From: bavafa@netcom.com (Hooshyar Naraghi)
Subject: Re: What to read at sci
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 11:01:42 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <-nmm+ph.bavafa@netcom.com> bavafa@netcom.com (Hooshyar Naraghi) writes:
>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 :-)

The correct word is 'keen' - HFN

>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
>


Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian