Baha'is and a new form of discrimination?

[spirit_of_dawn]

According to the first verse of the Most Holy Baha'i book, if you do not Believe in Baha'u'llah and do not follow his orders you are astray even if you perform every righteous of deed:

"The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition of Him Who is the Dayspring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause and the world of creation. Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof hath gone astray, though he be the author of every righteous deed." (Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i Aqdas, verse 1)​

So basically you are never considered a guided person unless you become a Baha'i. However the citizens of Israel how no right to become Baha'is unless they get out of the country and never return back:

"The Universal House of Justice has received your email message dated 29 June 1995 and we have been asked to respond.

You have asked how the policy of not teaching Israelis applies in the situation in which you have contact with an Israeli via an "interactive relay chat" (IRC) connection. The House of Justice has not asked the friends to avoid contact with Israelis. When you discover that a person you are in contact with via IRC is an Israeli, you should feel free to maintain friendly contact, but you should not teach the Faith to him. If he has already developed a personal interest in the Faith and seeks more information, you should refer him to the Offices of the Bahá'í World Centre in Haifa.

For your information, the people in Israel have access to factual information about the Faith, its history and general principles. Books concerning the Faith are available in libraries throughout Israel, and Israelis are welcome to visit the Shrines and the surrounding gardens. However, in keeping with a policy that has been strictly followed since the days of Bahá'u'lláh, Bahá'ís do not teach the Faith in Israel. Likewise, the Faith is not taught to Israelis abroad if they intend to return to Israel. When Israelis ask about the Faith, their questions are answered, but this is done in a manner which provides factual information without stimulating further interest.​

1. 
   With loving Bahá'í greetings,
   Department of the Secretaria" (Israel, Teaching the Faith in)

So basically, Baha'u'llah and Baha'is seem to be discriminating against Israelis in the most important of all matters (eternal salvation and guidance) and an Israeli can never be guided and is always astray as long as he refuses to leave Israel and convert to Baha'ism, vowing never ever to return to his homeland for permanent residence.

If you discriminate based on sex it is called sexism and if based on race it is called racism. I would like to introduce a new concept here called geographism, where discrimination occurs based on the geographical location that you live in. So am I wrong to assume Baha'is are geographists based on the above reasoning?

 

[YmirGF]

I'm curious why they don't "teach the faith" in Israel.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

According to the first verse of the Most Holy Baha'i book, if you do not Believe in Baha'u'llah and do not follow his orders you are astray even if you perform every righteous of deed:

"The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition of Him Who is the Dayspring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause and the world of creation. Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof hath gone astray, though he be the author of every righteous deed." (Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i Aqdas, verse 1)​

So basically you are never considered a guided person unless you become a Baha'i. However the citizens of Israel how no right to become Baha'is unless they get out of the country and never return back:

"The Universal House of Justice has received your email message dated 29 June 1995 and we have been asked to respond.

You have asked how the policy of not teaching Israelis applies in the situation in which you have contact with an Israeli via an "interactive relay chat" (IRC) connection. The House of Justice has not asked the friends to avoid contact with Israelis. When you discover that a person you are in contact with via IRC is an Israeli, you should feel free to maintain friendly contact, but you should not teach the Faith to him. If he has already developed a personal interest in the Faith and seeks more information, you should refer him to the Offices of the Bahá'í World Centre in Haifa.

For your information, the people in Israel have access to factual information about the Faith, its history and general principles. Books concerning the Faith are available in libraries throughout Israel, and Israelis are welcome to visit the Shrines and the surrounding gardens. However, in keeping with a policy that has been strictly followed since the days of Bahá'u'lláh, Bahá'ís do not teach the Faith in Israel. Likewise, the Faith is not taught to Israelis abroad if they intend to return to Israel. When Israelis ask about the Faith, their questions are answered, but this is done in a manner which provides factual information without stimulating further interest.​

1. 
   With loving Bahá'í greetings,
   Department of the Secretaria" (Israel, Teaching the Faith in)

So basically, Baha'u'llah and Baha'is seem to be discriminating against Israelis in the most important of all matters (eternal salvation and guidance) and an Israeli can never be guided and is always astray as long as he refuses to leave Israel and convert to Baha'ism, vowing never ever to return to his homeland for permanent residence.

If you discriminate based on sex it is called sexism and if based on race it is called racism. I would like to introduce a new concept here called geographism, where discrimination occurs based on the geographical location that you live in. So am I wrong to assume Baha'is are geographists based on the above reasoning?

The first part just says people who do good deeds are favorable to god and those who do not are called righteous (prideful) are not doing for god.

Descrimination? The only thing I know so far that is close is that all are from god but only bahai are under bahai laws. It's better than christians were all is from god and we are subject to gods laws because of it.

 

[Shad]

It is a political move considering Israel didn't exist in the relevant time.

 

[spirit_of_dawn]

It is a political move considering Israel didn't exist in the relevant time.

Baha'is seem to disagree that Israel didn't exist back then:

"in keeping with a policy that has been strictly followed since the days of Bahá'u'lláh, Bahá'ís do not teach the Faith in Israel."

 

[Shad]

Baha'is seem to disagree that Israel didn't exist back then:

"in keeping with a policy that has been strictly followed since the days of Bahá'u'lláh, Bahá'ís do not teach the Faith in Israel."

They can disagree all they want. It just means they ignore history.

 

[Sanzbir]

I'm curious why they don't "teach the faith" in Israel.

There aren't a whole lot of details on the piece, but all available resources suggest that it is a result of a deal with the Ottoman Empire, as there are similar advisory statements against teaching Ottoman subjects.

The prohibition isn't Israel, specifically, but the region of Sham, as it was defined in the Ottoman times. The term Israel appears to be used in order to modernize it and make it more understandable for people in the west.

What it looks like is that during the period of the Faith's exile that the Ottomans wanted to (as they did) exile the adherents to Akka (Acre) in Sham.

However, historically several times when the Babi movement was moved around Persia by the Persian government, the religion only spread.

Likely, then, some sort of agreement was made, probably involving the Baha'is being sent to Akka and being allowed to continue to exist in exchange for not teaching the faith in the region in which they were exiled.

My guess would be, then, that the Baha'i UHJ continues to keep to this agreement, even if the nation with which the agreement was made is long dead, because they want to keep the honesty and word of the Prophet. IE, we made the agreement, and we'll keep our word even if the people we made that promise with are long gone and the agreement was likely extracted under duress.

What it boils down to is that the Prophet Baha'u'llah instructed his followers to not teach in the region of Sham, probably as the result of some condition imposed by the Ottomans, and that instruction is maintained because once you make an agreement you adhere to it.

Edit: Oh, and there's a second piece to this to note. That being if someone in Israel converts to the Baha'i Faith, they are advised to leave Israel. This is due to a separate decree by Shoghi Effendi later in the Faith, the gist of which being : ~We can see how bloody the future Israel/Palestine conflict is going to be, so apart from the people maintaining our shrines we are leaving the region for more peaceful lands~.

This second rule of Baha'is leaving Israel is separate from the Baha'i prohibition on teaching in the region of Sham.

 

[Sanzbir]

It is a political move considering Israel didn't exist in the relevant time.

It's not the country it is the region. The national structure did not exist at the time, but the land itself certainly existed as an Ottoman territory.

 

[spirit_of_dawn]

There aren't a whole lot of details on the piece, but all available resources suggest that it is a result of a deal with the Ottoman Empire, as there are similar advisory statements against teaching Ottoman subjects.

The prohibition isn't Israel, specifically, but the region of Sham, as it was defined in the Ottoman times. The term Israel appears to be used in order to modernize it and make it more understandable for people in the west.

What it looks like is that during the period of the Faith's exile that the Ottomans wanted to (as they did) exile the adherents to Akka (Acre) in Sham.

However, historically several times when the Babi movement was moved around Persia by the Persian government, the religion only spread.

Likely, then, some sort of agreement was made, probably involving the Baha'is being sent to Akka and being allowed to continue to exist in exchange for not teaching the faith in the region in which they were exiled.

My guess would be, then, that the Baha'i UHJ continues to keep to this agreement, even if the nation with which the agreement was made is long dead, because they want to keep the honesty and word of the Prophet. IE, we made the agreement, and we'll keep our word even if the people we made that promise with are long gone and the agreement was likely extracted under duress.

What it boils down to is that the Prophet Baha'u'llah instructed his followers to not teach in the region of Sham, probably as the result of some condition imposed by the Ottomans, and that instruction is maintained because once you make an agreement you adhere to it.

You theory fails to explain why Israel is singled out.

 

[Shad]

It's not the country it is the region. The national structure did not exist at the time, but the land itself certainly existed as an Ottoman territory.

Israeli is not a regional identification. Israel is not a regional identification.

 

[spirit_of_dawn]

It's not the country it is the region. The national structure did not exist at the time, but the land itself certainly existed as an Ottoman territory.

The letter I quoted specifically mentions Israel, not Sham (the leviant) as you claim, which encompasses multiple countries.

 

[Sanzbir]

Israeli is not a regional identification. Israel is not a regional identification.

That's why the term used is Sham.

 

[Shad]

This second rule of Baha'is leaving Israel is separate from the Baha'i prohibition on teaching in the region of Sham.

The agreement is null when one party not longer exists.

 

[Sanzbir]

The letter I quoted specifically mentions Israel, not Sham (the leviant) as you claim, which encompasses multiple countries.

That's because the letter was written in response to a question specifically asking why the Baha'is do not teach in Israel. Context matters in all things.

 

[Shad]

That's why the term used is Sham.

Sham covers more territory than merely Israel. The change is a political one as it identifies a nation-state and citizens of that states. Not Hebrews, not Jews.

 

[Shad]

That's because the letter was written in response to a question specifically asking why the Baha'is do not teach in Israel. Context matters in all things.

Except you said that was based on prior conditions .Conditions which are no longer applicable. Does Persia exist? Nope. Does the Ottoman Empire exist? Nope.

 

[Dawnofhope]

OK. Another OP designed to promote misunderstandings and distortions about the Baha'i Faith.

According to the first verse of the Most Holy Baha'i book, if you do not Believe in Baha'u'llah and do not follow his orders you are astray even if you perform every righteous of deed:

"The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition of Him Who is the Dayspring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause and the world of creation. Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof hath gone astray, though he be the author of every righteous deed." (Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i Aqdas, verse 1)
So basically you are never considered a guided person unless you become a Baha'i.

Clearly millions of people have been rightly guided by God before he Baha'i Faith came into existence during the mid-nineteenth century and continue to do so.

God is a God of justice, not injustice.

Further you don't even need to be a Baha'i to be considered a Baha'i, and one such as myself who has been a Baha'i for years may not be considered a Baha'i at all.

“When asked on one occasion: “What is a Bahá’í?” ‘Abdu’l-Bahá replied: “To be a Bahá’í simply means to love all the world; to love humanity and try to serve it; to work for universal peace and universal brotherhood.” On another occasion He defined a Bahá’í as “one endowed with all the perfections of man in activity.” In one of His London talks He said that a man may be a Bahá’í even if He has never heard the name of Bahá’u’lláh. He added:—
The man who lives the life according to the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh is already a Bahá’í. On the other hand, a man may call himself a Bahá’í for fifty years, and if he does not live the life he is not a Bahá’í. An ugly man may call himself handsome, but he deceives no one, and a black man may call himself white, yet he deceives no one, not even himself.

One who does not know God’s Messengers, however, is like a plant growing in the shade. Although it knows not the sun, it is, nevertheless, absolutely dependent on it. The great Prophets are spirits suns, and Bahá’u’lláh is the sun of this “day” in which we live. The suns of former days have warmed and vivified the world, and had those suns not shone, the earth would not be cold and dead, but it is the sunshine of today that alone can ripen the fruits which the suns of former days have kissed into life.”
Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, pp. 71-72

Only God can fully understand the heart of another and has the authority to judge souls.

 

[Sanzbir]

The agreement is null when one party not longer exists.

As for the matter of not teaching in Sham: that's a matter of interpretation I suppose. It would depend on the wording of the agreement, which I don't think anyone has.

If you promise someone, for example, that you will never ever do "X", and then that person dies and you do "X", was your initial statement that you would never do that thing honest?? I would say no, but I can see how someone might think otherwise.

As for the separate matter regarding leaving Israel: The conflict the Faith sought to avoid is still very much an active situation, so the reason for leaving stands.

 

[Sanzbir]

Except you said that was based on prior conditions .Conditions which are no longer applicable. Does Persia exist? Nope. Does the Ottoman Empire exist? Nope.

I said prior agreements.

Again if you promise "I will never go to Canada", and you go to Canada after the person you made that promise to dies, I personally wouldn't think the initial promise was honest. I'd argue such an example as that would be a blatant lie if you were to go to Canada even if the promise was made to a dead person.

I don't think anyone knows the specific word of the agreement, but I somehow doubt a theocratic empire would make a demand to the effect "Promise us you will never teach your religion in this region as long as our nation continues to exist" when instead they could instead simply demand "Promise us you will never teach your religion in this region." Why wouldn't the Ottoman government demand the simpler one??

 

[Dawnofhope]

I'm curious why they don't "teach the faith" in Israel.

Baha'is have our world centre and main Holy places in Israel. The Israeli government provides us freedom to be in Israel but has requested we do not teach the faith in Israel. Baha'is are required to be trustworthy and honour any agreements we have with governments.

 

[Shad]

As for the matter of not teaching in Sham: that's a matter of interpretation I suppose. It would depend on the wording of the agreement, which I don't think anyone has.

If you promise someone, for example, that you will never ever do "X", and then that person dies and you do "X", was your initial statement that you would never do that thing honest?? I would say no, but I can see how someone might think otherwise.

As for the separate matter regarding leaving Israel: The conflict the Faith sought to avoid is still very much an active situation, so the reason for leaving stands.

This only demonstrates how easily your organization was duped by an individual. You hold to a contract made by a monarch long dead in both body and as a political entity that lasts for all time. All despite there are modern nations which protect the rights of religious freedom. Freedoms which are vastly more favorable to your religion than you could dream off under the Ottomans. Nation which are not even close to be a successor state, such as Turkey, of the Ottomans. Hilarious.