Abrahamic? Am I missing the meaning?

Bandit said:
thanks smkolins & everyone. i will have a look at the 12 pages.

i guess my point is not just the buddha within the Bahai religion, but maybe if we all would start admitting (& i do mean in all religions, including the scientists & politicans & my very own brothers in Christianity) would admit that there are things in our religions & beliefs that we just do not have all the answers for, & some of the doctrines just do not add up, then maybe the few who are willing to do that would become closer & the few who are really searching would be able to see more together.

IOW- if i give an inch is something, will you meet me on your end?

not saying we have to give up the basic foundation of our faith in God.
but it cant be done if we keep insisiting we are the only ones. the older i get the more gray i see & the more i have to say, "I cant say that is for sure".

i dont expect it to change in the radical sense because we are only human & we have fears & wonders & no one wants to be lied to any more.
i guess i still have hope, & i say it because CR offers a pretty good opportunity for us to try.:)

I like that Bandit. I like that a lot. I'll give more than an inch. In fact, as you can see in an earlier post, I am willing to say, "I don't know." Usually, the dogma of a religion causes the confusion. The Manifestations, Themselves, speak from God. Their message is normally clear. Confusion comes aboard when man decides to explain the meaning. This is why "self-investigation" for the truth is so important.

Mick
 
You may say you give an inch Mick but I still see no appology for your tone and attitude in the original post. That still shouts louder than what you say now.

TE
 
Tao_Equus said:
You may say you give an inch Mick but I still see no appology for your tone and attitude in the original post. That still shouts louder than what you say now.

TE

Apology?...Choke, cough (as my coffee came out my nose). You have to be kidding. What I haven't received is an explanation. Again, if Abrahamic means from Abrahams line then both The Bab and Baha'u'llah fit the title of the section. If it means something else, then please explain. The tone and attitude from my original post is my response to being spit at as a Baha'i.

Shame on you to ask for an apology from me, at this point. How rude and typically thread/topic changing.

Mick
 
It was very clearly explained. Baha'i is a MODERN religeon. That you are personaly put out by this will not change that fact. Baha'i is not up there, yet, with the 3 great pillars of Abrahamic monotheisms and could not claim such a place till not only had it stood the test of several 100 years, but had also gained the popularity the others enjoy. Insulting the creator of this exceptional forum also will not change that.

TE

Note: I did not ask for an apology, merely commented that I had not seen one. Additionaly you talk that Baha'i does not 'recruit' but allows folks to find them. So why on your profile does it state you are doing precisely that? Seems to me you sing 2 songs, the effect is dischordant (sic).
 
Tao_Equus said:
It was very clearly explained. Baha'i is a MODERN religeon. That you are personaly put out by this will not change that fact. Baha'i is not up there, yet, with the 3 great pillars of Abrahamic monotheisms and could not claim such a place till not only had it stood the test of several 100 years, but had also gained the popularity the others enjoy. Insulting the creator of this exceptional forum also will not change that.

TE

This is becoming personal and maybe we should go to PM. I have no problem keeping it public, but, on most of the forums I message on, moderators usually take umbrage. You decide.

It was not clearly explained, friend, and putting the word modern in all caps, as if to state it louder, does not make it any clearer. Let me give you an example.

Suppose you lived in a community that claimed to practice unity and love and forthrightness and you were also the member of a minority race, religion, ethnic group, etc,..you pick. The community threw a party and invited everybody. When you arrived, you were told to enter through the back door and go to a little closet room where a couple of others, like yourself, were already there. And while the rest of the community interacted and enjoyed, you sat with a couple of other outcasts, twiddling your thumbs. When you try to enter the main party, somebody quickly points out, hey, you're not one of us. You haven't earned the right to be with us righteous ones and are quickly pushed back in the closet. Unfortunately, some of the 'regular' group keep sticking their heads into your closet and taunt you. Ha Ha, you can't come to the party.

Are you getting the picture? You should be by now. Again, if Abrahamic means from the seed of Abraham, then The Bab and Baha'u'llah, the Prophet/Founders of the Baha'i Faith, fit that definition and by this definition should be included in the main party.



Note: I did not ask for an apology, merely commented that I had not seen one. Additionaly you talk that Baha'i does not 'recruit' but allows folks to find them. So why on your profile does it state you are doing precisely that? Seems to me you sing 2 songs, the effect is dischordant (sic).

Of course you asked for an apology. What else could that mean? Why deny what is obvious. My profile, TE, does not mention recruit, recruitment, recruiter and any shape, way or fashion. There is not a function in the Baha'i Faith that would fit these terms. My profile says I am a travel teacher. It simply means that if Baha'is in some part of the world other than my home community need a public speaker, I am willing to travel to speak at a public function. A teacher, in the Baha'i Faith, really functions as an answerer. We respond to questions seekers may have. We do no proselytize. We simply attend a public meeting, where people that are interested in finding out more about the Baha'i Faith may come.

By the way, I looked at your profile as well. I noticed you joined this forum October 20, 2005 and you already have 233 posts for an average of 5.18 posts per day.That is only 45 days. You either have a lot to say, or not much to say but like to say it a lot. From the couple of posts I have read, I would favor the latter.

Mick
 
Bandit said:
thanks smkolins & everyone. i will have a look at the 12 pages.
...
IOW- if i give an inch is something, will you meet me on your end?

not saying we have to give up the basic foundation of our faith in God.
but it cant be done if we keep insisiting we are the only ones. the older i get the more gray i see & the more i have to say, "I cant say that is for sure".

i dont expect it to change in the radical sense because we are only human & we have fears & wonders & no one wants to be lied to any more.
i guess i still have hope, & i say it because CR offers a pretty good opportunity for us to try.:)

Maybe. I think some people treat bridges of understandings as openings for invasion and warfare. Over my years I've built many bridges. I (and a few others) had a long exchange with fundamentalist christians that I think surprised both sides. We came away both sides learning something and gaining some respect for the other side - even if we continued to very clearly disagree about a very great deal.

But other times, not so distant or far away, some have felt that stated positions were nothing but insulting, and were motivated by ignorance, lies, or stupdity and said so repeatedly. For now at least I've had my fill of it and try to make my way here without getting into such discussions and I know I'm not alone. I've appreciated your posts and I think you've appreciated mine. But we aren't alone here. And any time a discussion breaks out Someone Gets Upset and Things Happen. And I don't mean God. I've participated in quite a few discussion areas before and since the internet and thank you kept my nose pretty clean but some of the things we've had happen in the Baha'i area here have NEVER happened anywhere else (and I'm not just talking about me here), in addition to a few things that have and always seem to draw more smoke than light because people intensely differ about some subjects because of their own personal experience and history into the situation. Then we have to be careful with the details of one person and their views as well as the overall situation and really it tends to break down pretty quickly then.
 
Well, There was a time when Abraham's words were new teachings. There was a time when Moses was a new Prophet, that did not mean He was not part of the Abrahamic line. There was a time when David was a new King, but He was still in the line of Abraham's seed.

When Christ walked this world, He was a newcomer, but He still traced His message to David's Psalms, Moses' Torah and to the line of Abraham.

Same for Muhammed. Same for Zoroaster. Same for Krishna for that matter. To be in the Abrahamic genealogy merely requires that Abraham be one of your thousands of great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents. Eventually it comes to the fact that its hard to avoid having Abraham in your lineage.

More important by far is the spiritual lineage. Moses said He was a bearer of Revelation from the God Who revealed Himself to Abraha. Jesus says the same. Muhammed says the same. the Bab is a descendant of Muhammed both physically and spiritually, and Baha`u'llah is a descendant of Moses through the line of David and of Zoroaster through the Sassanid Kings of Persia. So the Baha`i Faith is spiritually and genealogically an Abrahamic Faith. Brian's and Tao Equus' points of view are irrelevant to the fact.

You can continue to segregate it. There are three interfaith dialogue forums using V-bulletin. Three weeks ago two of those forae actually put the Baha`i Faith into "Modern Religions". A simple explanation of the facts of descent sufficed to change the minds of the moderators of one of those two and the Baha`i board was moved back to Abrahamic faiths where it belongs.

If Brian chooses not to do so, that's fine - he owns and PAYS for this board. It is his chattel under the law and under any sense of fair play. I accept that and stay anyway. That being said, it does not mean he is not in error, and that error creates a chafe within some patrons of the board. They own and pay for their own feelings (karmically, if not monetarily) and it is their right to follow their own conviction.

I note that Yaqinud din came over to another forum (Religious Education) for no other purpose than to goad Bruce into making some comment here that would get him in trouble. I can post the messages here if anyone is interested.

Regards,
Scott
 
Tao_Equus said:
Additionaly you talk that Baha'i does not 'recruit' but allows folks to find them. So why on your profile does it state you are doing precisely that?

For what it's worth another pov on his profile is that it is perfectly normal and not "recruiting". He travels and speaks where he has a chance and I doubt very much it has any semblance to a street agitator. Probably he visits in peoples homes and talks to people invited.

As for a "weak" response, I don't know what you know or don't, but what is weak about questioning the validity of the modern teachings of a religion? Buddha and God seem remote to you? How about Trinitarianism?! There is one primary criticism the Baha'i Faith has of the other religions, and who is responsible, and it stands in good stead - "I came not to destroy, but to fullfill." indeed. There are no scriptures that do not comment and or correct the views of other religions. Can there be a stronger position to make work? But if we dwell on such matters it sounds like Baha'is have nothing to say but ill of other religions - when in fact we spend almost all our time affirming their Author, their Exponents, the Scriptures, and their early heroes - and indeed drifting from this emphasis is something not condoned in our own scriptures! "O people! consort with the followers of all religions in a spirit of friendliness...."
 
Popeyesays said:
There are three interfaith dialogue forums using V-bulletin. Three weeks ago two of those forae actually put the Baha`i Faith into "Modern Religions". A simple explanation of the facts of descent sufficed to change the minds of the moderators of one of those two and the Baha`i board was moved back to Abrahamic faiths where it belongs.

So that's where you've been. :) A typo above (I think you mean they moved it [bold]out[/bold] of the "Modern Religions" section.) This kind of response is typical of most interfaith discussion areas - where a stated position attributed to the Baha'i Faith is explained and corrected. As for the Abrahamic section here, it bears reading the sub-title. Baha'is might read it thinking all we have to do is correct this misunderstanding - that the only Abrahamic religions are Judaism, Christian, and Islam, but that explanation has been gone through.
 
Mick said:
I have no problem keeping it public, but, on most of the forums I message on, moderators usually take umbrage.

Why does this not suprise me?

As for the bulk of your argument I dont have any major issue with where Baha'i are represented but it seems to me that it is first and foremost a modern religeon. To argue otherwise is nitpicking and to do so in the form of your initial assault is counterproductive to your desired aim. I would also add that you seem very unlike the other Baha'i I see post here.

By the way, I looked at your profile as well. I noticed you joined this forum October 20, 2005 and you already have 233 posts for an average of 5.18 posts per day.That is only 45 days. You either have a lot to say, or not much to say but like to say it a lot. From the couple of posts I have read, I would favor the latter.

You are entitled to your opinion on my contribution and it does not suprise me to find you draw conclusions after reading a couple of posts.

TE
 
For that matter, I have been a travel teacher and a home front pioneer myself. I have moved to communities because they need one or two more Baha`i's to form a Local Spiritual Assembly. I have travelled two or three hundred miles at a time because I was asked to come speak at a public meeting or teach at a Baha`i School.

The fact remains that we have no clergy to perform those functions. its a matter of personal initiative to assist the institutions of the faith. I am not remunerated, no one is.

Even members of a National Spiritual Assembly cover their own costs in travel to meetings and performing the functions of the institution unless they are unable to do so.

A Baha`i with money, but no time to devote to the cause might deputize someone else to do it for him, providing the means to travel. That is acceptable in the faith, but its a personal thing on both sides. I know an Auxiliary Board Member for Protection who had to give up an executive job with the Red Cross to perform a needed Baha`i function. Her husband, a physician, deputized her. It was personal, not institutional support.
During Katrina and Rita, she was asked to come back and cover her desk part-time to allow other local Red Cross the ability to travel from home to do what was needed, so she was "deputized" the other way to go back to her old job on a temporary basis.

Means can be found to perform work for one's faith, and with a faith without clergy, we have to be creative to get it done. Individuals donating their time and fortume to the work on a voluntary basis is the way to do it.

Regards,
Scott
 
Tao_Equus said:
it seems to me that it is first and foremost a modern religeon. To argue otherwise is nitpicking....

I don't know a single Baha'i here who agrees with you. While being a new development is of course important to Baha'is for various reasons, it certainly is *not* how we tend to describe ourselves. Most of the scriptural references I can think of about relating our Faith to others empahsizes that we are of the *same* process of religion from eternity, and thus in our roots we are ancient. And the few places that say we are indeed new often go on to point out there will be an eternal process of religion in the future as well. Moreover, "modern" doesn't seem to fit casual use as we are talking about something around the time of the Civil War in the United States whereas most uses of the word would mean not only post-WWII but post-internet!
 
smkolins said:
So that's where you've been. :) A typo above (I think you mean they moved it [bold]out[/bold] of the "Modern Religions" section.) This kind of response is typical of most interfaith discussion areas - where a stated position attributed to the Baha'i Faith is explained and corrected. As for the Abrahamic section here, it bears reading the sub-title. Baha'is might read it thinking all we have to do is correct this misunderstanding - that the only Abrahamic religions are Judaism, Christian, and Islam, but that explanation has been gone through.

There is no doubt that I feel more welcome on those other boards. They seem to wish to operate with a "welcome mat" approach and not being subject to the whim of one, they are more amenable to change. One of those boards had no Baha`i presence at all, and was most happy to change what they had posted about the faith when better material was offered. Open minds create an open environment.

Another board offers a way for people to give approval toother posts and this provides some positive strokes in exchange for dialogue, that's nice.

Regards,
Scott
 
smkolins said:
I don't know a single Baha'i here who agrees with you. While being a new development is of course important to Baha'is for various reasons, it certainly is *not* how we tend to describe ourselves. Most of the scriptural references I can think of about relating our Faith to others empahsizes that we are of the *same* process of religion from eternity, and thus in our roots we are ancient. And the few places that say we are indeed new often go on to point out there will be an eternal process of religion in the future as well. Moreover, "modern" doesn't seem to fit casual use as we are talking about something around the time of the Civil War in the United States whereas most uses of the word would mean not only post-WWII but post-internet!

I appreciate the angle you come at this from, and as I have said I personaly have no objection to where its placed. But that said this is not a Baha'i forum and for the majority of non-Baha'i I feel quite confidant that if they had to place it in a listed sub-forum they would do as I Brian did. The arguments seem more about umbridge being taken because you cant party with the 'big boys'. This is a classic example of whats wrong with religeons, that such a minor and highly debatable point evokes such passions. If it were up to me I would simply rename the Abrhamic forum The Big 3 monotheisms. They fit well together as a group and Baha'i to my mind does not yet. It is still a minnow and cant be expected to be called a whale.
The terms Modern, Old or Ancient are relative. When applied to religions it would be extremely difficult to qualify Baha'i in anything other than the modern camp.

Respect and regards

TE
 
In the end its a tempest in a teapot.

Regardless of how Brian organizes or I feel about it, I have bigger concerns than forecasting weather in teapots, so, I am sure, does Brian and every one else.

Abdu'l Baha lived his life trying to create unity and amity amongst men of all origins. When after more than a decade of warning the people of the oncoming horror of the war, he was finally forced to send home American pilgrims in 1917 and close all pilgrimage until peace could be re-established.

He wrote this in the world-wide tempest of the Great War:
"In brief, O ye believers of God! The text of the Divine Book is this: If two souls quarrel and contend about a question of the Divine questions, differing and disputing, both are wrong. The wisdom of this incontrovertible law of God is this: That between two souls from amongst the believers of God, no contention and dispute may arise; that they may speak with each other with infinite amity and love. Should there appear the least trace of controversy, they must remain silent, and both parties must continue their discussions no longer, but ask the reality of the question from the Interpreter. This is the irrefutable command
Upon you be Baha El-Abha!
Supplication

O God, my God! Thou seest how black darkness is enshrouding all regions, how all countries are burning with the flame of dissension, and the fire of war and carnage is blazing throughout the East and the West. Blood is flowing, corpses bestrew the ground, and severed heads are fallen on the dust of the battlefield.
O Lord! Have pity on these ignorant ones, and look upon them with the eye of forgiveness and pardon. Extinguish this fire, so that these dense clouds which obscure the horizon may be scattered, the Sun of Reality shine forth with the rays of conciliation, this intense gloom be dispelled and the resplendent light of peace shed its radiance upon all countries.
O Lord! Draw up the people from the abyss of the ocean of hatred and enmity, and deliver them 181 from the impenetrable darkness. Unite their hearts, and brighten their eyes with the light of peace and reconciliation. Deliver them from the depths of war and bloodshed, and free them from the darkness of error. Remove the veil from their eyes, and enlighten their hearts with the light of guidance. Treat them with Thy tender mercy and compassion, and deal not with them according to Thy justice and wrath which cause the limbs of the mighty to quake.
O Lord! Wars have persisted. Distress and anxiety have waxed great, and every flourishing region is laid waste.
O Lord! Hearts are heavy, and souls are in anguish. Have mercy on these poor souls, and do not leave them to the excesses of their own desires.
O Lord! Make manifest in Thy lands humble and submissive souls, their faces illumined with the rays of guidance, severed from the world, extolling Thy Name, uttering Thy praise, and diffusing the fragrance of Thy holiness amongst mankind.
O Lord! Strengthen their backs, gird up their 182 loins, and enrapture their hearts with the most mighty signs of Thy love.
O Lord! Verily, they are weak, and Thou art the Powerful and the Mighty; they are impotent, and Thou art the Helper and the Merciful.
O Lord! The ocean of rebellion is surging, and these tempests will not be stilled save through Thy boundless grace which hath embraced all regions.
O Lord! Verily, the people are in the abyss of passion, and naught can save them but Thine infinite bounties.
O Lord! Dispel the darkness of these corrupt desires, and illumine the hearts with the lamp of Thy love through which all countries will erelong be enlightened. Confirm, moreover, Thy loved ones, those who, leaving their homelands, their families and their children, have, for the love of Thy Beauty, traveled to foreign countries to diffuse Thy fragrances and promulgate Thy Teachings. Be Thou their companion in their loneliness, their helper in a strange land, the remover of their sorrows, their comforter in calamity. Be Thou a refreshing draught for their thirst, 183 a healing medicine for their ills and a balm for the burning ardor of their hearts.
Verily, Thou art the Most Generous, the Lord of grace abounding, and, verily, Thou art the Compassionate and the Merciful.

April 19, 20, and 22, 1917
(H.M. Balyuzi, Abdu'l-Baha - The Centre of the Covenant, p. 511)
 
Baha'iism does indeed seem to have a lot in common with the "Big 3" but the crucial differences appear to be the numbers of followers and the level of recognition among the rest of the population. I'm curious, do the Baha'is here think that Rastafarianism should also be included in the Abrahamic section? How about Waco's Davidean Cult, their leader too claims Abrahamic lineage.

I dont think Christians and Muslims had a very easy time right at first, and it seems the Jews have never had it easy. Christians, Jews and Muslims have all had a tough time over hundreds, maybe thousands of years but they have come through it all and the whole world can see that their religions have strength and their teachings have at least some measure of truth.

If Baha'iism does survive and thrive and grow for the next few hundred years then I have no doubt it will eventually take its place amongst the great world religions and no one will begrudge it a place on any monotheism board (or whatever the futuristic equivalent might be). On the other hand, it may simply fizzle out.

Either way, surely no one can expect to start a new religion, and after 120 or so years, have it achieve the same levels of recognition as other religions which have been established for thousands of years.
 
Awaiting_the_fifth said:
Baha'iism does indeed seem to have a lot in common with the "Big 3" but the crucial differences appear to be the numbers of followers and the level of recognition among the rest of the population. I'm curious, do the Baha'is here think that Rastafarianism should also be included in the Abrahamic section? How about Waco's Davidean Cult, their leader too claims Abrahamic lineage.

No opinion, actually. Baha'u'llah said, "If it's logical, it's of God. If it's illogical, it's of man." If you apply this to most anything, including your statements as well as your questions, it works.

I dont think Christians and Muslims had a very easy time right at first, and it seems the Jews have never had it easy. Christians, Jews and Muslims have all had a tough time over hundreds, maybe thousands of years but they have come through it all and the whole world can see that their religions have strength and their teachings have at least some measure of truth.

Actually, the Jewish tribes, at one time, were the dominant force in the Fertile Crescent region. Shouldn't a religion have a complete measure of truth? If it exists to venerate God and to guide us in our lives, which part could be untruthful in an acceptable way?

If Baha'iism does survive and thrive and grow for the next few hundred years then I have no doubt it will eventually take its place amongst the great world religions and no one will begrudge it a place on any monotheism board (or whatever the futuristic equivalent might be). On the other hand, it may simply fizzle out.

If it is up to mankind, it will probably fizzle out. If it is up to God, Woe to those that denigrate it. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. In the mean time, investigation of its principles to determine if it is from God wouldn't be a bad hedge against any betting of its demise in the future.

Either way, surely no one can expect to start a new religion, and after 120 or so years, have it achieve the same levels of recognition as other religions which have been established for thousands of years.

I wouldn't and most people would probably agree with you. If, for a moment, though, we could personify God and wonder if He would expect it, then I would have to say that One may expect His religion to continue to be taken serious and for the petty arguments that seperate His religions of the past to end and for everyone to look to see what His new message is and what His new directions are and what His new expectations bring us. And then again , maybe I'm wrong.

warmly,

Mick
 
Awaiting_the_fifth said:
Baha'iism does indeed seem to have a lot in common with the "Big 3" but the crucial differences appear to be the numbers of followers. ..

Yes, I believe Rastafarians are essentially Christians. I think a religious splinter sect with tendency to modern acts of violence should not be tolerated on the list at all (but that's personal).

Awaiting_the_fifth said:
I dont think Christians and Muslims had a very easy time right at first, and it seems the Jews have never had it easy.


The Iranian http://www.iranianvoice.org/article511.html - this is not a Bahai publication.

Bahais are an enigma in Iran! The Iranian regime, which doesn't really give a damn about their basic civil rights, flagrantly denies their existence by collectively dismissing the 500,000 strong communities as a nameless forgotten page of Iranian history.
In a blatant display of medieval cleansing the theocratic regime in Iran tries to deny the Bahais hope and deprive them of their will to survive by closing their "Open University" so that they may remain the permanent underclass nailed to the bottom most wrung of Iranian society. . . .
Perhaps it is an unprecedented effort in the annals of modern human history that a government driven by intense theocratic philosophy is so determined to 'ideologically cleanse' an entire segment of the society in name of Islamic Puritanism. Indeed the theocracy has realised that rather then make martyrs of individual Bahais and attract world-wide attention they could inflict a devastating blow to this small minority by denying their children the chance of an even modest education.
Intellectual cleansing of their ethnic brothers by the clergy dominated regime is incredible and a very disturbing aspect of contemporary Iranian culture. The silence of Iranian polity, like the 'silence of the lamb' when devoured, is even more disconcerting, perhaps in their defence the struggle from dogmatic authoritarianism has so occupied the reformist struggle that the rights of a marginalized minority are relegated to the fringe.
The real truth is though that no one gives a damn what happens to Bahais. "Haqeshooneh", is the common dismissive statement when the plight of the Bahais are brought up. However the dual rights to exist and believe is the basic human freedom accorded to man from the day we are born, denying this is worst than death. . . .
Cyrus 2,560 years ago issued a decree on his aims and policies, later hailed as his charter of the rights of nations. Cyrus's claim to fame was that he symbolized Multiculturalism, a word coined to express the coexistence and peaceful cohabitation of peoples from different background and culture in one land. . . .

Nations especially one as culturally and ethnically rich as Iran, which happens to boast itself as the rightful heir to the title of the 'bastion and cradle of civilisations', are the traditional keepers and trustees of the conscience of mankind. Iran, in its existence as a continuous five thousand year old civilisation, bred the finest literary classics, the most elegant poetic prose and has bequeathed an enduring artistic and cultural legacy that is revered throughout the Islamic world.

A civilisation, which taught the world the subtlest of the nuances in language, has been robbed of its millennia old traditions within a span of three decades by 'theocracy'. A theocracy that has tarnished Persian society with 'medieval ignorance' and in its litany of accomplishments managed to produce a series of crimes against humanity.
If the Iranian theocracy was practising racial discrimination, it would at least be an understandable phenomenon, since the hatred of the "Other" has defined and continues to mar human societies. However to discriminate against citizenry on basis of archaic imported ideology is the most appalling feat of the Iranian theocracy.

The interjections of medieval ideology have created shades and strains that have temporarily robbed Iran of its vast cultural and literary exquisiteness. Tragic as it may sound, I'm sure the ideological authoritarian extremism will only be a footnote in the future history of Iran. However the repression of the Bahai minority, which is being robbed of the education of its youth, has condemned it to a future of perpetual decline.
It is this eventuality that we all should assume responsibility for and to avert this Iranians must accept that Bahais are an integral and loyal community within Iran, extending the same inclusiveness reserved for Shi'ites and other minorities. Bahai children should not be allowed to become pariahs and suffer the same fate as their parents, which will occur if the current status quo prevails.

If the deliberate decadence and deflowering of a refined Iranian society under the authoritarian medieval clergy is the grossest of the sins, the plight of the Bahais in Iran is another transgression of equal culpability and intensity. It is unique that not only the voice of majority in Iran but also the rights of minority have been so vehemently subdued with unfailing force. The Iranian theocratic revolution, repulsive as it is in its content and approach, has accorded irreparable damage to the image of Iran and the Iranian people.

The complicity or rather the lamb-like silence of the Iranian people over the persecution of the Bahais is often rooted in the claim they are an "irredentist" minority whose loyalty lies in a "universal" community rather than a national one. Bahais claim that their supreme mission is none other but the achievement of organic and spiritual unity of the whole body of nations was and remains, in my opinion, one of the most groundbreaking ideas of the 19th century. For such an inspiration to arise in the backward and medieval society of Qajar Persia is astonishing.

Bahai ideals, in no way, alienate Iranians and there is no reason for such censure on the part of the latter. One can remain detached from the rituals of the Bahai faith but undoubtedly it is very thought provoking and a roadmap of future global constitution. Still, rather than being celebrated for their contribution and evolution of Iranian thought or even engaged in debates about the validity of their beliefs, Bahais are considered to have suspect allegiances, foreign imperialists and "Zionist agents".

The Iranian Bahais can hardly be considered a fifth column! As opposed to Iranian Muslims, who fancifully claim their original roots to be in ancient Persia rather than the Arabian deserts, the Bahais are the distinctive breed in that many are the descendants of the last batch of Zoroastrians to convert to a new faith.

It is a rich statement that 'Iranians do not consider Bahais as Iranians' since it was some of the ancestors of the Bahais, the Zoroastrians of Kerman and Yazd, who maintained their unadulterated pre-Islamic Iranian religion until 19th century, when they converted to Bahaism. The centuries following the invading armies of Caliph Umar converted most of Iran but some maintained their pre-Islamic culture and tradition with zeal, however to accuse the Iranians, who converted from Zoroastrianism to Bahaism only in 19th century, of 'adulteration of stock' is vicious and wicked.
Shi'ite Islam in and of itself was a continuation of the Iranian stratagem to express national resistance through intellectual and spiritual dissent. When the Iranian nation was brutally annexed after battle of Qadisiyya in 636 AD, Iranians adhered to the Shi'ite Islam as being the true followers of House of Hashim instead of the House of Banu Ummiyah, which was more representative of the Arab dark ages.

The Shi'ite leaning of Iran may be perceived to be religiously motivated but instead it was a bold political move to exhibit its open revulsion of the Umayyad dynasty, support of Banu Hashim was rejection of infected Arabism of Umayyads. Even under occupation Iranians revolted and accepted Banu Hashim as their saviours. The support of the underdog instead of the powerful is the sign that a virtuous nation Iranian amply displayed that unquestionably. Intellectual dissension has been a omnipresent feature of Iran since the birth of its native philosophy.

Allama Iqbal Lahori, whose works on Islamic civilisation and philosophy were pioneering, noted in his book "The Development of Metaphysics in Persia" of how Iran gave birth to eschatological thought, its evolution into Zoroastrianism and the tremendous influence of the distinct strain of Iranian-Zoroastrian thought in the formation of Shi'ite Islam. He refers to the Bahai faith and in his own words, "But all the various lines of Persian thought once more find a synthesis in that great religious movement of modern Persia - Babism Bahaism - which began as a Shia sect with Mirza Ali Muhammad Bab of Shiraz and became less and less in Islamic character with the progress of orthodox persecutions..."

Bahai revelation may have needed the rich intellectual and spiritual tradition of Iran; indeed in more primeval regions the religion would have withered. The principles of the faith are an echo of the charter of the rights of nations and peoples, laid down by Cyrus the Great 2,500 years ago, which instituted tolerance and acceptance of diverse cultures & beliefs as a permanent feature of the Persian Empire.
The hushed stance of the descendents of the Cyrus the great is disgusting as well as disconcerting. Iranians or the Persians trace their roots to Cyrus (580-529 BC) who was the first Achaemenian Emperor. Cyrus was upright, a great leader of men, generous and benevolent. The Hellenes, whom he conquered, regarded him as 'Law-giver' and the Jews as 'the annointed of the Lord'.

Prof. Richard Frye of Harvard said (in The Heritage of Persia, p10-151): "In the victories of the Persians... what was different was the new policy of reconciliation and together with this was the prime aim of Cyrus to establish a pax Achaemenica ... If one were to assess the achievements of the Achaemenid Persians, surely the concept of One World, ... the fusion of peoples and cultures in one 'Oecumen' was one of their important legacies"

He founded Persia by uniting the two original Iranian Tribes- the Medes and the Persians. Although he was known to be a great conqueror, who at one point controlled one of the greatest Empires ever seen, he is best remembered for his unprecedented tolerance and magnanimous attitude towards those he defeated.

Sadly, nearly 2,529 years after Cyrus, Iran finds itself in the clutches of intolerance and dogmatic rigidity, Iran and Iranians categorically do not deserve this. Acceptance of Bahais within the society will be a fulfilment of the dreams of Cyrus. Reconciliation and tolerance should be the basis of the modern Iranian nation even if it remains fixed to its religious moorings.

Contrary to charges that they are the 'bastard children' of British colonialism, aiming to destroy Shi'ite Islam, the fact of the matter is that the Bahais were the last bastions of Iranian culture who moved on to embrace global culture, their ascension from a medieval society to the most modern of thoughts is incredible and amazing if anything else. It was like evolving from the Palaeolithic Age to the Cyber age, the Bahais of Iran advocated ideas that were revolutionary, even from western standards, such as a federalised earth and the equality of gender. The Bahai faith is the pinnacle of Iranian institutions and will be the foremost legacy of Iran to the globe.

The ideal of an egalitarian society where the prejudice of colour, race and belief will be shunned and a new call of oneness of mankind becomes the cardinal goal of mankind looks premature even now. In medieval Iran of the 19th century how could a man, descending partly from aristocracy and partly from Babism, have coined the new world order of collective progress is beyond the scope of many great modern thinkers.

The vision of future held by members of the Bahai community, however little it may be understood as yet by the majority of the planet's inhabitants, refutes the idea of encroaching darkness; the Bahai vision is, in contrast, one of great promise. The Bahai vision amongst the contemporary revolutionary thoughts is viewed...as marking the last and highest stage in the stupendous evolution of man's collective life on this planet.

The emergence of a world community, the consciousness of world citizenship, the founding of a world civilization and culture... should, by their very nature, be regarded, as far as this planetary life is concerned, as the furthermost limits and the cutting edge in the organization of human society, . . . "

Also: http://iona.ghandchi.com/hatcher.htm
http://bahai-library.com/newspapers/080198.html
http://www.idsnews.com/features/iran/main.html
http://www.blaketashi.com/persecution.htm
http://www.cswusa.com/Countries/Iran.htm (a Christian source)
http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/metro/stories/07/8bahai.html
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/bahi.html
http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/areprint/vol6/nuvvab/nuvvab.htm
http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?docid=1G1:120563139&refid=ink_tptd_np&skeyword=&teaser=
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa50498.000/hfa50498_0f.htm
http://www.irainc.org/dcenter/religion.html
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200001/cmselect/cmfaff/80/80ap03.htm
Yahoo! search had one hundred pages of results on Bahai persecution.



Regards,
Scott
 
Back
Top