There was an episode of the Simpson's which showed the Flander's kids playing a video game where they had to convert non-Christians by shooting them. Zap! And the shirtless (or possibly turbaned) heathens got converted and suddenly appeared in suits and ties. "Look, the gentle Bahai!" says Lisa. Before he too gets zapped by the Flader's evangelical ray gun.
I've been thinking about the Bahai faith alot these days. I'm not sure I can sum up all of my thoughts in a single entry. I think that overall, the Bahais I've met are well-intentioned and polite people. But at the same time they actually do have a plan to take over the world. It's kind of weird, I don't want to sound like some crazy fundamentalist who can't quite decide if the anti-Christ will come from the Vatican or the UN. But the Bahais actually do have a vision for the future involving a one world government based on Bahai principles. And they are gradually taking steps to try to make that vision a reality.
It's great news if you are Bahai. But it is less clear what it will mean for the rest of us.
And what is more than a bit disturbing is the complex Bahai attitude towards Islam. On the one hand, the Bahais actually grew out of Persian Muslim roots. They claim to believe in Muhammad (saaws) and the Quran, and even the 12 Shii imams. So it would almost be natural to expect them to believe many of the same things which traditional Muslims believe. But then they say that the validity of Islam expired in 1844 with the coming of the Bab.
So in the Bahai view, Islam, like all religions, like spoiled milk, has an expiration date.
On top of that, there are some uncanny parallels between the Bahai relation to Islam, and the Christian relation to Judaism. Islam and Judaism are each the older religion, with a rich sense of tradition and ritual. The Bahai faith and Christianity are in certain respects less strict. And these latter religions both have a kind of replacement theology, where they claim to co-opt or invalidate what came before. Another aspect is that as upstart faiths, Christianity and the Bahai were both persecuted at their outset by Jews and Muslims respectively. So the founding story of the Bahai faith (which will presumably be told over and over again to generations of Bahais) involves stories of martyrdom and opposition at the hands of Muslims. And so just as Christian theology and narratives (as pointed out in the recent contraversy over Mel Gibson's movie The Passion of the Christ) have fueled anti-semitism through the centuries, it would not be surprising to me if at some future point in time, assuming the Bahai faith spreads and grows, Bahais would also round up Muslims on trains and put them in ovens.
Not that the Bahai faith would necessarily endorse the practice, but in the sense that groups of Bahais who didn't live up to the true ideals of their faith might take matters in their own hands. Actually, already in Babi/Bahai history, members of the faith took up arms and tried to over throw the Iranian government (also without the approval of the leaders). So the bleak scenario suggested above wouldn't be too surprising.
5 comments:
But at the same time they actually do have a plan to take over the world.
Some Baha'is have an erroneous understanding of the Baha'i Faith's view towards church and state. I would suggest Sen McGlinn's new book "Church and State: A Postmodern Political Theology" where he unequivically sets out that all Baha'i writings point towards a separation of church and state.
But then they say that the validity of Islam expired in 1844 with the coming of the Bab.
If you are interested to explore this topic further, I suggest this site. And maybe this one.
Actually, already in Babi/Bahai history, members of the faith took up arms and tried to over throw the Iranian government (also without the approval of the leaders). So the bleak scenario suggested above wouldn't be too surprising.
In the Babi Faith, yes, the believers did wage war. And the Babis were persecuted severely. Historians estimate 20,000 Babis (men, women and children) were killed by Muslims in Iran.
Baha'u'llah abrogated jihad. And today, as Baha'is continue to be persecuted and killed for their beliefs, they do not attack or fight back. Instead they meekly accept such suffering in the path of God.
Thanks for stopping by. I have a few remarks:
If Sen McGlinn seems to have been disenrolled from the Bahai faith precisely because of some of his ideas about this issue, I'm not sure that he can be said to speak authoritatively for the Bahai faith.
And in terms of jihad, I understand that Bahais say that jihad has been abrogated and there is no more "holy war". But at the same time, the Bahai faith isn't a pacifist religion and Bahai texts do advocate something called "righteous warfare".
Abdul-Baha wrote:
A conquest can be a praiseworthy thing, and there are times when war becomes the powerful basis of peace, and ruin the very means of reconstruction. [... I]f, in brief, he is waging war for a righteous purpose, then this seeming wrath is mercy itself, and this apparent tyranny the very substance of justice and this warfare the cornerstone of peace.
-- The Secret of Divine Civilization, pp. 70-71.
I would suggest that such a concept is easy to invoke in order to justify wrath which really is wrath, and tyranny which really is tyranny, and atrocities which really are atrocities.
Thank you for your warm welcome. Hopefully I can address some of the points you bring up:
... I'm not sure that he can be said to speak authoritatively for the Bahai faith.
He is not speaking 'authoritatively'. He is showing, by referring to explicit Baha'i texts, that the Baha'i Faith's position is one of the separation of church and state.
I would suggest that such a concept is easy to invoke in order to...
While jihad is predominantly a personal action, here you have Abdu'l-Baha describing a state action. Individual Baha'is do not engage in jihad nor will they ever because of Baha'u'llah's command.
As well, only a Manifestation of God has the authority to wage 'war for a righteous purpose'. Like Muhammah (pbuH) and the Bab. To no other person is give the authority to differentiate between a 'righteous' war and an unrighteous war.
We can look at this debate at a couple of different levels...
On the one hand we can argue about what the Bahai faith *really* teaches. And since you are a Bahai you have alot more invested in that question than I do. So I would try to want to respect that. To me, it is not terribly important whether the conservative members of the Bahai administration are "correct" or whether the different liberal dissident intellectuals are "correct" in their interpretations of the Bahai faith. Either way, I'm going to root for the underdogs who seem to be marginalized and censored by the AO.
On the other hand we can argue about groups of individual Bahais might conceivably do in the name of their faith (whether they are *really* following the Bahai faith in doing so, or not)
So just as Babis tried to overthrow the Iranian government even though the Bab didn't necessarily approve, we can similarly ask what Bahais would do in the future (whether the Bahai faith *really* approves or not).
In terms of jihad/holy war/righteous warfare, I'm not sure if your comments are clear.
At least from my perspective, jihad (military, physical) in Islam, is something which is not just an individual activity but should ideally be only carried out under proper authority.
Also, I don't think I follow what you said about only a Manifestation being able to distinguish between righteous and unrighteous warfare. Firstly, Abdul-Baha mentions no such condition in the passage I quoted.
But secondly, I would think that the Bahai faith would almost have to approve of some of the battles fought after Muhammad's passing, for example by Ali or Hussein.
But to go back to the original idea, for the sake of argument, I'll say you might even be right, and the official Bahai stance might exclude all sorts of wars and atrocities.
I would still say that the passage I quoted from Abdul-Baha is easy enough to "distort" in order to justify the use of violence.
I would still say that the passage I quoted from Abdul-Baha is easy enough to "distort" in order to justify the use of violence.
I see what you mean. In that sense, I do agree. History has shown that whenever you have a certain group of people who are hellbent on using (in the worst meaning of the word) religion to reach their own selfish ends, there are no limits they will not plumb. Look at the Spanish Inquisition for example...or the Crusades...or a more recent example, look at Al-Qaeda and all the horrible, horrible things they have done and continue to do in the name of Islam.
In such instances, it is not necessary for a religious text to be 'easy' to misinterpret or not. As with the example of the Inquisition, Christ's message of love and tolerance was turned to its exact opposite.
As well, regarding the quote you specified, you are taking one snippet out of context. As you no doubt know with the Koran, religious texts need to be in their context to reveal their full meaning.
Post a Comment