:
> 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.
gilberto: I wouldn't automatically assume that but that's ok.Janine: I assume that because Baha'u'llah says that it is also okay to change the sentence of burning an arsonist to life sentence. And the UHJ has said that there is a difference between a school full of children being set on fire or an empty warehouse.
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..Janine: I can see that as a possibility. It is a good argument.
Gilberto: But I would actually be very
mistrustful of a centralized authority which claimed to be infallibleI would be so as well, unless it was said by someone who I think is speaking with God's authority. Baha'u'llah is someone Who has that authority, for me, and it is He who says that in matters of legislation with regards to matters not clear in the Bahai writings, and guiding the Bahai faith the UHJ is infallible.
Gilberto: 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.Janine: but how do you discern who is a reformer who has the goodwill and approval of Allah? From where I am standing, reformers in religions always lead to more divisions, more fractions be formed, more offficial schools of thought established which then led to schisms.
> 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.
Gilberto: 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 f! rom 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.Janine: but how was it possible that the civil rights movement did get so much support, that it spoke to so many people, at that particular time? Was it not because peoples' awareness and understanding had grown? Both on the black people's side, who in great numbers decided not to put up with any form of discrimination any more, even should they have to die for the promotion of racial equality, and also on the white people's side, who realised more and more that the whole idea of superiority based on the colour of one's skin or one's race was totally not in accordance with Reality.
As I understand it, Martin Luther King was not the only one who advocated racial unity. Rosa Parks was an example of not putting up with discrimination, with taking the back seat. And there were a few others as well. Martin King had a following, yes. And in my view that made him a priest, just like Ghandi. Both are people whose ideas I find very valuable. And I think both did a lot not to be seen as special, as better than others, as deserving a different treatment than others.
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 countr! y 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.Janine: okay. I should have said the majority of the people in the country. Or a dictator in a country.
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.Janine: it is true. I read some excerpts from the Qur'an just before I became a Bahai and I was taken very much by the modern language and the appeal to my reason, much more so than I found in the Bible. What kept me from becoming Muslim was that again it was said: this is the end of the Book of Revelation, after this nothing will come up anymore, which I felt was illogical, and I could not agree with some of the laws in the Qur'an, such as holy war and the hacking off of hands. so you can imagine that when I became Bahai and saw what it said of aronists, the punishment, I was very shocked. I was relieved to read that Baha'u'llah Himself had said that it could be turned into a life sentence.
I believed at that time that war was not justified, only when it was in defense of justice, of true justice, and true justice was not when another disagrees with you, but when you were under threat of death yourself (as Muhammad was when He fought wars) or when the rights of others were violated. And that both matters were very tricky to decide upon, and should not be left to one person, but should be in consultation. Only I missed how all Muslims in several countries could ever reach to an agreement, since in my view they had a dispute over the succession and were split in at least two major groups, both of which grew and evolved. So in my opinion any Muslim leader could call up to holy war and there would be no authority which had the goodwill and approval of God to decide upon whether that was an act of justice or not. In my view, it was all too much left to the will and insight of an individual, and in my view that would lead only to more division ! and splintering.
Also, it felt that too many people had messed with the teachings. I felt there was something which was closer to the core, where the core was not so hidden under all kinds of interpretations and cultural influences and habits which had nothing to do with the original word. I felt this way also about Christianity, in fact about any religion I studied. To me it was all too far removed from the core, and I could be a Muslim on my own, and a Christian on my own, but that that is not enough, that we need a community to practice on.
When I studied the Bahai faith, several things fell into place. It was young, so not many habits and cultural things had been put on it. It strongly recommends activity within the community, both Bahai and non-Bahai. It gave a blueprint of how people can organise themselves to achieve peace and express the inherent oneness of humanity.
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.
Gilberto: 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.Yes, the bahai writings have been translated. Bahais are strongly adviced to learn Persian and Arabic to be able to read them in the original language. Something I have not done yet.
I would have a different opinion about this matter were it not that I have had contact with many muslims from both Turkish and North African origin who can quote the whole of the Qur'an in the purest Arabic but do not know half of the time what they are saying. Because their particular form of Arabic is not the same as the Quranic Arabic and in the case of the Turkish people it is not their native tongue at all. To them it is like an native English speaker quoting the whole of Beowulf but not having a clue what it actually says. Apparently many Muslims from these countries believe that it is sufficient to know the Qur'an by heart, even if one does not understand what one is saying.
When I read the Qur'an for the first time, I came upon the Rodwell translation, which I could not follow in most cases. I find the Yusuf Ali translation far more understandable. It seems to me that Rodwell did not understand himself well what he was reading.....
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.Janine: You said in your earlier post that some Islamic countries had made changes and were improved, in that they were not so rigid in their interpretation of the Qur'an anymore and had implemented teachings from the Qur'an they had previously ignored. That is what I meant with from bad to better.
> 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.
Janine: I am counting since 1970s.
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.Janine: I am not saying that. Iran is a country that suppresses the _expression_ of opinion when that opinion does not agree with what the group in power feels it should be. Iran also happens to be a country which has laws based on the Qur'an, or rather an interpretation of the Qur'an. You were the one who was bringing up Iran, not me. You said that Iran takes in more refugees than any other country in the world, and I am saying that I think that any political refugees (which were the refugees I was originally talking about) taken in by Iran would not have much freedom of speech unless their opinions would agree with the group in power in Iran. That is all.
You seem to be bent on reading inall that Bahais write a proof that they are trying to prove that Islam is oppressive. I can understand that a lot of the conversations you had here were with one or two people and that what they said could be interpreted that way. Maybe they do think that way, I do not know. However, I do not think so. I think Islam is a very fair and just religion, but my problem is that I do not see that practiced en masse, especially not in the countries in the area where the Prophet lived and walked and its immediate surroundings. The same, history tells me, happened with Christianity at the beginning of Islam and when Islam was in full bloom. It is my belief that the same will happen with the Bahai faith, it will be practiced by most of its adherents as going through the motions and will be a combination of habits and forms rather than an inspiration. but that will not happen before at least 500 years probably 800 years have passed.
You brought up Iran, I did not. I was talking about people being political refugees, and many political refugees who came to the west in the 1980s came actually from several countries in Africa and the Far East, like Vietnam. I had these countries in mind when I was talking about political refugees. And the reason I was talking about political refugees is because I was arguing that because of the situation in the world, what happens in one country affects another. When one country treats a group of people in that country unjustly, that country creates political refugees, and at a certain point other countries cannot take in more political refugees. Like Holland, which has a population of 16 million, in an area about 300 km wide and about 400 km long. That is a heck of a lot of people, and the stress is getting to people. Too many people on a small area is not healthy for people.
to continue my original argument: So countries will come to the conclusion that it is better if there are no political refugees. but who is going to decide then what are the right values and what are the wrong values countries should adhere to, based on religion, since all religions have a slightly different take on this? This all because you argued that religion should bring people back to the core. Yet what the core is, is seen different by almost any group in a religion, maybe even from person to person. Without a central authority it will be very difficult to come to a consensus unless you have the patience to wait at least 2 generations.
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.Janine: Why does
> that not happen then more often?
Gilberto: I think it actually happens alot in universities.
Janine:
> 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?
Gilberto:
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
Janine: thanks for that information. I recalled having learned this but had forgotten it. It is very similar to how the Jewish faith is organised, apparently, and what the role of the rabbi is.
Gilberto: 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.Yes. There are two branches, which are equally important, in the Adminstrative Order as laid out by Baha'u'llah. One branch is the elected branch, and that has legislative authority. the other is the appointed branch, the branch of the learned, and the highest office in there is the office of counsellor, who are appointed by the Universal House of Justice. The counsellors appoint auxiliary board members in each country with sufficient Bahais and these auxiliary board members appoint assistants for the local communities in their country of residence. These appoinments are not necessarily for life, though they can be.
The elected branch is elected out of all the Bahais of the world, on a local level by the adult Bahais directly and on a national level by representatives, and on an international level by the national assemblies of the bahais of all the countries who have a national assembly. But to be elected on each of these one does not have to be a representative or d! oes not have to be serving on a national spiritual assembly.So both elements of life as experienced by humans are involved: the decision making faculty and the faculty that advices, that researches, that gathers information and knowledge. Both branches are needed.
> 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.
Gilberto: 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.Janine: thanks again for that information. it reminds me of Judaism and the rabbinate.
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.
Gilberto: 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.Janine: No. you read me wrong if you conclude that. Even Bahais are prone to follow a person. I have seen it happening in Bahai communities. Only the bahai writings prevent that to a higher degree than other religious writings, in my opinion, which is just an opinion. And so the following of a person does not lead to a schism, though it can do a bit of harm. However, people like me who abhor this practice, can always point people to the passages which admonishes us to think for ourselves.
In my view, humanity nowadays is shedding slowly off the habit of looking for leaders and following them mindlessly. Most people do not like to think for themselves though, still. Most people are prone to follow habit and do not listen with their own ears or see with their own eyes, but prefer to see with the eyes of others and hear with anothers ears. Or follow tradition and custom. The Bahai faith is the only religion I know which so often reminds people not to follow in the footsteps of others blindly, to use your own power to discover truth for yourself. But I think that this thinking for yourself is a growing thing, although at the same time we see the rise of fundamentalism. But that is natural: people are naturally scared by something new and can resort to an outmodish way of thinking for a while. Also, I believe that new developments in humanity can lead to calamities if not properly guided, if humanity has no clue as to what it is developing and why it is develop! ing this. Just like a child developing needs to learn the proper use of what it is developing and needs to have put limits on it, so that the development is guided in the proper channels. Like guiding a sapling by tying it to a rod and so protecting it from the wind bending it to its liking. If it is done right, the child is not stifled in its development, but comes out harmonioously integrated. The same with humanity.
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)).
Gilberto: 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 st! reak. 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.Janine: I was grinning because i meant the last remark about Ruhi light heartedly.
Any organised religion can be interpreted as having a conservative streak. It depends on which angle one looks at the religion in question.
If 100 years from now the little turnover inthe elected positions still exists, I would be concerned. At this moment in time i am not too concerned, and i also see that the situation differs from country to country, depending on the understanding and the willingness of Bahais in that country to serve. If you have read the ruhi posts, you see that certain things which seem to happen in the USA are not at all happening in Ireland or in Holland.
Many people do not understand the importance of the election process, or what the proper procedure is. They are lazy. Humanity is a lazy species. Humanity prefers the status quo. Very few people actually enjoy the responsibility which comes with being elected and this and the fact that people at thi! s time in the development of humanity still cling to ideas like the tendency to preserve the status quo, even when adviced differently (Shoghi Effendi is in favour of having regular changes in the members of an institution) a lot of people vote for the same people year after year, glad that they are not the ones elected. Many countries have not had LSA's and NSA's before the second world war, so in the west most NSAs are not older than about 50-60 years, and the institutions have not yet reached their maturity.The other religions in the world are far older than the Bahai faith and should by now have achieved more unity. Instead, I can only see that they did contribute to humanity and influenced it, but that now they do not do that on the scale required to bring about a change in this world for the better.
Gilberto: not having a centralized authority makes Islam more flexible and
diverse in many respects.Janine: maybe. Only I do not see that that much in many Islamic countries. All the Islamic countries I know of put restrictions on what women can't and can do, what role they can play in society, and that role is usually one subservient to men. Men have more public power in many Islamic nations than women. You say you know of countries where the situation of women has improved because of Islam. I do not know of such a country and would love to hear of some. I must add that due to the enormous amount of posts here i have not read all of the posts relating to islam and in reply to posts of yours.
To me it seems that what the Qur'an teaches and how it is implemented and has been implemented for centuries in Islamic countries are two different things. Some teachings are emphasised and others equally important are suppressed. That your personal version of Islam is different is wonderful and I do believe that if the majority of Muslims would have your understanding and willingness to implement the teachings of the Qur'an, the world would be a far better place.
I believe that there was a point where Muhammad made clear who was to be His successor, but that people disobeyed His wish and so weakened Islam, making it losing the possibility to bring about world peace.I also believe that some of the social teachings of Islam, like the one on waging war, or at least how that is interpreted, are outdated, just like the fatwah. They belong in a time and place where human beings needed very strict guidelines to get to a higher point of development. Society was such at that time (without all the laws and the protection we can now see in western societies) that violence was unavoidable almost. Besides, waging war was not as destructive as it can be nowadays, because of the weapons of mass destruction which we are now capable of making. We can destroy the earth several times over, I have heard. That was certainly not the case in Muhammads time.
Now, you may argue that the majority of Muslims would come to that understanding, but I am not so sure. After all, the Qur'an is pretty explicit on these subjects if I remember correctly, and again there is no central authority which has been given mandate by the Qur;an or the Prophet i! tself. As we have seen, nasty things can happen when a leader of the Muslims or a Muslim nation thinks it has grounds to speak out a fatwah against a person or a group of persons.
In the Bahai faith we do not have something like fatwah. We are adviced to shun covenant breakers, because they are likened to a person who carries a sickness which is highly contagious and which can seriously afflict a person. We are adviced to shun the ungodly, and the ungodly are not necessarily atheists. We are by no means encouraged to kill anybody who disagrees with us, not even when they threaten to kill us because we do not agree with them or do not wish to recant our faith, as the history of the Bahai faith with its many martyrs shows. And war is only allowed when our country is attacked unjustly or when one nation invades another and the international councils decide to come to the rescue of the invaded nation.much love,
janine van rooij
dublin, ireland.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term' __________________________________________________ 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
