Ahmadinejad Asked About Baha’is In Iran

Ahmadinejad, the puppet president beholden to the Supreme Leader (Khamenei), came to the US this week and brought with him his Cheshire cat grin.

I’m a believer in free speech so I personally had no qualms about the platform that he was given on American media. The problem is that the world, for the most part, is unaware of the intricate details that shape this man and his extremist beliefs.

For example, I would bet that less than 0.00001% of those in attendance at Columbia University know what the Hojjatieh Society is, nor that their recent guest is a member of that organization.

Were the American people to be truly informed as to the motivations behind this troll of a man, they would be able to clearly see through his hackneyed performance and his insincere crocodile smile.

In the video below, Ahmadinejad is asked about the plight of the Baha’is in Iran. He follows his usual modus operandi and sidesteps the question. When he is again asked he gives another non answer (around the 3:00 mark).

In this second video, he is asked about the plight of homosexuals in Iran (for those that don’t know, Iran regularly executes suspected homosexuals — even those younger than 18, which is against international law to which it has bound itself voluntarily).

Here is a CBC documentary on the lives of homosexuals in current Iranian society (part 1):

  • Inge Barthel

    Yes, Yes, and No. Yes Ahmadinejad looks like he is obsessed with religion and therefore may be feeling justified to be lying about many things; yes Iran is a dangerous place for Baha’i, gay and probably any dissidents; but no, I don’t think it is wise to support his game by operating on that selfsame wavelength of fear, judgment and vilification.

    If we want to have a chance at a peaceful transition – hold on, that chance is already gone – ok, rephrase: a chance at a transition to the next step in evolution without putting at risk our entire civilisation as we know it, then we must step out of the vicious circle of polarising conflict thus fanning the flames.

    There is no solution to be found in the black and white world of “good” vs. “evil”. A mindset operating on that level will find always plenty of “confirmations” for it’s own premises and thereby create compelling scenarios for further continuing and driving conflict to explosion.

    The way I believe we can lift ourselves out of spiralling conflict is by integration and establishing ties, finding common ground, finding where the opponent is genuine and sincere and affirming the shared views.

    If someone is really determined to inflict harm they will do so, if I run and save my life or not. The only difference will be who gets hurt. It may not be me but it will be another at another time.

    But if I am able to stay and with my consciousness transmute the poison, maintain love in the face of enmity, like Gandhi, if I can maintain a consciousness beyond judgment, remain grounded in the non-duality, that is unity, where I can see the “evil-doer” as another facet of myself, I may have a chance to remind him of his own deeper self and plant a seed of change. I find this a goal worth dying for, if required.

    Paradoxically our Baha’i Admonishtration, established in the tradition of the judgmental and polarising aspect of Baha’u’llah and his successors is far from such consciousness. Therefore as a group and religious entity we Baha’is contribute presently IMO to the ills and not to the healing of the world no matter how many A clusters we open.

    This is a very trying time and I feel compelled to not hold back. That’s why I drafted the following letter:

    NOT IN MY NAME

    In the recent days of President Ahmadinejad’s visit to the US he was pressurized by many people from the media, by Columbia University president Lee Bollinger and by President Bush himself – among other topics – on behalf of the Baha’i community in Iran.

    An implication of this pressure may have been to provide additional rationale for a military strike against Iran.

    I am a Baha’i and care about the fate of the Baha’i community in Iran, as I care about the well-being of people in general.

    As an individual Baha’i I do not in any way speak for the Baha’i Administration. But I want to express that as an individual member of the Baha’i Faith I thoroughly oppose in the present context any military action that might be taken by the United States against the Republic of Iran.

    It is true that members of the Baha’i Faith are ill-treated in Iran, denied their human rights and dignity, sometimes enduring harm to life and body. Nonetheless Baha’u’llah taught to rather be killed than kill. I don’t see a viable alternative.

    The deciding factor is whether or not Iran is on the verge of threatening the peace and stability of it’s neighbors. In the region injustice and violence have been perpetrated for generations by the colonial countries and the United States alike. Much of the fighting is done in response to the injustice suffered. Using military action to force people to surrender to injustice cannot bring peace.

    Peace, stability and the well-being of mankind are supreme goals and cannot be attained while injustice reigns and greed governs the actions of the nations.

    The way of worldly people is to know first and then trust, the way of the people of God is to trust first and then know.

    xxxLove and greetings
    Inge Barthel

  • Inge Barthel

    Yes, Yes, and No. Yes Ahmadinejad looks like he is obsessed with religion and therefore may be feeling justified to be lying about many things; yes Iran is a dangerous place for Baha’i, gay and probably any dissidents; but no, I don’t think it is wise to support his game by operating on that selfsame wavelength of fear, judgment and vilification.

    If we want to have a chance at a peaceful transition – hold on, that chance is already gone – ok, rephrase: a chance at a transition to the next step in evolution without putting at risk our entire civilisation as we know it, then we must step out of the vicious circle of polarising conflict thus fanning the flames.

    There is no solution to be found in the black and white world of “good” vs. “evil”. A mindset operating on that level will find always plenty of “confirmations” for it’s own premises and thereby create compelling scenarios for further continuing and driving conflict to explosion.

    The way I believe we can lift ourselves out of spiralling conflict is by integration and establishing ties, finding common ground, finding where the opponent is genuine and sincere and affirming the shared views.

    If someone is really determined to inflict harm they will do so, if I run and save my life or not. The only difference will be who gets hurt. It may not be me but it will be another at another time.

    But if I am able to stay and with my consciousness transmute the poison, maintain love in the face of enmity, like Gandhi, if I can maintain a consciousness beyond judgment, remain grounded in the non-duality, that is unity, where I can see the “evil-doer” as another facet of myself, I may have a chance to remind him of his own deeper self and plant a seed of change. I find this a goal worth dying for, if required.

    Paradoxically our Baha’i Admonishtration, established in the tradition of the judgmental and polarising aspect of Baha’u’llah and his successors is far from such consciousness. Therefore as a group and religious entity we Baha’is contribute presently IMO to the ills and not to the healing of the world no matter how many A clusters we open.

    This is a very trying time and I feel compelled to not hold back. That’s why I drafted the following letter:

    NOT IN MY NAME

    In the recent days of President Ahmadinejad’s visit to the US he was pressurized by many people from the media, by Columbia University president Lee Bollinger and by President Bush himself – among other topics – on behalf of the Baha’i community in Iran.

    An implication of this pressure may have been to provide additional rationale for a military strike against Iran.

    I am a Baha’i and care about the fate of the Baha’i community in Iran, as I care about the well-being of people in general.

    As an individual Baha’i I do not in any way speak for the Baha’i Administration. But I want to express that as an individual member of the Baha’i Faith I thoroughly oppose in the present context any military action that might be taken by the United States against the Republic of Iran.

    It is true that members of the Baha’i Faith are ill-treated in Iran, denied their human rights and dignity, sometimes enduring harm to life and body. Nonetheless Baha’u’llah taught to rather be killed than kill. I don’t see a viable alternative.

    The deciding factor is whether or not Iran is on the verge of threatening the peace and stability of it’s neighbors. In the region injustice and violence have been perpetrated for generations by the colonial countries and the United States alike. Much of the fighting is done in response to the injustice suffered. Using military action to force people to surrender to injustice cannot bring peace.

    Peace, stability and the well-being of mankind are supreme goals and cannot be attained while injustice reigns and greed governs the actions of the nations.

    The way of worldly people is to know first and then trust, the way of the people of God is to trust first and then know.

    xxxLove and greetings
    Inge Barthel

  • Brendan Cook

    Inge,

    That letter is amazing. What a good point! I’m glad you thought to make it. There are a few small changes I’d suggest. Drop ‘pressurized’ as a verb and avoid the split infinitive in “to rather be killed.” But all in all this is magnificent. I’d love it if Baha’is everywhere set their name to a letter like this. I certainly would.

    Brendan

  • Brendan Cook

    Inge,

    That letter is amazing. What a good point! I’m glad you thought to make it. There are a few small changes I’d suggest. Drop ‘pressurized’ as a verb and avoid the split infinitive in “to rather be killed.” But all in all this is magnificent. I’d love it if Baha’is everywhere set their name to a letter like this. I certainly would.

    Brendan

  • Wahid Azal

    http://www.bahai.org/persecution/iran/iranica1

    Please peruse the Encyclopedia Iranica article above. The Hojjatiyyah society was disbanded by Khomeini in the early 1980s after the Revolution. The Bahai propaganda machine – which in effect is an extension of the NeoCon/ZioNazi war drumbeat against Iran – is presently claiming that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a member of the Hojjatiyah. This typical propaganda lie by Bahais reveals a profound ignorance of the way the mullahs regime works, but since it is a convenient propaganda ploy for the Bahais to repeat such lies, such lies are repeated endlessly in order to garner support by various Western corporate and media estates for the bloated and exagerrated human rights violations claims Bahai Inc. keeps hammering the world with in order to advance its own interests and relevence.

    The Hojjatiyyah – its anti-bahaism notwithstanding – was a marked society from the very beginning of the Revolution. The founders did not support Khomeini’s approach. Moreover the society found the populist rhetoric of the Khomeinists who dubbed the late Ayatollah the Imam of the Age to be outright heresy. Seeing that Iran under the mullahs is an ideological state, only milder than North Korea, and ideological loyalty litmus tests guides its establishment and every single person who belongs to that establishment, it is impossible for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to have ever been a member of the Hojjatiyyah, whether now or in the past.

    On the homosexuals issue: Gratuitously the American press who went out of its way to report the recent execution of homosexuals in Iran on the eve of Ahmadinejad’s trip to the UN, was conspiciously silent on the particulars of the cases in question. The individuals who were recently executed were executed for rape and sodomization of a young boy, not merely because they were homosexual. If this was so, then the entire clerical establishment and its bastions in Qom and Mashhad need be executed, since homosexuality is rampant within the seminaries.

    Bahais never care about facts or truth when it comes to their arch-nemesis, the nation of Iran and its people. Every opportunity or opportunism they can find to jab against Iran, its leaders of any era and the Iranian nation as a whole, damned be integrity or truth, they will take it and use it. You Bahais wonder why you are universally despised by Iranians who don’t share your creed. Take a look no further than how your present propaganda campaign perfectly coalesces with that of the NeoCon/ZioNazi war machine, and look no further. Your creed is indubitably a fifth column to the Iranian nation as a whole, with or without the mullahs in power.

    Shame on you Bacquia. You could not have stooped any lower.

    Wahid Azal

  • Wahid Azal

    http://www.bahai.org/persecution/iran/iranica1

    Please peruse the Encyclopedia Iranica article above. The Hojjatiyyah society was disbanded by Khomeini in the early 1980s after the Revolution. The Bahai propaganda machine – which in effect is an extension of the NeoCon/ZioNazi war drumbeat against Iran – is presently claiming that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a member of the Hojjatiyah. This typical propaganda lie by Bahais reveals a profound ignorance of the way the mullahs regime works, but since it is a convenient propaganda ploy for the Bahais to repeat such lies, such lies are repeated endlessly in order to garner support by various Western corporate and media estates for the bloated and exagerrated human rights violations claims Bahai Inc. keeps hammering the world with in order to advance its own interests and relevence.

    The Hojjatiyyah – its anti-bahaism notwithstanding – was a marked society from the very beginning of the Revolution. The founders did not support Khomeini’s approach. Moreover the society found the populist rhetoric of the Khomeinists who dubbed the late Ayatollah the Imam of the Age to be outright heresy. Seeing that Iran under the mullahs is an ideological state, only milder than North Korea, and ideological loyalty litmus tests guides its establishment and every single person who belongs to that establishment, it is impossible for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to have ever been a member of the Hojjatiyyah, whether now or in the past.

    On the homosexuals issue: Gratuitously the American press who went out of its way to report the recent execution of homosexuals in Iran on the eve of Ahmadinejad’s trip to the UN, was conspiciously silent on the particulars of the cases in question. The individuals who were recently executed were executed for rape and sodomization of a young boy, not merely because they were homosexual. If this was so, then the entire clerical establishment and its bastions in Qom and Mashhad need be executed, since homosexuality is rampant within the seminaries.

    Bahais never care about facts or truth when it comes to their arch-nemesis, the nation of Iran and its people. Every opportunity or opportunism they can find to jab against Iran, its leaders of any era and the Iranian nation as a whole, damned be integrity or truth, they will take it and use it. You Bahais wonder why you are universally despised by Iranians who don’t share your creed. Take a look no further than how your present propaganda campaign perfectly coalesces with that of the NeoCon/ZioNazi war machine, and look no further. Your creed is indubitably a fifth column to the Iranian nation as a whole, with or without the mullahs in power.

    Shame on you Bacquia. You could not have stooped any lower.

    Wahid Azal

  • Sampiero

    Ok Baha’i rants, just say your homosexuality is your main problem with Baha’i faith, it will be clearer for everybody. Sorry man but Baha’u’llah wrote that “loving boys” is unnatural…too bad. You can always go for buddhism.

  • Sampiero

    Ok Baha’i rants, just say your homosexuality is your main problem with Baha’i faith, it will be clearer for everybody. Sorry man but Baha’u’llah wrote that “loving boys” is unnatural…too bad. You can always go for buddhism.

  • http://www.bahairants.com Baquia

    Sampiero,
    are you referring to the Aqdas where Baha’u’llah mentions: “We shrink, for very shame, from treating of the subject of boys.”

    This is a reference to pederasty and has no relevance whatsoever with a mutually consensual homosexual relationship. In fact, Baha’u’llah does not at all mention or reference homosexual relationships in the Baha’i Writings.

    Please prove me wrong and find a reference.

  • http://www.bahairants.com Baquia

    Sampiero,
    are you referring to the Aqdas where Baha’u’llah mentions: “We shrink, for very shame, from treating of the subject of boys.”

    This is a reference to pederasty and has no relevance whatsoever with a mutually consensual homosexual relationship. In fact, Baha’u’llah does not at all mention or reference homosexual relationships in the Baha’i Writings.

    Please prove me wrong and find a reference.

  • Vidvan Marzouqi

    Baha’u’llah forbids homosexuality,

    Maybe your interpretation in English doesn’t clarify your vision.

    The Gaurdian states:
    (y) Prohibitions:
    i. Interpretation of the Holy Writings.
    xviii. Homosexuality.
    (Baha’u’llah, Synopsis and Codification of the Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 47)

    That’s evidence one from Kitab-i-Aqdas.

    “Homosexuality, according to the Writings of Baha’u’llah, is spiritually condemned. This does not mean that people so afflicted must not be helped and advised and sympathized with. It does mean that we do not believe that it is a permissible way of life; which, also, is all too often the accepted attitude nowadays.”

    “But it is clear from the teaching of Bah?’u’ll?h that homosexuality is not a condition to which a person should be reconciled, but is a distortion of his or her nature which should be controlled and overcome.”

    The first is the response of the Gaurdian to a believer, and the second is the message from the Universal House of Justice.
    (Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 364)

    And just to add a warning to the content of your blog:

    “Any act or activity by a believer which is contrary to our teachings will surely be harmful to the spiritual future of the individual concerned, and may give non-Baha’is a wrong impression of the principles of our Faith”

    (Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 365)

    God bless

  • Vidvan Marzouqi

    Baha’u’llah forbids homosexuality,

    Maybe your interpretation in English doesn’t clarify your vision.

    The Gaurdian states:
    (y) Prohibitions:
    i. Interpretation of the Holy Writings.
    xviii. Homosexuality.
    (Baha’u’llah, Synopsis and Codification of the Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 47)

    That’s evidence one from Kitab-i-Aqdas.

    “Homosexuality, according to the Writings of Baha’u’llah, is spiritually condemned. This does not mean that people so afflicted must not be helped and advised and sympathized with. It does mean that we do not believe that it is a permissible way of life; which, also, is all too often the accepted attitude nowadays.”

    “But it is clear from the teaching of Bah?’u’ll?h that homosexuality is not a condition to which a person should be reconciled, but is a distortion of his or her nature which should be controlled and overcome.”

    The first is the response of the Gaurdian to a believer, and the second is the message from the Universal House of Justice.
    (Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 364)

    And just to add a warning to the content of your blog:

    “Any act or activity by a believer which is contrary to our teachings will surely be harmful to the spiritual future of the individual concerned, and may give non-Baha’is a wrong impression of the principles of our Faith”

    (Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 365)

    God bless

  • TJ

    uhh, maybe you have trouble reading but Baquia asked for references from Baha’u’llah, you know, the actual Founder of the Baha’i Faith? maybe you’ve heard of Him. Lets see what He says.

    Also, the Guardian’s interpretation was for one person, not for all… also, the Guardian interprets, he doesn’t create laws.

    So we’re back to square one. Baha’u’llah has not written about homosexuality, as it exists today: that is two, adults, loving each other, in a healthy relationship.

    What Baha’u’llah wrote about was about pederasty, which is like saying that since rape is illegal, no man and woman should ever be together.

    And re your warning, kindly shove it where the sun don’t shine.

  • TJ

    uhh, maybe you have trouble reading but Baquia asked for references from Baha’u’llah, you know, the actual Founder of the Baha’i Faith? maybe you’ve heard of Him. Lets see what He says.

    Also, the Guardian’s interpretation was for one person, not for all… also, the Guardian interprets, he doesn’t create laws.

    So we’re back to square one. Baha’u’llah has not written about homosexuality, as it exists today: that is two, adults, loving each other, in a healthy relationship.

    What Baha’u’llah wrote about was about pederasty, which is like saying that since rape is illegal, no man and woman should ever be together.

    And re your warning, kindly shove it where the sun don’t shine.

  • Andrew

    The sexmine-sweeping Baha’ibots have made off with me to Castle Carmel. Please send help.

  • Andrew

    The sexmine-sweeping Baha’ibots have made off with me to Castle Carmel. Please send help.

  • Sampiero

    You pro-gay wannabe Baha’is do not know how to read Baha’i texts. Here is a quote from Abdu’l-Baha Testament:

    The sacred and youthful branch, the Guardian of the Cause of God, as well as the Universal House of Justice to be universally elected and established, are both under the care and protection of the Abha Beauty, under the shelter and unerring guidance of the Exalted One (may my life be offered up for them both).
    Whatsoever they decide is of God. Whoso obeyeth him not, neither obeyeth them, hath not obeyed God; whoso rebelleth against him and against them hath rebelled against God; whoso opposeth him hath opposed God; whoso contendeth with them hath contended with God; whoso disputeth with him hath disputed with God; whoso denieth him hath denied God; whoso disbelieveth in him hath disbelieved in God; whoso deviateth, separateth himself and turneth aside from him hath in truth deviated, separated himself and turned aside from God. . May the wrath, the fierce indignation, the vengeance of God rest upon him!
    (Abdu’l-Baha, The Will and Testament, p. 11)

    Disagree with Guardian = disagree with Baha’u’llah = disagree with God. Thus, you cannot oppose the Guardian decision. Sorry, but if you want to be better in your relationship with God you have to stop homosexuality.

  • Sampiero

    You pro-gay wannabe Baha’is do not know how to read Baha’i texts. Here is a quote from Abdu’l-Baha Testament:

    The sacred and youthful branch, the Guardian of the Cause of God, as well as the Universal House of Justice to be universally elected and established, are both under the care and protection of the Abha Beauty, under the shelter and unerring guidance of the Exalted One (may my life be offered up for them both).
    Whatsoever they decide is of God. Whoso obeyeth him not, neither obeyeth them, hath not obeyed God; whoso rebelleth against him and against them hath rebelled against God; whoso opposeth him hath opposed God; whoso contendeth with them hath contended with God; whoso disputeth with him hath disputed with God; whoso denieth him hath denied God; whoso disbelieveth in him hath disbelieved in God; whoso deviateth, separateth himself and turneth aside from him hath in truth deviated, separated himself and turned aside from God. . May the wrath, the fierce indignation, the vengeance of God rest upon him!
    (Abdu’l-Baha, The Will and Testament, p. 11)

    Disagree with Guardian = disagree with Baha’u’llah = disagree with God. Thus, you cannot oppose the Guardian decision. Sorry, but if you want to be better in your relationship with God you have to stop homosexuality.

  • Andrew

    Good for the Baha’ibots. Let them and their dwindling minions dwell undisturbed within the conceptual enclave of their irrelevant religion. Humanity as a whole continues to move beyond the need to believe in invocations of wrath, indignation, and vengeance visited upon them by those who claim to speak in God’s name. Let the Haifan Baha’i believe what they will: they will be the only ones who do so. I’m sure there’s some comfort for them in that.

    Frederick Glaysher refers to “the fanatical interpretation of the Will and Testament of Abdul-Baha” as “the pretext for more than eighty years of fanaticism.” I was initially quite skeptical about these claims. Now, not so much. Maybe Abdul-Baha wasn’t who he’s made out to be after all.

  • Andrew

    Good for the Baha’ibots. Let them and their dwindling minions dwell undisturbed within the conceptual enclave of their irrelevant religion. Humanity as a whole continues to move beyond the need to believe in invocations of wrath, indignation, and vengeance visited upon them by those who claim to speak in God’s name. Let the Haifan Baha’i believe what they will: they will be the only ones who do so. I’m sure there’s some comfort for them in that.

    Frederick Glaysher refers to “the fanatical interpretation of the Will and Testament of Abdul-Baha” as “the pretext for more than eighty years of fanaticism.” I was initially quite skeptical about these claims. Now, not so much. Maybe Abdul-Baha wasn’t who he’s made out to be after all.

  • http://www.bahairants.com Baquia

    “if you want to be better in your relationship with God you have to stop homosexuality.

    How exactly should I do that? Should Baha’is gather around gay bars and beat up those entering? Should we break into the homes of the homosexuals and taser them as they are about to have sex? I’m really curious how you propose that we “stop homosexuality”.

    And regarding the neat little equations you wrote down, it is incorrect but all too common a misunderstanding. Shoghi Effendi was the interpreter, not the law maker. That is the purvue of the House. As far as I know they haven’t made any laws regarding homosexuality. Neither did Baha’u’llah.

  • http://www.bahairants.com Baquia

    “if you want to be better in your relationship with God you have to stop homosexuality.

    How exactly should I do that? Should Baha’is gather around gay bars and beat up those entering? Should we break into the homes of the homosexuals and taser them as they are about to have sex? I’m really curious how you propose that we “stop homosexuality”.

    And regarding the neat little equations you wrote down, it is incorrect but all too common a misunderstanding. Shoghi Effendi was the interpreter, not the law maker. That is the purvue of the House. As far as I know they haven’t made any laws regarding homosexuality. Neither did Baha’u’llah.

  • Sampiero

    Baquia, I am not you enemy. I have myself many problems, and I am not able to judge anybody. I just want to help you. Baha’u’llah never said men were allowed to have sex with other men. Just find me a sentence were Baha’u’llah sanctioned this kind of behaviour.

    Instead of indulging in lust, we have to fight our dark urges and become closer to God. I am a Baha’i from a western background, I place emphasis on personal responsability: it is up to you to practice His law or not, with dire consequences for your soul.

  • Sampiero

    Baquia, I am not you enemy. I have myself many problems, and I am not able to judge anybody. I just want to help you. Baha’u’llah never said men were allowed to have sex with other men. Just find me a sentence were Baha’u’llah sanctioned this kind of behaviour.

    Instead of indulging in lust, we have to fight our dark urges and become closer to God. I am a Baha’i from a western background, I place emphasis on personal responsability: it is up to you to practice His law or not, with dire consequences for your soul.

  • Andrew

    “Just find me a sentence where Baha’u’llah sanctioned this kind of behaviour.”

    Give me a break and find me a sentence where he didn’t. Explicitly, not implicitly. Not on “the subject of boys” or on liwat, which every reputable etymologist agrees refers explicitly to anal intercourse:

    “The most common type of same-sex behavior is liwat, most commonly used for intercourse between a man and a boy. The man is known as a luti, which does not imply so much his nature as his predilection for beardless boys, and his role of penetrator. His partner, if paid, is murd mu’ajirin, if unpaid, amrad (beardless), or ghulam (youth, pl. ghilman).

    “A separate category exists for men who are “afflicted” with the desire to be penetrated by masculine partners. They are known as ma’bun and considered to be victims of a disease, ubnah, one with an etiology and a number of presumed remedies.

    “Another further category consists of men who are vulnerable to the attractions of handsome boys. All men are thought to fall into this category, and their desires are seen as natural, if problematic in that they render one succeptible of becoming a luti. (El-Rouayheb, 2005, pp. 14-24)

    “For example, the Hanbalite jurist Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 1200) is reputed to have said that “He who claims that he experiences no desire when looking at beautiful boys or youths is a liar, and if we could believe him he would be an animal, and not a human being.” (Monroe, 1997, p. 117)

    “Nevertheless, the act of liwat (“sodomy,” meaning anal intercourse) is proscribed, and men are advised to be even more wary of attraction to beautiful boys than to beautiful women, through religious injunctions exhorting them to resist this temptation. It is related that the Prophet Muhammad enjoined his followers to “Beware of beardless youth for they are a greater source of mischief than young maidens.”

    “The intended meaning of “same-sex intercourse” is sexual intercourse between two or more males, or sexual intercourse between two or more females. It does not mean the act of masturbation, nor does it have anything to do with nocturnal emissions, both of which are considered to invalidate wudu and require the Muslim to take a full bath or shower before his or her next prayer, but are not otherwise punishable under Sharia.” (Encyclopedia Islamica)

    This is the religious milieu in which Baha’u’llah lived. Note that the prohibition is specifically against anal intercourse; it was Shoghi Effendi who extended this very specific prohibition to include all homosexual behaviour in general; an interpretation which uncategorically requires an appeal to an infallible authority, since it is an interpretation that is otherwise completely unwarranted and indefensible without recourse to special pleading.

    Apparently, masturbation qualifies one for disenrollment.

    What demons was Shoghi Effendi struggling with? Why did he feel the need to anathematize homosexuality and denigrate homosexuals? Oh, you know the answer to this one. In whose interests is it to continue the denigration, the obfuscation, the misrepresentation? Again, you know the answer to this.

    Baha’u’llah clearly did not anticipate the normalization of homosexuality by the modern medical and psychological professions. He clearly did not anticipate the possibility of same-sex marriages or civil unions. What is of even more interest to me is the unmitigated vehemence of his current (self-described) followers in their attempts to defend the indefensible and rationalize their profound prejudice in the name of religion. Norman Provizer trenchantly observes:

    “Men with weak egos tend to perceive the world as a Hobbesian jungle in which all would give way to their impulses were it not for the restraining force exercised by those few who are capable of mastering themselves and their environment. Thus, the weak ego provides support for totalitarian regimes — whether they be in the modern world or in traditional societies. Lane writes, ‘Only the strong egos can support a free society, can bear the burden of choice, can accept the responsibility for internal control in the absence of social control,’ and therefore can accept self-government. Lasswell concludes that ‘failure to develop democratic character is a function of interpersonal relations in which low estimates of the self are permitted to develop.’

    “Men with strong egos must play a special role in the process of modernization. Modernization is dependent on the existence of a number of innovating personalities, people who are able to cope with ambiguity and who are able to leave the comfortable world of tradition behind them and forge new forms with confidence and, perhaps, a feeling that it is their duty to achieve the new society and win converts for it.”

    Baha’u’llah and ‘Abdu’l-Baha were innovators in the realm of the spirit. Shoghi Effendi, most clearly, was not; nor, indeed, are any of his latter-day representatives. Nor, indeed, are they ever likely to be.

  • Andrew

    “Just find me a sentence where Baha’u’llah sanctioned this kind of behaviour.”

    Give me a break and find me a sentence where he didn’t. Explicitly, not implicitly. Not on “the subject of boys” or on liwat, which every reputable etymologist agrees refers explicitly to anal intercourse:

    “The most common type of same-sex behavior is liwat, most commonly used for intercourse between a man and a boy. The man is known as a luti, which does not imply so much his nature as his predilection for beardless boys, and his role of penetrator. His partner, if paid, is murd mu’ajirin, if unpaid, amrad (beardless), or ghulam (youth, pl. ghilman).

    “A separate category exists for men who are “afflicted” with the desire to be penetrated by masculine partners. They are known as ma’bun and considered to be victims of a disease, ubnah, one with an etiology and a number of presumed remedies.

    “Another further category consists of men who are vulnerable to the attractions of handsome boys. All men are thought to fall into this category, and their desires are seen as natural, if problematic in that they render one succeptible of becoming a luti. (El-Rouayheb, 2005, pp. 14-24)

    “For example, the Hanbalite jurist Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 1200) is reputed to have said that “He who claims that he experiences no desire when looking at beautiful boys or youths is a liar, and if we could believe him he would be an animal, and not a human being.” (Monroe, 1997, p. 117)

    “Nevertheless, the act of liwat (“sodomy,” meaning anal intercourse) is proscribed, and men are advised to be even more wary of attraction to beautiful boys than to beautiful women, through religious injunctions exhorting them to resist this temptation. It is related that the Prophet Muhammad enjoined his followers to “Beware of beardless youth for they are a greater source of mischief than young maidens.”

    “The intended meaning of “same-sex intercourse” is sexual intercourse between two or more males, or sexual intercourse between two or more females. It does not mean the act of masturbation, nor does it have anything to do with nocturnal emissions, both of which are considered to invalidate wudu and require the Muslim to take a full bath or shower before his or her next prayer, but are not otherwise punishable under Sharia.” (Encyclopedia Islamica)

    This is the religious milieu in which Baha’u’llah lived. Note that the prohibition is specifically against anal intercourse; it was Shoghi Effendi who extended this very specific prohibition to include all homosexual behaviour in general; an interpretation which uncategorically requires an appeal to an infallible authority, since it is an interpretation that is otherwise completely unwarranted and indefensible without recourse to special pleading.

    Apparently, masturbation qualifies one for disenrollment.

    What demons was Shoghi Effendi struggling with? Why did he feel the need to anathematize homosexuality and denigrate homosexuals? Oh, you know the answer to this one. In whose interests is it to continue the denigration, the obfuscation, the misrepresentation? Again, you know the answer to this.

    Baha’u’llah clearly did not anticipate the normalization of homosexuality by the modern medical and psychological professions. He clearly did not anticipate the possibility of same-sex marriages or civil unions. What is of even more interest to me is the unmitigated vehemence of his current (self-described) followers in their attempts to defend the indefensible and rationalize their profound prejudice in the name of religion. Norman Provizer trenchantly observes:

    “Men with weak egos tend to perceive the world as a Hobbesian jungle in which all would give way to their impulses were it not for the restraining force exercised by those few who are capable of mastering themselves and their environment. Thus, the weak ego provides support for totalitarian regimes — whether they be in the modern world or in traditional societies. Lane writes, ‘Only the strong egos can support a free society, can bear the burden of choice, can accept the responsibility for internal control in the absence of social control,’ and therefore can accept self-government. Lasswell concludes that ‘failure to develop democratic character is a function of interpersonal relations in which low estimates of the self are permitted to develop.’

    “Men with strong egos must play a special role in the process of modernization. Modernization is dependent on the existence of a number of innovating personalities, people who are able to cope with ambiguity and who are able to leave the comfortable world of tradition behind them and forge new forms with confidence and, perhaps, a feeling that it is their duty to achieve the new society and win converts for it.”

    Baha’u’llah and ‘Abdu’l-Baha were innovators in the realm of the spirit. Shoghi Effendi, most clearly, was not; nor, indeed, are any of his latter-day representatives. Nor, indeed, are they ever likely to be.

  • Fritz Gormann

    Yes what you say is true as far as we know in this day.

    At one time most of the world thought that the colour of a person’s skin was the gage for their intellect.
    As we grew and understood more we learned that most of us were wrong.

    There will be a time when we’ll find that reason that people are homosexual is caused by a gene.
    Then it will be a process of creation of the individual and not a selection of an individual.
    What then?
    Will the powers have to change their minds and say we were wrong?

    Is it a matter of what’s sociably expectable when we don’t know the cause?
    A couple who were not of the same skin colour at one time could be put in jail.

    A homosexual couple could be jailed also and beaten or they could lose their Administered Rights and be shunned by others.

    So if you want to be closer to God stop acting like your on the right hand.

    Fritz

  • Fritz Gormann

    Yes what you say is true as far as we know in this day.

    At one time most of the world thought that the colour of a person’s skin was the gage for their intellect.
    As we grew and understood more we learned that most of us were wrong.

    There will be a time when we’ll find that reason that people are homosexual is caused by a gene.
    Then it will be a process of creation of the individual and not a selection of an individual.
    What then?
    Will the powers have to change their minds and say we were wrong?

    Is it a matter of what’s sociably expectable when we don’t know the cause?
    A couple who were not of the same skin colour at one time could be put in jail.

    A homosexual couple could be jailed also and beaten or they could lose their Administered Rights and be shunned by others.

    So if you want to be closer to God stop acting like your on the right hand.

    Fritz

  • Fritz Gormann

    Both, Shoghi Effendi and his wife seem to have a problem with sexual identification.

    He died in the apartment of Tudor Poole his long time friend and ?

    But is it a problem that these two had a sexual ID problem, were they Genes out of normalcy range.

    Who cares, their efforts for the faith can never be short changed.

    Fritz

  • Fritz Gormann

    Both, Shoghi Effendi and his wife seem to have a problem with sexual identification.

    He died in the apartment of Tudor Poole his long time friend and ?

    But is it a problem that these two had a sexual ID problem, were they Genes out of normalcy range.

    Who cares, their efforts for the faith can never be short changed.

    Fritz

  • peyamb

    One fundie Bahai said:
    You pro-gay wannabe Baha’is do not know how to read Baha’i texts. Here is a quote from Abdu’l-Baha Testament:
    ————————
    And you fundamentalist minded Bahais that have hijacked my religion don’t know how to read the Will&Testament of Abdul-Baha. So where is the Guardian who is supposed to interpret the writings according to the needs of the times? Who is supposed to head the UHJ? How easily you gloss over THOSE parts of Abdul-Baha’s writings and just accept the status quo.
    You like being stuck in the writings of ONE guardian in the history of the Faith, and use his writings for the rest of Bahai history, then that’s your choice. But that is clearly not what Abdul-Baha envisioned for the rest of Bahai history. Obedience to SE while he was alive to guide the Faith, yes, but after that???
    I don’t believe elevating SE’s words to those of Bahaullah for the rest of Bahai history is explicitly written anywhere in the Holy text. And since there is nothign in the text clearly stating what should be done when there are no more Guardians, then the UHJ has every right to legislate on a new version of the AO. What we have today is NOT what is clearly written in writings.
    Oh and btw, I’m gay, Bahai and see no problem with it- well except for those like you who try to control the Bahai community.

  • peyamb

    One fundie Bahai said:
    You pro-gay wannabe Baha’is do not know how to read Baha’i texts. Here is a quote from Abdu’l-Baha Testament:
    ————————
    And you fundamentalist minded Bahais that have hijacked my religion don’t know how to read the Will&Testament of Abdul-Baha. So where is the Guardian who is supposed to interpret the writings according to the needs of the times? Who is supposed to head the UHJ? How easily you gloss over THOSE parts of Abdul-Baha’s writings and just accept the status quo.
    You like being stuck in the writings of ONE guardian in the history of the Faith, and use his writings for the rest of Bahai history, then that’s your choice. But that is clearly not what Abdul-Baha envisioned for the rest of Bahai history. Obedience to SE while he was alive to guide the Faith, yes, but after that???
    I don’t believe elevating SE’s words to those of Bahaullah for the rest of Bahai history is explicitly written anywhere in the Holy text. And since there is nothign in the text clearly stating what should be done when there are no more Guardians, then the UHJ has every right to legislate on a new version of the AO. What we have today is NOT what is clearly written in writings.
    Oh and btw, I’m gay, Bahai and see no problem with it- well except for those like you who try to control the Bahai community.

  • peyamb

    Did anyone have the pleasure of meeting Ruhiyyeh Khanum? I did while young, and even back then someting struck me as interesting. Her masculine overtones. She was a very strong-willed woman, sort of impatient with children, and spoke her mind all the time. Fast forward a few decades, and after meeting a number of lesbians, I can see similar character traits. Now, I know you can’t judge anyone, and I hate stereotypes as much as the next person, but hey there are certain character traits in certain populations. I mean I love to dance, collect art and wear nice clothes when I got out. :o)

  • peyamb

    Did anyone have the pleasure of meeting Ruhiyyeh Khanum? I did while young, and even back then someting struck me as interesting. Her masculine overtones. She was a very strong-willed woman, sort of impatient with children, and spoke her mind all the time. Fast forward a few decades, and after meeting a number of lesbians, I can see similar character traits. Now, I know you can’t judge anyone, and I hate stereotypes as much as the next person, but hey there are certain character traits in certain populations. I mean I love to dance, collect art and wear nice clothes when I got out. :o)

  • peyamb

    Oh and Samperio, in case you are too lazy to keep reading on in the Will & Testament, here is what Abdul Baha says about future Guardians. Show me where he says anything about the first Guardian being the imaginary head of the UHJ and using his letters to individuals as interpretive guidance for the rest of Bahai history?
    ———–
    O ye beloved of the Lord! It is incumbent upon the guardian of the Cause of God to appoint in his own life-time him that shall become his successor, that differences may not arise after his passing. He that is appointed must manifest in himself detachment from all wordly things, must be the essence of purity, must show in himself the fear of God, knowledge, wisdom and learning. Thus, should the first-born of the guardian of the Cause of God not manifest in himself the truth of the words: — “The child is the secret essence of its sire,” that is, should he not inherit of the spiritual within him (the guardian of the Cause of God) and his glorious lineage not be matched with a goodly character, then must he, (the guardian of the Cause of God) choose another branch to succeed him.

  • peyamb

    Oh and Samperio, in case you are too lazy to keep reading on in the Will & Testament, here is what Abdul Baha says about future Guardians. Show me where he says anything about the first Guardian being the imaginary head of the UHJ and using his letters to individuals as interpretive guidance for the rest of Bahai history?
    ———–
    O ye beloved of the Lord! It is incumbent upon the guardian of the Cause of God to appoint in his own life-time him that shall become his successor, that differences may not arise after his passing. He that is appointed must manifest in himself detachment from all wordly things, must be the essence of purity, must show in himself the fear of God, knowledge, wisdom and learning. Thus, should the first-born of the guardian of the Cause of God not manifest in himself the truth of the words: — “The child is the secret essence of its sire,” that is, should he not inherit of the spiritual within him (the guardian of the Cause of God) and his glorious lineage not be matched with a goodly character, then must he, (the guardian of the Cause of God) choose another branch to succeed him.

  • http://www.bahairants.com Baquia

    Sampiero, Rest assured, I do not think of you as my enemy. You are correct, Baha’u’llah didn’t say that men were allowed to have sex with other men. He also didn’t say anything about eating chocolate, mountain climbing, pruning a juniper tree, nor did he say that we were allowed to play leapfrog. Yet I know a lot of Baha’is who have done all of those things.

    Homosexuality isn’t about “indulging in lust” – it is the way some were made by their Creator.

    You say: “it is up to you to practice His law or not, with dire consequences for your soul.”

    Again I ask you, what law are you referring to? The only thing you’ve given me related to homosexuality in the Writings is from a letter by Shoghi Effendi to an individual. We know from the W&T; of the Master that the Guardian can not legislate, only interpret. Baha’u’llah didn’t reveal a law re homosexuality. If I’m wrong, please cite it. Nor has the UHJ legislated a Baha’i law related to homosexuality.

    By insisting that Shoghi Effendi’s words are Baha’i law you are subverting the roles of both the House and the insititute of Guardianship as laid out by Abdu’l-Baha.

  • http://www.bahairants.com Baquia

    Sampiero, Rest assured, I do not think of you as my enemy. You are correct, Baha’u’llah didn’t say that men were allowed to have sex with other men. He also didn’t say anything about eating chocolate, mountain climbing, pruning a juniper tree, nor did he say that we were allowed to play leapfrog. Yet I know a lot of Baha’is who have done all of those things.

    Homosexuality isn’t about “indulging in lust” – it is the way some were made by their Creator.

    You say: “it is up to you to practice His law or not, with dire consequences for your soul.”

    Again I ask you, what law are you referring to? The only thing you’ve given me related to homosexuality in the Writings is from a letter by Shoghi Effendi to an individual. We know from the W&T of the Master that the Guardian can not legislate, only interpret. Baha’u’llah didn’t reveal a law re homosexuality. If I’m wrong, please cite it. Nor has the UHJ legislated a Baha’i law related to homosexuality.

    By insisting that Shoghi Effendi’s words are Baha’i law you are subverting the roles of both the House and the insititute of Guardianship as laid out by Abdu’l-Baha.

  • peyamb

    Hey Samperio, just because somebody is defending gays and lesbians doesn’t mean that they are gay. I have straight friends who fight harder for gay rights than I do- and I’m gay. There is even this ex-Bahai youth on youtube who is debating the bahai stance on homosexuality, and he’s straight!
    Usually it’s the opposite- those who are always so afraid of welcoming gays into the community are the ones who harbor any “homosexuality” – so is that case?

  • peyamb

    Hey Samperio, just because somebody is defending gays and lesbians doesn’t mean that they are gay. I have straight friends who fight harder for gay rights than I do- and I’m gay. There is even this ex-Bahai youth on youtube who is debating the bahai stance on homosexuality, and he’s straight!
    Usually it’s the opposite- those who are always so afraid of welcoming gays into the community are the ones who harbor any “homosexuality” – so is that case?

  • http://lifeingrace.blogspot.com/ Marty

    I guess your critics don’t get that this blog is called “Baha’i RANTS” – with the emphasis on the ranting part.

    I was a Baha’i twice in my life – drawn by the beautiful teachings that wove a beautiful tapestry out of a confused mass of dogmas and legalism that were the distorted packaging of the followers of a former great religion. In both cases – the early demise of the spiritual part of the faith into the administrative (read legalistic) part drove me away.

    Hatred or condemnation of anyone has never been endorsed by the founder of any true religion. It unfortunately breeds among those who seek to control rather than consort.

    I love the Baha’i Faith – it’s the people in it that drive me crazy!!!!

  • http://lifeingrace.blogspot.com/ Marty

    I guess your critics don’t get that this blog is called “Baha’i RANTS” – with the emphasis on the ranting part.

    I was a Baha’i twice in my life – drawn by the beautiful teachings that wove a beautiful tapestry out of a confused mass of dogmas and legalism that were the distorted packaging of the followers of a former great religion. In both cases – the early demise of the spiritual part of the faith into the administrative (read legalistic) part drove me away.

    Hatred or condemnation of anyone has never been endorsed by the founder of any true religion. It unfortunately breeds among those who seek to control rather than consort.

    I love the Baha’i Faith – it’s the people in it that drive me crazy!!!!

  • Fritz Gormann

    I met and worked with Ruhiyyeh Khnum and was with her for a long oeriod of time, she defended Gay people and why not she was against back biting and the lowering of anyones personal dignaty

    She had only female friends all her life.

    Fritz

  • Fritz Gormann

    I met and worked with Ruhiyyeh Khnum and was with her for a long oeriod of time, she defended Gay people and why not she was against back biting and the lowering of anyones personal dignaty

    She had only female friends all her life.

    Fritz

  • Fritz Gormann

    I’m at the stage where the members of the Baha’i Faith drive me crazy with the holy, holy, holyer then everyone else.

    And the AO is off the wall heading for the vatican style religion.

    I know what you are saying Marty

    Fritz

  • Fritz Gormann

    I’m at the stage where the members of the Baha’i Faith drive me crazy with the holy, holy, holyer then everyone else.

    And the AO is off the wall heading for the vatican style religion.

    I know what you are saying Marty

    Fritz

  • Peyamb

    That’s interesting Frits. What’s funny is how up in arms Bahais get when you even suggest that maybe the Guardian and/or Ruhiyyeh Khanum had homosexual feelings. I’m not even saying that they acted on those feelings, but to suggest that they were human beings, and maybe just maybe had those feelings is insulting to some. It only shows me how backwards some Bahais are towards accepting gays and lesbians.

  • Peyamb

    That’s interesting Frits. What’s funny is how up in arms Bahais get when you even suggest that maybe the Guardian and/or Ruhiyyeh Khanum had homosexual feelings. I’m not even saying that they acted on those feelings, but to suggest that they were human beings, and maybe just maybe had those feelings is insulting to some. It only shows me how backwards some Bahais are towards accepting gays and lesbians.

  • Kamran

    Investigate the truth independently.

    and civility is always a plus :)

  • Kamran

    Investigate the truth independently.

    and civility is always a plus :)

  • Pingback: Sexual Transmutation- Your Secret Power. | 7Wins.eu

  • muhammad

    quran is a H O A X

    islam is a dangerous C U L T

    read quran

  • muhammad

    quran is a H O A X

    islam is a dangerous C U L T

    read quran