Misc

alborz...

...I am having an exchange with one person with two personas.

I don't see any contradiction or conflict between supporting bahai's right to freedom of expression on one hand, and critiquing their philosophy on the other. But to you, as a devout religious man, I can see why the concept may seem peculiar or perhaps you may have difficulties with the idea. Religious ideas are based on faith, and perhaps that's why there is a dissonance for you. Your logic might've been blinded by your faith.

First you say that "I don't believe that there is any benefit personally to you ..." and then you go on to say "but your religion teaches you to do that". Do you see how I now need to ask you "What benefit is there for"your religion" to teach us this? Feel free to continue on this path, if you wish, but I doubt that it will get anywhere.

I already mentioned there are probably no personal benefits to you, but it is a group benefit, and as a religious man, you follow the group. I don't know how clearer I can get. Let me spell it out: you guys do anything to spread and advertise your faith. Which is ok, but not at the cost of suppressing someone's else right to expression. Like I said, it is a pattern. ( remember david?!) Poor guy has not posted again since!

Then you go on, in another comment, and acknowledge that you know very little about the Baha'i Faith, and do not reconcile this acknowledgement with the conclusions which you so confidently reach!

I don't need a PhD on bahai studies to form an opinion about the bahai religion. As I mentioned, my knowledge is limited, but I can draw a sketch based on my experiences, can't I? I don't understand your point. Let's be reasonable, we all have opinions of things around us, which we readily express, eg. politics, music, art, psyc.,sports, etc... Can't we freely express an opinion, or do we need permission from all the respective PhD holders before we open our mouths?

understand that it is simpler to do this, but please understand that your conclusions may just have fundamental flaws in those aspect for which you have very little interest or desire to investigate. Put simply, there is a chance that you are wrong.

Of course I can be wrong. But where did I exaclty say that I was "right" to begin with?! It is just my opinion , which like anyone else's is formed based on his/her experiences and subject to morph. Now, do you have difficulty with me expressing my opinion?

Your endorsement of me, another Baha'i or the Faith is not sought nor necessary.

Awwww, you broke my heart! Seriousy, you need get off your high horse, and stop dictating to people what to endorse or not, what to say or not, etc. I use my own judment, thank you very much. If I need your opinion on that, I'll remember to ask. :)

Baran - it seems that...

...I am having an exchange with one person with two personas.

First you say that "I don't believe that there is any benefit personally to you ..." and then you go on to say "but your religion teaches you to do that".  Do you see how I now need to ask you "What benefit is there for"your religion" to teach us this?  Feel free to continue on this path, if you wish, but I doubt that it will get anywhere. 

Then you go on, in another comment, and acknowledge that you know very little about the Baha'i Faith, and do not reconcile this acknowledgement with the conclusions which you so confidently reach!  As I said, this approach is not related to the Faith, but rather to the process by which you reach conclusions and the fact that you are at peace with it.   While you speak of empathy for those whose lives are violated, you appear to not to sense any responsibility for learning anything about them and their beliefs.  I understand that it is simpler to do this, but please understand that your conclusions may just have fundamental flaws in those aspect for which you have very little interest or desire to investigate.   Put simply, there is a chance that you are wrong.

Given that you are very comfortable with this approach of presenting an argument and consider it very logical, I also don't have any doubt that you have also read into my first comment what you have preconceived.

I have no doubt that your time and interest is limited to proving your preconceived notions about this Faith and no more.  Your endorsement or rejection of me, another Baha'i or the Faith is not the point here. But since in at least one persona, you present yourself as a rational, thoughtful invidividual with a belief that his conclusions are based on a solid foundation, let me tell you that even with regard to this Faith, no Baha'i, has or will claim mastery of its teachings.  Our understanding evolves based on our state of mind.  Fidelity, integrity and faith are all components of our receptivity and ability to comprehend and utlimately exemplify that which is manifest in the teachings.  Our evolving understanding is reflected in how we particpate in these exchanges.

Alborz

"Not everything that a man knoweth can be disclosed, nor can everything that he can disclose be regarded as timely, nor can
every timely utterance be considered as suited to the capacity of those who hear it."  Baha'u'llah

ramin007...

To say that we should not enjoy this spring because there will be a winter is not very smart.

May I remind you that you insulted me first, so I only had to return the favor! It does not matter how low you regard me in any aspect, however, when you directly or indirectly choose to express it to me, you must prepare for a response.

I don't believe I know the bahai ideology enough, to have formulated a general opinion of it . I just know there are certain basic aspects of it that I am highly against, and are not in line with a progressive ideology. Examples are many but include lack of a admission of women to UHJ, archaic and unjust inheritance laws, etc. The most disturbing is the policing of thought, and censorship. I have seen repeately how bahai members are "guided" as how to behave. What is with this? Your own people cannot think as individuals anymore? They all have to behave in a cookie-cut manner and have the same exact perception of the faith? This is unreal.

And one of your philsophies, is to question and investigate. Ok, I love this! (which I believe is from the Jewish philosophy) Yet, whenever I questioned some aspect of your faith, such as this time, I was insulted by various individuals. You (guys) preach something, and do something else entirely.

My general impression of the bahai people that I met in real life has been positive. I don't believe in concept of religions, or any special human being with powers of getting messages from any god, or manifestation of god, or whatever. I don't believe any aspect of the legal system should be based on religious laws. It should be legislated by the people who are living it, and not a man from centuries past. So when I ask questions, is to simply get to know my bahai hamvatans better, that's all.

I believe the bahais have been mistreated badly, and cannot fathom how much suffering they have gone through. And as someone who strongly advocates freedom of speech, I believe in bahai's equal rights.

Brief History of Baha'u'llah

Brief History of Baha'u'llah

no body lives with a beleif system

I was very hesitant to reply to your comment. I usually do not dignify a derogatory comment with an answer, that's why I have not written any reply to ridiculous assertions of this video.

I understand that you have a very low opinion of the Baha'i faith, and that is OK, but to refer to somebody else's belief as a rotten corpse, just reveals the state of your mind and the contempt you have for other people.
There are three ways of saying "sit down" in Persian: befarma, beshin and betemarg! I let unbiased readers to decide to which group you belong to.

Despite your uncouth language, you raised an interesting assertion that should not go un-answered.

No human being goes through life without a belief system( it is the nature of human beings),
you may not call it a religion, but it is still a belief system, with its own assumptions based on faith and its own rules and regulation. And its short comings and traps. it also will have an organic nature.

Complete freedom is a fallacy and does not exist in human societies, unless you decide to live as a hermit.

Some of the humanist ideologies such as communism, have done far worse things to humanity than any religion.

In your initial comment you referred to one of the Baha'i laws as "repulsive", but then you found a "satisfactory" explanation. You still seem to be repulsed by the faith, may be you could let us know what other teachings of the faith are causing such reaction.

And if you decide to reply use a civilized language if you like this conversation to continue.

Ramin

Hadith does not contradict Qur'an

That is why there is an elaborate science developed around determining the strength and weakness of the various ahadith through their chain of narrators.

However I believe you have lost  context in 2:256 with your argument and are allowing a reading that is simply not possible in the proper context. The article points that out. That verse simply posits no compulsion within the religion of Islam itself, as the term din is referring to a singular entity not multiple. Note that within the Quranic context all religions of the Book preceding Islam are also Islam so this would theoretically disallow the compulsion of Jews, Christians or Sabeans in Islam. But since Muhammad has been determined in this book as the final prophet (or seal) and Islam the final religion per 49:17 (al-hujjarat), i.e. " And today I have completed your religion and chosen Islam as your religion,"  your position that this then allows the changing back and forth of ones religion from the context of 2:256 is simply wrong. Then you have the hadith to contend with which the Sunni regard as strong but many Shi'a consider to be weak which states, "whomsoever changes their religion, kill them!" (man baddala dinuhu faqqtalahu).

All this hardly sounds like lack of compulsion as we would understand the concept these days.

Alborz

First, allow me to say that by picking you as an example, I meant you as "shoma-e no-ee". I read that blog again, and the essence of what you said, was unmistakable, loud and clear. Moving on, I wanted to point to a pattern, that you guys display.

I don't believe that there is any benefit personally to you (guys) as individuals to conduct yourseleves that way, but your religion "teaches" ( read= brainwashes and dictates) you to do that. This undermines freedom of expression, and to me that right is very precious, and forms the foundation of things I like, seek and cherish.

P.S. Should you decide to write a response, I'll be back tomorrow night on line again.

Enjoy your weekend.

Baran - Your perception ...

... of me is not my concern, but rather accuracy.  If you only read my comment you would see that rather than I denying anyone's faith, I stated the difference between the personal view that was expressed as a Baha'i and that which is the teaching.  Why did I feel compelled to point this out?  Read on.

There are folks on this site who are dedicated to misrepresenting and distorting the teachings of the Faith.  They range from those that openly attack to those that deceivingly distort.  If you have been following the posts and comments I have no doubt that you have come across them.  In fact, entire organizations, based in Iran, and indivduals here and there, are dedicated to doing this and their methods are well documented on the net.   The motivations range from that which is officially sanctioned to those that have an axe to grind.

In this context my comment to this individual, had a big IF associated with it.  It was carefully worded and contemplated on before I posted it.  Trust me when I say to you that I know what I have written and stand behind it.  Read the comment, if you would.

Furthermore, suppose that you were correct, could you tell me what benefit I have to gain by any comment or blog that I write?  If you choose to respond, do also include a definition of "benefit to me".  Also do you have a problem with a blog that resonates with you, by the mere fact that it is written by me?  If so, does this not define the essence of prejudice and bigotry?

I can empathize with you given the state of religion and your personal experience with it.   But don't for one moment think that your frame of reference should be adopted for evaluating anything.

Alborz

ramin

What about not following any religion, so it won't control you, or other rights being taken away from you, now ( too many exmaples in your faith) or in the future? No ramin, imho, not learning from history is dumb. What you see is not spring, rather a decaying corpse.

Dear Baran

thank you for your answer.

I don't understand part of your reply.

Are you saying that might happen in future with the Baha'i faith is concerning you?

well you are quite correct to assume that all things are subject to change, and indeed it is one of the teaching of The Baha'i faith that religion is organic, and it goes through stages of spring, summer, autumn and winter. Baha'i faith is no exception. I believe that the faith is in its spring.

To say that we should not enjoy this spring because there will be a winter is not very smart.
Its like saying you don't want to drive the latest model BMW because in 40 years it may break down!!

the Law of marriage is revealed by Baha'ullah and confirmed by Abdul-Baha and is not subject to review. Its intention is Monogamy and in practice is monogamy.

Ramin

//www.youtube.com/watch?

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNwbbnNE7kk&feature...

I live in s small town in

I live in s small town in USA.NO Iranian in my town! it is fun to see what the young Iranian talk about these days!!!

To ramin007 or Adibm

I do appreciate the response. Yes, the answer was satisfactory regarding bahais and bigamy, and it's historical perspective was interesting. However, what concerns me, is not what they do today, instead, it is what might one day be sanctioned by some bahai authority, since it is officially referenced.

All religions are corruptable, and people's nature are the same no matter what religion they adhere to. You see reasonable, moderate people from all faiths, and on the other end, those who try to take advantage of the sytem or interpret it to their liking. I hope this clarifies the intent of my question.

Thank you and shab-e shoma bekheir. :)

Mr Alborz

Here is the original link that I am referring to:

//iranian.com/main/blog/ravian-bilani/wom...

My intention of bringing it up, is to simply let people see the bigger picture, and not to point out an error, which as humans we are all capable of. You were arrogant, confrontational and disrespectful towards another member of your own faith, whose perception on the subject matter you did not approve of (just who are you??) . So, what did you do? Question his faith and perspective. Your level of fallacy knows no boundries. Any reasonable person understands what you clearly intended and draw their own conclusions.

So, why do I care what one bahai says to another? It goes to the very core of their character, more than any book, or nice sermons they put forth. There is a pattern I see, not just by you, but by a lot of bahais that I see here. They rationalize, deny, hide, or distort the facts to their benefits. You ARE a fundamentalist Mr Alborz, and yet you have the audacity to blog against it. I really wonder if you ever introspect with clarity, or perhaps, if this is one of your strategies. The evidence suggests the latter.

"The most dangerous untruths are truths moderately distorted." ~Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

Hadith cannot contradict the Qur'an . . .

and one of the proofs of the Qur'an, stated in the Qur'an, is that it has no contradictions.

The verses about dealing harshly with disbelivers have to do with the times that Muhammad was attacked.  Lets not forget that the beginning of the Muslim calendar marks Muhammad's "flight" - his refusal to fight.

"Do not do the injustice of attacking first but if you are attacked, kill them wherever you find them" - jihad is defense, a "struggle" to survive.

Now, if people want to practice retroactive ijtihad and conflate the verses of the Qu'ran for their own purposes, that's another story. 

"Let there be no compulsion in religion" can only mean what it says, especially when one puts Sura 109 next to it.

There is no way that anyone can get around 2:256.

Dear Baran

The question of Bigamy has been answered by Adib, comprehensively, but I see that you have chosen to ignore it.

I like to clarify a couple of things as well.

In places like Papua New Guinea, where polygamy is practiced, if some body becomes a Baha'i he does not have divorce all but one of his wives. But he is not allowed to take any more. If you're born in Baha'i faith or if you become Baha'i while single you can only have one spouse.

My own grandfather became Baha'i, and had two wives, but he decided to divorce one after finding out about the Baha'i law.

I hope that this answers your question, if it does please acknowledge, it is just common courtesy, if it does not, then ask more!

Ramin

Baran - You mispoke again !

This is what happens when you talk first and comprehend last.

Read my comment again, carefully this time, and you will see that I did not "deny a member" of being a Baha'i.  Your predisposition simply gets in the way of your comprehension, it seems.

While I can point out your confusion, you are responsible for the fidelity in your comprehension.

I am glad, however, that you have an interest.

Alborz

PS - Slowing down could help!

Irane Azad

The lesson that we shall learn from 30 years of injustice and lack of liberty under a religious regime in Iran should be that we the Iranians,also can and must learn to beleive in liberty of belief and respect for Basic Human Rights. That religion and Government should be separated and independent. The sacrifice for these achievments has been extreemly high for Iran and its people.

to Babak SD....talk is cheap

So I guess you bahais are into mind reading too?! Well, I am not surprised, I have seen it before from another bahai. Just a few days ago here, Alborz denied a member named David, of being a Bahai, and subsequently, Mr Rabbani, had to intervene and confirm that he was a real bahai! Poor guy! whoa! You guys are so intolerant and paranoid. I am really an atheist, and regardless of how you perceive me to be, my line of questioning is valid, since it is in bahai reference. And your reference to blindness, just shows your lack of tolerance, doesn't it? Hypocrisy galare!

Isn't one of your months called, "ma'sael". I thought you guys are open to questions?! Guess not. Talk is cheap, isn't it?

Questioning one's faith - are you kidding me

Who really gives a damn who believes in what? Believe in shit and people have to respect and it is no one's business.

I bet with you all this who question Bahai faith, if one day they are frowned upon or talked in a wrong way here in USA they are the one's shout the lodest for discrimination for racism.

While in Iran discrimination and racism is widely practiced as well as supported by the public. Government continuous oppressive measure against minorities, women and other sect of the so called socio economic disaster created by the fascist Mullahs. And continuous harassment and prosecution of political activist makes IRI REGIME THE APARTHEID and NUMBER ONE RACISTS REGIME IN MIDDLE EAST.

IRI and its supporters must go and this period is the best time while the whole world is watching us.

S

Regarding Qur'an 2:256

//www.answering-islam.org/Hahn/mappe.html

While discussing the issue of apostasy in Islam, probably no verse is more frequently cited to decide the issue, especially by Muslims in the West who advocate freedom of religion, than Qur'an 2:256: "There is no compulsion in religion."

S. A. Rahman makes the distinct claim:

This verse is one of the most important verses in the Qur'an, containing a charter of freedom of conscience unparalleled in the religious annals of mankind.... [1]

While discussing the nature of jihad, Dr. Abdelwahib Boase, formerly professor at University of Fez and then a research associate at Westfield College, University of London, writes:

... it must be emphasized that jihad in the military sense does not have as its object the propagation of religion. The fallacy that Islam imposes on the non-Muslim the choice between "conversion or the sword" is disproved by the Quranic injunction: "There is no coercion in matters of faith."[2]

In a personal letter, dated January 2O, 1986, Hasan Moola writes from Saskatchewan, Canada:

Muslims have never compelled non-Muslims to become Muslims, and this myth has been propagated by Western Christian writers, like yourself. In fact it is quite clearly written in the Qur'an Surah 2 verse 256, "There is no compulsion in religion."[3]

A portion of a letter to the editor of a Toronto newspaper reads:

... it was Islam that proclaimed, "there is no compulsion in religion" when the echo of the time was "onward Christian soldiers".... After all, Muslims have been presented with the perfect belief system and they would like to share it peacefully with all those people with whom they share the Earth.[4]

An important commentary of the Ahmadiyya Community comments on this verse:

... The verse enjoins Muslims in the clearest and strongest of words not to resort to force for converling non-Muslims to Islam. In the face of this teaching ... it is the height of injustice to accuse Islam of countenancing the use of force for the propagation of its teaching.[5]

For S. A. Rahman discussion on the apostate and freedom of religion does not simply begin and end with the citation of Qur'an 2:256. True to his assertion that the verse "deserves detailed discussion", he proceeds to discuss the matter, sadly noting also a variety of concerns and opinions on the matter which "whittle down" the verse's "broad humanistic meaning".[6] They are in summary form:

O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them.... (9:73)

O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you.... (9:123)

Say unto those of the wondering Arabs who were left behind: Ye will be called against a folk of mighty prowess to fight them until they surrender.... (48:16)[7]

That is to say, the reasoned guidance of Islam has become manifest. Therefore, so to speak, there is no compulsion, although, in sum, there may be coercion.[9]

Rahman concludes his remarks on Shah Wali Ullah's gloss:

Such an interpretation can perhaps be attributed to the unconscious pressure of orthodox tradition.[10]

Rahman then presents the position of Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan in Fath al-Bayan:

... one should not say of a person convened to Islam under the shadow of the sword, that he was compelled to the Faith for "there is no compulsion in religion". Another construction ... confines the verse to the People of the Scriptures who submitted to the Muslims and agreed to pay jiizjah (poll-tax) but excludes the idolaters from its scope. In the case of the latter, only two alternatives are said to be open - Islam or the sword - on the authority of al-Shabi, al-Hasan, Qatadah and al-Dahhaq.[11

Then Rahman cites Ibn al-Arabi's work Ahkam al-Qur'an, adding thereafter his own objections to this interpretation:

He (Ibn al-Arabi) declares dogmatically that to compel to the truth is part of the Faith, on the authority of a hadith: "I have been commanded to fight people till they recite the declaration of faith ...", which he considers to have been derived from the Qur'anic verse: "And fight them until persecution is no more and religion is for Allah alone." (8:39; 2:193)[12]

Recently a Pakistani Muslim friend, a doctoral candidate in South Asian Islamic studies at the University of Toronto, kindly shared his interpretation of Qur'an 2:256: Qur'an 2:256 obviously forbids compulsion in religion. The Hadith obviously state that the apostate from Islam should be executed. Since the Qur'an also states that Muslims are to obey the Prophet as well as the Book, Qur'an 2:256 can have application only for non-Muslims. Muslims must be compelled to remain Muslim.

by Rudi Paret (Tübingen)[13]

The Qur'anic passage la ikraha fi d-dini ("there is no compulsion in religion") is generally understood to mean that no one should use compulsion against another in matters of faith. There is much to commend this interpretation. As it is understood here, the statement represents a principle which has gained a recognition of international dimensions: the principle of religious tolerance. Historically also the alleged meaning of la ikraha fi d-dini appears to be warranted. "The People of the Book", i.e., the members of the older revealed religions, particularly the Jews and the Christians, were in principle never compelled to accept Islam. They were obliged, while residing in territory under Islamic domination (dar al-Islam), only to recognize the supremacy of Muslims and, at the same time, as an external indication of this recognition, to pay a separate tax. In all other matters they could maintain their inherited beliefs and perform their practices as usual. They even were allowed to establish their own internal administration.

To be sure, however, the situation was different for members of the pre-Islamic pagan Arab society. After the community which the Prophet had established had extended its power over the whole of Arabia, the pagan Arabs were forcefully compelled to accept Islam; stated more accurately, they had to choose either to accept Islam or death in battle against the superior power of the Muslims (cf. surahs 8:12; 47:4). This regulation was later sanctioned in Islamic law. All this stands in open contradiction to the alleged meaning of the Quranic statement, noted above: la ikraha fi d-dini. The idolaters (mushrikun) were clearly compelled to accept Islam - unless they preferred to let themselves be killed.

In view of these circumstances it makes sense to consider another meaning. Perhaps originally the statement la ikraha fi d-dini did not mean that in matters of religion one ought not to use compulsion against another but that one could not use compulsion against another (through the simple proclamation of religious truth). This seems even more likely in the light of surah 10:100, 101:

And if thy Lord willed, all who are in the earth would believe together. (Or "if thy Lord had willed, all who were on earth would have believed together".) Wouldst thou (Muhammad) compel men until they are believers (a-fa-anta tukrihu n-nasa hatta yakunu mu'minina)?

It is not for any soul to believe save by the permission of Allah. He has set uncleanness upon those who have no sense (and therefore remain hardened).

Compare Surah 12:103:

And though thou try much. most men will not believe.[14]

Both of these passages demonstrate that the Prophet's zeal to convert was doomed for the most part to be without success as a result of human recalcitrance. In agreement with this it is possible to understand la ikraha fi d-dini to mean that no one can be compelled to (right) belief. The statement of the Qur'an, then, would be not a proclamation of tolerance, but much more an expression of resignation. For a transition from la ikraha fi d-dini to the following portion of this verse (qad tabaiyana r-rushdu mina l-ghayi), something to this effect would have to be supplied if the meaning proposed here should agree: "(Since the individual cannot be compelled to truly believe by external influences, he must himself find a way to faith and that should not be difficult for him.) The correct way (of faith) has (through the proclamation of Islam) become clear (so that he can clearly be freed) from the error (of pagan unbelief)."

Whoever holds the interpretation of 2:256 as it has been presented above need not therefore simply cast overboard the meaning of the statement la ikraha fi d-dini as it usually has been understood for a long time. In the contemporary world of Islam the acknowledgement of religious tolerance is well established. And how can it be formulated more precisely than by the pregnant Arabic statement: la ikraha fi d-dini! Still the fact must always be kept in mind that in many ways the circumstances governing early Islam differed from those of today and that the presuppositions for a general and complete religious tolerance were not given at that time.

Notes

1. S. A. Rahman, Punishment of Apostasy in Islam, Institute of Islamic Culture, Lahore, 1972, p.16.
2. Arabia, The Islamic World Review, July, 1986, p.79.
3. Letter of Hasan Moolla from Saskatchewan, dated January 20, 1986 to FFM.
4. Syed Nouman Ashraf, Public Relations Committee, Muslim Student Association, University of Toronto in The Globe and Mail, July 15, 1992.
5. The Holy Qur'an with English Translation and Commentary, Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiyya, Qadian, 1947, vol. 1, in loco. 6. Rahman, op. cit., p. 16. His full discussion covers pp. 16- 25. Its openness and breadth differs from that of the Qur'an "expositor" whose mere citation of 2:256 precludes for him (and for all?) the need for further discussion. 7. A more recent publication states that Ibn Hazm accepted the abrogation of 2:256 in order to avoid a contradiction between this passage and the death penalty for apostasy. On the other hand, the author claims that 2:256 has not been abrogated (Mohamed S.El-Awa, Punishment in Islamic Law: A Comparative Study, American Trust Publications, Indianapolis, 1982, p. 51). For two general discussions on abrogation in Islam and some of its complexities, including differing opinions within the traditional Schools of Law about whether or not the Hadith can abrogate the Qur'an, compare Islamic Jurisprudence: Shafi'i's Risala, translated with an Introduction, Notes and Appendices by Majid Khadduri, The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1961, esp. pp. 123-145 with M. H. Kamali, Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence, Pelanduk Publications, Malaysia, esp. pp. 189-210. The doctrine of abrogation is especially rooted in Qur'an 2:106, 16:101, 87:6,7.
8. Rahman, op. cit., p. 18.
9. ibid., pp. 18, 19.
10. ibid., p. 19.
11. ibid., p. 19.
12. ibid., p.20. For further opinions see pp. 21-24, including a brief rebuttal of Mawdudi's interpretation.
13. A translation of "Sure 2, 256: la ikraha fi d-dini: Toleranz oder Resignation?" in Der Islam, Walter De Gruyter, Berlin, Vol. 45, 1967, pp. 299-300. Compare the same thesis as discussed by Adolf L. Wismar A Study in Tolerance, AMS Press Inc., New York, 1966, pp. 4-13. Apparently this work was originally published by Columbia University Press in 1927.
14. Compare also 16:37 in Rudi Paret, Kommentar und Konkordanz, Zweite Auflage, Kohlhammer, Stuttgart, 1977, p.54: "Though thou art ever so eager to guide them, God guides not those whom He leads astray." (English translation, A. J. Arberry, The Koran Interpreted, Oxford University Press, London, 1969, p. 262)

three questions . . .

1. Is the Baha'i Faith a true religion?

2. What happens if a Muslim changes his/her religion? 

3. What the are the rights of non-Muslims under the Qur'an?

The answer to number 1 is for each person to investigate and determine.

Regarding number 2: there is no such thing as apostacy in Islam - please refer to Qur'an 2:256.  Anyone can change his religion as many times as he likes.

The answer to number 3 is clear: Jews and Christians are "People of the Book". The Qur'an does not mention Zoroastrians but since it was a religion before Islam, Muslims consider them as God-worshiping people.  At worst, everybody else, including idol-worshippers, fall under Surah 109.

Any deviation from the laws of Qur'an would amount to "corruption of the Books."

qed 

Baran, you are not fooling anyone

You are not an atheist, you are a Muslim who has turned atheist for now; so long as it serves your purpose.

Again, please READ my countrymen. Despite what you have been told, it won't make you go blind. Investigate more than one sentence.

Baran

Please don't assume that the temper of one Baha'i is representative of all other Baha'is. I have met some fine, peaceable Atheists and others who are militant, but I do not assume that they are all so militant and unforgiving in their collective outlook. The same thing can be said of people adhering to any other belief system, or a disbelief system. ;)

Going back to the subject at hand: this is an example of progressive implementation of a law. In one sense, it is indeed true that Baha'u'llah provided leeway for early Baha'is primarily coming from a Muslim background to have up to two wives. But note that even in the instance where he does this, he says that tranquility will be found through monogamy. `Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'u'llah's son, then became the leader of the Baha'i Faith following his father's passing. To Baha'is, one of his roles was the interpreter of the words of Baha'u'llah. On this very subject, `Abdu'l-Baha said that Baha'u'llah had truly intended monogamy, and that this law should be treated and practiced as such. This is not the first time such progressive implication has taken place in religious history. Here's an excerpt from a memorandum written by the Universal House of Justice, the democratically-elected governing institution of the Baha'i Faith, on this subject:

"It should be noted that the gradual introduction and application of certain laws which require followers to abandon their time-honored laws and practices to which they have been accustomed is not new in this Dispensation. This gradual introduction of laws may be found also in earlier religions. For example, the consumption of alcohol was common among the Arabs during the days of Muhammad. The Qur'an decrees prohibition of drinking alcohol in stages. Muhammad introduced the prohibition of alcohol in a progressive manner. At first, He said that there are advantages and disadvantages in drinking, but that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages (see Qur'an 2:219). Some time later, He counselled His followers not to perform obligatory prayers if they were intoxicated (see Qur'an 4:43), and finally, when people became accustomed to these restrictive measures, He forbade drinking altogether (see Qur'an 5:89)."

All the best,
Adib

Farshad

Farshad, stop being so anal, so I had a typo, I don't proof read my posts like you.

to Babak SD....

Baran .... reading will not make U go blind......U R repulsive

You need to learn some manners. I wonder if your bad temper and utter rudeness is a reflection of your religion . I never called anyone names, I just posed a question I happened to come upon.

Bigamy is repulsive, and since it is in the bahai references, then one should be able to openly discuss it, if they wish. What,..... are you afraid of something?

Since bahai people claim that their religion is the right one for our time, I find it odd , that such reprehensible dogmas are there, and these people shamelessly go around, and never address it. It does not really matter whether or not bigamy is practiced by bahais, if it is allowed and referenaced as such in their books, then it undermines the bahai argument that their religion is progressive and the right solution for our time.

I wonder what nasty comment is coming my way from the bahais this time!

BTW, I am an atheist.

Dear NIFKY, dont limit your knowledge

 Please dont limit your knowledge; The Photo was taken at the time of Baha'u'llah's exile and confinement in Adrianople In Turkey in the 1860s..it was taken by the Ottoman Authorities for the purpose of Passport , before He again was Exiled to His final Imprisonment at the AKKA Prison, in Then Palestine, where they surely expected He would not survive long.

The picture shows the effects of his Ill condition , since It was taken after, the attempt to Poison Him by Azal.

Please don’t limit your understanding and knowledge by a mere "black and white photo". 

Hi, Smart Guy!

I think that you meant Prophet. (NOT PROFIT)

I don’t know why whoever has problem with Bahai’s are so illiterate and retarded.

Why the photo is black and white?! Why it is Arabic?! What the heck!!

For God's sake, at least find something interesting!

Nifky

What if they have color photos or paintings? Would you go for that?

BAHAI

I just can not understand a religion whose profit has a black and white PHOTO!!!