The Bahá'í Faith

Post Reply New Topic

That's quite simple Orwell. When a Christian becomes a Baha'i, for example, he completely accepts the revelation of Prophet Muhammad and the Qur'an. We do not in any way deny the revelation of Muhammad. In fact, we try to explain the innate reality of Islam to those who attack that faith.

When one becomes a Baha'i, he accepts everything to do with Islam.

Also, the Bab had abolished the Islamic law which is death for apostasy. When a Baha'i wants to leave the faith, he will be treated as a non-Baha'i. He will be treated with dignity and respect.

However, many fanatic Islamic clergy continue to treat us as apostates, and Baha'is continue to be persecuted all over the world.

It was my understanding that in Islam, Muhammad is the "seal of the prophets" and the Qur'an is the final revelation. Accepting any later prophet would be considered apostasy.

I've seen similar arguments from Muslim apologists trying to claim that they follow Jesus. I am not convinced in either case.

OK, that's very nice, but he didn't have authority to alter Islamic law. If a Muslim wishes to leave Islam for the Baha'i faith, he is risking death for apostasy.

Within the bounds of the Islamic faith, they are correct in doing so. That was really my question to you: as it stands, in many places a Muslim cannot safely join the Baha'i faith, and even in the absence of state oppression they risk social ostracism. What is your answer to Muslims who are concerned about such things?

However, I must note that Islam was revealed in a most hostile environment, while Christianity was revealed in a more civilised atmosphere.

For example, a foolish man said to a clergyman that the true proof of greatness is bravery and the shedding of blood, and that in one day on the field of battle a follower of Muḥammad had cut off the heads of one hundred men! This misled the clergyman to infer that killing is considered the way to prove one’s faith to Muḥammad, while this is merely imaginary. The military expeditions of Muḥammad, on the contrary, were always defensive actions: a proof of this is that during thirteen years, in Mecca, He and His followers endured the most violent persecutions. At this period they were the target for the arrows of hatred: some of His companions were killed and their property confiscated; others fled to foreign lands. Muḥammad Himself, after the most extreme persecutions by the Qurayshites, who finally resolved to kill Him, fled to Medina in the middle of the night. Yet even then His enemies did not cease their persecutions, but pursued Him to Medina, and His disciples even to Abyssinia.

These Arab tribes were in the lowest depths of savagery and barbarism, and in comparison with them the savages of Africa and wild Indians of America were as advanced as a Plato. The savages of America do not bury their children alive as these Arabs did their daughters, glorying in it as being an honorable thing to do. Thus many of the men would threaten their wives, saying, “If a daughter is born to you, I will kill you.” Even down to the present time the Arabs dread having daughters. Further, a man was permitted to take a thousand women, and most husbands had more than ten wives in their household. When these tribes made war, the one which was victorious would take the women and children of the vanquished tribe captive and treat them as slaves.

When a man who had ten wives died, the sons of these women rushed at each other’s mothers; and if one of the sons threw his mantle over the head of his father’s wife and cried out, “This woman is my lawful property,” at once the unfortunate woman became his prisoner and slave. He could do whatever he wished with her. He could kill her, imprison her in a well, or beat, curse and torture her until death released her. According to the Arab habits and customs, he was her master. It is evident that malignity, jealousy, hatred and enmity must have existed between the wives and children of a household, and it is, therefore, needless to enlarge upon the subject. Again, consider what was the condition and life of these oppressed women! Moreover, the means by which these Arab tribes lived consisted in pillage and robbery, so that they were perpetually engaged in fighting and war, killing one another, plundering and devastating each other’s property, and capturing women and children, whom they would sell to strangers. How often it happened that the daughters and sons of a prince, who spent their day in comfort and luxury, found themselves, when night fell, reduced to shame, poverty and captivity. Yesterday they were princes, today they are captives; yesterday they were great ladies, today they are slaves.

Muḥammad received the Divine Revelation among these tribes, and after enduring thirteen years of persecution from them, He fled. But this people did not cease to oppress; they united to exterminate Him and all His followers. It was under such circumstances that Muḥammad was forced to take up arms. This is the truth: we are not bigoted and do not wish to defend Him, but we are just, and we say what is just. Look at it with justice. If Christ Himself had been placed in such circumstances among such tyrannical and barbarous tribes, and if for thirteen years He with His disciples had endured all these trials with patience, culminating in flight from His native land—if in spite of this these lawless tribes continued to pursue Him, to slaughter the men, to pillage their property, and to capture their women and children—what would have been Christ’s conduct with regard to them? If this oppression had fallen only upon Himself, He would have forgiven them, and such an act of forgiveness would have been most praiseworthy; but if He had seen that these cruel and bloodthirsty murderers wished to kill, to pillage and to injure all these oppressed ones, and to take captive the women and children, it is certain that He would have protected them and would have resisted the tyrants. What objection, then, can be taken to Muḥammad’s action? Is it this, that He did not, with His followers, and their women and children, submit to these savage tribes? To free these tribes from their bloodthirstiness was the greatest kindness, and to coerce and restrain them was a true mercy. They were like a man holding in his hand a cup of poison, which, when about to drink, a friend breaks and thus saves him. If Christ had been placed in similar circumstances, it is certain that with a conquering power He would have delivered the men, women and children from the claws of these bloodthirsty wolves.

And, no, there's no specialisation in Atheist-Baha'i issues. I can't convince you to accept God, and you can't convince me to be an atheist. =/

And, no, there's no specialisation in Atheist-Baha'i issues. I can't convince you to accept God, and you can't convince me to be an atheist. =/

Is there any deeper reason behind this? What role do atheists play in 'the united religion' (Baha'u'llah does not consider secular moral equal to divine moral), or the Bahai theocracy?

p.s. I am a non-spiritual atheist.

How? You don't atheists to become Bahais. In France, 32% of the population are self-identified atheists (according to Wiki). And you want to consider atheists as an insignificant minority and claim that they should have NO say in political matters?

Have you ever looked deeply into the Bahá'í faith? I'm sure many of you have heard about it, some of you have asked me about it. I've created a thread here to start a friendly discussion on it.

Unity of God - God is single, with no partners, and unknowable in his essence. Human beings cannot know the nature of God, like how a table can never understand the nature of its carpenter.

Unity of Religion - All major religions come from the same source, and are revealed in a specific age and for the social situation prevalent in that period of time. Revelation of religion is like the rain - fresh rain provides fresh drinking water, while stagnant rain does not provide the same healthy benefits as fresh water does. In fact, it can even be injurious to health. Bahá'ís strive for unity among all religions (and non-religious folk alike). We respect all religions.

Religion is revealed by manifestations of God. Manifestations of God are like pure mirrors, reflecting the rays of sunlight to the world. Just like how we are unable to enter the sun (without getting fried in a second), the manifestations are clear connections to God transferring revelation to mankind. Manifestations include: Abraham, Moses, Zoroaster, Confucius, Krishna, Jesus Christ, Muhammad, the Báb and Bahá'u'lláh.

Unity of Mankind - Human beings are the branches of one tree. Human beings are spiritually united, and we seek to eliminate prejudices on race, religion, gender, etc.

Equality of Men and Women - We believe that priority should be given to women's education, and that more women should administer the state.

Harmony of Science and Religion - We believe that science without spirituality brings death and destruction, while religion without science brings ignorance and superstition. We don't take Biblical stories (such as Adam and Eve) literally.

World peace - The Bahá'í faith has world peace as a major goal. The Bahá'í faith prescribes a unique form of collective security which will prevent any nation from going to war, as all other nations will attack the aggressor.

Non-involvement in partisan politics - Partisan politics is forbidden (voting is strong encouraged in secret). Bahá'ís have their own system of administration, where there is no campaigning for elected posts (we have no priesthood). Bahá'í administration will replace current forms of administration in the future.

They predict a time when virtually everyone will become convinced of the truth of the Baha'i faith and so atheists (and all other non-baha'i religious groups) will become tiny, marginalized minorities. It's not that they want to ignore 32% of France, they just imagine that by the time the Baha'i state is established atheists won't be 32% of France.

If God is essentially unknowable, then how can God reasonably be used as an explanation of reality or events in it? Such an entity cannot be used in a teleological model if the possibility of constructing a teleological model is denied by the doctrine of essential unknowability. And without a teleological model, we are left with two better epistemic hypotheses:
1) Non-teleological forces, such as physical laws.
2) The non-existence of the particular behavior, as if a theory is significantly successful, then many "blips" can be dismissed as statistical errors.

What defines a human being? Note: I've spent a lot of time questioning what human beings are, so I kind of want an answer, and some reasoning, and perhaps even a method to know this.

Which of these are human beings?
1) Chimpanzees
2) Neanderthals
3) Psychopaths
4) Brain-dead individuals
5) Human sperm-egg combinations
6) 3 month old fetuses
7) The severely mentally handicapped.

Even further, when does spiritual unification occur, and on what basis? Through what process do we see it happen? I know, I seem to be quite critical of this element, but... this is an issue that concerns me.

What does equality mean? Is it literal equality, in that men and women are equal in every single way but childbirth and breasts? Is it complementarian, in that each gender is equal in that it fills equally important roles to a degree that somehow can be considered to balance out? I ask this because you believe this should be the basis of social policy, but if that is so, then the doctrine needs to be clear on what it entails. Is there a real metric of how we can consider "equality"? The issue is that any doctrine that can relate to social policy also seems that it is to some degree scientific, and open to scientific testing one way or another on the matter.

It seems to me that if you have "manifestations of God" presented by these people, then what you end up having is a major explanatory problem. The reason being that many of these religions have teachings that are often considered abominable. Now, it could be that your "mysterious God", really meant that too, but if that's the case, we end up having a few questions:
1) How could your God be described as worthy of worship? Generally speaking, we tend to admit that power alone doesn't merit respect, and so, it does seem as if a greater justification has to be given.
2) How could we consider your God to be "good". It seems from the wikipedia that the Bahai faith commits itself to a god that is "All-loving, All-Merciful, Most-Compassionate", but the issue is that the revelations that are received in some traditions, such as the Jewish tradition for instance, actually show a picture of a God that is completely opposite to that picture, and so I don't see how you honestly can say that this is a genuine revelation, even though it fundamentally contradicts the theology that you also commit yourself to.
3) Is there a method by which we claim that a person is a manifestation of God? It seems to me that this all is a post-hoc effort to attempt to argue that past traditions are encapsulated in this tradition, so I am wondering if there is any method that isn't self-serving in that manner.

So, you are saying that individuals such as myself, who promote science, but not spirituality, are promoting destruction. Isn't that a rather strong claim to make about a belief-system you disagree with? Particularly not one to just make casually.

To me, the only real argument that one could present in favor of this idea is that communist experiment, but the problems there are explained a lot better by social, political, and economic factors in as far as I understand them. So, I don't really see the justification for your claim aside from that bit of history, which is highly questionable.

Even further, if science is in practice naturalistic, or methodologically naturalistic, and it provides the best explanation for most/all details of reality, then where is the room for this harmony? If science explains everything, then religion is left with explaining nothing. And if religion explains no facts, then the invocation of religious hypotheses is problematic, in fact, religion could then be said to add nothing to our knowledge. If that is the case, then how could there be a harmony between a subject and a non-subject? Now, I know that the rebuttal to this is to try to cleave out some special area of knowledge, but there is no reason to believe this will succeed, particularly given that your notion of God can't be used in a sensible explanatory model.

The Baha'i faith is essentially spiritual in nature. The spiritual part of the faith is mystical. When we say God is unknowable, we deny the common monotheistic concept that God is a humanoid or the pantheistic concept that God is energy. Essentially, we believe that our understanding of the universe is limited, such as how we aren't aware of the world outside out mother's womb before we are born.

Faith is what drives our belief in God as an explanation of reality or events.

The Baha'i faith states that the human soul comes into being after conception, the human sperm-egg combination.

Spiritual unity in the sense that, human beings are essentially united spiritually, and we must strive to be united as a species.

We don't believe that chimpanzees have the human souls, but we are strong believers in evolution. Abdul Baha said that the human soul existed even if man were a mere fish.

I'm afraid I didn't understand what you asked regarding mentally handicapped, psychopaths, etc. The Baha'i writings state that mental illnesses are a challenge, but it does not disconnect them from God. Ie, a mentally handicapped person can try to be spiritual if he wishes.

As for psychopaths, I haven't come across any reference in the writings so far. A Baha'i man gave me his opinion that the empathic areas of the brain probably shut down due to a complete detachment from God, although he also believed that biological causes could also be responsible - such as some rare cases of Wilson's disease.

The world of humanity is possessed of two wings: the male and the female. So long as these two wings are not equivalent in strength, the bird will not fly. Until womankind reaches the same degree as man, until she enjoys the same arena of activity, extraordinary attainment for humanity will not be realized; humanity cannot wing its way to heights of real attainment. When the two wings or parts become equivalent in strength, enjoying the same prerogatives, the flight of man will be exceedingly lofty and extraordinary. - Abdul Baha

You can read more here, very long topic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahá'í_Faith_and_gender_equality

Regarding the Jewish dispensation, such a picture was necessary as the people back then were unsophisticated folk. We believe that revelation changes according to the social situation. Mankind is in a more socially developed state now, and hence, the theme has changed to bring mankind to the next level of spiritual development.

One of the Baha'i holy books - the Kitab i Iqan, explains how one can determine if a person is a manifestation of God. It's a pretty long read, so to cut it short please read this short PDF - http://gy.bahai.org/publications/Proofs%202.pdf

We're talking of how scientists creates WMDs without care for humanity. You as an individual have humanity. Certain politicians and weapon manufacturers don't.

I'm afraid I don't know anything about natural science right now. Please allow me to research it before I give an opinion.

Thats an interesting idea you have Awesomely about some brain types being unable to be spiritual. When I was having a bad time at church I used to wonder the same thing, if I had a freak brain that didn't work with "the spirit". Now I know I just needed to break away and find my own ways.