a thousandfold, in the next world, for this human injustice? You cannot give up a salutary law just because on rare occasions the innocent may be punished.​
    The details of the Bahá'í law of punishment for murder and arson, a law designed for a future state of society, were not specified by Bahá'u'lláh. The various details of the law, such as degrees of offence, whether extenuating circumstances are to be taken into account, and which of the two prescribed punishments is to be the norm are left to the Universal House of Justice to decide in light of prevailing conditions when the law is to be in operation. The manner in which the punishment is to be carried out is also left to the Universal House of Justice to decide.
 
Prescribing burning, come on now.... sounds like a step back 1000 years.
 
Sounds like a Quranic verse, not hard to see where the inspiration came from. I still think Bahaullah was trying to satisfy an Islamic audience with western ideology and sufi religious movement.

The Baha'i faith says religion is forever progressive.

The Baha'i faith grants its followers to investigate truth independently through there own ears and eyes.

These concepts used to justify the Baha'i faith can actually be used against the Baha'i faith. For instance if religion is progressive, this means as soon as Bahallah put pen to paper truth had already moved on, he accpeted this himself.

His son spent enough time in the west to probably realise that his father had maybe been mistaken on afew things, thats probably why we see these contradictions between them and I have been following up on them.
 
Postmaster wrote:

These concepts used to justify the Baha'i faith can actually be used against the Baha'i faith. For instance if religion is progressive, this means as soon as Bahallah put pen to paper truth had already moved on, he accpeted this himself.

His son spent enough time in the west to probably realise that his father had maybe been mistaken on afew things, thats probably why we see these contradictions between them and I have been following up on them.

..............................................

My comment:

My view is that societies have penalties to deter people from committing crimes and keep social order. Check out the ten commandments sometime and the levitical code...these laws and proscriptions were for a desert society and nomadic tribes in scarce environments...Laws of capital punishment or life imprisonment and so on are not unusual.

Also what you forget is that the Universal House of Justice will decide when and how most of these laws are to be implemented

Abdul-Baha was conveying His Father's Message to the West and there is no such a thing as you suggest that He thought His Father was mistaken.

- Art
 
Baha'i concept of punishment...

Also this represents the Baha'i view toward punishment which is a more complete picture... The Aqdas only outlines laws for future Baha'i socities and does not give specifics of implimentation.


One thing remains to be said: it is that the communities are day and night occupied in making penal laws, and in preparing and organizing instruments and means of punishment. They build prisons, make chains and fetters, arrange places of exile and banishment, and different kinds of hardships and tortures, and think by these means to discipline criminals, whereas, in reality, they are causing destruction of morals and perversion of characters. The community, on the contrary, ought day and night to strive and endeavor with the utmost zeal and effort to accomplish the education of men, to cause them day by day to progress and to increase in science and knowledge, to acquire virtues, to gain good morals and to avoid vices, so that crimes may not occur. At the present time the contrary prevails; the community is always thinking of enforcing the penal laws, and of preparing means of punishment, instruments of death and chastisement, places for imprisonment and banishment; and they expect crimes to be committed. This has a demoralizing effect.
But if the community would endeavor to educate the masses, day by day knowledge and sciences would increase, the understanding would be broadened, the sensibilities developed, customs would become good, and morals normal; in one word, in all these classes of perfections there would be progress, and there would be fewer crimes.

~ Abdul-Baha

For the entire text see

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 268-272
 
arthra said:
Abdul-Baha was conveying His Father's Message to the West and there is no such a thing as you suggest that He thought His Father was mistaken.

- Art
Click to expand...

There are contradictions between what Abdul-Baha said and Bahaullah on some things, as a whole towards the main theology Abdul-Baha is in pure harmony with his father but look into some details and we see different views on things. It's when looking into the Baha'i faith in detail that courses the rise of eyebrows anyhow, not its main theology, along with the great genius humanism thought, you get primitive thought that doesn't seem to belong to the same book. I think this is what has caused Baha'is to rebel against the faith in the past. I'd say that Bahaullah had quite a difficult job trying to satisfy an Islamic audience while at the same time captivating a western audience which may have been secondary.
 
The Baha'i theology is self sustaining enough to allow for these anomalies anyway. I do not try to compromise the divinity of it at all.
 
Note to Postmaster

Postmaster said:
There are contradictions between what Abdul-Baha said and Bahaullah on some things, as a whole towards the main theology Abdul-Baha is in pure harmony with his father but look into some details and we see different views on things. It's when looking into the Baha'i faith in detail that courses the rise of eyebrows anyhow, not its main theology, along with the great genius humanism thought, you get primitive thought that doesn't seem to belong to the same book. I think this is what has caused Baha'is to rebel against the faith in the past. I'd say that Bahaullah had quite a difficult job trying to satisfy an Islamic audience while at the same time captivating a western audience which may have been secondary.
Click to expand...


I most sincerely believe Postmaster that you are incorrect on your assumptions and you haven't bothered much to support your views... Abdul-Baha lived with His Father most all of His life from 1844 to 1892. He was also the designated Interpretor of His Father's Writings, that means no one else except Abdul-Baha had authority in this regard...in the same way Shoghi Effendi after Abdul-Baha was the designated Interpretor of the Writings.

Abdul-Baha went to the west (Europe and America) prior toWWI to spead His Fathers "Good News" and principles. At that the time the culture of the West was not particualrly progressive or liberal it was actually from the Baha'i principles that we see mentioned in our Writings that we read about universal education, equality of men and women, racial amity and a world parliament with international court to establish world peace.

- Art

:)
 
The Baha'i awareness site points out to the exact location in the writings you can find contradiction between father and son. In fact even Bahaullah contradicting himself. The Bible for instance under went a lot of rigorous effort to remove contradiction from it, yet it still contains them. Contradiction is something all religious works have been prone to. The difference with the Baha'i faith is its theology is self sustaining to allow them compared to the other religions. I think the Baha'i awareness site is a great point of view, regardless if it’s a narrow view and that I've spotted clear misinformation for myself. Out of all fairness any Baha'i that will defend the non existence of contradiction in the scriptures is a fundamentalist.
 
Postmaster,

I'm unsure what it is you wanted to discuss.. You started the thread about a law of the Aqdas that disturbed you... now..we're taliking about so called "contradictions". Can you be more specific?

- Art
 
The baha`i Awareness site dot com is not an authority on anything, its only purpose is to invent arguments against the faith.

I don't go there anymore because it is so blatantly hostile. I simply don't trust anything said there not to have an agenda.

The author was even using what was said here to fabricate more argument and put it up where that argument cannot be anything but one-sided.

Where exactly do Abdu'l Baha and Baha`u'llah disagree?

Regards,
Scott
 
What Scott wrote is basically correct... If you study a religion you should go to the original sources rather than allow those who are antagonistic to shape your view.

Also I think Postmaster you should be more specific about what you consider to be "contradictions"...

If we take the simple law revealed in the Aqdas above ... Abdul-Baha does not contradict it.

The next verse of the Aqdas allows for "life imprisonment":

Should ye condemn the arsonist and the murderer to life imprisonment, it would be permissible according to the provisions of the Book. ¶62 Shoghi Effendi, in response to a question about this verse of the Aqdas, affirmed that while capital punishment is permitted, an alternative, "life imprisonment", has been provided "whereby the rigours of such a condemnation can be seriously mitigated". He states that "Bahá'u'lláh has given us a choice and has, therefore, left us free to use our own discretion within certain limitations imposed by His law". In the absence of specific guidance concerning the application of this aspect of Bahá'í law, it remains for the Universal House of Justice to legislate on the matter in the future.

...............................................

and again these laws are for a future Baha'i society.

- Art
 
I know that the objective of Baha'i awareness is to form a narrow view of the faith.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top