On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:42:57 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In a message dated 1/21/2005 11:40:20 A.M. Central Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Where did the word 'righteous' come from?
> In "Bahaullah and the New Era" there is an entire chapter called > "Righteous Warfare" > Okay. The term 'righteous warfare' occurs nowhere in the Writings which is > why I didn't recognize it. Gilberto: Why isn't "Bahaullah and the New Era" "the writings"? That section also quotes a passage from Abdul-Baha which elaborates on the concept in interesting ways as well. Susan: > I prefer to use the term 'just war.' The concept > which Abdu'l-Baha articulates is something which goes back at least as far > as St. Augustine. Gilberto: Sure. Many civilizations, including Islamic civilization, have some principles or criteria which specificy in what sorts of situations warfare is justified and when it isn't. That's all military "jihad" is, from a certain point of view. Gilberto: > "In your own paper, you said " In many cases hikmat calls for the > apparent suspension of a Bahá'í principle in order to ensure the > protection of the Faith."" Susan: > Yes, that would be an obvious not an apparent suspension. And because > some Baha'i principles can be suspended, doesn't mean they all can. Gilberto: I didn't say that they all can be. But in your paper you wrote: "Bahá'u'lláh regarded the application of any of his laws as contained in the Kitab-I-Aqdas as conditional upon the exercise of wisdom." > As I said, > you are taking a hypothetical which has never occurred and trying to argue > on that basis that we say the same thing as Islam. You could use hikmat to > argue anything at all by that logic! Gilberto: In no way shape or form, does Islam permit random Muslims to just go around killing innocent folks and calling it "jihad". As far as I can tell, jihad only really makes sense in the context of a Muslim country. If we want to compare Islamic teachings on jihad (just war) and Bahai teachings on just war, it only makes sense that we make a comparison between a Muslim country and a Bahai country. If you guys don't have a country, that's not my fault. > "I find it easy to believe that life or death situations involving > violence and persecution might be the kind of thing which could cause > Bahais to suspend the "blotting out of holy war"." > You may find it easy but the only time when Baha'is actually did this their > actions were strongly condemned by Baha'u'llah Himself. And if that were the only thing that the Bahai central figures said about the uses of violence I think your case would be more convincing. But in other writings Abdul-Baha says things like: "A conquest can be a praiseworthy thing, and there are times when war becomes the powerful basis of peace, and ruin the very means of reconstruction. If, for example, a high-minded sovereign marshals his troops to block the onset of the insurgent and the aggressor, or again, if he takes the field and distinguishes himself in a struggle to unify a divided state and people, if, in brief, he is waging war for a righteous purpose, then this seeming wrath is mercy itself, and this apparent tyranny the very substance of justice and this warfare the cornerstone of peace. Today, the task befitting great rulers is to establish universal peace, for in this lies the freedom of all peoples. -- The Secret of Divine Civilization, pp. 70-71. " [end quote] There is almost an Orwellian feel to this: "Conquest can be a praiseworthy thing... war becomes the powerful basis of peace.. seeming wrath is mercy itself.. apparent tyranny the very substance of justice.. warfare the cornerstone of peace." How do I know what the limitations are on the "righteous purpose" which justifies these sorts of actions for Abdul-Baha? > > "That statement has two sides to it which need to get looked at for it > to be meaningful. What does God teach about the use of force under the > dispensation of Muhammad. And what does God teach about the use of > force under the dispensation of Bahaullah. I don't think I"ve heard a > clear Bahai statement about the first case." Susan: > Why do you need a 'Baha'i' statement in the first place? Gilberto: To understand what you (or Bahaullah) is saying was blotted out, so that I can better evaluate whether the Bahai faith is saying anything different or better (or worse) Susan: > Don't you know what your Qur'an has to say on the subject? Do you need > us > to post the relevant quotations? Gilberto: Feel free. I've read what "my" Quran says on the subject. But remember, it's "your" Quran too, at least that's what Bahais keep telling me. -Gilberto " __________________________________________________ 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:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu 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
