Covenant

(No subject)

New shortlink to Abdu'l-Baha and the African Tribe

Thanks Adib, the problem is the hyphen. I made a new short link:

//tinyurl.com/AbdulBahaafricans

~~~~~~~~

What I can do, is keep my arm
from bringing others any harm.
How can I give the enviers ease?
They are themselves their own disease.
(Sa'di, Gulestan 1:5)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
//senmcglinn.wordpress

Sen

That link does not work. Here it is:

//senmcglinn.wordpress.com/2009/09/15/abdul-baha-africans/

'as wandering savages'

I've put together a blog entry about that paragraph, and a few other references to Africa and Africans in the books, letters and talks of Abdu'l-Baha, here:

//tinyurl.com/AB-africans

The section 'as wandering savages' deals directly with this particular quote.

~~~~~~~~~

What I can do, is keep my arm
from bringing others any harm.
How can I give the enviers ease?
They are themselves their own disease.
(Sa'di, Gulestan 1:5)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
//senmcglinn.wordpress

JJ you are hurting us !!! Please stop this !!

JJ you are hurting us. Why you allow these kind of Blogs. You are well aware about the position of Bab and Baha'u'llah. They are Manifestations of God. Rather they are god themselves but in Human Form. One of the UHJ members in his speech mentioned thus : Baha'u'llah is not the prophet but Manifestation of God. And God manifest only once in 5000 years. Baha'u'llah cannot be compared with moses or jesus or Mohammed. Even the station of Baha'is is much higher than these prophets. Please do not make fun of them. I beg you dear.

Faryarm

Due respect, you say:[Savage means "Not domesticated or cultivated"]

I thought one DOMESTICATES an animal and not a human being? And if the word been taken out of context, what [authenticated] word would you suggest sir?

capt_ayhab [-YT]

What JJ and Shirin Ebadi have in common?????

I don’t think what happed here has anything to do with the freedom of speech as we all have been debated here.
As most of you know JJ has been very fair and extremly frindly with the Baha’is in the past and let the Baha’is to defend and express themselves and even teach their faith to some degrees in Iranian.com - - something that Baha’is are almost never allowed to do in any Iranian medias. Because of that, in my opinion, JJ has been accused of being a Baha’i just like what happend to Mrs. Shrin Ebadi a few months ago for defending the arrested Baha’is who are accused of being spy for the Israel. Therefore, in order to prove that he is not, he decided to break his own site roles and allowed and publishes distorted images of the prophet of the baha'i Faith. As I said this is my opinion and I may be 100% wrong but there is a possibility.

Interesting read Adib.

Interesting read Adib. Thanks.

Malice redux

Surprisingly, this isn't the first time I've seen people use that passage from `Abdu'l-Baha to present the Baha'i Faith in a negative light. As a matter of fact there's a slew of attacks based on quotes here:

//bahaifact.wordpress.com/2008/11/29/185/

But the problem with Covenant's use of this quote - which does in fact exist (//reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/TAB/tab-625.html.iso8859-1?query=africa&action=highlight#pg577) but has been snipped at parts and thusly become disjointed - is that he appears to be overlooking two things:

1. The point `Abdu'l-Baha is trying to make through his statement (refer to the above URL)

2. The [quite relevant] situation of blacks in Africa during his time

Before addressing the first point, let's also throw the fact that `Abdu'l-Baha stated in Some Answered Questions that 'people in the Sudan eat each other' in the mix. Was this a blatant display of racism on his part? That's very doubtful, considering the way he had respect for blacks, including his reservation of a seat of honor at a luncheon for a certain black Baha'i (Louis Gregory), let alone his assistance to that same Baha'i to find a white female Baha'i to form one of the earliest interracial marriages in America - something `Abdu'l-Baha strongly advocated, as he believed it would promote unity in diversity, a concept which intrinsically runs counter to racism.

It is probably safe to say, then, that the tribal and rather primitive Sudanese in the 1910s might have engaged in cannibalism according to `Abdu'l-Baha during his time. This is not a statement laced with racist or prejudiced undertones - indeed, even a cursory perusal of our texts would prove that racism is antithetical to the Baha'i Faith, much less some vignettes of `Abdu'l-Baha's travels in America. Bearing that in mind, I would then venture to state that he could only have been attempting to objectively state what he considered a fact during the time in which he lived: cannibalism was not uncommon in Sudan during the 1910s.

Now that we have established the concept of dispassionately delivering objective facts, we can return to the twofold problem which Covenant's reference and the overall nature of his post presents him with:

1. The point `Abdu'l-Baha is trying to make through his statement

`Abdu'l-Baha felt that blacks in Africa during his time were the way they were because they were deprived of a proper spiritual education. If one were to visit the URL I provided and others have given before me and read the quote in this proper context - and not disjointed like the one in the post - it would be simple to conclude that `Abdu'l-Baha is making a comparison between those who live in societies where learning is widely available versus societies which lack such an attribute. Moreover, he is attributing the cause of their despondent state to this very lack of spiritual education. Again, the URL for the quote and page in full is:

//reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/TAB/tab-625.html.iso8859-1?query=africa&action=highlight#pg577

I need not mention my second point as the answer to it overlaps with my response to #1 above: black inhabitants of Africa during `Abdu'l-Baha's time were, by and large, deprived of spiritual education and appallingly primitive as a result. Nothing racist about it: he was stating a fact without bias or bigotry.

I would also like to make a point about people reminding us of Baha'u'llah's injuction to preclude women from membership in the Universal House of Justice. People opposed to our religion generally say things like "Does your religion not contradict itself when it preaches gender equality but contains such a grave error in the framework of its very administration?" (to a more dumbed down degree, perhaps). May I remind those people that Baha'u'llah was not unlettered from an intellectual standpoint by any means.

This was a man who preached the equality of men and women, as I just stated, in the 1860s. In Persia. How do you think a country as backward (in the fullest sense of the word; study the open Babi executions in the 1850s) as Persia at that time reacted to someone overtly preaching this idea? Or the independent investigation of truth: an ideal that would ultimately eliminate the need for Shi'ah ecclesiastical authority? Furthermore, Baha'u'llah also had a broad knowledge of philosophy and religious texts; again I reiterate, he was not unlettered - he was an intellectual, to say the least. And as is common knowledge, intelligent people generally do not contradict themselves. Here was a man who preached some groundbreaking ideas which made sense, perhaps not to Persians at large back then but most certainly so in this era - at least on a greater scale than the late 1800s.

Now then, this man called for an institution of nine individuals to lead the Baha'i international community at a future point in time. He did not have to preclude women - on the contrary, to the average person today looking at this issue on the surface, there wouldn't really have been a need for him to condition eligibility on that institution by any means. What's more is that by doing so, he would be apparently contradicting the aforementioned principle of equality of men and women, one of the fundamental verities of the Baha'i Faith.

So why did he supposedly contradict himself? (Opinions of others, not mine) Was it because he came from a religiously extreme country and was therefore inherently opposed to any ideas outside the sphere of Islamic fundamentalism? I wouldn't think so; otherwise he would not have been so quick to dismiss the clergy with his idea of independent investigation of truth, something not exactly prevalent in Persia during that time, or even in this day and age.

Friends, would we be outright ridiculous in conjecturing that perhaps some wisdom went into Baha'u'llah's decision of disallowing women from joining the Universal House of Justice? Should we mock something that we don't fully understand? If that's the case, shouldn't every human being be defaming God to their best ability? What's more is that this matter one of the few things that we really base on faith and trust - and what is religion without some faith? Others have already mentioned `Abdu'l-Baha statement about how Baha'u'llah's rationale behind his judgment in this decision will one day become clear to us as the midday sun. I've still speculated, however. In fact, I have a theory that I feel is a really solid reason as to why Baha'u'llah decreed what he decreed - but again, it's just a theory and nothing more than speculation. I can't be for certain that the same thought process I used to reach my hypothesis was the same process that led Baha'u'llah to establish the House of Justice the way he did.

As a Baha'i, Covenant, I abhor what you did to Baha'u'llah's picture. This post and your intent along with it gives me equal disdain. But at least you left yourself open for some rectification, and that's been our strong point as a rule for 160 years. I'd advise you to do yourself a favor and not make yourself look any worse than you already do by dabbling in matters you know virtually nothing about.

Adib

Dear Tex..

Dear Tex..

Would love to know what yo are refering to...

please specify...

thanks

faryarm 

Exposing Cov and his tactics Part 1

This malicious Blogger used the picture of slaves on a Ship, cropped it to suit his purpose , then posted it with a highly edited text to  create this highly distorted and hurtful blog.

Below is covenant's source for the picture above in the manufacture of his malicious attack on Abdul-Baha.. 

//unitedstatesafrica.com/slaves.jpg

Dear Bumble Bee...I agreed with you earlier and acknowledge...

...your reasons for doubt and the ensuing questions.

In fact asking a question is typically triggered by the very same experience you had in reading this blog.  This is by far the most powerful motivation for seeking answers to these questions.

Aside from my cursory remark about confusing Abdu'l Baha with Baha'u'llah, my point, which was obviously lost, was that if a question is answered by a gut reaction to a single reading and the process ends, then it is very likely that the answer or conclusion is not correct.  If you reach a considered conclusion it is likely to be more representative of the actual truth than an "unconsidered" conclusion.

I agree with you that we can investigate matters in current day events more accurately than historical events.  I also agree with you that attempts are always made to alter the facts through the media biases and those that wish to "re-write" history, as Bush is today.  There are many reasons to be suspicious and many reasons to question the authenticity of what you are presented, especially if the sources are considered as biased or unable to be objective.  You have a legitimate reason to question and consider what is posted here by Baha'is as not objective.  After all the world in which we live in constantly bombards us with biased and self serving views and opinions intent to sway and influence us.

So, I hope that I have convinced you that the premise of our dialogue is not that you should not question matters related to the Baha'i Faith, its founders and its followers.  Where the process breaks down, however, is that just as one cannot learn and comprehensively understand anything unless the process and effort is commensurate with the requirements of the subject matter, it would be unreasonable to draw comprehensive conclusions that are meaningful, otherwise.  This is indeed the case with the history of the Baha'i Faith and the concerted effort to distort it by those that have an intent.  I doubt that you would not agree to this first premise.  So from a position of first having to correct years of abuse and misinformation, and never having an opportunity to respond to any allegations, especially in the very land in which this is happening, the Baha'is have and continue to provide information as they can best authenticate (not fabricate).  

The Baha'i Faith is the only Faith where the original documents and Writings of the founders of the Faith are preserved and are the subject of research and study.  Westerners and Orientalist were in a position to study first the Babi Faith and then the Baha'i Faith in great detail and their works are also readily accessible.  But perhaps more substantive are the Baha'i Writings (original, and not interpreted, works in their original Persian and Arabic and later their authenticated translations into English) which knit together the entire fabric of the World Order of Baha'u'llah.  The vast majority of this material is now readily available to all and readily accessible on the net.  Even the one that is altered in this blog, and is correctly referenced in its entirety by Mona, below, is readily found.

You as the person with a question and doubt are in the best position today to conduct your own investigation using any sources at your disposal and not limited to those made available by the Baha'is.  Just as a scientist you will consider this information and take into account the potential bias that it may contain and with diligence you can reach a conclusion based on the available sources.  You also know that disconfirming information is far more important in the proof of a theory or concept than confirming information.  Scientists in general (social or otherwise) use disconfirming information to confirm their theories and understanding.  

I have no interest in convincing you of anything. I acknowledge your doubt, your reasons for this doubt and the ensuing questions.

Alborz

"bumblebee", Please examine more closely...

 Dear “Bumble Bee”,

The Life and example led by the Central Figures of the Bahai Faith is proof positive of their authenticity.

A closer examination of their lives , not just their words, would soon reveal that their mission in their earthly life was nothing but sacrifice and service in the path of God and His will for the rejuvenation of fast sinking humanity; their suffering at the hands of their enemies and their quite endurance is testament to that.

It is simply amazing how as prisoners and exiles, they commanded the respect and admiration of their Jailers. One has to read the account of Abdul Baha's Funeral and the list of attendees, it was not far from  the same place where today Bombs and Rockets are flying today between Arabs and Jews.

//iranian.com/Opinion/2000/January/Century/others.html

//info.bahai.org/abdulbaha-center-of-covenant.html

It is easy for the casual reader to be thrown off by a blogger whose only mission is to confuse the seeker of truth.

What is needed is an unfettered search into the heart of the matter; fortunately one does not have to go far...as just about every aspect of the Bahai Faith is in full view on the Web.

As to the question as to why the UHJ only consists of men, has been responded to many times, with the answer that, in the future it will become as Obvious as the Sun as to why women can not be elected to the UHJ.

There are many instances in the Bahai writings, where a statement is a complete mystery, only to become to reveal itself years after; not unlike the statements in the World Order of Baha'u'llah.

I can just see the face of those in distant villages of Iran, in the provinces who tried to make sense of the following, when they had not even experienced electricity, the motorcar or the telephone, when they read the following:

A mechanism of world inter-communication will be devised, embracing the whole planet, freed from national hindrances and restrictions, and functioning with marvellous swiftness and perfect regularity. (Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 203) 

Perhaps there is a wisdom to  Abdul-Baha’s promise that it will become as obvious as the Sun as to why women are not on the UHJ.

Regards,

Faryarm

alborz

I might very well be confused about names, however the fundamental points that I was trying to convey, were that getting to historical facts can be a very difficult job, if not impossible. There can be spins & exaggerations, and also trying to hide or diminish deeds that one might not be proud of. The farther we are from the time frame we're referring to, the more hindrance it would become to dig out the truth. Sometimes historians, lacking adequate documents, are reduced to guessing.

A good example of spinning, is how President Bush has hired a team, to work at his legacy, to put forth the most positive spin possible, so he is looked upon well in history.

What I referred to in my previous post, was that it had raised doubts in me, and I stated why. I was never even thinking about those issues about Bahuala ( or Abdu-baha), sorry for my errors. My referrance was to the founder(s) of the Bahai religion, and their living circumstrances. That includes, the time frames they were living, Persia's class system and it's influence in people's thinking and attitudes towards other classes, let alone Africans.

All we hear are the positive articles and points from the Bahaee side, and no other viewpoint or fact collection source is even offered, and that means the history is not discussed throughly. History should present all sides, for the sake of accuracy. For people who have "faith" in a certain ideology, it might be hard to understand why there is a need for getting through answers.

You and many others have faith in it, ok, but this blog, notwithstanding it's fragmented and juvenile approach, has raised those questions in me. Having said that, I believe today's Bahaee believe in equality of races.

In conclusion I have to raise two serious points about the Bahaee, one, they won't allow women to be seated at UHJ. The second point, it seems their lack of tolerance to discussing their history in an objective way.

Intentions speak loud and clear

Wow, I have never seen so much malice in one place.
JJ sure has unified the dark forces of course not intentionally.
Surely this conglomeration of hate and ignorance is trying all avenues to cover the stinch of its decaying idealogy yet to no avail.
It is time to look in the mirror.

Bumble Bee, you are confusing...

...Baha'u'llah with Abdu'l Baha and therefore you need to revise the entire basis of your conclusions.

I suggest that you start reading the first of a series of blogs that Faryar just started on this very subject.  As always no one can draw a conclusion from a single reference, which in this case was altered. 

Please refer to Mona's comment below that has the entire text and then begin to read the Faryar's blog.

//iranian.com/main/blog/faryarm/give-me-chance-fling-my-stone-his-face

Asking questions is the first step and diligence in confirming one's conclusions and answers, the second.   Your conjecture at this point is premature, but then again it is your choice!

Alborz

predictions

There are a number of the predictions of Bahaulah which did not happen. But so what, what is the big deal? People can make mistakes even if they are believed to be sent from above.

good questions raised

This written piece, albeit confrontational and immature in style, and the pictures, very rude and unnecessary, has opened a lot of questions for me, that would have never occured to even ponder about. My first reaction, was being dismissive of it, of course, however, after evaluating it, I cannot totally ignore it. What the article says, is going with the prevailing mentality and practice of the time in Europe, which had a great influence and control in the Persian politics back then. And Bahaulla, came from a noble family, and it won't be surpsring if his thinking were somehow influenced by mixing with those groups of people and noblemen.

The Baahaes, either believing it to be false, or just rationalizing it, or covering it up, I'm not sure. Objectively and rationally speaking, who was really there around 150 years ago, to collect the writings of Baahaaes, knowing the poor record keeping, in the back-then-called Persia? This article certainly casts a shadow of doubt for me, to say the least. And I know having ka-neez was done at that time period in "ayaani" households. I'm not sure how they were valued, or if they were actually sold. It would be great for someone to write some scholary article about it, telling the whole truth, because words coming from one side, are usually not objective, or reflect the truth. They may too one-sided, which may hide or distort some dark truths.

Faryam

You are just trying to excuse stuff. It is what it is. Bahaullah is like any other prophet; dime a dozen. No amount of Youtube videos is going to polish history or what he has said! Of course you can "interpret" stuff for your own benefit and there is nothing wrong with it. Other faiths do it too. Just don't say Bahaullah saw the future, gave solutions for 21st through 23rd century and these Youtube videos are proof positive! LOL.

Here is another link from

Here is another link from Bahai world Faith V
Chapter 8:

//74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:Lb4S7QbOZZUJ:w...
and:

//74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:DjitBv0hg9cJ:w...

Here is the Link from where this matter can be found.

//www.angelfire.com/mo3/bahai/Africans.html

What would Hazrat-e Bahaullah do?

I bet you he would side with democracy, freedom of speech (in its rawest form) and against banishment and inquisition!

PS. Fear not my friends more they speak, more they show their fabrications and falsehood!

Where is the profane

Where is the profane picture? I thought may be there was something x-rated. Was it removed? What have I missed here? I don't see anything offensive here.

Or is someone has holier than thou attitude here?! Is somebody's prophet better perhaps??

Grow up & chill!

Long live freedom of speech!

Savage means "Not domesticated or cultivated"

100 years ago, there was no PR, or political considerations..

Abdul Baha in 1900s had no PR, was not running for office, and spoke in Persian and the western translation of the time translated in the style and custom of the day...

Your comparison is incorrect.

These days, that is why Bahais insist of authenticated Bahai Writings, because so much can get lost in translation. 

Savage then , is still Savage today... 

Here are some current listings in the Dictionary

1. Not domesticated or cultivated; wild: savage beasts of the jungle. 2. Not civilized; barbaric: a savage people. 3. Ferocious; fierce: in a savage temper. 4. Vicious or merciless; brutal: a savage attack on a political rival. See Synonyms at cruel.

5. Lacking polish or manners; rude. 

Video: Who was Abdul-Baha?

Video:

Who was Abdul-Baha? 

Abdul-Baha Comes to the West to New York City in 1912

 after a Lifetime in Captivity.

Part 1

//www.bahai-videos.com/videos/documentaries/city-of-the-covenant-1-of-2.html

Part 2

//www.bahai-videos.com/videos/documentaries/city-of-the-covenant-2-of-2.html

Living, Dying for Racial Harmony;by Example

Living, Dying for Racial Harmony; by Example

National Public Radio Report

Faryam

"If you see the whole thing in context, it reads completely differently although the language and translation of 1909 , might seem politically incorrect for th reader in the 21st century."

Funny this is exactly what some people accuse Islam and other religions for being "savage" and all. Welcome to the club!

READ EVERYTHING IN CONTEXT...

Dear Friends ,

Pleaese READ EVERYTHING IN CONTEXT...

The Aim of this MALICIOUS blogger "Covenant", by quoting out of context, omitting and rearranging sentences  is simply to cause the kind of confusion that  some see here..

If you see the whole thing in context, it reads completely differently although the language and translation of 1909 , might seem politically incorrect for th reader in the 21st century.

Clearly, judging by the Life led by Abdul Baha Himself and the Body of his writings, he was a champion of racial equality and  harmony.

Here is the Text in context:

O ye beloved of God and maid-servants of the Merciful!

The republic of wise men believes that the difference in minds and opinions is due to the difference of education and the acquisition of ethics. That is, that minds are equal in origin, but education and the acquisition of ethics cause minds to differ and comprehensions to be at variance; that this difference is not in entity but in education and teaching; that there is no individual distinction 577 for any soul. Hence, the members of the human race all possess the capacity of attaining to the highest station, and the proof they adduce therefor is this: “The inhabitants of a country like Africa are all as wandering savages and wild animals; they lack intelligence and knowledge; all are uncivilized; not one civilized and wise man is to be found among them. On the contrary, consider the civilized countries, the inhabitants of which are living in the highest state of culture and ethics, solidarity and inter-dependence; possessing, with few exceptions, acute power of comprehensions and sound mind. Therefore, it is made clear and evident that the superiority and inferiority of minds and comprehensions arises from education and cultivation, or from their lack and absence. A bent branch is straightened by training and the wild fruit of the jungle is made the product of the orchard. An ignorant man by learning becomes knowing, and the world of savagery, through the bounty of a wise educator, is changed into a civilized kingdom. The sick is healed by medication, and the poor man, by learning the arts of commerce, is made rich. The follower, by attaining the virtues of the leader, becomes great, and the lowly man, by the education of the teacher, rises from the nadir of oblivion to the zenith of celebrity.” These are the proofs of the wise men.

The prophets also acknowledge this opinion, to wit: That education hath a great effect upon the human race, but they declare that minds and comprehensions are originally different. And this matter is self-evident; it cannot be refuted. We see that certain children of the same age, nativity and race, nay, from the same 578 household, under the tutorship of one teacher, differ in their minds and comprehensions. One advanceth rapidly, another is slow in catching the rays of culture, still another remaineth in the lowest degree of stupidity.

No matter how much the shell is educated (or polished), it can never become the radiant pearl. The black stone will not become the world illumining gem. The calocynth 1 and the thorny cactus can never by training and development become the blessed tree. That is to say, training doth not change the human gem (i.e., human nature or entity), but it produceth a marvelous effect. By this effective power all that is registered latent of virtues and capacities in the human reality will be revealed.

Cultivation by the farmer maketh of the grain the harvest, and the effort of the gardener maketh of the seed a noble tree. The gentle teacher promoteth the children of the school to the lofty altitude and the bestowal of the trainer placeth the little child upon the throne of ether. Therefore, it is demonstrated and proven that minds are different in the original entity or nature, and that education commandeth a decided and great influence. Were there no educator, all souls would remain savage, and were it not for the teacher, the children would be ignorant creatures.

//reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/TAB/tab-625.html.iso8859-1?query=africa&action=highlight#pg577

Faryam

"(Many handwritten Bahai Tablets were stolen and distorted by in an effort to discredit Abdul Baha)"

That is a good excuse. Can we use the same excuse for other religions too or is that something that is exclusive for Bahai's use?

Who is Abdulbaha and why he is saying like this ?

Who is Abdulbaha and why he is saying like this ?