From: bavafa@netcom.com (Hooshyar Naraghi)
Subject: Re: What to read at sci
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 10:26:37 GMT
Organization: politic zadan

In article <1992Jul27.180206.4465@fmg.bt.co.uk> ghbr@fmg.bt.co.uk (Hossein Bagherzadeh Rafsanjani) writes:
>In article <jjjm!sr.bavafa@netcom.com> bavafa@netcom.com (Hooshyar Naraghi) writes:

>Well done, Hooshyar!  Even though you have noticed the PS above, you went on
>for a page or two interpreting my words as if they implied "Victim
>Responsiblity".  I am sorry (and understand) if all these Baha'i-bashings on
>the net (a reflection of Baha'i persecutions back home) has given rise to a
>sort of siege mentality in which the slightest criticism of Baha'i religious
>propoganda (itself a legitimate activity) gives rise to a perception of asking
>Baha'is to "shut up and say nothing".  Remember my comments were directed at
>Kamran who gave a rather long response to a theological question and called it
>"the _beginning_ of an answer"!

Thanks twice.  One for my well done job, and one for reminding me of whom
you were trying to direct your point to.  Sorry for my more than one page
or two to your short PS.  I guess I am very poor in being brief yet to the
point, and prefer to send long messages in the hope of not confusing the
issue.  I apologize, but I prefer to apologize in advance than to write
something that would not covey my thoughts.

=======================  To the rest of you netters ==========================
Dont' try this at home.  It's a dangerous habit.  It is only reserved for
those who cannot write good English.  For those of you who are already masters
in English, please continue to be brief and to the point.
==============================================================================

>My only aim was to end this sort of "beginning".  In this way, I think I have
>actually done something good for your religion!

Let's be formal and professional here and not play sarcasm to convey a point.
You are not required by anyone to do something good for 'my' religion.  You
are not required to ridicule 'my' religion to get a point across either. 
It was not NICE, you know!  BTW, 'shomA keh vakil vasiy-e bandeh nistid.'

OK, you had an aim.  The point I raised was that in process of accomplishing
your aim _I_ felt it infringed upon freedom of expression of other netters.
The term 'Victim Responsibility' is one of Ms. Patricia Williams' special
phrases, so please read the book to understand what it means.  It has no
contextual connection to you or me or the Baha'i Faith.  It is, on the other
hand, a sickening behavior eminated among many people 'va khodeshAn ham 
khabar nadArand.'  I only wished to bring it to your attention so you can
appreciate the Persian expression that says 'oomad abrooro dorost koneh, zad
cheshm-e yAro-ro ham koor kard.'

>Kamran is certainly an
>effective preacher, but alas his line of arguments may work better in Sangsar
>than in SCI!  It seems to be the second time I am picking on him.  The first
>time was on the magic figure of 1000+260 Hejri Qamari.  (Sorry, Kamran.  In
>both occasions I was prompted by your comments, and not by your name.  It just
>happened that on both occasions, the remarks came from you.)

Thanks for revealing to us what your line of thinking is.  But doost-e aziz
I am not in that league.  So this game you have to play by yourself :-)
What's left is just few technical questions from you, if I may.

How did you determine that somebody 'is' 'certainly' a preacher, while it
seems his line of argument may work better in Sangsar?  Again, are you
serious here or that's another sarcasm?  Next question is how much do you
know about Sangsar town and its AhAli?  Again, are you rediculing Sangsari
people or this is another sarcasm.  Finally, since when you have chosen to 
speak for SCI?  How do you know SCI is too hard to digest these lines of
arguments.  Please note these are simply questions to understand how you
go about making global statements.  Nothing more and nothing less.

>> >Poems by Qorrat-ol-Ein for instance? Or her bold campaigns for women's
>> >rights?
>
>> Was it you who few months ago stated that in your opinion religions had not
>> contributed anything to the progress of human civilazations?  Now if by 
>> _your_ granting I post few nice poems from Tahereh or share with you her
>> campaigns toward liberation of Iranian women, how would you characterize her
>> actions?  Would you say she was influenced by the message of the new religion?
>
>The answer is a certain yes!  There is no doubt that she was influenced by the
>new religion.  I never said that "religions had not contributed anything to
>the progress of human civilazations".  What I said was the following (I repeat
>it because I think it is a statement of fact):
>------------------------
>NO RELIGION has ever added to the common knowledge of humanity, whatever its
>divine claims and its source being the "All Knowing and Infalliable" being!
>------------------------

Thanks for the repetition.  I was not trying to challenge your statement of
fact, I was trying to learn how you characterized Tahereh's actions.  Your
answer was sufficient for me.

>It is a fact that if you scour any religious text, you will see no material
>fact mentioned in it which was not already known or discovered by a human
>being (including the proclaimer of the religion as a human being). That was my
>point.  No one can deny the effect of religions and religious movements on the
>course of history and people (both individual and society).

Very well.  I really did not expect to read your proof or the justification
of the statement of the fact here, but thanks anyways.

>> I bet 10 pounds NOT!
>
>So I won the bet!

Agreed.  How about a chAy at ghahveh.khooneh mash Yadollah?

>> >Hooshyar, are you related to Molla-Ahmad-e Neraghi (writer of Me'raaj-os-Sa'aadeh)?
>> >Was he (or did he become) a Baha'i?  I am curious.
>
>> I can't say.  I do not know the name you mentioned.  I checked with my father
>> who is the oldest member of the family and he had not heard of such name.  Can
>> you tell us more about him or his book, if you know him more than his name or
>> hisk book?
>
>So then you are not!  I do not know much about him except that he was a 19th c.
>(13th h.q.) molla and wrote the aforementioned book (a classic in religious
>morality reflecting mainly patriarchial-feudal values).  I heard once that he
>became a Baha'i later in his life.  (Please see also the PS below.)
>
>> A poem by tAhereh follows, regardless of the outcome of the bet!  Enjoy it.
>
>Thanks.  It has aleady been well received, as I hoped.  Keep up the good work!

Like the deceased Shah said 'man sedAy-e shomA rA shenidam.' 

>-hossein
>
>PS.  And why did I pose this "personal" question?  This was asked by one of
>your co-religionist and my response was as follows:
>
>My "personal" question to Hooshyar was a diversion tactic.  Both to make him
>come forward and respond to my post (which worked!) as I found him one of the
>most interesting to hear and least dogmatic amongst the Baha`is I know on the
>net, and also to lead the thread of discussion away from theology and to
>history, culture etc (which also worked partially).

No problem.  But did you have to resort to diversion tactic?  It seems you are
very akeen to reaching your goals without any consideration in the utilization
of the means :-)

BTW, let's play victim responsibility for a while.  To start with, next time
you chose to implement the 'diversion tactic,' what ought to be the reaction
of somebody like me?  To come forward to acknowledge your view that yeah the 
person is the least dogmatic, or to ignore you to prove to the net that the
person is 'bikhiyAl?'  Can you begin to witness the first sparks of the
implications of the dirty game of victim responsibiltiy now?

In retrospect, it was a revealing exercise to exchange these few words with
you.  Sorry for my usual lengthly post.

Regards,
Hooshyar F. Naraghi
bavafa@netcoom.com
(415) 324-1055