Archive for the 'Little Known Facts' Category

It’s a little known fact. . . [4]

Published
by
Baquia
on July 24, 2006
in Little Known Facts
. 14 Comments

Do not adjust your monitor… This is another installment of “Its a little known fact…”

I feel it my duty to tell you that you will be shocked and awed by what you read below. So for your own safety the factoid will not appear at the top, as it usually does. Instead, we’ll take a more gentle approach…

In the Kitab-i-Aqdas, Baha’u'llah writes:

God hath prescribed matrimony unto you. Beware that ye take not unto yourselves more wives than two. Whoso contenteth himself with a single partner from among the maidservants of God, both he and she shall live in tranquillity.

This has always been a bit of a sticky wicket for Baha’is because Baha’u'llah says ‘more wives than two’ - not, more wives than one. To be fair the next sentence does nudge towards monogamy but keeping true to the letter of the law, it does allow polygamy.

But as you probably have noticed, no Baha’i around has more than one wife. So what gives? Shoghi Effendi was asked about the apparent allowance for bigamy and his secretary wrote on his behalf in answer:

He [Bahá’u'lláh] made plurality of wives conditional upon justice; `Abdu’l-Bahá interpreted this to mean that a man may not have more than one wife at a time, as it is impossible to be just to two or more women in marriage.
[11 February, 1944 to an individual believer]

The common sense argument is made that Baha’u'llah used words very carefully to allow for a gradual shift to monogomy. At the time of the revelation of the Most Holy Book, Baha’u'llah Himself had three wives and many Baha’is of the time also had more than one wife. This is understandable since most of the Baha’is then were still transitioning from an Islamic religious background and had mainly entered into bigamy while still technically Muslims. As well, a Baha’i culture had yet to develop. Therefore, it was Baha’u'llah’s wisdom that they were not suddenly forced to drastically change their lives to abide within the new laws. You can imagine the jarring and unjust result this would have had on family life.

Yet, that is not all there is to it. As you read above, Shoghi Effendi says that Abdu’l-Baha explains: since the precondition of justice must be fulfilled, and since it clearly can not be fulfilled by mere mortal men, this means that the precondition can never be met; which therefore, means that poligamy is abolished completely.

Still with me? Alright. Here’s the thing.

First, we must acknowledge that nowhere in the Aqdas is polygamy preconditioned upon justice (or the equal treatment of both wives). This is an addition by Abdu’l-Baha. Perhaps Baha’u'llah told Abdu’l-Baha orally about this but to my knowledge there is no written document authored by Baha’u'llah laying out this precondition.

But in the Tablet in which Abdu’l-Baha is quoted, He is not referring to the Aqdas. Ofcourse, this is difficult to notice as the quote is taken out of context and inserted in the notes. In fact, the probability is that Abdu’l-Baha is referring to the Quranic law when he says “law of God” since in the Quran there is a verse as follows:

And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) only one or what your right hands possess; this is more proper, that you may not deviate from the right course.

Second, according to the Writings of Abdu’l-Baha (written to and for Baha’is about Baha’i laws), He did not say that the precondition of justice can not be met. In fact, He says the opposite:

“Concerning bigamy, this has been promulgated, and no one must abrogate it. ‘Abdu’l-Baha has not abrogated this law. These are false accusations and lies (spread by) the friends. What I have said is that He has made bigamy bound on a precondition. As long as someone does not attain certitude regarding the capability to practice justice and his heart is not at rest that he can practice justice, he should not be intent upon a second marriage. But if he should be sure and attain certitude that he would practice justice on all levels (and conditions), then a second marriage is lawful. Just as has been the case in the Holy Land: the Baha’i friends wished to marry a second wife, accepting this precondition, and this servant [Abdu’l-Baha] never abstained (from giving permission), but insisted that justice should be considered, and justice actually means here self-restraint; but they said, that they will practice justice and wished to marry a second wife. Such false accusations [charges that Abdu’l-Baha prohibited bigamy] are the slanderous whisperings of those who wish to spread doubts and to what degree they already succeed in making matters ambiguous! (Our) purpose was to state that bigamy without justice is not lawful and that justice is very difficult (to achieve).”
[Amr wa Khalq, Volume 4, p. 174]

“You asked about polygamy. According to the text of the Divine Book the right of having two wives is lawful and legal. This was never prohibited, but it is legitimate and allowed. You should therefore not be unhappy, but take justice into your consideration so that you may be as just as possible. what has been said was that since justice is very difficult (to achieve), therefore tranquillity (calls for) one wife. But in your case, you should not be unhappy.”

[ibid. Volume 4, p. 174]

It is obvious from reading the above that Abdu’l-Baha gives a much more naunced take on this whole matter. Which isn’t surprising if you knew His general approach to things. Notice that in this situation Abdu’l-Baha is talking about justice not as a one time thing - boom! there is justice - or a black and white delineation…but rather, He is referring to justice as a continuum: “…so that you may be as just as possible.”

By the way, the source is probably not familiar to Western Baha’is so it bears some elucidation. It is a provisional translation of Amr wa Khalq which loosely translates to Faith and Knowledge. It is similar - but not equal - to a book most Western Baha’is are familiar with: Lights of Guidance. It is a four volume compilation of writings about Baha’i laws which almost all Persian Baha’is have as part of their Baha’i library.

In any case, according to Abdu’l-Baha, there is a condition and contrary to the prevalent myth: it can be met. In fact, He himself gave permission and blessing for poligamous marriages to take place by Baha’is.

So there you go: under Baha’i law, polygamy is permitted. Bet you didn’t know what. Well, that’s why its called a little known fact.

(And ladies, remember that eventhough there has been a lot of talk about a plurality of wives, the Kitab-i-Aqdas is applied mutatis mutandis so technically you have the right to be exasperated by two people leaving the toilet seat up)

But what does this all mean? To be honest, the allowance for poligamy has no implication in our modern lives. After all, we as Baha’is must abide by the laws of our country and as you’ve probably clued in, most of the civilized world has taken a shine to monogamy.

And yet, there is a real benefit to thinking and talking about this law. Not for its practical implementation in our lives (yeah, you wish) but for the insight into relativism. If you haven’t yet read Brendan’s essay on Moral Relativism, please do so. It explains the concept much better than I could ever hope to. For the flexibilty inherent within this law not only allowed the early believers to live harmonious lives, it also allows future generations the same flexibility.

It’s a little known fact. . . [3]

Published
by
Baquia
on April 22, 2005
in Little Known Facts
. 9 Comments

You know it!

Back by popular demand, here is the third installment in this series. For those of you who don’t know what this is all about, its basically a fact or trivia that for some strange reason, 99.99% of Baha’is don’t know of.

Now, I’ve been getting some feedback which goes something like this: “Meh, I knew that.” I think those that respond like that don’t really get what this is all about. It isn’t about what you may know or not know; its about something which the vast majority of the Baha’is out there don’t know. Oh, and if you do know, then good on ya mate! We’re all very proud of you.

So without further ado, lets get down to business:

Its a little known fact. . .that Baha’is are not forbidden from reading covenant-breaker material.

Shocking! Scandalous! Get my oxygen mask! Where’s that thorazine drip? Nuuuurse!!

Once you are appropriately medicated and are ready to go on, I will tell you that indeed this is true. See for yourself:

To read the writings of Covenant-breakers is not forbidden to the believers and does not constitute in itself an act of Covenant-breaking.
(Universal House of Justice — October 29, 1974)

The House of Justice has instructed us to say that, as you are no doubt aware, it is not prohibited for Baha’is to read the writings of Covenant-breakers…
(Secretariat — October 12, 1978)

And yet there is a persistent myth that Baha’is are forbidden or not allowed to (according to Baha’i law or authoritative instructions) to read material which was written by a covenant-breaker.

That this myth exists and is perpetuated is inexcusable - hence our shattering of it. But it is understandable once you remember two things. One, that the UHJ strongly discouraged Baha’is from reading such material (many individuals misinterpret this to mean that they are not free to decide for themselves) and two, that covenant-breakers aren’t looked upon too kindly. Well, that’s putting it diplomatically. In the minds of most Baha’is, they are categorized, in terms of attractiveness, somewhere among psychopaths and lepers (or a psychopathic leper). In short, they are to be shunned and avoided, at all costs.

A rather extreme measure, I’m sure you’ll agree. So why not then go one step further from discouragement to outright banning if covenant-breakers are so nasty?

I think the answer is that to do so would be to go against the most fundamental principle of the Baha’i Faith: individual and independant investigation of truth. And it is telling just how much this verity is prized that when it goes up against such a charged facet of the Faith as covenant-breakers, it comes out on top.

Interestingly enough I had a conversation a while back on LJ’s Baha’i forum on this very topic. One of the moderators (who finds it vital to their existence to correct me - especially when I’m not wrong) piped in and screamed:

WRONG!

And then went on to post quote after quote (like the above) which actually showed that Baha’is are not forbidden from reading covenant-breaker material. I don’t have a link to that because my comments as well as others’ were censored by the same moderator. But this moderator also ‘corrected’ me in this other thread. I mentioned that the UHJ only has legislative authority and then I was told ‘incorrect’ by the moderator and given quotes which shows that the UHJ only has legislative authority. Another person did something similar in this thread (here it is without censorship). If you need to go lie down after reading that, I don’t blame you. It seems that this whole topic evokes such a strong emotional reaction from Baha’is that they enter a state of temporary insanity. But I digress.

So the next time some Baha’i implies or says that they are forbidden from reading covenant-breaker material, you can show that this is patently, categorically, and absolutely false.

Just be ready to duck in an alley to escape the shrapnel as they explode in a hot flash of indignant (or is that ignorant) rage.

Its a little known fact. . .[2]

Published
by
Baquia
on March 20, 2005
in Little Known Facts
. 11 Comments
Back by popular demand, here is the second installment of this series (for those of you who don’t know what this is all about, its basically a fact or trivia that for some strange reason, 99.99% of Baha’is don’t know of). Here is your chance to use it to win a bet, to stump the “know-it-all” or simply for the sheer pleasure of watching them draw a blank. So without further ado, lets get to it:Its a little known fact. . . that Baha’i pilgrimage is NOT to Haifa.

I know, I know. Its a bit of a shock. Some of you are on the waiting list, even as you read. Others have already gone and come back with a few hundred pictures. Well, if you just stay with me for a second more I’ll explain what I mean and why that’s a little known fact.

If you haven’t seen it yet, there is a neat little website created by the Baha’i World Centre entitled “Baha’i Pilgrimage”. I think its about time we had this because there are a lot of Baha’is who want to go to pilgrimage and many don’t know what the steps are or where to get information. But “Baha’i Pilgrimage” as the name of that website is a misnomer.

Part of this new website says:

“The first and supreme obligation of all Bahá’ís who visit the Holy Land is to pray and meditate in the Sacred Shrines of Bahá’u’lláh, the Báb and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. To receive this bounty of visiting the Holy Places at the Bahá’í World Centre is an inestimable privilege, infinitely precious to every Bahá’í pilgrim.”

This excerpt is implying that a Baha’i visitor to the Holy Land is a pilgrim and the “supreme obligation” of all Baha’is who go, is to visit the shrines of the three central figures of the Faith. While visiting and spending time in reverent meditation and prayer at those special places is the choice of every Baha’i, it is wrong to imply or state that this is Baha’i pilgrimage.

Why?

Well, for the simple reason that Baha’i pilgrimage was set down by Baha’u'llah in a tablet and He wrote that the sites or locations for it are:

  • His house in Baghdad
  • and the Bab’s house in Shiraz

As well, He went on to explain the rites and forms which a Baha’i must follow for pilgrimage. There was also some things which were made explicit which Baha’is don’t have to do for pilgrimage - like shaving one’s head, ala the Muslim tradition. You can find the relevant information in two separate Tablets, which are known collectively as the Suriy-i-Hajj (or the Tablets of Pilgrimage).

Baha’u'llah also mentions pilgrimage in the Kitab-i-Aqdas. There He explains that it is a duty for all Baha’is but that women are exempt from pilgrimage - please don’t misunderstand this. . .this does not mean that they are prohibited. And that either the House of the Bab in Shiraz or the House of Baha’u'llah in Baghdad will do (a Baha’i can decide which they prefer to go to or which is closer).

So why do Baha’is from all around the world go to Haifa and call it pilgrimage? The answer to that has several parts. First of all, after Baha’u'llah’s passing, Abdu’l-Baha wrote that Bahji was a site of visitation for Baha’is. He did not specify any specific rites or forms for this visitation. The second is that, currently, Baha’is simply can not perform pilgrimage (as written by Baha’u'llah) because those places, the very buildings Baha’u'llah referred to are either not there anymore, or they are not in the control/ownership of Baha’is. The House of the Bab in Shiraz was razed to the ground after the revolution, while there are sensitive and ongoing negotiations to regain title to the the House of Baha’u'llah in Baghdad. Of course, these buildings and sites will be rebuilt in the future to the exact original specifications which the Baha’is have kept.

It might help to settle the issue if we go back to the original words used when referring to pilgrimage. The word that Baha’u'llah used is ‘hajj’. Someone who performed ‘hajj’ in the Muslim tradition was called ‘Haji’ on his return. And actually, Persian/Arab Baha’is who performed pilgrimage were also known as ‘Haji’ (this would explain all the Haji So-and-so’s you read about in Nabil’s Narratives or other historical books). But for the most part they were considered Haji because they had visited Baha’u'llah in person and attained to His presence.

On the other hand, there is another word which is used to denote visitation (not pilgrimage!) and it is ‘ziyarat’. This word is much more general and it can even refer to going to visit your friend down the street (it is actually a very polite way of saying exactly that in Persian). All other special or holy places visited by Baha’is for reverent prayer and meditation (the apartment Abdu’l-Baha stayed in Paris, the House of Abbud and Abdu’l-a-Pasha, Mazrayi, the Maxwell house in Montreal, the Shrine of the Bab, the resting place of Abdu’l-Baha, etc.) are actually visitations. Not pilgrimages.

I’m trying to simplify something quite complex here and some may correctly object that the differences are not so clear cut (as ‘ziyarat’ and ‘hajj’). But whatever we decide to ultimately call them or whatever words we choose to use, we must acknowledge that there are two levels at work here. One which is prescribed explicitely by Baha’u'llah (as well as the Bab) and which involves very specific rites and actions to be performed, and another which is much more widely applicable to holy places and has not been mentioned by Baha’u'llah and has no specific rites or actions to be performed.

Am I splitting hairs here? Maybe to some. But I hope others see that all I’m trying to do is to separate truth from misconceptions and ignorance.

So why does the Universal House of Justice continue to use the English word ‘pilgrimage’ (the equivalent of ‘hajj’) when refering to trips made to the Holy Land? Beats me. Maybe you can ask them and then let us all know.

It’s a little known fact. . . [1]

Published
by
Baquia
on March 3, 2005
in Little Known Facts
. 7 Comments
Those who remember the TV comedy series Cheers, will surely also remember the character of Cliff Claven. He was for me, the most lovable character on that show because he was the perennial loser - a guy you just couldn’t help feeling sorry for. You wanted him to win so badly, just once! And every time he tried something, you winced because you just knew that it was going to blow up in his face.One of the endearing qualities that Cliff Claven had was his ability to spout off meaningless facts and trivia. A cornucopia of insignificant tidbits. And usually he would start off by saying “It’s a little known fact. . . “ And you would brace yourself because it was sort of like a race with the writers on the show to see if they could outdo the stupid thing he said last week.

Well its time for Baha’i Rants to introduce a new feature honouring Cliff’s propensity for useless information. But in this case we’ll be taking the opportunity to pulverize misconceptions or ignorance, as the case may be. In each instance, Baha’i Rants will feature something to do with the Faith which is either assumed to be true (taken for a fact without basis) or flipping it around, astoundingly NOT known by most Baha’is. And then we will proceed to pick it up by the scruff of its scrawny neck and beat it to a pulp. There are a lot of these so lets get started with the first without further ado. The first one is something which 99.999% of Baha’is do NOT know.

It’s a little known fact that . . . the Arc Project is not finished.

I can hear the gasps now. What? How can you say that? They spent, what? like $250 million from the sacrificial donations of Baha’is around the world to build the Arc projects on Mount Carmel! There was a dedication ceremony! (someone pipes up from the back) That’s right, I was there!! (yells someone else).

Well, as much as I’d hate to increase your blood pressure. It is a little known fact. And yes, it is a fact. Let me explain.

The Arc Projects are comprised of 5 buildings. These were originally mentioned by Shoghi Effendi and they are: The Archives building (constructed first), The Seat of the Universal House of Justice, The International Baha’i Library, the Seat of the Hands of the Cause of God and the Centre for the Study of the Sacred Texts.

If you are sharp you will have noticed several things. One, since we do not have a Guardian (and sadly, can not have a Guardian anymore) we neither have a means of appointing Hands of the Cause of God. Therefore, we can’t build a building for the Hands of the Cause of God. So instead, the House decided to build that building for the institution which they created out of thin air to replace the function of the Hands of the Cause of God — namely the International Teaching Centre.

Here is a neat letter in 1987 from the House which outlines their construction project for the coming few years.

Two, the main point of all this explanation: We do not have an International Baha’i Library!

Notice that in that letter (above) the House describes the Baha’i International Library, as follows:

“- The International Bahá’í Library. This Library is the central depository of all literature published on the Faith, and is an essential source of information for the institutions of the World Centre on all subjects relating to the Cause of God and the conditions of mankind. In future decades its functions must grow, it will serve as an active centre for knowledge in all fields, and it will become the kernel of great institutions of scientific investigation and discovery.”

ok, now take a look at this aerial picture of Mount Carmel (you can click on it to make it bigger):

Bahai World Center Arc Project Aerial ViewThe picture shows us from right to left: (far right, you can see the Terraces going up and down the side of the mountain), immediately to the right you can see the Archives building, the Centre for the Study of the Texts (literally carved into the mountain after 3 years of excavation work!), the Seat of the Universal House of Justice, moving along to the left, the International Teaching Centre and then finally, a nice apartment building!

Yup! That’s where the Library should be. And hopefully, that’s where it will be built in the future (once the owners of the property decide to sell it to the Baha’i community). But until then, no Library. And no Library means no Arc. Well, not in the complete sense of the word atleast. But I’m happy to report that the UHJ did not let such a small and trivial thing as a missing fifth building detract them from declaring the project finished and holding a huge ceremony to celebrate its completion (in mid 2001).