From: Mohaghegh
Subject: RE: Baha'i prespective...
Summary: None
Keywords: None
Organization: None
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:25:51 GMT

Mr. Bavafa writes:
> I know, I know it was Mr. Hakim who said it first.  So you have some hangup
> against him, perhaps?  Let's continue . . .
No, I have no hangup against anyone. 

> >This is Mr. Hakim's words not farzin's.
> >> >About the most modern Bahai laws I can mention the following:
> >> >Page 18, line 5 of the Holy book "Aghdass" : Burn alive whomever burns a house
> >> >intentionally"
> >>
> >> The punishment of "arson" according to the prescription of the Book of
> >> Aq'das is what you have mentioned above. The important point to remember
> >> is that the implementation of this law IS NOT left to the individual, but
> >> given to the society! We view it as the most practical means for the
> >> PREVENTION of arson.
> 
> M[?]. Mohaghegh comments:
> 
> >This is Mr. Hakim's interpretation.
> 
> 'nokaretam, chera eenghadr be Hakim mipari?'
> 
> >Obviously, there is something wrong with the law.
> >Isn't it better to force the person to pay for the damages? This way not
> >only the house is recovered, but also a life has been saved.
> 
> 'jallal-khAlegh!'  dAAsh, you confuse me.  First, you say it's Mr. Hakim's
> interpretaion, then you cite _obviously_ something was wrong with the law.
> Dam'it, why don't you make up your mind.  BTW, nobody is talking about Baha'i
> Laws here.  And even if we Baha'is are 'shifteh' of our laws, we do not impose
> it upon any non-Baha'i. 
Yes, we are talking about Baha'i laws here. The law of "burning alive whomever
burns a house intentionally". " Burning alive is punishment for arson is 
Mr. Hakim's interpretation.
> >> >The 'mahr" for urban women's marriage is 19 misghal of gold and for rural
> >> >women's 19 misghal of silver!
> >> Mahrieh is a metaphorical gesture in the Baha'i marriage. Exorbitant
> >> mahrieh exchanged in Muslim marriages in Iran has been done away with
> >> in the Baha'i law.
> 
> >This is Mr. Hakim's interpretation. The issue here is the "inequality between
> >same sexes" not the amount of mahr. Obviously, there is something wrong
> >with the law. Who is an urban women? Is it by birth or by accent?

> Oh, not again!  First, Mr. Hakim's interpretation, then something wrong with
> the law, then some valid questions about the law itself.  At least you are
> consistent.  :-)  So please read above to demonstrate that I am consistent too.
The issue is the Baha'i law of "19 misghal of gold for urban women's marriage
and 19 misghal of silver for that of rural women". Mr. Hakim's interpretaion
is the rest of the statement (which is marked for your guide).
> >> >Seyed Bab's teaching is really noble:
> >>                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> >Don't drink donkey's milk and don't carry weghts on the cowsand don't hit
> >> >the eggs to something before you cook it! Page 49 of Bayan-e-Arabi
> >>
> >> The Bab has, in the Arabic Bayan, forbidden the consumption of donkey's
> >> milk. The approximate translation of the verse under discussion is:
> >> "Do not drink donkey's milk and do not force the animal outside of its
> >> ability and tolerance."
> 
> >There is no mention of "do not force the animal outside of its ability
> >and tolerence". Mr. Hakim has protected himselfself by the word
> >"approximate" translation. So, I invite him to write the Arabic version.
> 
> Please!!  You are replying to me, you know.  Come on guy.  Why don't you
> snap out of it?
No comments.
> >> I am not going to pretend that I understand the reason for this rule, yet,
> >  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> >Is this the meaning of "the independent search for the truth"?
> No, this is NOT the meaning of independent investigation of the truth.  For
> more understanding of this teaching of the Baha'i Faith, please refer to the
> same many books that you have read so far.  :-)
> >> as a Messenger of God of the same caliber as Prophet Muhammad and Moses,
> >> The Bab had the authority to establish or abrogate dietary laws. Please
> >> note that Moses made the consumption of pork meat forbidden, yet, this
> >> law became inapplicable during the ministry of Jesus, and was enforced
> >> again through the Qur'anic dispensation. The nobility of the dietary law
> >> established by The Bab is similar to the nobility of the laws established
> >> by Prophet Muhammad. Another example of this issue is the religious
> >> prohibition against certain kinds of fish in the Muslim law.
> >> In reference to carrying of weights on cows: The Bab reveals in the
> >> Arabic Bayan: "Don't allow a cow to carry something or give ride if you
> >> believe in God and His verses." [My own approximate translation of the
> >> verse]
> >> This is the first time in the history of religion where laws are revealed
> >> about the rights of animals. Through this law, The Bab forbids his follower
> >> to subject the animal to constant pressure and hardship of work and finally
> >> slaughter it for the consumption of its meat. In Islam, it is lawful to
> >> use cows for carrying and riding and slaughter. The Bab is abrogating this
> >> practice.
> 
> >This is Mr. Hakim's interpretation and addition.
> >There is no animal rights in Baha'i faith. As a matter of fact perhaps,
> >the only religion that urges its followers to wear clothes made from
> >the skin of Mink, is the Baha'i faith.
> 
> 'yA ghamar-e bani hAshem!!'  What's your problem M[?]. Mohaghegh?  Who is
> talking about Baha'i understanding of the rights of the animal kingdom?  Wait
> a minute.  Is it possible that last time you wanted to participate in the
> discussion and for some reason you couldn't so you saved all these to respond
> to it this time, and without any background?  bAbA, when Bab and Baha'u'llah
> made new laws, there were no Minks around - at least NOT in Iran.  Oh, I know,
> Baha'u'llah was bringing about a universal religion and he _knew_ that in the
> future there would be clothes made from Mink in the West so he _urged_ his
> Western followers to wear those clothes.  'mAshAllah, roo keh roo nist.'

Please refer to page 9 of the book Ighdas, the actual recommendation is there.

> Sorry, I got carried away.  I know you really didn't mean it that way.  You
> were simply trying to apply sarcasm to nulify Mr. Hakim's interpretation.
> 
> >> In reference to eggs: The Bab reveals in the Arabic Bayan, whose approximate
> >> translation is as follows: "Don't hit eggs to anything which might spoil
> >> what is inside, before cooking it." Another issue mentioned about eggs in
> >> the Bayan is: "If there appears blood inside of an egg, you might consume
> >> that egg and God will forgive you."
> >> Any intelligent person such as yourself could readily recognize that a
> >> cracked egg is unhealthy. It can serve as a perfect medium for the growth
> >> of various germs resulting in illness. E-Coli is one such bacteria which
> >> grows in egg, which can cause serious health problems. A close look at
> >> the practices of people in the Middle-east clarifies the reason behinds
> >> this law. Another aspect of the verse of the Bayan deals with the
> >> presence of blood in Egg. The Bab makes the consumption of such an egg
> >> lawful by abrogates the Islamic practice.
> 
> >This is Mr. Hakim's personal interpretation.
>>> stuffs deleted
> >I think he has forgotten two things though. If the eggs are not hit to
> >anything before they are cooked , then they won't crack open. If the
> >eggs are not cracked, then think what happens. I believe we already know
> >that if we are not allowed to hit eggs to anything before they are cooked,
> >then we won't be able to see if there is blood in them.
> 
> I had forgotten too.  What a miss!  149 years and I just didn't think about
> it.  How could I miss the flaw?  Wooow!!
> You are something.  Did you really have to 'khar-fahm' us like this?  BTW,
> you really exposed our hands.  'MarhabA' to you and your above logic.
> >Do you see now what I mean when I say Mr. Hakim is trying to promote
> >something which is not promotable?
> 
> Yes, yes.  You did it.  And now I can see.  But, 'bebakhshid hA,' what did
> you mean by _something_, and how come it suddenly became non-promotable? :-)
> 
> After all these typing I leave my reply to you where I left it last time, and
> that is as follows:
> 
>  [I am only repeating to help you remember, no offense intended -HFN]
> 
> Dear esteemed reader,
> 
> The subject line was Baha'i perspective about future of Iran in response to a
> question asked earlier where a poster had asked what we _Iranians_ thought of
> the future of Iran.  Obviously ['Akh joon,' finally I could use this word the
> way I want it and in the _right_ context -HFN] you are not happy with the
> Baha'i view that the future of Iran will be a prosperous and glorified one.
Obviously, this is not what I said. 
If you are interested to know about Baha'i leaders predictions about future
and to what extent it has  materialized, I will gladly write it for you.
Mohaghegh
Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian