Talk:Bahá'í laws

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Religion Portal This article is supported by WikiProject Religion. This project provides a central approach to Religion-related subjects on wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

[edit] laws

Why the Baha'i laws specified in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas have been removed from this article and moved to the Kitáb-i-Aqdas article? Are they not "laws" to be implemented in the future? Are Baha'is afraid that people know the kind of laws and sentences we can expect if they ever gain political power? --Jdemarcos 09:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

One, if you want an entire list of the laws then that's fine, I was kind of in the middle of adding all of them, binding or not. Two, your summaries were only partly correct and were obviously taken from an anti-Baha'i source. (for example, Shoghi Effendi's clarification of the arson law states that there is an obvious difference between burning down an empty house vs a school full of children) Three, I thought the Aqdas page was a more appropriate place to put laws that are not binding or practiced, but that are mentioned in the Aqdas. That's not hiding anything. I could likewise just make a section of every single law on this page, but the page would become less useful. Cuñado - Talk 09:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think all the laws should be included here rather than in the Kitab-i-Aqdas article, and that the Kitab-i-Aqdas article should link to this page for a complete list. It makes more logical sense. -- Jeff3000 14:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Jeff3000. And Jdemarcos, could you assume a little good faith? MARussellPESE 15:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I just hope that Baha'i laws as specified in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas are visible and not buried somewhere link after link after link. We are talking about Bah'a'u'lláh's own words, for God's sake. Comments by the UHJ should be a footnote rather than occupy most of the explanation, and the Aqdas laws should be readily available and well explained where they belong, i.e. in the Baha'i Laws article. --Jdemarcos 22:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It is Baha'u'llah himself who has made certain laws applicable only when the House of Justice decides, and thus they are very relevant. -- Jeff3000 22:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Jdemarcos, an item that may not be clear is that it is possible that the House of Justice may take a very long time to make a law binding, if they ever do. There is no requirement for them to enact all, some or any of the laws left to their discretion.

For example, there is a law that requires a father to educate his children, and if he does not then his parental rights are forfeit. (Interestingly this doesn't apply to mothers, as I read it.) Specifically this would apply to consent for marriage. My spouse and I appealed to the House on specifically this point to void her father's rights to consent. He'd abandoned them when she was three. While this may be something seemingly cut-and-dried in the West, the House replied that it was not timely elsewhere to apply it.

There were a lot of provisions in the Bab's Bayan that were conditional on the approval of "Him Whom God shall make manifest". We read that as Baha'u'llah, and many were not actually implemented. Examples escape me at the moment. The "murderers should die and arsonists burn" is conditioned not only on the House rolling it out, but mercy is an option. So merely stating "Baha'u'llah taught the death penalty for murder" misses a great deal. And it's commentary from the House that fleshes out the rest, like whether-or-not and how to implement a given law. That's why you are seeing so much of them in the article.

MARussellPESE 16:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] new section

I have no problem with creating a list of laws, I just thought it would bog down the page. I do have a problem with selectively choosing laws and presenting them in a POV language that takes them out of context in a blatant attempt to make a bad image of the religion. Actually I like the idea of burning someone who burns down a school full of children ;) and I would love to be the guy with a big rubber stamp marking the forehead of a repeat-offending thief, but I don't think an obscure fact about punishment that is irrelevant to current Baha'i communities deserves more weight than any of the other obscure facts (did you know that if your spouse disappears, you must wait one year from separation before re-marrying, unless the spouse is unaware of the rule). Cuñado - Talk 23:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Cuñado, quoting Bahá'u'lláh's own words from his Most Holy Book cannot be an attempt to "make a bad image" of the Baha'i Faith. If you don't like them, it is up to you, but that is what the book literally says. Furthermore, as you know, the Kitáb-i-Aqdas is not written as a single argument that goes from beginning to end, but as a series of instructions, admonitions, and advices. Only the set of Questions and Answers provides a bit more context than provided in the text itself. --Jdemarcos 22:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Cuñado's worried about context, which is legitimate. Even Christ can be made to advocate things He never did. The Bible "justified" slavery, Apartheid, the Inquisition, etc. if you looked at it in a very narrow way and ignored whole themes of the Book — like God loved the World enough to send us Christ in first place. MARussellPESE 15:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Please provide non-contextual quotes that Christ justified slavery, apartheid, the Inquisition, etc. and I will consider your argument. --Jdemarcos 18:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think MARussell was saying that people have used the Bible to justify these things. And he did say Bible, not Christ. Those are two different statements. Whenever the KKK or some other group or individual pulls out a Bible passage and purports it to mean something that's not in line with the essence of the Gospel it counts as verification for Russell's argument.

Selecting obscure laws to list that our religion's supreme governing body has said to be not binding in the present state of society is, in effect, misrepresenting the code of laws as a whole by denying the essential aspects of their scope and function. -LambaJan 19:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

LambaJan, this conversation has been dead for almost one year, but thanks anyway for adding your comment. The fact that the ruling body of the Faith has said that these laws are not binding in the present state of society does not preclude that they are enforced in the future. --jofframes 13:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Universal scope of laws

Today Law is a featured article. It's Religous Law section States: ...religious texts usually do not provide for a thorough and detailed legal system. For instance, the Koran has some law, but not much and it acts merely as a source of further law, through interpretation. which is really much better than what it said a few minutes ago: ...religious texts never include the scale of law needed in a developed community. For instance...

Something that's unique to the laws of the Baha'i religion is that they are thorough and detailed on a scale needed for a developed community. That's precisely what they're designed for. They cover constitution and legislation, ecomony and other topics. I think the article is presently mostly concerned with personal laws. How would the concerned editors feel about a rewrite that reframes the topic as a world scale legal system that includes such laws as the establishment of the UHJ (constitutional) and lists and separates laws into classes (binding, not binding, etc.) I'm thinking of using the synopsis and codification of the Kitab-i-Aqdas as sort of an outline. I'm asking because the changes would be significate. Any opinions on the matter? -LambaJan 19:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)