On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 06:55:33 -0800 (PST), louise mchenry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > HI Gilberto, > It seems I did not make myself clear. I apologise. I made some remarks in > that post which showed forth my ignorance ;o) > First, I assumed from your post that you meant that religion needs to guide > people back to the core teachings of that religion.
Gilberto: Sure. That's a fair assumption.A religion should promote certain core values in socieity. (So that might seem like a conservative tendancy). But it should also remain aware of the current situation and act accordingly to stay relevant. L: > My question was: how can religion by itself do this? > Suppose that a Bahai country interprets the Bahai writings to say that an > arsonist should be burned. So this country makes a law whereby the > punishment of arson is burning, no matter what was set on fire, a car, an > empty warehouse, a house full of people. > In the Bahai faith, as soon as the UHJ becomes aware of a country where the > code of law was influenced by the Bahai laws, I am sure the UHJ would say to > this country they are implementing that law too strictly and too narrowly. I wouldn't automatically assume that but that's ok. L: > A religion who has no authority centre cannot do this. A religion needs an > administrative structure to be able to guide people back to the core. I think that isn't true. Religions with decentralized authority can still change in response to new situations. It might happen slowly or unevenly but that's actually ok with me. Besides, even in Islam there are still mid-level national and international organizations and associations that can mobilize large numbers of people. So some kinds of coordination can happen that way. But I would actually be very mistrustful of a centralized authority which claimed to be infallible. Another aspect to how a religion can be brought back to its core is through reformers. It is actually a prophecy of Muhammad, that in every century (Islamic) a reformer will arise who will revive the community's understanding of the religion. So powerful figures do rise up, get recongized, and reenergize the community. > That is what that whole thing about priests and the pope etc. was all about: > my attempt to clarify that a religion cannot bring people back to the core > if the people are confused about what the core is, and how can we be sure > they are not, when there is no central point who has the final say in > matters. Here's another kind of example I had in mind when I was thinking about how a religion can promote certain core values in society. This is kind of oversimplified but: If you look at Christianity in the US during the earlier part of the 20th century, in many of the white churches were segregated, and racism was openly preached from the pulpit. But through the civil rights movement, organized out of Black churches, the countries conscience was pricked, and now it would be rare to find churches where segregation and racism were openly preached by the pulpit. In order for that process of change to occur, it didn't require Martin Luther King to become pope. >I did *NOT* mean to say that Islam justifies political suppression. That is > something you read in my words, not what I meant or implied. > > What I am trying to figure out is how you see it that when there is no > administrative structure in a religion, how religion can lead people back to > the core, and how it can prevent that people make laws which are very strict > and based on a narrow interpretation of the scriptures of that religion. G: The above is a good example. L: > Also, I felt that even if one religion goes back to the core, the other > religions have different cores or different interpretations about what the > core is. And what happens in one country affects others. > So if one country, a Christian for example, interprets that women who have > an abortion should be put to death, or a person who performs abortion should > be put to death, this country will create political refugees, who will go to > another country to seek asylum. And that at a certain point these other > countries might feel that the country which is doing this to its people > needs to be made to understand that it is not doing things correctly, that > it is suppressing people. > But what if this country is adamant and says: no, this is our interpretation > of the scripture? G: But the "country" doesn't have a uniform view or understanding, Individuals in every country are going to have different opinions. For example, in Saudi Arabia the Wahabi movement is very strong, but there are also dissidents who want to change the direction which the country is going in. In order for change to occur, some alternative movement in the ideological spectrum can become more powerful, persuasive, and then reach a tipping point. > L: > Look, I gather from the various posts I have glimpsed at, that you feel that > Bahais have a negative view of Islamic countries. I do not blame you for > thinking this, based on the responses I read. > I try not to, because I like Islam a lot and at one time considered becoming > Muslim. That is really interesting. L: > Islam is a very fair religion. My problem is though that in many Islamic > communities there is a lot of cultural burden put on the practice of Islam > and that many Muslims may know the Qur'an by heart but only in a tongue > which they do not speak and so never really know what they are saying, > leaving it to others to interpret the Qur'an for them. It is kind of odd to say that when the Bahai texts were also originally in Arabic and Persian and much of the writings are still untranslated. In the case of Islam, there are many translations of the Quran available, and all the major sunni collections have been translated. And an immense amount of other Islamic literature (both early and modern) has been translated. So what I read in the > Qur'an is not at all practiced in many countries, especially not in the > countries where Islam was born. And like Christianity before it (in Africa > for example) cultural practices which do not really have much to do with > Islam are taken over by those who become Muslim. > > Can you name me a country which has gone from bad to better, especially an > Islamic country? I am very interested to learn of a country like that. What do you mean, bad to better? That seems like such an open-ended question that would obviously be true. > > By the way, I read that as well, that Iran takes in more refugees than any > other country in the world. But since when are we counting? I don't know but you mentioned something about the west taking in refugees. L: Also, Iran may be taking in most > refugees of all countries but I doubt their freedom of speech in Iran, if > they are political refugees and disagree with the government of Iran. G: Ok, this is the kind of comment which makes me think you are accusing Islam of supporting political repression. I, personally, don't support political repression. I think governments (all kinds of governments) should be held up to scrutiny and shouldn't be immune from criticism. I'm not a Middle Easterner. I'm not Persian. I have absolutely no interest in trying to convince anyone that Middle Eastern countries are wonderful and democratic. If they fall short according to certain criteria people should find constructive and useful ways of getting that information to the right people. But it has little to do with the conversation we are having about Islam and the Bahai faith. L:> You say that there are no priests in Islam. So, theoretically, anybody can > lead the congregation in prayer and make a speech in the mosque? G: Yes, a couple of years ago on my campus when my classes conflicted with the Friday services I got a couple of people interested in organizing Friday prayers at different location and a slightly different time on Friday for the convenience of students. I've given some sermons and led prayers. The services are still going. The people who give the sermons are just willing students. At the Islamic center in town, we haven't had a regular imam for a long time now and the sermon is just given by different members of the community. On at least a few occasions the sermons were given by University students. Basically there is no major act of worship which can't be done by any sane adult who knows what they are doing. There is not even a real concept of ordination. > Why does > that not happen then more often? I think it actually happens alot in universities. > If there are no priests, how come that there are people like Ayatollahs who > have a lot of power? Is that not a priest then? I'm not sure I could vouch for the contents but it describes what goes into being an ayatollah. http://slate.msn.com/id/2098364/ Ayatollah is more an academic title than clerical. It's kind of like saying "full professor with tenure and an endowed chair" or something. The Bahai attitude is actually really interesting to me because the closest thing in Islam to priests are scholars. Which in Arabic are called ulema, and it literally means "those who know". But then the funny aspect is that the Bahai faith does have an institution of "the Learned" which probably would be "ulema" in Arabic as well. > Technically there may be no priests in Islam, but the head of the mosque and > those learned in Islamic law seem to have a lot of influence in the > community and are seen as leaders. At least the Islamic center down the street from me, has a two different elected boards and they would be in charge of hiring the imam, who would be under a contract which may or may not be renewed. I'm sure other communities are the same way. What bothers me is that in no religion > that I know of but the Bahai faith there is a structure in place which > prevents leaders from becoming very very influential to the point that > authority lies with one person only and that one person is able to influence > the laws of a country, in effect. It seems like you are assuming all Muslims or maybe even anyone who isn't Bahai is some weak-minded idiot just waiting to be hypnotized by the first person to walk up to them wearing a funny hat. "Leaders" appear and make claims. But they have to be persuasive. They have to make arguments. They have to be able to answer questions. They get criticized, held up to scrutiny. People vote with their feet. Or one school of thought. (like I > explained in the post to mark, I think that every Bahai has their own > version of the Bahai faith and that the fact that Bahais are very much > encouraged to give the minority a voice, there is less possibility that one > school of thought will dominate, even though some people fear that this will > be the case with regard to the Ruhi method (grin)). I wouldn't put my tongue so firmly on my cheek. There seem to be features in the Bahai faith which give it a conservative streak. It makes it difficult to correct mistakes. It makes it difficult for new schools of thought to be heard. There is little turnover in the elected positions. etc. not having a centralized authority makes Islam more flexible and diverse in many respects. "My people are hydroponic" __________________________________________________ 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
