Bahai
Nov 1st, 2007, in News, by PatungMuslims converting to Bahai.
Thirty-one Muslims in the Donggala area of Central Sulawesi have become apostates and converted to the Bahá’à religion, it is said, inviting the anger of their neighbours who are sticking firm to Islam, and the displeasure of the local bureaucracy.
The head of the Religious Affairs Office in Palolo sub-district said that the Bahai faith, led by one Mulahi, a former marriage counsellor, entered Banpers village in the 1990s, and Mulahi had persuaded 31 local people to convert.
But some Muslims in the village are not taking it lying down:
The homes of the Bahai followers in Banpers are often pelted with stones.
Nor is the local government, which held a meeting between concerned Muslims and the Bahaists in September, 2007, wherein the Bahai adherents were warned to have a think about which religion they wanted to belong to, either Islam, like before, or another religion which was recognised by the government, because Bahai is not. Another meeting will be held soon, to find out whether the Bahaists have had enough thinking time. antara
The Department of Religion (Depag) has also sent down an investigative team, says Muhammad Ramli in Palu, and they will have to decide whether Bahai is a sect within Islam. If so, then the converts, or their leaders, can likely be prosecuted for blasphemy. Depag also wants to find out how Bahai has been spread in the area, because if it is being preached at people who already hold a religion, then that may also constitute a crime, he said. antara
November 8th. Two out of the seven households that converted to Bahai are said to have returned to Islam, after the two heads of the households, Mulahi (70) and Muslimin (40), met with local leaders. Four others refused to change back to Islam, while the seventh did not turn up. antara
395 Comments on “Bahai”
-
Susan says:
To my comment:
“We therefore can maintain the integrity of our scriptures, our laws and practices without the need for any special clerical class. ”
Khafi asks:
Could it be that Bahai keep their integrity because of the following statement by
Baha’u’llah:
“to none is given the right to put forth his own opinion or express individual convictions”“And comments:
Doesn’t seem like a very tolerant system to me when the ability to question and reason is removed from the followers.”
Dear Khafi,
The statement you quoted is from Abdu’l-Baha’s Will and Testament not Baha’u’llah. But actually it is part and parcel of what I was saying about Baha’is not having a clerical class. What is being addressed here is not the individuals right to self-expression or asking questions. Let’s look at the larger passage:
“To none is given the right to put forth his own opinion or express his particular conviction. All must seek guidance and turn unto the Centre of the Cause and the House of Justice.”
The term for opinion here is ra’i which is one of the principles (usul) of Islamic jurisprudence. This entire section of the Will and Testament is written in juridical language and intended to limit the power of individual ‘ulama. He is saying that individual clerics cannot issue legal opinions, but that rather it is up to the Guardian (who died in 1957) and the Universal House of Justice, which as I mentioned is an elected body, to determine the application of Baha’i law and practice. This principle is reinforced in another Tablet entitled Lawh-i-Bayt-ul-‘Adl-‘Azam va Úsúl-i-Qadá’Ã
“Thus, this is the intention and the wisdom of referring civil ordinances
(ahkam-i madaniyyih) to the Universal House of Justice. In the holy law
(shariat) of Islam (Furqan), also, all of the laws were
not revealed (mansus) [in the Qur’an]. Indeed, not one thousandth were
revealed. Although all important matters were mentioned, yet one hundred
thousand laws were not mentioned. Later the `ulama derived (istinbat)
them according to the rules (qawa’id) of the [science of] the
Principles [of Jurisprudence] (usul). In those early [schools] of law
(shara’i`), the individual members of the `ulama would derive
(istinbat) these [laws] differently and they were implemented. Now, the
[process of] deriving [the law] is to be referred to the House of
Justice and the derivation (istinbat) and elucidation (istikhraj) of
individual learned persons (`ulama:) has no authority, unless the House
of Justice endorses it. The difference is just this that [from the
derivations and endorsements of the House of Justice, whose members are
elected and have the confidence of the generality of the community, no
differences will arise, whereas] from the derivations (istinbat) of the
‘ulama and wise comes about differences and this leads
to sectarian splitting, separation and division. The unity of discourse
and the oneness of the religion of God would disappear and the
foundations of the law (shariat) of God would be shaken. ”A smoother but less literal translation can be found here:
http://bahai-library.com/provisionals/bayt.adl.usul.qadai.au.html
Read the above carefully and consider whether or not what Abdu’l-Baha is saying about the ‘ulama is right or wrong.
Yes, there is authority in the Baha’i Faith as there must be in any religion that takes revelation seriously. Otherwise we should embrace natural religion where are reason is the final arbitrator of truth rather than what God reveals to us.
To my comment:
Baha’u’llah is conceived of as the “Supreme” Manifestation inasmuch as he is the one foretold in all religions who will bring about world unity”
“Using this logic, the supreme manifestation is actually Jesus who has had a far greater impact with 2.1 billion followers compared with only 5 million Baha’i.”
And for all of its billions of followers after two thousand years it cannot keep itself united, let alone the world. I sometimes relate to my students the hadith where Muhammad says, “the Jews have 71 sects, the Christians 72, but my people will have 73 sects.” I then jokingly add, “Of course the Prophet never visited Jackson, Mississippi or he would have known there are a *lot* more than 72 sects of Christianity.”
“It is of course only the Baha’i belief that Baha’u’llah is the one foretold, who will bring unity.”
Yes, it is our belief, but it is not blind belief. It is based on the fact that we see in Baha’u’llah’s revelation the remedy for the ills of today. Yes, right now there are only five or six million of us. Christianity was very small during the first three centuries of its existence as well. Until Constantine converted in 314 A.D. Christians made up no more than 5% of the Roman Empire. The question is not how big we are, but what our the needs of the age in which we live and which religion can best meet those needs?
You ask:
“Earlier in this post there was talk of tolerance, can you explain to me how tolerant Baha’i are to the following groups:
Orthodox Baha’i
Orthodox Baha’i Under the Regency
Mother Bahai Council of the United States
Tarbiyat Bahai community
The Reform Baha’i faith
The Baha’is Under the Provisions of the Covenant”Some of these aren’t groups at all. For instance the so-called “Reform Baha’i Faith” is really just one person, namely Fred Glaysher. He has a website, not a group. In fact he has more than one website claiming to represent different Baha’i groups which no longer exist. He is an ex-Baha’i doing pretty much whatever he can to discredit the Baha’i Faith without much concern for truthfulness.
The rest of the groups you mentioned are people who claimed that an American named Charles Mason Remey was supposedly the Guardian after Shoghi Effendi. In fact, Shoghi Effendi never appointed a successor and he certainly would not have appointed one who knew neither Persian or Arabic given that it was the Guardian’s function to interpret the Baha’i Writings. Mason Remey could not even read these writings, let alone interpret them! During Mason Remey’s own lifetime his followers began to fragment and form the groups you name above. All of these groups were exceedingly small and sometimes you have listed the same group twice under different names. For instance, the Mother Council of the United States is the governing body over the so-called Orthodox Baha’is. They follow Joel Marangella who broke with Mason Remey and claimed the Guardianship for himself. According to recent court depositions filed by this group, they number less than thirty people in the United States. I doubt very much if they have more than a hundred followers in the world, certainly not more than two hundred.
The so-called Orthodox Baha’is Under the Regency is old name for the same group as the Tarbiyat Bahai community. It was started by Rex King, another American who broke with Mason Remey. They have a website which hasn’t been touched for a decade. As far as I know their only followers are a few family members that continue to live on the Tarbiyat estate.
The so-called Baha’is Under the Provision of the Covenant is a very bizarre group, started by another American who broke with Mason Remey, namely Leland Jensen. He combined Baha’i Teachings with a lot of Christian apocalyptic stuff. After he died in 1996 this group fragmented into several groups, each one having a handful of followers at best.
As you can see each one of these groups was started by some disgruntled American and has little relationship with the historical Baha’i Faith. Their numbers do not total more than a few hundred people altogether. These groups were all but dead until the internet came along and enabled them to attract a few more people. But they are still very, very small.
I haven’t forgotten that the question you raised was regarding our tolerance for these groups. Generally speaking we just try and stay out of their way. but we don’t like these American off-shoots using our name because the really have nothing to do with the Baha’i Faith. We call the Remeyite groups Covenant breakers because they attempted to break the line of legitimate succession ordained by Baha’u’llah. Fred Glaysher we don’t consider anything but an annoyance, because like I said, he doesn’t really have any group which follows him.
But let’s get back to this issue of civil rights which is what the Baha’is are asking for. Would we be prepared to grant the same civil rights we ask for to Covenant breakers? The answer is yes, absolutely. During Abdu’l-Baha’s time there was a Baha’i who tried to stop a Covenant breaker from getting a job as a school teacher. Abdu’l-Baha became furious when he heard this and insisted that Baha’is had no right to deprive anyone of their livelihood. Since then no Baha’i has dared do such a thing. Similiarly, in speaking of the rectitude of conduct which Baha’is must possess, Shoghi Effendi stated:
“It must be demonstrated in the impartiality of every defender of the Faith against its enemies, in his fair-mindedness in recognizing any merits that enemy may possess, and in his honesty in discharging any obligations he may have towards him.”
(Shoghi Effendi, The Advent of Divine Justice, p. 27)
I think the above summarizes the ‘tolerance’ Baha’is must show towards even our biggest enemies.
But let me continue with your questions:
“Are they tolerated and accepted or are they excommunicated from the faith because they don’t and I quote again from The Baha’u’llah:
“show their obedience, submissiveness and subordination unto the Guardian of the Cause of God, to turn unto him and be lowly before him”
Okay, first off Baha’u’llah never said anything whatsoever about a Guardian. It was Abdu’l-Baha, not Baha’u’llah who appointed a Guardian. The phrase which you quoted out of context is from Abdu’l-Baha’s Will and Testament and states the following:
“It is incumbent upon the members of the House of Justice, upon all the Aghsan, the Afnan, the Hands of the Cause of God to show their obedience, submissiveness and subordination unto the Guardian of the Cause of God, to turn unto him and be lowly before him.”
(Abdu’l-Baha, The Will and Testament, p. 11)
What this statement is doing is establishing that the Guardian has ultimate authority over the several groups named. These include Baha’u’llah’s own descendents (the Aghsan), those related to the Bab (Afnan), the Hands of the Cause (there were four at the time), and the not yet elected members of the Universal House of Justice. As it turned out the Guardian died well before the election of that body. The groups you named broke from the Baha’i Faith *following* the death of the Guardian, so this verse really has nothing to do with them.
Does the Universal House of Justice ever excommunicate people? Yes, on very rare occasions. Such an action is not contrary to the principle of tolerance. Read John Locke’s works on Religious Tolerance. He held that just as the State should not be allowed to impose a religion upon its subjects, so the churche’s right to excommunicate those who don’t believe as they do cannot be infringed upon. Every individual should have the right to their own religion but at the same time every religion has the right to define itself. This is how Abdu’l-Baha addresses the issues of freedom and tolerance:
“There are three types of freedom. The first is divine freedom, which is one of the inherent attributes of the Creator for He is unconstrained in His will, and no one can force Him to change His decree in any matter whatsoever….
The second is the political freedom of Europeans, which leaves the individual free to do whatsoever he desires as long as his action does not harm his neighbour. This is natural freedom, and its greatest expression is seen in the animal world. Observe these birds and notice with what freedom they live. However much man may try, he can never be as free as an animal, because the existence of order acts as an impediment to freedom.
The third freedom is that which is born of obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Almighty. This is the freedom of the human world, where man severs his affections from all things. When he does so, he becomes immune to all hardship and sorrow. Wealth or material power will not deflect him from moderation and fairness, neither will poverty or need inhibit him from showing forth happiness and tranquillity. The more the conscience of man develops, the more will his heart be free and his soul attain unto happiness. In the religion of God, there is freedom of thought because God, alone, controls the human conscience, but this freedom should not go beyond courtesy. In the religion of God, there is no freedom of action outside the law of God. Man may not transgress this law, even though no harm is inflicted on one’s neighbour. This is because the purpose of Divine law is the education of all — others as well as oneself — and, in the sight of God, the harm done to one individual or to his neighbour is the same and is reprehensible in both cases. Hearts must possess the fear of God. Man should endeavour to avoid that which is abhorrent unto God. Therefore, the freedom that the laws of Europe offer to the individual does not exist in the law of God. Freedom of thought should not transgress the bounds of courtesy, and actions, likewise, should be governed by the fear of God and the desire to seek His good pleasure. ”
The difference between excommunication (tard) in the Baha’i Faith and declaring someone an apostate in Islam (takfir) is that some Muslims think they have the right to kill apostates, or persecute and harrass them. This is what is wrong. It is not wrong for a Christian to say “Mormons are not Christian” or a Muslim to say “Ahmadis are not Muslim.” It is wrong not to let Mormons and Ahmadis worship as they please. Everyone should have the right to choose their own religion and even change their mind afterwards if they think they have made the wrong choice. Likewise every religion ought to have the right to decide who it accepts into its membership and who it does not.
Finally, you wrote:
“Ultimately what I am asking is, is Bahai The Universal Religion? Or is Quranic Islam, which states:
Any Who Believe in God , Believe in The Day of Judgement, and does good deeds has nothing to fear from God.”
Help me out here, I can’t find this ayat. The closest one I found is the following:
“And those who believe and do good works and believe in that which is revealed unto Muhammad – and it is the truth from their Lord – He riddeth them of their ill-deeds and improveth their state.”
(The Qur’an (Pickthall tr), Sura 47 – Muhammad)
But that’s not really saying the same thing.
ma salamat,
Susan
-
“All I can say is..people will believe what they want to believe, be it intolerant Muslims or intolerant Christians or intolerant atheists. I sometimes see parallels between the ultra-conservative Muslims in the Muslim world and the ultra-conservative christians in the west. Either way, you focus on the positive individuals and not the negative folks.”
Dear Tuan,
When you are dealing with individuals that is probably a good policy. The problem is when intolerance is exhibited by those who hold coercive political power.
ma salamat,
Susan
-
Mohammed Khafi says:
Susan,
The verse is from al-Baqarah:
al-Baqara:
Lo! Those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans – whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right – surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve. 2:62And the principle is repeated in al-Ma’idah:
Lo! those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Sabaeans, and Christians – Whosoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right – there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.Thank you for you explanations of my questions, my knowledge of the Baha’i faith is somewhat limited unfortunately.
Al Quran explains to us that we are each individually responsible for our own souls, we have to reason and learn and decide for ourselves, Personally I would be hesitant to follow a religion where only one person, The Guardian or, a small select group, The Universal House of Justice has ultimate control over every aspect of my faith. That rather seems to be negating our own individual responsibilities.
As I mentioned earlier, the aspect of the Baha’i Messenger being elevate to such a high status troubles me also, Al Quran reinforces the humanity of the messengers, and reminds us that as humans they were complete with human faults and failings, Baha’i seem to believe that their messenger is somehow perfect and infallible, similar infact to all the mainstream faiths who would all seem to have gone astray to one degree or another.
My belief is that God has given us simple rules, as illustrated in the verses above, Belief in Him, Belief in The Day of Judgement and doing good deeds. How we go about following those rules, and encouraging others to follow them is largely down to us as individuals.
Peace
-
Khafi writes:
“The verse is from al-Baqarah:
al-Baqara:
Lo! Those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans – whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right – surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve. 2:62”Ah, I see what you are saying. Baha’is likewise do not believe you have to belong to our religion to be saved. Baha’u’llah goes further than that and states the following about how we should relate to those of other religions:
“Through each and every one of the verses which the Pen of the Most High hath revealed, the doors of love and unity have been unlocked and flung open to the face of men. We have erewhile declared — and Our Word is the truth — : “Consort with the followers of all religions in a spirit of friendliness and fellowship.” Whatsoever hath led the children of men to shun one another, and hath caused dissensions and divisions amongst them, hath, through the revelation of these words, been nullified and abolished.”
(Baha’u’llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, p. 94)
You write:
“Al Quran explains to us that we are each individually responsible for our own souls, we have to reason and learn and decide for ourselves, Personally I would be hesitant to follow a religion where only one person, The Guardian or, a small select group, The Universal House of Justice has ultimate control over every aspect of my faith. That rather seems to be negating our own individual responsibilities.”
I think you may be misunderstanding what the Guardian did or the Universal House of Justice currently does. We do not have rules that govern the minutae of individual behavior that you find in some understandings of Islam. No one tells us how to clean our teeth or go to the toilet. Even our salat we do individually so there is no one to say you are doing it right or wrong, or even did you do it. Our Fast is similiar to the Muslim Fast, but no one takes it upon themselves to enforce the Fast. If you do not follow it, it is between you and God. The same thing is true even of contributions to the Baha’i Funds. For instance, the Kitab-i Aqdas states that whenever your assets have reached a certain point and your debts are paid off you should contribute an amount similiar to the *khums* in Islam. But there is no one who keeps track of whether you pay or don’t pay or harrasses you if you fail to pay.
But not all laws are intended for purpose of saying individual souls. Indeed, I would argue that if you think that is the only function of religion, better to be a Christian which virtually has no shariah precisely *because* it is concerned solely with individual salvation. In the ayat you cite even the Qur’an admits belief in Christianity is sufficient for salvation so if that is your goal why even be saddled with all the rules in the Qur’an?
But Islam, unlike Christianity, is not simply concerned with individual salvation. It is concerned with community. That is the reason, after all, that the Muslim calendar begins with the hijr and not the year of Muhammad’s birth or even when he first begins tto declare his mission. Because in Medina you have the founding of the first Muslim community, the umma, something not possible in Mecca. The purpose of the Baha’i Faith is closer to Islam than Christianity, in that we are not so much concerned with individual salvation as we are the betterment of the world (islah-i alam.) Human communities must be based on justice and laws. If every individual were to decide what constitutes the law for themselves there would be chaos. Surely you can understand this. It is in this area that the Universal House of Justice has jurisdiction. As for the Guardian, as I said, he died in 1957 and while we still observe his writings, if that is contrary to individual responsibility then so is following scripture, any scripture!
In both Islam and the Baha’i Faith law is conceived of something divinely revealed. It was for this reason that for many years Muslim countries were reluctant to establish elected legislatures. Law was seen as something divinely revealed and interpreted by the ‘ulama. Laws issued by rulers themselves were considered less than legitimate. The ‘ulama then, had (or claimed) a virtual monopoly over both legislative and judicial functions, leaving to the rulers only the executive function of government. Rulers could therefore be elected, but legislatures were more problematic. Even in modern times where such legislatures have been established, such as Iran and Pakistan, the ‘ulama are given oversight over those bodies. In the Baha’i Faith law retains its sacred character as in Islam, but now the democratic and consultative process itself has been itself sacralized and the ‘ulama have no right to interfere.
“As I mentioned earlier, the aspect of the Baha’i Messenger being elevate to such a high status troubles me also, Al Quran reinforces the humanity of the messengers, and reminds us that as humans they were complete with human faults and failings, Baha’i seem to believe that their messenger is somehow perfect and infallible, similar infact to all the mainstream faiths who would all seem to have gone astray to one degree or another.”
Personally, I fail to understand how the Qur’an can be protected if channel through which the Qur’an was revealed is not himself protected (ismat.)
ma salamat, Susan
-
Khafi wrote:
“Neither Allah nor Mohammed prohibited alcohol, they prohibited drunkenness, The prohibition of alcohol is from those accursed Hadith!”
I went back to check exactly what the Qur’an said about the use of wine (which I take to include all alcoholic beverages. As I mentioned earlier the Quran did not immediately prohibit alcohol but did so very gradually. But if one reads all the passages together it is quite clear that its use is not permitted to Muslims:
They will ask thee about wine and el maisar, say, ‘In them both is sin and profit to men; but the sin of both is greater than the profit of the same.’
(The Qur’an (E.H. Palmer tr), Sura 2 – The Heifer)
O ye who believe! verily, wine, and el maisar, and statues, and divining (arrows) are only an abomination of Satan’s work; avoid them then that haply ye may prosper. Satan only desires to place enmity and hatred between you by wine and maisar, and to turn you from the remembrance of God and from prayer; but will ye not desist, and obey God, and obey the apostles, and beware, for if ye turn back then know that our Apostle has only his message to preach?
(The Qur’an (E.H. Palmer tr), Sura 5 – The Table)
I see references to gambling in these passages but not drunkeness as you alledged. It is wine which is prohibited. And I don’t see any way this second verse can be interpreted as anything but a prohibition. What is not stipulated in the Qur’an is the penalty for wine-drinking but which many of the ‘ulama have set at 80 lashes. As you know, this is the penalty for slander. The ‘ulama used the principle of ra’i which I mentioned earlier to say that since a drunk cannot tell the truth, they should receive 80 lashes as well. There is a hadith where the Prophet orders that someone caught drinking wine be beaten but he doesn’t say anything about eight lashes. In fact, the man in question was ‘beat up” not whipped.
Abu Huraira said, “A man who drank wine was brought to the Prophet. The
Prophet said, ‘Beat him!” Abu Huraira added, “So some of us beat him with our
hands, and some with their shoes, and some with their garments (by twisting it) like
a lash, and then when we finished, someone said to him, ‘May Allah disgrace you!’
On that the Prophet said, ‘Do not say so, for you are helping Satan to overpower
him.’ ”(Hadith, Bukhari Vol 8)
ma salamat,
Susan
-
Susan,
There are three verses dealing with intoxicants, not one of them forbids the use of intoxicants rather they suggest that there is some benefit but more harm, this to me suggests that they should be used in moderation rather than completely banned. If God had wanted to stop people drinking he would have said that the use of intoxicants was forbidden however none of the verses say this.
God has absolutely no need to prohibit anything gradually.
In in the following verse God mentions some of the good things which he has provided for us:
And We have not revealed to you the Book except that you may make clear to
them that about which they differ, and (as) a guidance and a mercy for a
people who believe. And Allah has sent down water from the cloud and
therewith given life to the earth after its death; most surely there is a
sign in this for a people who would listen. And most surely there is a
lesson for you in the cattle; We give you to drink of what is in their
bellies — from betwixt the feces and the blood– pure milk, easy and
agreeable to swallow for those who drink. And of the fruits of the palms and
the grapes — you obtain from them intoxication (sakaran) and goodly
provision; most surely there is a sign in this for a people who ponder. And
your Lord revealed to the bee saying: Make hives in the mountains and in the
trees and in what they build: Then eat of all the fruits and walk in the
ways of your Lord submissively. There comes forth from within it a beverage
of many colours, in which there is healing for men; most surely there is a
sign in this for a people who reflect. 16:64-69In the fo0llowing verse it is clear that drinking is allowed, but praying whilst intoxicated is not.
O you who believe! do not go near prayer when you are Intoxicated (sukara)
UNTIL YOU KNOW (WELL) WHAT YOU SAY, nor when you are under an obligation to
perform a bath — unless (you are) travelling on the road– until you have
washed yourselves; and if you are sick, or on a journey, or one of you come
from the privy or you have touched the women, and you cannot find water,
betake yourselves to pure earth, then wipe your faces and your hands; surely
Allah is Pardoning, Forgiving. 4:43This following verse again highlights the problem of excessive drinking, but still no prohibition, in fact it is clear that God allows drinking whilst setting limits on it.
They ask thee concerning wine (al-khamri) and gambling. Say: “In them is
great sin, AND SOME PROFIT, for men; but the sin is greater than the
profit.” They ask thee how much they are to spend; Say: “What is beyond your
needs.” Thus doth Allah Make clear to you His Signs: In order that ye may
consider. 2:219This last verse also has no definitive prohibition on the use of alcohol, it tells us to avoid enmity and hatred.
O ye who believe! Intoxication and idols and divining arrows are only an infamy of Satan’s handiwork. Avoid them in order that ye may succeed. Satan seeketh only to cast among you enmity and hatred by means of strong drink and games of chance, and to turn you from remembrance of Allah and from worship. Will ye then have done? 5:90-91
All that God needed to say was intoxicants are forbidden for you, He didn’t! He did however say that His Book was Complete, Perfect and Fully Detailed.
Those who have believed and do works fruitful to the society, bear no guilt for what and how they eat and drink and partake. Provided they augment their belief to the point of conviction and cease not helping the needy, and benefiting humanity. Allah loves the benefactors of humanity.
Peace
-
Khafi qouted the Qur’an as saying:
O ye who believe! Intoxication and idols and divining arrows are only an infamy of Satan’s handiwork. Avoid them in order that ye may succeed. Satan seeketh only to cast among you enmity and hatred by means of strong drink and games of chance, and to turn you from remembrance of Allah and from worship. Will ye then have done? 5:90-91
Dear Khafi,
I don’t know where you got this translation from but it is not accurate. The passage says that *intoxicants* (al-khamru) not intoxication is a handiwork of Satan and an abomination. The word for intoxication is *sukara.* Furthermore this ayat appears in a surah which is all about what kinds of food and drink Muslims should or should not partake of. Let’s look at some other translations of this passage:
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan’s handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Strong drink and games of chance and idols and divining arrows are only an infamy of Satan’s handiwork. Leave it aside in order that ye may succeed.
SHAKIR: O you who believe! intoxicants and games of chance and (sacrificing to) stones set up and (dividing by) arrows are only an uncleanness, the Shaitan’s work; shun it therefore that you may be successful.005.091
YUSUFALI: Satan’s plan is (but) to excite enmity and hatred between you, with intoxicants and gambling, and hinder you from the remembrance of Allah, and from prayer: will ye not then abstain?
PICKTHAL: Satan seeketh only to cast among you enmity and hatred by means of strong drink and games of chance, and to turn you from remembrance of Allah and from (His) worship. Will ye then have done?
SHAKIR: The Shaitan only desires to cause enmity and hatred to spring in your midst by means of intoxicants and games of chance, and to keep you off from the remembrance of Allah and from prayer. Will you then desist?You wrote:
“God has absolutely no need to prohibit anything gradually”
But we often have a need for Him to prohibit things gradually. The verses on alcohol are only one place where God only gradually reveals His will. Another place is when He changes the Qiblih.
You write:
“All that God needed to say was intoxicants are forbidden for you, He didn’t!”
I would expect that most reasonable Muslims would understand calling something an abomination which must be eschewed to be a prohibition especially when it is immediately followed by the following verse:
“Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and beware (of evil): if ye do turn back, know ye that it is Our Messenger’s duty to proclaim (the message) in the clearest manner. ”
I don’t know how a prohibition could be any clearer.
ma salamat, Susan
-
Susan,
You are of course quite correct, my error:
INTOXICANTS — (خمر) ” Khamr” means to cover, to place a curtain on a certain object. As wine puts a curtain on human intellect, it is called (خمر) “Khamr”. But the word “Khamr” includes all sorts of intoxicants which cover or stupify human intellect and diminish alertness. Thus all such practices which impair man’s determination as well as stamina for work, must be avoided.
But I don’t think your translations are quite correct either, please read this from Free-Minds:
SHAKIR: O you who believe! intoxicants and games of chance and (sacrificing to) stones set up and (dividing by) arrows are only an uncleanness (Rijs), the Shaitan’s work; shun it therefore that you may be successful. (5:90)
Why is this argument wrong?
Simply because the verse being quoted and used as evidence has been mistranslated.
The word in question is the Arabic `faijtanibuh`. Nearly all translators (and even Arabic speakers) automatically relate this word (which means: `avoid / stay-away`) as addressing the subject of alcohol quoted in the beginning of 5:90. What is obvious to a careful reader is that the wording ends with the `H` which is in Arabic called `dhameer` and is referring to a singular.
Now, the verse in question has two singular items that it may be referring to: 1. Rijs/Uncleanness, 2. Shaitan.
While the majority have obviously selected the `Rijs` to support their theory of alcohol being avoided, the verse is correctly referring to the Devil `Shaitan` as can be seen in the very next verse:
“The devil only wants to cause strife between you through intoxicants and gambling, and to repel you away from remembering God and from the Salat. Will you be deterred?” (5:91)
The correct translation therefore becomes:
“O you who believe, intoxicants, and gambling, and sacraments, and fortunes are foul tools used by the devil. You shall avoid him so that you may be successful.” (5:90)
You said:
I would expect that most reasonable Muslims would understand calling something an abomination which must be eschewed to be a prohibition …
No mention of the word “abomination” either, if you compare this translation with the literal translation it makes much more sense.
We have to be very careful with any translation, so many translators have translated not based on the classical Arabic meanings of the words, but rather based on Hadith and traditions.
If what you understand to be a ban on alcohol came from Al Quran, it is very strange that many early Muslims continued to drink wine, including one figure who is praised as an upstanding example of the glorious days of Islam, The Islamic Philosopher and Scientist, Avicenna. Al Andalus was famous for its grapes and wines, prior to the advent of Hadith Inspired fundamentalist islam taking it over.
You are interpreting Al Quran from stories which were made up 2-300 years after The Prophet died, and which have completely changed the simple system that The Prophet put in place.
In Gods previous scriptures, wine has always been mentioned, to be used in moderation, which is what Al Quran tries to tell us. I don’t really think that God needed to wait until Al Quran to ban the use of alcohol.
“Make not unlawful, the pleasant things which Allah has made lawful for you and commit no excess.” (5/87)
Peace
-
Sputjam says:
Dear Susan,
went back to check exactly what the Qur’an said about the use of wine (which I take to include all alcoholic beverages. As I mentioned earlier the Quran did not immediately prohibit alcohol but did so very gradually. But if one reads all the passages together it is quite clear that its use is not permitted to Muslims:
There is no such thing as gradual prohibition. Wine is not forbidden, but discouraged. Please be wary if messages in the koran contradicts. Just as there are many opinion to a book or movie, same with the koran and its translations. But God guides whom He wills. Our job, as believers is to do good and righteous deeds. Nothing more. No rituals nor has God a need to be worshipped. God is free of all wants. That, to me was the messages brought by the prophets.
-
Khafi wrote:
“If what you understand to be a ban on alcohol came from Al Quran, it is very strange that many early Muslims continued to drink wine, including one figure who is praised as an upstanding example of the glorious days of Islam, The Islamic Philosopher and Scientist, Avicenna.”
Dear Khafi,
Ibn Sina lived toward the end of the tenth century when the hadith literature and schools of Islamic jurisprudence (all of which prohibited alcohol so far as I know) were fully formed. Yes, Muslims have drunk alcohol throughout history but this is not evidence that it was not prophibited. Furthermore, Ibn Sina, for all his brillance, can hardly be considered a good Muslim. As al-Ghazali has shown in the *Incoherence of the Philosophers* Ibn Sina’s philosophy was in direct contradiction to much of Islamic doctrine. His philosophy stressed God as a passive Essence from which all creation emanated in a great chain of being as opposed to Allah in the Qur’an who says “Be” and it is. The god of philosophy was thought to know things only in terms of universals while the Qur’an insists Allah knows the particulars as well. While the Qur’an speaks of the Ressurection of the Dead, philosophy speaks of the eternal soul which may or may not have individuality. Time in the Qur’an is conceived of as linear whereas for Ibn Sina it was cyclical.
As for whether ayat 5:90 is telling us to avoid alcohol or Satan, I’ve never actually come across Satan, have you? Even if the passage literally says ‘avoid Satan’ what is clearly meant is avoiding the satanic things associated with him, namely drinking and gambling.
I really can’t see that your own translation is anymore literal. Translating the reference to stone idols as sacraments seems pretty far-fetched.
Sputjam writes:
“Wine is not forbidden, but discouraged.”
Which schools of Islam considred wine as merely makruh rather than haram? Or is this your own interpretation based on an Qur’an-only approach?
“Please be wary if messages in the koran contradicts. ”
I would not view a progressive enfoldment of revelation as a contradiction. I believe God reveals His will to us in accordance with our capacity to understand and obey.
ma salamat, Susan
-
Susan,
Firstly a Happy New Year to You.
You said:
I’ve never actually come across Satan, have you?
I can’t say that I have come across God either, have you?
I do not believe that God would include alcohol in a verse related to the good things that he has given us and then make it haram, that is a plain and simple contradiction. Nowhere in Al Quran does it say that alcohol is forbidden, the verses to me suggest that moderation is called for. As I said earlier if God had wanted to forbid alcohol he could simply have said so.
Peace
-
Mahdi says:
Hi everybody interested in Bahai discussions:
For getting real and deep knowledge about bahai faith you can visit the following site:
http://www.bahaiawareness.comBest regards,
Mahdi -
Mahdi,
I hardly think this website reflects a *deep* knowledge of the Baha’i Faith. For that you would have to go here: http://reference.bahai.org/en/
There you can find the largest collection of Baha’i Writings in Arabic, Persian and English.
The website you provided is of the same quality and ilk as http://www.answering-islam.org/
You website is anti-Baha’i while this one is anti-Muslim but they are both motivated by the same spirit of religious bigotry.
What I really would like to know from you is whether or not you believe that Baha’is in Indonesia should be free to follow their religion in peace or whether or not you think it is okay to throw stones at their houses, subject them to intimidating interrogation demanding they recant, etc.?
If you are the same Mahdi I have crossed paths with in the past, my recollection is that you have burst into Baha’i chat rooms cursing Baha’u’llah in Persian and saying “Death to Baha’is.” So tell us, Mahdi, do you approve of a genoicide campaign against Baha’is?
Susan
-
Susan,
I do not believe in throwing stones at Bahai houses or other harsh activities. The reality of Bahaism should be revealed. Bahais are seriously taught to propagandize some beliefs which are not really in the original books of their leaders and moreover, most of the books of this kind are not avilable to the bahais.pls visit the official site of bahais that you refered to, the section of sacred books, you will see that from the Bab there is only ” selections” of the Bab’s writings, whereas he is the ” Primal Point” and the main founder of Bahai faith. Why his main books like Bayan is not translated into English? Because if the Bayan is translated into English , nobody would accept bahai faith. I can read both Persian and Arabic and I have access to many of the books of Bahai leaders that Bahais do not have. I will show some of these points if you want.
Mahdi -
this is from the koran –
Three fundamental beliefs – Religion is irrelevant
2:62 Indeed, those who trust, and those proclaimed to be guided, and the supporters and the Sobe’ans – any of them who trust God and the hereafter and do the deeds of virtuousness – thus for them the rewards by their Lord – and there shall be no fear over them – and they will not grieve.
which is a reworked translation based on what was written by khafi –
The verse is from al-Baqarah:
al-Baqara:
Lo! Those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans – whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right – surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve. 2:62more verses from the koran explaining that islam is not a religion –
“He is the One who sent His messenger with the guidance and the system of truth, to make it EXPOSE all other systems, in spite of the idol worshipers.” (Quran 9:33)
and
“Today, I have completed your religion, perfected My blessing upon you, and I have decreed Submission/Islam as the SYSTEM for you”¦” (Quran 5:3)
That was why Jesus confronted the people of the jewish faith, Moses the poeple of Pharoah (a chief priest) and Mohamed, the arab pagan culture. none of them advocate any form of religion.
Was there a text on definition of worship in the bible or the koran? or how it should be performed? Or selection of priest or imams?
none of the prophets claimed to be priests. they all claim to deliver a message from God.
But mankind did not understand the significants of these messages. In the end, they reject the messages and created or continued with their religion and its worship rituals. -
Aluang Anak Bayang says:
Mas Sputjam,
With all the fightings in the Middle-East, I was wondering could the verse,
al-Baqara:
Lo! Those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans – … 2:62be ..
LOL! Those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans – … 2:62
Regards.
-
> I do not believe in throwing stones at Bahai houses or other harsh activities.<
Dear Mahdi,
Are you not the same person that used to go into AOL Baha’i chatrooms and say in Persian “Death to Baha’is”? If so, I’m glad to hear you now disavow this kind of thing. Perhaps 9-11 taught you something?
“pls visit the official site of bahais that you refered to, the section of sacred books, you will see that from the Bab there is only ” selections” of the Bab’s writings, whereas he is the ” Primal Point” and the main founder of Bahai faith.”
You are sadly misinformed as to our basic beliefs. While the Bab may have assumed the title Primal Point, he is not the ‘main’ founder of our religion, Baha’u’llah is. The Bab is considered his forerunner much as John the Baptist was the forerunner to Baha’u’llah.
“Why his main books like Bayan is not translated into English?”
Because the Bayan represents the shariah of a previous dispensation which are not binding on Baha’is. Why would we translate the Bab’s Shariah when Baha’is don’t yet fully know their own? This is like requiring Muslims to understand and read the books of Leviticus and Numbers before learning Islamic law.
“I can read both Persian and Arabic and I have access to many of the books of Bahai leaders that Bahais do not have. I will show some of these points if you want.”
Why don’t you save us all time and just tell us the names of the books written by the Founders of our Faith which you have access to but which Baha’is don’t?
When we last met online you had a smattering of Persian which you learned from your mother and had taken some elementary courses in Arabic. Has this changed since then?
Susan
-
Sputjam asks:
“Was there a text on definition of worship in the bible or the koran?”
I’m not sure what you mean by a definition of worship, but in the Bible there are texts which describe how sacrifices at the temple are to be performed and the functions of the priests. It is true Moses was not a priest himself but the Torah authorizes the establishment of a priesthood.
warmest, Susan
-
ade wanto says:
Hello guys,
I have a question to all of you? Are you Bahai’is? If you do, please heed your religion that reject by all Moslems community. And, don’t convince other that you are Moslems. And, what is your religion? If you don’t heed Bahaiullah, why do you bother to what Bahai’is do? And, if you are not Moslems, why don’t you heed yours, and you don’t have to save Moslems belief? What for?
So, we can live by our differences and respect it. That’s tolerance.
Happy New Year guys.
-
Ade asks:
“Are you Bahai’is? If you do, please heed your religion that reject by all Moslems community. And, don’t convince other that you are Moslems.”
Dear Ade,
I think a few of us here, including myself are Baha’is. I agree that Baha’is should not represent themselves to others as Muslims except in the generic sense that “Abraham was neither Jew or Christian.” Otherwise they should make clear that the Baha’i Faith is an independent religion. So far as I know the villagers who are being harrassed have not said they were Muslims. They are being harrassed because they admit they are Baha’i and the government refuses to recognize their religion.
You wrote:
“If you don’t heed Bahaiullah, why do you bother to what Bahai’is do?”
Is this addressed to Mahdi?
“And, if you are not Moslems, why don’t you heed yours, and you don’t have to save Moslems belief? What for?”
I’m not sure what you are saying here, but even though Baha’is are a separate reliigous community from Islam we believe in the Prophethood of Muhammad and the Qur’an as divine revelation. Therefore I am prepared to defend both, just as a true Muslim would defend Jesus or Moses.
My interest in this forum was to defend the human rights of Baha’is in Indonesia. We did get sidelined into discussions regarding the hadith and the use of alcohol. And I clarified some misunderstandings regarding the Baha’i Faith and answered some questions, but I’m not here to convert Muslims.
You write:
“So, we can live by our differences and respect it. That’s tolerance.”
Agreed. Now how do we get governments to abide by such principles?
warmest, Susan
-
iamisaid says:
Hi Susan,
You asked….
Now how do we get governments to abide by such principles?
Perhaps one should take heed from Voltaire’s advice…
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong
Or
Wait for the day the Government is voted out only to be governed by another which proves the previous one was better.
-
iamisaid wrote:
“Wait for the day the Government is voted out only to be governed by another which proves the previous one was better.”
Please don’t misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that anyone should be disobedient or disloyal to the government. But there are some areas where a government cannot dictate, and religion is one of them.
-
Susan,
But there are some areas where a government cannot dictate, and religion is one of them.
If only that was true.
How about the Malaysian Government that has recently created a furor amongst Christians by denouncing that in their periodic magazine and Church prayers, the word “Allah” cannot be used to refer to God.
That and another recent issue almost running parallel where the Malaysian Government refused to grant a permit for the erection of a Chinese deity statue?
These are just two examples coming from Malaysia.
Tell me really, where has there been instances in history and present throughout the world, where the Government has not meddled with issues of religion?
-
Susan CLAIMED:
December 30th, 2007 at 12:35 pm“Orthodox Baha’i
Orthodox Baha’i Under the Regency
Mother Bahai Council of the United States
Tarbiyat Bahai community
The Reform Baha’i faith
The Baha’is Under the Provisions of the Covenant”“Some of these aren’t groups at all. For instance the so-called “Reform Baha’i Faith” is really just one person, namely Fred Glaysher. He has a website, not a group. In fact he has more than one website claiming to represent different Baha’i groups which no longer exist. He is an ex-Baha’i doing pretty much whatever he can to discredit the Baha’i Faith without much concern for truthfulness.”
Dear People in Indonesia and Malaysia,
The claims of “Susan” are all misrepresentations, slander, and outright lies. Susan Maneck has a very long and complicated history of censorship and coercion on behalf of her fundamentalist interpretations of the Bahai writings. For the comments of dozens of people on her and her dishonesties, see:
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Maneck1.htm
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Maneck8.htmSusan like other Haifan Baha’is follow the fraudulent will and testament of Shoghi Effendi and his family. The British Museum document expert Dr. C. Ainsworth Mitchell wrote a Report on its fraudulence in 1930:
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/CAMitchell_Report.htmReform Bahais do not accept that fraudulent document, nor any of the several denominations who seek to use it in one way or another. All over the world now, Reform Bahais who “don’t exist” are buying and reading our first and new publication of the Bahai Writings, The Universal Principles of the Reform Bahai Faith:
Reform Bahai Press
http://www.reformbahai.org/reform%20bahai%20press.htmRegarding the Orthodox Baha’is, see their website for details on the Lawsuit by the US Wilmette NSA against Other Bahai Denominations. The Orthodox Baha’i lawyer has stated the Haifan Baha’is are spending $600 USD per hour for lawyers, with as much as $100,000 already spent in their effort to destroy other Bahais during the last year in the US District Court:
http://trueseeker.typepad.com/true_seeker/court_case.htmlBaha’u’llah wrote,
“The deniers and contradictors hold to four words:
First: Destroying men’s lives.
Second: Burning the books.
Third : Shunning other nations.
Fourth: Exterminating other nations.
Now, by the Grace and Authority of the Word of God, these four great barriers have been demolished. These four manifest decrees have been effaced from the Book, and God hath changed brutal manners into spiritual qualities.”Baha’u’llah removed takfir from the Book. The Haifan forgerers put it back in, as Susan and other Haifan Baha’is have so clearly demonstrated.
“Fred Glaysher we don’t consider anything but an annoyance, because like I said, he doesn’t really have any group which follows him.”
Slander, ad Hominem, misrepresentations, and other such reprehensible tactics cannot conceal the truth from those who seek it. Below are a few websites where people who want to reach their own independent conclusions might begin their search.
May God guide you aright,
Frederick Glaysher
The Reform Bahai Faith
http://www.ReformBahai.orgThe Baha’i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/ -
To my comment:
>But there are some areas where a government cannot dictate, and religion is one of them.<
Iamisaid wrote:
“If only that was true.”
Of course you are right that there are governments which violate people’s freedom of conscience. My point is that we should be obedient to government in all areas *except* when they try and violate our conscience by telling us what we have to believe. Abdu’l-Baha had this to say on that topic:
“These are effectual and sufficient proofs that the conscience of man is sacred and to be respected; and that liberty thereof produces widening of ideas, amendment of morals, improvement of conduct, disclosure of the secrets of creation, and manifestation of the hidden verities of the contingent world. Moreover, if interrogation of conscience, which is one of the private possessions of the heart and the soul, take place in this world, what further recompense remains for man in the court of divine justice at the day of general resurrection? Convictions and ideas are within the scope of the comprehension of the King of kings, not of kings; and soul and conscience are between the fingers of control of the Lord of hearts, not of [His] servants.” –Abdu’l-Baha, A Traveler’s Narrative, 91.
“Tell me really, where has there been instances in history and present throughout the world, where the Government has not meddled with issues of religion?”
In the United States our Constitution forbids the government from doing this, not that it is always been upheld.
warmest, Susan
-
Glaysher writes:
“The claims of “Susan” are all misrepresentations, slander, and outright lies.”
You deny that you set up websites claiming to represent the so-called Free-Baha’is and Unitarian Baha’is, groups which long ago ceased to exist?
“Susan like other Haifan Baha’is follow the fraudulent will and testament of Shoghi Effendi and his family.”
psst, Shogh Effendi didn’t have a will and no one has ever claimed that he did. Ainsworth Mitchell was commenting on Abdu’l-Baha’s Will, not Shoghi Effendi’s. Mitchell was paid by Ruth White, an American Baha’i who did not want to see the Baha’i Faith become organized to prove that the Will and Testaement was a forgery. However, the many didn’t even now Persian and was completely unfamiliar with Abdu’l-Baha’s script. Besides, he was an expert on inks and since he was examining a photocopy, that isn’t much help.
“Reform Bahais do not accept that fraudulent document”
Reform Baha’is? Hah! Name one, besides yourself. Buying a book does not make someone your follower, Freddie. Now if anyone had actually shown up for that convocation you called last year, it might prove something.
-
Rambutan Says:
November 5th, 2007 at 10:30 amWhy is it that muslims get all worried and violent when 31 people (which is really not a lot compared to 180 million muslims) convert to something else than islam.
Inferiority complex??
Tiada kerja lah, carikan aja deh!
-
Susan,
My point is that we should be obedient to government in all areas *except* when they try and violate our conscience by telling us what we have to believe. Abdu’l-Baha had this to say on that topic:
“These are effectual and sufficient proofs that the conscience of man is sacred and to be respected; and that liberty thereof produces widening of ideas, amendment of morals, improvement of conduct, disclosure of the secrets of creation, and manifestation of the hidden verities of the contingent world. Moreover, if interrogation of conscience, which is one of the private possessions of the heart and the soul, take place in this world, what further recompense remains for man in the court of divine justice at the day of general resurrection? Convictions and ideas are within the scope of the comprehension of the King of kings, not of kings; and soul and conscience are between the fingers of control of the Lord of hearts, not of [His] servants.” -Abdu’l-Baha, A Traveler’s Narrative, 91.
Honestly, I will not pretend. To say anything about conscience – human conscience would make me god.
I cannot comprehend how Abdu’l-Baha or for that matter any other living human can exhort on such a topic – the human conscience.
I beg to differ. Abdu’l-Baha says that man conscience is sacred is utter rubbish. Respect for it; YES. Sacred? NO! To say such, it is tantamount to deifying man. Only God is sacred.
sacred
/saykrid/
“¢ adjective
1 connected with a deity and so deserving veneration; holy.
2 (of a text) embodying the doctrines of a religion.
3 religious rather than secular.Conscience is the chamber of justice
said Origen Adamantius, a distinguised theologian. That comes as close as it can get when the matter of conscience is up for discussion.
And what may I ask is justice – in human terms and not the word that is loosely thrown around like as though it is something tangible?
What is justice to one is not necessarily justice to another. And remember that even man has symbolised Justice as a blindfolded figurine holding the scales of justice. Please underscore the word blindfolded.
Who are we, not anything but mere mortals to be talking about things that belong to the realm of God? Like as though we can read His mind, His Thoughts, His All, to the extent that we split hairs, bleed from our brains and browbeat the beliefs of others who talk about the same conscience, the same justice and of the same God?
Like children playing gods, each telling the other, “my God will beat up your God”.
While all this godliness talk goes on, they overlook the fact that there are issues that can be seen, heard, touched, smelt and tasted that go abandoned and needs not God to resolve but the same person who is lost in divine semantics.
-
Iamisaid wrote:
“I beg to differ. Abdu’l-Baha says that man conscience is sacred is utter rubbish. Respect for it; YES. Sacred? NO! To say such, it is tantamount to deifying man. Only God is sacred.”
Dear Iamisaid,
The dictionary you looked at gave a much more limited definition of sacred than is generally used. Here is a more complete one:
Dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity.
Worthy of religious veneration: the sacred teachings of the Buddha.
Made or declared holy: sacred bread and wine.
Dedicated or devoted exclusively to a single use, purpose, or person: sacred to the memory of her sister; a private office sacred to the President.
Worthy of respect; venerable.
Of or relating to religious objects, rites, or practices.The conscience is sacred in that it is intended to be *consecrated* to God, not that it is divine in and of itself. I fully recognize that the conscience is not unchangeable absolute. According to the dictionary conscience is “the sense of right and wrong as regards things for which one is responsible; the faculty or principle which pronounces upon the moral quality of one’s actions or motives, approving the right and condemning the wrong”. But one persons conscience may be based on a genuine striving for truth and justice while another one’s may represent no more than an accumulation of prejudices handed down to him. When one embraces a religion the revelation associated with that religion presumably begins to inform their conscience, for at that point one sense of right and wrong becomes based on ones understanding of what God wants. Such a conscience is consecrated and therefore sacred. That doesn’t mean we stop thinking for ourselves, at least not in the Baha’i Faith because man is exhorted “to free himself from idle fancy and imitation, discern with the eye of oneness His glorious handiwork, and look into all things with a searching eye”.
My point, though, is that everyone has the right to investigate the truth for themselves and allow their consciences to be informed by it. Consciences cannot be coerced, not by individuals, not by religious institutions and certainly not by governments. Governments may have rights over our bodies but our hearts belong to God alone.
“The one true God, exalted be His glory, hath bestowed the government of the earth upon the kings. To none is given the right to act in any manner that would run counter to the considered views of them who are in authority. That which He hath reserved for Himself are the cities of men’s hearts; and of these the loved ones of Him Who is the Sovereign Truth are, in this Day, as the keys.”
(Baha’u’llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, p. 241)
warmest, Susan
Comment on “Bahai”.
Related Stories
Copyright Indonesia Matters 2006-2025
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact
Susan said:
Could it be that Bahai keep their integrity because of the following statement by
Baha’u’llah:
“to none is given the right to put forth his own opinion or express individual convictions”
Doesn’t seem like a very tolerant system to me when the ability to question and reason is removed from the followers.
You also said:
Using this logic, the supreme manifestation is actually Jesus who has had a far greater impact with 2.1 billion followers compared with only 5 million Baha’i. It is of course only the Baha’i belief that Baha’u’llah is the one foretold, who will bring unity.
Earlier in this post there was talk of tolerance, can you explain to me how tolerant Baha’i are to the following groups:
Orthodox Baha’i
Orthodox Baha’i Under the Regency
Mother Bahai Council of the United States
Tarbiyat Bahai community
The Reform Baha’i faith
The Baha’is Under the Provisions of the Covenant
Are they tolerated and accepted or are they excommunicated from the faith because they don’t and I quote again from The Baha’u’llah:
“show their obedience, submissiveness and subordination unto the Guardian of the Cause of God, to turn unto him and be lowly before him”
Ultimately what I am asking is, is Bahai The Universal Religion? Or is Quranic Islam, which states:
“Any Who Believe in God , Believe in The Day of Judgement, and does good deeds has nothing to fear from God.”
Peace