[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:Baháʼí Faith/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Archived 3 DEC 2005 LambaJan 21:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms, Redux

I keep putting these up, and intend to continue until they stick, Baha'i torpedoes be damned.

If anybody thinks there are too many criticisms, or they take up too much space, let me point out that there is now about the same amount of content for "criticisms" as for "praise," which I don't see any Baha'is lobbying to cut.

If anyone thinks these belong on another entry, I have yet to see the entry. "Apologetics" is mostly just a catalogue of topics now. Anyway, these are basic enough to understanding the Baha'i religion that they really ought to be mentioned.

Let's look at the changes:

Somebody seem to want the Baha'i faith to only prohibit gay marriage, instead of homosexuality in general. Okay, I mention both.

  • Bahá'ís intending to publish on the faith must submit their writings for censorship by a Bahá'í committee.

This is a truth which Baha'is and outsiders ought to be able to agree on. And yes, "censorship" is exactly the right word. If you don't like it, get a more open-minded religion.

For the "accusations" side, I eliminated some of the tags which are now being discussed in subject articles. I also added:

  • Various levels of the Bahá'í administration have suppressed the rights of individual Bahá'ís, for example, by expelling dissidents from the faith. (See Frederick Glaysher's of Conscience site.)

This is an extremely common criticism, which many ex-Baha'is (and some dissidents) seem to agree on. If you like I can put tags up for half a dozen prominent critics individually, instead of using Glaysher as a clearinghouse, since Baha'is are now required to be allergic to him (since he has started his own rival Baha'i sect now).

  • Bahá'í elections favor incumbents and others supported by the administration.

Also a common complaint among exes and dissidents. A major theme of the talisman affair.

  • Bahá'í sources exaggerate the number of believers, or selectively cite the external sources giving the highest estimates.

A frequent topic of non-moderated Baha'i discussion groups.

  • The Bahá'í institutions have spent an inordinate amount of money on building projects in Haifa (e.g., USD 250 million for "terraces").

You may disagree with the criticism, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be made.

  • The Bahá'í authorities in Israel have cooperated with the Israeli government to a greater degree than their religion requires, and have thus received better treatment than other non-Jewish religions.

This I think is a more serious accusation that the stock one about Zionism from the Iranians. --Dawud


Personally, I don't think beginning your remarks with comments about people "torpedoing" what you want to do to this page is a great way to open a discussion. I've always thought this "criticisms and defence" section is a pretty dumb way to address the things people think are wrong with the Baha'is - it makes the article sound like a newsgroup debate rather than an encyclopedia article. I'd be happy to see the "praise" section trimmed also if you think that what is on the page is currently unfair. What exists at the moment is a brief summary of the headlines of debate people have brought here, and a link to the page that goes into the issues. I can't see that what you added was much different to what was already there, except to actually go into the arguments a bit more, presumably reproducing what is on the other article. PaulHammond 10:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
btw - the discussion people are asking you to read before you start revert-wars over this section is the section labelled Criticism on this page. People have made quite an effort to discuss this part of the article and come up with something that works and is NPOV. Your actions are tending to cut across these attempts to make something work here. PaulHammond 11:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with PaulHammond. The changes you are making, while not necessarily untrue, definitely have a POV due to the language/words you use which do not show the whole story (thus giving it a definite POV). Thus there is the other page, which the main page links to which should be used to account further these criticisms. Words like censorship and supression of rights, are loaded with a POV and need to be further explained, and the main page is not the place to do this. And then you also make statements like the number of believers being exagerated by the Baha'i institutions and the inordinate amount of money which are untrue; Baha'i statitics from the Baha'i International Community are actually on the low end, and the money spent on the World Centre is an order of magnitude less than the commercial sector would have used to build the same edifices. Some of your criticisms I have never even heard of or they are agreed by consensus (the United Nations) to be false because they are propoganda by the Iranian Goverment to allow them to continue denying the fact that they are abusing the Human Rights of the Baha'is in Iran. -- Jeff3000 14:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

A few responses. First of all, I think there is something deeply dishonest about Baha'is removing criticisms of themselves (if that is indeed what is going on here). Yes, my language does reflect deep doubts as to the possibility of solving such differences through discussion, though I do not completely shut out hope.

Second, of course criticisms are going to reflect a POV, that is the nature of a criticism. We should distinguish between reporting the existence of such controversies, vs. adopting their perspective in the reporting of them. Whether such criticisms are true, or fair, or important, are other issues which I suppose we could find some way to incorporate. (So, which of my proposed inclusions do you take issue with, and why?)

Third, what is this "other page" you keep talking about? I hope you don't mean the "apologetics" page mentioned at the top, because it is basically just a directory now (leading to major Baha'i items of belief, not criticisms).

By the way, "censorship" is a neutral description--witness how the word is used during wartime. Baha'is object to the word not because it is inaccurate, but because they would prefer to obscure the fact that they do it. --Dawud

Dawud, Jeff3000 dealt with each of these so-called "criticisms" in detail. Please review them and the talk page, eh? Merely repeating oneself doesn't make one's argument true in the face of contrary information. Refuting specious arguments isn't censorship. It's logic. A millenia-old, time-honored, custom. MARussellPESE 04:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


Anybody considered deleting both sections and consigning it all to Baha'i apologetics? Do Muslims really have to put up with this or are Bahá'ís just special? Or are some too attached to peddling propaganda? MARussellPESE 04:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually almost every page has to work on how to deal with criticism. In case anyone didn't notice, Dawud was the one who originally put the criticism section in, which sparked all the debate, and after long and enduring debates which included him, the section was settled on. My vote goes to either deleting both sections or reverting to the version of a few weeks ago. Cuñado - Talk 08:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Cunando, on Wikipedia nothing is ever "settled," and certainly not by three people voting on it. The fact is, I think the section could be improved.

MARussellPESE, where are these comments you want me to comment on? I repeat the question, because no one has told me yet. (Unless you mean that first time we went through this.)

For your information, there is considerable criticism of Islam on Wikipedia, including a surprisingly even-handed discussion of whether the Prophet Muhammad was a pedophile. --Dawud

Not on the Islam article it isn't. Again, why are the Bahá'ís special?
The criticism is mentioned in the Muhammad article, and prominently linked to another page where it is exhaustively discussed. --Dawud
Why can't that be done here? Why do you insist upon a detailed list of criticisms without parallel on other religion's pages? MARussellPESE 16:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
As several people here have expressed concern about the Praise and Criticism sections, I'm being bold and deleting the Praise section entirely. (To me, it comes across as propaganda here.) and moving the Criticism section extant to Baha'i apologetics where Dawud can have his say, and each point can be refuted clearly. MARussellPESE 14:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
examples of other criticism on religions
  • Islam: no mention of criticism, link to Criticism of Islam in "See also" section
  • Christianity: no mention of criticism. Links to other webpages regarding criticism in the "External links" section
  • Judaism: no mention of criticism
  • Buddhism: No criticism section. Two mentions of criticism, one related to a specific monk, and a second related to an interpretation of a group of buddhists compared to another. Not outside criticisms.
  • Zoroastrianism: no mention of criticism
  • Hinduism: no mention of criticism in main article. link to Criticism of Hinduism in "See also" section
Given this style for other religion pages, I agree with MARussellPESE that the move of the criticisms to the Apoloteics pages is the correct move, since the criticisms can be discussed much better in that page. I will add a link to Baha'i Apologetics in the "see also" section to conform to the other relgion pages. -- Jeff3000 15:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks to Jeff3000 for checking the other pages. I agree that criticisms and praise should be moved elsewhere. --Occamy 22:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I think a better comparison would be with groups like Scientology, for which controversy is (a) a fundamental aspect of the group, which one would be remiss in omitting, and (b) not immediately guess-able by outsides. Not that I'm against adding criticisms to major religions as well (I just got through with a major edit to Christianity, where the main problem was space).

My objection to the "hide it in the Apologetics page" approach is that prevents people who want basic information about the Baha'is from seeing these things--in fact, I gather this was your motivation in moving it there. May I suggest the following compromise? Add a short section to the main entry for "Dialogue and Criticism", with a brief note that these things exist. Then, direct to the other page, where we can go into all the ins and outs of each point. In fact, let me set it up and you can see what I mean.

Why are you asking for a detailed list of criticism on the main page then? MARussellPESE 16:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

By the way, "pre-publication review" means than an editor decides whether or not to publish an article in a journal. "Censorship" means that someone decides whether something can be published at all. Instead of saying "what we do is not censorship," I think it would make more logical sense to say that "censorship is sometimes good." --Dawud

The comparison to Scientology is not the correct one. The Baha'i Faith is a globally recognized world religion (See [1],[2], [3], [4]). Now, certain people, including yourself may have criticisms about the Faith, but that does not mean that the Baha'i Faith page should not follow the same method that is followed by Islam, Christianity and other world religions. Also notice that Refdoc who is not a Baha'i but rather a Christian reverted your edits. The place for the criticims are on a seperate page. -- Jeff3000 02:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I see you went ahead and made changes before the discussion finished, in opposition to every other view, including non-Baha'is. You even went against your own statement "let me set it up and you can see what I mean." I will move that section, into the talk and it can be discussed here before it goes if, if it does. Again Islam and other relgiions do not have a criticism section in them, when most people have criticisms of those religions as well. -- Jeff3000 02:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

(1) The comparison is not "correct"? How did you decide that, other than special pleading (and selective citation)? Look--you people just don't have the scope or importance to qualify as a major world religion. By numbers, you're probably running neck-and-neck with Christian Science (a few million). Nor does your religion possess (yet) the cultural depth (art, literature, customs) of Zoroastrianism or Jainism. I suppose you realize that when Scientologists make a list of major religions, they don't include you. But they do include themselves (just like you do).

definitely not neck and neck: conservative Baha'i estimate, 5 million, consertvative Scientology estimate 500 000, order of magnitude difference. And yes we do have a culture, there are Baha'i musicians who produce beautiful music based off the writings of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l Baha (for example buy the World Congress CD) (half of my Baha'i friends of artists and non of my non-Baha'i friends are artists, which shows the extent that arts are important and encouraged by Baha'is) , there's lots of literature, especially stories for children, the Varqa Children's magazine, and a whole boatload of customs. Just because you don't know of the culture, doesn't mean it does not exist. I didn't point to pages that Baha'is made, but third party webpages; they inculded the Baha'i Faith and not Scientology as world faiths, not the Baha'is. -- Jeff3000 14:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
5 million for Baha'is is a liberal estimate, not a conservative one. Anyway Christian Science has 2 or 3 million, which is as good a guess as any for you guys. (Scientology says they have 10 or 12 million, which of course is a big lie. I figure the real number--as opposed to the number of people who passed through their centers once--is a five-digit number.)
Religion textbooks will sometimes omit mention of the Baha'is, and sometimes give them half a page in a box or something (similar to what the Hare Krishna get). Lists like the ones at adherents.com tend to have them if the list includes 20 religions, but not if there's only 10. I think this is because of a blind spot on their part--there's no easy way to count Baha'is, so some of them foolishly believe what you guys tell them (which doesn't match at all with what we observe about the prevalence of places of worship, etc. Yes, I know you meet in living rooms, but one could also compare head-counts at major holidays.)
Anthropologists would probably agree that Baha'is are not a culture (at least not yet) but a subculture within other cultures. Sure you have some artists and musicians--but their artistic and musical "languages" are not generated from within the faith.Dawud 13:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I also wanted to add that since one of the main tenents of the Baha'i Faith is "Unity in Diversity," it is encouraged that people keep their own culture (from their country, or from their old faith) and having a uniformity of "Baha'i culture" where everybody has the same art, literature, and to some extent customs is not the goal. -- Jeff3000 15:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I did some work on the Subud site, which does have criticism. Also see Association for Research and Enlightenment and Yiguandao (where I think it is "controversies"), your cultic cousins.

just because you did some work adding criticisms to other pages doesn't mean that is appropriate. If anything, Islam is currently the most criticized religion right now (not that I agree with it), and the name of Islam brings about very large controversies about its tenants and practices when it is brought into discussion in most of the English speaking parts of the world, and yet the criticisms are not on the main page. Due to that precedence, it only makes sense that the criticisms of the Baha'i Faith, which has arguably much less criticism (and even if you don't think it's much less, at least the criticisms are thought to be much less important by the common english speaking person) should be on another page. -- Jeff3000 14:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

(2) I did set it up, and I did let you see what I meant. Then you got your "panties in a wad" (or however that saying goes) and took it off, lest it seduce unwitting readers into violating the covenant. I don't see how you can blame me for putting it up without discussion, when you guys took off the other without discussion. --Dawud

I disagree with your statements. There was much discussion here, and the point was made that the other religious pages had criticisms on other pages, and thus the criticisms that you wrote (not the original ones on the page) were moved to the critisims page. I got my "panties in a wad" as you state it, because, as much as you think the Baha'is here are not listening to you, that you, as well, are not willing to listen to valid points. We have kept the criticisms that you wrote, albeit qualified them, but just moved them to another page. -- Jeff3000 14:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
If you read the Islam talk page you will see a constant stream of people trying to vandalize the page in an attempt to discredit Islam. As long as you're intentions are to bring disrepute, you will be blocked by moderate editors. Any page with a section titled "criticism", or a separate page for it, is evidence of people posting attacks in the name of being objective. Cuñado - Talk 18:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Possible criticism section by Dawud

I have taken the criticism section that Dawud suggested off the main page until it can be discussed here. Here it is

Main article: Bahá'í apologetics

The Bahá'í Faith has been criticized by: members of other religions whose sacred history the Bahá'í Faith incorporates (particularly Christianity and Islam); opponents of globalism; and academic writers from related fields (which include Middle Eastern Studies). It has also experienced significant internal controversies pitting Bahá'í dissidents against the administration.

Not all such encounters are adversarial. Bahá'í theology promotes inter-religious dialogue as well as the scholarly examination of its history and beliefs.

I withdraw the proposal. On reflection, I don't think it's right to remove criticisms from the main article. The article that's left behind, become POV. Dawud 11:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, Dawud, "withdrawing" the proposal doesn't take it off the table. At least five editors have explicitly expressed that these sections should be removed. (Basically everyone who's commented on this except you.) The criticisms have not been deleted, but moved, so POV issues are not relevant. As the criticisms are still there, and this page links to it, their presence here is now redundant. Your insistence that these be inserted after this article was featured only demonstrates your own POV.
How is it possible that a section called "Commentary" with itemized lists of praise and criticisms be considered NPOV?? MARussellPESE 13:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I still think the section should be reverted to this version (with some praise cut out) or moved to another page. Cuñado - Talk 18:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
How is it possible for criticisms to be NPOV? Think of it this way. There's an article on "Atheism". Atheism is an opinion, but the article (presumably) is a statement of facts ABOUT the opinion.
Actually, Atheism is a belief system — hence statements of facts are not opinion. Facts should be cited. Opinions stated there, or here, are POV. MARussellPESE 16:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
No, I can't "take it off the table," but I can express my misgivings. My fear is that Baha'is will attempt to edit down the mention of criticisms on the main page, to the point where new readers will not easily notice their existence. I don't say that all Baha'is behave this way, but it is a pattern I've seen before here. One person will come along and think "Oh, this makes us look bad" or "I don't believe that" and then erase it, and before you know it, we're back to pure propaganda.
Let me put it this way: Why is giving prominent mention of common criticisms so irritating? So far I've seen several reasons. One of them is that "none of the entries for major religions have criticism sections, so why should we?" My answer is that the most common criticisms of the Baha'is are things which most people would not be able to easily guess if they didn't already know about them--and that they should be aware of if they want a basic understanding the faith.
Other reasons are practical ones, such as concerns about the choice of wording, or the availability of space for a Baha'i response. I'm sure these can be worked out. (Believe it or not, I do want to be fair to the Baha'i side.) Dawud 12:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
So how bout we go back to the original criticism section, as Cunado suggested, and have the extended criticisms on the Apologetics page. That way the criticisms are on the main page, but the space to expand on the criticisms and the Baha'i response are on the Apologetics page. -- Jeff3000 13:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
That's closer to a solution. I would argue for some revisions, since the list before was rather arbitrary. Perhaps we need to discuss first the CRITERIA for including a particular criticism. (For instance, if it is repeatedly discussed on Baha'i discussion lists, is that sufficient evidence of its importance? If it is mentioned by Iranian officials? Does it have to be true?)
Let's go over them line by line. Does anybody object to the following (and if so, on what grounds)?
(1) Women-in-the-UHJ.
(2) The gay issue. (We can argue about wording later.)
(3) CB's
(4) The "Baha'i review" issue.
(5) Criticism of the Baha'i election system.
(6) Expulsions of dissidents
(7) Infallibility
(8) Baha'is distort other religions
(9) Relations with Israel
(10) That golf course in Haifa
(Somebody objected on the grounds that it wasn't really THAT expensive.)
I've also noticed a tendency where I'll write something like "Baha'is murder infants" and then somebody will change it to "The Baha'i practice of infantophagy has been misunderstood by some critics." What to do? Dawud 13:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok, this is a start and wording will be decided on later (but probably closer to the style of the original criticisms section, were the statements were non-inflamatory). My suggesstion that only the biggest, and probably most important criticisms to the general populas should be included here, with the complete list on the apologetics page. My suggestions are
  • (1) Women-in-the-UHJ. Yes this is very important to make clear.
  • (2) The gay issue. Sure this is an important topic in current times, but it has to be clear that this is just similar to Baha'is not drinking alcohol. It's a practice that Baha'is don't believe in, but for which we don't pass judgement on other people. Baha'is don't drink beer, Baha'is don't perform homosexual acts, and don't engage in same-sex marriage. This does not mean that Baha'is look any less on people who drink (vast majority of western people) or people who engage in homosexual relations.
Actually not really - there are Baha'is who interpret their scriptures in such a way that they don't believe homosexuality to be prohibited. So making a generalised statement like "Baha'is don't perform homosexual acts" is not only incorrect (for example, there are Baha'is who do, but feel conflicted about it, others who don't feel conflicted about it etc.) but doesn't include other viewpoints. Sufisticated 10:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The writings are clear on the prohibition of homosexual relationships. In the Kitáb-i-Aqdas , Bahá'u'lláh wrote that "We shrink, for very shame, from treating of the subject of boys." From the notes of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, "The word translated here as 'boys' has, in this context, in the Arabic original, the implication of paederasty." Shoghi Effendi, the interpreter of the holy writings has interpreted this reference as a prohibition on all homosexual relations. The article that you link to says "I have a real hard time seeing letters by secretaries as authoritative interpretation. Now, I do think that they reflect Shoghi Effendi’s opinion, namely that all homosexuality is immoral." That's his "hard time". The letters sent by the secretaries were dictated to Shoghi Effendi's precise words.
We shrink, for very shame, from treating of the subject of boys. The article I referenced simply takes a different interpretation on what exactly Baha'u'llah was prohibiting, Jeff. [Some Baha'is*] believe that Baha'u'llah did not prohibit homosexuality entirely, but rather sodomy of young boys. This paper elaborates on the Middle Eastern cultural concept that homosexuality and the act of adult males having sex with young boys is *not* considered the same thing. Hence, from that perspective Baha'u'llah was not prohibiting sexual relations between two adult homosexuals, but he was prohibiting adult men in positions of power, from sodomising young males.
  • you'll need to do a search on the page for 'same-sex' to locate the passage to which I am referring.
From the notes of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas This is exegesis from the authors of this edition of the Kitab-i-Aqdas, not infallible interpretation. For example, it draws the conclusion that Shoghi Effendi prohibited all homosexual relations. Actually a number of letters were written on his behalf, which for some Baha'is do not carry the weight of infalliblity. There is a long discussion surrounding the question of the authority of letters written by Shoghi Effendi's secretaries.
But all this doesn't address the real point which is that no matter which way you or Karen Bacquet or anyone else interprets the Baha'i stance on homosexuality - the fact of the matter is that different Baha'is have different beliefs and opinions on the topic. See for example, this gay Baha'i website and this letter from a group of gay Baha'is. Sufisticated 15:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with you that the writings don't make it clear. Shoghi Effendi, as the authoritative infallible interpreter, has made it clear, and if someone doesn't want to take that, well that's their choice, but that doesn't change the Baha'i teachings. -- Jeff3000 15:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I also want to point that, in the sake of argument, that Shoghi Effendi's writings are not authoritative on the subject. Then homosexual relationships have not been talked about in the writings. In cases where a subject is not in the writings of Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l Baha and Shoghi Effendi, then the Universal House of Justice has the power to legislate. In this case, the Universal House of Justice has made it clear on the many compilations that it has released on the subject that homosexual relations are not acceptable as a Baha'i. People might disagree with this transfer of power of legislation, but the Covenent of the Baha'i Faith has passed that power from Baha'u'llah to Abdu'l Baha and then Shoghi Effendi, and then legislation to the House of Justice. For example, Things like if abortion is permissible in the Baha'i Faith have, as of yet, still not been decided by the House of Justice. -- Jeff3000 16:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
At the same time, now this doesn't mean that some Bahá'ís have problems with it, or do have homosexual relations, as there are Bahá'ís who do drink alcohol. The fact that some Bahá'ís go against the writings do not change the teachings of the Bahá'í Faith.
I want to note furthermore, that the article you reference, is quite right, that the teachings of the Bahá'í Faith on homosexuality does not make it right of Bahá'ís to treat other Bahá'ís, or other people, as outcasts. In fact, the opposite should be done, and everyone should be treated with respect. This disrespect is an unfortunate case of people being individuals, and not raising up to the standard that Bahá'u'lláh set for them. Which one is worse? perfect respecting homosexual Bahá'ís or heterosexuals Bahá'ís who are not respectful of other Bahá'ís. I am in no power to judge, and each person just has to work their best. -- Jeff3000
  • (3) CB's and (6) Expulsions of dissidents combined into one statement
These need to be separated out, because there is a difference between someone being declared a covenant-breaker, and the expulsion of persons who are not to have considered to have broken the covenant (eg. Michael McKenny, Alison Marshall etc.) The discussion about covenant breaking is a historical one, the expulsion of members is fairly recent (post-internet age) and has different dynamics entirely. Sufisticated 10:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • (4) The "Baha'i review" issue.
In regards to the Terracces in Haifa, I want to make clear, that the area surrounding the Shrine of the Bab is considered a Baha'i Holy Place and thus is rightfully beautified (and calling it a "Golf Course" is in my opinion deragatory, I would not be calling the Vatican or the Kaaba such things) The holy places of other religions, when they have access to them, are usually beautified. Given that a holy place should be beautified, and that the money was very carefully spent is an achievement. -- Jeff3000 15:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree. The issue of percentage of donations being spent on beautification of Baha'i holy places versus charitable works etc. is an issue, but given their importance I think all due respect should be paid them, as we might pay the Vatican or the Prophet's Mosque in Medina. Sufisticated 10:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
--Jeff3000 15:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Why are you insisting on posting a detailed list of criticisms when you, yourself, asked to: "Add a short section to the main entry for "Dialogue and Criticism", with a brief note that these things exist. Then, direct to the other page, where we can go into all the ins and outs of each point.", or is ten items a "short" list?

On your item (9), Dawud, prove it. Actually, you should do the research and document each of these. Wikipedia:Cite_sources I'm familiar with many of these, consider some specious, have ready answers for the rest and would appreciate the opportunity to address them in detail on a page where they belong.

Why, Dawud, won't you allow the Bahá'ís the same courtesy extended to Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, or Hinduism? MARussellPESE 16:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Dawud, when I previously asked you for a reference to one of these opinionated issues, your reference was a chat room with people complaining. That is possibly the worst reference possible. The Christianity page only has one mention of criticism, and it's by a Nobel Prize Laureate. I think issues 5-10 should be left off the main page. Cuñado - Talk 18:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Cunado re: having brief pointer to the different page with more detailed discussion of criticisms. There are some areas, though, that could be more inclusive of alternative Baha'i perspectives (eg. the homosexuality issue), given that it is one thing to criticise Baha'is for being against homosexuality (the discussion belonging on the criticism page), and Baha'is themselves having differing opinions - some believing it to be prohibited, others believing it to be permissible - in which case, a 'nod' to the different perspectives would be more NPOV. Sufisticated 10:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Baha'is may have different views of homosexuality, but Baha'i publications present a rather more unanimous front, no? I don't see why any ambiguity is called for--if some Baha'is object to the official view, that just show's that it's a controversy.
I would not object to a list of criticisms of Christianity. (Where would you start--the Crusades? Anti-Semitism? Television evangelists? Abortion? The fact that they believe numerous impossible things?) I'm also working on the Taoism article, in case anybody has complaints to make against Taoism!
As for message boards etc., I don't see why you think they're out of bounds. The quality varies a lot, but I think it's unrealistic to expect a published, bound book on every controversy (especially from the side which is criticizing the administration). Dawud 12:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Symbol went missing

What happened to the rather nice symbol of the nine-pointed star?? Sufisticated 23:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Starting a new section, as discussion above is getting convoluted. Just wondering, where *are* these links to the article on criticisms and controversies in the Baha'i Faith? I was just about to make the point to Dawud that criticism isn't hidden if anyone interested in looking at it can easily link to it from this main article - then I found that I *couldn't* find an easy link here, and I think that the "See also" section is a bit dated and tangential. PaulHammond 23:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It's in the Bahá'í apologetics article that is linked in the "See also" section. I don't disagree that the name is bad, and could be renamed, or a new one started just with the criticisms. -- Jeff3000 01:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
hmmm, somehow through all the reverting, the link got deleted, I just added it back. -- Jeff3000 01:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's come to a conclusion

It sounds like we have a consensus that we should have a few points mentioned on the main page, and a link to Baha'i apologetics which has those and other issues in more detail. Am I wrong? We can revert the section to this version, add the issue of publication review, and improve the praise section. Cuñado - Talk

Possibly ok, but based on the above suggestions, something like this may be more appropriate:
The Bahá'í Faith has been criticized by; some members of other religions whose sacred history the Bahá'í Faith incorporates (particularly Christianity and Islam), and also by opponents of globalism and by some academic writers from related fields which include Middle Eastern Studies.
Commonly cited controversial' issues and accusations include:
  • Something on the review system
  • Something on explulsion
I can accept this reduced list. There's a bit of disconnect between the named critics (no dissidents?) and the list of criticisms, which are "insiders'" criticisms. Here's a slight rephrasing, minus diacriticals.
"The Baha'i Faith has been criticized by: other religions whose sacred history the Baha'i Faith claims to incorporate; rival Baha'i groups; dissidents from within its own ranks; ex-members; opponents of globalism; and some academic writers from related fields (which include Middle Eastern Studies). Commonly-cited controversial issues include:
  • The prohibition against publishing material on the faith without the permission of a Baha'i review committee.
  • The expulsion of several prominent Baha'i dissidents, who allege that the administration has violated their rights.
See Baha'i apologetics for details of, and Baha'i responses to, these and other controversies. Dawud 12:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


I disagree with the wording of a couple of these points. There is no prohibition on homosexuality, there is a prohobition on homosexuality for Baha'is. Baha'is have nothing against homosexuals. The new wording makes it sound that they do. The old wording was more correct. For the publishing material quote, againt the word prohibition I think is way too strong, requirement is better. The word prominent, what makes them prominent? only because they were dispelled, and thus prominent should not be there. Updated version

"The Baha'i Faith has been criticized by: other religions whose sacred history the Baha'i Faith claims to incorporate; ex-members; opponents of globalism; and some academic writers from related fields (which include Middle Eastern Studies). Commonly-cited controversial issues include:
  • The requirement that Bahá'ís intending to publish on the faith must submit their writings for review by Bahá'í Institutions so statements do not seriously distort the Faith or its teachings.
  • The expulsion of several Baha'i dissidents, who allege that the administration has violated their rights.
See Baha'i apologetics for details of, and Baha'i responses to, these and other controversies. -- Jeff3000 14:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

On the preamble--you left off "rival Baha'i groups" and "dissidents from within its own ranks". Those are important omissions. We wouldn't want to give the impression that Baha'is are united behind their administration, would we? :)

On homosexuality--well, okay, but I still don't get what distinction you're trying to make. It should be obvious what's being prohibited.

On review--"required" and "prohibited" ought to be transformable into one another, logically speaking. However, your phrasing obscures the crucial point that Baha'is may not afterwards publish anything on the faith which the committee does not approve. Plus the additional phrase is long and inelegant, and assumes that the censorship is well-intended.

On "prominent"--well, okay. But in point of fact, several were well-known scholars before being kicked out. --Dawud

Since it has been several days I have gone ahead and put up the paragraph, incorporating two of Jeff's revisions. We can continue to discuss it if you like, but I think it's important to have something out there.
Now let's see what we can do with the apologetics page. Dawud 12:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baháʼí_Faith/Archive_7&oldid=1087958820"