Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The Bahais / Babis-Why were they persecuted

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The Bahais / Babis-Why were they persecuted
    Posted: 16-Nov-2006 at 05:47
Yazzmode621 you are right the Bahai's think that their profit is the mahdi returned but Shia's do not believe it to be true. 
---
 
Yes this is why they are seen as heretics!
Back to Top
JanusRook View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2419
  Quote JanusRook Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2006 at 08:15

The bahai religion is alive and well, in fact King Malietoa Tanumafili II of Samoa professes the bahai faith, and has one of the seven major temples located near his capitol. Also, it is attracting converts, but I don't know how sustainable they will be to the religion.

Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2006 at 19:18
The bahai religion is alive and well, in fact King Malietoa Tanumafili II of Samoa professes the bahai faith, and has one of the seven major temples located near his capitol. Also, it is attracting converts, but I don't know how sustainable they will be to the religion.

Really? Are you sure? Samoans are very strong christians in my experience. Islanders make up a substantial portion of the practising chrisitans in Australia
Back to Top
kingofmazanderan View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 265
  Quote kingofmazanderan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Nov-2006 at 00:14

here is a great website for people who want to learn more about the faith.  http://www.bahai.org/

Back to Top
kingofmazanderan View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 265
  Quote kingofmazanderan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Nov-2006 at 00:17
Qutuz Islam was mostly spread to other countries outside of what is now Saudi arabia through military invasions in the first century of its life.
Back to Top
ok ge View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
  Quote ok ge Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Nov-2006 at 03:27
Originally posted by kingofmazanderan

Qutuz Islam was mostly spread to other countries outside of what is now Saudi arabia through military invasions in the first century of its life.
 
Islam the religion? or the Muslim Empire? that spread through military invasions.
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
Back to Top
Vivek Sharma View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
  Quote Vivek Sharma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Nov-2006 at 03:51
Both.One lead to the other. One of the main purposes of the later was the frst.
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
Back to Top
Killabee View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 01-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 269
  Quote Killabee Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Nov-2006 at 04:13
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egstHWxTYBI&eurl=

Touching story of an 17 years ago Iranian girl who chose to be executed over giving up her bahai faith after the establishment of Islamic nation.
Back to Top
ok ge View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
  Quote ok ge Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Nov-2006 at 04:14
Originally posted by Vivek Sharma

Both.One lead to the other. One of the main purposes of the later was the frst.
Then explains why did Egypt need over 400 years for Muslims to break the minority stand? or even more for Zoroastrians of Iran? or maybe you can tell us why Muslims would remain a non-majority of Moorish Spain for over 700 years?
I find it extremely naiive to attribute the spread of Islam to political and military actions whereas the conversion happened on an extremely slow basis. More logical, the conversion happened with cultural, linguistic, and jurisdictional domination of the ruling Muslims on local population aided by factors as improvement of conditions (security and financial improvement to Byzantine era in the conquered regions).
If military was the force of Islam spread, we have to answers all of the the above questions including the fact that Armenia was in the hand of Muslims for hundreds of years, and yet remained almost purely Christian. The largest Muslim country in population today ,Indonesia, has adopted Islam from non-military channels.
 
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
Back to Top
kingofmazanderan View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 265
  Quote kingofmazanderan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Nov-2006 at 04:42
I said Islam was "mostly" spread to other countries by military invasion not completly.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Nov-2006 at 04:46
King is right, Islam spread mostly by military invasion, sewing the seed for conversion at later dates.
Back to Top
Vivek Sharma View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
  Quote Vivek Sharma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Nov-2006 at 05:52
Originally posted by kingofmazanderan

I said Islam was "mostly" spread to other countries by military invasion not completly.


You are right.
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
Back to Top
Nestorian View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 08-Jul-2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 161
  Quote Nestorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Jan-2007 at 10:24
In Islam religion and state are virtually wedded together, the state represent's the Muslim religion and the favour of Allah does it not? Particularly under the four rightly guided Caliphs, religion and state went together. With each new military conquest Islam was introduced into the region. However, wth the development of the Sufi order and Muslim mercantile class, Islam was spread outside its borders in a peaceful manner. But there is no doubt, most of Islamic presence was spread through conquest (when I mean spread, I don't mean forced conversions or anythin like that, I mean exactly what I stated - that is Muslim presence).
 
However, i dispute the assertion that there was some kind of improvement over Byzantine rule in Egypt, the violent riots over excessive tacation (seemingly more harsh than Byzantine taxation) led to agitation of the Copts, and sometimes both Copts and Muslims. Furthermore, Coptic insurgence against foreign rule was greater under the Abbasids than the Byzantines. There were urban riots under Byzantine rule, but not armed insurgences which occured under Abbasid rule. Furthermore, the desertion of Egyptian Christian sailors to the Byzantines during the Siege of Constantinople shows that despite strained relations, the Christians of Egypt and Byzantium still had some kind of bond. It was quite rare to hear of any Egyptian attack aganst the Byzantines since AD 717.
Isa al-Masih, both God and Man, divine and human, flesh and spirit, saviour, servant and sovereign
Back to Top
ok ge View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
  Quote ok ge Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jan-2007 at 18:48
Originally posted by Zagros

King is right, Islam spread mostly by military invasion, sewing the seed for conversion at later dates.
 
The statement "Islam spread mostly by military invasion" and "sewing the seed for conversion at later dates" contradict each other. Simply because Islam is the religion and not the state.
To be technically right, Islamic empires spread mosly by military invasion, sewing the seed for ocnversion at later dates.
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jan-2007 at 18:58
jeez cok! talk about nit picking!

    

Edited by Zagros - 07-Jan-2007 at 19:00
Back to Top
ok ge View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
  Quote ok ge Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jan-2007 at 19:16
Originally posted by Nestorian

However, i dispute the assertion that there was some kind of improvement over Byzantine rule in Egypt, the violent riots over excessive tacation (seemingly more harsh than Byzantine taxation) led to agitation of the Copts, and sometimes both Copts and Muslims. Furthermore, Coptic insurgence against foreign rule was greater under the Abbasids than the Byzantines. There were urban riots under Byzantine rule, but not armed insurgences which occured under Abbasid rule. Furthermore, the desertion of Egyptian Christian sailors to the Byzantines during the Siege of Constantinople shows that despite strained relations, the Christians of Egypt and Byzantium still had some kind of bond. It was quite rare to hear of any Egyptian attack aganst the Byzantines since AD 717.
Nestorian, we both argued this point earlier in a different thread. I'm little surprised that despite we reach some common ground on some points, your paragraph above shows that our lengthy four pages discussion had no impact on your perception. While you are entitled to keep your ideas unchanged regardless of any presented information, I must balance your view by re-stating what we discussed in that thread in which:
1- Byzantine rule ,despite it was shorter than the Islamic one, had flacuated from peaceful to oppressive, with high taxations, religious intolerance and presucation as the example of the Patriarchate of Alexandria prosecution.
2- There is no dispute even by Coptic sources that the years following the invasion of Egypt marked a positive change in Copts' lives. The dispute stems from the changing attitudes by later rulers and governers of Egypt.
3- We are comparing over 1,400 years of Islamic presence in Egypt with less than 250 years of Byzantine rule which is still charachterized by most Coptics as a period mainly distinguished by its high taxation and religious intolerance.
4- Taxation protests and riots were common in Egypt by Muslims and non-Muslims.
5- Insurgency in Egypt? That I have not read about before, including during our past discussion. Would you like to post more information regarding the type of insurgency and its scale?
6- Desertation of minorities is very common. When Byzantine lost Egypt and witnessed the attitude of its Christian subjects in aiding the invaders, it was a turning mark to its own attitude toward religious minorities. For propoganda purposes, a deserted copts to Byzantine would be marked as an evidance of Muslim prosecution, and deserted Slavs to the Arabs would be used by the Abbasyids as a propoganda of the Byzantine intolerance. 
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
Back to Top
Nestorian View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 08-Jul-2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 161
  Quote Nestorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jan-2007 at 05:45
1- Byzantine rule ,despite it was shorter than the Islamic one, had flacuated from peaceful to oppressive, with high taxations, religious intolerance and presucation as the example of the Patriarchate of Alexandria prosecution.
 
So does that make it worse than under Islamic rule? I'm against the argument that Byzantine rule was harsher than Islamic rule, but I am prepared to accept that both Byzantine and Islamic rule experienced the same fluxes in regards in changes of conditions. This is not necessarily pointed at you in anyway but rather against people who ignorantly use the Byzantines as some kind of archetype of oppression.
 
2- There is no dispute even by Coptic sources that the years following the invasion of Egypt marked a positive change in Copts' lives. The dispute stems from the changing attitudes by later rulers and governers of Egypt.
 
Positive in what sense? The Copts stayed neutral during the conflict, the swapping of one regime for another regime isn't necessarily positive. But I do agree that any "positive" experiences that may have existed dissipated rapidly. The early Muslim empire was a military machine on a war footing, its demands for resources is more taxing (pun not intended) than a state balancing defense and peace (Byzantium) as it was trying to recover from a 20 year conflict with the Sassanians.
 
3- We are comparing over 1,400 years of Islamic presence in Egypt with less than 250 years of Byzantine rule which is still charachterized by most Coptics as a period mainly distinguished by its high taxation and religious intolerance.
 
Byzantium is not some empire that just appeared from nowhere, it is the Roman Empire, but in this context perhaps we should start talking about the Byzantine period in Egypt as the Roman Christian period of Egyptian history starting from the official declaration of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire (Byzantium) by Theodosios I and ending with the conquest of Egypt. The idea that Copts were a helpless religious group under the Byzantines is a false assumption, the Monophysitic Copts were very influential in the heated theological debates of the 4th and 5th centuries. They even had adherents amongst Emperors and in the capital. The council of Ephesus demonstrated the power of the Coptic Christians when they managed to have Patriarch Nestorius excommunicated and banished and had the verdict of the council in favour of the Monophysites - until that council was superseded by the Council of Chalcedon which the Monophysites lost and became enemies of the state thereafter. There was a strong political undertone in what may seem to be a religious affair.
 
And the issue here is what? Byzantine rule was harsher than Islamic rule? I think 1400 years of Islamic presence was more detrimental to the Copts than the Byzantines. Under Islamic rule, the Coptic population became a minority, under Byzantine rule, they were consderably strong, strong enough to survive persecution and high taxation, but not under the same conditions under Islamic rule.
 
4- Taxation protests and riots were common in Egypt by Muslims and non-Muslims.
 
Proves my point, so common that it one can say it was not an improvement on Byzantine rule. If taxation was harsh for Muslims, how much harsher was it for the Copts?
 
5- Insurgency in Egypt? That I have not read about before, including during our past discussion. Would you like to post more information regarding the type of insurgency and its scale?
 
It seems everyone but the Copts have forgotten about the Coptic insurgencies!
 
 
You have a right to question this source as it is coming from a Coptic perspective. But I say one thing, history is often written by the victors. Now that the victims have a chance to write, will they be disregarded?
 
The scale of the insurgency rebellion has never occured under Byzantine rule. Considering the adage of preferring infidels over heretics, the Copts would by this adage have risen in rebellion against the Byzantine heretics. Obviously, there is an exaggeration of just how harsh persecution was under Byzantine rule.
 
6- Desertation of minorities is very common. When Byzantine lost Egypt and witnessed the attitude of its Christian subjects in aiding the invaders, it was a turning mark to its own attitude toward religious minorities. For propoganda purposes, a deserted copts to Byzantine would be marked as an evidance of Muslim prosecution, and deserted Slavs to the Arabs would be used by the Abbasyids as a propoganda of the Byzantine intolerance. 
 
Not necessarily, the Byzantine unleashed a fearsome persecution of the Paulicians in Armenia. It was the last serious and large state-sponsored persecution of a religious sect afterwards. Even ordinary Byzantines were appalled. Byzantine policy under Emperors was generally a cynical and pragmatic one, after the early Church councils, religion was kept at a leash by the Emperors. The shameful Paulician persecution was an anomaly.
 
How did these Christian subjects aid the invaders? More like neutrality as opposed to deliberate and active assistance to the invaders.
 
The desertion of Copts and Slavs are apples and oranges. The Slavs that deserted were recent and new miliary recruits forced to settle in new lands. The Copts deserted on the basis of experiencing Muslim rule in Egypt for 70 or so years already with its attendant high taxation, discrimination and less than benevolent rule. Is it a wonder that Egypt after 717 and still with a Coptic majority hesitated to attack Byzantium snce then? Perhaps there was a fear of desertion again. After all, the Copts who deserted actually manned a large fleet. I doubt, they would want to lose another large fleet again.
 
To put it succintly, Im opposed to the idea that Byzantine rule was harsher than Muslim rule thats all. I'm happy to accept the view that Byzantine rule and it malpractices was the same as under Muslim rule and vice-versa. My perspective on religious minority conditions is influenced by pragmatic and cynical analysis rather than on the basis of religious dogma.
 
If you ask what my view of Muslim rule in Egypt was like I'll tell you this:
 
1. Treatment of Copts was motivated MORE by human GREED than by the Islamic religion.
 
2. Treatment of Copts had a political character more often than a religious one.
 
3. Forced conversions did occur, invariably, but not as a consistent state-sponsored policy. If and when they occured, they was a propaganda value to it than an as act of religious merit.
 
 
 
 
Isa al-Masih, both God and Man, divine and human, flesh and spirit, saviour, servant and sovereign
Back to Top
ok ge View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
  Quote ok ge Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jan-2007 at 09:36
Originally posted by Nestorian

 This is not necessarily pointed at you in anyway but rather against people who ignorantly use the Byzantines as some kind of archetype of oppression.
Byzantines rule and especially later governments over Egypt was mainly characterized by oppression. Most sources point out that Copts refused aiding the Patriarch Cyrus in defending Egypt, and showed no resistance to Muslims invasion. In my debate with you, I will try to use neutral sources (non-Coptic, non-Muslim, non-Egyption sites). However, you draw a lot of your refrences from this site http://www.copts.net/history.asp, and so I will use the Christian Coptic Orthodox of Egypt website where it states:
"Copts take pride in the persecution they have sustained as early as May 8, 68 A.D., when their Patron Saint Mark was slain on Easter Monday after being dragged from his feet by Roman soldiers all over Alexandria's streets and alleys. The Copts have been persecuted by almost every ruler of Egypt. Their Clergymen have been tortured and exiled even by their Christian brothers after the schism of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. and until the Arab's conquest of Egypt in 641 A.D. "
Source:http://www.coptic.net/EncyclopediaCoptica/
Notice the word choice of "until"!
 
Originally posted by Nestorian

 than a state balancing defense and peace (Byzantium) as it was trying to recover from a 20 year conflict with the Sassanians.
Do you realize that during the Persian occupation of Egypt, tolerance was excercised to Copts after years of Byzantine prosecution? In fact, Egyptions had no love of the Emperor in Constantinople and put up little resistance to the Persian invasion. If Byzantine taxes Egyptions heavily to defend them from more tolerant invaders, I'm not surprised by the cooperation Copts showed in defending Egypt everytime.
 
 
Originally posted by Nestorian

 And the issue here is what? Byzantine rule was harsher than Islamic rule? I think 1400 years of Islamic presence was more detrimental to the Copts than the Byzantines. Under Islamic rule, the Coptic population became a minority, under Byzantine rule, they were consderably strong, strong enough to survive persecution and high taxation, but not under the same conditions under Islamic rule.
Let us not forget that Christianity was harshly prosecuted by the Romans in fear of dividng the country. Also, switching from a majority to a minority was never per se a proof of prosecution or worst treatment. Your argument is not different that saying that the Byzantine era was extremely harsh that they held on their seperate dogma and belief and refused to accept any changes. Which is actually easier to proof.
"For nearly two centuries, Monophysitism in Egypt became the symbol of national and religious resistance to Byzantium's political and religious authority. The Egyptian Church was severely persecuted by Byzantium. Churches were closed, and Coptic Christians were killed, tortured, and exiled in an effort to force the Egyptian Church to accept Byzantine orthodoxy. The Coptic Church continued to appoint its own patriarchs, refusing to accept those chosen by Constantinople and attempting to depose them. The break with Catholicism in the fifth century converted the Coptic Church to a national church with deeply rooted traditions that have remained unchanged to this day.
By the seventh century, the religious persecutions and the growing pressure of taxation had engendered great hatred of the Byzantines. As a result, the Egyptians offered little resistance to the conquering armies of Islam. "
 
Originally posted by Nestorian

Proves my point, so common that it one can say it was not an improvement on Byzantine rule. If taxation was harsh for Muslims, how much harsher was it for the Copts?
First, please pay more attention to my careful wording. In fact, you quoted me earlier with "There is no dispute even by Coptic sources that the years following the invasion of Egypt marked a positive change in Copts' lives. The dispute stems from the changing attitudes by later rulers and governers of Egypt."
So, obviously I'm not making the period of Islamic Egypt a rosy one. Later rulers of Egypt placed higher taxes on all of the population. My line does not excuse Muslims from this. Finally, Byzantine rule is not harsh because of only taxations, it is the combination of high taxations, prosecution, and religious intolerance.
 
 
Originally posted by Nestorian

 It seems everyone but the Copts have forgotten about the Coptic insurgencies!
You have a right to question this source as it is coming from a Coptic perspective. But I say one thing, history is often written by the victors. Now that the victims have a chance to write, will they be disregarded?  
First, let me say that I read the posted website under the section of the Arabic and Turkish eras and I cannot find the mentioning of the word "insurgency" or "insurgencies". Maybe you can help with this.
Second, assuming that this Coptic website establishes the idea of a Coptic insurgency against the early Muslim conquest, unfortunately I cast a huge skepticism to all materials on that site due to  many historical inaccuracies and intential false historical representation. To mention one example, under that site you posted, it mentions the following:
"Unlike the Greek or Roman rulers who maintained and rebuilt some of the ancient Egyptian temples, several Islamic rulers destroyed and pillaged the ancient Egyptian temples and Churches"
Which totally contradict the known history that after the adoption of Chrisitanity as the state religion, temples were seen as pagan and were destroyed, looted. Check Wikipedia under Alexandria section:
"In the late 4th century, persecution of pagans by Christians had reached new levels of intensity. Temples and statues were destroyed throughout the Roman empire: pagan rituals became forbidden under punishment of death, and libraries were closed. In 391, Emperor Theodosius I ordered the destruction of all pagan temples, and the Patriarch Theophilus, complied with his request. One theory has it that the great Library of Alexandria and the Serapeum was destroyed about this time. The female mathematician and neoplatonist philosopher Hypatia was a prominent victim of the persecutions."
 
Philae temple was closed by Byzantine emperor Justinian too:
"For centuries the temple complex was the holiest site for Isis worshippers. The temple was officially closed down in the 6th century A.D. by the Byzantine emperor Justinian. "
 


Edited by ok ge - 13-Jan-2007 at 09:49
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jan-2007 at 08:57
Originally posted by Qutuz

Bahaism is clearly a genuine religion indigenous to the area.


Why do you believe it is genuinely indigenous? It only began around the time that Western colonial interest in the region began, so I think there's clearly a good case for the claim it's a British invention.
 
Do you really think thousands of baha'is would sacrifice their lives for a british agenda...what do they have to gain from this?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.