In the Kitab'i'Aqdas verse 91, Baha'u'llah says :
91 Let nothing grieve thee, O Land of Tá [Tihrán], for God hath chosen thee to be the source of the joy of all mankind. He shall, if it be His Will, bless thy throne with one who will rule with justice, who will gather together the flock of God which the wolves have scattered. Such a ruler will, with joy and gladness, turn his face towards, and extend his favours unto, the people of Bahá. He indeed is accounted in the sight of God as a jewel among men. Upon him rest forever the glory of God and the glory of all that dwell in the kingdom of His revelation.
Has this Ruler come already or is He still to come ?
If He is still to come are there any explanations in the writings (i. e. the date) ?
Any personnal feelings ?
The Ruler of Tà announced in the Kitab'i'Aqdas
-
Keyvan
i think this concerns a monarch who would emancipate Baha'i's
but it also says
so it wont necessarily happen. Iran can go straight to democracy.
however, it is also said
so...we have something indicating monarchy and something indicating democracy.
this could work together under a constitutional monarchy or monarchy for "traditional purposes" like england. or a monarchy with only some active role in the government, such as in spain and japan.
there is actually a lot more support for the Shah's son right now, inside Iran, than people think...its very possible he will have some active role in the new Iran, thus emancipating Bahais under the new Iranian order.
though he doesnt necessarily have to be involved in a thing to fulfill the Prophecy.
but it also says
He shall, if it be His Will, bless thy throne
so it wont necessarily happen. Iran can go straight to democracy.
however, it is also said
93
Erelong will the state of affairs within thee be
changed, and the reins of power fall into the hands of
the people.
(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 53)
so...we have something indicating monarchy and something indicating democracy.
this could work together under a constitutional monarchy or monarchy for "traditional purposes" like england. or a monarchy with only some active role in the government, such as in spain and japan.
there is actually a lot more support for the Shah's son right now, inside Iran, than people think...its very possible he will have some active role in the new Iran, thus emancipating Bahais under the new Iranian order.
though he doesnt necessarily have to be involved in a thing to fulfill the Prophecy.
Keyvan wrote:so...we have something indicating monarchy and something indicating democracy.
I don't agree that democracy means power to the people. In fact the democraties we see today are just other types of oligarchy (just look around the world, in every "democraty" the rulers are generally coming from the same families or backgrounds). The only good democracy was the one in ancient Athena where everybody (not taking in consideration slaves and foreigners) was sitting in assembly and discussing.
For me real power to the people can be seen almost only in baha'i communities (naturaly with an indirect system).
But could this prophecy means that Iran will become the first big country to become a baha'i state with at his head a bahai king ?
-
Guest
There is a pilgrim's note of Shoghi Effendi which was to have stated that government was to be of the people, for the people, and by the BEST of the people...Authoritative statements indicate the Faith's system is designed to be like a "technocracy", where intellectually qualified scientists, doctors, etc. are chosen (who can bring their knowledge and experience to bear on weighing the issues brought before them).
The problems you speak of, moyo, I think are more related to corruption in the system of candidature, campaigning, etc., not in representative systems. Many of the problems today are actually due to TOO MUCH influence of common people--whether it is the jurors who get appointed no matter their intellectual or moral capacities, or the voting by the masses on the state or national stage for celebrity type figures--with no refinement process besides a circus partisan system and zinger contests (aka debates). Granted, you're right though that common people should be called in more often for their views and opinions--more than is certainly solicited in a partisan system.
As far as Iran, my own impression from the quotation would be that the king would need not (and probably could not) be Baha'i. It would be hard for him to protect Baha'is, at this time, if he were a Baha'i (assuming this were to come true).
The problems you speak of, moyo, I think are more related to corruption in the system of candidature, campaigning, etc., not in representative systems. Many of the problems today are actually due to TOO MUCH influence of common people--whether it is the jurors who get appointed no matter their intellectual or moral capacities, or the voting by the masses on the state or national stage for celebrity type figures--with no refinement process besides a circus partisan system and zinger contests (aka debates). Granted, you're right though that common people should be called in more often for their views and opinions--more than is certainly solicited in a partisan system.
As far as Iran, my own impression from the quotation would be that the king would need not (and probably could not) be Baha'i. It would be hard for him to protect Baha'is, at this time, if he were a Baha'i (assuming this were to come true).
-
Keyvan
a few years ago the "would be" Shah, Reza Pahlavi, held a conference with him and his associates in DC. there they wrote up a provisional constitution for a monarchy. i heard that there was some issue over the part that specified who the reigning monarch would be. meaning, how would the order flow.
the others at the table said that a man or a woman should be able to rule independently, meaning it doesnt have to be the eldest male heir, but rather the eldest heir period. Reza protested this because he didnt want his older sister from his fathers previous marriage, Sanaz, to get the throne before him.
anyway..the line was "a muslim man or woman" and he wanted it to just say "a muslim man"
i told my royalist dad this story and he got upset as i guess he had a hope that RP would reign as a "bahai king" one day.
however....i think after the stage of recognition for Baha'i's in Iran, thus as our interperetation of the Quran goes, Muslim is a general term that can refer to both the straight path and the Muhammadean dispensation.
if say the high court of the future Iran at that stage of recognition thus accepts Baha'i faith as a valid interperetation of fulfillment of Muslim Prophecy (though not necessarily recognise it as the only interperetation) a Baha'i King could reign.
also, i do believe that Iran will be the first Baha'i State. it appears as though everything that Shoghi Effendi said would be in place before such a thing could happen, is happening now. the only thing thats left is the fall of the current regime, as that will be the most historic and unfathomable blow to the entire Shia Establishment. not only blowing away the dignity but also setting them on search wondering how a Sharia can exist again...
in fact in Qom i hear that they refer to Khomani as Imam Zaman (Mahdi)
the others at the table said that a man or a woman should be able to rule independently, meaning it doesnt have to be the eldest male heir, but rather the eldest heir period. Reza protested this because he didnt want his older sister from his fathers previous marriage, Sanaz, to get the throne before him.
anyway..the line was "a muslim man or woman" and he wanted it to just say "a muslim man"
i told my royalist dad this story and he got upset as i guess he had a hope that RP would reign as a "bahai king" one day.
however....i think after the stage of recognition for Baha'i's in Iran, thus as our interperetation of the Quran goes, Muslim is a general term that can refer to both the straight path and the Muhammadean dispensation.
if say the high court of the future Iran at that stage of recognition thus accepts Baha'i faith as a valid interperetation of fulfillment of Muslim Prophecy (though not necessarily recognise it as the only interperetation) a Baha'i King could reign.
also, i do believe that Iran will be the first Baha'i State. it appears as though everything that Shoghi Effendi said would be in place before such a thing could happen, is happening now. the only thing thats left is the fall of the current regime, as that will be the most historic and unfathomable blow to the entire Shia Establishment. not only blowing away the dignity but also setting them on search wondering how a Sharia can exist again...
in fact in Qom i hear that they refer to Khomani as Imam Zaman (Mahdi)
-
Guest
Re: The Ruler of Tà announced in the Kitab'i'Aqdas
moyo wrote:In the Kitab'i'Aqdas verse 91, Baha'u'llah says :
91 Let nothing grieve thee, O Land of Tá [Tihrán], for God hath chosen thee to be the source of the joy of all mankind. He shall, if it be His Will, bless thy throne with one who will rule with justice, who will gather together the flock of God which the wolves have scattered. Such a ruler will, with joy and gladness, turn his face towards, and extend his favours unto, the people of Bahá. He indeed is accounted in the sight of God as a jewel among men. Upon him rest forever the glory of God and the glory of all that dwell in the kingdom of His revelation.
Has this Ruler come already or is He still to come ?
If He is still to come are there any explanations in the writings (i. e. the date) ?
Any personnal feelings ?
with a heart steadfastly beating Ya Baha'u'llah Abha this servant desires, with due dignty and respect, to voice however faint and distant of the hope of those who serve the Cause of God may find their home in the land of Ta and within its' precients their will always be known The Will of God. As to the Royal edicts that issue forth from His Command be assured this servant's knees do bend. O Land of Ta the Ruler of things seen and unseen my heart yearns for Thee ... be Thou my confident and I thou your Trust ......
oneness
dh