Disqus - Latest Comments for mavaddat

Re: Pictures of Abdu’l-Baha

mavaddat — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 07:30:53 -0000

On the contrary, Bahá'u'lláh was largely able to choose where he was exiled to. Also, the Bible is full of such scriptures that can be retrospectively labelled "prophecies" as one finds convenient. The fact that no one considered them prophesies until they were seen as matching the life of Bahá'u'lláh is more problematic, however. Thief in the Night is a book for children and entertainment, not a serious history book.

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

mavaddat — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 19:18:19 -0000

In my posting you were responding to, I thought I clearly showed [...]

No, I wasn't responding to that post in the response you said you laughed at. I was responding to the post with which you begin:

thanks for your post M:

You wrote: "You apologize with your comparison of Bahá'í law to Dutch law" [...]

If you look down this thread, you'll see that I did respond to your post in which you argue that Shoghi Effendi never interpreted Bahá'u'lláh on pederasty, that the letters were from his secretary, etc. Scroll down, and you'll see my response.

Your response ignored all of that to state that "the Universal House of Justice and Shoghi Effendi both agree the law of homophobia cannot be repealed"

No. You're confusing my response above with my response below. My statement that "the Universal House of Justice and Shoghi Effendi both agree the law of homophobia cannot be repealed" was before reading your post below.

I don't (as most Bahá'ís do not) accept the premise that Shoghi Effendi's secretaries did not speak for him. You acknowledge that Shoghi Effendi's secretaries have some authority, but that the authority is not the same as Shoghi Effendi's. That's fine. So you ask, how much authority did Shoghi Effendi's secretaries really have?

My point is that this cannot possibly matter for deciding how we ought to treat gay people. It's not that "if you're a Bahá'í, then it matters to you." Objectively speaking, the relevance of such exercises for determining whether homosexuality should be condemned is as relevant as asking whether the stars that comprise Taurus agree with the local street psychic prediction. They're just irrelevant. If a Bahá'í chooses to care about such matters in deciding how to regard homosexuality, then they're choosing to abdicate their moral sense for authority -- a means of thinking about morality that has nothing to do with human welfare, happiness, or experience.

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

mavaddat — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 18:18:20 -0000

Sonja, I took your comments seriously. How have I forgone the right to be treated reciprocally? Do I not deserve to be taken seriously? I would hope we can discuss these matters without laughing at one another.

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

mavaddat — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 18:12:33 -0000

Sonja, it is a shame you did not take my post more seriously. You cling to a faith that condemns the most intimate part of your brother's relationship, but why? Social justice does not depend on the Bahá'í Faith, but the Bahá'í Faith depends on Bahá'ís to continue to support its dogmatic framework. It's the desire for dogmatism that is the problem here, not the particular prohibition on homosexuality. Even if the prohibition were eliminated, there are other laws that need revision, or some future impediment to justice would arise, and the whole issue of how to interpret would be revived again. It is ridiculous. We are trying to mould the Bahá'í Faith into a respectable religion when it is the dogmatism at its bedrock that keeps it ridiculous.

Well, well, sorry to contradict you, but it is very relevent at least to Bahais!

You have a very high regard for Bahá'ís, Sonja. You seem to think that they are committed to independent investigation of the truth, that they question their authorities, and that their religion commends this to them.

This is, sadly, not the case.

If Shoghi Effendi tells them otherwise, Bahá'ís really do not care what Bahá'u'lláh actually said. Likewise, if the Universal House of Justice tells Bahá'ís that Shoghi Effendi tells them that homosexuality is forbidden, Bahá'ís don't care to delve into a hermeneutic investigation to determine if this is true. They regard Shoghi Effendi as infallible, they regard the Universal House of Justice as infallible, and they trust that their authorities are telling them the truth.

There is nothing in all the "independent investigation" rhetoric of the Bahá'í writings which encourages Bahá'ís to question their own religious authorities. Not even one measly verse. All of the admonitions to independent investigation are addressed to those outside the Bahá'í community, while Bahá'ís are told:

O SON OF BEING! With the hands of power I made thee and with the fingers of strength I created thee; and within thee have I placed the essence of My light. Be thou content with it and seek naught else, for My work is perfect and My command is binding. Question it not, nor have a doubt thereof.

And:

Were He to decree as lawful the thing which from time immemorial had been forbidden, and forbid that which had, at all times, been regarded as lawful, to none is given the right to question His authority. Whoso will hesitate, though it be for less than a moment, should be regarded as a transgressor.

And:

Let it not be imagined that the House of Justice will take any decision according to its own concepts and opinions. God forbid! The Supreme House of Justice will take decisions and establish laws through the inspiration and confirmation of the Holy Spirit, because it is in the safekeeping and under the shelter and protection of the Ancient Beauty, and obedience to its decisions is a bounden and essential duty and an absolute obligation, and there is no escape for anyone. ('Abdu'l-Bahá, "Rahíq-i-Makhtúm" vol. I, pp. 302-4; also, "Bahá'í News" 426 September 1966, p. 2; also, cited in "Wellspring of Guidance" pp. 84-6)

It is this attitude that stands in the way of justice. Let us be done with this dogmatism once and for all and finally employ a respectable dialogue.

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

mavaddat — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 17:54:39 -0000

Is this what justice is supposed to hinge on? Are we really supposed to delay granting people such a fundamental right as choosing with whom they spend the rest of their lives without fear of alienation until such exegetical gymnastics are performed and interpretative minutiae are brought to light as will persuade those committed to unthinking dogmatism? Really? Is this the best we can do? To fixate on the various meanings of "authoritative," to engage in correspondence calculus for deciding what letters to whom meant what for the community at large? Are we supposed to take this seriously? These are not the methods of people actually concerned with justice. This is a circus side show, not a way to arrange human affairs (including our most intimate relationships). How can we be expected to take the Bahá'í writings seriously when it doesn't take itself seriously? Therefore, I hope to commend Hume's instruction to us all for deciding how to regard the Bahá'í writings:

Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

mavaddat — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 17:24:00 -0000

Sonja, I present to you the crux of the problem, as I see it:

You think the Bahá'í Faith's opposition to homosexuality can be changed, whereas the Universal House of Justice and Shoghi Effendi both agree the law of homophobia cannot be repealed, since they agree the Bahá'í Faith's opposition to homosexuality is decreed by Bahá'u'lláh himself. You may protest that Bahá'u'lláh did not actually speak about homosexuality as such, but that is completely irrelevant. (Of course, I sympathize with Bahá'í moderates who have trouble seeing how irrelevant this is, as it can be maddening to see such injustices perpetrated on so little evidence). Nevertheless, the reason why it's irrelevant is that Shoghi Effendi was granted infallible authority to interpret Bahá'u'lláh (by 'Abdu'l-Bahá) and Shoghi Effendi interpreted Bahá'u'lláh as condemning homosexuality. So whether you personally believe that Bahá'u'lláh never condemned homosexuality is as relevant to the faithful Bahá'í as whether women are actually qualified to serve on the House of Justice. They simply couldn't care less what Bahá'u'lláh did or did not say, since Shoghi Effendi clearly tells them what to believe Bahá'u'lláh said and they accept that unconditionally (remember, he was infallible). (At this point, we will do well to remember that the Bahá'í Faith has no clergy, because people blindly followed the clergy in past dispensations. That is to say, the Bahá'í prohibition of clergy is a load of Boole sheet.)

It seems, however, that I was not clear about my point regarding the superiority of Dutch law to Bahá'í law. You seemed to take my point as one of practice, so that (to you) what I meant was that a Dutch citizen should practice Dutch law above Bahá'í law. Thus, you quoted Bahá'u'lláh praising Queen Victoria for promoting democracy and suggested that this shows "Baha'u'llah makes a similiar argument [to mine]."

This is not what I meant by saying that Dutch law is superior to Bahá'í law.

What I meant was that Bahá'í law is approximately worthless by any objective standard. It is irrelevant, not just for practice by citizens of specific countries, but even for consideration by any person anywhere in the world. I want to be clear that I do not merely mean the current Bahá'í Administrative Order. I mean the Bahá'í Faith itself, as authored by the so-called "Central Figures". The authoritative Bahá'í law is a deluded man's fancy, an empty pantomime of the shadow of justice; it is a charade aimed at mimicking actual equality and wellbeing with the mere semblance of equality and wellbeing; it is, in short, not worthy of the attention of anyone actually concerned about human welfare or justice. If this is similar to an argument by Bahá'u'lláh, I would be surprised indeed.

The point, however, isn't that the particular laws of the Bahá'í Faith are each and every one of them somehow wrong or immoral -- no. Don't get me wrong: I think that racial and gender equality, the elimination of extremes of wealth and poverty, and universal compulsory education are wonderful goals (on the other hand, many of the Bahá'í laws are arbitrary, ridiculous, or unjust). The point is not about the particular laws, but that there is no justification for any of the laws within the Bahá'í framework except to fulfil God's will. At best, the Bahá'í writings are ambivalent about whether human happiness has any intrinsic worth, and more often, the Bahá'í dogma considers human happiness is a mere means to fulfilling God's will (lest we forget God's greater plan!).

So you see, the worth of the Bahá'í Faith is the same as the worth of an elementary school cheater who copies the answers from his neighbour (in this case, Enlightenment philosophy, a thousand years of Islamic jurisprudence, Sufi tradition, social custom, etc.). Even Bahá'u'lláh's lame attempt at an analogy in the verse you cited

Think not that We have revealed unto you a mere code of laws. Nay, rather, We have unsealed the choice Wine with the fingers of might and power [...]

is an appropriation of Omar Khayyam's famous literary device, except Bahá'u'lláh wholly mangles it and employs it as a rhetorical trick, without any meaning. (I mean, "fingers of might and power"? What ridiculous imagery. This is the great literary talent we're supposed to admire?)

If you want to decide procedures for how you want to say prayers, then go ahead. Symbolic values and questions of truth are indeed not decided by majority vote. But to suggest that authoritative decree has any more right to decide such matters is simply to make a mockery of their importance. My point is that we discard the Bahá'í Faith with all its haughty claims of infallibility and assaulting words for those who dare question its decrees, and instead, seek the wisdom that the Bahá'í Faith appropriates from the source itself: human history, science, philosophy, and literature. Not only can we do this safely with no apprehensions of losing anything valuable, a commitment to justice and fairness and equal regard for people of all sexual orientations would demand it of us. So I sincerely hope one day we will all overcome the comfort of dogmatism and be joined together in this endeavour.

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

mavaddat — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 04:41:06 -0000

Are the people who write these things just prudes and never had good sex in their entire lives?

Precisely. Good sex has enjoyed a fairly recent revival after two-millennia of being condemned because of its association with "pagan" practice. But it's unlikely that Bahá'u'lláh, 'Abdu'l-Bahá, or Shoghi Effendi felt an ounce of passion for their wives. They viewed marriage as a means to an end. Ironically, they had a truly perverted conception of human intimacy.

Re: The Trouble with the World

mavaddat — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 04:33:12 -0000

Craig, I believe we have disagreed in the past about whether the UHJ is out of step with the Bahá'í Faith that Shoghi Effendi, 'Abdu'l-Bahá, and Bahá'u'lláh envisioned. The close-minded obedience that Bahá'u'lláh demands is shot through-out the entire Bahá'í writings:

He accomplisheth whatsoever He willeth, and doeth all that He desireth. “Whoso sayeth ‘why’ or ‘wherefore’ hath spoken blasphemy!” Were these people to shake off the slumber of negligence and realize that which their hands have wrought, they would surely perish, and would of their own accord cast themselves into fire — their end and real abode. Have they not heard that which He hath revealed: “He shall not be asked of His doings?” (Qur’án 21:23). In the light of these utterances, how can man be so bold as to question Him, and busy himself with idle sayings? (Bahá’u’lláh, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 169)

In short, the meaning of “He doeth whatsoever He willeth” is that if the Manifestation says something, or gives a command, or performs an action, and believers do not understand its wisdom, they still ought not to oppose it by a single thought, seeking to know why He spoke so, or why He did such a thing. The other souls who are under the shadow of the supreme Manifestations are submissive to the commandments of the Law of God, and are not to deviate as much as a hairsbreadth from it; they must conform their acts and words to the Law of God. If they do deviate from it, they will be held responsible and reproved in the presence of God. It is certain that they have no share in the permission “He doeth whatsoever He willeth,” for this condition is peculiar to the supreme Manifestations. (‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, p. 173)

Is not faith but another word for implicit obedience, whole-hearted allegiance, uncompromising adherence to that which we believe is the revealed and express will of God, however perplexing it might first appear, however at variance with the shadowy views, the impotent doctrines, the crude theories, the idle imaginings, the fashionable conceptions of a transient and troublous age? (Shoghi Effendi, Bahá’í Administration, p. 62)

On balance, therefore, the Bahá'í Faith is not an admirable religion. It throws all its independent investigation rhetoric out of the window as soon as you become a Bahá'í. There is no duty for Bahá'ís to question their authorities. Quite the contrary. In light of this, I think we would all do well to dispose of such religion.

As regards your coding worries, I believe that the UHJ has explicitly condemned all platform-independent programming languages as such. Windows was designed to run Microsoft authored libraries, not just-in-time compiled programs. Bahá'u'lláh has spoken very strongly against virtual machines. No matter how fine the elegance of a Java program, to let it find run time on a PC is wrong.

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

mavaddat — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 01:08:03 -0000

The debate is not about the origins of homosexuality, newbahai. In technical terms, we'd say this is a combination of the genetic fallacy and the naturalistic fallacy. Identifying the causal origin of a behaviour does not tell you whether that behaviour is justified or good, since a single causal origin can be the source of good or bad kinds of behaviour. So we have to identify good or bad behaviour by some other measure than origin.

Likewise, identifying a behaviour as "natural" or "unnatural" does nothing to tell you whether that behaviour is justified or good. There is "natural" behaviour that is completely immoral (most anthropologists agree that cannibalism, rape, incest, genocide, etc. were behaviours to which humans had a natural predispositions until they became regarded as bad only recently); and there is good behaviour that is "unnatural" (e.g., building buildings, wearing shoes, helping the sick, mentally unstable, and the dying, etc.).

So the argument is not about the origin of homosexuality. In fact, that the Bahá'í writings obviously do not recognize this simple fact about ethical reasoning is itself a good reason to doubt their relevance for effective moral dialogue.

The fact that there has "never been a single Messenger/Manifestation of God who has permitted homosexual relations" (even if it were true) is a manifestation of human prejudices. From a theological perspective, we might say that God doesn't challenge people beyond their capacity, and people have not (until today) had a capacity to accept homosexual relationships as valid. That might be an explanation you prefer. After all, no Manifestation/Messenger told us that the Internet was in line with God's intention for humans, but we seem to have no problem using that device, now don't we?

Personally, I take it as more plausible that religions are simply codifications of humanity's most basic prejudices, such that whatever beliefs a tribe has at the time of their religious invention becomes the law of their religion. In that case, it's no mystery that Judeao-Christo-Islamic religions would condemn homosexuality, because it was associated with so-called "pagan" tribes, effeminacy, and womanly qualities in general. Since all these religions generally hold women in contempt (including the Bahá'í Faith, despite all superficial pleadings to the contrary), it makes sense that they'd regard men who took on the role of women (or vice versa) as contemptible. But that's just my understanding. You can pick the one that suits you.

Re: The Trouble with the World

mavaddat — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 22:54:41 -0000

I have also experienced the frustration you feel in response to Bahá'ís like Farhan and Masud, CoL. It's an interesting point to consider how obfuscation, evasion, and stubbornly adhering to one's conclusion serve to the defense of the believer but do nothing to help the critic.

Why is this?

It seems to me that there's a psychological asymmetry between belief and non-belief here in virtue of difference between the believer's purpose (to defend his beliefs) and the critic's purpose (to consider where the best reasons lead us). This asymmetry implies that the believer can adopt a determined laziness, since their default condition is belief (i.e., without any reason one way or the other, they will believe) while the critical thinker produces all manner of nuanced and subtle reasoning.

Whenever I encounter this attitude of the believer as unclear thinker, it reminds me of Beaky Buzzard's obstinate refusal to yield to his mother's enticement to go fly on his own. Masud and Farhan are among the two who engender this Beaky Buzzardiness in its truest form.

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

mavaddat — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 22:03:13 -0000

Hi Sonja,

As Always, I appreciate your dedication to the principles of justice and fairness in opposition to the current practice of Bahá'í law. However, I must respectfully disagree with the fundamental premise of your argument, which intends to preserve the importance of the Bahá'í law. You apologize with your comparison of Bahá'í law to Dutch law, for example, by stating:

I’m not suggesting for one minute that Dutch Law supercedes Baha’i Law, but we need to think about the issues involved in applying Baha’i principles in a changing world.

However, I believe this is a mistake: I would say of course Dutch law supercedes Bahá'í law. Of course. Dutch law is a collection of principles derived by groups of people working together from secular reasoning, anticipating the future by observing historical lessons, and building on that solid foundation by a system of common law that allows for new and dynamic interpretations of these aforementioned principles. Bahá'í law, by contrast (and despite the work of Dr. Nader Saiedi to the opposite conclusion), is a collection of random articles of faith, general principles abstracted from then-current wisdom, and specific behavioral prohibitions and prescriptions that were important from the perspective of one Iranian nobleman a few hundred years ago, which are then (Allah'u'akbar) subject to amendment by a small, elite group of cloistered men today whose authority is upheld by a perpetual chain of self-congratulation. These laws are, in other words, utterly irrelevant by any objective standard of ethical reasoning or any important measure of normative evaluation.

Don't get me wrong: It's not that the Bahá'í laws are all universally ridiculous, per se, but the authoritarian way in which they are justified most certainly is universally ridiculous. To understand the distinction, suppose you had a political science exam, one question of which asked you what form of government you believed was the most effective, and for the second part, why you think so. For the first part, let's say you put the very respectable answer of "parliamentary democracy." For the second part, however, you respond, "Yea, verily I am the King of kings, and my decree is binding, such that whosoever will question my judgement has made a mockery of the Noumena, reality as it is within itself, to which I alone have unmitigated access." Surely you would not only fail your exam, but the teacher would want to see you after class to see if you were alright, wouldn't he? So why give Bahá'u'lláh a pass? Quite simply, I think Bahá'u'lláh fails to give his laws warrant by any reasonable standard of justification.

So while I absolutely agree with you when you write,

[I]f the Baha’i Teachings are so great, then we will find the answer by applying the Baha’i principles of justice and equality,

I must nevertheless deny your antecedent ("the Baha’i Teachings are so great"). They are not great. There is no room for the authoritarianism of the Bahá'í Faith (which we will admit if we understand its writings plainly, without undue bias) within a reasonable, ethical framework.

But what about room for change in the Bahá'í Faith? Although the quotations you provided are no doubt genuine, they are also easily contradicted in application to specific laws. As I've written elsewhere, for example, the Bahá'í Faith does not provision for change regarding its homophobic agenda, as the Universal House of Justice unashamedly declares (05 Jun 1993):

Regarding the question of whether or not same-sex marriages would ever be permitted by the Universal House of Justice, the enclosed extracts indicate clearly that it would not. In addition, it is interesting to note that 'Abdu'l-Bahá says in a Tablet:
Know thou that the command of marriage is eternal. It will never be changed nor altered. This is divine creation and there is not the slightest possibility that change or alteration affect this divine creation (marriage).

So if we're willing to admit this, and regard the Bahá'í Faith honestly, I think that we must change the premise of respect and regard that we have for Bahá'í law. There simply doesn't seem to be any ground for such respect, so far as I can see.

But of course, that's just in my opinion. I would love to know your thoughts on the ideas I present, Sonja. Thanks!

Re: Meet the New Universal House of Justice

mavaddat — Tue, 06 May 2008 14:30:23 -0000

Thanks Carmen. I suspected as much: You are looking to the academic tricks and Richard Dawkins for your analysis of philosophy.

I actually had the honour of meeting and talking to Prof. Dawkins a few days ago, at a reception following a sold-out lecture he gave on my campus. My friend whom I was with asked Dr. Dawkins how he felt about Thomas Kuhn's theory of the subjective element in scientific revolutions. Here I was witness to Dawkins' analysis of what he termed "post-modernism":

Dawkins to my friend: Have you ever had anyone tell you what 'post-modernism' is?My friend: No.Dawkins: Then if someone talks to you of post-modernism, you can tell them to "Fuck off".

Although it was indeed an honour, Dawkins' lumping of any disagreeable philosophy into the term 'post-modernism' left something to be desired...

The problem is, you are using the phrase "post-modernism" as if signified one coherent school of thought. But in reality, it refers to a mish-mash of disconnected and unrelated methods and ideas. Some post-modernism is logical and analytic (like William James, W.V.O. Quine, Richard Rorty, Paul Feyerabend, etc.) and some is unstructed and aimed at undermining logic (like Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, et al).

So the path you've trodden (invoking the Sokal affair as a refutation of all of post-modernism) is silly.

It would have been far more productive to ask Andrew what he meant by post-modernism, and specifically what philosophy within post-modernism he thought leant itself best to his thesis (which, by the way, seems to be the rather radical and outrageous idea that we should actually hold religious people accountable for their professed beliefs--insane!).

Re: Meet the New Universal House of Justice

mavaddat — Tue, 06 May 2008 12:30:12 -0000

Hi Carmen,

Could you tell me where you had that discussion with Andrew about the merits of post-modernism? I'm interested to know how it began and what it was about.

Personally, I'm always skeptical whenever anyone says they are critical or in support of "post-modernism"... I think the phrase Post-modernism is a catch-all that really means very little concretely. It is meant to deride a whole class of thinkers and authors who have very little in common, except the fact that they reject the dogmas of modernism. So it is really a very amorphous thing to debate.

But anyway, I'm still interested in what it was all about. I'm confident that Andrew's point was much better than you're letting on, although I will reserve judgement...

Re: Meet the New Universal House of Justice

mavaddat — Fri, 02 May 2008 16:17:42 -0000

anonymuz writes,

you have to believe in God first before you can say to hell with him.

No, not really. If God exists and doesn't have the courage to perscribe real gender equality, then such a God would not be a moral God and to him I would say, To hell with you, sir.

I get a real kick out of how much people attempt to explain through their fancy terms learned in philosophy class the apparent discrepancies within the writings.

The vocabulary I employ is fancy, eh? So... Have you ever actually read anything by Shoghi Effendi? Bahá'u'lláh? Ever heard of them? Hm? This only further proves my point: Bahá'ís are completely ignorant of their own holy writ.

Following the path of Ahmad Sohrab, Kheyrullah, does not really appeal to me. I have read their reasoning and there is nothing different from what is being talked about 100 yrs later.

I gather here that you think I'm advocating for some kind of alternative authority to the UHJ. I'm not. I'm suggesting maybe it's time to give up our child-like need for infallible adult figures and grow up. Grow up.

If you desire to serve on the UHJ ...

I don't.

All in all this largely western group of disaffected “intellectuals” does no service to those who truly have sacrificed for the Faith. Your attempts at socratic methods to analyze something that is essentially unknowable are a waste of time. Why dont you try to do something truly productive for your fellow man..or woman?!

Again, our poster demonstrates his or her tottering ignorance of the Bahá'í writings. For those even marginally familiar with the Bahá'í writings, it is clear that 'Abdu'l-Bahá was an advocate and employer of the Socratic method. For example, regarding the demonstration of what our ignorant friend calls a "waste of time", 'Abdu'l-Bahá writes:

First of all, let us determine whether these Prophets were valid or not by using rational proofs and shining arguments, not simply by quoting traditionary evidences, because traditions are divergent and the source of dissension.

And regarding Socrates, 'Abdu'l-Bahá writes:

As to deistic philosophers, such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, they are indeed worthy of esteem and of the highest praise, for they have rendered distinguished services to mankind.

And also:

The shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the clash of differing opinions.

Compare that to the sentiment put in the mouth of Socrates by Plato in his famous dialogue, The Republic:

What, then, we thought we saw there [justice in the state] we must refer back to the individual [interpersonal justice] and, if it is confirmed, all will be well. But if something different manifests itself in the individual, we will return again to the state and test it there and it may be that, by examining them side by side and rubbing them against one another, as it were from the fire-sticks we may cause the spark of justice to flash forth, and when it is thus revealed confirm it in our own minds.

In fact, 'Abdu'l-Bahá's own philosophy was so closely resembling the Platonic picture of Socrates that I would say he was an unconscious plagiarist of that school of thought. So much for our poster's disparaging of the Socratic method.

Lastly, the most wasteful, hurtful, pointless and ultimately useless action that can be taken by believers in the Baha’i faith, former and current, is to sit around and talk about it.

Once again showing your profound ignorance with the Bahá'í writings. You not only contradict yourself by doing precisely what you say is a waste of time (i.e., sitting around and talking about the Bahá'í Faith), but you also contradict all the proselytizing and indoctrination efforts that are promoted by the Bahá'í Faith and its authorities, which are nothing more than sitting around and talking. Alright. I'm done with this.

Re: Meet the New Universal House of Justice

mavaddat — Thu, 01 May 2008 17:25:47 -0000

Although I suspected as much before, it is now my firm conviction that Bahá'ís are not familiar with their own authoritative and holy writ; otherwise, they would not be surprised with its male bias, lack of term limits, and impossibility of female prophets.

To wit, anonymuz writes:

I always like to think that the next manifestation of God would be a women…She comes to the UHJ and says, ok, now women can join. So God decrees…

This is a pitiful abnegation of moral conscience commonly expressed by Bahá'ís who see the inequity of the current male-only scheme but would rather wait idly by for God to confirm what they already know to be true: that men and women are equal (not in the lame sense of "equal" as employed by the Bahá'í Faith, but really equal). I for one say, Why should we have to wait for God to confirm what we already know to be moral?! I say, If God hasn't the courage to embody full gender equality in his Earthly institutions, then I say to hell with God. But I'm getting off track. My point is that beyond being an abnegation of moral conscience, this is also an expression of pure ignorance and unfamiliarity with the Bahá'í writings.

For as 'Abdu'l-Bahá did write:

As regards the holy verse, the intention of the reference to 'male, not female', is the first-born son, for in all the Divine Dispensations the first-born son hath enjoyed a special distinction. Refer ye to the Torah and the Gospel, and likewise to the traditions related from aforetime. Read ye the story of Esau, Jacob and the sons of Isaac in the Torah, that it may become apparent that in all the divine Dispensations the eldest son hath been given extraordinary distinctions. Even the station of prophethood hath been his birthright, let alone the vanities of this world. Even the just laws current amongst civilized states and peoples have also accorded to the first-born son a special distinction.

It's really quite simple, people: If your religion is not moral, then you have a moral obligation to leave your religion. Morality, like politics, is not something that you take-or-leave in a package. That is the epitome of the lazy person's way to forming their ethical (or political) decisions.

Re: US NSA Loses Court Case Against Orthodox Baha’is

mavaddat — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 16:51:54 -0000

Baquia, I think you've missed the mark on this one.

You seem to assume that the actions of the NSA are somehow irrational even within the context of the interests of the Bahá'í Faith, and that they should have seen how irrational it was.

But this is wrong. So woefully wrong.

When you look at the actual Bahá'í writings on Covenant breaking you will find that what appear to be the desperate and self-important actions of the NSA are actually rather mild and constrained in comparison to the (supposed) danger posed by Covenant breakers.

See what the UHJ writes about it:

The Master has warned that, if unchecked, Covenant-breaking would "utterly destroy the Cause of God, exterminate His Law and render of no account all efforts exerted in the past". He sets this warning in the context of the fact that the central purpose of Baha'u'llah's Revelation is to create unity: Were it not for the protecting power of the Covenant to guard the impregnable fort of the Cause of God, there would arise among the Baha'is, in one day, a thousand different sects as was the case in former ages.

Apart from the danger that Covenant-breaking poses to the development of the Cause, it represents a spiritual contagion threatening the well-being of the individual believer because of its subtle appeal to the human ego. 'Abdu'l-Baha called for the complete exclusion from the Baha'i community of anyone found to be infected with the virus of Covenant-breaking, and urged all believers to shun any contact whatever with the persons involved.

And that is just one small sample of their delusion about the dangers of this small sect. Shoghi Effendi reminds us that "attitude of a Covenant Breaker is so poisonous that the Master likened it to leprosy, and warned the friends to breathe the same air was dangerous," and his advice to a Bahá'í whose family member had become a Covenant breaker was to shun her, since, "Your sister should never imagine she, loyal and devoted, has become a 'carrier'." So it's fairly reasonable that anyone who believed these insane, inhumane teachings could very easily come to the conclusion that suing a sect of 40 people for the rights of their trademarked name would make sense. Oh indeed, lots of sense!

More generally, the NSA's lawsuit is really an integral part of the guarding of that old Bahá'í lie that the perfection of the Bahá'í Faith is somehow demonstrated in the absence of any divisions in the Bahá'í Faith. How could it claim to be unique if it was just as divided as any other religion?! But it is divided. So as always, when their ostensibly perfect dogmas do not match the world, Bahá'ís strive to force the world to match their dogmas. Just as a loving parent would do for their children, the NSA is only trying to protect you from arriving at the unavoidable conclusion that your religion is just like every other religion that came before it: another collection of ill-begotten conclusions and superstitions that depend on our most basic anxieties about death, sex, and need for community for their propagation.

Baquia, your criticism of the NSA's legal actions is like the criticism one might give of a person who was trying to get others institutionalized because he thought that they were lepers living amongst him. Sure, he looks crazy when you ignore his delusions; but when you take into account what he thinks he's up against, his irrational behaviour makes perfect sense. Once again, as with all your criticisms of Bahá'ís, the problem is not the NSA, nor is it the Administrative Order -- it's just not. The problem is the Writings themselves.

Re: Sectarian Violence: Explosion in Shiraz Mosque

mavaddat — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 03:56:37 -0000

[quote comment=""]Here is video of what happened:[/quote]
Here's the video on YouTube

Pretty chaotic scene. Viewer discretion advised.

Re: Yes Virginia, Gay Baha’is Do Exist

mavaddat — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 15:48:41 -0000

Peter,

I appreciate your encouraging Farhan to give up. When it comes to people who, like him, are not interested in challenging themselves, but merely in spreading the faith they know to be right-no-matter-what, I too would rather they just stay out of the conversation. They are better off doing the things you suggest ("serving the Cause").

The UHJ writes,[quote]"However, to continue dialogue with those who have shown a fixed antagonism to the Faith, and have demonstrated their imperviousness to any ideas other than their own, is usually fruitless and, for the Baha’is who take part, can be burdensome and even spiritually corrosive.”[/quote]This is too clever. Sickening, but clever. Whatever one thinks about the Bahá'í Faith, one has to appreciate the effectiveness with which the religion is able shut down discourse and the mutual investigation of truth. It is really something special.

The religion starts off by praising the unfettered investigation of truth and encouraging its believers to fearlessly seek out the truth! How inspiring!

Then it says, Wait, you cannot investigate the claims of this one group of people over here who say they have the authority of the religion. Their words have supernatural powers, are infectious and can harm your soul merely by listening to them. We shall label them Covenant Breakers. But other than that, investigate fearlessly!

Oh, also... one little thing. People who deal in the sciences that begin with words and end with words? Yeah... avoid them too. What sciences does that include? Meh, you can interpret it however you wish whenever it suits you to avoid critical thinking. But other than that, investigate fearlessly!

Ah ah, but wait! You must also avoid people who wish to discuss politicized issues with you. Otherwise, investigate fearlessly!

Oh sorry, you should also avoid people who dwell in the "kingdom of names." So anyone who uses "logic" or "reasoning" must be avoided like the plague, for their ideas can be nothing but mere words. But other than that, go investigate!

Ok, this is the last time, I swear: You must also avoid discussing with contentious people generally. It is a waste of time, since you can never change their minds. (Never mind about learning something yourself. That's not the point! The point of "investigation" is to jam your thoughts into the minds of others, remember?! It is their duty to investigate, not yours! Yours is the duty to empty and "fill the cups" of men's minds.)

Ah yes. And that, my friends, is how a religion goes from being open like the sky to being closed tighter than Hooper Dunbar's butthole in a room with eight other men.

[quote]If Mavaddat is antagonistic to whatever Baha’u'llah writes why do you think he will be anything other than antagonistic to whatever you have to say?[/quote]Actually, I'm not antagonistic to everything Bahá'u'lláh wrote. For example, I like it when he wrote:[quote]Should you acquaint yourself with the indignities heaped upon the Prophets of God, and apprehend the true causes of the objections voiced by their oppressors, you will surely appreciate the significance of their position. Moreover, the more closely you observe the denials of those who have opposed the Manifestations of the divine attributes, the firmer will be your faith in the Cause of God.
(Bahá'u'lláh, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 6)[/quote]I'm just opposed to his more dubious ethical claims (of which there are but a few), and his metaphysical claims (whose verification or falsification lies beyond all possible experience).

Re: Yes Virginia, Gay Baha’is Do Exist

mavaddat — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 21:35:32 -0000

Farhan writes,[quote]I have been promoting the Baha’i Faith as medicine for the world’s afflictions and here I meet people expressing adverse reactions to this medicine: “iatrogenic” reactions in medical jargon. [/quote]Now we see clearly that his animating motivation to pollute the Internet with his unthinking claptrap is motivated by his certitude that he has the medicine that is sore lacking from our lives. Truly, does religion not poison everything?

A video demonstrating the effects of Bahá'u'lláh's writings on people like Farhan.

Re: Yes Virginia, Gay Baha’is Do Exist

mavaddat — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 21:07:22 -0000

Hey Farhan, answer my question. What was my "point" which "seemed valid" to you? Are you really an unthinking robot or not?

I'm not interested in talking to you about certainty. It is beside the subject of this thread, and conversation with you obviously never gets anywhere. The fact is that you think certainty is not only an acceptable state of mind, but a desirable one.

To me, that is the end of the conversation. Done. We have reached the Lote Tree beyond which there is no passing planted in the path of inquiry.

And I think you would make a wonderful Jesus. Made perpetually the victim on the cross in your muslin dress.

Re: Yes Virginia, Gay Baha’is Do Exist

mavaddat — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 08:26:25 -0000

[quote]Well Mavaddat, I must thank you for this direct, fair and constructive exchange;

I believe it will require some thoughts and meditation before I can give you a fair reply; Your point seems valid to me.[/quote]Farhan,

What has been "constructive" in this exchange? In fact, when was there even an "exchange"? What do you take to be my "point" which to you seems "valid"? Up to now your responses have been entirely automatic and lacking any apparent understanding of the arguments to which they are supposedly addressed, so I'm extremely skeptical you've understood me.

Certitude, whether it be attained a posteriori or a priori, is the whole problem. Certitude is the state of being so self-assured that one exceeds the need for critical examination of one's ideas. Baha'u'llah not only captures, but positively encourages this attitude of close-mindedness:[quote] O FLEETING SHADOW!

Pass beyond the baser stages of doubt and rise to the exalted heights of certainty. Open the eye of truth, that thou mayest behold the veilless Beauty and exclaim: Hallowed be the Lord, the most excellent of all creators![/quote] One simply cannot be a Baha'i and not be a dogmatist. At least, not one who is anything close to honest with himself. Anyone who has attempted (no doubt, in vain) to reason with a man of certitude -- a man such as yourself, Farhan -- knows that certitude is the basis of all dogmatism. To say, therefore, that you have attempted to throw off dogmatism and have acquired certitude through certainty is like claiming that you have attempted to avoid getting wet by jumping into the sea.

The goal of an open-minded person cannot be certitude. And a person of certitude cannot be open-minded. The two are mutually exclusive.

Re: Yes Virginia, Gay Baha’is Do Exist

mavaddat — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 22:38:21 -0000

Craig, it's kind of scary how easily you got that Scarlett O'Hara reference... I'm not even going to ask how...

But I'm not too keen on karma, to be honest with you. Natural justice, it seems to me, exists only in our imagination. It is a manifestation of our hope, but is little to be found in reality. A film like "No Country for Old Men" reminds me of this.

This is important, because it emphasizes the human imperative of bringing about justice. The time for relying on God or nature to enforce our notions of right and wrong have passed (this is the point Steve Marshall was emphasizing before he passed from our midsts). Nature and God have both shown us their apathy. Without the coordinated action of human beings, there is no assurance of justice.

Re: Yes Virginia, Gay Baha’is Do Exist

mavaddat — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 07:14:27 -0000

Farhan writes,[quote]Mavaddat,

you write:
“my goal is the elimination of dogmatism and the opening of minds to evidence, revision of their ideas in the face of new evidence, and friendliness to criticism.”

If this is your goal, you can count me whole heartedly as “one of yours” in my efforts to that goal. Whatever I have said, written or done in the last 30 years attest my adhesion to that goal; [/quote]Farhan, you are opposed to dogma in the same way that Bahá'u'lláh was opposed to dogma: i.e., only to the extent that other people's dogmas prevent them from adopting your dogmas. In reality, you are a dogmatist through and through. Everything you've said, written and done in any of your conversations that I have followed on the Internet attest to this fact.

Your method of thinking (I use the word loosely) is a testimony to these words, which is the creed of dogmatists everywhere:[quote]In short, the meaning of "He doeth whatsoever He willeth" is that if the Manifestation says something, or gives a command, or performs an action, and believers do not understand its wisdom, they still ought not to oppose it by a single thought, seeking to know why He spoke so, or why He did such a thing. The other souls who are under the shadow of the supreme Manifestations are submissive to the commandments of the Law of God, and are not to deviate as much as a hairsbreadth from it; they must conform their acts and words to the Law of God. If they do deviate from it, they will be held responsible and reproved in the presence of God. It is certain that they have no share in the permission "He doeth whatsoever He willeth," for this condition is peculiar to the supreme Manifestations.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 173)[/quote]Your virtue is undying faith, Farhan. The faith I speak of is captured by Shoghi Effendi when he says:[quote]
Is not faith but another word for implicit obedience, whole-hearted allegiance, uncompromising adherence to that which we believe is the revealed and express will of God, however perplexing it might first appear, however at variance with the shadowy views, the impotent doctrines, the crude theories, the idle imaginings, the fashionable conceptions of a transient and troublous age?

(Shoghi Effendi, Bahá'í Administration, p. 62)[/quote]These words shall be your epitaph -- that all thinking shall be eschewed except insofar as it agrees with the faith to which you have committed yourself apriori.

In all these ways, you are the epitome of dogmatism.

Re: Yes Virginia, Gay Baha’is Do Exist

mavaddat — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 06:56:27 -0000

Farhan, you are not a bully. You are ever the victim. I imagine you would look good in an American-style muslin dress circa antebellum South.

The "us" I was inviting you to join was humanity in 2008. I was not advocating unity as a goal. I was encouraging you to discipline the spiritual infant who has apparently tyrannized your mind and invite in his stead a more mature figure who might think for himself.

No, I don't think you are a bully. It is more fair to say that you're an a tool of God, but I summarize this simply by the predicate "faithful."

Re: Yes Virginia, Gay Baha’is Do Exist

mavaddat — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 07:11:17 -0000

Farhan, you still aren't paying attention. I never said my goal was unity.

Anyway, when you write,[quote]You invite people to the discussion table to bash them for their ideas, and not to share lovingly your jewels...[/quote]Do you not see that you are promoting disunity and contention? Why must you create divisions between "us" and "them"? Your quotation is addressed to the people of Baha, of which I am not accounted. Why did you introduce that quotation if not to create division between the people of Baha and those who are not of Baha? Do you not see how divisive you are being?

Honestly, Farhan. Your words are so opposed to your goals.