"God, No!"

  

            I was engaged in a conversation the other day with the Hindu wife of a new Bahá’í friend over coffee, and she wanted proof that Bahá’u’lláh’s prayers were Divinely revealed, not jut the products of an artistic imagination. (It should be noted that Hindus make a distinction between shruti (“that which is heard”) and smriti (‘that which is written”), the former having the greater spiritual authority. She complained that Bahá’ís she had conversed with over Zoom had failed to answer this question and when pressed, simply ended the conversation. I love these kinds of challenges and set to it. I mentioned, among other things, that Muhammad only considered what He recited while in the throes of Divine possession as part of the Qur’án, while the Báb told his followers to consider everything He said as coming from God. Bahá’u’lláh loved poetry, His Revelation being highly poetic, and He wrote poetry Himself, the most spectacular example being “The Clouds of the Realms Above,” written in a classical Persian form before He declared His mission to humanity. That was all in the way of background. As to the main question, Bahá’í Scripture is authenticated by having the originals in the handwriting of the Author or His secretaries, but as to the question at hand, Bahá’ís believe that the prayers are revealed because they come from the Central Figures and we are assured that they are revealed. So an element of faith is indispensable, and as far as I know, there is no firmer proof. That was my best answer, and of course not proof enough for my listener, and I just added that like big questions such as the existence or non-existence of God, this cannot be proven or disproven by rational argument. If I read her reaction right, she was pleased that at least I had tried, though it left her unconvinced.

                I have noticed over the years that at Bahá’í talks, when confronted with direct questions, Bahá’í speakers tend to give indirect answers with a lot of contextualization, and often with good reason. But the questioner often remains mired in that sticking point. My now third ex-wife (you read right, I am ashamed to say) had once declared herself a Bahá’í, but backpedalled and became Catholic with a vengeance. Her reason for rejection of the Faith was her claim that the Bible retains its validity and Bahá’u’lláh’s name appears nowhere in the text. Our many discussions of the Bible have not moved her an inch from this conviction, but to her credit, she defends and promulgates the principles of the Bahá’í Faith to a surprising degree in many a conversation with those who make comments about it in ignorance.

                A more public example is in a book by the comedian and magician Penn Jillette (spelling correct). His book God, No! is marketed as a book of humour (and it is at times very funny) but in fact is his Atheist Manifesto and he levels his weightiest arguments against religion and faith in scathing, crude, and vulgar language, which is at the same time both clever and sincere. His ace in the hole, what he believes is his irrefutable argument is his question: would you kill your child if asked to do so by God? – and if you cannot answer with an immediate and wholehearted yes! then you are already an atheist. He doesn’t seem to realize the speciousness of this ridiculous argument but is deaf to all entreaties without the answer he’s looking for. Respect to him both for his sincerity, articulateness, and his intelligence, but like the examples mentioned above, it seems to me he’s stuck on a single point that has closed all doors to further investigation. I won’t say I’ll pray for him, for that is the kind of sanctimony non-believers abhor, but I’ll continue to recite what I believe are revealed prayers which contain pleas to God to open the hearts of everyone to His Revelation, and I shall continue to revel in answering the most difficult questions the best way I know how.

 Confession #4:  Flirting

                I cringe whenever I hear someone say that they joined the Bahá’í Faith because they found that it aligned with what they already believed. For the most part, the teachings of the Faith are not only socially progressive but have spearheaded enlightened thought in major ways that it doesn’t get credit for. When Bahá’u’lláh enunciated that everyone should be educated, there should be an international language by which the whole world can communicate, that men and women are equal in the sight of God, that the extremes of wealth and poverty must be eliminated, among others, these ideas were revolutionary and scandalous, but within a century most thinking people regarded them as obvious to the dignity of the human race. But there are some other areas in which the Faith seems conservative and at odds with current thought, and those who feel heady at its forward-looking views almost inevitably run into some fine print they hadn’t noticed before that challenge them, and something inside them rebels, that something being that they hold up their own thoughts as the highest standard, not the revealed Word of God. And it doesn’t even have to be something major. It could be over the rejection of the doctrine of reincarnation, the prohibition against alcohol and drugs, the struggle against homosexuality, the requirement of parental consent for marriage, or the refusal of the Faith to outlaw smoking or eating meat. Once we have scratched the surface, we find that people, especially Westerners, who have been throwing off the shackles of religion since the Renaissance, don’t want to be told what to do, and we find that the laws of the Faith can be vewy vewy stern indeed.

                I’ve run into a few obstacles myself, and they are as unexpectedly violent as walking into a glass door. None of the above have given me any grief, but when Shoghi Effendi told us not to flirt, I wailed like a child who had his favourite toy taken away. The Faith continues to transform the way the genders relate to each other in a healthy and positive way, but a little voice inside me doesn’t want to let go of what I protest is cheerful and harmless banter. I’m not arguing against the teachings, it’s just that I learned from my father that women like good-natured teasing and like men in return for doing it. Like many poisons, is there an acceptable limit? I can certainly tell when the line has been blatantly crossed, as when in offices nobody can say anything without including sexual innuendo and everyone accepts this status quo, whether they like it or not, as they are considered poor sports if they do not, even if the company sets out rules against harassment and trains employees against it. Just like the policy of “no means no”, most people don’t believe it.

                I remember watching a movie many years ago in which a crusty old man said he didn’t care for religion because it was “agin everythin’ I’m fer”, meaning partying in its many forms. People are often amazed at what a good time Bahá’ís can have without alcohol, throwing punches, or grabbing body parts, but can I have just one day a year when I can say “I have fond memories of girls named Sharon” or “Don’t those shoes make you want to dance?”?

Blooming Poetry

The eminent literary critic Harold Bloom, who died in 2017, wrote in his book How to Read and Why this intriguing passage:

Though Shakespeare perhaps ought not to have become a secular scripture for us, he does seem to me the only possible rival to the Bible, in literary power.  Nothing, when you stand back from it, seems odder or more wonderful that our most successful entertainer should provide an alternative vision (however unintentionally) to the accounts of human nature and destiny in the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, and the Koran.  Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, speak with authority, and in another sense so do Hamlet, Iago, Lear, and Cleopatra.  Persuasiveness is larger in Shakespeare because he is richer; his rhetorical and imaginative resources transcend those of Yahweh, Jesus, and Allah, which sounds rather more blasphemous than I think it is.  Hamlet’s consciousness, and his language for extending that consciousness is wider and more agile than divinity has manifested, as yet.  (pg. 201)

            I rue that I cannot write to him now about those last two words. 

            It is not the primary job of Scripture to be poetic, but lovers and followers of Scripture repeat passages therefrom for the loveliness of the words themselves as well as for their spiritual content.  The Beatitudes, as well as other passages from the sayings of Jesus and the Buddha are memorable for the lyrical beauty of the precepts being expressed. 

            In Bahá’u’lláh, however, we have Scripture deliberately expressed in poetic terms.  He quotes classical Persian poets such as Rumi and Hafiz, among others, and pays homage to them for their penetrating visions.  He also wrote poetry as poetry, outside of the Revelation to which He was entrusted.  But it is in this Revelation that Bahá’ís are enraptured by passages such as this:

Whither can a lover go but to the land of his beloved? and what seeker findeth rest away from his heart’s desire? To the true lover reunion is life, and separation is death. His breast is void of patience and his heart hath no peace. A myriad lives he would forsake to hasten to the abode of his beloved.

or

In the Rose Garden of changeless splendour a Flower hath begun to bloom, compared to which every other flower is but a thorn, and before the brightness of Whose glory the very essence of beauty must pale and wither.

and hundreds of others.  (Of course we must pay no small tribute to able translators who have striven to capture these Persian and Arabic words laden with meaning into sublime English.)

            Ah, Bloom, if you only knew.  Can you hear me?

Though Shakespeare perhaps ought not to have become a secular scripture for us, he does seem to me the only possible rival to the Bible, in literary power.  Nothing, when you stand back from it, seems odder or more wonderful that our most successful entertainer should provide an alternative vision (however unintentionally) to the accounts of human nature and destiny in the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, and the Koran.  Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, speak with authority, and in another sense so do Hamlet, Iago, Lear, and Cleopatra.  Persuasiveness is larger in Shakespeare because he is richer; his rhetorical and imaginative resources transcend those of Yahweh, Jesus, and Allah, which sounds rather more blasphemous than I think it is.  Hamlet’s consciousness, and his language for extending that consciousness is wider and more agile than divinity has manifested, as yet.  (pg. 201)

            I rue that I cannot write to him now about those last two words. 

            It is not the primary job of Scripture to be poetic, but lovers and followers of Scripture repeat passages therefrom for the loveliness of the words themselves as well as for their spiritual content.  The Beatitudes, as well as other passages from the sayings of Jesus and the Buddha are memorable for the lyrical beauty of the precepts being expressed. 

            In Bahá’u’lláh, however, we have Scripture deliberately expressed in poetic terms.  He quotes classical Persian poets such as Rumi and Hafiz, among others, and pays homage to them for their penetrating visions.  He also wrote poetry as poetry, outside of the Revelation to which He was entrusted.  But it is in this Revelation that Bahá’ís are enraptured by passages such as this:

Whither can a lover go but to the land of his beloved? and what seeker findeth rest away from his heart’s desire? To the true lover reunion is life, and separation is death. His breast is void of patience and his heart hath no peace. A myriad lives he would forsake to hasten to the abode of his beloved.

or

In the Rose Garden of changeless splendour a Flower hath begun to bloom, compared to which every other flower is but a thorn, and before the brightness of Whose glory the very essence of beauty must pale and wither.

and hundreds of others.  (Of course we must pay no small tribute to able translators who have striven to capture these Persian and Arabic words laden with meaning into sublime English.)

            Ah, Bloom, if you only knew.  Can you hear me?

Why I am a Baha'i

            Why would a reasonably intelligent person become a  member of a strange-sounding and barely-known movement which most people who have heard of it are unsure whether its adherents believe in God or not?  Why can’t I just concern myself with the current needs and issues in the world instead of turning to religion, which has never done any good anyway, and is totally irrelevant in today’s world?  And if I have to turn to religion (read: superstition) at all, why isn’t Christianity (or Buddhism, if I need to get a little weird) good enough for me, especially since Bahá’ís believe all religions are valid anyway?  Good questions!  And I shall endeavour to answer them.

            Bahá’ís do in fact believe that religions are divinely-inspired, and regard them all as chapters in an ever-unfolding saga of one phenomenon, since if there is only one God, the religions established in His name must be referring to the same thing.  The vision of the Bahá’í Faith is that religious revelation is progressive, needing to be renewed from time to time to meet the needs of an ever-advancing civilization. 

            My hat is off to all those who reject organized religion as everything from fairy tales to oppression to war-mongering.  I agree absolutely.  I also absolutely agree with media figures such as Bill Maher and the late George Carlin who attack religion harshly as a source of evil in our time.  Religion should be a source of light and inspiration, comfort and joy, peace and security, enlightenment and truth, and if it is not, to the devil with it!

            Yet we are endowed with a perception of a reality beyond what we can perceive with our senses; as far as we know, the only creatures given the capacity to do so, and religion persists in spite of a lot of very intelligent people telling us it’s an arkload of superstition.

            I would love to get into my own spiritual journey, but another time.  Suffice it to say it was long and arduous, and continues in the present day.  But back to why Bahá’í?

            I have always leaned toward the mystical essence in my study of any religion or spiritual tradition, and found them remarkably similar in their basic principles.  And one of these resemblances is, that in one way or another, seekers have always been encouraged to separate themselves from the world and find God in contemplative solitude.   

            But Bahá’u’lláh said no!  In this day and age, we have work to do in this world to ensure the progress of our souls, and we must do this socially.  The idea is that we should not be looking for individual salvation; rather the salvation of us all.  The thousand-year mission of the Bahá’ís, (should we accept it) is to effect the organic unity of the entire human race.  This is where people laugh at the absurdity of this fanciful idea, and it is a daunting task, especially since Bahá’u’lláah goes on to say that we can’t even find two people who are united, never mind pushing seven billion. 

            And yet! (and here I am finally approaching the heart of the matter) as in the Lord’s Prayer (which Bahá’ís understand Jesus Christ directed not exactly at the Almighty but to Bahá’u’lláh – again for another time) it says “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” – Bahá’u’lláh not only gives this job over to humanity (it just got a whole lot harder than expecting God to do it in answer to our prayers), but lo and behold! He gave us a blueprint of how to do it!  This is absolutely new in the history of religion – unprecedented and uncontemplated, and more astonishing than anything in the Ten Commandments or the Beatitudes.  And ever since it was announced, Bahá’ís have been working with this blueprint under the guidance of the Institutions of the Faith (to keep up the synergy of us all being on the same page), and we are working like ants, quietly and persistently (CNN hasn’t given us any attention) in the year 174 of this 1,000 year Impossible Mission.

            Now the one thing that keeps us on this mad task, the pivot and cornerstone of it all, is the acceptance that Bahá’u’lláh is who He says He is, the latest in a series of Messengers with a revelation directly from God, a series with a new installment every thousand years or so.  It’s what keeps the engine purring.

The Light Shineth in Darkness

Udo Schaefer, distinguished German Bahá’í scholar and lawyer published four of his essays written in German between 1968-1970, subsequently translated and published in English under the title The Light Shineth in Darkness.  I have long bemoaned what I have perceived as the unreadability of most books by Bahá’í authors by the general public. Though I feel this way about this book also, I can wholeheartedly recommend this book for the edification of both Bahá’ís and non- Bahá’ís on two subjects which receive unique and valuable treatment, namely the role of Saint Paul in the transformation and development of the Christian Church in “Answer to a Theologian” (he argues that Paul made it something very different than the teachings of Jesus Christ had indicated), and an exposition of how Islám treated non-Muslims throughout most of its history in “Muhammad and the West”.  Since these are scholarly articles, he quotes German and other scholars extensively.  I personally found the book on the whole a bit too argumentative for my taste, but well-researched and well-expounded.  The themes mentioned are to date not found in the series of courses in the Ruhi Institute, but certainly valuable tools in teaching knowledgeable Christians and Muslims about the Bahá’í Faith and matters about the history of their own religions that they may not have known.

Conversation with Douglas Martin

            At a Feast in Toronto this past summer I had the opportunity to have a conversation with retired Universal House of Justice member Douglas Martin.  I asked him about his writing, and he said he wrote because the House of Justice continually exhorted him to write, and what he wrote poured down from heaven, and so he never put his own name upon any of it.  Bahá’ís have read many seminal documents that have flowed through his pen and were undersigned by the House of Justice or announced that it was written at its behest. 

            He says he is not writing anymore and looked genuinely surprised when I asked him if it didn’t concern him that this inactivity would cause his gifts to atrophy.  He replied that it did indeed concern him, and that no one had ever asked him that before.

            He had been asked to write his memoirs, but decided it was too daunting a task at this stage; however, Westwind pictures has filmed several hours of his spoken reminiscences which will be edited and released when the House of Justice sees fit.  He laughed and added with unfeigned sincerity that they’ll be careful to delete anything outrageous he might happen to say.

Martyrdom in Real Time

            The Martydom of the Báb is commemorated around the world at noon on July 9 or 10 (the solar calendar in use by the Bahá’í community no longer corresponds with fixed Gregorian calendar dates), as supposedly, as that was the hour at which He and Anis (a follower) were executed together by firing squad in the barracks square of Tabriz, northwest Iran, in 1850.

            But at what time did it really happen?  It is not really important, and what I am trying to do is simply visualize the whole scene in “real time.”  This historical records provide the essential details of the drama without mentioning the time it took to carry out the acts.  So let’s walk our way through it.

            Let’s begin by assuming that the initial scenario was all in place by noon.  The Báb and Anis were suspended by rope from a cross-beam, Anis wishing to be a human shield.  Seven hundred and fifty soldiers were lined up in three rows with muskets (?) at the ready for the order to shoot.  Up to ten thousand fascinated spectators trembled in trees and on rooftops.  The order was given, and the shooting began.  Was it all at once, or row by row?  A great cloud of dust was raised, and when it cleared, ordinary reality was what remained suspended and the surreal took over.

            There stood Anis on the ground, unhurt, for the rope he’d been hanging from had been shot away, but The Báb was nowhere to be seen.  What was everyone to think?  What would you think?  In all probability, immediate reaction ran the gamut from a miracle to divine intervention, to chicanery and subterfuge – the general citizenry were afraid of the  Bábis, whose acts of bravery and ferocity had already become the stuff of legend.  One way or another, there was some chaos.  What form it took is not known.  Was it hushed silence?  Were people running in all directions?  Screaming and yelling?  Imprecations and accusations?  What we do know is that after a brief (2-15 minutes?) search, The Báb was found back in the jail cell in which He had spent the previous night, dictating something to His secretary.  (He had said earlier that until He had finished dictating, there was nothing they could do to Him, which His jailers had ignored as nonsense.)  So He was taken out to the square once more to get the job done right this time.

            Easier said than done.  The captain of the regiment assigned to execute Him was Sam Khan, an Armenian, and the soldiers were Christians.  Sam Khan had been aware of the Báb’s claims, as he had been Chief of Police in Mashhad in Eastern Persia a few years earlier where two of the closest followers of the Báb had had a school.  So that very morning Sam Khan approached The Báb and asked Him to somehow get him out of this duty to execute Him, for if He really was who He said He was, it was tantamount to saying to a Christian that He was the Return of Jesus Christ, and he wouldn’t want that blood on his hands.  The Báb’s answer is oft-repeated:  “Follow your instructions, and if you are sincere, God is surely able to relieve you of your perplexity.”

            So now Sam Khan took this as a sign from Above, and he not only refused to repeat the execution attempt even should he himself be executed for insubordination, he was taking his regiment with him.  How long did this take?  Let’s assume that the regiment remained standing in place all this time, awaiting further orders, which is not at all certain.  So Sam Khan ordered them out of there – to where?  Back to their barracks, I suppose.  There must have been some confusion amongst them, but let’s say they followed orders promptly and in an orderly fashion. 

            What were the authorities to do?  They couldn’t let The Báb get away again – this wasn’t the first time – after they had come this far.  Mirable dictu, there happened to be another regiment in town, a Muslim one, and the order was given for them to come at once.  How long did this take?  Were they all just sitting, waiting for the call, playing cards or probably having lunch at this hour?  Unless they were on call or alert, wouldn’t many of them have been at the spectacle, watching the great event like others?  Were their barracks close by?  Were they dressed and ready?  Even if they were, mobilizing another seven hundred fifty soldiers has got to take time, at least half an hour, probably much more.

            But they came, and completed the mission.  My guess is that the final shots were fired around two p.m., if not later.

           (Photo of barracks square.  It is now a shopping area.)

         The miracles didn’t end there.  There was an earthquake and a darkening of the sky shortly thereafter.  The remains of The Báb and Anis were taken by His followers and hid in one secret place after another, until more than half a century later, they were interred on Mount Carmel by orders of Bahá’u’lláh Himself, where they still lay.  The soldiers in the regiment who shot them, however, all met their fate within five years of the execution, some by having a wall fall on them, the rest being shot themselves for mutiny.