Baha'is and suicide bombers: Why you should embrace them

This is what Baha'is narrate about Baha'u'llah's attitude towards those who wanted to harm him:

[FONT=&quot]"As He was approaching the dungeon, and old and decrepit woman was seen to emerge from the midst of the crowd, with a stone in her hand, eager to cast it at the face of Bahā’u’llāh. Her eyes glowed with a determination and fanaticism of which few women of her age were capable. Her whole frame shook with rage as she stepped forward and raised her hand to hurl her missile at Him. “By the Siyyidu’sh-Shuhada, I adjure you,” she pleaded, as she ran to overtake those into whose hands Bahā’u’llāh had been delivered, “give me a chance to fling my stone in his face!” “Suffer not this woman to be disappointed,” were Bahā’u’llāh’s words to His guards, as He saw her hastening behind Him. “Deny her not what she regards as a meritorious act in the sight of God.”" [/FONT]([FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]Nabil Zarandi, The Dawn-Breakers: Nabil’s Narrative of the Early Days of the Baha’i Revelation[/FONT][FONT=&quot], pp. 607–608).

[/FONT] [/FONT]Baha'u'llah tells the Guards to allow a woman to hit him in the head with a rock because she thinks it is a meritorious act in the sight of God!

Suicide Bombers too believe that their acts are meritorious in the sight of God, thus based on Baha'u'llah's reasoning (that I find very very absurd) Baha'is and the person of Baha'u'llah must embrace suicide bombers and allow them to blow them up because they must "deny them not what they regard as a meritorious act in the sight of God"!

:no:

Have you actually had someone that follows that faith tell you what you are saying, or are you just applying a belief that one should respect a person doing what they think of as right in the sight of God, and presenting that as an argument that they must believe such a thing in all situations -- apply no other belief that may be more applicable in a specific situation, no limit of absurdity, nor any right to self-defense?

As far as I know there's a big difference in the expected amount of damage one person could do with a single rock and the extent of damage, including the number of casualties, one could do with a bomb. IMO, they aren't even close to being the same thing.

I don't know much about that religion, but I do wonder when someone tells me that according to someone else's religion, there is an argument within it for destroying them --as if it ought to be considered OK. Is that the point you're trying to make, or is there another point I'm missing?

Now I understand your view on the matter-edit*

4consideration said:

Have you actually had someone that follows that faith tell you what you are saying, or are you just applying a belief that one should respect a person doing what they think of as right in the sight of God, and presenting that as an argument that they must believe such a thing in all situations -- apply no other belief that may be more applicable in a specific situation, no limit of absurdity, nor any right to self-defense?

As far as I know there's a big difference in the expected amount of damage one person could do with a single rock and the extent of damage, including the number of casualties, one could do with a bomb. IMO, they aren't even close to being the same thing.

I don't know much about that religion, but I do wonder when someone tells me that according to someone else's religion, there is an argument within it for destroying them --as if it ought to be considered OK. Is that the point you're trying to make, or is there another point I'm missing?

Click to expand...

The point I'm trying to make is this: Who in their sane mind would allow another person to throw a rock in their face just because the opponent believes it is "a meritorious act in the sight of God". If I came along with a rock and I wanted to smash it in your face would you allow me to do so just because maybe I thought doing this was a "meritorious act in the sight of God"? I wouldn't under no condition and I am sure no one else would too.

Not only that but look at their beliefs about self defense:

"[FONT=&quot]As a religious body, Baha’i’s have, at the express command of Bahā’u’llāh, entirely abandoned the use of armed force in their own interests, even for strictly defensive purposes. In Persia, many many thousands of the Bābīs and Baha’is have suffered cruel deaths because of their faith. In the early days of the Cause, the Bābīs on various occasions defended themselves and their families by the sword with great courage and bravery. Bahā’u’llāh, however, forbade this. [/FONT]" ([FONT=&quot]J. E. Esslemont, Bahā’u’llāh and the New Era, p. 169[/FONT])

See, how Baha'u'llah forbade his followers from defending themselves?

I see this: he allows people to physically abuse them and orders his followers not to defend themselves.

So no, no trolling intended.

spirit_of_dawn said:

The point I'm trying to make is this: Who in their sane mind would allow another person to throw a rock in their face just because the opponent believes it is "a meritorious act in the sight of God". If I came along with a rock and I wanted to smash it in your face would you allow me to do so just because maybe I thought doing this was a "meritorious act in the sight of God"? I wouldn't under no condition and I am sure no one else would too.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure I would not personally allow a person to throw a rock in my face, no matter what their reason. So, I understand that point and would agree that, according to the way I see it, such harmful action would be wrong.

Since I am unfamiliar with their scripture, though, I do wonder if the point of the specific quote might possibly be nearer in its intended meaning to something like that one does not usually know what motivates another, and that if one understands another may be doing something one sees as harmful, but under the desire to do what is good in the sight of God, that perhaps there is some basis for reconciliation between opposing parties -- if both parties have the desire for right action. That's just a guess on my part.

I find it a bit tough to discuss another religion, when the only players in the conversation, so far, are people that are not part of that religion.

My point though, is that even if they did believe what you say they believe, I don't see how that would equate to the point you seem to be making -- that they ought to embrace suicide bombers.

spirit_of_dawn said:

Not only that but look at their beliefs about self defense:

"[FONT=&quot]As a religious body, Baha’i’s have, at the express command of Bahā’u’llāh, entirely abandoned the use of armed force in their own interests, even for strictly defensive purposes. In Persia, many many thousands of the Bābīs and Baha’is have suffered cruel deaths because of their faith. In the early days of the Cause, the Bābīs on various occasions defended themselves and their families by the sword with great courage and bravery. Bahā’u’llāh, however, forbade this. [/FONT]" ([FONT=&quot]J. E. Esslemont, Bahā’u’llāh and the New Era, p. 169[/FONT])

See, how Baha'u'llah forbade his followers from defending themselves?

I see this: he allows people to physically abuse them and orders his followers not to defend themselves.

So no, no trolling intended.

Click to expand...

I don't personally hold a belief that self-defense is a negative thing, so I can't really relate on that issue to those that hold a belief self-defense is, or should be, forbidden.

I'm hoping there are some RF members that actually follow the religion that could shed some light on the issue, especially where they might see value in such a practice.

I see some possible connection to a somewhat similar teaching (that I am familiar with) from Jesus regarding turning the other cheek, but to me the value in that teaching is not about saying it is OK for a person to strike another, but (IMO) more as an instruction not to be the one to escalate a relatively harmless action (like an insult, a slap in the face) into a situation of real and serious violence, possibly involving bloodshed. I have seen many people take that story, and use it as an argument for why Christians should not defend themselves, and I guess I thought that might be where you were going -- that if they allowed a rock to be used, why not a bomb.

I guess I just don't see making a leap from a thought that if a person allows someone to do something violent to them and refrains from responding with violence, that they then ought to welcome and embrace someone initiating more extreme violence on them. To me, taking such an exception with someone else's religion sounds like one might be justifying the violent behavior of aggressors against them.

All religions produce this kind of irrational thinking.

On whose authority do you declare that these suicide bombers have the wrong interpretation? After all, religious people believe plenty of other crack pot things.

Who is to say that the bombers don't have the correct interpretation of the correct religion? Their beliefs are just as valid as any belief without evidence or reason, and depend on ancient books written in bronze age palestine by peasants who didn't even know the earth orbited the sun.

serp777 said:

All religions produce this kind of irrational thinking.

On whose authority do you declare that these suicide bombers have the wrong interpretation? After all, religious people believe plenty of other crack pot things.

Who is to say that the bombers don't have the correct interpretation of the correct religion? Their beliefs are just as valid as any belief without evidence or reason, and depend on ancient books written in bronze age palestine by peasants who didn't even know the earth orbited the sun.

Click to expand...

Which one of us are you talking to?

4consideration said:

Which one of us are you talking to?

Click to expand...

I was talking to every religious person here, particularly OP. It was not apparent from this thread that you believe in a particular religion, so I'm not sure wether this applies to you.

spirit_of_dawn said:

This is what Baha'is narrate about Baha'u'llah's attitude towards those who wanted to harm him:

[FONT=&quot]"As He was approaching the dungeon, and old and decrepit woman was seen to emerge from the midst of the crowd, with a stone in her hand, eager to cast it at the face of Bahā’u’llāh. Her eyes glowed with a determination and fanaticism of which few women of her age were capable. Her whole frame shook with rage as she stepped forward and raised her hand to hurl her missile at Him. “By the Siyyidu’sh-Shuhada, I adjure you,” she pleaded, as she ran to overtake those into whose hands Bahā’u’llāh had been delivered, “give me a chance to fling my stone in his face!” “Suffer not this woman to be disappointed,” were Bahā’u’llāh’s words to His guards, as He saw her hastening behind Him. “Deny her not what she regards as a meritorious act in the sight of God.”" [/FONT]([FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]Nabil Zarandi, The Dawn-Breakers: Nabil’s Narrative of the Early Days of the Baha’i Revelation[/FONT][FONT=&quot], pp. 607–608).

[/FONT] [/FONT]Baha'u'llah tells the Guards to allow a woman to hit him in the head with a rock because she thinks it is a meritorious act in the sight of God!

Suicide Bombers too believe that their acts are meritorious in the sight of God, thus based on Baha'u'llah's reasoning (that I find very very absurd) Baha'is and the person of Baha'u'llah must embrace suicide bombers and allow them to blow them up because they must "deny them not what they regard as a meritorious act in the sight of God"!

:no:

Click to expand...

What an absurd and skewed point of view, you have.

Jesus said 'Forgive them, for they know not what they do'.
Baha'ullah not doubt spoke with the same heart and spirit as Jesus.

But I wouldn't expect you to support anything that Baha'ullah said anyway.

serp777 said:

I was talking to every religious person here, particularly OP. It was not apparent from this thread that you believe in a particular religion, so I'm not sure wether this applies to you.

Click to expand...

OK. Fair enough.

Since I don't hold a belief there is "one true religion" and didn't bring up the things you mentioned, I guess you aren't talking to me.

Although, in my limited understanding of the religion that is the subject of the OP, it seems there is an inclusive belief that all religions are part of the unified nature of humanity, so I don't think this particular religion tends toward an exclusive "one true religion" sort of approach. (I don't know that for sure.) I don't see how your statement applies to them, either.

I'm not convinced Baha'is should embrace suicide bombers, as it the title of this thread. If you have an argument why anyone ought to embrace someone blowing them up, I'd like to hear it.

4consideration said:

OK. Fair enough.

Since I don't hold a belief there is "one true religion" and didn't bring up the things you mentioned, I guess you aren't talking to me.

Although, in my limited understanding of the religion that is the subject of the OP, it seems there is an inclusive belief that all religions are part of the unified nature of humanity, so I don't think this particular religion tends toward an exclusive "one true religion" sort of approach. (I don't know that for sure.) I don't see how your statement applies to them, either.

I'm not convinced Baha'is should embrace suicide bombers, as it the title of this thread. If you have an argument why anyone ought to embrace someone blowing them up, I'd like to hear it.

Click to expand...

I was never providing an argument for why anyone ought to embrace them.

My argument was that all religious beliefs are equally foolish, and no person has the authority to determine which interpretations are correct and or which religion is correct. That's the problem with religion and why there are suicide bombers to begin with--religious people obviously believe that they are apart of the one true religion, else why would they be apart of that religion? Religions are certainly mutually exclusive though, but id like to hear an argument for why you think they're not.

My statement applies to any religion. Any religious belief is just as ridiculous and baseless as the suicide bomber's belief that they are being good by blowing up people in the name of God because of the arrogant nature of faith--E.G. that they are the only ones who know God's true word.

serp777 said:

I was never providing an argument for why anyone ought to embrace them.

Click to expand...

I see that you did not provide an argument that anyone ought to embrace them. I was wrong to indicate that might be something you thought.

serp777 said:

My argument was that all religious beliefs are equally foolish, and no person has the authority to determine which interpretations are correct and or which religion is correct. That's the problem with religion and why there are suicide bombers to begin with--religious people obviously believe that they are apart of the one true religion, else why would they be apart of that religion? Religions are certainly mutually exclusive though, but id like to hear an argument for why you think they're not.

Click to expand...

You are welcome to your opinion about religion and religious beliefs. I don't see much open-mindedness in an opinion that all religious beliefs are equally foolish, because I don't think a single person has the time or mental capacity to actually know of and evaluate all religious beliefs, so I think such a position is based upon assumptions of having knowledge one cannot actually have.

But...that's not the subject of this thread, and I'm really not interested in derailing this thread in that direction.

As I mentioned, the religion in question on this thread is one I don't have much familiarity with, but I found Wikipedia helpful for some general information. This does not sound to me like a religion that presents itself as the one true religion, in a sense of all others being wrong:

"The Bahá'í Faith (Arabic: بهائية‎ Baha'iyyah) /bəˈhaɪ/[1]) is a monotheistic religion emphasizing the spiritual unity of all humankind.[2] Three core principles establish a basis for Bahá'í teachings and doctrine: the unity of God, that there is only one God who is the source of all creation; the unity of religion, that all major religions have the same spiritual source and come from the same God; and the unity of humanity, that all humans have been created equal, and that diversity of race and culture are seen as worthy of appreciation and acceptance.[3] According to the Bahá'í Faith's teachings, the human purpose is to learn to know and love God through such methods as prayer, reflection and being of service to humanity."
Bahá'í Faith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually, my only interest in this thread was that the title got my attention. The OP came across to me as an argument that another religion was wrong for holding a specific belief, and that due to that one belief ought to embrace suicide bombers. It struck me as a rather silly argument to say a religion is wrong, and since they are wrong they ought to be more wrong -- in a bigger way. A good part of the reason I didn't just read it and move on was that it was not a case of someone of a religion discussing their own beliefs, but that of someone of one religion making another religion wrong -- when no one of the religion in question has even been part of this conversation, as far as I know.

serp777 said:

My statement applies to any religion. Any religious belief is just as ridiculous and baseless as the suicide bomber's belief that they are being good by blowing up people in the name of God because of the arrogant nature of faith--E.G. that they are the only ones who know God's true word.

Click to expand...

If you really believe that all religious beliefs are equal, I don't see much point in a conversation about religious beliefs. So, I guess we might just want to agree to disagree there.

The way I see it, if someone holds certain religious beliefs that I disagree with but are about peace and not killing other people, and they go about their life in a peaceful manner, causing no harm to others and I compare that with a person holding religious beliefs that they think justifies them blowing up other people, I see a HUGE difference there. You may not.

oldbadger said:

What an absurd and skewed point of view, you have.

Jesus said 'Forgive them, for they know not what they do'.
Baha'ullah not doubt spoke with the same heart and spirit as Jesus.

But I wouldn't expect you to support anything that Baha'ullah said anyway.

Click to expand...

You can in no way compare these two situations. Jesus was speaking about forgiveness, Baha'u'llah is speaking about allowing someone to smash a rock in your face and in the second quote not defending yourself and allowing someone to cause you great physical harm and even kill you.

If you can't grasp the concept you might want to think about these two questions: Will you allow someone to smash a rock in your face because they think it is a good act? Will you lay down your weapon when being attacked with the intention of being killed?

Are you serious OP? Even if the leader of the faith did a foolish thing by rejecting armies for defence or war, the real blame should fall on the Persian persecutors. It's just that Bahaullah trusted the people around him too much and/or he wanted to propagate peaceful ideals. I have read that Muhammad was also persecuted in Mecca. Does that mean the Muslims should also embrace their enemies?

spirit_of_dawn said:

You can in no way compare these two situations. Jesus was speaking about forgiveness, Baha'u'llah is speaking about allowing someone to smash a rock in your face and in the second quote not defending yourself and allowing someone to cause you great physical harm and even kill you.

If you can't grasp the concept you might want to think about these two questions: Will you allow someone to smash a rock in your face because they think it is a good act? Will you lay down your weapon when being attacked with the intention of being killed?

Click to expand...

Jesus Christ even asked for the forgiveness of those who had crucified him. He even regrew the traitor Judas' ear when one of his disciples cut his off for his treachery. Jesus' case was worse. It lead to his death.

Let's be fair though if he had commanded his followers to defend themselves and their religion to the death you'd probably be ******** about that too.

spirit_of_dawn said:

You can in no way compare these two situations. Jesus was speaking about forgiveness, Baha'u'llah is speaking about allowing someone to smash a rock in your face and in the second quote not defending yourself and allowing someone to cause you great physical harm and even kill you.

If you can't grasp the concept you might want to think about these two questions: Will you allow someone to smash a rock in your face because they think it is a good act? Will you lay down your weapon when being attacked with the intention of being killed?

Click to expand...

Matthew 5:39
"But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."

Is that not basically the same thing?

And I'll ask you this, Did Jesus raise a hand or a weapon when they came to kill him?
Yet you, Or I, am meant to defend ourselves? Why would we?

Draupadi said:

Are you serious OP? Even if the leader of the faith did a foolish thing by rejecting armies for defence or war, the real blame should fall on the Persian persecutors. It's just that Bahaullah trusted the people around him too much and/or he wanted to propagate peaceful ideals. I have read that Muhammad was also persecuted in Mecca. Does that mean the Muslims should also embrace their enemies?

Click to expand...

No I am not serious about the suicide bomber issue. It was a deliberate exaggeration to show how far such orders can go. And I in now way intended to glorify any form of oppression.

I don't see any orders from Muhammad telling his followers to allow their abusers to do to them whatever they want. Not only in Islam, you don't see such orders in any other religion (except maybe some eastern beliefs).

Draupadi said:

Jesus Christ even asked for the forgiveness of those who had crucified him. He even regrew the traitor Judas' ear when one of his disciples cut his off for his treachery. Jesus' case was worse. It lead to his death.

Click to expand...

You are not getting the point. Your examples are all about forgiveness after a crime has been committed. This act has been advocated in most religions (Islam, Christianity, etc). What we see in Baha'u'llah's actions and orders are not related to forgiveness after crime: by his actions and his orders he is advocating a policy of allowing someone to commit a crime and not defending yourself. This does not fall under the category of forgiveness.

In my eyes it's the same. And as Thana had said rock or hand all the same. If you can generalise by exaggerating a flaw so can others.

no-body said:

Let's be fair though if he had commanded his followers to defend themselves and their religion to the death you'd probably be ******** about that too.

Click to expand...

Let's be fair, what you say is simply not the case.

Thana said:

Matthew 5:39
"But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."

Is that not basically the same thing?

And I'll ask you this, Did Jesus raise a hand or a weapon when they came to kill him?
Yet you, Or I, am meant to defend ourselves? Why would we?

Click to expand...

Are you comparing Jesus' order about being slapped in the face with Baha'u'llah's orders to his followers to lay down their arms even in strictly defensive situations? Or do you not believe in self-defense?

Draupadi said:

In my eyes it's the same. And as Thana had said rock or hand all the same. If you can generalise by exaggerating a flaw so can others.

Click to expand...

So you won't defend yourself if someone wants to kill you and you will lay down your arms?