The irony in the Baha'i faith

[Aupmanyav]

So, Mahdi Bab is the beginning of the Bahai story. Like the others, loot, kill. Some were able to do it, others wear the mask of universal brotherhood. Even Mohammad was a pacifist till he reached Medina, after that he changed. Thanks for the information.

 

[Jim]

Consorting is one thing, but once a Baha'i has put an OP out there, then the Baha'i has to defend or prove their position. ... it going to lead to some antagonism between the different religions and the Baha'is. So, how should Baha'is be handling this, because what most of them are doing is not working.

What’s not working?

I want to try to explain my thoughts about that, how it looks to me. I see what looks to me like some people continually promoting and defending some beliefs that they call “the Baha’i Faith,” sometimes in a manner which looks a little devious and self-deceiving to me, in some forums where religions are commonly considered, rightly in my view, as being irreconcilably opposed to each other and to science. Baha’i scriptures seem to me to be saying that they update and replace all previous revelations, and to repeatedly and harshly denounce anyone who refuses to recognize the the authenticity of their prophets. For those and other reasons, rightly or wrongly, discussions of those beliefs invariably stir up animosities and hostilities. No matter how hard they try to stay friendly, the people promoting the beliefs that they call “the Baha’i Faith” repeatedly fail to do so.

If the purpose of all that is to promote friendliness and fellowship between people of all religions, then it seems reasonable to me to say that it is not working in these forums.

(edited to correct a typo)

 

[Vinayaka]

If the purpose of all that is to promote friendliness and fellowship between people of all religions, then it seems reasonable to me to say that it is not working.m in these forums.

You're right that it's not working. In addition it seems to be that there is contentment that it's not working.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well, you consider Bible and Quran as your holy books, and there is no other history for Mohammad than the Hadith, the victors account. What I am saying is from those books.

You see, Adrian, by claiming to be the successors of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, you take on the blame of the misdeeds of all of them in additions to the misdeeds of Bab, in many peoples view.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I want to try to explain my thoughts about that, how it looks to me. I see what looks to me like some people continually promoting and defending some beliefs that they call “the Baha’i Faith,” sometimes in a manner which looks a little devious and self-deceiving to me, in some forums where religions are commonly considered, rightly in my view, as being irreconcilably opposed to each other and to science. Baha’i scriptures seem to me to be saying that they update and replace all previous revelations, and to repeatedly and harshly denounce anyone who refuses to recognize the the authenticity of their prophets. For those and other reasons, rightly or wrongly, discussions of those beliefs invariably stir up animosities and hostilities. No matter how hard they try to stay friendly, the people promoting the beliefs that they call “the Baha’i Faith” repeatedly fail to do so.

If the purpose of all that is to promote friendliness and fellowship between people of all religions, then it seems reasonable to me to say that it is not working in these forums.

(edited to correct a typo)

Thanks for your comment Jim. I'm contemplating the value and limitations of discussion groups like this where religion is discussed and debated. I know it is something you have thought a great deal about.

You say the purpose of forums such as these were to promote friendliness and fellowship. If we look at the mission statement for this particular forum it reads:

As a community of diverse cultural and religious backgrounds, our aim is to provide a civil environment, informative, respectful and welcoming where people of diverse beliefs can discuss, compare and debate religion while engaging in fellowship with one another.

RF Rules

So it appears the purpose we both hope for is to some extent supported by the RF Missions statement. It is excellent to have such an explicit and clear statement and regardless of how difficult that mission may be, it is something that we can all keep coming back to.

Baha'is based on the words of Bahá’u’lláh also have a desire of consorting with peoples of all faiths in a spirit of love and fellowship..

It appears logical that being a Baha'i and participating on a forum like this with such an explicit and noble goal is a good fit. Perhaps that is why some Baha'is come to RF and end up staying around for a while.

As we are debating and discussing religion that as we know has the potential to be extremely divisive and contentious, there are other considerations. High on the list must be the manner in which we conduct ourselves. That of course applies to us all, not just the Baha'is. I can't see that it is possible for two people to have a good relationship if the intent of friendliness and fellowship is one sided. Can you? Clearly the Baha'is, myself have a lot of work to do to be better people. However if two people talk and only one person wants to make an effort to be friends, how can it work?

Perhaps the real irony is how is it possible for people of different faiths who discuss and debate religion to also have friendliness and fellowship?

There are many other considerations which I may come back to later. Thanks again for your response.

 

[Vouthon]

So, just like Jesus you want people to have eyes to see the way you see it and ears to hear the way you hear it?

Arguably, if we're talking New Testament exegesis here, that's surely only one side of the coin.

The other side is Jesus challenging His hearers: “Why do you not, on your own initiative, judge what is right?” (Luke 12:57). That's an appeal to think for oneself. (The phrase translated “for yourselves/on your own initiative” (ἀφʼἑαυτῶν aph' heautōn). St. Paul encouraged the same - in what is considered by scholars to be his first letter and the earliest extant Christian text - asking his followers to apply testability/a degree of empiricism: "Test all things; hold fast only to what is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

Judge for yourself what's right, test everything and see that it's good first, before considering something worthy of belief. What's wrong with that?

St Anselm’s phrase, "faith seeking understanding" (fides quaerens intellectum) has been the touchstone for many Christians since the Patristic era, not just "faith" (i.e. fideism).

In De Mineralibus Saint Albertus Magnus (1206–1280), the teacher of Saint Thomas Aquinas and forefather of scholasticism, known as the "Universal Doctor" by Catholics, wrote:

"The aim of natural science is not simply to accept the statements of others, but to investigate the causes that are at work in nature. In studying nature we have not to inquire how God the Creator may, as He freely wills, use His creatures to work miracles and thereby show forth His power: we have rather to inquire what Nature with its immanent causes can naturally bring to pass" (De Miner., lib. II, tr. ii, i)

(alternative translation from the Latin: ""Science does not consist simply in believing what we are told, but in inquiring into the nature of things.")
​

To take one example, St. Albertus challenged popular superstition at the time that comets were omens or portents: "a comet", he said, "has a natural cause not dependent on anything else; so it seems that it has no relation to someone's death or to war" (De Cometis, "On Comets").

As the Stanford Encyclopedia explains about these medieval churchmen:


Scientific Method (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

During the medieval period, figures such as Albertus Magnus (1206–1280), Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), Robert Grosseteste (1175–1253), Roger Bacon (1214/1220–1292), William of Ockham (1287–1347), Andreas Vesalius (1514–1546), Giacomo Zabarella (1533–1589) all worked to clarify the kind of knowledge which could be obtained by observation and induction, the source of justification of induction, and the best rules for its application.[2] Many of their contributions we now think of as essential to science (see also Laudan 1968)...

During the Scientific Revolution these various strands of argument, experiment, and reason were forged into a dominant epistemic authority...​

The Greco-Roman, Christian, Islamic and Hindu intellectual traditions have all made their contributions in this respect:


Relationship between religion and science - Wikipedia

Most scientific (and technical) innovations prior to the scientific revolution were achieved by societies organized by religious traditions. Ancient pagan, Islamic, and Christian scholars pioneered individual elements of the scientific method. Roger Bacon, often credited with formalizing the scientific method, was a Franciscan friar.[10] Hinduism has historically embraced reason and empiricism, holding that science brings legitimate, but incomplete knowledge of the world and universe. Confucian thought, whether religious or non-religious in nature, has held different views of science over time. Most 21st-century Buddhists view science as complementary to their beliefs. While the classification of the material world by the ancient Indians and Greeks into air, earth, fire and water was more philosophical, and proto-scientists like Anaxagoras impiously questioned certain popular views of Greek divinities, medieval Middle Eastern scholars used practical and experimental observation to classify materials.[11]​

 

[Dawnofhope]

You see, Adrian, by claiming to be the successors of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, you take on the blame of the misdeeds of all of them in additions to the misdeeds of Bab, in many peoples view.

You forgot to mention Buddhism and Hinduism

 

[CG Didymus]

This is a religious forum where topics about religion are discussed and debated. Am I missing something?

I thought the point was that sometimes it looks like some people who say that they believe in friendliness and fellowship with people of all religions are more interested in arguing and debating with them, promoting and defending their own beliefs in a context where it can only be understood as discounting the beliefs of others,

If the purpose of all that is to promote friendliness and fellowship between people of all religions, then it seems reasonable to me to say that it is not working in these forums.

You're right that it's not working. In addition it seems to be that there is contentment that it's not working.

Yes, something is missing Adrian, consorting with friendliness is hard to do for a religion that believes all the other religions have had their day. It's hard for a religion that tells the people in the other religions that their religious leaders have added traditions into the beliefs that were there originally. It's hard for a religion that tells people that their religious leaders have misinterpreted their own Scriptures... that is the Baha'is that have the true interpretation of what those Scriptures say and mean. Yeah, so how do you tell people in other religions that they are wrong in a friendly way?

You can't. That is what's not working. How can a Baha'i say they respect the beliefs of people in other religions knowing that they think those beliefs are wrong? They can't. So what happens. People in other religions and those with no religion find the contradictions and problem areas within the Baha'i Faith to show how they aren't all that perfect either. Then, some Baha'is rise up to defend the Baha'i Faith. And that ain't working at all. That only pushes people in the other religions further away. So instead of being the cause of unity and bringing harmony and peace between the different religions, some Baha'is are adding to the divisions.

 

[CG Didymus]

They can choose to look it in any way as they so choose, as you can also do CG. No Scriptures belong to any person or people, they are a gift to all humanity.

Single verses taken out of context? Hmmm? Read Isaiah 7:14 and tell me what it's talking about, then read the whole and tell me if what you think verse 14 is about still fits in with the rest of the chapter?

 

[CG Didymus]

Very well.
I don't believe the Bahai version of events at all.
The following collection of claims make me feel much more trusting in them than the Bahai version.
Let the members decide for themselves.

As follows:-
A principle claim is that around the time of the rise of Babism, Iran and Russia were at a peak of conflict with one another. More specifically, that the rise of Babism was a Russian engineered tactic to help divide and conquer the peoples of Iran (this is also an old British Empire tactic ).

:-At such an opportune moment, Bab with the help of the Russian Ambassador, Kiniyaz Dolgorouki, claimed himself to be the Bab (Gate) of Imam Mahdi (A Travellers Narrative, Abbas Effendi Page 4). Then on reaching Kerbala in May 1844, under the influence of Isa Lankarani, again a Russian Agent, he claimed himself to be Imam Mahdi himself. (A Travellers Narrative Page 14). Due to the strong and deep-rooted enmity between Iran and Russia, we shall see at a later stage, of the role of Russia in promoting the growth, and nurturing Babism and Bahaism.


1. "O my followers! Surely Allah has made fighting obligatory for you. You must conquer the cities and the people for Babism and don’t be at peace with those who reject Babism". (Bayan, Arabic Chapter 1)

2. "Allah has made obligatory on every Babi king that he should not let a single person remain alive in his kingdom who does not accept Babism. (Bayan, Arabic Chapter1 ) 3. "Loot and plunder the properties of those who do not accept Babism. (Bayan, Arabic Chapter 1) 4. "Erase all the books from the face of the earth except those written about Babism" (Bayan, Arabic Chapter 1) 5. "O enemies of Bab!! Even if you bathe 1000 times, you will never become clean", (Bayan, Persian Chapter 2 ) 6. "If a Babi acquires a thing from a non-Babi, then by the transfer of the thing, it becomes lawful for him". (Bayan, Chapter 4)

As expected, the result of such utternaces led to total upheaval in Iran. Babis, the followers of Bab who were totally captivated by Bab and who advocated total submission to his will and commands, set forth to actualise his commandments. Thus, was created a scene of chaos and anarchy. The Babis started looting and plundering the adjoining villages and whatever they could lay thier hands upon. If they met with any resistance, then they would burn the entire village. For details, one can refer to the book of ‘Materials For The Study of Babism’ by Professor E. G. Browne, Page 241. In one such village the Babis saw that some non-Babis had sought protection. Mulla Hussain and some other Babis arrived at the village and killed 130 people in one night.

It can be seen from the above passages that the Babis were incited to violent actions at times. Not only were the Babis committing Apostasy which carried the death penalty, they were becoming involved in Conflict and Riot in places.
Bshauallah was jailed in 1852 with many other Babis (after an attempt by Babis on the Shah's life (?)......, but whereas most Babis could be executed 'day-by-day', Bahauallah had friends:-
Baha'u'llah's brother in-law was the Russian Consul, and after pleading and reasoning failed, he threatened that Persia would have to answer to Russia if the least hair on the blessed head of Baha'u'llah should come to harm! Thus he was able, finally, to secure Baha'u'llah's release on condition that Baha'u'llah be exiled beyond the borders of Persia (parts of which at that time, including the region of Adjerbayjan, were provinces of the Russian empire, and yes, the first Baha'i House of Worship was built in Adjerbayjan -- after the Russian revolution the building was seized by the Soviets and used for government offices for a few years, until it was destroyed by an earthquake).

Baha'u'llah was invited to emigrate to Russia, but He declined, going instead to Baghdad, where in 1863, He announced His own revelation.

I was never taught any of this when I was with the Baha'is. Now I know why they never say much about the Bayan.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

If the purpose of all that is to promote friendliness and fellowship between people of all religions, then it seems reasonable to me to say that it is not working in these forums.

Given what happened to Baha'u'llah and the reaction He got by most people to the Message, that is paramount to saying He should have not given the Message.

In the end it is each person's willingness tone just and honest in their responses. To which each person is responsible.

A good example is a response above from. OB. All opportunity was given for Him to research and provide fair comment on the charges laid against Baha'u'llah.

The path He chose was something we can not and In no way wish to change. It is His journey.

What we can control is our responses, or choose not to be here at all.

There is a hard line to walk in all this and I see each person has to find it in their own way.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So, Mahdi Bab is the beginning of the Bahai story. Like the others, loot, kill. Some were able to do it, others wear the mask of universal brotherhood. Even Mohammad was a pacifist till he reached Medina, after that he changed. Thanks for the information.

That is not correct Aupmanyav. The information provided was a side of the story given by those that wanted to exterminate any trace of both the Bab and Baha'u'llah.

They were hard times and the transition from a war minded background to world embracing peace loving people is never going to be easy or happen overnight. But with the Babi, it did. In the end they chose death over pursuing justice with the sword.

I see India on the news here often, and the conflicts that plauge your nation.

I no longer feed these responses in detail, but to say there are more truthful accounts of those days.

I am willing to post those stories, but will not feed an agenda that does not want to find the truth in these matters. They are all available, mostly in the 'Dawn Breakers'.

These stories were gathered from actual people these events happened to, or from eye witnesses and from those that heard first hand from those that were there.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Single verses taken out of context? Hmmm? Read Isaiah 7:14 and tell me what it's talking about, then read the whole and tell me if what you think verse 14 is about still fits in with the rest of the chapter?

I see that verse an be seen as a specific reference to Jesus the Christ.

At the same time that verse is applicable in the spiritual sense to all Messengers from God, as they are one and all born of the Holy Spirit, even though they come from the womb.

I have offered before that an entire passage has context in time and beyond time and within each passage we can find snippets that also traverse time.

These words from God are a reflection of all God's Messengers and in one way or another tell of them all. They are not restricted to One Name, but can tell of One Name while enshrining all Names.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I was never taught any of this when I was with the Baha'is. Now I know why they never say much about the Bayan.

That would be because it is not a true and accurate account.

The 'Dawn Breakers' , 'Nabils Narritive' has been available in English for a long time. It contains accurate history of many of the events of that time recorded from people that were there or had the story from a person that was there.

Those stories are supported by othe eye witnesses that were impartial to the Muslim objective.

Here it is;

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Dawn-Breakers: Nabíl’s Narrative of the Early Days of the Bahá’í Revelation

It is really the greatest story yet to be told. It has it all, a great epic indeed.

If you want a just view of those times, there is is, it mentions it all.

At least this part will give a fair understanding of what to expect in those times;

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Dawn-Breakers: Nabíl’s Narrative of the Early Days of the Bahá’í Revelation, Pages xxxviii-xli

PERSIA’S STATE OF DECADENCE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY

A. THE QÁJÁR SOVEREIGNS

“In theory the king may do what he pleases; his word is law. The saying that ‘The law of the Medes and Persians altereth not’ was merely an ancient periphrasis for the absolutism of the sovereign. He appoints and he may dismiss all ministers, officers, officials, and judges. Over his own family and household, and over the civil or military functionaries in his employ, he has power of life and death without reference to any tribunal. The property of any such individual, if disgraced or executed, reverts to him. The right to take life in any case is vested in him alone, but can be delegated to governors or deputies. All property, not previously granted by the crown or purchased—all property, in fact, to which a legal title cannot be established—belongs to him, and can be disposed of at his pleasure. All rights or privileges, such as the making of public works, the working of mines, the institution of telegraphs, roads, railroads, tramways, etc., the exploitation, in fact, of any of the resources of the country, are vested in him, and must be purchased from him before they can be assumed by others. In his person are fused the threefold functions of government, legislative, executive, and judicial. No obligation is imposed upon him beyond the outward observance of the forms of the national religion. He is the pivot upon which turns the entire machinery of public life.... "

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

That would be because it is not a true and accurate account.

A hundred people can be at the same event, and 50 years later all give a different account. Then the descendants of the same people can reiterate the stories, and they'll change some again. For any one person to claim that their particular version, or one such version is the correct one, just seems illogical to me. We all see things through our own particular lenses, and that's just natural. We all use the language and tone we learned to use.

I think that all anyone can logically say about these things is that there are DIFFERENT accounts, and that goes to all sides or all variations of the same event.

So simply saying, "I know of a different narrative" rather than the standard 'You're wrong, your story is false" take seems far more sensible. In other words, the agnostic approach, rather than the fundamentalist approach.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I was never taught any of this when I was with the Baha'is. Now I know why they never say much about the Bayan.

My sadness is very deep for those that approach this subject without first obtaining the facts of those times.

The injustice is far beyond what one can imagine if they do not. One should at least read about the rule and justice of that time, I posted the link above for you.

After reading what the Bab and Baha'u'llah came to change, what response do you think they could have got, other than what was dished out to them?

All the while, they held to justice given in the Quran until the appointed time. The time when all things were made new.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

A hundred people can be at the same event, and 50 years later all give a different account. Then the descendants of the same people can reiterate the stories, and they'll change some again. For any one person to claim that their particular version, or one such version is the correct one, just seems illogical to me. We all see things through our own particular lenses, and that's just natural. We all use the language and tone we learned to use.

I think that all anyone can logically say about these things is that there are DIFFERENT accounts, and that goes to all sides or all variations of the same event.

So simply saying, "I know of a different narrative" rather than the standard 'You're wrong, your story is false" take seems far more sensible. In other words, the agnostic approach, rather than the fundamentalist approach.

I agree 100‰ that accounts will differ between witnesses, all trying to give a version of Truth as to what they saw.

There are also accounts that are not aimed at truth, but want to hide it and they are also available.

The Dawn Breakers contain the former two accounts.

The latter flourishes on the internet.

Regards Tony

 

[Jim]

Thanks for your comment Jim. I'm contemplating the value and limitations of discussion groups like this where religion is discussed and debated. I know it is something you have thought a great deal about.

Thank you for your friendly and thoughtful response.

You say the purpose of forums such as these were to promote friendliness and fellowship.

Sorry, I didn’t make that clear enough. When I said “If the purpose is to promote friendliness and fellowship ...” I didn’t mean the purpose of the forums. I meant the purpose of people promoting and defending beliefs that they call “the Baha’i Faith.” I was responding to your question “What’s not working?” I was saying that when people are promoting beliefs that include a belief in friendliness and fellowship between people of all religions, and they are continually drawn into unfriendly interactions with people of other religions, then it seems reasonable to me to say that what they’re doing is not currently working for their purposes.

If we look at the mission statement for this particular forum it reads:

As a community of diverse cultural and religious backgrounds, our aim is to provide a civil environment, informative, respectful and welcoming where people of diverse beliefs can discuss, compare and debate religion while engaging in fellowship with one another.

RF Rules

So it appears the purpose we both hope for is to some extent supported by the RF Missions statement. It is excellent to have such an explicit and clear statement and regardless of how difficult that mission may be, it is something that we can all keep coming back to.

Baha'is based on the words of Bahá’u’lláh also have a desire of consorting with peoples of all faiths in a spirit of love and fellowship..

It appears logical that being a Baha'i and participating on a forum like this with such an explicit and noble goal is a good fit. Perhaps that is why some Baha'is come to RF and end up staying around for a while.

As we are debating and discussing religion that as we know has the potential to be extremely divisive and contentious, there are other considerations. High on the list must be the manner in which we conduct ourselves. That of course applies to us all, not just the Baha'is. I can't see that it is possible for two people to have a good relationship if the intent of friendliness and fellowship is one sided. Can you? Clearly the Baha'is, myself have a lot of work to do to be better people. However if two people talk and only one person wants to make an effort to be friends, how can it work?

Perhaps the real irony is how is it possible for people of different faiths who discuss and debate religion to also have friendliness and fellowship?

There are many other considerations which I may come back to later. Thanks again for your response.

I’ve been trying for more than 15 years to learn to practice fellowship with people whose ideas and interests seem to me or to them to be opposed to mine. I’ve failed again and again, especially with people promoting and defending beliefs that they call “the Baha’i Faith.” One thing that I’ve been learning to do recently that has made a big difference for me is not posting until I can do it with genuinely friendly feelings towards everyone. A few weeks ago that might have been impossible for me with a few people here, and even now I don’t always succeed. Another thing that I’ve learned to do is not respond at all, not even indirectly, to unfriendly comments about my motives, intentions, character and capacities. If that’s all that I see a person doing, they get no response from me at all. I’ve also learned not to respond at all to posts where I don’t see a person trying to communicate with me. I’ve also learned to recognize when comments and questions that look like friendly interest really aren’t, and I don’t respond at all to those either.

When I first saw the online feuding about Baha’i administration, I found a compilation about responding to denunciations and misinformation about the Baha’i Faith. I studied that and reviewed it again many times, and made a checklist for myself to practice. I think now that I’ll try to find that and review it again. In these forums I became interested in how to counteract misinformation on other topics, and I started a discussion about that.

One thing that I’ve been learning to do is to not respond to misinformation in the threads where it’s being posted. I start a thread of my own to counteract it.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

One thing that I’ve been learning to do is to not respond to misinformation in the threads where it’s being posted. I start a thread of my own to counteract it

Interesting thought, but is that not the same thing in a different place under a different heading?

In the end, none of us want to hurt what we Love. Sometimes for us to truly Love, we have to make our mistakes.

In life that has been my journey. I still can not see why I have done such things, but know from them happening the lesson was learned, a wisdom gained.

I always consider that any gift of Faith is often given to those that need it most. That is why Persia and America were also central to the Faith.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You're right that it's not working. In addition it seems to be that there is contentment that it's not working.

I see it is more the realisation that one can only change their own selves and that the journey of Faith is just that, a journey in self.

RegardsTony