Baha'i Haircut Law: Why Create a Law if your going to break it youself?

[Jumi]

You would be aware that it is offensive to a Baha'i to post the Picture of Baha'u'llah on the internet. It would be kind of you to remember that please.

I don't think he cares one bit how much he offends, it's become pretty clear that he's selling the ideas that are excuses for persecution of Bahai's in his country.

 

[spirit_of_dawn]

I don't think he cares one bit how much he offends.

If someone is offended by seeing their leaders picture then I have nothing else to say. I hear Baha'i statements that offend me, my religion, and my country on a daily basis, yet I don't act like a child and whine about it.

it's become pretty clear that he's selling the ideas that are excuses for persecution of Bahai's in his country.

The last resort of someone who can't respond to a simple criticism. It's obvious Baha'is cannot defend themselves and are instead resorting to shooting the messenger and playing the victim.

 

[Vouthon]

Surely, you meant "won't" rather than "can't" (unless they lacked an sharp edged tool).

Because creating rules is a means of control. The creators of those rules needn't have that means control themselves. They mean to control those that follow them.

As a lawyer by profession, I am not naturally disposed to viewing 'rules' per se as the enemy of individual freedom and self-fulfilment - rather I view rules, properly implemented, as the surest defender of these values.

Creating rules can be a means of control but it can also be the guarantor of liberty and equality, as in a rules-based, liberal democracy.

In such a political regime, the executive powers-that-be and the lawmakers are (at least in theory) bound by the same rules and penalties as the masses, thus helping to solidify civic fairness and impartiality. Even in hunter-gatherer tribal communities, customary law dictated - and to this day dictates among the last remaining tribes - a rigorously enforced code of moral norms that prevented dominance hierarchies from forming:

Inequality: Why egalitarian societies died out

FOR 5000 years, humans have grown accustomed to living in societies dominated by the privileged few. But it wasn’t always this way. For tens of thousands of years, egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies were widespread. And as a large body of anthropological research shows, long before we organised ourselves into hierarchies of wealth, social status and power, these groups rigorously enforced norms that prevented any individual or group from acquiring more status, authority or resources than others...

Anyone who made a bid for higher status or attempted to take more than their share would be ridiculed or ostracised for their audacity.

Suppressing our primate ancestors’ dominance hierarchies by enforcing these egalitarian norms was a central adaptation of human evolution, argues social anthropologist Christopher Boehm. It enhanced cooperation and lowered risk as small, isolated bands of humans spread into new habitats and regions across the world, and was likely crucial to our survival and success.
​

If those rules were absent, we would have reverted to survival of the fittest and a desperate struggle for resources. So, rules can actually constrain and limit the rapaciousness of the powerful, in the 'right' kind of regime.

On the topic of the thread, however, I must admit that it does strike me as somewhat peculiar that Baha'i leaders would consider it a good idea to place themselves outwith the bounds of the sacred laws mandated for ordinary believers (if this is indeed the case, although I suspect that the OP is likely not presenting a thoroughly balanced assessment). It doesn't strike me as a logically coherent model of governance or leadership, nor would it be likely to endear people to the cause.

Religious law has often acted in history as the initiator of the rule of law and limited government.

As the political scientist Francis Fukuyama argued in his 2011 book, The Origins of Political Order (chapter 10-11), with reference to the Brahmanic law in India and the canon law of medieval Catholic Europe:

The Origins of Political Order

Right around the time that states were first being formed in India, a fourfold division of social classes emerged known as varnas: Brahmins, who were priests; Kshatriyas, warriors; Vaishyas, merchants; and Sudras, everyone else not in the first three varnas (at that time, mostly peasants). From the standpoint of politics, this was an extremely important development because it separated secular and religious authority.

In China, there were priests and religious officials, like the superintendant of rites who officiated over the court’s numerous ritual observances and the emperor’s ancestral tombs. But they were all employees of the state and strictly subservient to royal authority. The priests had no independent corporate existence, making the Chinese state what would later be labeled “caesaropapist.”

In India, on the other hand, the Brahmins were a separate varna from the Kshatriyas and recognized as having a higher authority than the warriors. The Brahmins did not constitute a corporate group as well organized as the Catholic church in Europe, but they nonetheless enjoyed a comparable degree of moral authority independent of the power of the state. Moreover, the Brahmin varna was regarded as the guardian of the sacred law that existed prior to and independently of political rule.

Kings were thus regarded as subject to law written by others, not simply as the makers of law as in China. Thus in India, as in Europe, there was a germ of something that could be called the rule of law that would limit the power of secular political authority...

Out of these rituals sprang law, customary and oral at first, but eventually written down in law books like the Manava-Dharmasastra, or what the English called the Laws of Manu. Thus law, in the Indian tradition, did not spring from political authority as it did in China; it came from a source independent of and superior to the political ruler. Indeed, the Dharmasastra makes very clear that the king exists to protect the system of the varnas, and not the other way around.24

Even though India does not develop a modern state like China’s in this period, it does create the beginnings of a rule of law that limits the power and authority of the state in a way that has no counterpart in China. India’s persistent inability to concentrate political power in the manner of China is thus clearly rooted in Indian religion...India’s hierarchical, segmented religious and social system made the concentration of political power difficult.​

So, a "well-organized priestly class of Brahmins" constrained "the ability of states to concentrate power" by ensuring that kings were subject to the law, rather than above it.

See:


Hall – The Reformation Roots of Social Contract

"...M. Stanton Evans points out that the Magna Carta, as a medieval document, was a catalogue of liberties, rights, and safe-guards from statist intrusion. Expressive of the medieval theology of its time, this document was a benchmark of civic liberties and owed its origin to Christianity.

TURNING POINT #3: The Conciliar Movement

The Renaissance witnessed a simultaneous exhibition of the potency of free-trade, as well as of the tendency toward corruption in inferior kings. Both coalesced to support the Reformation era changes in economics and politics. "The thought and practice of the Middle Ages," notes Evans, "thus produced two related concepts limiting the rule of princes: the idea of their implied or explicit contract with their subjects; and the idea of the higher law above the state, represented in the prerogatives of the church. Kings who violated either could be resisted."

The theology of the Middle Ages bore much fruit in the political formulations of the next centuries. Even the early modernists could not escape the influence of the biblical categories maintained in the church fathers, Augustine, Aquinas, and the pre-reformers. Modern developments of the state are difficult to assess, if considered in the abstract or not against the backdrop of medieval and Reformation theologies of the state.

TURNING POINT #4: The Magisterial Reformers (1500-1550)

Medieval sources contained precedents for resistance, but Protestants became especially animated pursuing theological foundations for more democratic expressions. Holl summarized the major effects of Reformation thought as: "on the one hand, a deepening of the theory of the state; on the other, a definite limitations of its powers."...​

 

[Jumi]

If someone is offended by seeing their leaders picture then I have nothing else to say.

Aren't you Muslim?

I hear Baha'i statements that offend me, my religion, and my country on a daily basis, yet I don't act like a child and whine about it.

Really? Because that's exactly what it looks... you do make more threads about them than anyone here and they're all "whining" as you put it about things that don't seem that important.

The last resort of someone who can't respond to a simple criticism. It's obvious Baha'is cannot defend themselves and are instead resorting to shooting the messenger and playing the victim.

I'm not Baha'i. I would do the same if you were someone from Myanmar complaining and whining about Rohingyas in every post and there were tens of them.

I know your country treats them unjustly and any criticism that comes from you seems to parrot official line. There's an undertone that becomes quite evil when you think about the persecution. It's not hard to guess that you support the persecution.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I consider the Aqdas to be one of the weak issues of the Faith personally.

You may want to explore this in another thread, just tag me. I appreciate you may have moved on as well and have no interest in considering further, which is fine too.

 

[Dawnofhope]

On the topic of the thread, however, I must admit that it does strike me as somewhat peculiar that Baha'i leaders would consider it a good idea to place themselves outwith the bounds of the sacred laws mandated for ordinary believers (if this is indeed the case, although I suspect that the OP is likely not presenting a thoroughly balanced assessment). It doesn't strike me as a logically coherent model of governance or leadership, nor would it be likely to endear people to the cause.

The OP is aimed at denigrating the Baha’i Faith like the other seven threads the author has started on RF in the last 3 weeks. The OP is from Iran where Baha’is are heavily persecuted.

I’ve already addressed the major issues.

1/ The law regarding hair was part of a book of laws for a future civilisation. Many of the laws revealed were non-binding at the time, and remain so today.

2/ The book of laws (The Kitab-I-Iqan) were revealed by Bahá’u’lláh in 1873 when He was incarcerated inder harsh conditions in the prison city Akka (see post#18). It was hardly the time to be implementing any of the laws revealed yet alone those concerning trimming of hair.

3/ The two top photos of Bahá’u’lláh was taken 5 years before He wrote the laws and was about to be deported from Adrianople to Akka. Their inclusion is irrelevant and unnecessary.

4/ The other photos are not of Bahá’u’lláh and similarly irrelevant.

5/ The photos of Bahá’u’lláh are poor quality images of ones that Baha’is consider sacred so the intent in posting them is largely to offend Baha’is.

 

[Vouthon]

The OP is aimed at denigrating the Baha’i Faith like the other seven threads the author has started on RF in the last 3 weeks. The OP is from Iran where Baha’is are heavily persecuted.

I’ve already addressed the major issues.

1/ The law regarding hair was part of a book of laws for a future civilisation. Many of the laws revealed were non-binding at the time, and remain so today.

2/ The book of laws (The Kitab-I-Iqan) were revealed by Bahá’u’lláh in 1873 when He was incarcerated inder harsh conditions in the prison city Akka (see post#18). It was hardly the time to be implementing any of the laws revealed yet alone those concerning trimming of hair.

3/ The two top photos of Bahá’u’lláh was taken 5 years before He wrote the laws and was about to be deported from Adrianople to Akka. Their inclusion is irrelevant and unnecessary.

4/ The other photos are not of Bahá’u’lláh and similarly irrelevant.

5/ The photos of Bahá’u’lláh are poor quality images of ones that Baha’is consider sacred so the intent in posting them is largely to offend Baha’is.

Many thanks for this information, Adrian!

 

[oldbadger]

The laws in the Kitab-i-Iqan are considered a charter for a future civilisation. As such many of the laws were not applicable at the time they were written and many are not even applicable now. The laws you have listed, for example, are not yet applicable for Baha’is in the West. They may require clarification as to what exactly they mean.

With double-talk like this, nobody would ever know where they stood with regard to rules, limitations and laws.
This is crazy...... absolutely crazy.

And for Bahai to then claim that only males must keep a law, the gates are opening wide for the kind of gender bigotry that existed 70 years ago .......

Gender neutrality? This is so bad...................

 

[oldbadger]

The OP is aimed at denigrating the Baha’i Faith like the other seven threads the author has started on RF in the last 3 weeks. The OP is from Iran where Baha’is are heavily persecuted.

The Bahai writings are denigrating Bahai.
If the OP is telling lies, then report the OP.

1/ The law regarding hair was part of a book of laws for a future civilisation. Many of the laws revealed were non-binding at the time, and remain so today.

Do you honestly think that mankind wants to ever go back to gender prejudice and bigotry like this?
This is back to the days when men with long hair were unnacceptable..... it's dreadful, now or ever!

2/ The book of laws (The Kitab-I-Iqan) were revealed by Bahá’u’lláh in 1873 when He was incarcerated inder harsh conditions in the prison city Akka (see post#18). It was hardly the time to be implementing any of the laws revealed yet alone those concerning trimming of hair.

I don't believe this, Adrian..... I believe that Bahauallagh was most comfortable in Akka..... Was his wife or wives with him? Were his servants with him? Was he free?

3/ The two top photos of Bahá’u’lláh was taken 5 years before He wrote the laws and was about to be deported from Adrianople to Akka. Their inclusion is irrelevant and unnecessary.

Did Bahauallah choose to travel to akka? Was this for his safety?

4/ The other photos are not of Bahá’u’lláh and similarly irrelevant.

5/ The photos of Bahá’u’lláh are poor quality images of ones that Baha’is consider sacred so the intent in posting them is largely to offend Baha’is.

Fair enough.
Bahauallah's hair length is not the problem.
The fact that he has written laws that separate gender, and that these will be introduced one day is totally unacceptable.

I've never heard such nonsense before.

You can't accuse the OP of being bad if the OP is being true.

 

[oldbadger]

Spin it as you will. Bahá’u’lláh spent the last 40 years of His life in exile and in prison. Nine of those years were in Akka where conditions resulted in the deaths of three members of the companions due to poor sanitary conditions early during their incarceration. It was famously rumoured the air was so foul smelling that a bird flying overhead would plummet to its death on account of the stench. Those were the conditions of Akka where the Aqdas was revealed. I doubt if all the prisoners going to the local barbershop was either practical or a priority.

I don't think that the last 40 years of Bahauallah's life were in prison....... I'll be looking in to this.

Your story about passing birds is as mythical as the Ark, I reckon.

Sanitary conditions in Buckingham Palace weren't brilliant back then! Did you know that Prince Albert died of Typhoid?

 

[oldbadger]

Again false statements and lame excuses. Baha'u'llah's last 13 years were spent in a fancy mansion surrounded with Gardens and not in some rotten Prison. From Wikipedia citing Baha'i sources:

The final years of Bahá'u'lláh's life (1879–1892) were spent in the Mansion of Bahjí, just outside Acre, even though he was still formally a prisoner of the Ottoman Empire. During his years in Acre and Bahjí, since `Abdu'l-Bahá, his eldest son, had taken care of the organizational work, Bahá'u'lláh was able to devote his time to writing, and he produced many volumes of work including the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, his book of laws.[50]
​

I can't believe to what lengths you are willing to go to try to make it seem impossible that someone could have easily gotten a haircut.

Bahais do need to read your threads, because many might not know that much about the faith that they have chosen.

I am also quite sure that Bahauallah lived comfortably and freely with his family and servants.

 

[oldbadger]

Of all the 'not following the rules' situations on this topic, I think the fact that the grandson didn't have a will, when clearly it was a rule (at the very least highly recommended) causes the most confusion for many. Hair, meh..

I am totally amazed about all this........
This is like going back to the days when men and women had to conform to strict dress and appearance codes.

And to claim that it will be introduced in the future is enough reason to wonder what else will be enacted, once Bahai has gained control of the World with its World Order.

 

[Vinayaka]

If someone is offended by seeing their leaders picture then I have nothing else to say. I hear Baha'i statements that offend me, my religion, and my country on a daily basis, yet I don't act like a child and whine about it.

The last resort of someone who can't respond to a simple criticism. It's obvious Baha'is cannot defend themselves and are instead resorting to shooting the messenger and playing the victim.

The Baha'i belief is that all previous religions needed changing, and were wrong, and they openly claim it. Not offensive to me personally because I can take it, but it certainly would be offensive to a great many people. And then comes the doublespeak ... but it's not offensive' as if them saying that has some significance to people who legitimately feel offended. So in many ways it's all brought on by themselves, people respond in kind when offended. (You can see it here with anti-Muslim stuff as a response to you)

If you want to see some real offensive stuff, there are few enthusiastic ex-Baha'i on the subject, because they were personally hurt ... divorce, children leaving, gay kid, no support from community, and more.

Of course the solution is easy, and that's too not judge anyone else's religion at all, and just leave it alone. But that's taking the higher ground.

 

[Vinayaka]

I am totally amazed about all this........
This is like going back to the days when men and women had to conform to strict dress and appearance codes.

And to claim that it will be introduced in the future is enough reason to wonder what else will be enacted, once Bahai has gained control of the World with its World Order.

"Some time in the future" is used as an excuse for procrastination, and not getting things done. It's done by Baha'i with regard to vegetarianism. In reality, it just doesn't work. If it's your tun to cook, and the spouse asks, "When's supper?" you can't say 'Some time in the future.' without risking retribution like ." 'Dessert' is some time in the future too."

For those who haven't yet had this realisation ... The future is now!

 

[Trackdayguy]

As I have said in other posts, people can believe whatever they want, even though it might be laughable in my opinion. Surely all this nonsense talk about how long someone's hair is or can their face been seen on TV is...... well I've leave you to decide that.

My concern is not introducing people to another religion with all their nonsensical rules but helping folks see the magic of the world we live in, understand that there is a spiritual side to everybody.

Dont religious people get why the masses have little or no interest

 

[spirit_of_dawn]

Aren't you Muslim?

If I had picture of Prophet Muhammad, I would definitely hang it on the wall in my house or use it as my avatar.

Really? Because that's exactly what it looks... you do make more threads about them than anyone here and they're all "whining" as you put it about things that don't seem that important.

If they aren't important then ignore them.

I'm not Baha'i. I would do the same if you were someone from Myanmar complaining and whining about Rohingyas in every post and there were tens of them.
I know your country treats them unjustly and any criticism that comes from you seems to parrot official line. There's an undertone that becomes quite evil when you think about the persecution. It's not hard to guess that you support the persecution.

I don't support the persecution of anyone Baha'i or non-Baha'i. However you seem to be supporting the Baha'i tactic of shooting the messenger and playing the victim.

 

[oldbadger]

"Some time in the future" is used as an excuse for procrastination, and not getting things done. It's done by Baha'i with regard to vegetarianism. In reality, it just doesn't work. If it's your tun to cook, and the spouse asks, "When's supper?" you can't say 'Some time in the future.' without risking retribution like ." 'Dessert' is some time in the future too."

For those who haven't yet had this realisation ... The future is now!

I guess that Bahai would not understand, but when a controlling body starts telling folks how they must cut their hair, or dress, this is indicative of a Control-Freak type of Empire that would be worth striking back against.

Individual freedom and identity, once taken away, leaves humanity without its most valuable freedom.

That's the reason for my 'shock 'n' horror' about this.

They will rant and rave at @spirit_of_dawn making all manner of accusations, but what they cannot understand is that this is all debatable...... if they have any answers of value, that is.

 

[Vinayaka]

If they aren't important then ignore them.

I don't support the persecution of anyone Baha'i or non-Baha'i. However you seem to be supporting the Baha'i tactic of shooting the messenger and playing the victim.

People seem to have forgotten there is an ignore button, and choose to get upset or all defensive instead of just calmly and rationally countering arguments. I'm still glad you're here to present the other side 'from the ground' so to speak. Western media is open to bias. I read Al Jazeera occasionally just to get some perspective. It was nice living in Mauritius where Europe and India were the primary influences, rather than the US, which we in Canada get so much of.

 

[Jumi]

If I had picture of Prophet Muhammad, I would definitely hang it on the wall in my house or use it as my avatar.

Interesting. I did know that Shia often have pictures of religious leaders, didn't know Muhammad was included.

If they aren't important then ignore them.

Didn't know the haircut law was important, but I'm not an expert.

I don't support the persecution of anyone Baha'i or non-Baha'i. However you seem to be supporting the Baha'i tactic of shooting the messenger and playing the victim.

You do seem to be the anti-Baha'i messenger and from a country that persecutes them, so you're quite unlucky in that respect. You also don't seem to care much about the Baha'is replies.

 

[spirit_of_dawn]

Interesting. I did know that Shia often have pictures of religious leaders, didn't know Muhammad was included.

Why would Muhammad be and exception?

You also don't seem to care much about the Baha'is replies.

If the response is logical I do care, however if a response doesn't make sense (in any debate with anybody), why should anyone care?