Baha’i Rants

As a Baha’i, I’m very interested to know the future direction of Iran; not only because it is the Cradle of the Faith, but because the direction that Iran takes has real effect on the lives of all Iranians and especially, the beleaguered and persecuted Baha’i community.

Here is a presentation from Bruce Bueno de Mesquita at TED on applying rational choice theory or game theory to make 3 predictions on the future of Iran. You can watch it fullscreen by clicking on the bottom right icon below:

Bruce Bueno de Mesquita runs, Mesquita & Roundell, a consulting company and he seems to have a knack in predicting very obscure but important turning points in world events:

His first foray into forecasting controversy took place in 1984, when he published an article in PS, the flagship journal of the American Political Science Association, predicting who would succeed Iran’s ruling Ayatollah Khomeini upon his death. He had developed a rudimentary forecasting model that was different from anything anyone had seen before in that it was not designed around one particular foreign-policy problem, but could be applied to any international conflict. “It was the first attempt at a general mathematical model of international conflict,” he says. His model predicted that upon Khomeini’s death, an ayatollah named Hojatolislam Khamenei and an obscure junior cleric named Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani would emerge to lead the country together. At the time, Rafsanjani was so little known that his name had yet to appear in the New York Times.

Even more improbably, Khomeini had already designated his successor, and it was neither Ayatollah Khamenei nor Rafsanjani. Khomeini’s stature among Iran’s ruling clerics made it inconceivable that they would defy their leader’s choice. At the APSA meeting subsequent to the article’s publication, Bueno de Mesquita was roundly denounced as a quack by the Iran experts—a charlatan peddling voodoo mathematics. “They said I was an idiot, basically. They said my work was evil, offensive, that it should be suppressed,” he recalls. “It was a very difficult time in my career.” Five years later, when Khomeini died, lo and behold, Iran’s fractious ruling clerics chose Ayatollah Khamenei and Hashemi Rafsanjani to jointly lead the country. At the next APSA meeting, the man who had been Bueno de Mesquita’s most vocal detractor raised his hand and publicly apologized to him.

Source: The New Nostradamus

The 3 predictions are:

1. Iran will develop the capability and experiment but won’t develop a bomb
2. Iran’s theocratic ruling elite will somewhat change with the traditionalist Qom clergy and the bazaari or merchant class strengthening in political power
3. Ahmadinejad’s star will continue to fade (presumably meaning that he will not be elected – although he didn’t explicitly state this)

Foreseeably, this has several consequences for Baha’is in Iran. The first thing I noticed is that he didn’t predict a downfall or even a weakening of the theocratic government of Iran. Second, the bazaari or merchant class is one of the principal agents behind the establishment and momentum of the Hojatieh Society. Any improvement in their political capital means that Baha’is will be in further peril. Finally, the prediction that Iran will stop short of developing or testing nuclear weapons means that the international community will, for the most part, continue the status quo of tolerating Iran while maintaining a watchful eye and restricting their trade access.

Although the swift reduction in the price of petroleum has severely damaged Iran’s economy, according to this prediction, the theocratic regime will muddle through. Perhaps with the merchant class gaining the upper hand and implementing more market friendly policies. Whatever the details, the danger of remaining in Iran continues for Baha’is. My sincere wish is for the safety of those who are still in peril. The only sure way for them to mitigate this risk is to say farewell to Iran. And to glory not that we love Iran, but that we love all the world and humanity by finding a safe home elsewhere.

Below is a recent letter from the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of New Zealand to clarify doubts about door-to-door teaching as well as “direct teaching”. I have heard this term (“direct teaching”) more and more but no one bothered to define what they meant by it. Towards the end of the letter, the NSA of NZ outlines their definition. Most helpful.

In the end, it comes down to using your own judgement and taking each and every opportunity to teach the Faith as a singular moment which can not be mass-produced. Sometimes the best thing is to say nothing, sometimes it is to challenge the person, sometimes it is to say a lot, sometimes almost nothing, sometimes to use logic, sometimes to use stories that evoke emotion, etc. Since we are talking about the most fundamental human endeavor, teaching is an art. Not a science.

Can you imagine if, stopping by the blacksmith, Mirza Abu’l-Fadl would have been invited to a Ruhi class instead of having the irksome exchange he did have?

Here is the letter:

In its recent consultations the National Spiritual Assembly has thought deeply about the purpose underlying the calling of these 41 conferences. What message should we take from this action of the supreme institution of our Faith as we draw nearer to the end point of the Five Year Plan? What must we do in New Zealand if we are to meet our commitments to the Universal House of Justice and establish nine intensive programmes of growth?

Inescapably we come to the conclusion that the immediate and urgent need is that the recent calls for a massive upsurge in teaching efforts must be heeded and acted upon by increasing numbers of the friends.

In particular we must embrace the clear and unequivocal guidance from the central institutions in regard to the audacious employment of direct teaching methods.

Learning from clusters in diverse places around the world is showing empirical and positive benefits from adopting these teaching approaches and we have had the hint of successes in New Zealand as well.

One of the elements in many direct teaching projects is the practice of what is referred to as “door knocking.” The National Spiritual Assembly is aware that some of the friends feel anxious about the practice of Baha’i teachers making door-to-door visits on homes, because of their concern that this practice is “pushy” and perhaps amounts to proselytising, which is forbidden in the Teachings.
Continue reading ‘Door-to-Door Teaching: NSA Letter’