HI Gilberto,
It seems I did not make myself clear. I apologise. I made some remarks in that post which showed forth my ignorance ;o)
First, I assumed from your post that you meant that religion needs to guide people back to the core teachings of that religion.
My question was: how can religion by itself do this?
Suppose that a Bahai country interprets the Bahai writings to say that an arsonist should be burned. So this country makes a law whereby the punishment of arson is burning, no matter what was set on fire, a car, an empty warehouse, a house full of people.
In the Bahai faith, as soon as the UHJ becomes aware of a country where the code of law was influenced by the Bahai laws, I am sure the UHJ would say to this country they are implementing that law too strictly and too narrowly.
A religion who has no authority centre cannot do this. A religion needs an administrative structure to be able to guide people back to the core.
That is what that whole thing about priests and the pope etc. was all about: my attempt to clarify that a religion cannot bring people back to the core if the people are confused about what the core is, and how can we be sure they are not, when there is no central point who has the final say in matters.
I did *NOT* mean to say that Islam justifies political suppression. That is something you read in my words, not what I meant or implied.
What I am trying to figure out is how you see it that when there is no administrative structure in a religion, how religion can lead people back to the core, and how it can prevent that people make laws which are very strict and based on a narrow interpretation of the scriptures of that religion.
Also, I felt that even if one religion goes back to the core, the other religions have different cores or different interpretations about what the core is. And what happens in one country affects others.
So if one country, a Christian for example, interprets that women who have an abortion should be put to death, or a person who performs abortion should be put to death, this country will create political refugees, who will go to another country to seek asylum. And that at a certain point these other countries might feel that the country which is doing this to its people needs to be made to understand that it is not doing things correctly, that it is suppressing people.
But what if this country is adamant and says: no, this is our interpretation of the scripture?
Look, I gather from the various posts I have glimpsed at, that you feel that Bahais have a negative view of Islamic countries. I do not blame you for thinking this, based on the responses I read.
I try not to, because I like Islam a lot and at one time considered becoming Muslim. For many years now I have not kept as up to date with Islam and its practice in various countries as I wanted to be. So I am quite ignorant, and I hope you forgive my ignorance.
Islam is a very fair religion. My problem is though that in many Islamic communities there is a lot of cultural burden put on the practice of Islam and that many Muslims may know the Qur'an by heart but only in a tongue which they do not speak and so never really know what they are saying, leaving it to others to interpret the Qur'an for them. So what I read in the Qur'an is not at all practiced in many countries, especially not in the countries where Islam was born. And like Christianity before it (in Africa for example) cultural practices which do not really have much to do with Islam are taken over by those who become Muslim.
Can you name me a country which has gone from bad to better, especially an Islamic country? I am very interested to learn of a country like that. And can you say if it was the result of one person who promoted some thoughts very strongly or a realisation in many people simultaneously?
By the way, I read that as well, that Iran takes in more refugees than any other country in the world. But since when are we counting? Because Holland has quite a good reputation that way... Also, Iran may be taking in most refugees of all countries but I doubt their freedom of speech in Iran, if they are political refugees and disagree with the government of Iran. It is doing its best to turn out a fair amount of political refugees as well. I know quite a few of them and not all of them are Bahai. We can see how many political refugees the western countries produce, political in the sense that if they stay in the country of origin their livelihood would be in danger and their lives might be at stake, that they are not allowed in schools and universities or eligible for jobs based on their culture, race, or religion.
At the moment it is impossible for a Bahai to attend a university which is not a Bahai university, in Iran.
You say that there are no priests in Islam. So, theoretically, anybody can lead the congregation in prayer and make a speech in the mosque? Why does that not happen then more often?
If there are no priests, how come that there are people like Ayatollahs who have a lot of power? Is that not a priest then? Is anybody who starts a school of thought and gathers disciples and then influences the law in a country not a priest in some way or another?
Technically there may be no priests in Islam, but the head of the mosque and those learned in Islamic law seem to have a lot of influence in the community and are seen as leaders. What bothers me is that in no religion that I know of but the Bahai faith there is a structure in place which prevents leaders from becoming very very influential to the point that authority lies with one person only and that one person is able to influence the laws of a country, in effect. Or one school of thought. (like I explained in the post to mark, I think that every Bahai has their own version of the Bahai faith and that the fact that Bahais are very much encouraged to give the minority a voice, there is less possibility that one school of thought will dominate, even though some people fear that this will be the case with regard to the Ruhi method (grin)).
much love,
janine van rooij
Gilberto Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 05:17:28 -0800 (PST), louise mchenry
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Janine:
> The problem I see is that various religions have different views on how
> things should be handled. all religions except the Bahai faith have priests
> and different schools of thought.
Gilberto:
I know that Bahais say things like this but I don't think that's true.
Even in my conversations here, there are certainly Bahais with
different understandings of various issues, different "schools of
thought".
And there are many religions which don't have priests. (Islam for
instance. The Quakers would be another)
> Authority, ultimate authority, is given to
> one person (like the Pope, the Dalai Lama, Khomeini).
There are many Protestant churches which run rather democratically as well.
>!
> the world is becoming more and more one entity. More and more we see that
> what happens in one country affects other countries. For example, political
> refugees have been flooding western countries
Actually I've read that the worldwide, the country which takes in the
most refugees is Iran.
the last 20 years to the point
> that western countries feel they cannot take on more immigrants and
> something should be done in the countries of origin so that people do not
> feel endangered. Political refugees are usually people who have no chance of
> making a normal living in their own countries, whose livelihood is
> threatened or whose life is at stake.
>
> This relates directly to how a country views what is humane and what not,
> what should be punished and what not, what is eligible for open speech and
> what not. If a country sees a particular action, like voicing one's opinion
> ! about a government, as punishable with death, then it will most likely
> produce political refugees.
Wait, hold on a sec. You are mixing all sorts of things together.
Political repression isn't justifiable Islamically. And I'm certainly
not defending it. I think leaders should definitely be made to be
accountable for what they do and their behavior should be open to
public debate. There are many non-Muslim countries where the leaders
don't like being criticized and they repress their own citizens.
Christian, Muslim, and secular. This isn't a religious issue.
> And who is the main authority on behalf of the religion in say a
> religion as Islam?
There are no priests in Islam.
> For example, in many Islamic countries we see that women are extremely
> restricted in what they can do and what role in public they can play.
And in some Islamic countries we see that women got certain rights or
have! reached certain milestones faster than many Western countries.
Societies change. Bahais seem to simply assume that Muslim societies
are frozen and things won't improve in the Muslim world but they
actually have in certain respects.
> So how can in this scenario religion
> remind people of certain principles, when people simply do not want to
> listen to the principles?
It's never that simple. If you want to talk about women, there
actually are progressive Islamic movements, there are "feminist"
Muslims, there are scholars, both men and women, who are reading the
Quran and hadith with new eyes more sensitive to the needs and
concerns of women in society. So changes are actually occuring. In the
West, in some countries, most of the converts to Islam are actually
women.
Who can enforce these principles, when all the
> religious leaders, who are appointed for life, and not elected by the people
> the! mselves, are against them?
What are you talking about? There are no priests, let alone "priests
for life" in Islam. I think you just have a really bizzare idea of
authority in Islam.
>
> And the same applies in Christianity, of which I know catholicism best,
> since I grew up a Catholic. Although in Islam it seems to be worse, because
> in Catholicism you have the Pope, whereas in Islam there is no central point
> where people can refer to, as far as I know (maybe I am totally wrong here,
> I do not know that much about Islam, except a bit of the Qur'an).
I have the impression you are bouncing back and forth in some
inconsistent way. Because first you seemed to be saying that having
priests and having a certain kind of authority structure was a bad
thing. But now you say having a Pope is a good thing. It just gives
the impression that you are simply biased against Islam, want to
delegitimize it, whether ! or not any facts or logic support your
claims.
> But the Pope's authority is not accepted by Protestants, and the head of the
> Anglican church is not an authority Methodists recognise. So who are going
> to be spokespeople for Christianity?
Why does there need to be a spokesperson for Christianity?
>
> The principles on certain things differ also from religion to religion.
> There is a consensus in religions, like the golden rule. But in other things
> one can extract a different idea from religion to religion.
> For example, a state inspired by Hindu teachings can put up punishments for
> those who kill cows, regardless of whether these are Hindus, and a Muslim
> state can put up punishments for those who eat pork, regardless of whether
> these are Muslim.
The Hindu case is different, but in Islam the ideal (during the time
of the prophet in Medina) was to actually let Jew! s and Christians and
others follow their own laws. So if they wanted to eat pork or drink
alcohol even, they would be allowed to do so.
Some essentials would be governed by uniform laws, but in other areas,
religious minorities would have a certain amount of autonomy.
(In an earlier response I gave to Susan about how the Islamic state is
obligated to protect its non-Muslim citizens, there was a refererence
to a paper:
http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/History/jizya-islam.htm
and recall that "dhimmis" or "the people of dhimma" are the non-Muslim
citizens of an Islamic state:
[begin quote]
Al-Tahawi accounts for Muslims' consensus on the freedom of the people
of dhimma to eat pork and drink wine or the like which is permitted by
their religion. He says:
"They unanimously agreed that the Imam, ruler, may not prevent the
people of dhimma from drinking wine, eating pork or residing in the
houses which they took by con! sent where such people are in a
non-Islamic country (in countries where they form a majority)"[28]
[end quote]
Peace
Gilberto
__________________________________________________
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:[email protected]
Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st
News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st
Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist
Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! � Get yours free! __________________________________________________ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[email protected] To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:[email protected] Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
