Re: principles? Re: stoning, burning alive, Re: A job for life and source of income

On 11/30/05, Firouz <firouz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Gilberto:
> > > Firstly, I don't believe that the criteria should depend based on
> > > "this age" or that age. But secondly, I'm not sure why you would
> > > suggest the UN charter for human rights because I'm sure that
> > > burning someone alive would be against them as well.

> Firouz:
> >> Why should it not depend on the passage of time?

> Gilberto:
> > I don't think the mere passage of time is morally significant. The
> > morality or immorality of an action should depend on the nature of
> > that action, and its consequences on the environment and society. (And
> > maybe other factors, but not just the mere passage of time)

> We are not talking about morality here, we are talking about the punishment
> for an immoral act, i.e. adultery.

Maybe we can find a better word but for now I would say that one could
still ask about the morality or immorality of the punishment. Aren't
you saying that it is immoral to stone adulterers?

Firouz:
> For example, the punishment for
> theft in Islam is cutting the hand but it's not practical today. It does not
> mean we Baha'is approve the act of robbing or theft but we have a different
> punishment.

Yeah, hand cutting is another topic we could discuss in the same way.

> So now do you realize about the difference between spiritual
> laws of God and Social laws of God. Spiritual laws are the same but not
> social laws.

Yes, for a long time I've known that Bahais make that distinction. But
I would say that the "social laws" should reflect and be the
manifestation of those spiritual laws. I don't think you can easily
seperate them.


> > Should anyone intentionally destroy a house by fire, him also shall ye
> > burn; should anyone deliberately take another's life, him also shall
> > ye put to death. Take ye hold of the precepts of God with all your
> > strength and power, and abandon the ways of the ignorant. Should ye
> > condemn the arsonist and the murderer to life imprisonment, it would
> > be permissible according to the provisions of the Book. He, verily,
> > hath power to ordain whatsoever He pleaseth.

Firouz:
> Thanks for quoting from Kitab-i-Aqdas and not referring to anti-Bahai sites
> as some enemies of the Faith like to do. First the quote does not say to
> burn him alive.

In the Bahai faith are there any rules about how do you handle a
corpse. I mean even know, there are people who actually prefer to be
cremated. So it seems weird to suggest that being burned after dying
some other way would serve as a punishment.


The next
> verse of Kitab-i-Aqdas is also similar about having 2 wives. Based on the
> following sentence of the next verse, Abdul-Baha interpreted it as Baha'is
> should have one spouse. This verse of Aqdas is also very similar. So I
> conclude that burning is not the default as you have put it, and indeed life
> in prison is the default.

I'm not convinced by what you said. The "default" is clearly burning.
But the law definitely allow for life imprisonment.


There is also another verse in Kitab-i-Aqdas that
> says:
> "... let no soul slay
> another; this, verily, is that which was forbidden you
> in a Book that hath lain concealed within the
> Tabernacle of glory. What! Would ye kill him whom
> God hath quickened, whom He hath endowed with spirit
> through a breath from Him? Grievous then would be your
> trespass before His throne! Fear God, and lift not the
> hand of injustice and oppression to destroy what He
> hath Himself raised up"

> Based on these Holy Words, one can conclude that there will be no capital
> punishment in Baha'i Faith.

Do you have a statement from the UHJ which supports that
interpretation. Read in isolation the above seems to prohibit all
killing of human beings but we know for a fact that the Bahai faith is
not a pacifist religion.


>
> Anyway we have alternative for burning punishment but in Islam there is no
> alternative for most punishments. Stoning to death means stone to death.
>

I think the application of Islamic laws is more complicated than you
give credit for. The shariah is intended to implemented as an honest
to goodness legal system. And any legal system which deals with human
beings has to address exceptional unique and extreme situations. There
is room for judicial discretion.



[About the Bahai prohibition of civil disobedience and the UN right to
free association. Firouz was saying that perhaps I don't understand
the Bahai position]

Gilberto:
> > No, I understand that. What I'm suggesting is that this is a problem.
> > I think for many people in the West, especially if we think about the
> > American civil rights movement, there are definitely examples of how
> > disobeying the government is actually the right thing to do. If Martin
> > Luther King or Rosa Parks had been Bahais, then alot of the protests
> > and demonstrations of the civil rights movement wouldn't have occured.
> > And it becomes hard to see how Bahai methods would have accomplished
> > the positive changes which occured during that period.

> The Baha'i way is one heart at a time. Why the Muslims of America did not
> achieve anything in human rights in America?

Please try to learn more before making sweeping generalizations. Have
you heard of Malcolm X? There were alot of Muslims who participated in
and made contributions to the Black Power/Civil Rights movement. One
reading of history (which makes alot of sense to me) is that King's
non-violent movement didn't succeed by itself. Instead, people
listened to King because there were also stronger more militant voices
who were less patient with their demands for equality. If the white
majority didn't listen to King then they would have to deal with the
Malcolm X and the others.

>
> > Can you come up with a set of criteria or principles which explains
> > simultaneously
>
> > 1) why the Islamic shariah was appropriate before 1844?
> > 2) why the shariah is no longer appropriate after 1844?
> > 3) why the Bahai "Shariah" is appropriate now?
>
> Because God willed so.

Ok, that makes "sense" as a Bahai answer. But you can't expect
non-Bahais to find it believable. If that's your best answer then we
should just stop talking about the issue. I don't believe in a Simon
Says approach to morality. We should just agree to disagree.

-Gilberto

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Thou Shall Not Cheat Thy Neighbors
    ... >He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing ... >with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. ... Then you do not believe they have the same rights we do. ... The car minds it a lot less, ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: The Failure of Feminism
    ... At the point when there are no further "special" rights, ... the devil is in the details...when laws are enforced ... Then PROVE the bias, Mark. ... choosing to be primary parents. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: religious fanaticism: USA versus Europe
    ... european countries DO have laws which appease islamists by persecuting ... Some European countries have laws that appease religionists by prosecuting ... if they feel their rights are violated by national laws. ... Dudgeon v. United Kingdom was a European Court of Human Rights case, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Civil disobedience necessary ...........
    ... Rights Committee of the Malaysian Bar Council. ... in KL which saw thousands of Malaysians engage in mass civil disobedience. ... He was recently in Singapore to help conduct a workshop on human rights and the ... their views known through public assemblies, and politicians to make just laws ...
    (soc.culture.malaysia)
  • Of Interest
    ... Rights activists welcome ruling recognising Bahai rights ... 6 April - Human rights activists have welcomed a landmark ... ruling by the Administrative Court recognising the right of Egyptian ... The ruling is the result of a lawsuit filed by a married Bahai couple ...
    (talk.religion.bahai)