It’s a little known fact. . . [4]

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 [Bah??’u’ll??h] made plurality of wives conditional upon justice; `Abdu’l-Bah?? 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 polygamy 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 polygamous 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 polygamy 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.

  • Robert

    Another interpretation to the writings.
    Homo Sapiens are slightly polygomous. Extra virile, or rich men usually have mistresses or serial wives in the west. And 2/3 wives in Islamic countries.
    Bahaullah legislated what is natural — [take one wife, but if you cant keep it in your pants take two]. Regulation of sexual behaviour. In Malaysia prior to 2nd world war Muslim men could have taken up to 4 wives, and Chinese men as many concubines as they wanted.

    Id like to know in depth what the Bahai writings on homosexuality are.

  • Robert

    Another interpretation to the writings.
    Homo Sapiens are slightly polygomous. Extra virile, or rich men usually have mistresses or serial wives in the west. And 2/3 wives in Islamic countries.
    Bahaullah legislated what is natural — [take one wife, but if you cant keep it in your pants take two]. Regulation of sexual behaviour. In Malaysia prior to 2nd world war Muslim men could have taken up to 4 wives, and Chinese men as many concubines as they wanted.

    Id like to know in depth what the Bahai writings on homosexuality are.

  • Pelucid

    For over 25 years I was an active Bahai and during much of that time I accepted the official Bahai teachings about sexuality. Much to my regret these days.

    The strongly conservative Iranian power base that currently control the Faith promote the line that all human sexual activity is to be confined between husband and wife, for the purposes of procreation. Nothing else is permitted. Even masturbation is forbidden. What has been learnt about human sexuality over the last few decades makes this line flat-out unsupportable.

    Human sexual appetites come in a huge range, from the extremely modest and timid to the frankly depraved. I accept that some limits are required. But the case FOR the prohibition must be clear-cut and justified…whereas the current stance of the Faith is to prohibit almost everything.

    In terms of homosexuality, the Faith demands life-long absolute abstinence from such people. The male hetrosexuals who promote this line would probably never dream of adhering to such a condition themselves. There is a word for this.

    Personally I am a quiet boring citizen with one happy wife and several daughters…I do not plan on turning my life upside down with a series of sexual mis-adventures….but at the same time it is plain to me that I can no longer support or promote the Faith’s teachings in this area with any sort of good conscience. Which is a pity because in most other aspects I retain a lot of respect for it.

  • Pelucid

    For over 25 years I was an active Bahai and during much of that time I accepted the official Bahai teachings about sexuality. Much to my regret these days.

    The strongly conservative Iranian power base that currently control the Faith promote the line that all human sexual activity is to be confined between husband and wife, for the purposes of procreation. Nothing else is permitted. Even masturbation is forbidden. What has been learnt about human sexuality over the last few decades makes this line flat-out unsupportable.

    Human sexual appetites come in a huge range, from the extremely modest and timid to the frankly depraved. I accept that some limits are required. But the case FOR the prohibition must be clear-cut and justified…whereas the current stance of the Faith is to prohibit almost everything.

    In terms of homosexuality, the Faith demands life-long absolute abstinence from such people. The male hetrosexuals who promote this line would probably never dream of adhering to such a condition themselves. There is a word for this.

    Personally I am a quiet boring citizen with one happy wife and several daughters…I do not plan on turning my life upside down with a series of sexual mis-adventures….but at the same time it is plain to me that I can no longer support or promote the Faith’s teachings in this area with any sort of good conscience. Which is a pity because in most other aspects I retain a lot of respect for it.

  • mahnaz shafai

    allaho abha

  • http://oshin mahnaz shafai

    allaho abha

  • DaudAbuOmid

    Whatever ‘Abdu’l-Bah?? says should be thought of in the context of these two verses:
    O SON OF MAN! Deny not My servant should he ask anything from thee, for his face is My face; be then abashed before Me. (Bah??’u’ll??h, #30, The Arabic Hidden Words)
    Were man to reflect, he would surely perceive that even the servant of His threshold ruleth over all created things! This hath already been witnessed, and will in future be made manifest.
    (Baha’u’llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 124)

  • DaudAbuOmid

    Whatever ‘Abdu’l-Bah?? says should be thought of in the context of these two verses:
    O SON OF MAN! Deny not My servant should he ask anything from thee, for his face is My face; be then abashed before Me. (Bah??’u’ll??h, #30, The Arabic Hidden Words)
    Were man to reflect, he would surely perceive that even the servant of His threshold ruleth over all created things! This hath already been witnessed, and will in future be made manifest.
    (Baha’u’llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 124)

  • کیفر&#

    I am very surprised to read your article because I had known that in Aqdas Bahaullah say: ”Beware that ye take not unto yourselves more wives than two.” and I also know that what Abdul Baha said. but when I inquired from Bahai friends that Bahaullah is the Law maker not Abdul Baha He is only interpreter to the faith and in my view in this case I have seen nothing logically to said two mean one, it is very clear in Aqdas ,so why not you Bahais follow the Manifestation. In reply Bahai friends said that because Abdul Baha said two mean one thats why we will follow to Abdul Baha, and they not wanted to talk further on this topic and I am very surprise that as a Bahai you write this kind of thing openly and still Baha’i authorities have no objections. One thing more that in Baha’i faith no one is authorized to comment on faith by his own mind but it is a duty of “Wali Amrullah” Guardian to say some thing on holy matters and unfortunately Universal House of Justice have no Guardian. But you are out of the blue and speaks on such issues and ask questions which seems to be valid.

  • کیفرین Kaifreen

    I am very surprised to read your article because I had known that in Aqdas Bahaullah say: ”Beware that ye take not unto yourselves more wives than two.” and I also know that what Abdul Baha said. but when I inquired from Bahai friends that Bahaullah is the Law maker not Abdul Baha He is only interpreter to the faith and in my view in this case I have seen nothing logically to said two mean one, it is very clear in Aqdas ,so why not you Bahais follow the Manifestation. In reply Bahai friends said that because Abdul Baha said two mean one thats why we will follow to Abdul Baha, and they not wanted to talk further on this topic and I am very surprise that as a Bahai you write this kind of thing openly and still Baha’i authorities have no objections. One thing more that in Baha’i faith no one is authorized to comment on faith by his own mind but it is a duty of “Wali Amrullah” Guardian to say some thing on holy matters and unfortunately Universal House of Justice have no Guardian. But you are out of the blue and speaks on such issues and ask questions which seems to be valid.

  • http://www.bahairants.com Baquia

    “One thing more that in Baha’i faith no one is authorized to comment on faith by his own mind but it is a duty of ?Wali Amrullah? Guardian to say some thing on holy matters and unfortunately Universal House of Justice have no Guardian. But you are out of the blue and speaks on such issues and ask questions which seems to be valid.”

    This is a common misconception. All Baha’is are totally free to comment and to interpret the Baha’i Writings as their conscience moves them. What Baha’is are not allowed to do is to insist that their own personal view is the right view and must be held by others.

  • http://www.bahairants.com Baquia

    “One thing more that in Baha’i faith no one is authorized to comment on faith by his own mind but it is a duty of ?Wali Amrullah? Guardian to say some thing on holy matters and unfortunately Universal House of Justice have no Guardian. But you are out of the blue and speaks on such issues and ask questions which seems to be valid.”

    This is a common misconception. All Baha’is are totally free to comment and to interpret the Baha’i Writings as their conscience moves them. What Baha’is are not allowed to do is to insist that their own personal view is the right view and must be held by others.

  • Anonymous

    I both was shocked and awed when I read this.

  • http://mavaddat.livejournal.com Mavaddat

    I both was shocked and awed when I read this.

  • http://www.sonjavank.com sonja

    There’s another take on this law (PDF document):
    “Bahais say that their law teaches monogamy, yet the Kitab-e Aqdas allows two wives. A glance at the law in the Bayan may help to explain — and also point to a way for Bahai family law to incorporate sperm and egg donation and surrogate motherhood as solutions to infertility. Includes some relevant scriptural texts.
    Posted to Bahai_Community, 30 November 2006”

  • http://www.sonjavank.com sonja

    There’s another take on this law (PDF document):
    “Bahais say that their law teaches monogamy, yet the Kitab-e Aqdas allows two wives. A glance at the law in the Bayan may help to explain — and also point to a way for Bahai family law to incorporate sperm and egg donation and surrogate motherhood as solutions to infertility. Includes some relevant scriptural texts.
    Posted to Bahai_Community, 30 November 2006”

  • farhan

    Baquia wrote:
    “All Baha’is are totally free to comment and to interpret the Baha’i Writings as their conscience moves them. What Baha’is are not allowed to do is to insist that their own personal view is the right view and must be held by others.”

    Also, in all our researches and discussions, we should realise that Baha’u’llah has identified the Universal House of Justice as the arbitrator and the law maker so as to avoid disunity and strife; the provisions of the Aqdas are to be applied for acts of worship, and legislation is left to the house of justice who decides how an when to apply the laws not applicable at this time. Hence, to my understanding, the move from polygamy to monogamy was destined to be a progressive one, according to the capacity of the community to apply those laws, and not according to God’s will. It is still not applicable in some Baha’i communities in teh world.

    When Christ announced his mission by reading the words of Isaiah in the Synagog in Galilee, He announced that He had been anointed and sent to release the captives; He did not abolish slavery, but provided the teachings for it, and it took Christians several centuries to accomplish that promise.

  • Farhan Yazdani

    Baquia wrote:
    “All Baha’is are totally free to comment and to interpret the Baha’i Writings as their conscience moves them. What Baha’is are not allowed to do is to insist that their own personal view is the right view and must be held by others.”

    Also, in all our researches and discussions, we should realise that Baha’u’llah has identified the Universal House of Justice as the arbitrator and the law maker so as to avoid disunity and strife; the provisions of the Aqdas are to be applied for acts of worship, and legislation is left to the house of justice who decides how an when to apply the laws not applicable at this time. Hence, to my understanding, the move from polygamy to monogamy was destined to be a progressive one, according to the capacity of the community to apply those laws, and not according to God’s will. It is still not applicable in some Baha’i communities in teh world.

    When Christ announced his mission by reading the words of Isaiah in the Synagog in Galilee, He announced that He had been anointed and sent to release the captives; He did not abolish slavery, but provided the teachings for it, and it took Christians several centuries to accomplish that promise.

  • http://www.bahairants.com Baquia

    Farhan,
    the UHJ’s sphere of authority is legislation, as you pointed out. The discussion in the comment above was not about legislation but rather interpretation.

  • http://www.bahairants.com Baquia

    Farhan,
    the UHJ’s sphere of authority is legislation, as you pointed out. The discussion in the comment above was not about legislation but rather interpretation.

  • farhan

    Baquia wrote:
    “The discussion in the comment above was not about legislation but rather interpretation.”

    Well, from what I gather, Baquia, the UHJ “elucidates” which I understand as drawing practical implications from a number of concepts available at a given time, and does not interpret.

    To my personnal (and unwarrented) understanding, the UHJ can decide when, if, where and which laws of Aqdas are practically applicable. They might, for example guide one national institution to forbearance and patience and another to a strict attitude depending on prevailing conditions; for example, at a certain time, they might suggest more forbearance about moral issues in the West than in Iran.

    This is an important concept to me for ethical decision making. Understanding the law is one thing, how you apply it is another.

  • Farhan Yazdani

    Baquia wrote:
    “The discussion in the comment above was not about legislation but rather interpretation.”

    Well, from what I gather, Baquia, the UHJ “elucidates” which I understand as drawing practical implications from a number of concepts available at a given time, and does not interpret.

    To my personnal (and unwarrented) understanding, the UHJ can decide when, if, where and which laws of Aqdas are practically applicable. They might, for example guide one national institution to forbearance and patience and another to a strict attitude depending on prevailing conditions; for example, at a certain time, they might suggest more forbearance about moral issues in the West than in Iran.

    This is an important concept to me for ethical decision making. Understanding the law is one thing, how you apply it is another.

  • http://www.bahairants.com Baquia

    Farhan,
    in your opinion, what is the difference in ‘elucidation’ and ‘interpretation’? I have yet to hear a lucid explanation that sets the two apart… which doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist!

  • http://www.bahairants.com Baquia

    Farhan,
    in your opinion, what is the difference in ‘elucidation’ and ‘interpretation’? I have yet to hear a lucid explanation that sets the two apart… which doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist!

  • farhan

    Baquia,

    you write:
    “in your opinion, what is the difference in ?elucidation’ and ?interpretation’?”

    Baquia,
    you will find some explanations on:

    http://bahai-library.com/uhj/power.elucidation.uhj.html

    We read:
    “In a letter dated 9 March 1965, the Universal House of Justice stresses the “profound difference” that exists between the “interpretations of the Guardian and the elucidations of the House of Justice in exercise of its function to ‘deliberate upon all problems which have caused difference, questions that are obscure, and matters that are not expressly recorded in the Book.”‘ (Wellspring of Guidance, p. 52) Among these is the outlining of such steps as are necessary to establish the World Order of Baha’u’llah on this earth. The elucidations of the Universal House of Justice stem from its legislative function, while the interpretations of the Guardian represent the true intent inherent in the Sacred Texts. The major distinction between the two functions is that legislation with its resultant outcome of elucidation is susceptible of amendment by the House of Justice itself, whereas the Guardian’s interpretation is a statement of truth which cannot be varied.”

    As a professionnal, I sometimes need _immediate_ guidance, for example when a child needs transfusion and the parents refuse consent; I refer to the judge who does not “interpret” the law, but “elucidates” from the laws and jurisprudence available the line of action that I am to adopt.

    To my understanding, elucidation is a practical line of action in a given case, at a given time, and interpretation is theoretical. Do you agree? My understanding is available for download under Yazdani on the BMAC site.

    To my understanding, in many discussions I read individuals attempt to do work of the UHJ for which they will never obtain universal adhesion.

  • Farhan Yazdani

    Baquia,

    you write:
    “in your opinion, what is the difference in ?elucidation’ and ?interpretation’?”

    Baquia,
    you will find some explanations on:

    http://bahai-library.com/uhj/power.elucidation.uhj.html

    We read:
    “In a letter dated 9 March 1965, the Universal House of Justice stresses the “profound difference” that exists between the “interpretations of the Guardian and the elucidations of the House of Justice in exercise of its function to ‘deliberate upon all problems which have caused difference, questions that are obscure, and matters that are not expressly recorded in the Book.”‘ (Wellspring of Guidance, p. 52) Among these is the outlining of such steps as are necessary to establish the World Order of Baha’u’llah on this earth. The elucidations of the Universal House of Justice stem from its legislative function, while the interpretations of the Guardian represent the true intent inherent in the Sacred Texts. The major distinction between the two functions is that legislation with its resultant outcome of elucidation is susceptible of amendment by the House of Justice itself, whereas the Guardian’s interpretation is a statement of truth which cannot be varied.”

    As a professionnal, I sometimes need _immediate_ guidance, for example when a child needs transfusion and the parents refuse consent; I refer to the judge who does not “interpret” the law, but “elucidates” from the laws and jurisprudence available the line of action that I am to adopt.

    To my understanding, elucidation is a practical line of action in a given case, at a given time, and interpretation is theoretical. Do you agree? My understanding is available for download under Yazdani on the BMAC site.

    To my understanding, in many discussions I read individuals attempt to do work of the UHJ for which they will never obtain universal adhesion.

  • http://frankwinters.wordpress.com/ Frank Winters

    Sonja,

    You wrote:

    “There’s another take on this law (PDF document):
    ?Bahais say that their law teaches monogamy, yet the Kitab-e Aqdas allows two wives. A glance at the law in the Bayan may help to explain — and also point to a way for Bahai family law to incorporate sperm and egg donation and surrogate motherhood as solutions to infertility. Includes some relevant scriptural texts.
    Posted to Bahai_Community, 30 November 2006?

    The law in the Bayan reminds me of the movie entitled “The Big Chill” where old friends mate so that the woman can get pregnant. Its a melancholy, sweet movie. But this law — which apparently is being ignore by the Bahais as is the Bayan by most Bahais these days — is easily abused, don’t you think.

    The PDF you reference implies that alternative methods of fertilization — such as sperm and egg donation and surrogate motherhood — are not lawful under Baha’i law outside of the provisions of the Bayan — is this a correct reading?

    As I’ve told Sen, I find it difficult to understand how a book of laws and the most holy book of a faith can be dependent on another book that is not generally available. I can understand how this might happen but from a practical viewpoint it seems crippling to the faith.

    I do not reject Sen’s theory regarding the Bayan and Aqdas, I don’t have enough knowledge. But I do believe that if it is true it makes the Baha’i system of laws appear ridiculous. The system includes the way in which the laws are set out, how they are promulgated and how they are enforced.

    Sen’s explanation in this matter while designed to make things clearer only serves to make them appear so convoluted that only a highly educated and knowledgeable clergyman can possibly understand and explain them in this way. I know when I repeat this it is annoying to Sen but I believe that it is this approach to explaining the writings that is partly behind Sens disenfranchisement from the main body of the Baha’i faith. The UHJ wants Baha’i belief to appear very straight forward, Sen implies that it is not. He may well be and probably is correct.

    Question: are there other learned or not so learned Baha’is who have the same position re: the Bayan and the Aqdas? If so have they written about it?

    If Sen is correct I wonder when the Bayan will be translated and made available to a wider group. (I know Sen can’t answer that question but it is an important one if he is correct)

    Until that happens Baha’ullah’s exhortation that the Aqdas isn’t a mere book of laws will continue to read like a cop out saying ‘Don’t hold my law book up to the normal standard for law books…’

    Perhaps as we are taught God doeth whatsoever he willeth, even reveal half a book of laws and then expect people to understand it. The books are open for the first time — yes but apparently that doesn’t include the Baha’i most holy book of laws!

    Frank

  • http://frankwinters.wordpress.com/ Frank Winters

    Sonja,

    You wrote:

    “There’s another take on this law (PDF document):
    ?Bahais say that their law teaches monogamy, yet the Kitab-e Aqdas allows two wives. A glance at the law in the Bayan may help to explain — and also point to a way for Bahai family law to incorporate sperm and egg donation and surrogate motherhood as solutions to infertility. Includes some relevant scriptural texts.
    Posted to Bahai_Community, 30 November 2006?

    The law in the Bayan reminds me of the movie entitled “The Big Chill” where old friends mate so that the woman can get pregnant. Its a melancholy, sweet movie. But this law — which apparently is being ignore by the Bahais as is the Bayan by most Bahais these days — is easily abused, don’t you think.

    The PDF you reference implies that alternative methods of fertilization — such as sperm and egg donation and surrogate motherhood — are not lawful under Baha’i law outside of the provisions of the Bayan — is this a correct reading?

    As I’ve told Sen, I find it difficult to understand how a book of laws and the most holy book of a faith can be dependent on another book that is not generally available. I can understand how this might happen but from a practical viewpoint it seems crippling to the faith.

    I do not reject Sen’s theory regarding the Bayan and Aqdas, I don’t have enough knowledge. But I do believe that if it is true it makes the Baha’i system of laws appear ridiculous. The system includes the way in which the laws are set out, how they are promulgated and how they are enforced.

    Sen’s explanation in this matter while designed to make things clearer only serves to make them appear so convoluted that only a highly educated and knowledgeable clergyman can possibly understand and explain them in this way. I know when I repeat this it is annoying to Sen but I believe that it is this approach to explaining the writings that is partly behind Sens disenfranchisement from the main body of the Baha’i faith. The UHJ wants Baha’i belief to appear very straight forward, Sen implies that it is not. He may well be and probably is correct.

    Question: are there other learned or not so learned Baha’is who have the same position re: the Bayan and the Aqdas? If so have they written about it?

    If Sen is correct I wonder when the Bayan will be translated and made available to a wider group. (I know Sen can’t answer that question but it is an important one if he is correct)

    Until that happens Baha’ullah’s exhortation that the Aqdas isn’t a mere book of laws will continue to read like a cop out saying ‘Don’t hold my law book up to the normal standard for law books…’

    Perhaps as we are taught God doeth whatsoever he willeth, even reveal half a book of laws and then expect people to understand it. The books are open for the first time — yes but apparently that doesn’t include the Baha’i most holy book of laws!

    Frank

  • Pingback: Who was Bahaullah? - Page 2 - Religious Education Forum()

  • Desir0101

    Good Day;
    Iam BOB,

    I know you are under a constant moral pressure, fear, harassment from the Books of being a transgressor .
    You prefer to ignore certain passages.
    BUT PLEASE FAR FROM ME TO OFFENCE YOU , I ONLY JUST WANT SOME LIGHT BEING SHED ON.
    One of the principles is ??Independent investigation of truth’’
    In the Aqdas (p. 64 V.128) ??In the Bayan it had been forbidden you to ask Us questions’’ the Lord hath now relieved you of this prohibition that you may be free to ask what you need to ask…’’

    1.MORE THAN TWO WIVES.

    It is said in the Aqdas (p.57 V.105) ?’ …whoso interpreteth what hath been sent down from the heavens of Revelations and altereth its evident meaning, he verily is of them that have been perverted the sublime words of God and is of the lost ones in the Lucid Book’’.
    Aqdas (p.205)’’Taking a second wife is made dependant upon equity and justice being held between the two wives under all conditions. However, observance of justice and equity toward the two wives is utterly impossible’’

    ?’—- if utterly impossible’’ as pointing out by Abdul’baha why did Bahaullah have three wives instead and the third ones after He already received His Revelation in 1853 despite He knew that He was the Supreme Manifestation of God
    A girl being born from this third union.

    Aqdas (P.41 V.63)’’….beware that ye take not to yourselves more wives than two’’

    Does not His son who have completely altereth the meaning of the written law. If His son is the sole interpreter but does this mean He can altered every word in the Book.???
    It is said by Shoghi Effendi that Bahaullah followed by that time the muslim traditions .
    In the Coran Also is mentioned that plurality of wives is based upon justice and equity.
    So if it’s impossible in the Baha’I law it should have been impossble in the Coranic law also.
    Why the Supreme Manifestation of God have three wives.
    .But I will tell you after He married Navvab, He was already a BABI.
    And even in the Bayan did not mentioned plurality of wives.
    Bigamy is accepted in the Bayan but in certain special condition when one of the spouse is infertile.
    How can Bahaullah followed the muslim law when the Islamic law have been abrogated by the time Bab make His declaration as been always pointed out in the Baha’I teaching.

    Shoghi Effendi says that in no other religions made it mention of monogamy. Please read this verse from the Bible

    Mathieu 19. V 9’’…Mais je vous le dit que celui qui repudie sa femme sauf pour infidelite et qui epouse une autre, commet une adultere’’
    Here it mentionned monogamy
    Tit 1:6 ?’s’il s’y trouve quelque homme irreprochable, mari d’une seule femme, ayant des enfants fideles, qui ne soient ni accusses de debauche ni rebelles’’.
    There are lot of verses in the BiBle speaking for monogamy.

    I would like someone to clarify.

    Bob>

  • http://senmcglinn.wordpress.com/ Sen McGlinn

    > Shoghi Effendi says that in no other religions made
    > mention of monogamy. …

    I don’t think Shoghi Effendi said that. In fact a letter on his behalf says that “The Qur’an… enjoins monogamy and not polygamy as has hitherto been understood.” (January 29, 1939)

    Most of your questions have been answered earlier in the thread:

    – the Aqdas refers to not taking more wives than two, in reference to the Bayanic law which allows a second wife or husband, in cases of infertility, with the approval of the first spouse, for the purpose of conceiving a child. But whereas conceiving a child is a high priority in the Bayan (various things have to passed through one’s descendants to be presented to Him Whom God will Manifest), the Aqdas adds “Whoso contenteth himself with a single partner from
    among the maidservants of God, both he and she shall
    live in tranquillity.” That is, it is preferable for a childless couple not to take this step.

    Baha’ullah married his second wife in 1849. The Bab’s book of laws was begun in 1848, but was probably not completed and distributed by 1849. Just as Bahais used the laws of the Bayan until the laws of the Aqdas were known, Babis used Islamic laws until the laws of the Bayan were known.

    The marriage to Gawthar, circa 1862, was not covered by this particular law of the Bayan, since Baha’u’llah already had a child. Nor was it purely a matter of giving a home to a woman in need (as seems to be the case with most of Muhammad’s marriages, which remained childless). Perhaps it began that way, if she was primarily serving Navvab (then 42 years old), and the social context required a live-in maid to be married to someone in the household. But it was not an a-sexual marriage. Gawthar’s daughter Furughiyyih was born in Akka, and there is nothing I know of to indicate that Baha’u’llah was not Furughiyyih’s father. All I can say about this is “was the Sabbath made for man, or man for the Sabbath” – Christ’s answer when he was accused of breaking the Law. The law may be clear in the abstract, but in real situations, a law may have to be weighed against other principles and needs. Perhaps the position of childless wife was simply too hard on Gawthar, and compassion required her to be assisted to “normalcy.”

  • Desir0101

    Hi Sen,

    I got through your message and still some confusion in my mind.
    Please help.
    I really need an answer.
    It’s not for the pleasure to type these letters but to know the truth.

    Quote Aqdas page 206 Note ref 89.
    ?? …Polygamy is a very ancient practice….
    Jesus, for example, didn’t prohibit polygamy, but…’’

    I quote anew from the Bible.(French version)
    Mathieu 19 V.9’’…Mais je vous le dit que celui qui repudie sa femme sauf pour infidelite et qui epouse une autre, commet une adultere’’.

    Tit 1:6 ?’S’il s’y trouve quelque homme irreprochable, mari d’une seule femme, ayant des enfants fideles, qui ne soient ni accusses de debauche ni rebelles’’.

    And there are lot of verses in the Bible that speaking of monogamy.
    After many conversation exchanged I conclude that Bahais have very little knowledge of others Sacred Books.

    You are right to say that Shoghi Effendi stated that the Quran mention monogany and not polygamy.

    As per letter dated Jan 29, 1939.

    And Shoghi Effendi is just a Gardien of the Bahai Faith and at this level He has the wisdom to discern the absolute truth in the Quran, surat 4:3.

    And according to Shoghi Effendi;
    millions of peoples throughout centuries have misinterpreted and wrongly practice including the Supreme manisfestation of God.

    Quote from the Quran.

    [4:3] If you deem it best for the orphans, you may marry their mothers – you may marry two, three, or four. If you fear lest you become unfair, then you shall be content with only one, or with what you already have. Additionally, you are thus more likely to avoid financial hardship.
    [4:4] You shall give the women their due dowries, equitably. If they willingly forfeit anything, then you may accept it; it is rightfully yours.
    It is a universally accepted fact that a Manifestation of God have an innate All- Encompassing knowledge of the past, present and distant future and hidden mysteries.
    Your teaching said that He did not attend school because of His innate faculty and knowledge.
    According to Baha’I teaching the Revelation of God have been poured down to humanity uninterruptedly during 40 years of His ministry.

    He given a book for a new world order and universal peace to establish in the 1000 coming years, unique in the history of humanity.
    His opening religious cycles will live for 500 000 years and all coming prophets will be cast under His shadow.
    But He could not been discerned that the Quran preach monogamy as stated by Shoghi Effendi.
    Instead He has three wives and a third ones after He received His revelation from God, the Universal Consciousness, in 1853.
    And He still unaware of this fact.
    And you may now interpret Shoghi Effendi’s message Jan 29 1939 differently to justify your interpretation of His polygamous action.
    Bahais say by that time He has three wives He was following Muslim tradition and I have show you that Quran preached monogamy.
    Bahais say by that time the Bayan has not been completed and fully enforced.
    Where Bayan teached monogany.
    Bahais say by that time He has not publicly declared His mission.
    No need for Him to publicly declared His mission as He already knew within His inner self that He was the Supreme Manifestation of God.
    Bahais say by that time the Aqdas has not yet revealed.
    The Aqdas has been revealed for we human to follow but not the Supreme manifestation of God.
    If it is impossible to observe justice and equity in the bahai point of view it must be impossible in the Islamic point of view also.
    ?’…if you fear lest you become unfair, then you shall be content with only one,…’’
    Quran 4:3.

    Bye.
    BoB

  • Desir0101

    You know Mr. Sen. to distinguish truth and falsehood, counterfeit and original
    imitation and natural we must dig deeper into the matter.
    since the world exits there has been hundreds of wise men, sages and prophets with marvellous messages and teachings.
    To distinguish between them we must go to the source to know if it’s reliable or not.
    Some people accept it as it is, just enjoying at the surface,
    some go deeper underneath and others go deeper and deeper.
    As Bahaullah said the pearls are found deep in the ocean and the most valuable metal deeper in the earth.
    I content not myself with the saying that monogamy must be enforce gradually but from the source it came from.
    It’s much easier to bring a set of law than to follow it.
    There are lot of contradiction when compare the writings of the three central figures of the Baha’i faith.
    I am not a fanatic of any religion but just a seeker.
    Bye

    BoB

  • Wyo-cowboy

    This might be just the incentive needed for the Mormons to convert..Should this become the norm ..LOL. But then they might not like the only 2 proviso..

  • Wyo-cowboy

    When was slavery abolished in islam…..

  • Desir0101

    Hello.I have study the Bahai faith for now 45 years.
    I have at one time adopted it as my faith but many points remain obscure in my mind.
    I have only one question. Is the Bahai Faith really the TRUE ONE from GOD>Is Bahaullah really the ONE foretold in the Book of pass Messengers.
    Neither the UHJ want to answer.
    They just say obey and have Faith.
    I feel iam losing ground.

  • Desir0101

    Baquia. thanks for your reply.

  • Baquia

    Desir, as I understand it, Baha’u’llah is the ‘Promised One’ foretold in previous revelations. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘TRUE ONE’ religion. Religion, from the perspective of the Baha’i Faith is one and it has been shared with humanity throughout the ages in stages with different messengers as suited humanity’s development. Baha’is believe that Baha’u’llah is the latest manifestation of God and that in the future there will continue to be more.

    This is what the Baha’i Faith teaches. Whether you choose to become a Baha’i or not, is wholly your choice.

  • Sen McGlinn

    I agree with your reasoning regarding Matthew 19:9. If Jesus thought that divorce (except for infidelity) was not valid, and therefore that the divorcee who remarried was committing adultery, then surely he would also have thought that marrying one wife and then another was adultery. However does anyone imagine that such a standard would serve society today?

    There is not one timeless religious law regarding marriage, divorce, polygamy and the like: the religions have had different laws at different times. Christians know that their law is not the same as the Jewish law, and Muslims know that their law is different again, and so do Bahais. So while each of us tries to distinguish what is the actual message in each scripture, and especially in our own scripture, we are not trying to make them all the same.

    Shoghi Effendi said — in the words of his secretary — that the Quran was enjoining monogamy, and Abdu’l-Baha made the same point in a tablet, citing “…if you fear lest you become unfair, then you shall be content with only one,…” (Quran 4:3). I see no reason to think that Baha’u’llah did not see this. On the contrary, there’s a high chance that it was one of the things that Baha’u’llah told Abdu’l-Baha, and Shoghi Effendi would have read it in Abdu’l-Baha’s tablet on the topic. However the topic in this case is “what is the religious law for Muslims?” – which has no direct bearing on the religious law for other religions.

    For example, if the Quran was in fact advocating monogamy that does mean it was the same law as the Christian one, because the Quran explicitly allows divorce, the New Testament does not. So they are still distinct laws, even if they agree on one or other point.

    To put it another way, while it is true everywhere that one man cannot be fair to two wives (or vice versa), it is only in Islamic law that marriage is explicitly conditional on fairness.

    The Bayanic law was different again: it did allow a second wife or husband, but only for the fertile partner of a couple who could not otherwise have a child, and subject to conditions. This was the law that Baha’u’llah would in principle have been operating under in 1862 when he married Gawthar, and (quite a few years later) when he apparently conceived a child by her. While the marriage in 1862 might have been pro forma, because social conventions required a live-in maid to be married to someone in the household, or she would be regarded as an immoral woman, clearly it did not remain that way. And Baha’u’llah was not childless, so the flexibility in the Bayan law did not apply. He broke the Law! shock horror…
    The same can be observed about Muhammad, who for example married women without giving a dowry.

    All I can say about this is “was the Sabbath made for man, or man for the Sabbath” – Christ’s answer when he was accused of breaking the Law. The law may be clear in the abstract, but in real situations, a law may have to be weighed against other principles and people’s needs. Some people may simply follow religious law regardless of its effects on people. I have more respect for someone who understands that the Law is not the only thing to be considered, and makes the call — as Christ did, even though he had said (in Matthew again):

    “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

    In certain concrete situations, he broke that law: to heal the sick, and to allow the hungry to eat. But he did not teach the abolition of the Sabbath. This leads us to a situational relativism: the religious law for the particular community is maintained as Law, but cannot be applied mechanically in every case.

    I don’t know the particular circumstances surrounding Baha’u’llah’s marriage to Gawthar. It’s likely there is nothing written, even in private diaries, so short of DNA evidence from the descendants or the like, we will probably never know more about Baha’u’llah’s marriages than we do today.

  • Desir0101

    I appreciate your reasoning.
    Its the first time I can discuss on the subject with someone openly.
    In the Bahai faith its mention independant investigation of truth and on these questions I fell against a concrete wall.
    Thanks for your intervention.

  • Mumugmail

    very similar to Quran.

    Both Bahaullah and his Son (AbdulBaha) were good in copycat copydog and all other animals

    wassalam

  • Desir0101

    Hello,
    I have a second important question and need some light to be shed on.
    Many emphasis laid on the important of gender equality.
    So lovely and wonderful teaching. Even in the world to day we could observe the unfurled of this principle penned by the Supreme Manifestaton of God.
    But when I dig further I found the Law to support this wonderful principle
    is completely different. Please help.

    9. Equality of man and woman rights.

    Aqdas (p.30 V.32) ??God hath exempted women who are in their courses from obligatory prayer and fasting.’’ good.

    ??women are exempted from pilgrimage because to prevent them from tireness of traveling..’’ no problem. Thanks.

    ?’Women are not allow to take part in decision making and never to have the chance to a member at the Universal House of Justice’’

    And Bahai preach that women has given the responsibility in this dispensation to bring unity.

    Even in heritage partaking which took a major part in the Aqdas again female has the least part as member of the family . If the boys are on the father side they inherit and if the children are on the mother’s side they do not inherit, even if they are Bahai .

    Aqdas (p.156, K, L, M).

    If the teacher is a Baha’I the heirs are Baha’Is they inherit of the material things, which Bahaullah said material things should have the least interest to you, His writings most covered topics (detachment).

    But in case the teacher and the heirs are not Baha’I they do not inherit, even if the heirs are of your own blood your own brother and sisters your mother or your sons or your daughters, they have not the right to partake this worldly things as yours. And Bahai spread the teaching for detachment from material things.

    Is that what Bahai call gender equality. You preach to others of equal rights between both sexes. What going wrong?????

  • Baquia

    Desir,
    when women are ‘exempt’ it means that they have no obligation to God but they are still totally free to do (insert relevant act here) if they so choose. Exempt does not mean forbidden.

    Woman are welcome to be part of the decision making process at every level of the community. The current exception is the UHJ membership. For further details, I suggest you read: The Service of Women on the Institutions of the Baha’i Faith.

    Finally regarding the guidance of settling of wills and estates in the Aqdas that you quote above, this is only and exclusively in case there is no will or instructions left by the deceased. If there are instructions/will left by the deceased then those instructions will be followed.

    So for a hypothetical example, let’s say a Baha’i wants to leave their whole estate to their cat/pet canary/Uncle Ernie/gardener/cousin/sister/daughter/sister’s gardener, etc…

    They can do so by writing a will – something which is obligatory for all Baha’is who attain the age of maturity.

  • Desir0101

    Baquia all that you say Iam already know,but you did not reply.????
    Does that what meant in the Bahai faith as gender equality.
    Iam not discussing of testament to be left by the deceased but about the Adas.

    Secondly, don’t you believe that the Adqas been written just for the sake to supposely abrogate the Quran and has not a universal application.
    These laws are confined to just a sector of the world population.
    Thanks to hear from you.

  • Baquia

    Desir, I’m not sure what you’re asking. The Baha’i Faith is the only world religion to explicitly teach the equality of men and women. The laws of the Aqdas are religious laws and do not supplant civil laws. As well, with regards to the station of women in the Baha’i Faith, perhaps the most telling is the guidance to prioritize the education of a daughter when limited resources would make a family choose between a daughter and a son.

    The Aqdas was written by Baha’u’llah after much cajoling by Baha’is at the time who insisted to have a book of laws. The laws in the Aqdas are not all in effect nor do they necessarily take precedent over civil laws – as you know, Baha’is respect and obey the laws of a country in which they live.

    Again, I’m sure you already know all of this. So perhaps I am misunderstanding your question. If you would re-word it, hopefully I will understand it better.

  • Oscar Wilde

    To distinguish truth and falsehood, we must dig deeper inside OURSELVES, not inside any MATTER.

    Reading more and more will not help you. Meditation and getting rid of thoughts will help you. These where the lines even in the Book of Certitude of Baha’u’llah. The baha’i faith as any other religion falls shortly as for logic and rationality. That is why is called FAITH. Faith has littl to do with logic.

    You can then provide yourself with a philosophy that justifies the lack of logic of your belief, whether it’s christian, muslim or baha’i.

    But religion is a support, a tool, the equivalent of the additional small wheels on a kid’s bike. As we grow up and become independent we need to get rid of any religion and any blind group thinking too if we are serious seekers of the absolute truth.

    Societies are enemies of independent search for truth, and so is the baha’i society. The only way to find truth is to do that ALONE. People, books and opinions can only obstacle that. That is why wise men of all times where lonely. The loneliness must be interior, one needs not to go live on a mountain. But since loneliness scares most people most people will be far removed from the truth. It is almost impossible to be extremely wise and have a happy “social life”. Most people today have a happy social life: no more no less becuse they’re not wise. If they were wise they would be lonely for the unwise just cannot deal with the wise. They’re two races apart. Human beings are not all the same. This is one of the main follies of religion, putting everyone under the same umbrella. It is impossible. Even though we are members of the same family an underdeveloped spirit will always attack and hate a developed spirit. Don’t ask me why. Therefore it is simply unsafe and stupid for the developed spirit to deal with underdeveoped ones, which constitutes the vast majority of mankind – and that is why wise people go up to the mountains and nobody knows them and humanity is more and more ignorant of the absolute truths, more and more living in a bubble. There is just no wise people around and when there are the mass of the ignorants, who are much more in number ignore them and fight them. The wise man for the sake of self protection, therefore, will leave society unless he wants to end up on a cross for some reason.

    There is no single group of people in the world, no community who owns the truth. Only individuals do. Life is an individual struggle – society is an illusion, society is just a bunch of individuals together. Society is an enemy of truth, being a lie being inhexistent. There is nothing like society; only individuals exist.

    Those who compromise with these obvious facts will never know any absolute truth. Those who seek truth for THEIR OWN happiness, selfishly, will never know absolute truths.

  • Oscar Wilde

    Seek spirituality, not religion. Seek yourself, not a community.

  • Desir0101

    thanks Oscar Wilde I will come back to you.

  • Desir0101

    Oscar, your reflection is not far from mine.thanks.

  • Oscar Wilde

    You don’t have to.

  • Oscar Wilde

    I think it is very far. If you were capable of that thinking from the bottom of your heart you should call yourself an enlightened human being.

  • Desir0101

    Oscar Wilde and if you believe you are an enlightened person, so what is your concept on UNITY. Every one can live calmly and consider himself as wise as long as no one irritate him.
    ALL your lonely, acquired spiritual attainment find its expression when you live in society, to shape UNITY. That is your arena, to prove yourself.Your weapons are your faculties and wisdom, etc.
    It is as in a sport competition.
    You will always believe you are the best as long as you are not facing your opponents.
    The earth is in perfect unity with all its components despite its collossal body.
    One degree raised from its normal create great disaster as you can youself witnessed.this is UNITY when it is in balance.And in all level of existence UNITY exists.All members of your physical body are in harmony and UNITY when you are in good health.Look for it.
    That’s the challenge of every body. To bring UNITY UNITY UNITY.

  • Oscar Wilde

    A big number of the enlightened sous of mankind lived alone for society does not deserve enlightened people. Society’s problem, not a problem of the enlightened individual who could help society if only society would allow him too.

    Many wise people passed their life far away from society (Buddha, Lao Tze to name two, and also Baha’u’llah if I’m correct, I don’t really think he was the most social and less mysoginistic of people – he so was not) and ALL of them felt lonely and far away from the rest of society and ALL of them faced the wrath and disrespect of society. Lao Tze abandoned society before society would abandon him, Jesus was killed because he was dangerous for the powers that be, and Baha’u’llah was imprisoned for life for the same exact reason. This proves two obvious principles I have known since I was a child:

    1)society is unwise, almost always wrong in its evaluations and is not a meter or anything. What society says is almost always a lie and almost never truth. One should never confuse success in society with being “right” let alone wise. Society does not want people to get wise. Wisdom itself is an annoyance for a society of ignorants. Ignorance is instead welcome in such a society. How can you think that a wise person “finds his expression” in society. Poor folly if you were to know how hard the life of a wise man is. If you don’t face the dailt oppositions of most people, then you probably aren’t excepionally wise and close to God, as simple as that. Thing attracts thing. If we were in a society of enlightened people it would occur the other way around; it would be impossible for ignorants to live in it.

    2) Enlightened people at least have the right to do what they want, including irritating others just as Jesus and Socrates did to the point of getting killed.

    You know nothing of enlighetend people, that’s why you should shut up and be humble and stop being proud of being in a society that is collapsing. There’s nothing good in having friends. The less friends you have the more enlighetend you are. You have friends: no enlightenment. I don’t know and I don’t give a damn if you do or do nto have friends. It is your problem. we’re discussing social philosophy here, that’s all I care apart from stating the truths and detroying society’s absurd cliques that are the source of all evils. All. Cliques. Expectations. Definitions. Adjectives. Ideas. Preconceptions. These are the source of all evils, including the worst wars and crimes you can imagine. THESE. Not a few crazy people who are only the product of these cliques.

    It’s all about the mainteinance of stupid cliques in society, until you CONSIDER them, and you think people can be SOMEHOW right in their common wisdom – if you think people can ever have an idea of what wisdom is, if you think people are that moderately good, you can never even talk to any blandy wise person.

    And the wise person will tell you: piss off. You’re free to think one who tells you to piss off is NOT enlighetend. Poor deluded you. That is just your ego. The wise is wise no matter how you define him. Kill every definition, every attricute you give to things: now you’re beginning to be purifyed, and seeing the truth at the end of the tunnel.

    Don’t be mistaken, then: one who tells you to piss off is your master.

    People attract people only of the same level and it’s reasonable for them to have conflicts. “Unity” between people of different levels is an absurd idea.

    You can expect all the masters in the world today to be isolated and live on a mountain if they’re alive. These have been described to be the toughest times of hell, as known as apocalypse, for good people. If you don’t realize how INTENSELY DISTURBING to the point of almost impossible, life in contemporary society is, then you are so away from wisdom and righteousness it’s unbelievable. And you come to come saying you think on my same lines?! That is a lie and that is why I am going to reject it also with violence (Gandhi said he would have used violence if he found it necessary). Wise people have nothing to do in a society of arrogant children who think they know what they’re doing and who think they’re free. This is the society of today in a way that’s it’s NEVER been like. Life today for those who cherish values and justice is five billion times more horrible than it was a hundred years ago before the invention of a fuckin’ idiotic box of propaganda called television. Not much the box than the content is idiotic. if you can stand any tv program today, you know you’re not wise. He is wise the guy who finds TV contents of today too intolerable to look at and a motivation to change the world from this to that. Almost all tv content is mental engeenering designed to confuse the populace and hide the truth and make them the most ignorant possible.

    I abandoned chiques when I was five – it’s a way to say that I never really believes in society, something was wrong since the beginning – I never had indisputable respect for my family members and school companie, to begin with. I was a child devoted to justice and what is “right”, no matter if it was against myself. Only such a person can hope to know anything about the truth. Others have to stay in their ignorance: no pain no gain. if one wants truth then he has to be ready to pay whatever the price.

    I cannot go back so many years and talk with people who still think society is not 200% wrong in all its believes and systems. That is to be taken for granted, and if you don’t, it means you’re evil, proud, selfish, hypocrit and you’re not looking for truth: you’re looking for personal happiness. It is comforting to think of society as “not so evil”. It is comforting and “healthy” that’s why people are keen to thin it, too bad it is a lie. To know the truth one must be ready to renounce even to health. Then, no doubts one will have better health on the LONG TERM; but never the short term.

    All this is a way to tell you that I disagree with this idea of society being an “arena” for the special people. It is an arena to realize how different and special they are, never something they should sacrifice their lives for. It would be an arena of teaching by example like it probably was once upon a time if people weren’t beasts. If you believe people today aren’t beasts it’s because you aren’t a human being, but a beast, and a blind one.

    Forgive my crude language in the hope to wake you up.

    Wise people are never moderated in the way you conceive moderation. Abandon your perceptions. They’re wrong. Most people you think they’re beautiful are ugly and most people you think they’re ugly are beautiful. I am absolutely certain of that. Knowing what beauty is is extrerely rare.

    People are “shit” always and ever. It is a DOGMA, a dogma for truth. I don’t wanna hear this things of unity and people and society ever ever again. Lao Tze and Jesus and Gandhi would vomit hearing these things and so do I. Then they would smile and pretend people are worth something just to attain their purpose, just as I do. I have many friends in THAT sense. But don’t think there’s a single person I respect more than myself in the world or that Gandhi respected somebody more than himself with the exception maybe of Krishna whom we don’t even know if he historically existed. Because we’ve all become beasts and whoever doesn’t see this, is a beast too. There is no compromize possible, nothing to do to comfort our souls – that is a selfish action, we must stop looking for mental comfort, we must face the monster straight on and achieve heaven by going through hell – there is NO space in heaven for those who haven’t severely burned!
    Compassion doesn’t mean thinking beasts are as great as what a human being could and should be.

    Wise = misoginistic. People = enemy of the wise. It’s been like this for the entire Kali Yuga (last 5000 years or so) and now we’re in the transition to a very different epoch, lifestyle and social beliefs. Maybe then I and other more or less wise people will have some respect and love for “society”, and will get back to TEACH in society for that is their sole role. You don’t understand what is going on. It’s going on that if Jesus was on earth, as I’m sure he is, nobody would care. This is the TRUTH. That people today are millions of times more arrogant and stupid than they were before the current technologies and educational systems existed. For these two are merely an ILLUSION that you’re getting cool and educated. Cool and educated my ass. Most university students are more ignorant than a child, because of how full of shit they are. This is what university does today, it removes the brain and souls of people to replace it with a DELUSION of being competent (if you think all people with a degree are competent in their field, I don’t know what you are) and enslavement to more powerful and ruthless people than the commoners are.

    Until these times are over, he is a wise person whom who tries to destroy society in order to inaugurate a new order – impossible to generate before the old is COLLAPSED, so let’s quit these fairy tailes of construction without destruction. Eg: Julian Assange is trying to do exactly this and that is why people thirsty of justice praise him – no unjustice in the name of justice in unjust! It’s all up if you know what justice is! And some people do and others don’t. But if you trust today’s “common sense” which isn’t common sense at all, as most grandmothers and grandfathers don’t know shit of life, and most poor old men too, you ain’t going anywhere.

    As Assange, in theory, according to baha’i belief, Baha’u’llah was trying to do the same. Also Jesus said he came to make war and not peace. God is a destructor. May all the people who are too clean and borguese stick it in their head. Truth is not in the hands of commoners and borguese people. Only the elite owns the truth. If you don’t think this way then no truth. Become the elite, nobody ever said you can’t become. And then you’ll know the truth. Jesus Christ, the arrogance of the commoners today is desgusting, expecting everybody to be the same, expecting the elite to be always awrong and thinking that everyone who knows he’s better, is NEVER right. Sometimes people who know they’re better they really are better! But people who only see appearance won’t ever know, and people who only want others to be humble and never are humble themselves, I think they don’t deserve to live. Most people today are of these species.

    People are very confused and have false expectations about God and wise people.

    God is the killer of innocents and the despiser and detroyer of those who do not seek the truth with complete purity and honesty. God is the terrifying monster, as correctly described in the Bhagavad Gita, whom most people would attack and spit over rather than adore. And so it has always been in the last 5000 years.

    Unity, unity unity? Unity has nothing to do with this world and society or matter. Unity is something attainable ONLY by spirit. There can and should never be unity in society – there can never be real democracy if one simply considers the human nature. You probably perceive most human beings today better than they really are. Most human beings today are evil. Very bad ethically and morally. If they didn’t kill anyone or commit other crime is MERELY by chance and luck, not because they’re moral people. Still most people even with good intentions never had the experiences required to realize this fact because they don’t push themselves too much, they don’t CRAVE truth at ANY sake – they want truth only at the condition of preserving what is dear to them, they’re too scared of abandoning their security. Can such a cowardice ever be rewarded by anything worth applauding? No, never! One applaudes the man who has achieved something with effort, ONLY that man, not the man who never did an effort! That is what the pathetic and apathic idiots do, expecting life to be simple and easy, devoid of any sense of justice and righteousness in their heart – these people are evil, no more no less, and are enemies of justice! That is why people who have nothing to lose, like the poor and homeless, are much keener to find truth and that is why Jesus loved them and hated the rich and secure.

    Jesus did NOT love rich and secure people who were proud of nothing. He despised them. Compassion doesn’t mean loving bad things.

    Jesus was the most annoying an irritating man in the world for evil people – which means most. Most “christians” today would simply ignore but more probably DESPISE Jesus were to meet him now. It would be nice to live thinking otherwise. Life would be easier. The wise, that who knows the truth is certainly rewarded but he’s always in deep shit as for relationship with ignorant people is concerned. Ignorant people are evil. Ignorance is the source of all evils in the world. Words of Buddha. But it would be true even if Buddha didn’t say it. Truth is truth, truth is not “whatever Buddha says”.

    Jesus was so lonely he befriended “sinners” like that prostitute. He possibly had an affair with her because wise people have sex too sometimes. It is not that having sex with a prostitute 2000 years ago doesn’t mean being wise. Jesus had sex and still was wise. Go figure. Maybe people who expect the wise to never have any pleasure and evil people to always be happy and immersed in pleasures have a thing or two to learn about pleasure.

    In this epoch, people call beautiful people who have beautiful hair, and call rich those who bought a big car or nice house through credit even though they have a fuckin’ miserable normal job anybody can get and do better than them. Only appearances are seen therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE for one who has any attachment to society, any residual love or interest – family, job, etcetera – to understand anything about the truth. I truly think the first step to do is to DESPISE society. Without this disgust, attaining the truth is impossible. Buddha despised society, Jesus, Socrates, Lao Tze…all of them. It’s all the same story repeated over and over again and still most people are ignorants who expect to conveniently think that society and the system we live in is not so bad, who cowardly collect friends and acquiantances for personal advantage and false sense of security – and they also come to you calling themselves seekers of truth or even wise people, while they make life terribly hard for the wise people eventually around them, by ignoring them, dismissing them as crazy or even persecuting them – and all this by NEVER giving them any love or compassion, and NEVER confessing that those men are somewhat better than them or even equal. The ignorants are surprised by nothing and think they’re cool and others only have to learn from them. They FEEL it inside, that they’re cool, this big lie. While the wise lives fighting with a constant inner insecurity than allows him to look at himself as imperfect and a person who has a lot of work to do. You can therefore expect superior people to be way more insecure in facts than idiots, even though they might use arrogance or snobbery to protect themselves. Expect this desgusting elistist snobs to be truly superior to the relaxed cool ignorants. There must be a reason why they keep the snobbery after so many years. Smack yourself and wake up instead of belittling others who are better than you and priding yourself God knows of what.

    That is why jobless and homeless people are more dear to God: avoidance of society in HEART is essential to avoid LIES, which is the contrary of truth. Lies are very dear to women, I don’t know a single woman who doesn’t lie all the time to herself and/or others, with extreme excepetions, therefore avoidance of women is also necessitated if one wants to know the TRUTH. Women are illusion. There are no women, we’re all human beings. THIS is the quality of wisdom: Herman Hesse said all wisdom sounds “crazy”. If a sentence doesn’t sound somewhat crazy to the standards of society’s common sense then it simply is a sentence of poor wisdom quality – take a look at quotations by the greatest men ever and tell me if a man who says those things today isn’t called crazy. That’s because people are wrong, always wrong. They call crazy: it’s not crazy, it’s wise. Calling wise crazy is an incorrect impure stupid evil action that most people would do and would even insist and would rather die than NOT do it. They’re addicted to idiocy and putting people better than themselves down.

    Goodbye and keep your job so to stay away from the truth. For the truth burns at first and there is no way you won’t get a little slice of the truth until you stay unemployed joyful of doing nothing while your wife screams at you for she only thinks of food and never of higher more interesting sexier things and travel the world like a backpacker bum insulted by people for a few years. Then you would become enlightened and you’d be fucked then. Because everybody will hate you even more, because most peple today burn in ENVY and pretentiousness and falsity. Let’s see then if you want unity and if you want to be friends with these people full of hate – the same people who earlier loved you but not because you were good, but becayse you were no damage to their egos.

    One last thing concerning unity in society. We are all very different as for talent capabilities and intellect. We are not the same: some men are superior, some men inferior in the most relevant thing in the world: intelligence. Intelligence defines the intellectual worth of a man. It doesn’t define physical worth. It doesn’t define spiritual worth. It defines his INTELLCTUAL value, and only people who have no brain think that is not something of value. Most people today for a number of reasons truly don’t use their brain at all. Having no brain is the ugliest and most terrible thing I can think of. I do not think people who willfully choose to not use the brain should continue living on this earth and condition. The human being is a spiritual AND intellectual being…not spiritual ONLY, and not physical only.

    Now, being we all different…it is impossible to have a REAL democracy. It is non sense. What makes more sense is a society which is DIVIDED in categories where people with similiar INTELLECTUAL value stay together and never have to deal, as it is simply impossible, with lesser of higher intellects. This is NOT our democratic society where people of all intelligences are forced to dumb themselves down for the sake of surviving an office environment.

    Therefore, society will start functioning again and will be balanced, when it will be again divided in categories. But that is a disputable personal theory. I am discussing this idea with some people. Great minds think alike and discuss.

    Other minds don’t think alike and cannot discuss. Therefore if we don’t think alike I don’t give a damn. Just don’t ever, ever tease me or you or other poeple into thinking that your “reflections are similar than mine”. For that is offensive to me. For I don’t give you two cents that you had my brilliant life, my amount of experiences and you have the amazing observational skills required to learn from these experiences. Because if you were you would talk very differently – I am my only meter, I am the only person I trust. When you talk you should take this for granted but you don’t. Every single word of yours arrogantly takes for granted that we are the SAME. This is a mistake. Our words are clear proof that we’re not the same but at very different levels. I am special, I live for being special, my Lord created me for being special and not for being equal to you – and you better get it – I’m giving you way too many opportunities to get it – or piss off. I don’t need you to get anythig, it is in YOUR interest, I am trying to help you while alas knowing that it’s almost entirely wasted time. But I’m not giving up my elaborated theories and incredibly mind bending abstract thinking for you, for God created me to be like that. I am not also giving up my righteus arrogance. I’m gonna keep it, for it is right and convenient in my position to keep it and I feel I have permission to be an exceptional human being who should keep his arrogance because of the arrogance of others. If others were’t arrogant, I would never be myself. I would kill myself if I were to be humble and submit to the will of lesser beings who by their own nature can never understand those who are much above them. It would be suicide. They’ll think they’re better for that is the stupid and TRULY arrogant human nature – and rule over me instead of having immense respect and fear of me as they currently do, as much as they try to ignore me. This is my contribution to a juster world, where the idiots are ruled by the alphas and not viceversa as today. Of course the idiots will keep claiming they’re the alphas but they’re wrong and I have zero respect for them – then they’ll hate me for that and let’s see who’ll win. No matter how proud and arrogant of my real capabilities I get I can NEVER be as arrogant as a common idiot who doesn’t know how to so anything and has never been praised by anyone for anything, still has more pride of me that I’m used to praise just not to get depressed and think of himself as some sort of loser – which would be much closer to reality and the very opportunity to make the jump from loser to pertinent human being or winner. It’s impossible for any desgusting elitist intellectual obsessed by ego and aesthetics, despising almost the whole of humanity (think of Oscar Wilde…) to be as arrogant as a common human being of today, ignorant and filthy, unskilled and lesser compared to Oscar Wilde because of objective skill assessment, and convinced he is “kinda good”. That is the soul of the mediocre, of one of the 90% of peope living on earth now – full of inexpressed potential, if I want to bekind of them – but I’m not sure at this point after I see that these people never do ANYTHING sort of right. Every single action they perform brings humanity closer to dissolution whith a complete lack of respect for truth and justice – for them, these things don’t even exist, crazy people think of them, or “elitists” who are buffons thinking they’re better. These people don’t realize they’re the sole source of all the crap in this world and if they wouldn’t exist, that’s right, if most people wouldn’t exist the universe would say thank you. What kind of existence is this?

    They should get that they’re not the best, but in facts the worst beings on earth, be ashamed and all insecure about it, shy and uncapable to stand for themselves – and finally, a miracle would happen: they would begin to deserve life.

    Forgive the lengthy argument.

  • Desir0101

    Oscar Wilde 12/13/2010 07.52 p.m in reply to.
    Good day . a big hand for you. I got through your message. woah… for its lengthiness.
    One day Buddha was sitting and a man who has the pretention of being the best and most intelligent among the society staged and questioned Him. Buddha stayed silent. The man was agaced ,abused and cursed Him.
    At last the man calm down and ask Him why not react. Buddha replied if someone gave you a gift and you refused, mean the gift will remain with the one offering the gift.
    And in my case I have not accepted your gift all your insult and all these arrogant, boasting and complex of intelligence superiority remain with your self.
    What a great lesson of humbleness of an enlightened soul.
    Jesus say whom God will care for the pharisee who stood in the middle of the temple so that people would see them praying or the sinner who stood in the corner and supplicate God for His grace and pardon.

  • Oscar Wilde

    I might have some complex or something. I’m definitely a bit out there and do a lot of mistakes.

    But I’m pretty sure you have some complex of something too, if you think you should pray for me, the sinner.

    I am not the sinner and you not the prayer. I reject this gift, thank you.

    I don’t think I’m more intelligent than you, I just think I’m very intelligent. Is this a complex of inteliggence superiority? You really think nobody is more intelligent than you?

    When you tell me that I’m not more intelligent than you aren’t you a little arrogant too?

  • Oscar Wilde

    Also, you seem to have considered only the “bad stuff” in my message and replied with your pretentious reference to the Buddha dn jesus, which in its simplicity and lack of motivations and proofs, and in its shortness, to me it’s simply pretentious. It is pretentious that you think I would swallow it. There is no doubt that you undervalue me and this pisses me off a lot. What would you do? Are you happy of being undervalued if it ever happened? Intelligent people can be undervalued while stupids are impossible to undervalue. Have you ever thought of these things? Have you ever read words of Van Gogh, Da Vinci, Einstein, or other people who weren’t saints but were certainly wiser than the common man?

    I am sure that you are not a person witha special talent. Nobody ever told you that you are special in some way.

    To me, they did and they still do all the time.

    Maybe that’s why I’m so arrogant and you are not – in appearance. In truth, I think I am more humble than you are.

    In appearance, I give it you – you appear more humble. Clap clap.

    I care about the essence, I don’t give a damn if I LOOK that or that. God doesn’t judge from appearance. If you are arrogant, you go to hell, even if your wife talks about you as a very humble man. Then from hell you scream to your wife: “don’t say it, it was just a farce! I wasn’t really humble! Aahgh!”.

    It is very easy and banal to call mine “arrogance”. I have reread my messages, and in between the appearance of arrogance, there’s a lot of deep stuff that most people don’t realize by the end of their life.

    Open your eyes and listen more carefully instead of expecting people to be humble. I am not, end of the story, and it’s better to be a straightforward arrogant person with a reason to be (people tell me I’m brilliant every effin day, how can I not think I am, what am I, deaf?!), in my opinion, than a falsely humble and randomly mediocre guy like most people are.

    In my experience, only few people in the world are reasonable and accept to proclaim the truth, which is that we’re not all the same, that some people should be arorgant and others shouldn’t…

    you come from the classical school of thoughts, by which everybody should be humble…well intellectuals don’t think like that, why? Because they thought more deeply about it and they know it’s not so esy.

    Yes, in an ideal world everybody would be humble…in an ideal world. I think it is plain stupid for a genius to be humble in the current circumstances.

    Instead of underlining my arrogance, why don’t you underline the arrogance of those whom nobody ever said they were brillant, of those who have no reason to be proud of anything…of the mediocre. You don’t hate the mediocres, why? Well MAYBE it’s because you’re one of them…

    If so, don’t be proud of it.

    The problem is not pride, the problem is VALUE. A person with value has all the right to be proud and will always sound arrogant to people with lesser value, obvious. But he must continue being arrogant for people with no value are constantly envious. THEY are the problem of the world – not the arrogant intelligent people. There is no way arrogant geniuses do as much damage as mediocre people do to the world.

    But I’m sure, unless you’re an artist of high level, you will not agree. But not because you have something I have not. It is because you are not a high level person. That’s why. And I think it is only justice that I command over you with arrogance and if required, violence.

    I am for dictatorship, not democracy. I believe in the power of violence, not submission. If you’d stop keeping your ego safe and you’d begin nurturing those who deserve to have big ego just because it’s right, doesn’t fuckin’ matter the second or thirs consequences, then people with big potential and therefore big ego wouldn’t have to be violent with you.

    I don’t care about religious philosophy – we need to make the world right first, socially and materialistically. Great people rich and idiots poor. This is my idea of justice, this.

    It’s very close to objectivism and Ayan Rand – but my philosophy is a bit closer to Buddha’s. I don’t think Buddha was perfect. I don’t think I’m equal or superior to Buddha. I think Ayan Rand was inferior to Buddha. Still, I think Rand was more right than Buddha on some things. Eat this.

    Buddha gave me permisson to think he could be wrong, he said that. he was a man and obviously he couldn’t be ALWAYS right.

    I say it again: brilliant people should have big egos, mediocre people a mediocre one. This is justice and reason. Your attacking and undervaluing and inability to discern brilliant from mediocre for me is a fuckin’ sin. You know what religion considers this a sin? Satanism. See, even satanism can be RIGHT at times. You have to do/think what is RIGHT, NOT what is HOLY! Right is might!

    But I am doing another sin according to satanism: taking for granted that you might be as evolved as I am.

    Maybe we’ll both go to satanic hell, if there’s such a thing.

    By the way Satan is a part of God so he’s right too.

    Conclusion: I am hating these anti-intellectual, anti-snobbery times where everything is controlled by mediocres who expect geniuses to be humble so they can succumb to the mediocre’s will. THIS is the unjustice of the world, not dictatorship, not war, which can be right.

    But let me tell you one thing dear mediocre who is sure I am not more intelligent than him – and you gotta tell me WHY I am not.

    If you keep behaving like this, I will do my best to destroy your little nice world.

    For both me, and Buddha, find it desgusting. For both Satan, and God, do, and they both think it would be better if this world of consumistic pricks who shouldn’t live it is better when destroyed.

    And stop thinking God loves you only because you hypocritically show yourself to others as humble and you’re interested in a religion. It is very evident how arrogant you are.

    So, are you more intelligent than me, or equal? Why? Prove it and I’ll have to say yes. But prove it.

  • Desir0101

    Oscar wilde.I excuse myself before the blogger as this bog is not for personal discussion. But I will reply you and it will be the last message convey to you.
    Do you know why we have been created with two openings to hear and one to talk.
    So that we can excel and become elite while listening rather than talking.
    Writings is a means of communication in the absense of word.
    You say you are a dictator and surely if you have the oppotinuity to talk you will monopolise the debat.
    I like you. you are direct and straightforward. you make me remember one of my subject. I am not judging you. This is your world. You feel confortable in it.Great. But too many agressivity in your thoughts.I will visit you on Sunday night 18/12/2010 in the higher plane of existence. Where I am I can sense your metaphysical vibrational energy is not high enough for you to remember this event. Please as from now do your best to remedy for this shortcoming or you will not remember me, but I will. This will be my proof to you. Iam mediocre and a sinner and I thanks the Universal Conciousness to enable me to discern and have the wisdom to know my feebleness and lowlines before him. Far from me to pretend and have any ressemblence to this episode when Jesus was on the cross He muttered, Father forgive them as they don’t know what they are doing.
    AGAIN A GREAT LESSON TO US FROM AN ENLIGHTENED SOUL. He was neither a dictator nor an arrogant.All your knowledge of good and bad, all the country law designed to protect the citizen came from and base on religious philosophy.Yo are an intelligent person I agree but in is it in the right direction?.
    I have been very please to have exchange afew words.
    I really like you.
    Don’t forget sunday 18/12/2010.
    Good bye.

  • Desir0101

    Ocar Wilde. Sorry if I have at any time offence or disgrace you, or I will not forive me.

  • Oscar Wilde

    It is because good people weren’t violent and aggressive that evil triumphed in this world. Jesus today would be aggressive. It is your fantasy that good people are never aggressive. Stop having an idea of what God is or looks like!

    This date you give me would give the creeps to anyone, not sure what it does to me – probably nothing. I don’t understand, are you going to commit suicide? Everything that ends well is well, but please, don’t be stupid.

    Jesus has got to be a dictator and arrogant, that’s when evil will be eradicated. But I understand you succumb to traditional religious philosophy without ever going beyond.

    Were Jesus to continue being humble evil would stay on earth forever. I truly hope Jesus will quit being so humble and meek. For people don’t deserve such a treatment.

    You are a sinner and mediocre, so? CHANGE. What greatest sin could you do than being lazy and think you can’t change.

    Please tell us what is going to happen on sunday.

    I’d also like to tell you that I’ve been cursed many times that I’m still alive. This in case you’re talking of some sort of curse. I believe in curses, they do exist. Too bad my soul is very strong. You’re going to need a big curse.

    “Yo are an intelligent person I agree but in is it in the right direction?”

    Maybe not for my grandmother, but is my grandmother always right?

    Dear Jesus, please make this world one of slightly more open minded people with less preconceptions and ideas about the truth they can never know. And help me endure their attempts to suffucate the truth at all costs because that’s how much they like sofas and tvs and how little they care about true human value.

    Yes. I feel Jesus will come and kill all of these comfort lovers. For I know he isn’t that meek and humble how you wish he was. This entire society has been a conspiracy to suffucate human worth and only nurture the worst in human beings. This has got to end. Good people have to have wordly pleasure and bad people must suffer hell in earth. That would be the Kingdom of God on earth. Not a world where idiots peacefully live with much more capable people.

    THERE IS NOTHING MORE REMARKABLE THAN HUMAN WORTH AND INTELLIGENCE, TECHNICAL SKILL, AND THE SORTS.

    There is nothing more useless than a man who doesn’t have and cultivate a specific extraordinary talent or his own genius.

    All men should be geniuses! That’s why mediocre people are at fault. Geniuses aren’t born geniuses! They cultivated their potential with enormous effort. Mediocres are simply geniuses that are too lazy to care! And you think God likes them? Why on earth would Justice love laziness? Is laziness something to respect?

    Absurd. People of today, and their philosophy is just leaky from all over. I don’t think it is wrong to kill such people, as the Bhagavad Gita suggests! Most people on earth today are already death, completely useless on any profile, they don’t even know how to have sex!

    Now please tell us what you’re going to do on sunday, I guess we’re curious.

  • Oscar Wilde

    Last thing: you like me and I don’t care, it actually offends me; but I still don’t like you. There is one thing that I want to see for me to like you.

    I want to see you being humble with every single person in the world in the sense that when you meet anyone, and I mean anyone, no matter how beautiful or ugly, rich or poor, capable or not capable – you TAKE FOR GRANTED that that person is BETTER than you.

    For there isn’t a single person on the world, that cannot teach you or me something. Therefore there isn’t a single person or creature that isn’t better, more wise than you at least in something.

    When you talk, when you write, I want to smell this essence of humility. The awareness of feeling inferior to anything in the world, yet, being grateful and happy about it.

    I do not think you do it – sure I could be wrong, but I don’t think you do.

    It has nothing to do with SOUNDING humble or not. It has to be with BEING humble, and amazingly, I think my humility is perceivable from my writings, even when I pride myself in words (if I ever done that). People who go beyond words understand. Words don’t matter. Words aren’t important. CONTENT is. BEING is.

    No matter how humble you sound, if you ARE arrogant, I’m going to perceive it through my study of your patterns – it only requires a good observational spirit which I do have. It is unfortunate that most people in the world do not know how to look at things.

    And no mattr how arrogant I SOUND – apparently nobody is smart enough to realize than I am very humble in truth – this is unfortunate but not really my fault.

    I am not intelligent – I am genius. My intelligence is way superior to that of 90% of people in the planet. Only a genius can be undervalued. I am undervalued. Regular intelligent people are always seen as intelligent, which is not my case. It’s only TOO MUCH intelligence – which is my case – that is harder to grasp and can be confused for madness or even stupidity – by the stupid solely.

    Last thing: my knowledge of this or that good and bad does NOT come from religious philosphy.

    It comes from within. You ass (sorry but I stand by MY OWN rules of language, with great unconcern of your own – I decide how I speak, not you).

    Society is not important, but I am and individuals are – when they have some talent and cultivate it of course – that is the only way to get real respect – talent and hard work- Nobody is in the position to perceive the spiritual level of somebody. Brainwashed ass if you think you are. I don’t believe you when you talk about religion. You sound corrupted and ungenuine, only out to find personal peace with no real selflessness, no real merit. I could be wrong. But I think I’m right.

    “You are an intelligent person I agree but in is it in the right direction?”

    You are not in a position to judge or question. Just be humble and feel inferior to me, and I will do the same. Until then, I’ll perceive you as inferior and I’ll be sure I’m right.

  • Desir0101

    Oscar Wilde. Just to tell you that’s no curse.I have never get use to it.
    I correct. Sunday night 19/12/2010.
    Just I will meet you in the realm of nothingness and total abstraction.
    where just comtemplation and peace exist. But for you to remember this moment your energy vibration are not high enough so please make an effort. And don’t use the word “”us”” as you always write in the first person. I hope it will be and amazing experience to you.
    Get cool. Read only with your head but understand with your heart and peace , love will be your companion.
    So wonderful. so great. so marvellous and amazing.
    I will not come back to you any way.
    it’s final.

  • Liv

    I love how you have covered this topic. And thanks for setting the record straight. I’ve heards so much different about this.

    Personally, i dont think i could be married to two men, neither would i much like to be one of two wives. But the way its portrayed here makes sense to me, and doesnt pose much of a problem to me. It actually makes more sense than monogamy. Because I have often questioned the implications of a law permitting only one spouse, marriage being an eternal union, and people that remarry after the death of their spouse.

    Thanks again. :)

  • Oscar Wilde

    There is no way I will forget the “event”, another confirmation tht you misunderstand and undervalue me. It maes me suffer a lot but there is nothing to do. You simply don’t understand. You are too much on that other world.

    I choose to not participate to the event, there is stuff to do on this world.

    I shake my head in resignation.

    Please God, make people understand that they’re in this world to make THIS world better, PHISICALLY and AESTHETICALLY, and not to improve spiritually, which is a secondary biproduct.

    Make reason triumph over insanity.

    Goodbye and congratulations for your original way of avoiding confrontation. Congratulations to me for having won and rationally destroyed you on the confrontation. The purpose of life is not being at peace. It is being RIGHT. I won.

    I still think you’re sort of arrogant and I’m sort of too humble.

    May Jesus kill the innocent and fool alike. It’s impossible to destroy evil without killing innocents.

    Too much for you. Bend down and think you’re worse than anybody else. Peace won’t save you. Fool. Enemy of humility.

  • Baquia

    Liv, I’m glad you enjoyed it. To be honest, it was only possible with the collaboration and assistance of Sen McGlinn. A Baha’i who was summarily dismissed from the Baha’i community for reasons as of yet unclear and unexplained. I just realized that it has been 5 years now and still the House has not explained why they removed his membership. He has attempted several times to engage them and to seek answers but I think he has pretty much given up or at least felt that it is squarely in their court to answer after his many gestures and letters.

    You can read his blog here. He does lots of great research and writes fascinating things regularly. Here is a little about him and his background in his own words.

  • Oscar Wilde

    “If previously a Prophet incarnated as forgiving and suffering, like Buddha and Jesus, that does not mean that He will come the same way next time”.

    Have you ever heard of the Kalki Avatar, the return of Christ in Christianity, and present in ALL religious traditions?

    Is he non-violent? Is he non-aggressive? Is he humble?

    Selfish comfort-loving fool, aka useless person.

  • Oscar Wilde

    Energy vibrations aren’t high or low in the way you perceive them.

    I have decided to come to your “abstract” meeting.

    Bring your anti-anxiety medication or natural remedies.

    You’ll begin fearing God and righteous people from that moment on. There won’t be peace in sight. You’ll recover your reason. You’ll finally live in fear again, which is your duty as a mediocre human being, and the only way to improve. You’ll stop being a “spiritualized” hippy of appearance and no substance. You’ll stop talking humbly like an ass. You’ll begin being useful to the world. You’ll stop thinking violence is always and ever wrong. It will be the greatest day of your life.

  • Desir0101

    Baquia,Good day.
    Quote from above””The Bahai faith is the only religion to explicitly teach the equality of men and women””
    You know that’s my problem.
    when step in the core of the Faith I found contradiction.
    Compare quote above and laws in the Aqdas concerning wealth matters refer to the female heirs/lineage, equal right does not exist. Can you please in the Aqdas show me where there evidence of equal rights.
    Another contradiction, Abdulbaha said Evil does not exist, but read the letter written on behalf of Shoghi, from Light of guidance, said evil exist, mean that absence of light is obscurity, did not not mean that obscurity did not exist. its real as evil is real and do exist.
    Say we pray direct to God without intermediary, but Shoghi wrote from same book, best that we ask for an intermediary. Here I can’t understand.
    The body should not be carry more than one hour from the deceased boundary town. But how the body of Bab been carried by the Bahai from Tabriz Ah1313 to Mount carmel.
    The list is long….
    But please answer on the equal rights, how you perceive it.
    Don’t you believe that the Aqdas been revealed just to satisfy the people at that time and to show that the Quranic laws been abrogated and has not a universal application. ”If someone burn another house him also shall ye burn”. The five pieces shroud no one knows up to now how to proceed with the burial ceremony.

  • Baquia

    Desir,
    thank you for those questions. First, I think it is wonderful to have them and I love that the Baha’i Faith dedicates a whole month to them. Before I attempt an answer though, let me say that I feel inadequate and I would suggest you speak with someone like Sen who has much more knowledge than I do about these matters.

    In any case, here is my attempt:
    You seem to be asking about the equality of men and women in the Aqdas. It is important to keep in mind that the Aqdas is the book of religious laws but unlike say, the Christian Faith or Islam, it is not the only book we have – by far! The Writings of Baha’u’llah and Abdu’l-Baha (as well as Shoghi Effendi and the UHJ) are too numerous to cite exhaustively here. They make the station of women and the equality of men and women in the sight of God crystal clear.

    I already mentioned to you that the Aqdas laws regarding the disposition of an estate in the case a will is not written does not preclude or restrict a Baha’i in any way to organize their estate and to dispose of it as they see fit. I wrote for example, that if they want to give all of their estate to a charity or a daughter, aunt, etc. they are free to do so. Therefore, the laws do not really bring about any restriction, although you are correct, they do reflect an Shiite Islamic tradition – which is not surprising considering that the vast majority of early believers were from that tradition.

    If this answer and the previous one is not satisfactory, then I suggest you consult with Sen McGlinn. You can reach him via his blog.

    When Abdu’l-Baha says that evil does not exist as an entity, what that means to me is that there is no essence or manifestation of evil per se but a lack of virtue. In other places in the Writings evil is uses synonymously with selfishness or another way of saying, lack of virtue. Many times the Writings are poetic and mystical and it would destroy the imagery to have to explain in a 200 word digression where one simple word (evil) would do.

    Regarding the intermediary question, I am not familiar with the quote from Shoghi Effendi that you allude to. If you could please share it with us here then I’m sure someone might be able to shed a light or two.

    The burial law you cite says that after death the body should be buried within an hour of death. However, this is left intentionally unclear because distance is not measured in units of time. As you know, the remains of the Bab were rescued from the elements (His body was desecrated by not being given a proper burial) and was buried after his martyrdom. However because of the danger surrounding this special case it was moved several times.

    To understand this, you have to realize the sanctity and importance that Babis and Baha’is place upon the early remains of the Bab. Had the remains been buried in a location, that location would have become a source of pilgrimage. This in turn would have attracted the attention of the people and eventually the authorities. That would have put in danger the lives of Baha’is as well as jeopardized the remains themselves to further desecration or even complete loss.

    For this reason, until an appropriate location (the Shrine of the Bab) was built, the remains were moved constantly and secretly so as to not attract the attention of even the Baha’i community itself.

    This is a special case but it does bring into focus the law that you mention. As I agreed above, an hour is not a measure of distance. Therefore, this has two functions: one, to clearly denote the intention of Baha’i burial law – to bury the body with dignity as soon as appropriate arrangements are made without undue delay. And two, to allow for flexibility when special situations arise when contingencies have to be taken into account.

    Regarding your last question, the Aqdas was never intended to supplant civil laws. The Baha’i Writings are clear and repeated regarding the separation of Church and state.

    Finally, the excerpt from the Aqdas you cite is alarming. Personally I do not believe that capital punishment is appropriate. However the notes of the Aqdas make it clear that Baha’u’llah said that in lieu of the death penalty, life imprisonment is acceptable (see note 87):

    “Should ye condemn the arsonist and the murderer to life imprisonment, it would be permissible according to the provisions of the Book”

    So if the Aqdas is not supposed to be the ‘laws of the land’ why did Baha’u’llah write them in such detail? For this, I’d once again refer you to Sen who has already written about this.

  • Desir0101

    Baquia, Good day.Thanks for your reply. I have already sense you as a good and obedience subject–you are scare to go beyond exposures of common Bahai teachings. I am Right Iam wrong. i don’t know. Iam just a seeker of truth(absolute truth). I am just at the beginning of my spiritual quest in the realm of upper existence, where I can converse with spiritual being and perhaps with the Angels(if God Willeth). There are strong barriers which demand great great sacrifice. As per your suggestion I will contact Mr. Sen. I am not to impose my points but Iam A seeker(of absolute truth). To be frank your answer was just the common belief.
    just to answer you on intermediary.Read Light of Guidance. ref 1486,1488,1489,1490.1491”but our prayers would be more effective and illuminating if they are addressed to Him through His Manifestation, Bahaullah.
    we can turn in thought to any one of them when we pray.

    We are creating an image, only just non physical.
    Thanks a lot for your sincerity.
    Concerning note ref.86, 87.The aqdas was supposed to be a revealed Book of Laws direct from God, para.62”should any one intentionally destroy a house by fire, him also shall ye burn,should anyone deliberately take another’s life, him also shaLL YE PUT TO DEATH.” So why revealed these laws to then modify them..
    Does it that God must think twice….
    And the absence of something does not lead to a vacuum. the absence of lack of virtues make the presence to negativity, which are real.But compare the existence of light to obscurity, obscurity is inexistent.Light can chase darkness but not the contrary.But darkness(evi) do exist. Thought are real. It is one of our spiritual sense. read ref. light of Guidance 1730.In the world beyond physical sense thought are real.

  • http://justabahai.wordpress.com Sonjavank

    B wrote: ?Baha’u’llah said that in lieu of the death penalty, life imprisonment is acceptable (see note 87):

    “Should ye condemn the arsonist and the murderer to life imprisonment, it would be permissible according to the provisions of the Book”

    Actually Baquia the comment is paragraph 62 in the main text the Kitab-i-Aqdas, an important distinction because Baha’u’llah penned this as well as Answers and Questions. The notes are penned by the Research department and hence not part of unchangeable Bahai Scripture. I make this point, not just to be picky here, but also because the only mention of homosexuality is in the notes and not anywhere else.

    However looking at this link (http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/KA/) it is confusing because it is listed as what you quote above, as note 87, when in fact only the text that is not in bold on that page is part of the notes.

    Baquia you probably know this, but for others including a reminder to myself the Kitab-i-Aqdas has an introduction and notes which are penned by the Research Department which may be change and have been. See my blog about this: http://justabahai.wordpress.com/2010/04/12/mainly-about-homosexuality/#unchangeable

    Desir wrote: ?So if the Aqdas is not supposed to be the ‘laws of the land’ why did Baha’u’llah write them in such detail??

    From Sen’s blog:
    ?…I take the religious law as a way of saying something doctrinal, just as
    religious history is often not history but theology. The Aqdas allows
    those who want to apply the coffin law literally to do so using hard wood,
    but I don’t think it is required to apply this law by literal practice.
    The same goes for burning the arsonist and killing the killer: this
    is ?religious law? as a genre for expressing ideas and operative
    principles. It’s a genre based on the law codes of antiquity which
    were actually the administrative law of empires, but its intent is
    quite different to what we call ?the law? in societal matters. ?
    The context and rest of the blog is here
    http://senmcglinn.wordpress.com/email-archive/in-crystal-coffins/
    This blog: The puzzle of the Aqdas: joining a few pieces
    http://senmcglinn.wordpress.com/2008/03/29/the-puzzle-of-the-aqdas-joining-a-few-pieces/

    The section, Women in the laws of the Aqdas
    relates to your questions about inheritance and lower down in the blog he wrote:
    ?Now for the more general questions about the Aqdas. Yes, the Aqdas is largely addressed to a time and place, so is the Quran, so is the New Testament, so are the various layers of the Old Testament. We always have to read scripture with two eyes – one for what it meant for those people then, and one for what it means for us now. It is not like the road code, which is intended to be read in its plain meaning and applied directly. With the religious law, it is precisely the other way round: it has no purpose until it is made internal, until it becomes meaningful for us now. A mere outward and literal observance would be pointless, it would be a ?mere code of laws.?
    And another blog on law and symbollism is here:
    http://senmcglinn.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/law-as-symbol/

    And a post on arson: http://www.sonjavank.com/sen/postings/007_law_cap.pdf

  • Baquia

    Thanks Sonja, that is an important distinction. And you’re right, Baha’u’llah writes the alternative immediately after the first:

    “Should anyone intentionally destroy a house by fire, him also shall ye burn; should anyone deliberately take another’s life, him also shall ye put to death. Take ye hold of the precepts of God with all your strength and power, and abandon the ways of the ignorant. Should ye condemn the arsonist and the murderer to life imprisonment, it would be permissible according to the provisions of the Book. He, verily, hath power to ordain whatsoever He pleaseth.”

  • Anonymous

    Desir,

    “have already sense you as a good and obedience subject–you are scare to go beyond exposures of common Bahai teachings.”

    your perception does not match reality. The fact that this blog exists attests to that. We all have limits within which we decide to live. That is the order of things.

    My self-imposed limits are truthfulness, justice, love, and excellence. There are many more of course but you get the idea… I hope.

  • Desir0101

    desir said
    January 3, 2011 at 7:55 pm

    Good day.
    Just to say that the study circle the well famous RUHI is a fiasco.I got news from several countries’ institutions to confirm it.The goal to set up the institute was achieved but no real increased activities after- completing the study as was the expectation.The believers was just proud to have completed all the levels, as if now they are scholar.You believe that for believers after many years as a Bahai, with a vast and profound knowledge of the faith, must now go through RUHI 1,just to be able to prepare the setting for the devotional prayer meeting which he already did for so many years, Ruhi 3 Children classes etc.But as far as I know there is no obligation to follow the Ruhi study circle.But if you don’t you will be put aside.

    ?You it is who, in your tens of thousands, are serving as tutors of study circles wherever receptivity is kindled. You it is who, without thought of self?.

    Desir0101.

    QueenTiye said
    January 12, 2011 at 8:04 pm
    Always someone willing to be a naysayer! :) Yes, some people do simply feel proud to have completed the courses. Human nature. And some feel like they are scholars – also human nature. But if they actually practiced, as Ruhi suggests, then all have increased capacity to serve the Cause. The question is – what is in their hearts to do? Or, who will ask them to serve? Dear Desir0101, why not ask some of these newly-Ruhi trained ?scholars? if they would be willing to host a study group in their home, or a devotional?

    QT

    desir said
    January 3, 2011 at 7:55 pm
    Hi SEn,
    Good day.
    Just to say that the study circle the well famous RUHI is a fiasco.I got news from several countries’ institutions to confirm it.The goal to set up the institute was achieved but no real increased activities after- completing the study as was the expectation.The believers was just proud to have completed all the levels, as if now they are scholar.You believe that for believers after many years as a Bahai, with a vast and profound knowledge of the faith, must now go through RUHI 1,just to be able to prepare the setting for the devotional prayer meeting which he already did for so many years, Ruhi 3 Children classes etc.But as far as I know there is no obligation to follow the Ruhi study circle.But if you don’t you will be put aside.

    ?You it is who, in your tens of thousands, are serving as tutors of study circles wherever receptivity is kindled. You it is who, without thought of self?.

    And thanks Sen for your patience.

    Desir0101.

    QueenTiye said
    January 12, 2011 at 8:04 pm
    Always someone willing to be a naysayer! :) Yes, some people do simply feel proud to have completed the courses. Human nature. And some feel like they are scholars – also human nature. But if they actually practiced, as Ruhi suggests, then all have increased capacity to serve the Cause. The question is – what is in their hearts to do? Or, who will ask them to serve? Dear Desir0101, why not ask some of these newly-Ruhi trained ?scholars? if they would be willing to host a study group in their home, or a devotional?

    QT

    desir said
    January 3, 2011 at 7:55 pm
    Hi SEn,
    Good day.
    Just to say that the study circle the well famous RUHI is a fiasco.I got news from several countries’ institutions to confirm it.The goal to set up the institute was achieved but no real increased activities after- completing the study as was the expectation.The believers was just proud to have completed all the levels, as if now they are scholar.You believe that for believers after many years as a Bahai, with a vast and profound knowledge of the faith, must now go through RUHI 1,just to be able to prepare the setting for the devotional prayer meeting which he already did for so many years, Ruhi 3 Children classes etc.But as far as I know there is no obligation to follow the Ruhi study circle.But if you don’t you will be put aside.

    ?You it is who, in your tens of thousands, are serving as tutors of study circles wherever receptivity is kindled. You it is who, without thought of self?.

    And thanks Sen for your patience.

    Desir0101.

    QueenTiye said
    January 12, 2011 at 8:04 pm
    Always someone willing to be a naysayer! :) Yes, some people do simply feel proud to have completed the courses. Human nature. And some feel like they are scholars – also human nature. But if they actually practiced, as Ruhi suggests, then all have increased capacity to serve the Cause. The question is – what is in their hearts to do? Or, who will ask them to serve? Dear Desir0101, why not ask some of these newly-Ruhi trained ?scholars? if they would be willing to host a study group in their home, or a devotional?

    QT

    QueenTiye.
    Good day.
    Ruhi institute is a fiasco, a big fiasco in many countries. The final goal, the expectation was not achieved. Waste of money and time.
    In depth Bahais have no respect for other cultures and beliefs ,its just on your lips. You really believe that you are a superior race with great wisdom and knowledge.
    According to you the one who teach get 90% blessings and the listener just 10%.
    You associate and mingle with others with the sole purpose to convert to bahai.
    ??if they would be willing to host a study group in their home…??
    Yes, Sure. Nice.
    But your intent is only conversion to your faith. Conversion and again conversion.
    You really have nothing to learn from others you just performing a show.
    ??but if they actually practiced, as Ruhi suggest…..?
    You are right’’ but if….’’ Means that you have no attain the required standard.
    I hosted the meeting, we ate at the same table, have fun and prayed together but when you are in your Bahai circle, we understood that you called us NON-BAHAI.
    We in fact don’t form part of your sphere of the elected ONES.
    It’s in fact a great humiliation . As if we are ??PAIENS’’ ( in french).
    You have every thing to change the world but not spirituality..

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephen-Gray/100001692531472 Stephen Gray

    Monogamy mandates violate freedom of association.

  • Baquia

    Yes. Just as battery laws violate freedom of movement.

  • Desir0101

    Hi,
    I repeatedly read that quotes from AMR WA KHALQ. But where can I procure the book.
    Can someone help, please,
    thanks.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephen-Gray/100001692531472 Stephen Gray

    Battery is an act of agression and victimization. John Locke said freedom is forfeit when people commit acts of agression.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

    David Friedman and Steve Sailer
    have argued that polygamy tends to benefit most women and disadvantage
    most men, under the assumption that most men and women do not practice
    it. The idea is firstly that many women would prefer half or one third
    of someone especially appealing to being the single spouse of someone
    that doesn’t provide as much economic utility to them. Secondly, that
    the remaining women have a better market for finding a spouse
    themselves. Say that 20% of women are married to 10% of men, that leaves
    90% of men to compete over the remaining 80% of women. Friedman uses
    this viewpoint to argue in favor of legalizing polygamy, while Sailer
    uses it to argue against legalizing it.

    In the US, the Libertarian Party supports complete decriminalization of polygamy as part of a general belief that the government should not regulate marriages.

    Individualist feminism and advocates such as Wendy McElroy also support the freedom for adults to voluntarily enter polygamous marriages.

    The American Civil Liberties Union of Utah, USA, is opposed to Utah’s law against cohabitation.[91]

    Those who advocate a Federal Marriage Amendment to the American Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage generally word their proposed laws to also prohibit polygamy. Many proponents of same-sex marriage are also in favour of maintaining current statutory prohibitions against polygamy.[citation needed]

    Stanley Kurtz, a fellow at the Hudson Institute, lamented the modern
    arguments increasingly being made by various intellectuals who call for
    de-criminalizing polygamy. Kurtz concluded, “Marriage, as its
    ultramodern critics would like to say, is indeed about choosing one’s
    partner, and about freedom in a society that values freedom. But that’s
    not the only thing it is about. As the Supreme Court justices who
    unanimously decided Reynolds in 1878 understood, marriage is also about
    sustaining the conditions in which freedom can thrive. Polygamy in all
    its forms is a recipe for social structures that inhibit and ultimately
    undermine social freedom and democracy. A hard-won lesson of Western
    history is that genuine democratic self-rule begins at the hearth of the
    monogamous family.”[92]

  • Desir0101

    Good day,
    Can someone please help.
    In the Babi history it has been question of upheavals popularly known in
    Tarbasi Tomb, Zanjan and Nayriz etc.

    Why the Babis planned such horrible acts.

    I found no real  and sustainable reason to such barbarous acts.

    According to Bahai books there is a sudden jump  to prepare such war act,
    as if a chapter is missing.

    I understood that the Bab is a very handsome and peaceful Being.
    And according to the writings of Bahaullah,” thanks should be rendered to
    MUllah Husein to have set the Lord upon His throne..”
    through these wars acts.

    Did the Babi wanted to destabilize the  then government as the political
    perspective was in under  sever pressure and influences of other
    countries.

    Thanks.

  • http://wahidazal.blogspot.com/ wahidazal66

    Horrible acts? Governments and movements engage in defensive wars all the time. Your own government is forever engaging in aggressive imperial wars of conquest all over the world. The Babi uprisings came about as a result of persecution by the Qajar state and clergy and these wars were fully justified. It is unfortunate they did not succeed in overthrowing the corrupt Qajar state with its even more corrupt clergy because the political and economic terrain of Iran and the rest of the Mid East would be very different today.

  • Desir0101

    GOOD DAY  Mr.Wahid,Have you read this book of Compte de Gobineau.Les Religions et les philosophies dans l’Asie centrale.Even the bahai book Dawn Breakers by Nabil i azam failed to depict a situation of persecution of the Babis by the authorities of the countries to give reason to such uprisings.Or simply may be it’s God’s purpose.

  • http://wahidazal.blogspot.com/ wahidazal66

    Yes, I have. I also own an original edition of it.

    Your assessment is ahistorical. These issues have also been discussed beyond the hagiographies of pseudo-Zarandi (Nabil Zarandi never authored the history attributed to him). If there was no reason for the uprisings, then you need to explain how uprisings had already occurred previous to it amongst the Isma’ili community (Agha Khan Mahalati) as well as others and why especially  the position of the Qajar monarchy and state was such that 50 years after these uprisings a revolution imposed a constitution on it and 70 years later this dynasty was abolished altogether. You are also simplifying issues into boxes which need to be engaged with critically.

  • Desir0101

     Hi every body,
    I feel it my duty and being compelled to show you the response from the House of Justice about the plurality of Bahaullah’s wives.

    “”HE doeth what He willeth””

    That’s fine.

    http://desir0101.wordpress.com

  • Kratos

    My reply to the UHJ would be:

    “pffff”. 

    Religions sometimes are more irrational than a woman in her periods. 

  • Kratos


    Id like to know in depth what the Bahai writings on homosexuality are.”

    it’s prohibited and defined as an illness. 

    This is not in depth, I realize. The baha’i writings themselves don’t really go in depth. They just say it’s not good to be gay. That’s all. 

  • Desir0101
  • http://www.justabahai.wordpress.com sonjavank

    Greetings Kratos, Bahai Scripture which is authorative and unchangeable does not mention homosexuality, however many Bahais say all sorts of evil things about homosexuality and some say that their views are based on the Bahai Writings. My latest blog challenges the idea that homosexuality is an illness > 
    http://justabahai.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/on-the-psychopathology-of-homosexuality/ 

    Next time a Bahai writes something negative about gays and says it comes from the Bahai Writings and then they say but a Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi counts then ask them how come the Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi stating that birth control is against the spirit of the Bahai Teachings is clearly ignored. 
    Letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi are generally treated as advice or guidance, along with the context they were written in, except for anything mentioning homosexuality. Then it is treated as if it is scripture. So it is clearly prejudice against gays. Here’s what Shoghi Effendi is likely to have intended: 

    “The infallibility of the Guardian is confined to matters which are related strictly to the Cause and interpretation of the teachings; he is not an infallible authority on other subjects, … …when he gives advice, such as that he gave you in a previous letter about your future, it is not binding; you are free to follow it or not as you please.? (1944) 

    “Although the secretaries of the Guardian convey his thoughts and instructions and these messages are authoritative, their words are in no sense the same as his, their style certainly not the same, and their authority less…? (1951)  http://justabahai.wordpress.com/find/#letters

    (note, I say “likely” – I am not a mind reader and neither is a secretary however accurately she or he might been in penning these letters – If you want to know what Shoghi Effendi actually thought (and interpreted), read what he wrote himself – You’ll find he never mentions homosexuality).

    Now not having anything penned in Scripture is not an issue. That means this falls under the legislation of the U.H.J. to rule on. The current policy of the U.H.J. appears (I say ‘appears’ because all I have as a source are a number of letters and statements – and tomorrow there might be a differing letter or there could be later letters I have not seen) to be that homosexuals must officially live celibate lives but that compassion and tolerance should be exercised. The latest letter of theirs (Oct 2010) that I am aware of which touches on this subject (and on same sex marriage) is quoted here > http://justabahai.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/lady-gaga-born-this-way/#socialjustice

  • http://www.justabahai.wordpress.com sonjavank

     Kratos you wrote “I don’t think Baha’u’llah was very accepting of homosexuality though.” deciding to disregard the fact that Baha’u’llah didn’t write a word on the topic. I’ll post this link for anyone who might be interested what is in Bahai Scripture that touches on this subject. http://justabahai.wordpress.com/find/#q

    Kratos from this your other comments, it seems to me tahatht you are not interested an indepth discussion of the Writings as you asked initiality. Mouthing off about Bahais is not fruitful. I am a Bahai, so you are calling me dishonest and living a fake life.

  • Pingback: Pathology of Homosexuality | Baha'i Rants()

  • tactfulowl

    Baha’is usually explain it to me like this: Baha’u’llah was a product of his culture, Shia Islam, and hence when he married his three wives (1830s, 1849, and 1862 respectively) he was merely adhering to Islamic law. Baha’ullah became a divine messenger of God in 1863, a year after his third marriage. Baha’u’llah’s Kitab-i-Aqdas (book of laws) which limits the number of wives to two was revealed by God in 1873, which is after his third marriage.

    Here is my problem with this argument: First and foremost, Baha’u’llah became a follower of the Bab in 1847; therefore, he would be considered a Babi, not a Muslim at that point.

    Secondly, it is my understanding that the Bab DISCOURAGED polygamy and bigamy, and in the Persian Bayan he only allows someone to get a second spouse in the specific circumstance of infertility, and with the permission of the other partner. Peter Smith in his history of the Baha’i Faith says that the Bab discouraged polygamy.

    Thirdly, In the summer of 1848, Baha’u’llah attended the conference of Badasht with other prominent Babis to discuss whether the Babis should still maintain Islamic law or whether the Bab’s message instituted a new dispensation, abrogating and supplanting Islamic Law. Baha’u’llah argued that the Bab brought a new dispensation which had abrogated and supplanted Islamic law. This view eventually won out. Baha’u’llah apparently believed in the Bab’s law, not Islamic law. But here the thing: one year later in 1849, Baha’u’llah married his second wife, Mahd-i-‘Uly?? (F??timih Kh??num), despite the fact that he had seven children with his first wife, ??s?yih Kh??num. And remember, Baha’u’llah
    believed that the Persian Bayan supplanted the Qur’an and Islamic Law. Why did he marry his second wife?

    My final point would be this: According to Baha’i scholars, Baha’u’llah knew he was a messenger of God long be 1863:

    ?Transforming its essentially deconstructive argument against revelatory finality into a positive vindication of the B??b, The Book of Certitude is charged with eschatological intimations of Bah??’u’ll??h’s own messianic status, kept under wraps as a ?messianic secret,?4 so to speak, until his declaration in Baghdad in the Spring of 1863.?
    (Christopher Buck, Bah??’u’ll??h as ?World Reformer? page 2.)

  • AmadodeDios

    Another question about husbands and wives. We have, in the Codification of the Kitab-i-Iqan’s notes, the concept of mutatis mutandis. The note hints that Shoghi Effendi introduced this useful phrase (obviously from Western legal thought, in Latin). Do we know if Shoghi Effendi made this useful, elegant clarification, or would it be some anonymous genius in the Research Department?
    Amado

  • desirivans

    Hello Sen,

    On your site you have long intellectual discussion about the execution of the
    BAB.

    About the number of firing squad, distance between the Bab and the first
    row, the musket used etc etc…

    And about Merrick David collection.

    Whether Anis was one with the BAb corpse or Anis was shooted first and then
    BAB. Whether the two corpses lie in BAb grave on Mount CArmel

    It seems that you like lengthy intellectual discussion base on supposition and
    assumption but you never like to find answers to get fix.

    I said if the Bayani still confirm that Bab corpse was not on Mount
    Carmel and they know the location of the tomb and secondly if to the diverse
    collection of press articles and other chronicles at that time where some said
    that Anis was shooted first and to the new history ‘Nuf ta nul kaf’ the frst
    volley was not aimed at the BAB, and thirdly I read that BAb had already chosen
    his place of burial so why not with the so many advance technology of scanning
    or otherwise shed light on this episode with the approval of the UHJ.

    I was recounted that at the moment to transfer the rest of the BAB to the new
    coffin brought from India only Abdulbaha remain in the tomb and other
    present were asked to move away.