Source: Bahá'í Library Online (bahai-library.com), curated by Jonah Winters. Used by permission of the curator. Original citation: Kamran Hakim, Homosexuality in the Kitab-i-Aqdas, bahai-library.com.
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Homosexuality in the Kitab-i-Aqdas
Kamran Hakim
1996
Hello dear friends,
Through a private E-mail one of the friends brought up the gist of an ongoing
discussion in soc.religion.bahai on the question of homosexuality and how it
is treated in the Book of Aqdas. One of the postings which was forwarded to me
and captured my attention was a posting by __ who wrote:
"Though I do not speak Arabic, I understand that the word "boys" in
context is slave boys. These boys were the objects of their owner's
homosexual acts which they as slaves were not free to reject."
Hello dear __, I hope you do not mind me jumping into this discussion. I must
respectfully disagree with this approach, and in the following lines I have
attempted to clarify this.
"Since this is the word Bahá'u'lláh uses, it is not clear how much of
the shame he feels is due to the paederastry which is occurring with
a boy and how much shame is due to the fact that the boy is a slave."
I also disagree with this issue. Hopefully, I have been able to reason out my
disagreement.
"I think too that in fairness it should be stated that Bahá'u'lláh
attaches no penalty to homosexuality though He does to many other
things. Perhaps that tells us something about the importance He
gave to this."
__, you are not a pioneer in advancing the theory of "lack of importance of
homosexuality". Every other Muslim writer who has written something on the
Faith has advanced the same theory. However, they did not remain content with
that theory. They ridiculed the Author of the Faith and went on to suggest
that Bahá'u'lláh has in fact been a promoter of homosexuality.
Due to the lack of time I have not been able to read soc.religion.bahai for the
past two months. As a result I am not sure to what extent this issue has been
discussed in this forum within the past week. The following material is an
extract from a commentary I am working on, which I appended here with some
modification, I hope the following lines offer a historical perspective for
the consideration of this issue. Moreover, I hope that I am not repeating what
has already been said. In any case please accept my apologies for the length
of this reply.
Bahá'u'lláh reveals in verse 107 of the Book of Aqdas:
"ennaa nastah-yi an nazkora hokma'l ghelmaane et-taqo'r-rahmana yaa
mala'el emkaane wa laa tartakiboo maa nohitom 'anho fil-lohe wa laa takoonoo
fi haimaa ash-shahavaate minal haa'emina"
This is translated by the Universal House of Justice as:
"We shrink, for very shame, from treating the subject of boys. Fear ye the
Merciful, O peoples of the world! Commit not that which is forbidden you in
Our Holy Tablet, and be not of those who rove distractedly in the wilderness of
their desire." Verse 107 of the Book of Aqdas
The Arabic term "Ghelmaan" is the plural form of the term "Ghulaam" which
according to the Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic is defined as:
boy; youth, lad; slave; servant; waiter. "Ghulaamiya" and "Ghuluma": youth,
youthfulness.
The Haim Persian English Dictionary defines the Persian implications of the
Arabic term "Ghulaam" as: Slave, Page; lad, Servant, while defining the term
"Ghelmaan" as Handsome lads dwelling in Paradise. This particular meaning
associated with the term Ghelmaan comes from the following verse of the Qur'an
wherein this term is used:
"They shall there exchange one with another a (loving) cup free of frivolity
free of all taint of ill. Round about them will serve (devoted) to them
youths (handsome) [The Arabic term similar to the Book of Aqdas is used:
"Ghelmaan". KH] as Pearls well-guarded." Qur'an 52:23-24
NOTE: It is important to point out that the term "Ghelmaan" used in this
Passage of the Qur'an has nothing to do with "slave boys" and its meaning is
specifically "youths" or "boys".
There are other Arabic-Persian compound terms such as: "Ghulaam-bacheh": Young
slave, Page. "Ghulaam bareh" or "Ghulaam pareh": Sodomite (i.e. one who
practices sodomy); Also "Ghulaam zadeh": Slave's child; My child or son.
"Ghulaam siah": Negro slave.
I hope that the definitions I have offered above offer the differences in usage
of the term Ghulaam and Ghelman in relation to such variables as language and
context. Let us move on. We will come back to this discussion later on.
In a separate Tablet revealed on the 17 of Jamadi-2 of the year 1291 AH (1875
AD), around the same time frame as the revelation of the Book of Aqdas,
Bahá'u'lláh reveals:
"Ye are forbidden to commit adultery, sodomy and lechery. Avoid them, O
concourse of the faithful. By the righteousness of God! Ye have been called
into being to purge the world from the defilement of evil passions. This is
what the Lord of all mankind hath enjoined upon you, could ye but perceive it.
He who relateth himself to the All-Merciful and committeth satanic deeds,
verily he is not of Me. Unto this beareth witness every atom, pebble, tree and
fruit, and beyond them this ever-proclaiming, true and trustworthy Tongue."
(Bahá'u'lláh, from a Tablet translated from the Arabic, cit. Ganjineh Hodud
wa Ahkaam pp. 338-339 Bahá'í Publishing Trust of Iran)
In order to gain an appreciation of why Bahá'u'lláh addresses this issue in the
Book of Aqdas as the "subject of boys" and in other Tablets as "sodomy" one
must, in my humble opinion, examine the human practices in the realm of sexual
behavior throughout the written history. While no detail information on this
issue can be found from antiquity nevertheless, one can indirectly get a sense
of the prevalent social norms by studying the literature, Scriptures, etc...
and develop a reasonable context for considering verse 107 of the Book of
Aqdas.
Among Greeks sexual relationship between a wise man and his young patron was a
socially acceptable norm. Such relationships have been eulogized in some books
of poetry and history. An expanded discussion of this dealing with the
acceptability of such an act within the Greek society or its class-dependence
are clearly outside of the scope of this article.
It is believed that the Greeks' preoccupation with sodomy in male-male sexual
intercourse had an effect on other cultures as well. Of course this is not to
imply that other cultures were less innovative, in sexual matters, than Greeks. According to the Encyclopedia Brittanica:
"The Greek's congeniality for homosexuality is said to have influenced such
neighbors as Persians and to have been transmitted along with other Greek
traditions into the Roman Empire." (Vol. 16 p. 604)
A close look at the Zoroastrian theological treaties of around this time
period and the imagery they adopted in their presentation clearly hints at the
existence of sodomy among the Persians. By sodomy male-male sexual
relationship is intended here. Perhaps females were too unimportant a class
for histories and Scriptures to have commented on female-female modes of
sexual norms.
Regarding his Ascension and Vision of Hell, Arta-Viraaf, the Great Dastur
(Zoroasterian High Priest) of the time of Ardashir the first of the Sassanid
Kings of Persia (226 A.D.) said:
"I saw the soul of a man where a snake had entered his end and exited >from
his mouth. I asked Suroosh [i.e. the Zoroasterian synonym for Arch-angel
Gabriel in the Semitic Theologies. KH] about the nature of his sin. Suroosh
replied: 'He committed sodomy in his life." (Arta Viraaf-Namih: Farkard 19, translation by
myself.)
The vision of the High-priest of the Sassanid Era appears to basically hint at
two points:
Sodomy existed among the Zoroastrian population of the Sassanid Empire.
Else, there would have been no need for Arta Viraaf to portray such a horrible
picture of this event in the Vision of his Ascension. The vision appears to
generally portray a message in the context of an imagery which people were able
to relate to and a thought which they would abhor.
Implications of unacceptability of such act within the realm of
Zoroasterian dogma is apparent. Abstinence is implied as the solution in
preventing such a horrible torment in after life.
Sodomy must also have been a social norm within the Hebrew society of the time
of Moses, else there was no reason for the Torah to mention the episode of
Sodom [Genesis 18:19], or prescribe punishment for such an act. According to
Torah:
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have
committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall
be] upon them." Leviticus 20:13
The term "Sodomy" is in fact a derivative of the name "Sodom" and the Biblical
account of what the people of Sodom did.
Since Hebrews lived among Egyptians for a long time they must have adopted
some of their customs into their culture, one might assume that sodomy could
have also been a social norm within the Egyptian society of that time period.
The Christian Scriptures does not directly deal with the question of sodomy,
however, Paul addresses issue of effeminacy which some Christians have
associated with homosexuality:
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not
deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate,
nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor
drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (I Corinthians, 6:9-10)
Similar references to effeminacy can also be found in Islamic Hadith which is,
in a sense, a verification of the account of the New Testament. Narrated Ibn
'Abbas:
The Prophet cursed the effeminate men and those women who assume the
similitude (manners) of men. He also said, "Turn them out of your houses." He
turned such-and-such person out, and 'Umar also turned out such-and- such
person. Sahih Bukhari 8.820
There doesn't appear to be too much room for effeminate men within the Muslim
community. However, effeminacy might not exactly equate with sexual tendencies
toward another man. Furthermore, both the Qur'an and the Hadith deal with
male-male sexual relationship in particular.
The mentioning of the story of Lot, the nephew of Abraham and the people of
Sodom in the Qur'an appear to imply that Arabs of the time of Muhammad must
have also had similar social norms regarding sodomy. Else there was no reason
for Prophet Muhammad to repeat, by the virtue of inspiration, the Biblical
account of Sodom and Gomorah in the Qur'an.
Such tendencies could still be seen today in both east and the west. While
sodomy between men and boys is an acceptable norm in preliterate societies
particularly during initiation rites, its presences in the more advanced and
modern societies can also sensed.
Admittedly the human sexual creativity and artfulness in modern societies has
far ascended above that of the preliterate societies whose childish and
primitive methods of male-male sexual engagement is still confined to sodomy
in its simplest form between strong and weak. In the more modern societies this
element appears to have expanded into the complex territory of consensual sex
among adults, marriage, etc... above and beyond the act of sodomy.
If, we are to ascend above the phobia of political correctness, and look
beneath all progressive forms and variations in sexual expression, sodomy alone
appears to represent the most basic arch-type of male-male sexual activity and
capture, as a metaphor, the gist of all that which might be placed under the
modern umbrella term known as homosexuality. Perhaps this might begin to hint
at why the archaic term of sodomy is used as a synonym for the modern term of
homosexuality in translations.
The Qur'an does not directly refer to "lavaat", "sodomy" or the homosexual
act. On the contrary the Qur'an treats this issue in a peripheral manner. The
following verses of that Book describe the story of "Lot" and the people of
Sodom and hint at sodomy by implication:
"For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a
people transgressing beyond bonds." (Qur'an 7:81) Moreover;
"Would ye really approach men in your lust rather than women? Nay ye are a
people grossly ignorant." (Qur'an 27:55)
Surih Sho'ara:105 of the Qur'an reiterates further on this same theme.
Imam Ali describes the reason behind the injunction of the Qur'an against
sodomy in a rather practical manner:
"Amir al-mu'menin, peace be upon him, said: Allah has laid down...abstinence
>from sodomy for increase of progeny..." (Nahj-ul-Balagha, selection from the preachings
of Ali, # 253, p. 621)
Regardless of such admonishment and unlike the severe approach of the Torah in
punishing those guilty of sodomy, the Qur'an appear to treat this issue in a
far more lenient manner than the Torah:
"And as for the two of you [i.e. The sentence structure refers exclusively to
two men and not a man and a woman. KH] who are guilty thereof [guilty of sexual
relationship. KH], punish them both. And if they repent and improve, then let
them be. Lo! Allah is Relenting, Merciful." ( Qur'an 4:16)
Qur'an while speaking of "punish them both", does not prescribe any form of
punishment, as in the case of adultery, for sexual relationship between two
men and prescribes acceptance of their repentance. However, there are some
Ahadith (i.e. Traditions, saying of Prophet Muhammad) that prescribe the
severe punishment of the Torah for those guilty of this charge. For example
the following two Ahadith are from Sunan of Abu Dawood vol 4, chapter on the
people of Lot. The Arabic text reads as follows:
"man laata beh ghulaam faqtaloo al-fa'il val-maf'ool." Which translates to:
"When a man commits sodomy with a boy: kill the doer and the one done to."
Please note that the usage of the term "Ghulaam" simply means "boy" in Arabic
and has nothing to do with a slave-boy.
Also; "qala an-nabi man vajde tamooh ya'mala 'amale qawme Lot fa-aqtaloo al-fa'il
val-maf'ool." Which translates to: "Prophet said: He who commits that which the people of Lot committed [i.e.
People of Lot committed Sodomy. KH]: kill the doer and the one done to."
Since the Qur'an has not clearly prescribed a punishment for sodomy, some
Schools of Thought in Islam have considered sodomy as "mobaah" [i.e. meaning
allowable in an impunible and indifferent sense.] while others have considered
it "jaa'iz" [i.e. meaning allowable, permissible and lawful.]. For example
Maleki, the founder of the Maleki School of Thought within Sunni Islam says:
"Having sex with a young man (without beard) is fine for a man who is not
married and who is on a trip." (cit. Hesaam Noqaba'i, Hoquq-i Zan, pp. 126-127, section on
"lavaat"/"sodomy")
The Shi'ah books of law also leave the door unlocked for the cases of "Oops, I
forgot! sodomization of boys. The following Shi'ah ruling hints at this:
"If he has had sexual intercourse with a boy according to precautionary rule,
it becomes unlawful for him forever to marry the boy's mother, his sister, or
his daughters even if they are boys not adults. If one is married to one of
such ladies before such act, it does not affect the already existing marriage,
although it is a precautionary rule to avoid such marriage. Extending this
rule to the case wherein one doing the act is a minor the one letting it done
to him is an adult, is objectionable, according to a clear view it does not
apply. The daughter or brothers and sisters of the one letting it done to him
do not become unlawful to one who has done the act." (Islamic Laws of Worship and Contracts, p.
614, CR #1259 Ayatullah Al-'Uzma Al-Sayyid Muhammad Al-Husayni Shirazi)
In the Ottoman Empire the Khalifs use to keep young boys in the Harems for
satisfying their sexual appetites [Such reference may be found in books such
as: "The Spirit of Laws" by Montesquieu and "Chronicles of Shirly Brothers"].
Within the Iranian society "bache-bazi" or "sexual play with young boys" has
been an under the carpet social norm for many centuries and the ambiguous
nature of the Qur'anic prescription has not been able to bring halt to this
social illness. Will Durant refers to this issue in his book "History of
Civilization". He writes:
"Sexual indulgence was apparently more abundant and enervating in Islam than
in Christiandom, though it was usually kept within the orderly limits of
polygamy. Turkish society was almost exclusively male, and since there was no
permitted association of men with women outside the home, the Moslems
found companionship in homosexual relationships, Platonic or physical.
Lesbianism flourished in the zenana." ( Will & Ariel Durant, History of Civilization vol 7
(The Age of Reason Begins) p. 520)
Also:
"The women were 'very richly habited,'wrote Tavernier, and 'little otherwise
than the men...They wear breeches like the men.' The women lived in the
privacy of the zenana, and seldom stirring from their homes, and then rarely
on foot. There were three sexes. Much of the love poetry was addressed by
men to boys, and Thomas Herbert, and Englishman at Abbas' [i.e Shah Abbas of
the Saffavid Dynasty. This Dynasty appeared before the Qajar dynasty, during
which The Bab and Bahá'u'lláh proclaimed Their revelations. KH] court, saw
'Ganymade boys in vests of gold, rich bespangled turbans, and choice sandals,
their curled hair dangling about their shoulders, with rolling eyes and
vermilion cheeks.'
Chardin noted a decrease in population in his time and ascribed it to:
First, the unhappy inclination which the Persians have, to commit that
abominable sin against nature, with both sexes [Here he is referring to
sodomy. KH].
Secondly, the immoderate luxury [sexual freedom] of the country. The women
begin there to have children betimes, and continue fruitful but a little while;
and as soon as they get on the wrong side of thirty they are looked upon as
old and superannuated, The men likewise begin to visit women too young, and to
such an excess, that though they enjoy several, they have never the more
children for it. There are also a great many women who make themselves
abortive, and take remedies against growing pregnant, because [when] they have
been three or four months gone with the child, their husbands take to other
women, holding it ... indecency to lie with a woman so far in her time.
Despite polygamy there were many prostitutes. Drunkenness was widespread,
though Muhammadan law forbade wine." (Will & Ariel Durant, History of Civilization vol
7 (The Age of Reason Begins) p. 532)
It is important to point out that Durant's observation is not far from the
truth. Perhaps the following quotes from the Shi'ah compilations offers a
certain measure of validity to Durant's view:
"The woman becomes the owner of the dowry by the contract and it is reduced by
one half by divorce before sex, also because of death of one party, according
to a more clear reason if sex is performed by the front or back the dowry
becomes an established right and the same rule applies if he tears her
virginity by his finger and without her permission." (Islamic Laws of Worship and Contracts,
p. 626, CR #1350 Ayatullah Al-'Uzma Al-Sayyid Muhammad Al-Husayni Shirazi)
If we are to consider the following factors:
1- The usage of the term "Ghulaam" and "Ghelmaan" in the Hadith and the Qur'an
compared to the usage of the term "Ghelmaan" in the Book of Aqdas;
2- The fact that slavery was not abolished in Islam, and as a result it was
possible for a Muslim to have a slave boy [In the Hadith Prophet Muhammad,
while using the term Ghulaam, focuses the punishment on the act of "lavaat",
or sodomy, as opposed to associating the term Ghulaam with slavery.];
3- That regardless of the warnings of the Qur'an and the punishments prescribed
in the Hadith, yet, some Muslim scholars of both Sunni and Shi'ah schools had
the door left unlocked for the practice of sodomy [The quotes offered above
clearly hint at this issue in the context of boys, women and even marriage.];
Then, it is hard to believe that Bahá'u'lláh was concerned about slave boys
being raped by their masters. On the contrary He appears to be:
1- Abrogating the rulings of the Muslim clergy who left the door unlocked for
such a thing to happen within their communities, regardless of the directives
of the Qur'an.
Consideration of various verses of the Book of Aqdas indicates that the
Manifestation of God is either reinstating, modifying or abrogating certain
laws and practices of various Scriptures and peoples. For example in Paragraph
9 of the Book of Aqdas Bahá'u'lláh refers to the misconception of the religious
leaders, regarding the presence of hair and bones of a dead animal
invalidating one's obligatory prayer, saying: "the prohibition of its use hath
stemmed, not from the Qur'an, but from the misconceptions of the divines." In
verse 107, Bahá'u'lláh appears to refer to yet another misconception of the
Muslim divines stemmed from their indifferent attitude toward sodomy which was
against the spirit of the laws of the Qur'an and goes on to prohibit such
practices;
2- Pointing at an underlying social problem, namely sexual appetite towards
young children, particularly boys which has been and continues to be a problem
plaguing many societies and cannot really be identified as a culture specific
phenomenon;
3- Identifying the "subject of boys" as an arch-type to convey His displeasure
with all non-conventional forms of sexual expression we identify as homo-
sexuality.
This is perhaps why Bahá'u'lláh reveals in the Book of Aqdas:
"We shrink, for very shame, from treating the subject of boys. Fear ye the
Merciful, O peoples of the world! Commit not that which is forbidden you in Our
Holy Tablet, and be not of those who rove distractedly in the wilderness of
their desire." (Verse 107 of the Book of Aqdas)
While the permissivity of our society has reached a point that that we are
expected to advocate the discussion of this issue in the name of eliminating
homo-phobia, the Manifestation of God states: "We shrink, for very shame,
from treating the subject of boys." That is to say, He finds the presence
of such an animalistic trait in a human being to be unworthy of the human
station to the extent that even its discussion is considered shameful by the
Law-Giver of humanity, much less revealing laws dealing with it. He does not
associate shame with adultery, murder and theft, yet, He chooses to associate
it with sodomy. Perhaps there is a challenge in this statement for both
Bahá'ís and non-Bahá'ís alike regarding why Bahá'u'lláh addressed this issue
the way He chose to address it in the Book of Aqdas.
Unlike the Qur'an, the Book of Aqdas and other Tablets revealed by Bahá'u'lláh
are extremely clear about the question of "lavaat", "sodomy" or homosexual act
in general and Bahá'u'lláh has clearly forbidden it in His Tablets (I have
already quoted an example of this from among Arabic Tablets.). Bahá'u'lláh has
relegated the nature of punishment for committing such an act to the Universal
House of Justice. Hopefully such an approach will eradicate once and for all
this social illness from among humanity.
Of course one might ask why did Bahá'u'lláh address this issue in the Book of
Aqdas in the context of "subject of boys" and "sodomy" instead of that which we
characterize today by the umbrella term "homosexuality". In my humble
opinion:
1- The Manifestation of God is addressing humanity in a context people could
relate to it. One hundred years ago, sodomy characterized the most important
non-conventional mode in human sexual tendency which has become only an aspect
and an element of what we identify today as homosexuality.
2- Sodomy is used by Bahá'u'lláh as an arch-type or the ultimate example in
demonstrating sexual intercourse between two individual of the same sex. This
metaphor is quite powerful in its implications that it captures the gist of
that which we identify as "homosexuality". Note 134 of the Book of Aqdas (p.
223):
"The word translated here as "boys" has, in this context, in the Arabic
original, the implication of pederastry. Shoghi Effendi has interpreted this
reference as a prohibition on all homosexual relations."
3- The Manifestation of God is perhaps attempting to treat an underlying "root
cause" of human problem in the society and not just band-aiding some of its
symptoms.
The Bahá'í teachings on sexual morality center on marriage and the family as
the bedrock of the whole structure of human society and are designed to protect
and strengthen that divine institution. Bahá'í law thus restricts permissible
sexual intercourse to that between a man and the woman to whom he is married.
In a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi it is stated:
No matter how devoted and fine the love may be between people of the same sex,
to let it find expression in sexual acts is wrong. To say that it is ideal is
no excuse. Immorality of every sort is really forbidden by Bahá'u'lláh, and
homosexual relationships He looks upon as such, besides being against nature.
To be afflicted in this way is a great burden to a conscientious soul. But
through the advice and help of doctors, through a strong and determined effort,
and through prayer, a soul can overcome this handicap.
Bahá'u'lláh makes provision for the Universal House of Justice, to determine,
according to the degree of the offense, penalties for adultery and sodomy
(Q&A 49).
Moreover, Shoghi Effendi elaborates on this issue as follows:
21. "Regarding the question you asked him about one of the believers who seems
to be flagrantly homosexual-- although to a certain extent we must be
forbearing in the matter of people's moral conduct because of the terrible
deterioration of society in general, this does not mean that we can put up
indefinitely with conduct that is disgracing the Cause. This person should
have it brought to his attention that such acts are condemned by Bahá'u'lláh,
and that he must mend his ways, if necessary consult doctors and make efforts
to overcome this affliction, which is corruptive for him and bad for the Cause.
If after a period of probation you do not see an improvement, he should have
his voting rights taken away." Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi,
letter dated 6/20/53 to NSA of Canada.
22. "Amongst the many other evils afflicting society in this spiritual low
water mark in history, is the question of immorality, and over-emphasis of
sex. Homosexuality, according to the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, is spiritually
condemned. This does not mean that people so afflicted must not be helped and
advised and sympathized with. It does mean that we do not believe that it is
a permissible way of life; which, alas, is all to often the accepted attitude
nowadays.
We must struggle against the evils in society by spiritual means, and medical
and social ones as well. We must be tolerant and uncompromising, understanding
but immovable in our point of view. The thing people need to meet this type of
trouble, as well as every other type, is greater spiritual understanding and
stability; and of course we Bahá'ís believe that ultimately this can only be
given to mankind through the Teachings of the Manifestation of God for this
Day." (Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, dated 5/21/54 to an individual
believer.)
The Universal House of Justice wrote in this regard:
24. "A number of sexual problems, such as homosexuality and transsexuality can
well have medical aspects, and in such cases recourse should certainly be had
to the best medical assistance. But it is clear from the teaching of
Bahá'u'lláh that homosexuality is not a condition to which a person should be
reconciled, but is a distortion of his or her nature which should be
controlled and overcome. This may require a hard struggle, but so also can be
the struggle of a heterosexual person to control his or her desires. The
exercise of self-control in this, as in so very many other aspects of life,
has a beneficial effect on the progress of the soul. It should, moreover, be
borne in mind that although to be married is highly desirable, and Bahá'u'lláh
has strongly recommended it, it is not the central purpose of life. If a
person has to wait a considerable period before finding a spouse, or if
ultimately, he or she must remain single, it does not mean that he or she is
thereby unable to fulfill his or her life's purpose." (The Universal House of Justice, letter dated
2/6/73 to all NSAs.)
I hope that these lines offer the readers a small glimpse of the context within
which this particular law of the Book of Aqdas should be viewed.
Warm regards,
Kamran Hakim
METADATA
Views24064 views since posted 1997-07; last edit 2012;
previous at archive.org.../hakim_notes_aqdas_homosexuality;
URLs changed in 2010, see archive.org.../bahai-library.org
Language
English
Permission
author
Share
Shortlink: bahai-library.com/3827
Citation: ris/3827
select Collection:
Archives
Articles
Articles-unpublished
Audio
Bibliographies
BIC
Biographies
Books
Chronologies
Compilations
Compilations-NSA
Compilations-personal
Documents
East-asia
Encyclopedia
Essays
Etc
Excerpts
Fiction
Glossaries
Guardian
Histories
Introductory
Letters
Maps
Music
Newspapers
NSA-documents
NSA-letters
Personal
Pilgrims
Poetry
Presentations
Resources
Reviews
Scripts
Software
Statistics
Study
Talks
Theses
Transcripts
Translations
UHJ-documents
UHJ-letters
Video
Visual
Writings
home
sitemap
series
chronology
search:
author
title
date
tags
adv. search
languages
inventory
bibliography
abbreviations
links
about
contact
RSS
new
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Homosexuality in the Kitab-i-Aqdas
Kamran Hakim
1996
Hello dear friends,
Through a private E-mail one of the friends brought up the gist of an ongoing
discussion in soc.religion.bahai on the question of homosexuality and how it
is treated in the Book of Aqdas. One of the postings which was forwarded to me
and captured my attention was a posting by __ who wrote:
"Though I do not speak Arabic, I understand that the word "boys" in
context is slave boys. These boys were the objects of their owner's
homosexual acts which they as slaves were not free to reject."
Hello dear __, I hope you do not mind me jumping into this discussion. I must
respectfully disagree with this approach, and in the following lines I have
attempted to clarify this.
"Since this is the word Bahá'u'lláh uses, it is not clear how much of
the shame he feels is due to the paederastry which is occurring with
a boy and how much shame is due to the fact that the boy is a slave."
I also disagree with this issue. Hopefully, I have been able to reason out my
disagreement.
"I think too that in fairness it should be stated that Bahá'u'lláh
attaches no penalty to homosexuality though He does to many other
things. Perhaps that tells us something about the importance He
gave to this."
__, you are not a pioneer in advancing the theory of "lack of importance of
homosexuality". Every other Muslim writer who has written something on the
Faith has advanced the same theory. However, they did not remain content with
that theory. They ridiculed the Author of the Faith and went on to suggest
that Bahá'u'lláh has in fact been a promoter of homosexuality.
Due to the lack of time I have not been able to read soc.religion.bahai for the
past two months. As a result I am not sure to what extent this issue has been
discussed in this forum within the past week. The following material is an
extract from a commentary I am working on, which I appended here with some
modification, I hope the following lines offer a historical perspective for
the consideration of this issue. Moreover, I hope that I am not repeating what
has already been said. In any case please accept my apologies for the length
of this reply.
Bahá'u'lláh reveals in verse 107 of the Book of Aqdas:
"ennaa nastah-yi an nazkora hokma'l ghelmaane et-taqo'r-rahmana yaa
mala'el emkaane wa laa tartakiboo maa nohitom 'anho fil-lohe wa laa takoonoo
fi haimaa ash-shahavaate minal haa'emina"
This is translated by the Universal House of Justice as:
"We shrink, for very shame, from treating the subject of boys. Fear ye the
Merciful, O peoples of the world! Commit not that which is forbidden you in
Our Holy Tablet, and be not of those who rove distractedly in the wilderness of
their desire." Verse 107 of the Book of Aqdas
The Arabic term "Ghelmaan" is the plural form of the term "Ghulaam" which
according to the Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic is defined as:
boy; youth, lad; slave; servant; waiter. "Ghulaamiya" and "Ghuluma": youth,
youthfulness.
The Haim Persian English Dictionary defines the Persian implications of the
Arabic term "Ghulaam" as: Slave, Page; lad, Servant, while defining the term
"Ghelmaan" as Handsome lads dwelling in Paradise. This particular meaning
associated with the term Ghelmaan comes from the following verse of the Qur'an
wherein this term is used:
"They shall there exchange one with another a (loving) cup free of frivolity
free of all taint of ill. Round about them will serve (devoted) to them
youths (handsome) [The Arabic term similar to the Book of Aqdas is used:
"Ghelmaan". KH] as Pearls well-guarded." Qur'an 52:23-24
NOTE: It is important to point out that the term "Ghelmaan" used in this
Passage of the Qur'an has nothing to do with "slave boys" and its meaning is
specifically "youths" or "boys".
There are other Arabic-Persian compound terms such as: "Ghulaam-bacheh": Young
slave, Page. "Ghulaam bareh" or "Ghulaam pareh": Sodomite (i.e. one who
practices sodomy); Also "Ghulaam zadeh": Slave's child; My child or son.
"Ghulaam siah": Negro slave.
I hope that the definitions I have offered above offer the differences in usage
of the term Ghulaam and Ghelman in relation to such variables as language and
context. Let us move on. We will come back to this discussion later on.
In a separate Tablet revealed on the 17 of Jamadi-2 of the year 1291 AH (1875
AD), around the same time frame as the revelation of the Book of Aqdas,
Bahá'u'lláh reveals:
"Ye are forbidden to commit adultery, sodomy and lechery. Avoid them, O
concourse of the faithful. By the righteousness of God! Ye have been called
into being to purge the world from the defilement of evil passions. This is
what the Lord of all mankind hath enjoined upon you, could ye but perceive it.
He who relateth himself to the All-Merciful and committeth satanic deeds,
verily he is not of Me. Unto this beareth witness every atom, pebble, tree and
fruit, and beyond them this ever-proclaiming, true and trustworthy Tongue."
(Bahá'u'lláh, from a Tablet translated from the Arabic, cit. Ganjineh Hodud
wa Ahkaam pp. 338-339 Bahá'í Publishing Trust of Iran)
In order to gain an appreciation of why Bahá'u'lláh addresses this issue in the
Book of Aqdas as the "subject of boys" and in other Tablets as "sodomy" one
must, in my humble opinion, examine the human practices in the realm of sexual
behavior throughout the written history. While no detail information on this
issue can be found from antiquity nevertheless, one can indirectly get a sense
of the prevalent social norms by studying the literature, Scriptures, etc...
and develop a reasonable context for considering verse 107 of the Book of
Aqdas.
Among Greeks sexual relationship between a wise man and his young patron was a
socially acceptable norm. Such relationships have been eulogized in some books
of poetry and history. An expanded discussion of this dealing with the
acceptability of such an act within the Greek society or its class-dependence
are clearly outside of the scope of this article.
It is believed that the Greeks' preoccupation with sodomy in male-male sexual
intercourse had an effect on other cultures as well. Of course this is not to
imply that other cultures were less innovative, in sexual matters, than Greeks. According to the Encyclopedia Brittanica:
"The Greek's congeniality for homosexuality is said to have influenced such
neighbors as Persians and to have been transmitted along with other Greek
traditions into the Roman Empire." (Vol. 16 p. 604)
A close look at the Zoroastrian theological treaties of around this time
period and the imagery they adopted in their presentation clearly hints at the
existence of sodomy among the Persians. By sodomy male-male sexual
relationship is intended here. Perhaps females were too unimportant a class
for histories and Scriptures to have commented on female-female modes of
sexual norms.
Regarding his Ascension and Vision of Hell, Arta-Viraaf, the Great Dastur
(Zoroasterian High Priest) of the time of Ardashir the first of the Sassanid
Kings of Persia (226 A.D.) said:
"I saw the soul of a man where a snake had entered his end and exited >from
his mouth. I asked Suroosh [i.e. the Zoroasterian synonym for Arch-angel
Gabriel in the Semitic Theologies. KH] about the nature of his sin. Suroosh
replied: 'He committed sodomy in his life." (Arta Viraaf-Namih: Farkard 19, translation by
myself.)
The vision of the High-priest of the Sassanid Era appears to basically hint at
two points:
Sodomy existed among the Zoroastrian population of the Sassanid Empire.
Else, there would have been no need for Arta Viraaf to portray such a horrible
picture of this event in the Vision of his Ascension. The vision appears to
generally portray a message in the context of an imagery which people were able
to relate to and a thought which they would abhor.
Implications of unacceptability of such act within the realm of
Zoroasterian dogma is apparent. Abstinence is implied as the solution in
preventing such a horrible torment in after life.
Sodomy must also have been a social norm within the Hebrew society of the time
of Moses, else there was no reason for the Torah to mention the episode of
Sodom [Genesis 18:19], or prescribe punishment for such an act. According to
Torah:
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have
committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall
be] upon them." Leviticus 20:13
The term "Sodomy" is in fact a derivative of the name "Sodom" and the Biblical
account of what the people of Sodom did.
Since Hebrews lived among Egyptians for a long time they must have adopted
some of their customs into their culture, one might assume that sodomy could
have also been a social norm within the Egyptian society of that time period.
The Christian Scriptures does not directly deal with the question of sodomy,
however, Paul addresses issue of effeminacy which some Christians have
associated with homosexuality:
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not
deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate,
nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor
drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (I Corinthians, 6:9-10)
Similar references to effeminacy can also be found in Islamic Hadith which is,
in a sense, a verification of the account of the New Testament. Narrated Ibn
'Abbas:
The Prophet cursed the effeminate men and those women who assume the
similitude (manners) of men. He also said, "Turn them out of your houses." He
turned such-and-such person out, and 'Umar also turned out such-and- such
person. Sahih Bukhari 8.820
There doesn't appear to be too much room for effeminate men within the Muslim
community. However, effeminacy might not exactly equate with sexual tendencies
toward another man. Furthermore, both the Qur'an and the Hadith deal with
male-male sexual relationship in particular.
The mentioning of the story of Lot, the nephew of Abraham and the people of
Sodom in the Qur'an appear to imply that Arabs of the time of Muhammad must
have also had similar social norms regarding sodomy. Else there was no reason
for Prophet Muhammad to repeat, by the virtue of inspiration, the Biblical
account of Sodom and Gomorah in the Qur'an.
Such tendencies could still be seen today in both east and the west. While
sodomy between men and boys is an acceptable norm in preliterate societies
particularly during initiation rites, its presences in the more advanced and
modern societies can also sensed.
Admittedly the human sexual creativity and artfulness in modern societies has
far ascended above that of the preliterate societies whose childish and
primitive methods of male-male sexual engagement is still confined to sodomy
in its simplest form between strong and weak. In the more modern societies this
element appears to have expanded into the complex territory of consensual sex
among adults, marriage, etc... above and beyond the act of sodomy.
If, we are to ascend above the phobia of political correctness, and look
beneath all progressive forms and variations in sexual expression, sodomy alone
appears to represent the most basic arch-type of male-male sexual activity and
capture, as a metaphor, the gist of all that which might be placed under the
modern umbrella term known as homosexuality. Perhaps this might begin to hint
at why the archaic term of sodomy is used as a synonym for the modern term of
homosexuality in translations.
The Qur'an does not directly refer to "lavaat", "sodomy" or the homosexual
act. On the contrary the Qur'an treats this issue in a peripheral manner. The
following verses of that Book describe the story of "Lot" and the people of
Sodom and hint at sodomy by implication:
"For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a
people transgressing beyond bonds." (Qur'an 7:81) Moreover;
"Would ye really approach men in your lust rather than women? Nay ye are a
people grossly ignorant." (Qur'an 27:55)
Surih Sho'ara:105 of the Qur'an reiterates further on this same theme.
Imam Ali describes the reason behind the injunction of the Qur'an against
sodomy in a rather practical manner:
"Amir al-mu'menin, peace be upon him, said: Allah has laid down...abstinence
>from sodomy for increase of progeny..." (Nahj-ul-Balagha, selection from the preachings
of Ali, # 253, p. 621)
Regardless of such admonishment and unlike the severe approach of the Torah in
punishing those guilty of sodomy, the Qur'an appear to treat this issue in a
far more lenient manner than the Torah:
"And as for the two of you [i.e. The sentence structure refers exclusively to
two men and not a man and a woman. KH] who are guilty thereof [guilty of sexual
relationship. KH], punish them both. And if they repent and improve, then let
them be. Lo! Allah is Relenting, Merciful." ( Qur'an 4:16)
Qur'an while speaking of "punish them both", does not prescribe any form of
punishment, as in the case of adultery, for sexual relationship between two
men and prescribes acceptance of their repentance. However, there are some
Ahadith (i.e. Traditions, saying of Prophet Muhammad) that prescribe the
severe punishment of the Torah for those guilty of this charge. For example
the following two Ahadith are from Sunan of Abu Dawood vol 4, chapter on the
people of Lot. The Arabic text reads as follows:
"man laata beh ghulaam faqtaloo al-fa'il val-maf'ool." Which translates to:
"When a man commits sodomy with a boy: kill the doer and the one done to."
Please note that the usage of the term "Ghulaam" simply means "boy" in Arabic
and has nothing to do with a slave-boy.
Also; "qala an-nabi man vajde tamooh ya'mala 'amale qawme Lot fa-aqtaloo al-fa'il
val-maf'ool." Which translates to: "Prophet said: He who commits that which the people of Lot committed [i.e.
People of Lot committed Sodomy. KH]: kill the doer and the one done to."
Since the Qur'an has not clearly prescribed a punishment for sodomy, some
Schools of Thought in Islam have considered sodomy as "mobaah" [i.e. meaning
allowable in an impunible and indifferent sense.] while others have considered
it "jaa'iz" [i.e. meaning allowable, permissible and lawful.]. For example
Maleki, the founder of the Maleki School of Thought within Sunni Islam says:
"Having sex with a young man (without beard) is fine for a man who is not
married and who is on a trip." (cit. Hesaam Noqaba'i, Hoquq-i Zan, pp. 126-127, section on
"lavaat"/"sodomy")
The Shi'ah books of law also leave the door unlocked for the cases of "Oops, I
forgot! sodomization of boys. The following Shi'ah ruling hints at this:
"If he has had sexual intercourse with a boy according to precautionary rule,
it becomes unlawful for him forever to marry the boy's mother, his sister, or
his daughters even if they are boys not adults. If one is married to one of
such ladies before such act, it does not affect the already existing marriage,
although it is a precautionary rule to avoid such marriage. Extending this
rule to the case wherein one doing the act is a minor the one letting it done
to him is an adult, is objectionable, according to a clear view it does not
apply. The daughter or brothers and sisters of the one letting it done to him
do not become unlawful to one who has done the act." (Islamic Laws of Worship and Contracts, p.
614, CR #1259 Ayatullah Al-'Uzma Al-Sayyid Muhammad Al-Husayni Shirazi)
In the Ottoman Empire the Khalifs use to keep young boys in the Harems for
satisfying their sexual appetites [Such reference may be found in books such
as: "The Spirit of Laws" by Montesquieu and "Chronicles of Shirly Brothers"].
Within the Iranian society "bache-bazi" or "sexual play with young boys" has
been an under the carpet social norm for many centuries and the ambiguous
nature of the Qur'anic prescription has not been able to bring halt to this
social illness. Will Durant refers to this issue in his book "History of
Civilization". He writes:
"Sexual indulgence was apparently more abundant and enervating in Islam than
in Christiandom, though it was usually kept within the orderly limits of
polygamy. Turkish society was almost exclusively male, and since there was no
permitted association of men with women outside the home, the Moslems
found companionship in homosexual relationships, Platonic or physical.
Lesbianism flourished in the zenana." ( Will & Ariel Durant, History of Civilization vol 7
(The Age of Reason Begins) p. 520)
Also:
"The women were 'very richly habited,'wrote Tavernier, and 'little otherwise
than the men...They wear breeches like the men.' The women lived in the
privacy of the zenana, and seldom stirring from their homes, and then rarely
on foot. There were three sexes. Much of the love poetry was addressed by
men to boys, and Thomas Herbert, and Englishman at Abbas' [i.e Shah Abbas of
the Saffavid Dynasty. This Dynasty appeared before the Qajar dynasty, during
which The Bab and Bahá'u'lláh proclaimed Their revelations. KH] court, saw
'Ganymade boys in vests of gold, rich bespangled turbans, and choice sandals,
their curled hair dangling about their shoulders, with rolling eyes and
vermilion cheeks.'
Chardin noted a decrease in population in his time and ascribed it to:
First, the unhappy inclination which the Persians have, to commit that
abominable sin against nature, with both sexes [Here he is referring to
sodomy. KH].
Secondly, the immoderate luxury [sexual freedom] of the country. The women
begin there to have children betimes, and continue fruitful but a little while;
and as soon as they get on the wrong side of thirty they are looked upon as
old and superannuated, The men likewise begin to visit women too young, and to
such an excess, that though they enjoy several, they have never the more
children for it. There are also a great many women who make themselves
abortive, and take remedies against growing pregnant, because [when] they have
been three or four months gone with the child, their husbands take to other
women, holding it ... indecency to lie with a woman so far in her time.
Despite polygamy there were many prostitutes. Drunkenness was widespread,
though Muhammadan law forbade wine." (Will & Ariel Durant, History of Civilization vol
7 (The Age of Reason Begins) p. 532)
It is important to point out that Durant's observation is not far from the
truth. Perhaps the following quotes from the Shi'ah compilations offers a
certain measure of validity to Durant's view:
"The woman becomes the owner of the dowry by the contract and it is reduced by
one half by divorce before sex, also because of death of one party, according
to a more clear reason if sex is performed by the front or back the dowry
becomes an established right and the same rule applies if he tears her
virginity by his finger and without her permission." (Islamic Laws of Worship and Contracts,
p. 626, CR #1350 Ayatullah Al-'Uzma Al-Sayyid Muhammad Al-Husayni Shirazi)
If we are to consider the following factors:
1- The usage of the term "Ghulaam" and "Ghelmaan" in the Hadith and the Qur'an
compared to the usage of the term "Ghelmaan" in the Book of Aqdas;
2- The fact that slavery was not abolished in Islam, and as a result it was
possible for a Muslim to have a slave boy [In the Hadith Prophet Muhammad,
while using the term Ghulaam, focuses the punishment on the act of "lavaat",
or sodomy, as opposed to associating the term Ghulaam with slavery.];
3- That regardless of the warnings of the Qur'an and the punishments prescribed
in the Hadith, yet, some Muslim scholars of both Sunni and Shi'ah schools had
the door left unlocked for the practice of sodomy [The quotes offered above
clearly hint at this issue in the context of boys, women and even marriage.];
Then, it is hard to believe that Bahá'u'lláh was concerned about slave boys
being raped by their masters. On the contrary He appears to be:
1- Abrogating the rulings of the Muslim clergy who left the door unlocked for
such a thing to happen within their communities, regardless of the directives
of the Qur'an.
Consideration of various verses of the Book of Aqdas indicates that the
Manifestation of God is either reinstating, modifying or abrogating certain
laws and practices of various Scriptures and peoples. For example in Paragraph
9 of the Book of Aqdas Bahá'u'lláh refers to the misconception of the religious
leaders, regarding the presence of hair and bones of a dead animal
invalidating one's obligatory prayer, saying: "the prohibition of its use hath
stemmed, not from the Qur'an, but from the misconceptions of the divines." In
verse 107, Bahá'u'lláh appears to refer to yet another misconception of the
Muslim divines stemmed from their indifferent attitude toward sodomy which was
against the spirit of the laws of the Qur'an and goes on to prohibit such
practices;
2- Pointing at an underlying social problem, namely sexual appetite towards
young children, particularly boys which has been and continues to be a problem
plaguing many societies and cannot really be identified as a culture specific
phenomenon;
3- Identifying the "subject of boys" as an arch-type to convey His displeasure
with all non-conventional forms of sexual expression we identify as homo-
sexuality.
This is perhaps why Bahá'u'lláh reveals in the Book of Aqdas:
"We shrink, for very shame, from treating the subject of boys. Fear ye the
Merciful, O peoples of the world! Commit not that which is forbidden you in Our
Holy Tablet, and be not of those who rove distractedly in the wilderness of
their desire." (Verse 107 of the Book of Aqdas)
While the permissivity of our society has reached a point that that we are
expected to advocate the discussion of this issue in the name of eliminating
homo-phobia, the Manifestation of God states: "We shrink, for very shame,
from treating the subject of boys." That is to say, He finds the presence
of such an animalistic trait in a human being to be unworthy of the human
station to the extent that even its discussion is considered shameful by the
Law-Giver of humanity, much less revealing laws dealing with it. He does not
associate shame with adultery, murder and theft, yet, He chooses to associate
it with sodomy. Perhaps there is a challenge in this statement for both
Bahá'ís and non-Bahá'ís alike regarding why Bahá'u'lláh addressed this issue
the way He chose to address it in the Book of Aqdas.
Unlike the Qur'an, the Book of Aqdas and other Tablets revealed by Bahá'u'lláh
are extremely clear about the question of "lavaat", "sodomy" or homosexual act
in general and Bahá'u'lláh has clearly forbidden it in His Tablets (I have
already quoted an example of this from among Arabic Tablets.). Bahá'u'lláh has
relegated the nature of punishment for committing such an act to the Universal
House of Justice. Hopefully such an approach will eradicate once and for all
this social illness from among humanity.
Of course one might ask why did Bahá'u'lláh address this issue in the Book of
Aqdas in the context of "subject of boys" and "sodomy" instead of that which we
characterize today by the umbrella term "homosexuality". In my humble
opinion:
1- The Manifestation of God is addressing humanity in a context people could
relate to it. One hundred years ago, sodomy characterized the most important
non-conventional mode in human sexual tendency which has become only an aspect
and an element of what we identify today as homosexuality.
2- Sodomy is used by Bahá'u'lláh as an arch-type or the ultimate example in
demonstrating sexual intercourse between two individual of the same sex. This
metaphor is quite powerful in its implications that it captures the gist of
that which we identify as "homosexuality". Note 134 of the Book of Aqdas (p.
223):
"The word translated here as "boys" has, in this context, in the Arabic
original, the implication of pederastry. Shoghi Effendi has interpreted this
reference as a prohibition on all homosexual relations."
3- The Manifestation of God is perhaps attempting to treat an underlying "root
cause" of human problem in the society and not just band-aiding some of its
symptoms.
The Bahá'í teachings on sexual morality center on marriage and the family as
the bedrock of the whole structure of human society and are designed to protect
and strengthen that divine institution. Bahá'í law thus restricts permissible
sexual intercourse to that between a man and the woman to whom he is married.
In a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi it is stated:
No matter how devoted and fine the love may be between people of the same sex,
to let it find expression in sexual acts is wrong. To say that it is ideal is
no excuse. Immorality of every sort is really forbidden by Bahá'u'lláh, and
homosexual relationships He looks upon as such, besides being against nature.
To be afflicted in this way is a great burden to a conscientious soul. But
through the advice and help of doctors, through a strong and determined effort,
and through prayer, a soul can overcome this handicap.
Bahá'u'lláh makes provision for the Universal House of Justice, to determine,
according to the degree of the offense, penalties for adultery and sodomy
(Q&A 49).
Moreover, Shoghi Effendi elaborates on this issue as follows:
21. "Regarding the question you asked him about one of the believers who seems
to be flagrantly homosexual-- although to a certain extent we must be
forbearing in the matter of people's moral conduct because of the terrible
deterioration of society in general, this does not mean that we can put up
indefinitely with conduct that is disgracing the Cause. This person should
have it brought to his attention that such acts are condemned by Bahá'u'lláh,
and that he must mend his ways, if necessary consult doctors and make efforts
to overcome this affliction, which is corruptive for him and bad for the Cause.
If after a period of probation you do not see an improvement, he should have
his voting rights taken away." Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi,
letter dated 6/20/53 to NSA of Canada.
22. "Amongst the many other evils afflicting society in this spiritual low
water mark in history, is the question of immorality, and over-emphasis of
sex. Homosexuality, according to the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, is spiritually
condemned. This does not mean that people so afflicted must not be helped and
advised and sympathized with. It does mean that we do not believe that it is
a permissible way of life; which, alas, is all to often the accepted attitude
nowadays.
We must struggle against the evils in society by spiritual means, and medical
and social ones as well. We must be tolerant and uncompromising, understanding
but immovable in our point of view. The thing people need to meet this type of
trouble, as well as every other type, is greater spiritual understanding and
stability; and of course we Bahá'ís believe that ultimately this can only be
given to mankind through the Teachings of the Manifestation of God for this
Day." (Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, dated 5/21/54 to an individual
believer.)
The Universal House of Justice wrote in this regard:
24. "A number of sexual problems, such as homosexuality and transsexuality can
well have medical aspects, and in such cases recourse should certainly be had
to the best medical assistance. But it is clear from the teaching of
Bahá'u'lláh that homosexuality is not a condition to which a person should be
reconciled, but is a distortion of his or her nature which should be
controlled and overcome. This may require a hard struggle, but so also can be
the struggle of a heterosexual person to control his or her desires. The
exercise of self-control in this, as in so very many other aspects of life,
has a beneficial effect on the progress of the soul. It should, moreover, be
borne in mind that although to be married is highly desirable, and Bahá'u'lláh
has strongly recommended it, it is not the central purpose of life. If a
person has to wait a considerable period before finding a spouse, or if
ultimately, he or she must remain single, it does not mean that he or she is
thereby unable to fulfill his or her life's purpose." (The Universal House of Justice, letter dated
2/6/73 to all NSAs.)
I hope that these lines offer the readers a small glimpse of the context within
which this particular law of the Book of Aqdas should be viewed.
Warm regards,
Kamran Hakim
METADATA
Views24064 views since posted 1997-07; last edit 2012;
previous at archive.org.../hakim_notes_aqdas_homosexuality;
URLs changed in 2010, see archive.org.../bahai-library.org
Language
English
Permission
author
Share
Shortlink: bahai-library.com/3827
Citation: ris/3827
select Collection:
Archives
Articles
Articles-unpublished
Audio
Bibliographies
BIC
Biographies
Books
Chronologies
Compilations
Compilations-NSA
Compilations-personal
Documents
East-asia
Encyclopedia
Essays
Etc
Excerpts
Fiction
Glossaries
Guardian
Histories
Introductory
Letters
Maps
Music
Newspapers
NSA-documents
NSA-letters
Personal
Pilgrims
Poetry
Presentations
Resources
Reviews
Scripts
Software
Statistics
Study
Talks
Theses
Transcripts
Translations
UHJ-documents
UHJ-letters
Video
Visual
Writings
home
sitemap
series
chronology
search:
author
title
date
tags
adv. search
languages
inventory
bibliography
abbreviations
links
about
contact
RSS
new
选择第二个文本以并排阅读——可以是译本，或任何其他文本。
选择另一文本