We had yet another great discussion at our flat tonight about defending the Baha'i Faith from attacks. Basically, we are a bunch of Baha'i youth trying to bolster ourselves against an onslaught of criticisms and religious attacks from a secular, humanistic, decidedly unspiritual populace at large, bent on its own material and physical gratification. We are attempting to prepare ourselves against these attacks by deepening our understanding of the Baha'i Writings and gaining clearer insights into how the Writings address many current trends and topics. Tonight we decided to deepen ourselves on the topic of Baha'i laws.
The Baha'i book of laws is the Kitab-i-Aqdas (which literally means "book of laws"). We spent several hours discussing the ramifications of certain legalities, laws, and ordinances stated in the book. We also speculated as to why Baha'u'llah legislated on certain topics and not others, albeit never questioning His ability and right to do so. As a Manifestation of God, we know that Baha'u'llah provided us with a complete spiritual framework for a new global civilisation, one in which God's laws and ordinances are in place for our protection and freedom, a notion I know is quite contrary to most people's current thoughts on what freedom means.
It's basically like this - at the core of it all, fundamentally, to be a Baha'i you have to do two things: you must recognise Baha'u'llah as the Manifestation of God for this Day, and in doing so, you must follow His laws, ordinances and teachings. You cannot have one without the other, or you else are not a Baha'i. Simple as that. This is very specific in the Kitab-i-Aqdas, in the opening paragraph:
"The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition of Him Who is the Dayspring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause and the world of creation. Whoso achieveth this duty has attained unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof hath gone astray, though he be the author of every righteous deed. It behooveth everyone who reacheth this most sublime station, this summit of transcendent glory, to observe every ordinance of Him who is the desire of the world. These twin duties are inseparable. Neither is acceptable without the other. Thus hath it been decreed by Him Who is the Source of Divine inspiration."
What's interesting to me is how this paragraph, this understanding of the station of the Manifestation of God on earth, can also be applied to every previous religious Dispensation throughout human history. Abraham, Moses, Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, Christ, Muhammed, The Bab, Baha'u'llah; each of them claimed Divine inspiration and each of them I understand to be Manifestations of God, sent with a specifc message for a specific period of time and to address specific spiritual needs for society in a constant state of evolution and progress.
I feel we are now at a pivotal time in human history. Society is crying out for spiritual fulfillment and direction; the religious regimes of the past are no longer functional in that sense. We are in dire need of a drastic paradigm shift in order to align our understanding of existence in this world with that of what God has been telling us through His Manifestations - we were created through His bounty and unfailing mercy to know Him and to worship Him. And once we recognise that self-same purpose, we can no longer turn a blind eye to the needs of society. We are enjoined upon to go out into the world and serve mankind in whatever capacity we can offer.
Religion is not just about paying lipservice to an unknowable Essence that we think will punish us if we act 'wrong'; religion has to be a way of life that means worshipping God through manifold acts of kindness and service to our fellow human beings; it means being an example of love and hope and virtue in a crumbling world; it means being the best Baha'i I can possibly be by learning as much as I can about what it TRULY means to be a Baha'i and then putting it into practice.
8 comments:
With your permission I would like to excerpt from this post on Baha'i Views and link.
You are welcome to excerpt from this particular post. However, it should be on record that, since I am currently serving at the Baha'i World Centre, my views do not necessarily reflect the views held by others here. Nothing I write on my blog constitutes an official stance; they're simply personal observations.
Why focus on attacks from secular humanists? A considerable amount of the attacks you find on the internet come from the religious right, whether Muslim or Christian. Most Baha'is *were* secular humanists at one time, and you can sometimes when them over if you demonstrate how you can be spiritual and open-minded at the same time. If instead you accuse them of being only interested in self-gratification they will simply associate us with fundamentalism.
Thank you, Shireen, for permission to excerpt. Yes, all of our blogs, mine included, reflect our personal views.
Regarding Susan's comment, I question whether an analysis of Baha'i enrollments would reveal that most Baha'is were previously secular humanists. That is not my perception, at least.
We Baha'is are all in this together. We are called on to be both spiritual and open-minded, no question there. In fact, to be spiritual is to be open-mined, according to the Writings. We oppose secularism on principle, just as we do intolerance. Fundamentalism opposes secularism but promotes intolerance, so that’s not us.
I take this to be part Susan’s point. We need to be accepting of where people are at to start with. I certainly like the sound of that, just as I like the fervor with which the Baha’i youth are approaching their study of the Faith, as Shireen describes.
(This is a rewrite of my previous post comment, by the way. I always seem to need to edit what I’ve written.)
What I thought I mentioned in my blog is that I see a lot of people who consider themselves to be secular, as in not religiously affiliated, and humanist, as in believing in the human as the supreme being in the universe and understanding this world as our only existence. I wasn't actually taking a stance against secular humanists as a group. If that was unclear, I do apologise.
I do find that Susan and George make excellent points about being spiritual and open-minded at the same time, and I appreciate the fact that, yes, most attacks on the Baha'i Faith will in fact come from a "religious right", as it were.
My point was mainly that, regardless of who is attacking our beliefs, we must be prepared to defend ourselves by being as deepened as possible in the writings and teachings of our Baha'i Faith. Inadequate preparation of answers to questions posed to us is one of the worst injustices we can do to ourselves.
What I found refreshing about your post, Shireen, is that it brings up specifically the issue of defense of the Faith. Baha'i bloggers can serve as "first-responders" to attacks upon the Faith. Therefore it is very pleasing to me to see Baha'is online conciously familiarizing themselves with the Writings, especially as they relate to the controversial issues of the day.
Good job, Shireen!
I think Shireen and her friends are wise to think about how to respond to attacks from secularists. They seem to be more common than religious critics, and I at least come across them more often. Whether they are more common on the internet, I don't know.
In response to Susan's comment I would suggest that, just as it would be a bad idea to lump all secular humanists together and generalize them as being only interested in self-gratification, it is also a bad idea to generalize all religious critics of the Faith as being part of the "religious right". Assigning such a label, especially when it's pejorative, might impede rather than promote mutual understanding between Baha'is and followers of other religions.
By the way, I posted about this post on my blog here. I welcome any input Shireen or anyone else might have.
Post a Comment