Dervish

I remember when Susan Faludi’s book “Backlash” came out. Quite a few people criticised it and …WHAM! They were deemed to be part of the backlash.

Moojan is employing much same strategu. I’m already watching my articulateness.

I’m inclined to say to Moojan, “You win, we’re all apostates and marginals in an oppositional coalition.”

Let Moojan show the world that the Baha’i Faith is a cult — but not quite as bad as the manipulative apostates paint it. All Moojan gains by our capituation is to see Baha’i being put into the same category as Scientology, Heaven’s Gate, Branch Davidians, Peoples’ Temple, The Family and Solar Temple.

None of which, arguably, are as bad as their fiercest opponents paint them. But nor are they very good, either. Would you really want to meet any of their followers at your next interfaith get-together? Thought not.

Aside from the specialised sociological meaning that Bromley assigns to it, the word has a Baha’i connotation that seems to have been overlooked by most since the death of Shoghi Effendi. Dan Jensen has resurrected it, along with Moojan Momen.

Moojan’s definition of covenant breaking seems to be “…willful opposition to the authorized center of the Bahá’í Faith, despite a conscious knowledge and understanding of the spiritual station of that center.”

He goes on to say:

“This definition explains, for example, the position of Mírzá Yahyá Azal (q.v.), who was never a follower of Bahá’u'lláh, but who is stated to be a Covenant-breaker. Similarly, some apostates who have attacked the Bahá’í Faith are referred to in terms that resemble those used to refer to Covenant-breakers.”
The Covenant and Covenant-breaker

In this, he differs from some mainstream Baha’is. Wiki Baha’i pages are a pretty good indicator of mainstream Baha’i thought. Check this out:

“Followers of Subh-i-Azal, Bahá’u'lláh’s half-brother, who are known in modern times as Bayanis are often mistakenly referred to by this label. The appellation seems, however, misapplied. Since Covenant-breaking presumes that one has submitted oneself to a covenant and then broke it, and Bayanis never swore allegiance to Bahá’u'lláh, they cannot therefore be said to have broken his covenant.”
Covenant Breaker - excluded categories of people

But that’s something of a side-issue. Back to the apostates. Moojan, somewhat surprisingly to me, lists them as a category of covenant breaker, and this is what he has to say about them:

“Apostates. Although most individuals who leave the Bahá’í community because of loss of belief are not considered any differently from those who have never been Bahá’ís, there have been a small number of persons who left the community and then began to attack it maliciously and vehemently and whom Shoghi Effendi referred to in terms identical to those he used of the Covenant-breakers.”
The Covenant and Covenant-breaker

Does Moojan have a point? Well, perhaps. Here’s what Shoghi Efendi has to say:

The key sentence is - “We should welcome, therefore, not only the open attacks which its avowed enemies persistently launch against it, but should also view as a blessing in disguise every storm of mischief with which they who apostatize their faith or claim to be its faithful exponents assail it from time to time.”

Here’s the context for that sentence:

“Viewed in the light of past experience, the inevitable result of such futile attempts, however persistent and malicious they may be, is to contribute to a wider and deeper recognition by believers and unbelievers alike of the distinguishing features of the Faith proclaimed by Bahá’u'lláh. These challenging criticisms, whether or not dictated by malice, cannot but serve to galvanize the souls of its ardent supporters, and to consolidate the ranks of its faithful promoters. They will purge the Faith from those pernicious elements whose continued association with the believers tends to discredit the fair name of the Cause, and to tarnish the purity of its spirit. We should welcome, therefore, not only the open attacks which its avowed enemies persistently launch against it, but should also view as a blessing in disguise every storm of mischief with which they who apostatize their faith or claim to be its faithful exponents assail it from time to time. Instead of undermining the Faith, such assaults, both from within and from without, reinforce its foundations, and excite the intensity of its flame. Designed to becloud its radiance, they proclaim to all the world the exalted character of its precepts, the completeness of its unity, the uniqueness of its position, and the pervasiveness of its influence.”
Shoghi Effendi, World Order of Baha’u'llah, Baha’i Publishing Trust, Wilmette (1955), p. 15-16.

I’m happy for my theory to be shown to be wrong. Uh, what is my theory? Well, it’s that Moojan thinks the folks he’s identified as Baha’i apostates are, to all intents and purposes, CBs. Although I’m sure he’s not going to be caught saying this.

–
Hey, I’m sorry you didn’t get the minutes that were handed out at our team-building exercise. I understand that you felt the team uniform was a little un-Islamic, and decided not to take part.

Hi U,
I googled “Challenging Apotasy” and this came at the top.
re: “see the useful statistics provided by McGlinn on these” in Momen’s response. This is hilarious. How can any academic mis-read McGlinn’s statistics, which show clearly that memberships on lists involved those working at the Bahai World Centre (hence ‘core’ members) to indicate proof that internet lists were for “oppositional coalition”

He’s really scratching the barrow on this.

I would hope that Momen would regret writing this article because if anything it just makes his approach ‘as a core Bahai’ I guess, lose credibility, even possibly with the current editor of Religion, see his comments under the header “Language Games” (http://www.scribd.com/doc/3550026/Responses-to-Apostacy) where in particular he notes, astutely I think, that each of the 4 responses to Momen’s article employ varying approaches as evidence that there is no ‘group’ of apostates as claimed by Momen.