Talk:Baháʼí Faith/Archive 1

Are Babists who didn't accept Bahaullah?

You know, it had never occurred to me - are there Babists who didn't accept Bahaullah? What grounds did he give for them to accept his revelation? What was the reaction in Islam?

I've examined the Bahai faith to some considerable extent, and as a personal opinion, if I was ever going to belong to an organised religion, this would be the one. A damn fine bunch of people.

As far as Babi's go, there was a small number who rejected Baha'u'llah, I don't remember their fate exactly, but they are written about in the book "God Passes By" by Shoghi Effendi. When Baha'u'llah died he specifically instructed that the Faith was to be led by his son "Abdul'Baha", but when Abdul'Baha passed away he left instructions for the Faith to be administered by his grandson Shoghi Effendi. When Shoghi Effendi died, he passed authority to an elected body called the "universal House of justice". A guy called Mason Remy declared in contrary that he was to be the ruler of the faith from then on, and he attracted a handful of followers, less than a few hundreds (compared to several million Baha'is). I considered including them in the article, but decided against it as they are such a tiny minority - it would also create a precedent for including every minute fringe group under every religion article.

His grounds for accepting his revelation were that he fulfilled prophecy in both the Bible and the Koran. The reaction by the Islamic faith was savage to say the least, the Baha'is have been persecuted and executed en masse ever since the 1860's. Over 100 000 Baha'is have fled Iran since the Islamic revolution, specifically to Canada and Australia (both countried passing resolutions condemning Iran for its treatment of the Bahai's).

You know, after all this comment, a lot of the above probably belongs in the article... some more research is needed (to validate some of my statements) before it goes in as "the facts". - MMGB

Manning, I'm afraid the precedent has been set and that we have the gnostics being presented as Christians, not to mention entries on every/some other group under the sun! Yep, the persecution does, explicitly (I remembered that, though not clearly), as does the architectural style (which is neat). I think you turned a sentence around - not his grounds for accepting his revelation, but theirs is what I was after. If the Bab was dead, who validated Bahaullah as the Promised One? --MichaelTinkler

He did I guess, and the Babi's accepted him. Apparently there was a fairly general consensus that he was the "one" even before he personally announced it in 1863. According to the Baha'i history I have read, Baha'u'llah was in prison in a place called the "Siyah Shal" which was a sewer where they chained up dissendents and he was told of his destiny "by God" in the late 1840's. (The Bab was executed by firing squad in 1844).

I think there is a difference between the Gnostics (who have a fairly significant number of believers in the Middle East and an established literature) and a fringe group such as the "Orthodox Baha'is". A better comparison would be with the "Potters of God" who I sincerely hope are not included under the article for Christianity. The may deserve their own article (again, questionable due to their size, they only have two web pages,both by the same guy) (BTW - I have revised some of my statements above after doing a bit of research) - MMGB

(a huge discussion about Gnostics and Chrisitanity was cut out and moved to talk:Christianity)

Maybe the Orthodox Baha'is deserve a page as well, but frankly there is so little evidence of their existence. I've been searching the web pretty hard and I'm almost willing to revise my estimate of membership down - there is a "Society of Indian OB" which seems to have 2 members, another in Australia which seems to have 1, and an American "National council" which only mentions 3 names. Their webpages make them out to be much more significant, but close examination doesn't bear this out. - MMGB

Ain't web-presence a wonderful thing? You used to have to have people who would stand on corners and pass out brochures to have a decent cult! I agree that gnosticism should be an autonomous thing, not a subset of Christianity. It is needling to the Christians and condescending to the Gnostics to not take seriously their differences. --MichaelTinkler

I think Mason Remy should be mentioned. Sure, his following was small, but he seems to be reasonably well known (or at least, this isn't the first time I've ever heard his name mentioned). We have no shortage of space to write on religious groups. And its not as if the Remy was just some lone individual setting up his own religion in his backyard. -- SJK

Someone added what looks like a cut and paste job from a usenet FAQ. Did they have permission? Else it should be deleted. (And even if they have permission, it needs to be seriously reworked if we are to retain it...) -- SJK

Where on earth did that come from? Have you seen a usenet FAQ that this looks like it was cut from? Maybe someone just wrote a decent article. (Later - oops, ignore that, I checked past history and I see what you meant now - MMGB

---

Article said: "The Bahá'í Faith also holds a (non-voting) seat at the United Nations." What on earth is that talking about? It sounds to me like it is claiming they are permanent observers to the General Assembly, but they are not. If all it means is that they are in consultative status with the Economic and Social Committee, it should say that. (And that isn't that big a deal -- thousands of organizations have that status.) -- SJK

Well why don't you research it, find out the actual state of affairs and put that in, rather than deleting something and complaining about it here. And a side comment meant nicely, this "delete and whine" behaviour is quite out of character for you, Simon - having a bad day? :) Manning

Sorry... actually I've got a end-of-year exam tommorow for one of my uni courses, natural language processing... :) -- SJK

fair enough Simon - I was just a bit surprised, you're normally much more cheerful :) Good luck with the exam. - MMGB

I cut out the Orthodox stuff... again! There are barely a handful of OB's in the world, and it misrepresents this religion of 5 million members to give a fringe group of a few hundred equivalent coverage. The page acknowleges the orthodox group, and links to the relevant page. Little else is needed. I'm not a Baha'i and don't particularly care about the issues under dispute, but it's a bit like putting "Polesitters of Christ" and Catholicism on equal footing. - User:MMGB

---

The opening sentence read that "The Baha'i faith is the world's newest major religion". As the history and the number of followers is discussed extensively elsewhere, I edited it to something hopefully a little less potentially controversial . --User:Robert Merkel

Had to reintroduce (MMGB) had agreed I think that a link to the Orthodox Bahai article would be appropriate. now link has been removed. So reintroduced link for promotion of the NPOV.

---

The Bábí Faith has its own scriptures and religious teachings, but its duration was very short. Are there not still Bábísts who believe that their Messiah has not yet arrived? Or are they what we are calling the Orthodox Bahai? -- Zoe

There are not independent Babi's who have not accepted Baha'u'llah. The Babi religion was ruthlessley suppressed in Iran in the 1860's and the seat of growth and development moved to Israel with the expulsion of Baha'u'llah to Acca. That said, this probebly belongs in the artcle too. Baha'u'llah's half-brother Mirza-Yahya was appointed by the Bab during his lifetime to be the formal head of the Babi religion until "him whom God shall make manifest" appeared "in the year 9" even before the Bab's death, Baha'u'llah was commonly accepted as the successor and for all practical purposes the Babi religion "rolled over" into the Baha'i religion. If I could come up with a good way to say that, I would put it in the article itself. The whole section on beliefs needs serious editing and I'll try to get to that soon.

rboatright

---

I did a pretty substantial edit and re-write of the section on beliefs. It still needs a LOT of work, but I have reduced the repetativeness, imposed some order on the chaotic order of that section, edited for NPOV as much as I can in one evening, and am thinking about how to fix the rest.

I have a question tho. At what point in a long article like this do you break into either sub pages, or reffered pages? Is this one approaching "break it up" size? I don't have a sense of how long a "long" article is for the wikipedia. Rboatright 07:12 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Nowadays, there is a notice when you open the edit box that says how long it is if it is over 32 kbs, the size at which some browsers have trouble editing. Above 20 kbs, it is worth considering if there is a convenient cut-off point but there is no hard and fast rule. If you want to see the warning when you click on edit this page, see Grammy Hall of Fame Award; this page doesn't have one, but a break-up may prove worthwhile if you can think of a good way of splitting up the information. Tuf-Kat

Ok, thanks - a break up is probebly in the offing then, 'cause this is confusing and unworkable. a one or two screen page with links to [bahai theology] and [bahai religious practice] and [bahai administration] and so forth, and moving the narrative from this page to the *EXISTING* pages for Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha with one paragraph summeries here would make an intro here far more useful and readable I think. Argh, now what have I said? As though I don't have anything USEFUL to do with my life.  :-) Rboatright

---

Um, I didn't do this, but the last "vandalism" brings up an important issue. Although it is not so prominent at this page, it is quite disproportionate I would say at other pages to give these miniscule splinter groups as was removed such prominent attention by allowing them to be listed everywhere. Would it be considered appropriate to have "See David Koreish" at every mention of Christianity? The numbers of such a group as just removed here are described by outside sources as being very small. This issue is particularly important given that the focal point of the Bahá'í Faith is unity and its clear Successorship which can deliver on that unity, at least for those who accept its provisions. The provisions are unambiguous, at least to the vast majority of those who either accept the (mainstream) Bahá'í Faith as is or those who might be inclined to leave or not join it. It is certainly not appropriate to suppress or vandalize the right of people to put up their own page in a proper venue (as on its own page if people want to create such a page), but I would say it is also not reasonable to have its references populated everywhere. - Brettz9 05:57 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

To give some examples of being populated disproportionately, see Bab, Bábís, Kitab-i-Aqdas, Bahaullah, Bab, 'Abdu'l-Bahá, Shoghi Effendi to name a few

---

From User talk:AdamRaizen

I noticed your work on moving "Baha'i Faith" to "Baha'i faith". As I understand it, "faith" is part of the name of the religion in this case, and so should be capitalised. I've checked a couple of reference books, and the Baha'i web site and they use this format. Would you object to me changing it back again? Regards -- sannse 09:23 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

You're right. Sorry, I thought I was making it conform with the naming conventions. Go ahead and change it back. -- AdamRaizen

end of moved text

---

I added back "brief" for years (while removing the redundant "only") because "only" can have a negative connotation here, as if the short period of time was somehow inadequate. It is a common linguistic phenomenon, accepted by linguists, that adjectives might not apply to the noun to which it is attached in a literal, exact manner (e.g., "short temper" does not mean the temper itself is short, but its time to onset). Here "brief" is particularly significant because to Bahá'ís, the short ministry of the Báb, preceding the coming of Bahá'u'lláh, both considered independent "Twin" Manifestations of God, testifies to the potency of this new Age. - Brettz9 18:37 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

---

Baha'i Clothing?

Unless I am mistaken some or all Baha'i wear special clothing, which for men consists of a tailored all-white long sleeved shirt and pants with matching hat. Could someone provide some background on the Baha'i doctrine on this clothing?

There is no such thing as Baha'i clothing. I say this with reasonable certainty, sitting here in a plaid shirt and blue cotton slacks with no hat. I have been a Baha'i for 30 years, my daughter served in Haifa at the Baha'i World Center, and I noticed no distinctive dress there. As a matter of fact, at the recent dedication of the Baha'i terraces in Haifa the camera dwelled on the utter diversity of clothing in the crowd. Baha'i teaches that we should celebrate our cultural diversity. National dress, and cultural dress is constantly celebrated in Baha'i meetings and events. Being from Kansas, saddly, my national dress typically consists of button down shirts and plaid shirts.  :-) But no, there is no such thing as Baha'i Clothing. Rboatright 28 Aug 2003

Orthodox Baha'i Faith editwar

Belief Net rules require a neutral point of view when discussing topics. This is often times hard for us when we hold passionate viewpoints, however, I have had to change the wording somewhat on the link which was at first dropped and then changed to refer to another belief as "small, marginal and dissedent" this is not neutral, I persaonlly can live with small, but when addign the other color words to it, it intends to denigrate the group Orthodox Baha'i and is against belief net policy.

Well, a link to the Orthodox Baha'i Faith _belongs_ on this page. Now, based on best available estimates, their total membership WORLDWIDE is under 200, but still, as the most prominent dissident group on the web, they deserve mention, if only because people WILL encounter them in searches and stuff.

So, I agree with having the page there. I _do_think "small" might be appropriate ,but I'll live with the wording as it is.

Rick Boatright

Recently deleted by Anon without a summary. --Menchi 00:57, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)

Recently re-added to preserve a neutral point of view, I also have left the word small in. This tends to happen quite often getting beyond coinsidence isnt it? multiman

Well well the fellow just does nto udnerstand how wikipedia works, so restoring again as wekpedia does call for a neutral point of view and not deleting referencs to other articles where they are applicable. It can ultimately get you kicked off.

added it back in _again_ It's getting really old editing the OBF back in and in, and I _hate_ those people. Oh well, one of the burdons I suppose. Rick Boatright 11/27/2003

Well it is edited out again, I am editing it back in so have you more than once, how can we report this retard who just doesnt seem to get the rules about editing out refernces? Oh by the way sorry to hear about your hatred, but we all bear burdens.  :-) multiman

Yes, it is. You know, from where I sit, it's a fairly simple case of heresy.  :-) But that doesn't mean it isn't _real_. We have to deal with that every day on usenet. Why would people want to try to erase the existance of something. If it _is_ a heresy, the simplest thing to do is to EXPOSE that. this constant effort to hide them just calls attention to their cause. Arrrrrggghhhh anyway, thanks MM Rick Boatright 01DEC2003

Thanks for the re-edit, I also contacted Jimmy Wales about it to see what could be done if it continues. Read your edit comments, please make such a proposal, I really dont think CGd gets it and who ever the IP address fellow is, both seem to be doing it unless they are one and the same. They also saw fit on 2 other pages to make these revisions in the name of NPOV. I cut some slack for a while since I had some trouble myself int he early days on wikipedia understandign what was meant by NPOV, but my patiece is wearing thin. Again, while we may not agree I appreciagte you intellectual honesty. Multiman

Just took a look at latest revision which again removes the link to OBF,I therefore reverted back to the earlier article which has link, in order to preserve NPOV and eliminate possible link terrorism multiman 13Jan04

---

Small question. If you look in the Christianity article, you'll notice that whenever Christ is referred to in the third person, there's never a capital. However, for Babi, there is. Shouldn't this be standardised? I am (very, very) mildly put out that while people will give this mark of respect to one founder of a religion, they won't to another--and of course, it's not really very NPOV. Either small-letters Babi, i.e. he, him, his; or capitalise Jesus (He, Him, His). After all, Christians hold Jesus in at least as high regard as Baha'ists hold Babi and Bahaullah! Wooster 15:53, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well Baha'is at least certainly wouldn't have a problem with pronouns referring to Jesus being capitalized--as we do it ourselves for Him! The articles here depend on the whim of those editing the pages, I would say (unless you want to suggest to the powers-that-be here that some strict policy be made about it). On the one hand, religionists (or protagonists of a specific Faith tradition) feel that their view of a Divine Being is perfectly "neutral" view to hold (or more accuratley, an objective view), and they do not want to be disrespectful or apologetic of their beliefs by writing as if they did not believe it. However, I think most reasonably-minded people (at least of Faith) would realize that at a website such as this, that even though they may capitalize pronouns themselves in their writing, they are not going to get upset if other people of a different mindset--especially if it is a majority opinion--wish to change them. So, unless there is a specific policy about it, go ahead and make a change, if you wish, at either site and see what kind of reaction you get!  :) Brettz9 03:17, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

Independent religions

The Bahá'í Faith is the second most widespread of the world's independent religions

I don't understand this-- what's an independent religion? Marnanel 05:52, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

Baptists are a variety of christianity, not an independent religion. Ditto methodists &c. 12ver Islam, is a variety of Shia Islam, which is a peer to Sunni Islam which has a sub-sect of Wahabi Islam. But Islam is independent of Christianity or Judeism despite being decendent from them as Abrahamic religions. Similarly the Baha'i faith is not a sect of Islam as some persian clerics contend (a 12ver heresy), but is an independent religion. Rick Boatright 22:52, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Suggested new first paragraph

The original is straight out of Bahá'í literature and rather overplayed itself. I've tried to keep the facts. I would appreciate comments as I don't often contribute. So here it is, the suggested new paragraph:

"The Bahá'í Faith is a monotheistic religion, whose members follow the teachings of Bahá'u'lláh, their prophet founder. The Bahá'í Faith is established in 236 countries and territories throughout the world, leading some people to claim that it is the second most widespread religion in the world. The only place where it doesn't have a presence is in the State of the Vatican City. Many followers live in the Middle East, especially Iran and Iraq. Worldwide 6 million followers come from over 2,100 ethnic, racial, and tribal groups. Bahá'í Scriptures have been translated into 802 languages."

"leading some people to claim that it is the second most widespread religion in the world.", this is actually a fact and not just what some people claim. "Many followers live in the Middle East, especially Iran and Iraq. " well, the 3 countries with most Bahai´s are India, Iran and USA. i think we should keep the current first paragraph. or at most add a few things (like the countries with more followers) - --Cyprus2k1 06:45, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The claim that it is the most widespread religion is presented as fact without any evidence. It would be good to see some stats on the number of believers in each state/country. If this means that they are organised enough to have a postal address in every town, we should know about it. It would also be good to know where the majority of the believers lived.

as i said above, the majority of believers live in (by order) India, Iran and USA., "The claim that it is the most widespread religion is presented as fact without any evidence." it doesnt say its the most widespread religion, it say its the SECOND most widespread religion, it also says "The Bahá'í Faith is the SECOND most widespread of the world's independent religions IN TERMS OF COUNTRIES IN WICH IS REPRESNTED". - --Cyprus2k1 09:13, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Update: just checked www.adherents.com wich claims that the countries with most bahais are India, USA, Iran http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_bahai.html , about the number of bahais, the figure most provided in current Baha'i publications is 6.5 milion, however in 1998 Encyclopedia Britannica reports 7.67 million, the reason for this is that the Bahai World Center refuses to "play games" of artificialy inflacting the number of believers, also notice that no one is "born" bahai, one can only become a bahai at age 15 or older and if it so wishes to. --Cyprus2k1 09:26, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have read what you write and I have also had a quick look at the sources.

Before I continue this discussion I would like to ask what your relationship is with the Bahá'í Faith. It would also be good, although perhaps intrusive, to ask what your faith is.

For your information, by heritage I am protestant Christian. By belief, humanist atheist, (whatever that means!)

I´am , as you can see in my user page a Bahai, but i dont see how that has any relevance to the discussion (or maybe your just curious :) ). anyway, the Baha'i Faith is the SECOND most (and not THE most) widespread religion in the world acording to Encyclopedia Britanica (and also the Bahai World Center). so i guess we could change, "acording to Encyclopedia Britanica" - --Cyprus2k1 14:29, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

btw, plese leave your signature.. --Cyprus2k1 14:29, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

NPOV Problem

I noticed that Bahalluah is referred to in the 'proper pronoun' sence as in "He formally announced His mission to His family " Is there actually precident to do this? I am reading this article as a curious third party and the use of the 'proper pronoun' instantly told me that the writer is a follower of the faith. The rest of the text is factual and informative though (like others I would like to see some qualification for the "second most wide-spread religion claim"... as in how the spread of a religion is counted).

The text made me think that followers consider Bahalluah as the latest (final?) in a string of prophets from Moses to Jesus to Mohammed... etc.. and I dont think the proper pronoun would be used in referring to any of them.

I recommend to just use the lowercase form in the article.

-anonymous user 6-29-2004

Well, it is the case that Baha'i do tend to uppercase pronouns when refering to Baha'u'llah. But then, we tend to upper case pronouns when refering to Mohammed, Jesus, The Buddha, Zoroaster, & Etc. Moslems do the same thing. I note that christians are inconsistant in this matter. It really bothers you? Rick Boatright 23:33, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

about the seccond most widespread please see the section above. Baha´is consider Baha'u'llah to be the most recent but not the last of the manifestations of God. - --Cyprus2k1 13:51, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I raised this earlier this year (see discussion here a little further up) and was revisiting some old contributions to see what had happened afterwards (yeah, I know it takes a while...) I looked up policy, to see if there was one on this issue, and, as I suspected, there is.

The Manual of Style has a section on this very issue. Officially, Bahaullah and the others aren't meant to be referred to with capitals for pronouns. I guess someone with the will and the time could knuckle down and make sure we've got an article which is consistent here.

For the record, it doesn't offend me particularly, although I could well understand the reaction of someone who was offended. I was rather surprised to notice the discrepancy, and that's really my motivation for bringing this up. My concern is that the 'Pedia be seen to be being consistent in its usage--and this is an area where I would feel more strongly than some others. Wooster 17:31, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This just in. I decided to have a bash at making this article consistent with policy (frankly, I wonder whether it wouldn't be less hassle to make policy consistent with this article and give the folks over at Christianity what for...). I hope I got it right. If it was in quote marks, I left it. I decapitalised He, Him, His, Father, Grandfather. Probably a Himself, too. I didn't do Guardian or Messenger. I toyed with One and decided against it--The_Matrix being a precedent : ) Wooster 14:39, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Punishments for Arson and other crimes.

Well, the listed punishment for arson was certainly partially correct... the below from "Lights of Guidance"

1198. Penalty for Arson -- Laws for a More Evolved Society

"As regards the question you raised about the penalty for arson in the Aqdas, the penalty for arson is burning or life imprisonment; in other word the same penalty as for first degree murder.

"We must not question this, but studying the Bahá'í Faith and its Teachings in their entirety, realize that the Law of God for this Day is a healing for the nations, and that, at a future period when a purely Bahá'í society exists and these laws can be enforced, humanity may have reached a much higher point to evolution than at present, and the mere threat of them may be sufficient in most cases to protect the Community and protect the law from being broken."

(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, February 15, 1957)

(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 357)

as to branding homosexuals, that is simply false, period... There is NO MENTION of branding as a punishment in Baha'i literature except to DISCLAIM it, not to impose it. The following from "Messages of the Universal House of Justice 1963 - 1986" explains:

251.4d 3. The punishments prescribed for theft, murder and arson are given only in barest outline. It is explained in Note 42 on page 64 of the Synopsis and Codification that these punishments are intended for a future condition of 450 society and will have to be supplemented and applied by the Universal House of Justice. The punishment for theft, for example, says that for the third offence a mark must be placed on the thief's forehead (nothing is said about branding), so that people will be warned of his proclivities. All details of how the mark is to be applied, how long it must be worn, on what conditions it may be removed, as well as the seriousness of various degrees of theft have been left by Bahá'u'lláh for the Universal House of Justice to decide when the law has to be applied. Similarly, merely the fundamental principles of the punishments for murder and arson are given in the Kitáb-i- Aqdas. Wilful murder is to be punished either by capital punishment or life imprisonment. Such matters as degrees of offence and whether any extenuating circumstances are to be taken into account, and which of the two prescribed punishments is to be the norm are left to the Universal House of Justice to decide in light of prevailing conditions when the law is in operation. Arson, as you yourself can see from the newspapers, is becoming an increasingly frequent offence -- scarcely a day passes without some building being burned or blown up, often causing agonizing death to innocent people. Bahá'u'lláh prescribes that a person who burns a house intentionally is to be burned or imprisoned for life, but again, the application of these punishments, the method of carrying them out and the fixing of degrees of offence are left to the Universal House of Justice. Obviously there is a tremendous difference in the degree of the offence of a person who burns down an empty warehouse from that of one who sets fire to a school full of children.

(The Universal House of Justice, Messages 1963 to 1986, p. 449)

As to your other edit, Cyrpus, Baha'is ARE obliged to support the faith with Material Offerings....

"And as the progress and extension of spiritual activities is dependent and conditioned upon material means, it is of absolute necessity that immediately after the establishment of Local as well as National Spiritual Assemblies, a Bahá'í Fund be established, to be placed under the exclusive control of the Spiritual Assembly. All donations and contributions should be offered to the Treasurer of the Assembly, for the express purpose of promoting the interests of the Cause, throughout the locality or country. It is the sacred obligation of every conscientious and faithful servant of Bahá'u'lláh who desires to see His Cause advance, to contribute freely and generously for the increase of that Fund..."

(Shoghi Effendi, Directives from the Guardian, p. 32)

But, that means giving money to the fund not burning sacrifices on the alter. Also, let us not forget the Huquq.....

18. The minimum amount subject to Huququ'lláh is reached when ones possessions are worth the number of Vahid (19); that is, whenever one owneth 19 mithqals of gold, or acquireth possessions attaining this value, after having deducted therefrom the yearly expenses, the Huquq becometh applicable and its payment is obligatory.

(Compilations, Huququ'llah)

Rick Boatright 18:06, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

im interested in knowing where 148.188.128.36 "learned" such things, as they are partial correct, but twisted , maybe he made it up, or who told him did.

1. as for the penalty for arson, is true but doesnt tell the "whole story"(as we can check in Shoghi Effendi letter above) probably on purpose to make a negative impression.

2. as for branding of homosexuals, this is clearly false, i think that this was twisted from the punishments prescribed for theft..

3. as for the Material Offerings thing, i think this was taken (twisted) from the Babi faith since "to offer priceless gifts to its founder" was a Babi Law (i think), but its not a Bahai law (the Aqdas abolishes it). anyway, it says "to contribute FREELY and generously for the increase of that Fund...", this contribution is a duty, but not a real obligation, Rboatright, if you are a bahai, you know that NO ONE will ever come to you saying "if you dont offer something you are not a bahai anymore", in fact this kind of thing (pressure) is forbiden, pratices of plates going around asking (pressuring) for funds as we can see in some churches are also forbiden.

Huququ'llah came to appliance by the Universal House of Justice some time ago, but for now, its still up to each Bahai to pay it or not, no one imposses anything...

anyway, 1. and 2.(on theft) are Bahai "State" Law, and not "Spiritual" Laws and ordinances, so they shouldnt be there anyway. if someone wants to create a article about Bahai "State" Law, good luck (it will require a lot of work) :) - --Cyprus2k1 19:28, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Schism section

Oh, hi Rick Boatright. Obviously, those minority orthodox bahai' sect being "covenant breakers" who "attack" the bahai faith is POV of the majority sect. Obviously if you follow majority sect, such POV is a fact/truth but this site is not the place to make such claim. I tried to make more proper attribution of such POV in this regard. As long as POV is correctly attributed, I have no problem. Also, if someone within the faith breaks away and forms another group, that would fall into the linguistic definition of schism. To say "some would claim a schism of the Bahá'í Faith has occurred" is going bit too far away from NPOV policy of this site. IMO, the correct attribution would be to state that for theological reason, some Bahai faithfuls deny such schism ever occured. Well, as for my POV, the quote made in the section seems to imply that prevention of schism is conditional to "the ordination and appointment of the Centre of the Covenant". But that seems to be the whole point of the Ramey thingy and this site is not the place to "judge" such matter. However, if anyone can explain the controversy, that would be a definite contribution to this site. FWBOarticle

Excommunicated vs. expelled

Hi, I'm Jonathan Menon and I am a Canadian living in Italy. I have just found Wikipedia and made a couple of changes today, including changing the word "excommunicated" to "expelled". In my opinion the term "excommunicated" is a very "loaded" word, carrying a great deal of residual assumptions with it from its history in the Catholic church, one of which is the power of the Pope and the way that power has been exercised over the centuries. Of course, the very definition of power in the Faith and the use of authority by the Institutions of the Faith, is very different from this particular reading. "Expelled" has less baggage with it, and I thought it would be more appropriate.

I also have some other things to add, which I will do over the next while.

I would like to see this article become a featured article, and am willing to help in achieving that.

Best wishes,

Jonathan

Jmenon 08:39, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)