Talk:Baháʼí Faith and slavery

Interim article

This article, as an interim measure, is copied from the relevant section of Religion and slavery - pending the writing of a proper article.

Forbids slave TRADE only?

This is splitting hairs really anyway - but in fact THIS is the complete paragraph from the Aqdas:

It is forbidden you to trade in slaves, be they men or women. It is not for him who is himself a servant to buy another of God's servants, and this hath been prohibited in His Holy Tablet. Thus, by His mercy, hath the commandment been recorded by the Pen of justice. Let no man exalt himself above another; all are but bondslaves before the Lord, and all exemplify the truth that there is none other God but Him. He, verily, is the All-Wise, Whose wisdom encompasseth all things.

(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 45)

The second provision "let no man exalt himself over another..." clearly implies the the keeping of slaves is also forbidden - specifically because all are slaves.

--Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Kitáb-i-Aqdas bans the slave trade, but not slavery.

A35821361 (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you know interpretation of primary religious material is mostly considered WP:OR, and requires secondary source material for inclusion in Wikipedia. Here is a source that notes that writings of the Kitab-i-Aqdas forbid slavery https://books.google.ca/books?id=V-OYs3hZ--oC&pg=PA159&dq=baha%27i+faith+slavery&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=baha%27i%20faith%20slavery&f=false. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, the page you link in John Esslemont's Bahá'u'lláh and the New Era does not provide the specific verse from the Kitáb-i-Aqdas. One wonders if this omission was deliberate since it belies his primary argument that "In the Book of Aqdas Bahá’u’lláh forbids slavery." ^[1] Alternatively, with an English authorized translation only becoming available in 1992, Esslemont lacked the necessary Arabic to interpret the Kitáb-i-Aqdas verses himself and simply parroted what he was told. Regards. A35821361 (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But the whole verse IS there at the head of this thread. Read past the first sentence and it is clear that it is not just about "the trade" but "the institution" as a whole. The point is that this is not a religious encyclopedia that attempts its own interpretation of scripture anyway. Just imagine what the effect on articles concerning other religions would be if it was - you effectively wouldn't be able to say anything coherent at all about Islam, for instance, just to take one example. Anyway - most of the Kitab-i-Aqdas was translated into English many years before 1992 - we just didn't have it as a connected whole, another matter altogether. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Esslemont, J.E. (1980) [1923]. Bahá'u'lláh and the New Era (5th ed.). Wilmette, Illinois, USA: Bahá'í Publishing Trust. ISBN 0-87743-160-4.

Partial list of slaves

Deletion of this section is unwarranted. Enumerating the Báb and Bahá'u'lláh's slaves humanizes those individuals and contextualizes the degree to which the Báb and Bahá'u'lláh were slave masters.

A35821361 (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you a "chapter and verse" that says the people in question were actually "slaves" and not dark-skinned "servants", or perhaps even companions or followers? Is this more reasonable than taking all the white servants, companions, followers etc. as being "slaves"? The Persians actually had white slaves as well as black ones! Even Bahá'u'lláh's eldest son and successor took the title "Slave of Baha" (‘Abdu’l-Bahá) so if were being impartial we'd have to be very careful to get this one right. And can we be sure about the "partial" bit? - that implies that there were at least some names you are omitting - if in fact this is the full list so far as you know it then on what grounds can it be partial... --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The appellation Abdul is used in Islamic theophoric naming to designate slavehood in the sense of religious submission, and no sensible individual would confuse it with slavery as a legal or economic institution of humans owning other humans as property. `Abdu'l-Bahá was no more a slave than Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Hájí Mubarak, Fiddih, Isfandíyár, and Masúd were unambiguously legal possessions of the Báb and Bahá'u'lláh. Regards. --A35821361 (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely - that's the very point. Nor is an early Baha'i who happened to be black (and there were quite a few) necessarily a "slave" in our sense. Statements to the contrary need proper collaboration. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 16:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now seems to be well referenced - but we still may have confusion in some cases between "servant" and "slave" (ambiguous even in English. In particular Isfandíyár is noted elsewhere as remaining voluntarily as a free servant in Bahá'u'lláh's service after He manumitted all his slaves. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - my eyes are still very bad!

A couple of bad mistakes - where my worries had already been met and I had to "self-revert"(!) - still recovering from cataract operations and I can barely see. No one is trying to "censor" awkward facts or push a Baha'i POV here (honest) - we are just trying to avoid the opposite, which is of course not encyclopedic either! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Article

I been working on this since the subject was raised - it may very well still need refining - I have tried to retain a "warts-and-all" approach, while being scrupulously fair. -Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New version

This edit was a major revision of the page. Serv181920 reverted. The old version was a mess, and this page could easily be deleted for lack of notability. The question barely appears in any sources, and is almost entirely reliant on the one book by Afnan, writing about his own family history (so not very reliable). Many of the sources in the old version were either not reliable, not relevant, or leading the reader with original research. Organization was a mess. Please edit over if you have improvements. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there aren't enough good sources. Just Smith, really. Would support merging this into Baháʼí teachings, though I don't have time to do it in the near future. Gazelle55 (talk) 03:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Black_Pearls/X_nlRdFfzFUC?hl There are sources, such as this one. Will try to get this book to expand this article.Serv181920 (talk) 11:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realize that book is already sourcing most of the article? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kalimat Press is not an ideal source, especially when the book is written by a family member of the founder of the religion. I still think merging into Baháʼí teachings would be best, or into Criticism of the Baháʼí Faith as appropriate. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Esslemont, J.E. (1980) [1923]. Bahá'u'lláh and the New Era (5th ed.). Wilmette, Illinois, USA: Bahá'í Publishing Trust. ISBN 0-87743-160-4.

[1]