Talk:Baháʼí laws

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)

I am just going to drop in and say this once, but saying something, like prayer, should be done is not the same thing as people actually doing the recommended task. I am an ex-Bahai turned Agnostic-Atheist and I know for a fact that neither of my parents, and one of whom still considers herself a Bahai, nor myself, recited the obligatory prayers daily. This proves that the statement "Baháís over the age of 15 recite an obligatory prayer each day." was a fallacy, and that is why I edited it to reflect reality. Ego Felem Amo 19:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Application

We need to specify which laws are applied today and which laws are not yet practiced by Bahá'ís I think. If no one disagrees I will be happy to work on this . . . Gerald T. Fernandez-Mayfield (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Remember to cite sources that are reliable. Cheers, MARussellPESE (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, seeing as this is such a omnipresent issue in the Baha'i Faith. Please bear in mind that there's a difference between unenforced, private (spiritual) laws like prayer, Huquq, etc., admonitions, and laws that come with real penalties. The latter is of course practically irrelevant unless and until the Baha'i Faith gains any real power, but important in principle. What criminal penalties have been specified? What civil fines? What organizational penalties (e.g., loss of admin rights)? I am a Baha'i apostate with a few axes to grind, but I think a decent job has been done on this page of representing Baha'i law. That said, I was rather disappointed to find the categorization of Baha'i law wholly inadequate. Kaweah (talk) 22:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The statement (included in the Application section) "An individual is expected to gradually apply laws on a personal basis" is not generally applicable. Some Baha'i laws, such as those regarding criminal acts, must be intended to be universally applicable, at least among Baha'is. The reason why such laws are unenforced, and why more of such laws have not been legislated, is simple: the Baha'i Faith, as an organization, has never possessed any civil authority. Kaweah (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

To discuss Baha'i law seriously, scenarios where Baha'is actually possess legal authority must be considered. The statement "His writings clearly state that his revelation is for all of mankind." raises this issue: what Baha'i laws, if any, are universally enforceable, given any scenario where a government upholding Baha'i law rules over non-Baha'is? For instance, would it be deemed appropriate for a Baha'i society to execute a non-Baha'i arsonist? In a broader sense, what penalties, if any (if not all), would apply to non-Baha'is? If this question has not been answered, shouldn't this section indicate as much? Kaweah (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The question of the treatment of law in a "Baha'i state" is entirely speculative. The statement of the laws exist in the Kitab-i-Aqdas, but the implementation has been left to the discretion of the House. Treatment of this subject crosses the line into WP:OR and really can't stay. MARussellPESE (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The proposed wording is as follows: "The types of penalties specified in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas are as follows:". This is not speculative in the least. Kaweah (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As to the OR allegation, please explain how a summary of well-researched and well-understood penalties, as indicated succinctly in research by the UHJ Research Department and detailed in this very page can be original research. Kaweah (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but your usage here is. Baha'u'llah, Himself, leaves the application of these penalties up to the House to determine. You are projecting to a speculative future Baha'i state, where the interpretation is speculative, and the implementation of these laws is speculative, and not basing these on secondary sources. That's WP:OR by definition.

What research out of the Research Department? The KA itself? That's using a Primary source to do what a secondary source is supposed to do. Again: WP:OR on its face.

These subjects are already treated in the body of the article. Placing these front and center is unbalanced. There are laws that are actually applicable. These deserve direct discussion. The fact that certain other laws exist is already covered. Speculation as to their implementation is inappropriate. MARussellPESE (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Where the writings of Baha'u'llah clearly state penalties, the UHJ must be faithful to the Aqdas. It is only a question of time. The flexibility comes in where the Aqdas does not address something. The UHJ cannot abrogate anything in the Aqdas.

No, Baha'u'llah did not compile the notes to the Kitab-i-Aqdas. In fact, he did not even compile the English translation, which is intrinsically an interpretation. I can barely read the primary source. Do you challenge the factuality of the list? I thought it was redundant! Kaweah (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

So listing the types of penalties specified in the Aqdas is simultaneously 1) speculative, 2) original research, and 3) redundant? Come now. The listing was not placed out of context, but rather it filled a gap in the section, which is so focused on explaining away the issue that it fails to mention the issue. Any balanced article would explain the issue more fully. So long as the Baha'i Faith does not possess civil authority, yes, these penalties are not enforcible, but the fact that the Aqdas emphasizes such penalties is not immaterial, rather, it is a guideline for the proper maintenance of a society where Baha'is exert some kind of civil authority. We're talking about the Baha'i World Order here. It that pure speculation in your book? This is pertinent information, and a summary of it would be useful. Is it so scandalous to you that you cannot bear to see it buried in a rather obscure section on application? 192.216.254.5 (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "Where the writings of Baha'u'llah clearly state penalties, the UHJ must be faithful to the Aqdas." but, the House has total discretion as to their application, so it's not a question of time. It's a question of their decision, so presuming that any of these will be applied to Baha'is much less the general public at this point is pure speculation.

You didn't cite the notes. You cited the text. In either case, it's a primary source, and not up to snuff for what you're trying to do here, which is to state that these laws will be applied at some time. "It's only a matter of time."

Any balanced article would remain focused on the laws as they are currently applied, or have come to be applied over time. Projection to a future state is speculative and original research. The penalties themselves are already covered so yes: redundant as well.

And on the assumption that I cannot bear whatever - WP:AGF.

Many Baha'is, and others with axes to grind, don't get the evolutionary processes that social systems undergo. The presumption that Shoghi Effendi assumed that a Baha'i world super state would materialize out of the ether or descend from the heavens like bolts from Zeus is preposterous. Couching criticism of the Baha'i faith in those terms is likewise. Trying to land that in here runs afoul of WP:NPOV and will get squashed. MARussellPESE (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Some laws may never be enforced, and likewise, civil/criminal penalties may never be executed. That I heartily agree with, but that does not make them irrelevant as guiding precedents. The fact remains that they exist.

I said I'd be happy to cite secondary sources, and I will do just that.

Perhaps you should re-title the section "current application".

Nice straw man closer. Kaweah (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Straw man argument? To do that I'd have to put words in you mouth. I haven't. I'm addressing only what you've presented here yourself. You've self-identified to have an axe to grind. You: "what Baha'i laws, if any, are universally enforceable, given any scenario where a government upholding Baha'i law rules over non-Baha'is? For instance, would it be deemed appropriate for a Baha'i society to execute a non-Baha'i arsonist?" Clearly, you're projecting some future state of affairs where these punishments would ring bizarre given current affairs. MARussellPESE (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresenation

By adding penalties that have no real effect on the Baha'i community, you are misrepresenting their importance. Placing them out of context is inappropriate. Also secondary sources are those that have been published by reliable sources. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresenation. That's quite a heavy word. I've got another word for you: obscurantism. Is simply categorizing the penalties specified in the Aqdas misrepresenting the Aqdas? You say they have no "real effect", but there they are, occupying a significant portion of the Most Holy Book. These things may not yet be in force, but the intent is that they will be some day; yet because Baha'is do not yet possess civil authority, you consider it justifiable to conceal the very blueprint of Baha'u'llah's World Order? Misrepresentation indeed. 192.216.254.5 (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Who states that these penalties "occupy a significant portion". The fact is that the penalties are a tiny portion of the the Kitab-i-Aqdas, and your placement of them as being of such high importance is definitely misrepresenting the nature of Baha'i laws. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

So sayeth the authority. Now, why not merely state the facts? Kaweah (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The facts are already there, you just want to increase their importance, which is a misrepresentation. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they're buried in there somewhere, aren't they? We wouldn't want such facts "over-emphasized." God forbid the Baha'i Faith should be seen as having a plan for the future. I wonder whether you believe such summaries have any place in Wikipedia whatsoever. Kaweah (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

They are not buried, but in their respective places. If you look over secondary sources that go over Baha'i law, their treatment doesn't give as much prominence to the specific punishments that are in the Aqdas (which itself doesn't emphasize the punishments in any extent). Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Other prohibitions

I believe the penalty stated for "Adultery and sexual intercourse" is incorrect. The fine is for fornication. I believe a clarification in the notes to the Aqdas states that the penalty for adultery is actually not yet determined. Kaweah (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, and I've updated the page. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Obedient to the goverment

There is at least one exception to the law of obedience to the government, and that is when you are to renounce your faith as a bahá'í. But I can't find where it is written. Is anyone able to help? --Steinninn 01:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

From Lights of Guidance:

1455. The Bahá’ís Should Obey the Government even at Risk of Sacrificing Administrative Affairs—In Matters of Faith no Compromise Allowed, Even Though Outcome is Death

"For whereas the friends should obey the government under which they live, even at the risk of sacrificing all their administrative affairs and interests, they should under no circumstances suffer their inner religious beliefs and convictions to be violated and transgressed by any authority whatever. A distinction of a fundamental importance must, therefore, be made between spiritual and administrative matters. Whereas the former are sacred and inviolable, and hence cannot be subject to compromise, the latter are secondary and can consequently be given up and even sacrificed for the sake of obedience to the laws and regulations of the government. Obedience to the state is so vital a principal of the Cause that should the authorities in … decide to-day to prevent the Bahá’ís from holding any meeting or publishing any literature they should obey… But, as already pointed out, such an allegiance is confined merely to administrative matters which if checked can only retard the progress of the Faith for some time. In matters of belief, however, no compromise whatever should be allowed, even though the outcome of it be death or expulsion."

Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)