Alborz

Capt_ayab - is there room for another 2 riali?

by alborz on Wed Oct 14, 2009 03:17 PM PDT

The blog includes the definition that Ostaad has restated in his comment and furthermore it is focused on the "unintended consequences" of dissimulation when it is sanctioned.

The concept of taghieh in Islam no doubt served a purpose but the blog contends that the consequences of its perversion is rampant deception with impunity.

In short the blog is not about the legitimacy of taghieh in its intended context.

Alborz

my 2 riali

by capt_ayhab on Wed Oct 14, 2009 02:02 PM PDT

As Ostaad explained it, The word "al-Taqiyya" literally means: "Concealing or disguising one's beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions,
and/or strategies  at a time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and or mental injury."  A one-word
translation would be "Dissimulation."

As it is obvious it [dissimulation] means to conceal and not to deny, which to me are world apart. Lose translation would be [white lie].

Hypothetical situation: Unintentionally a person of Jewish faith walks into a gathering of some KKK members, in a remote gas station. Is he considered unfaithful, deceptive, or hypocrite if he [Dissimulates] his faith in order to avoid being brutally beaten or even killed?

I should say not.

 

-YT 

This may seems odd to you

by Souri on Wed Oct 14, 2009 07:34 AM PDT

 

But I would rather to let people free of this obligation.

I believe nothing is more important than the human being and his life.

So religion should not impose any restriction to its believers which can take their lives. It should be left to each one's personal decision. But in this case, it seems that this is used as a way of fighting agaisnt the "Islamist fanatism" and not only for the own's belief of the people.

I believe there are still too many restriction even in the Bahai religion which is the most progressive of all.

Opinions are welcomed as just that and no more!

by alborz on Wed Oct 14, 2009 07:21 AM PDT

Interpretation in this Faith is an individual responsibility and Ms. Maneck's opinion is just that, and no more.  For a change, should you wish to express an opinion please do so independently.

Finally, repeated cutting and pasting of an someone else's opinion and then referencing it back to itself (24) does not help improve the credibility of that opinion, but does clarify your intent!

Alborz

 

One thing leads to another…

by Anvar on Tue Oct 13, 2009 10:59 PM PDT

This is a very important subject, worth reviewing by all.

One of the most basic blocks of unity amongst people is trust.  In my opinion, if some people believe in the concept of dissimulation (either as obligation or justification), then it becomes difficult to efficiently trust them.  By that, I don’t mean it is impossible to trust them; I mean, before trusting them, it takes a whole lot more time and effort to be convinced dissimulation is not being practiced.  (hence, the reference to efficiency)

I hope this example does not become a derailing point in this fine blog, but by extension:  One can understand why those who practice dissimulation, as a matter of religious duty, may always be under suspicion when they assert their nuclear programs are benign.  Granted that many entities lie about the intent of their nuclear programs, but dissimulators never think of themselves as liars.     

I conclude by stating that one Unintended Consequence of Dissimulation is its possible fostering of Mistrust which may lead to Disunity.

P.S. – To those who purposefully want to cause confusion:  No sane Baha’i would go to the streets in Iran and scream “I’m a Baha’i!”  No sane opponent of the IRI would go to the streets and scream “I hate this regime!”  This is called wisdom (hikmat).

However, if both of the above mentioned individuals got arrested and questioned:  One individual might steadfastly profess that “Yes, I’m a Baha’i!”  The other individual might conveniently declare “I love this regime!”  That’s when dissimulation might be rejected or practiced.

To be wise and truthful is not the same as dissimulating.  Baha’is practice one and not the other.

Anvar

Susan S Maneck- Wisdom and dissimulation in the Baha'i Faith

by sophia on Tue Oct 13, 2009 10:52 PM PDT

//bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/wisdom_and_dissimulation.html   Selected quotations:   

1: "Adib Taherzadeh, who has written extensively on Bahá'u'lláh's writings, describes the Bahá'í use of wisdom in these terms:

By wisdom is meant taking any praiseworthy action through which the Cause of God may be promoted. Lack of wisdom is to take actions which owing to circumstances result in harming the Faith, even though they may be carried out with the best possible motive.(6)

This definition, though by no means inaccurate, does not convey the pragmatic implications of term and how or why "wisdom" or hikmat came to acquire such a meaning. "Observing wisdom" in practice often involved acts which would not ordinarily be regarded as "praiseworthy." These included: denying or misleading people regarding one's Bahá'í identity, concealing inconvenient aspects of the Bahá'í teachings, and compromising certain Bahá'í principles. It is my thesis that the term "wisdom," where it refers to behaviour enjoined for protection of the Faith, has its roots deep within Iranian theology, culture and history. Its usage is not dissimilar from the inscrutable Wisdom of God as depicted in Persian religion as far back as Zoroastrianism. It ties in as well to Iranian conventions of etiquette (ta'aruf). Further, hikmat serves a function not dissimilar to the role played by taqiyyih or dissimulation in Shi'ite Islam."

 

2: "As was mentioned earlier, hikmat served a function within the early Iranian Bahá'í community very similar to the role of taqiyyih or dissimulation in Shi'ite Islam. Taqiyyih refers to the practice of concealing one's belief in order to avoid persecution."

 3: "Wisdom in the writings of Bahá'u'lláh

While dissimulation was condemned in Bahá'u'lláh's writings, many aspects of the practice persisted under the name of hikmat. Bahá'u'lláh wrote:

In this Day, We can neither approve the conduct of the fearful that seeketh to dissemble his faith, nor sanction the behaviour of the avowed believer that clamorously asserteth his allegiance to this Cause. Both should observe the dictates of wisdom [bayad bi-hikmat amil bashand], and strive diligently to serve the best interests of the Faith.(11)

4: "Most commonly hikmat involved presenting the Faith to non-believers in ways which avoided controversy and ensured a positive reception."

 

5: "While at times hikmat involved concealing one's genuine views in situations of insecurity and possible persecution, Bahá'u'lláh at other times spoke of it in broader terms as that sagacity of spirit which ought to typify all of our human interactions at all times. " 

6: "Wisdom within the Bahá’í community

 

While Bahá'u'lláh made a clear distinction between hikmat and taqiyyih, the difference appears to have been slight for many of the early believers. "      7: "Denying one's identity as a Bahá'í was the most extreme form of hikmat practised within the community and such behaviour ceased to be sanctioned during the ministry of Shoghi Effendi.(24) Given the extreme dangers and persecutions which Bahá'ís have faced throughout their history, that compromise and concealment would be condoned is quite understandable. The issue remains, though, as to why such acts were termed "wisdom?"   

Sophia - Nice find !

by alborz on Tue Oct 13, 2009 09:27 PM PDT

The article nicely elaborates on the central theme of wisdom or hikmat and NOT dissimulation or taghieh.  Any attempt to link the two is unfounded and unsupported in the sacred Writings of this Faith and the practice in evidence within the community of the Faith's adherents defies such association.

The steadfastness and sacrifices of the Baha'is in the face of persecutions directed against them, including life, property and civil rights, defies the concept of taghieh in its specific application as defined in the blog.

I have no doubt that you would have offered evidence to contrary if there was any.

Alborz 

PS- The quote below in Persian, by Abdu'l Baha should illustrate to you the station of those that are steadfast in their Faith.

Susan S Maneck- Wisdom and dissimulation in the Baha'i Faith

by sophia on Tue Oct 13, 2009 08:05 PM PDT

Wisdom and dissimulation:
The use and meaning of Hikmat in the Bahá’í writings and history

Susan Stiles Maneck

BAHÁ'Í STUDIES REVIEW, Volume 6, 1996

 

//bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/wisdom_and_dis...

 

Abstract
This study examines the use of the term hikmat (lit. wisdom) within the Bahá'í community over time especially as it referred to certain survival strategies developed in situations of danger, persecution, or insecurity within a hostile environment. It will discuss the compromises these strategies entailed and the consequences these had for the religion's future development. 

ممنون از یاد آوری شما دوستان با وفا !

alborz
Tue Oct 13, 2009 07:45 PM PDT

ای  جانفشان يار بی نشان ، هزار عارفان در جستجوی او ولی محروم و مهجور از روی او . امّا تو يافتی تو شناختی تو نرد خدمت باختی و کارخود ساختی و علم فوز و فلاح افراختی . طرفه حکايتی و غريب بشارتی آنانکه جستند نيافتند آنانکه نشستند يافتند استغفر الله جستجويشان جستجوی سيراب بود نه تشنگان و طلبشان طلب عاقلان بود نه عاشقان

" عاقلان خوشه چين از سرّ ليلی غافلند

               کاين کرامت نيست جز مجنون خرمن سوز را "

عاشق نشسته به از عاقل متحرّک و البهاء عليک .   ع ع (عبدالبهاء عباس) 

...

by Red Wine on Tue Oct 13, 2009 07:16 PM PDT

ما در زندگی‌ خودمان و اطرافیانمان همیشه دیدیم که مذهب چطور ما را فلک کرد و داغ کرد ! ولی‌ خدا شاهد است که از بهأی جماعت و یا ارمنی و یهود،هیچ بدی و شر ندیدیم که از شیعه و سنی فراوان دیدیم !

از جمع اقوال، بین جمیع حکما و علمأ بپرسید،به شما خواهند گفت که:ما در قدیم،همه با هم زندگی‌ میکردیم و هیچ شکایتی نداشتیم،چطور شد که حالا این همه تفرقه ایجاد شد بین ما ؟!

خدایش نیامرزد آن گور سوخته یی که این چنان مشکل بین ما ایرانی‌‌های پاک انداخت.

از مطالب شما متشکریم.

 

روباهه و گربه نره

Souri
Tue Oct 13, 2009 05:51 PM PDT

اولا این بلاگ، یک بلاگ سیاسی نیست، لطفا بحث رو عوض نکنید.

دوّماً، گفتم که من فقط با آد‌م‌ های حسابی بحث سیاسی می‌کنم.

Farshadjon

by Souri on Tue Oct 13, 2009 05:41 PM PDT

Thank you for clarifying! Goftam ke Englisim badeh ;)

Now, I got your point. I'm so released. Yes, I already knew that about the Bahai religion.They never deny their faith. It's a very hard obligation and I salute all the Bahai in this regard. Very heroic, even sometimes hard to bear, I'd say.

President e Mahboob !!

by ebi amirhosseini on Tue Oct 13, 2009 05:24 PM PDT

Thanks for sharing the info.

So true about the Baha'i & Tudeh Party leaders.

BTW.

Alborz jaan,

Sepaas .

Ebi aka Haaji

Dissimulation...

by Khar on Tue Oct 13, 2009 04:56 PM PDT

The word "al-Taqiyya" literally means: "Concealing or disguising one's beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies  at a time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury."  A one-word translation would be "Dissimulation."

Now one can say Tudeh Party leaders did exactly that! they did the opposite of those Baha'i leaders who died for their believes and never betrayed their Baha'i community. On the other hand Tudehie party leaders, Dissimulated, to save their own asses and in the process had hundreds of lower ranking members were killed as result of their actions.

Souri jan!

by farshadjon on Tue Oct 13, 2009 04:01 PM PDT

NO, Souri jan. My apologies for making you confuse.

Please don’t take it personally. I think that you got me wrong. I was trying to explain what the difference is, when you have a choice to deny something or not allowed to do so.  I used the example of political prisoners to clarify the issue but it seems that I messed it up!

I was trying to elaborate the fact that Baha’is cannot deny their belief under any circumstances in contrast to political supporters (members of a political group), which have the choice to save their life. Of course, you can be supporter (member) of any GROUP from football fan to any religion and there is nothing wrong with it.

I could not put it in right sentences and this made confusion. I believe that you got me wrong completely when I said:

“There is no such a term as “Baha’i supporter”!!”But if you continue the rest of that sentence, I cleared that “when it comes to concept of “Dissimulation”, either you are a Baha’i or not.”

This is a really sophisticated subject matter and there are numerous cases that everybody has different interpretations. Again, I want to emphasis:

That is my own understanding of this term so this cannot be regarded as a Baha’i view about this case.

Farshadjon

by Souri on Tue Oct 13, 2009 03:03 PM PDT

Honestly, I was shocked by your comment.

I don't know if this is my English or there's something not really nice in your words.

FYI, I consider myself a Bahai supporter. Support is not only a political term, my dear (at least not in my book) it is used even in sport, or an idea.

My apologize, if I couldn't express myself as I wished in that blog. What I meant was: There was a lady sitting on the back row, and she seems very much interested to the speech (it is only a video, I can't guess who are the people sitting there) I didn't want to assume she was a Bahai (because nothing was clearly defining that the lady was also a Bahai)

I thought she and the other gentleman sitting beside her, might be also from the same committee. If I could imagine for a second that this statement could be taken so wrongly by you (and other readers) I would shut up. It seems that I was again too vocal and hurt the feeling of some of my best friends. I'm truly sorry about that.

Please forgive me.

Concepts by way of example...

by alborz on Tue Oct 13, 2009 02:48 PM PDT

... can be explained however relying solely on an example to define a concept and its application can be misleading.

Souri Jan, I am by no means an expert on this subject, but my understanding is that taghieh has a very specific application as referenced in the blog.  Therefore the application of taghieh was narrowly defined and primarily pertained to the concealment of one's belief or views with regard to belief.

You may refer to this link for a sampling of what is said in this regard.

//www.al-islam.org/Encyclopedia/chapter6b/1.html

Finally, I agree with you that misuse is at root of all perversions and yet to recognize a perversion, one needs to evaluate every concept in its proper context.

Alborz

PS - your English is fine !

 

Just FYI, Souri khanom!

by farshadjon on Tue Oct 13, 2009 01:48 PM PDT

Thank you for the blog, Alborz jan!

 

Souri khanom,

I am not in a position to talk in details about this subject matter but I just want to clarify an issue in regards to “Dissimulation”, which I noticed from another blog.

I will use an example to describe my point:

In the video clip of UN/ Baha’i appeal, you noted the following as a comment:“I got distracted by the back row's image of the guy who came and asked something from the lady sitting on the back sit? She seems to be a Bahai supporter (?)”

Supporter is usually defined in political circumstances when a group of people are supporting a specific ideology. The term “Dissimulation” can be applied when a person who is supporting a political group deny having any relationship with that group under a special condition, for example, there were many political prisoners who became ”Tavvab” under torture of IRI.

As a matter of fact, Bahai’s are not allowed to deny their belief under any circumstances and as for the evidence, one can refer to the history of Baha’i faith and in recent years, there were more than 200 martyred Bahai’s after the revolution, who could simply deny their belief and save their life but they chose the other way.

Let’s clarify this a little bit more! There is no such a term as “Baha’i supporter” when it comes to “Dissimulation”, either you are a Baha’i or not. It is a complicated concept and I am not a really good teacher.

Just to be clear that the above is my own understanding of this term so this cannot be regarded as a Baha’i view about this case.

I know Alborz jan

by Souri on Tue Oct 13, 2009 01:25 PM PDT

Please don't be sorry for having said anything  that you have said. We are just discussing. I know how well-intended and respectful you are toward all the people from every religion and/or school. It was clear that your intention was not to judge anybody or any discipline.

In politics, Machiavellianism = The goal justifies the mean. As  you had brought that famous phrase, so I used the quick term for it ;) Nothing really specific.

What I meant was : This is again one of those example of mis-using a concept Vs. a sincere use of it according to its original point. As I said, it is common in all concepts, whether religious or legal or social.

What I remember about "Taghieh" lesson in our "Fegh'h" class of the primary school is this story:

Prophet Mohammad said: if you see a horrified man running in front of you and hiding somewhere, then you see another man, knife in hand, looking for him, you can conclude that the second man will kill the first one, if he finds him. In this case, if the second guy, asks you where is the first man hiding, you must say that you don't know, even if you know well where he is hiding.

Sorry my English is getting worse everyday!! I hope I could make it understood, otherwise, please tell me to write it in Farsi.

Why I never learn this English language ? :)

 

A treatise - it is not!

by alborz on Tue Oct 13, 2009 12:47 PM PDT

Dear Souri,

I find myself wholly inadequate to respond to the many valuable and valid questions you have raised.

The blog was meant to bring attention to the unintended consequences of sanctioned dissimulation.  It was not in any meant to judge the actions of others under dire circumstances.  It is my bleief that no one is in a position to judge others, however, those that uphold their faith under dire circumstances are testifying to their faith and at times are willing to become a witness or shahid. This again is a personal matter.   It is my assertion in this context that the perversion of sanctioned dissimulation can and has negatively affected our society.  It has unintentionally created an opening for rationalizing acts of deception and hypocrisy.

The concept of taghieh does not exist in the Baha'i Faith and the history of the Faith is replete with examples of firmness in Faith in the face of a determined establishment that has used any and every means to shake their faith.  This is not to say that the establishment has failed in every instance, but rather that the matter is entirely the concern of the individual and not that of anyone else.

While I understand why you have introduced the concept of Machiavellism in this context, I consider this to be beyond the scope of this blog. Again, I am sorry that you inferred any form of condemnation as it was not intended.

Finally, with respect to forced confessions by political activists and prisoners of conscience, again I don't believe that anyone can ever be in a position to judge others.  We are only responsible for ourselves and how we behave.  How we choose to uphold our beliefs is a personal responsibility.  No judgement.

As always thanks for the thoughtful comments,

Alborz

PS - To my knowledge the Ismailis had no distinct perspective on this other than that they practiced it just as other Shiites did.

 

 

Would you elaborate it please?

by Souri on Tue Oct 13, 2009 10:27 AM PDT

Dear Alborz,

I understand your intention but, still have some questions. I wish you would clarify the subject by answering some questions, like:

- What is the exact Smailis view on this topic?

- What is the exact Bahai view on this topic?

- Why do you think that "Taghieh" is  the root for Machiavellism?

- Galileo had to go through the dissimulation (despite his will) to save his life. Should he do this or not? Are you condemning Galileo's action?

- Many political prisoners around the world and in Iran, were finally forced to say things against their true beliefs and wills. Do you think they should not do it and they had to go death for keeping their faith? I mean, good if someone can resist to that point but, each of us, has their limit of resistance and tolerance. So if someone is weaker than others and can not resist or want to save his life or the families lives, should we think that they have been Machiavellian?

Please elaborate more. I think I understand what you mean, but want you to give us some example.

I know, "Taghieh" can give way to much hypocrisy, but so are many other rules in Islam and other religion and even in some rules of the laws, or even the protocols.

I believe the root and the base of "Taghieh" is something good and human and even wise! What is the most important, is the "intention" from using Taghieh, not the existence of Taghieh as a rule.

I wish you enlighten me more about this thought and convince me if I'm wrong. Give me some clear and distinct example, if you wish, please.

Thank you.