From: bavafa@netcom.com (Hooshyar Naraghi)
Subject: Oh, Not Again! (Re: Baha'i prespective...)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 09:10:53 GMT
Organization: Close Hangups of the Baha'i Kind
Keywords: prejudice

********  WARNING:  This article contains highly toxic material that might
_apparently_ not be suitable to your taste.  Please exercise severe caution 
when reading it, or if you think you have a weak heart, simply ignore it.

********  WARNING:  This article uses the words Baha'i and Baha'u'llah
few times, so if you have any hangups against these words, please ignore
them now, or you might loose your chance to stop the chain reaction.  As
much as I hate to respond to it, because my name "bavafa" has been used I
felt to honor the poster with few remarks.  Believe me I am already fed
up with childish appoaches like this one, and I am going to be annoyed to
initiate the concept of 'oh, well, here we go again.'

********  WARNING:  This one is for those who hate to read long articles.  I
am obligated to inform you that this is a long article.


In article <i.716404936@home> Mohaghegh writes:
>Mr. Bavafa wants to know that if I have read any of Bahau'llah's book.
>The answer is yes and I have read many Baha'i books.

Thank you very much for telling me, M[?]. Mohaghehg.  I wish you had occupied
yourself with Baha'u'llah's writings, instead of commenting on Mr. Hakim's
interpretation of Baha'ullah's words.  BTW, where did Bab's name pop up from?
"bebinam, dAri kalak mizani?  nakoneh hamey-e een harfhA faghat zamineh sAzist
barAy-e agendA-ye ba'di?"

I know, I know it was Mr. Hakim who said it first.  So you have some hangup
against him, perhaps?  Let's continue . . .

>To see what I mean
>by saying "typical of Mr. Hakim...." I have to go back and bring some
>of his personal additions and interpretations.
>My apologies to those who don't like to see these sort of articles here.

I accept your apology.  No, I am not kidding.  I really mean it.  Your hangup
about these [the following] issues do need an apology.

>Hakim@bigq.enet.dec.com writes:
>> farzin@apollo3d.apollo3.ntt.JP (Farzin Mokhtarian), you write:
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oh, my God.  Sorry Farzin; now I apologize to you to have brought you into 
this discussion.  Please, please, it's OK.  We did not mean it, and we know
you had already settled the case and from your point of view the case is 
already closed, or as you put it to rest, 'we are now done.' :-) :-) [the 
double smiley is for humor-impaired people [(c) Mack, 92] who might not
understand that I am trying to be sarcastic here - HFN]

>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.  [for example, if you are interetsed to discuss laws
that can be, and are now being, imposed upon people please refer to the other
on-going discussion of repression of women in Iran in this very newsgroup -HFN]

On the other hand, if you are really concerned about _implementation_ of this
Baha'i Law in a 'farzi' future society where and when the Baha'i Laws will be
followed by the majority, then why don't you ask the question openly and
candidly in a newsgroup like soc.religion.bahai?  Please understand that I 
offer such approach after I learned you had read some Baha'i books so I 
considered you 'lAyegh' enough to even acknowledge your concern.  But, the
problem is I do not understand what your problem [read hangup -HFN] is.  Is it
the Baha'i Law itself?  Well, nobody talked about them until you brought back 
old discussions from the 'zabAleh-dAn-e tArikh' [(c) MKO].  Or, is it Mr.
Hakim?  Then I maintain my position as I stated in the previous post and that
is, please ignore everything I said and have said so far, and sorry to have
taken the bandwidth.

>By the way, what is a house?

No way, I am not going to start another theological discussion.  After all the
law is no good to your 'mazAgh' so what's the point in defining the house?  Oh,
are you suggesting if we define the word house properly, we might get away with
obviously wrong law such as this one?

>> >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.

>> >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?

>> 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.'

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.

=============================  For Mr. Hakim Only  ============================
bAbA, how many times did I tell you we should not interpret the word for these
people.  It makes more trouble for us.  After all our job is to take over sci
and then Iran, and finally the world.  We ought to do it with diplomacy.  After
all what do these people know about interpretation?
===============================================================================

>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.

Sorry, if you cannot visualize that day.  For us Baha'is it is inevitable and
will happpen, regardless of your hangups with Mr. Hakim and his way of
interpretations.

Thanks God we Baha'is are not imposing it on any one in this world, specially
our Iranian brothers and sisters.  However, please let us _the oppressed
minority_ express our views and share it with the rest of the sci.  Not to
mention that this time we were not talking about house burning, origin of wife,
and the bloody egg, until you poped up from nowhere and spoiled the discussion.

>Mohaghegh

All these prejudice is not enough?  All these killings of innocent souls is not
enough?  All these unnecessary hatred and ridicule is not enough?  All these
suppression of freedom of people to practice their own laws within the 
corridors of their own "houses" is not enough?

In one sentence:  What is your [read only those prejudice people -HFN] hangup
against the Baha'i Faith?


Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian