A warning and a call to Baha’is from Baha’u’llah’s Universal House of Justice

[Dawnofhope]

The reason the Baha'is being persecuted in Iran is being discussed on this thread is because a Muslim quoted from a 500+ page Iranian book bagging the Baha'i Faith. The quotes used from the book are a clear attempt to misrepresent and slander the Baha'i faith so context was provided.

 

[Vinayaka]

The reason the Baha'is being persecuted in Iran is being discussed on this thread is because a Muslim quoted from a 500+ page Iranian book bagging the Baha'i Faith. The quotes used from the book are a clear attempt to misrepresent and slander the Baha'i faith so context was provided.

So it's okay for Baha'is to have a viewpoint about other religions that adherents of said religions find incorrect, but if another religion has a viewpoint of Baha'i that Bahai's disagree with, then it's slanderous? You don't see a double standard?

 

[Dawnofhope]

So it's okay for Baha'is to have a viewpoint about other religions that adherents of said religions find incorrect, but if another religion has a viewpoint of Baha'i that Bahai's disagree with, then it's slanderous? You don't see a double standard?

I have no problem with another presenting my faith providing they are fair and reasonable. Unfortunately the book is anything but.

 

[Vinayaka]

I have no problem with another presenting my faith providing they are fair and reasonable. Unfortunately the book is anything but.

But I don't know that. Nor do many people here. We can only go on your word, and that isn't the best way to determine bias. All the arguments I've read so far by said person have been at least as reasonable as the ones I've read from Baha'i folks. I mean, you guys still go with 'I'm infallible because I said I was infallible." as proof of infallibility. To me, that's just incredibly unreasonable. So 'independent research' as Baha'i are so fond of stating, is what people like me like to do. I think it's good to have such an opposite POV here. Perhaps now myself, Didymus, and several others will seem far less unreasonable to you.

 

[Dawnofhope]

But I don't know that. Nor do many people here. We can only go on your word, and that isn't the best way to determine bias. All the arguments I've read so far by said person have been at least as reasonable as the ones I've read from Baha'i folks. I mean, you guys still go with 'I'm infallible because I said I was infallible." as proof of infallibility. To me, that's just incredibly unreasonable. So 'independent research' as Baha'i are so fond of stating, is what people like me like to do. I think it's good to have such an opposite POV here. Perhaps now myself, Didymus, and several others will seem far less unreasonable to you.

It can be challenging learning about a faith we have little experience with. The best way is to meet with Faith adherents in person. It makes it more difficult to demonise another religion if you have positive first hand experiences with their members. Of course you could have negative experiences as OB had and that’s really sad as he was married to a Baha’i.

In regards reading, there are encyclopaedias and religious texts and beyond that plenty of papers in peer reviewed journals for sources that are not written by Baha’is.

Of course there’s this Iranian text as well but it’s references are most from Muslim sources who are of course opposed.

It doesn’t bother me what you do really. I’m surprised you’re still talking to Baha’is as you often seem so opposed and critical.

 

[Vinayaka]

It doesn’t bother me what you do really. I’m surprised you’re still talking to Baha’is as you often seem so opposed and critical.

Indeed. I'm like Old B. It developed over time from interactions here. I knew nothing at all about Baha'i a couple of years back.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Indeed. I'm like Old B. It developed over time from interactions here. I knew nothing at all about Baha'i a couple of years back.

It seems strange to spend so much time discussing and debating religion with a religious faith (and their adherents) you have such antipathy towards.

I recall last year you appeared to become more and more negative and then all of a sudden stopped.

I could continue answering your questions for a long time to come as you could continue asking them. I'm just defending my faith. What about you? Wouldn't you be better off talking to the Buddhists or some other peaceful group?

 

[oldbadger]

I'm in the same boat. It's a very fine line to walk. On one hand, I feel a need to counter the claims, as some are so out there, and on the other hand, I don't like upsetting people, because they all seem to get so defensive and upset at the slightest hint of 'not quite their way' or any difference of opinion at all. So maybe it's time to fold 'em again. Too bad really. We've had a few good discussions.

On this line, there are several ongoing civil wars where governments or small rebel forces kill people, not just harass or imprison them. But we don't hear any protesting by Baha'is about that. The net casualties in the Sri Lankan civil war, which I'm very close to, was at least 40 000, many innocent civilians. I still won't go there, even though I've been invited almost ad nauseum.

Hi....
I could turn and walk away as well, but since several attempts were made on previous threads to insult and defame, so Bahai's amazing claims have become more of a personal issue for me to challenge.
For instance, recent posts about Bahai executions have revealed almost none in ten years, Bahai then stating that Iran won't execute Bahais because the World is watching!! Amazing U turns like that doesn't show integrity. Further investigation reveals that 95 Bahais are imprisoned out of 300,000 when in fact Iran imprisons nearly 300 persons per 100,000 population. Ergo the Bahai community is not being mass-imprisoned. We are now told that a Bahai was recently murdered in Iran and that the murders have been bailed because the victim was a Bahai..... further investigation shows that this feud was over a lot of money.......
It goes on and on and on....... I now believe that it always has.
Oh well......

 

[oldbadger]

Indeed. I'm like Old B. It developed over time from interactions here. I knew nothing at all about Baha'i a couple of years back.

Do you remember how you and I would argue heatedly over another smallish religion that door-knocks? I have always debated on behalf of religions whenever possible. True?

And yet here we find ourselves to be both in doubt over this one?

My late wife was a Bahai, I didn't believe in Bahai but didn't particularly mistrust it.......... but a year or two of discussions and debates here have caused me to feel that Bahai is untrustworthy.

But nobody could accuse me of setting out to attack small religions....

 

[oldbadger]

@Vinayaka ......
I'll not be surprised at all if I read a post by a Bahai in the next year, here on RF, stating that the government of Iran has in recent years been executing lots of Bahais, chucking lots of Bahais in prisons, and even committing genocide on Bahais.... an incorrigible intention to continue with such misinformation regardless of anything that we have shown to them.

I'll go and get some breakfast....... it might calm my burst of frustrated anger.......

 

[paarsurrey]

Closer, but still not there. Originally I was thinking of attitudes and behavior of Baha’is all over the Internet, not just here. Now I’m thinking of popular attitudes and behavior in Internet discussions, in general. Discussions like this might be part of what will help change popular attitudes and behavior in Internet discussions, in ways that will help reduce religious animosities and hostilities, online and offline. It may or may not be of more interest to Baha’is because of its references to a message from the Universal House of Justice.

"Discussions like this might be part of what will help change popular attitudes and behavior in Internet discussions, in ways that will help reduce religious animosities and hostilities, online and offline." Unquote

One method to resolve such matters is that one provides quotes from the issues from one's core revealed Law-Book and the reasons also mentioned therein in brief. Then one could make the comparative study and evaluate different points of view.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Your knowledge about Aryans as with many other things is woefully inadequate. And you hardly have a desire or the capacity to learn about it. Aryans did not have any form of untouchability. Aryans did not drive the locals out of any city. They had marital relations with the indigenous people and mixed with them (in time, completely, so as not to leave even a sliver of difference). Untouchability came up much later, in the Gupta time. Sage Vedavyasa who compiled the Vedas and wrote Bramha Sutra and Bhagawat Purana, was a shudra, and so was his son, Vidura, a friend of Krishna and considered one of the wisest men in Hinduism. The Kauravas and Pandavas also had mixed blood. Their great-grandmother, wife of Emperor Shantanu, Queen Satyavati, was a local fisherman's daughter.

At least one is open to learning.
One may learn that 500 daulit people from a place in India have en-masse made conversion from Hinduism to Buddhism:

"SHIRASGAON, India—More than 500 low-caste Hindus filled the Veera Maidan, an open field at the edge of a dusty Maharashtra village, on a recent Sunday night. Neighbors openly gawked from porches as the throngs of people filed in, many dressed in symbolic white saris and kurtas. Under floodlights, they chanted: “I shall have no faith in Rama and Krishna who are believed to be incarnations of God nor shall I worship them. … I do not and shall not believe that Lord Buddha was the incarnation of Vishnu. … I shall hereafter lead my life according to the principles and teachings of the Buddha.” Instantly, there were 500 new Buddhists in India." Unquote
Indian Dalits Convert to Buddhism as a Political Protest - The Atlantic

Regards

 

[Aupmanyav]

One may learn that 500 daulit people from a place in India have en-masse made conversion from Hinduism to Buddhism:

We do not mind. Lord Buddha remains an avatara for us. There is no difference between Buddhism and Advaita Hinduism, it is only a name change. Call it this or call it that.

 

[Marcion]

At least one is open to learning.
One may learn that 500 daulit people from a place in India have en-masse made conversion from Hinduism to Buddhism:

I think these people did not change their religion but they simply rejected the Puranic mythology and the caste system.

 

[Aupmanyav]

One may learn that 500 daulit people from a place in India have en-masse made conversion from Hinduism to Buddhism:

And you must know that Baba Saheb Ambedkar, the leader of the dalits was approached by Christians as well as Muslims. But he vehemently rejected both these advances. He was not a fool. That is why he took the best option, convert to Buddhism (which is not far removed from Hinduism). Did they think that a rationalist leader like Baba Saheb will fall into the Abrahamic trap?

 

[Aupmanyav]

"Babasaheb Ambedkar was approached by many to convert to Islam and Christianity. Hindus did not want him to leave the fold of Hinduism. He was offered monetary rewards by organizations as well (including the Nizam of Hyderabad).

His words “if one converts to Christianity he ceases to be an Indian. The brotherhood in Islam is confined to the Believers; that is, only to Muslims. It cannot promote universal brother-hood. I will not convert to either of these religions . I will convert to one of the religions that are born here, in this country India. Of all the various Indic religions, Sanatan Dharma, Arya Samaj, Vaishnavism. Savaism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Veerasevism, etc. Buddhism appeals to me most . It is all humanity embracing . It has no castes. I will therefore convert to Buddhism and advise all my Dalit brothers to convert to Buddhism and avoid conversion ..“

Understand one thing - Babasaheb was an extremely learned individual. He wanted to pick a religion that mirrored his views on life and so chose Buddhism. He did not want to choose a religion out of spite of Hinduism."
https://www.quora.com/What-Ambedkar-has-to-say-about-Islam-Christianity

 

[paarsurrey]

Do you remember how you and I would argue heatedly over another smallish religion that door-knocks? I have always debated on behalf of religions whenever possible. True?

And yet here we find ourselves to be both in doubt over this one?

My late wife was a Bahai, I didn't believe in Bahai but didn't particularly mistrust it.......... but a year or two of discussions and debates here have caused me to feel that Bahai is untrustworthy.

But nobody could accuse me of setting out to attack small religions....

"but a year or two of discussions and debates here have caused me to feel that Bahai is untrustworthy." Unquote.

I also knew close to nothing material about Bahaullah and or Bahaism people, but from the interactions with them here in these forums I have experienced that they are not a straightforward religion. Straightforwardness is a moral quality that must be in a truthful religion. Right, please?

Regards
____________
Quran 033.070
"O ye who believe! Guard your duty to Allah, and speak words straight to the point;"
http://www.islam101.com/quran/QTP/QTP033.htm

 

[Trailblazer]

"but a year or two of discussions and debates here have caused me to feel that Bahai is untrustworthy." Unquote.

I also knew close to nothing material about Bahaullah and or Bahaism people, but from the interactions with them here in these forums I have experienced that they are not a straightforward religion. Straightforwardness is a moral quality that must be in a truthful religion. Right, please?

The Baha'i Faith is a straightforward religion but humans are all different so they tend to present it differently.
I tend to be very straightforward, even blunt, but others tend to want to protect peoples' feelings and stretch the truth by saying Baha'is agree with other religions when in fact we do not.

It is unjust to blame the Baha'i Faith for what its followers do. Humans are fallible and they all have different levels of knowledge and different personalities. That is why it is SO important to get your information about the Baha'i Faith from the original writings of Baha'u'llah, not from Baha'is.... We can answer your questions, but we might not always be right.

From the first pages of The Kitab-i-Iqan:

“IN THE NAME OF OUR LORD, THE EXALTED, THE MOST HIGH.

No man shall attain the shores of the ocean of true understanding except he be detached from all that is in heaven and on earth. Sanctify your souls, O ye peoples of the world, that haply ye may attain that station which God hath destined for you and enter thus the tabernacle which, according to the dispensations of Providence, hath been raised in the firmament of the Bayán.

The essence of these words is this: they that tread the path of faith, they that thirst for the wine of certitude, must cleanse themselves of all that is earthly—their ears from idle talk, their minds from vain imaginings, their hearts from worldly affections, their eyes from that which perisheth. They should put their trust in God, and, holding fast unto Him, follow in His way. Then will they be made worthy of the effulgent glories of the sun of divine knowledge and understanding, and become the recipients of a grace that is infinite and unseen, inasmuch as man can never hope to attain unto the knowledge of the All-Glorious, can never quaff from the stream of divine knowledge and wisdom, can never enter the abode of immortality, nor partake of the cup of divine nearness and favour, unless and until he ceases to regard the words and deeds of mortal men as a standard for the true understanding and recognition of God and His Prophets.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 3-4​

What it essentially says in bold italics at the end is that we will never discover the truth for ourselves if we use the deeds of mortal men as a standard by which to understand God and His Prophets.

In other words, we cannot measure truth according to what other people say, think or do.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I also knew close to nothing material about Bahaullah and or Bahaism people, but from the interactions with them here in these forums I have experienced that they are not a straightforward religion. Straightforwardness is a moral quality that must be in a truthful religion. Right

The result reflects the original intent. This is because we become what we were originally looking for, as God allows our heart to contain what we have chosen to guide it with.

If in our heart we long for and see this life as one people and One God, then this is what our heart will look for.

Peace be with you parrsurry.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I tend to be very straightforward, even blunt, but others tend to want to protect peoples' feelings and stretch the truth by saying Baha'is agree with other religions when in fact we do not.

The Principal taught by Baha'u'llah is the divine origin of all the Messengers, is from One source, God.

Thus a Baha'i is asked to look for that source in all Faiths and all people.

That is not protecting feelings, it is our challenge to do that in a way that promotes unity and not division.

Our example is Abdul'baha.

Regards Tony