This servant would agree with Mark Foster and of course it is a wonderful wonderful paper by Reza Shah Kazemi so soon after the 9/11 tragedy. Presented at “Paths to the Heart: Sufism and the Christian East” Conference October 18-20, 2001 University of South Carolina, USA
There are echoes of Divine Immanence more than Divine Transcendence in this paper. But I would like to accentuate its positive features more. [For the distinction between Immanence and Transcendence in His holiness Baha'u'llah's Writings please I beg you read: http://bahai-library.com/provisionals/basit.html Bahá'u'lláh first explains the nature of the division among Muslims over Mullá Sadrá's dictum and the associated concepts. He brings forward verses from the Qur'an in support of both positions. For those who follow Mullá Sadrá's position, which he here calls Tawhíd-i-Wujúdi (existential oneness), Bahá'u'lláh quotes the Qur'anic verse "All things perish save [His] face" (28:8, cf. 55:27) and interprets this to support the position of those those who assert that the only reality is the Divine Reality. For those who opposed Mullá Sadrá's position, which he here calls Tawhíd-i-Shuhúdí (oneness in appearence only), Bahá'u'lláh quotes the Qur'anic verse ""We shall show them Our signs on the horizons and in themselves." (41:53) This he interprets as saying that any evidence of union between the Divinity and creation is only the result of the fact that the signs of God are apparent in all things. Having defined the two sides of the conflict, Bahá'u'lláh asserts that those who have attacked Mullá Sadrá's position have looked only at the literal meaning of his words rather than the underlying meaning. He then goes on to give an interpretation of Mullá Sadrá's dictum in terms of the concept of the Manifestation of God. This is one of Bahá'u'lláh's most explicit statements of one of the most interesting and controversial aspects of his doctrine: his assertion that all of the statements that occur in the scriptures relating to God (including references to His names and attributes, and statements about His actions and commands) refer in reality to the Manifestation of God, since no statement can be made about the Essence of God, which is unknowable. http://bahai-library.com/provisionals/basit.html and on the whole we should not look too critically at our fellow human being's thoughts **** Warn, O Salman, the beloved of the one true God, not to view with too critical an eye the sayings and writings of men. Let them rather approach such sayings and writings in a spirit of open-mindedness and loving sympathy. ... (Baha'u'llah: Gleanings, Pages: 329-330)**** But Transcendence of the Essence is asserted very strongly in the First Section of the Gleanings http://home.connection.com/~watler/Bahaullah/Writings/gwb/gwbFrame.htm **** Exalted, immeasurably exalted, art Thou above the strivings of mortal man to unravel Thy mystery, to +P4 describe Thy glory, or even to hint at the nature of Thine Essence. For whatever such strivings may accomplish, they never can hope to transcend the limitations imposed upon Thy creatures, inasmuch as these efforts are actuated by Thy decree, and are begotten of Thine invention. The loftiest sentiments which the holiest of saints can express in praise of Thee, and the deepest wisdom which the most learned of men can utter in their attempts to comprehend Thy nature, all revolve around that Center Which is wholly subjected to Thy sovereignty, Which adoreth Thy Beauty, and is propelled through the movement of Thy Pen. Nay, forbid it, O my God, that I should have uttered such words as must of necessity imply the existence of any direct relationship between the Pen of Thy Revelation and the essence of all created things. *** Even the PEN is transcendent... With great respect to http://www.iis.ac.uk/research/academic_papers/interfaith_dialogue/interfaith _dialogue.htm “The Metaphysics of Interfaith Dialogue: A Qur’anic Perspective” Dr Reza Shah-Kazemi Abstract This article presents the Qur’an as a source of dialogue amongst different belief systems. Through deft exegesis of various Qur’anic verses, in Sufi tradition, the claim is made that the Qur’an not only supports, but also wholeheartedly encourages the pluralism of faiths in today’s world while vehemently opposing religious nationalism and fanaticism. In an effort to achieve understanding, appreciation and harmony, it is imperative that Muslims bring to light that which unites all peoples in their various belief systems so as to enter into constructive and inspired dialogue with others. The Qur’an enjoins upon Muslim the understanding of other faiths and peoples as a means of attaining spiritual enlightenment: knowing oneself, knowing others and knowing God are inextricably linked. ... The Metaphysics of Oneness The metaphysics, or science of oneness, on the other hand, does not so much abolish as attenuate, not equalize but situate, all limited conceptions of identity. It serves to relativize every conceivable notion of identity in the face of the Absolute; in other words, it ensures that no determinate, formal conception of ‘self’ be absolutised, or ‘worshipped’, however unconsciously, as ‘idol’. The metaphysics of integral tawhid can be regarded as the most complete and effective antidote to fanaticism in so far as it undermines this idolatry of selfhood, a type of idolatry tersely summed up in the Qur’anic question: “Hast thou seen him who maketh his desire his god?” (25:43; almost identical at 45:23). In the Qur’an, God says to Moses at the theophany of the burning bush, “Inni ana’llah”. The following extremely important comment is made on this by Ja‘far al-Sadiq, 6th Shi‘i imam, regarded also in the Sufi tradition as one of the ‘poles’ (aqtab) or supreme authorities of the early generations. This comment comes in a tafsir that was to have a profound influence on the later unfolding of Sufi doctrine. The I-ness of God ’It is not proper for anyone but God to speak of himself by using these words inni ana, ‘I am I’. I [that is Moses, according to al-Sadiq’s commentary] was seized by a stupor and annihilation (fana’) took place. I said then: ‘You! You are He who is and who will be eternally, and Moses has no place with You nor the audacity to speak, unless You let him subsist by your subsistence (baqa’)’.” ... Two of the most important of these verses are the following: “Everything is perishing except His Face [or essence]” (28:88). “Everything that is thereon is passing away; and there subsisteth but the Face of thy Lord, possessor of Glory and Bounty” (55:26-27). God is Transcendent It should be noticed here that the words indicating the ephemeral nature of all things - halik, ‘perishing’, and fan, ‘passing away’ or ‘evanescing’ - are both in the present tense: it is not that things will come to naught or perish at some later point in time, they are in fact, here and now, ‘extinguishing’, before our very eyes. That which will not be is already ‘not’, in a certain sense, and one grasps this not only in the ineffable moments of mystical experience, but also in the very measure that one understands the following principle: reality is not subject to finality, cancellation, extinction, non-being. That which is absolutely real is that which is eternal: it is the Face of the Lord that, alone, subsists. Conversely, all that which is impermanent is, by that very fact, unreal in the final analysis. Grasping Relativity Reflection on the verses above, then, can heighten the sense of the relativity of all things - and, pre-eminently, the ego - in the face of the one, sole, exclusive Reality. Instead of allowing an egocentric conception of selfhood to be superimposed onto religion and even onto God, such a perspective helps to engender the opposite tendency: to see the ego itself sub-species aeternitatis, from the aspect of eternity. What results is a more concrete apprehension of the essential limitations of the self: the contours that delimit and define the ego are more vividly perceived against an infinite background. Thus, what is in question here is not so much a vaguely mystical notion of universal illusion but a concrete, realistic and effective sense of spiritual proportions. The limitations -existentially - and the pretensions - psychologically - of the ego are revealed and a consciously theocentric focus replaces the all too often unconsciously egocentric one: nothing is absolute but the Absolute. Herein lies the first major lesson given by Sufi gnosis to those engaged in dialogue; a negative lesson, that is, the negation of egocentricity, one of the primary motors of fanaticism God is Immanent As for the second lesson, this is the positivity which flows from the complementary aspect of gnosis, the subsistence or baqa’ that comes after fana’. This is related to the theme of immanence. Indeed, the verses quoted above do not only assert the exclusive reality of God; they also contain a subtle allusion to the divine inclusivity. The Face of God which alone subsists is not only the transcendent, divine essence, in relation to which all things are nothing; it is also the immanent presence which pervades and encompasses all things, constituting in fact their true being. One should take careful note of the following six verses which refer to this complementary, inclusive dimension of the divine reality. “And unto God belong the East and the West; and wherever ye turn, there is the Face of God” (12:115). “He is with you, wherever ye be” (57:4). “We are nearer to him [man] than the jugular vein” (50:16). “Know that God cometh in between a man and his own heart” (8:24). “Is He not encompassing all things?” (41:54). “He is the First and the Last, and the Outward and the Inward” (57:2). Each of these verses contains the seeds of the most profound spiritual doctrines; and each has given rise to the most fecund meditation upon that most mysterious of all realities, the immanence of the Absolute in all that exists; of all that which is, from another point of view “other than God”. God Knows Himself Before considering the question of divine immanence in relation to dialogue, it is worth dwelling briefly on the function of relativity, or ‘otherness’ in relation to God, since this also has its significance for dialogue. This ‘otherness’ is described by Ibn ‘Arabi as the locus where God reveals Himself to Himself, “for the seeing of a thing itself by itself, is not the same as its seeing itself in another, as it were in a mirror.” The function, then, of an apparent ‘other’, at the level of divine self-disclosure, is to make possible a particular mode of self-knowledge. One recalls here the holy utterance, or hadith qudsi, so fundamental to Sufi spirituality: “I was a hidden treasure, and I loved to be known, so I created the world.” Herein, one might venture to say, lies the ultimate metaphysical archetype of all ‘dialogue’. What we have here is a kind of ‘dialogue’ or communication between different aspects of the Absolute, a dialogue mediated by relativity. The Necessity of Human Diversity Now, if the creation of the world springs from a divine love for a distinct mode of self-knowledge, the Qur’an indicates that the differentiation, within mankind, in respect of gender, tribe and race, also serves a mode of knowledge: “O mankind, truly We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. Truly the most noble of you, in the sight of God, is the most Godfearing” (49:13). ... The Imperative of Dialogue The verse cited above is often given as a proof-text for upholding the necessity of dialogue, establishing the principle of peaceful coexistence, and indicating the divine ordainment of human diversity. Now while it does indeed support such principles, the import of the verse is deepened, its message is made more compelling and its scope more far-reaching, in so far as it is consciously related to the metaphysical principle of self-knowledge through divine self-disclosure. Thus, dialogue here-below - a dialogue rooted in the sincere desire for greater knowledge and understanding both of ‘the other’ and of oneself - can be seen as a reflection of, and participation in, the very process by which God knows Himself in distinctive, differentiated mode; that is, not in respect of His unique, eternal essence, but in respect of the manifestation of the ‘treasure’ comprised or ‘hidden’ within that essence. There is nothing in creation that does not obey this ontological imperative of “making known” the divine treasure. The Qur’an refers repeatedly to this universal law, doing so in terms of praise and glorification: “The seven heavens and the earth and all that is therein praise Him, and there is not a thing but hymneth His praise, but ye understand not their praise” (17:44). “Hast thou not seen that God - He it is Whom all who are in the heavens and the earth praise; and the birds in flight: each verily knoweth its prayer and its form of glorification” (24:41). The Face of God Those Sufis who are extinguished to their own particular ‘face’ - extinguished from their own non-existence - come alive to the divine face that constitutes their true reality, the immanence of God’s presence within them, and also within all that exists: Wherever ye turn there is the Face of God. Now it is precisely that divine aspect, in all things, and in all other nations and peoples, that can come into focus when this level of tawhid is grasped aright. ... Spiritual Foundations for Tolerance, Courtesy Respect for one’s neighbour is thus deepened in the very measure that one is aware of the divine presence within and beyond both oneself and the neighbour. Herein, one might say, resides one of the spiritual foundations of adab, or ‘courtesy’, understanding by this word the profound respect, if not reverence, for the ‘other’ that constitutes the true substance of all outward, socially conditioned forms of etiquette, good manners, and propriety towards the neighbour. One sees, then, that it is not so much ‘religious pluralism’ as ‘metaphysical unity’ that establishes a deep-rooted and far-reaching tolerance, one that is not so much formulated as a rule, to be obeyed or broken as one will; rather, what emerges is a mode of tolerance that is organically related to an awareness of the divine presence in all things, an apprehension of the inner holiness of all that exists. Part II The Universal Meaning of ‘Islam’ In this second part of the talk I would like to begin by stressing one aspect of the meaning of the word Islam, its literal meaning, that of submission, and to show how, from a Sufi perspective on the Qur’an, this meaning of religion as such takes precedence over such and such a religion. According to one of the most highly regarded translators of the Qur’an, Muhammad Asad, the word ‘Islam’ itself would have been understood by the hearers of the word at the time of the revelation of the Qur’an in terms of its universal, and not communal, meaning. This meaning emerges clearly from many verses containing the words Muslim and Islam. In the following verse, the principle of universal submission is equated with the religion of God: “Seek they other than the religion of God (din Allah), when unto Him submitteth whosoever is in the heavens and the earth, willingly or unwillingly? And unto Him they will be returned” (3:83). The Absolute Religion The commentator al-Kashani helps to situate with the utmost clarity the nature of this religion of God. He does so in his esoteric exegesis on two sets of verses. First, in relation to a verse which declares that the religion bestowed upon the Prophet Muhammad was the very same religion which was bestowed upon his predecessors: “He hath ordained for you of religion (min al-din) that which He commended unto Noah, and that which We reveal to thee [Muhammad], and that which We commended unto Abraham and Moses and Jesus, saying: ‘Establish the religion, and be not divided therein...’” (42:13). Kashani comments: “He hath ordained for you of the religion, [that is] the absolute religion (al-din al-mutlaq), which God charged all the prophets to establish, and to be unanimous, not divided, with regard to it. This is the principle and root of religion (asl al-din)....This is other than the details of the revealed Laws (duna furu’ al-shara‘i), by which they [the prophets] differentiate this [root of religion]; this differentiation occurs in accordance with what is most beneficial in [the different situations] - such as the prescription of acts of obedience, worship and social intercourse. As God Most High says, 'For each We have appointed from you a Law and a Way (5: 48).’” The difference between the ‘absolute’ or unconditional religion (al-din al-mutlaq) and the different forms this unique essence may take is then described by al-Kashani in terms of permanence and immutability. He continues: “So the right religion (al-din al-qayyim) is tied to that which is immutable (ma la yataghayyir) within knowledge and action; while the revealed Law (al-shari‘a) is tied to that which alters in respect of rules and conditions.” The nature of this unchanging religion, together with its essential connection with the primordial nature of man, the fitra, is expounded by al-Kashani in an illuminating commentary on the following crucial verse: “So set thy purpose for religion as one with pure devotion - the nature [framed] of God, according to which He hath created man. There is no altering God’s creation. That is the right religion (al-din al-qayyim), but most men know not.” (30:30). Al-Kashani comments: “So set thy purpose for the religion of tawhid, and this is the path to the Real (tariq al-Haqq)...or religion in the absolute sense (al-din mutlaqan). That which is other than this is not ‘religion’, because of its separation from the [way which leads to] attainment of the goal. The purpose [or ‘face’, al-wajh, in the verse being commented on] refers to the existent essence, with all its concomitants and accidental properties; and its being set for religion, is its disengagement from all that which is other than the Real, its being upright in tawhid, and stopping with the Real, without heeding its own soul or others, so that his way will be the way of God; and his religion and his path will be the religion and path of God, for he sees nothing but Him in existence.” Fitra - Primordial Purity “That is, they cleave to the fitrat Allah, which is the state in accordance with which the reality of humanity was created - eternal purity and disengagement, and this is the right religion (al-din al-qayyim) in eternity without beginning or end, never altering or being differentiated from that original purity, or from that intrinsic, primordial tawhid.” The fitra is described as being the result of the ‘most holy effusion’ (al-fayd al-aqdas) of the divine essence; and nobody who remains faithful to this original nature can deviate from tawhid, or be veiled from God’s reality by the presence of phenomena. Al-Kashani cites the hadith, “Every baby is born according to the fitra; its parents make it a Jew, a Christian or a Magian.” But then he adds this important point: “It is not that this underlying reality changes in itself, such that its essential state be altered, for that is impossible. This is the meaning of His words there is no altering God’s creation. That is the right religion, but most men know not.” ... The universality of this guidance through revelation is clearly stressed in the following verses: “For every community (umma) there is a Messenger.” (10:47). “Verily We sent Messengers before thee; among them are those about whom We have told thee, and those about whom We have not told thee.” (40:78). “And We sent no Messenger before thee but We inspired him [saying]: ‘There is no God save Me, so worship Me.’” (21:25). “Naught is said unto thee [Muhammad] but what was said unto the Messengers before thee.” (41:43). Diversity of Ways is Divinely Willed The conception of this ‘essential religion’ or religion as such, far from obliterating differences between religions, actually presupposes formal religious diversity, regarding it not so much as a regrettable differentiation but a divinely willed necessity. The following verses uphold this calibrated conception which recognises the inner substance of religion inherent in all revealed religions, on the one hand, and affirms the necessity of abiding by the dictates of one particular religion, on the other. “For each We have appointed from you a Law and a Way (shir‘atan wa minhajan). Had God willed, He could have made you one community. But that He might try you by that which He hath given you [He hath made you as you are]. So vie with one another in good works. Unto God ye will all return, and He will inform you of that wherein ye differed.” (5:48). “Unto each community We have given sacred rites (mansakan) which they are to perform; so let them not dispute with thee about the matter, but summon them unto thy Lord.” (22:67). ... “And they say: ‘None entereth paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian. These are their own desires.’ Say: ‘Bring your proof if ye are truthful.’” “Nay, but whosoever submitteth his purpose to God and he is virtuous, then his reward is with his Lord; no fear shall come upon them, and neither shall they grieve.” (2:111-112). This verse comes as a concrete rebuttal of unwarranted exclusivism. It does not contradict the exclusivist claims of the Jews and the Christians with an exclusivism of its own, that is, with a claim that only ‘Muslims’, in the specific sense, go to paradise. Access to salvation, far from being further narrowed by reference to the privileged rights of some other ‘group’, is broadened, and in fact universalised: those who attain salvation and enter paradise are those who have submitted wholeheartedly to God and are intrinsically virtuous. Faith allied to virtue: such are the two indispensable requisites for salvation. Thus, it is perfectly justified to argue that the verse does not respond ‘in kind’ to the exclusivism of the People of the Book, but rather, pitches the response on a completely different level, a supra-theological or metaphysical level, which surpasses all reified definitions, confessional denominations, communal allegiances and partisan affiliations. This supra-confessional conception is further strengthened by the following verses: “It will not be in accordance with your desires, nor the desires of the People of the Scripture. He who doth wrong will have the recompense thereof, and will not find apart from God any protecting friend or helper.” “And whoso doeth good works, whether male or female, and is a believer, such will enter paradise, and will not be wronged the dint of a date-stone.” “Who is better in religion than he who submitteth his purpose to God (aslama wajhahu li’llah), while being virtuous, and following the religious community of Abraham the upright?...” (4:124-125). ... Beware of Restricting God to One’s Own Beliefs Thus, Ibn ‘Arabi’s well-known warning against restricting God to the form of one’s own belief is entirely in accordance with the thrust of this Qur’anic discourse: “Beware of being bound up by a particular creed and rejecting others as unbelief! Try to make yourself a prime matter for all forms of religious belief. God is greater and wider than to be confined to one particular creed to the exclusion of others. For He says, ‘To whichever direction you turn, there is the face of God.’” The Doctrine of Abrogation ... ... And finally: “Call unto the way of thy Lord with wisdom and fair exhortation, and hold discourse with them in the finest manner.” (XVI: 125). .. Emphasising That Which Unites ... http://www.iis.ac.uk/research/academic_papers/interfaith_dialogue/interfaith _dialogue.htm The width that separates the author from the Utterances of the Seven Valleys of Baha'u'llah is thinner than the thinnest membrane... And God willing He will one day see that Face too. With kind regards khazeh -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark A. Foster Sent: 12 December 2004 17:18 To: Baha'i Studies Subject: Re: The Baha'i Praises of Islam Gilberto, At 09:45 AM 12/12/2004, you wrote: >>I think it is probably illuminating to think of different religions as paradigms. But then the view of progressive revelation and that time and date make a big difference is ITSELF part of the Bahai paradigm but there are others.<< In order for religions to progressively elevate souls, on the individual level, and societies, on the level of structurization or construction, they must reflect God's Will for a particular time period and, perhaps, location. However, I would rather leave the question of *progression* to God and instead focus on the pragmatism of paradigms. Spiritually, one surrenders to God and His revealed Will in a particular age irrespective of whether one regards it as a progression. >>"The Metaphysics of Interfaith Dialogue: A Qur'anic Perspective"<< Well, the article is obviously written according to the writer's understanding of THE GREAT SHAYKH'S [Ibn Arabi] standpoint. For instance, he focuses on a theology divine immanence which some critics have contended is pantheism (a view others, in fairness, have challenged): "The Face of God which alone subsists is not only the transcendent, divine essence, in relation to which all things are nothing; it is also the immanent presence which pervades and encompasses all things, constituting in fact their true being." http://www.iis.ac.uk/research/academic_papers/interfaith_dialogue/interfaith _dialogue.htm IMO, God transcendent, not immanent. "Creation," a category (not a reality), does not manifest, or reveal, God. Rather, as a particular painting expresses the will of the artist, each created thing emanates from God's Will. Each of our existences is dependent, not necessary. >>What I like about is that it articulates ideas similar to perennialism while rooting them very much in the Quran and the Sufi philosophical tradition.<< That is clearly the writer's viewpoint: "Before substantiating this conception of essential religion or religion as such by citing particular Quranic verses, it is important to mention very briefly the Quranic encounter between Moses and the mysterious personage al-Khidr, not mentioned by name in the Quran. Even in its literal aspect, the story alludes to the distinction between the form of religion and its transcendent essence, between exoteric and esoteric knowledge." IMO, that "transcendental essence" is God, as manifested in His Will, not an ontological perennialism. >>Instead of one religious dispensation replacing another through time, I think the Quran has more a sense of the communities co-existing simultaneously.<< That may be an accurate picture of the Baha'i "Golden Age," as well (or at least a certain stage of it). However, since this subject is not, to my knowledge, clearly discussed in the Baha'i primary sources, I try not to limit my speculations. >>So during what you might call a single dispensation, there are different groups of human beings each following paths which are meaningful to them. I'm not a big fan of the whole clash of civilizations hypothesis (at least not the political implications) but I think that the gulf between civilizations can often be bigger than the gulf across ages, within the same civilization.<< Often? I am not sure. I would say sometimes. >>And a good example would be Sino-Japanese civilizations where Some mix of Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism have been a big part of the spiritual foundation in that part of the world for about 2600 years, and there is a real timeless quality to those principles, and those traditions are still meaningful to them, but I'm not sure most Westerners can hear the sound of one hand clapping, if that made any sense.<< Zen koans are a good example of why many people, myself included, have always found the Sino-Japanese versions of Buddhism (which are also syncretistic as you imply), to be unnerving. I find the Indo-Tibetan Buddhist traditions much more intelligible. A while back, someone wrote the following to me: "The Sino-Japanese tradition has the habit of 'collapsing' all things into one thing. Therefore in Zen, for example, meditation is all .... This same trend is seen in the idea that all that is necessary is to recite the Lotus sutra, Nicheren, or in, Pure Land, to recite the Nambutsu or even dispense with that for total surrender in faith to Amida Buddha. This sort of thing does not amuse the Indo-Tibetan Tradition, nor do they understand it because it is contrary to what Sakyamunibuddha taught, and contrary to the long unbroken tradition of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism that is an uninterrupted continuation of the Buddhasakyamunis awakening. In this tradition, Buddhism is a path that begins witf elementary insights and practices at a basic level, then, having done that, one proceeds to the next level. Nothing is neglected and in this tradition the intellect is understood to be a major component/tool of the path and so the, apparently, anti-intellectual attitude of Sino-Japanese Buddhism is looked upon as muddle headed, anti-intellectual and just plain ridiculous. This mutual incomprehensibility is exemplified by a rather amusing and true story. In America Dingo Chentse Rimpoche, one of the great masters of the Tibetan Buddhist tradition met a Korea Zen master. The Zen master picked up an apple and in typical Zen fashion yelled at Dingo Chentse: 'What is it, what is it?'. This was duly translated into Tibetan. After a pause, Dingo Chentse, turned to the translator and said: 'Whats the matter with the poor man, doesnt he know its an apple?' Thus it goes with the two traditions, they may as well be on different planets." The writer continues: "One observes here, in fact, a perfect example of how disagreement on the plane of dogma can co-exist with a deep respect on the superior plane of religious devotion." On one level, I *want* to agree with that statement. However, I fear that the writer is, because of his "perennialism," collapsing all religions into one on the level of a hypothetical "essence." There is no such *thing* as "religions devotion. There are only the branches of different religious traditions which may or may not encourage devotion to various presumed entities or ideas. Mark A. Foster * http://markfoster.net __________________________________________________ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
