Talk:Baháʼí laws

message: Why the Baha'i laws specified in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas have been removed from this article and moved to the Kitáb-i-Aqdas article? Are they not "laws" to be implemented in the future? Are Baha'is afraid that people know the kind of laws and sentences we can expect if they ever gain political power? --Jdemarcos 09:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One, if you want an entire list of the laws then that's fine, I was kind of in the middle of adding all of them, binding or not. Two, your summaries were only partly correct and were obviously taken from an anti-Baha'i source. (for example, Shoghi Effendi's clarification of the arson law states that there is an obvious difference between burning down an empty house vs a school full of children) Three, I thought the Aqdas page was a more appropriate place to put laws that are not binding or practiced, but that are mentioned in the Aqdas. That's not hiding anything. I could likewise just make a section of every single law on this page, but the page would become less useful. Cuñado  - Talk 09:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think all the laws should be included here rather than in the Kitab-i-Aqdas article, and that the Kitab-i-Aqdas article should link to this page for a complete list.  It makes more logical sense.  -- Jeff3000 14:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Jeff3000. And Jdemarcos, could you assume a little good faith? MARussellPESE 15:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just hope that Baha'i laws as specified in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas are visible and not buried somewhere link after link after link. We are talking about Bah'a'u'lláh's own words, for God's sake. Comments by the UHJ should be a footnote rather than occupy most of the explanation, and the Aqdas laws should be readily available and well explained where they belong, i.e. in the Baha'i Laws article. --Jdemarcos 22:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is Baha'u'llah himself who has made certain laws applicable only when the House of Justice decides, and thus they are very relevant. -- Jeff3000 22:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: laws

message: Today Law is a featured article. It's Religous Law section States: ...religious texts usually do not provide for a thorough and detailed legal system. For instance, the Koran has some law, but not much and it acts merely as a source of further law, through interpretation. which is really much better than what it said a few minutes ago: ...religious texts never include the scale of law needed in a developed community. For instance...
Something that's unique to the laws of the Baha'i religion is that they are thorough and detailed on a scale needed for a developed community. That's precisely what they're designed for. They cover constitution and legislation, ecomony and other topics. I think the article is presently mostly concerned with personal laws. How would the concerned editors feel about a rewrite that reframes the topic as a world scale legal system that includes such laws as the establishment of the UHJ (constitutional) and lists and separates laws into classes (binding, not binding, etc.) I'm thinking of using the synopsis and codification of the Kitab-i-Aqdas as sort of an outline. I'm asking because the changes would be significate. Any opinions on the matter? -LambaJan 19:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Universal scope of laws

message: By adding penalties that have no real effect on the Baha'i community, you are misrepresenting their importance.  Placing them out of context is inappropriate.  Also secondary sources are those that have been published by reliable sources.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Misrepresenation. That's quite a heavy word. I've got another word for you: obscurantism. Is simply categorizing the penalties specified in the Aqdas misrepresenting the Aqdas? You say they have no "real effect", but there they are, occupying a significant portion of the Most Holy Book. These things may not yet be in force, but the intent is that they will be some day; yet because Baha'is do not yet possess civil authority, you consider it justifiable to conceal the very blueprint of Baha'u'llah's World Order? Misrepresentation indeed. 192.216.254.5 (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Who states that these penalties "occupy a significant portion".  The fact is that the penalties are a tiny portion of the the Kitab-i-Aqdas, and your placement of them as being of such high importance is definitely misrepresenting the nature of Baha'i laws.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So sayeth the authority. Now, why not merely state the facts? Kaweah (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The facts are already there, you just want to increase their importance, which is a misrepresentation.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they're buried in there somewhere, aren't they? We wouldn't want such facts "over-emphasized." God forbid the Baha'i Faith should be seen as having a plan for the future. I wonder whether you believe such summaries have any place in Wikipedia whatsoever. Kaweah (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not buried, but in their respective places.  If you look over secondary sources that go over Baha'i law, their treatment doesn't give as much prominence to the specific punishments that are in the Aqdas (which itself doesn't emphasize the punishments in any extent).  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misrepresenation 

message: I believe the penalty stated for "Adultery and sexual intercourse" is incorrect. The fine is for fornication. I believe a clarification in the notes to the Aqdas states that the penalty for adultery is actually not yet determined. Kaweah (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, and I've updated the page.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other prohibitions