Noexalt

Quote in the Kitab-i-Aqdas. Reminded me of some current rhetoric that goes on in the US political system. Wonder what others think of this.

With reference to Bahá'u'lláh's command concerning
the engagement of the believers in some sort of
profession: the Teachings are most emphatic on this
matter, particularly the statement in the Aqdas to this
effect which makes it quite clear that idle people who
lack the desire to work can have no place in the new
World Order. As a corollary of this principle, Bahá'u'lláh
further states that mendicity should not only be
discouraged but entirely wiped out from the face of
society. It is the duty of those who are in charge of the
organization of society to give every individual the
opportunity of acquiring the necessary talent in some
kind of profession, and also the means of utilizing such a
talent, both for its own sake and for the sake of earning
the means of his livelihood. Every individual, no matter
how handicapped and limited he may be, is under the
obligation of engaging in some work or profession, for
work, especially when performed in the spirit of service,
is according to Bahá'u'lláh a form of worship. It has not
only a utilitarian purpose, but has a value in itself,
because it draws us nearer to God, and enables us to
better grasp His purpose for us in this world. It is
obvious, therefore, that the inheritance of wealth cannot
make anyone immune from daily work.

(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 192)

Rani

I'm not sure of your question as I haven't been keeping up with the US political debates, but perhaps the quote you gave can be tempered with these quotes below:
Most of us have the desire to work, contribute and be self-sustaining, but surely there are some circumstances where an individual is too incapacitated to work.

Then the orphans will be looked after, all of whose expenses will be taken care of. The cripples in the village -- all their expenses will be looked after. The poor in the village -- their necessary expenses will be defrayed. And other members who for valid reasons are incapacitated -- the blind, the old, the deaf -- their comfort must be looked after. In the village no one will remain in need or in want. All will live in the utmost comfort and welfare. Yet no schism will assail the general order of the body politic.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Foundations of World Unity, p. 40)


"By the Sacred Verse: "Begging is forbidden, and it is also prohibited to dispense alms to a beggar' is meant that mendicancy is forbidden and that giving charity to people who take up begging as their profession is also prohibited. The object is to wipe out mendicancy altogether. However, if a person is disabled, stricken by dire poverty or becomes helpless, then it is incumbent upon the rich or the trustees to provide him with a monthly allowance for his subsistence. when the House of Justice comes into being it will set up homes for the incapacitated. Thus no one will be obliged to beg, even as the supplementary part of the Blessed Verse denotes: 'It is enjoined upon everyone to earn his livelihood'; then He says: 'As to those who are disabled, it devolveth upon the trustees and the rich to make adequate provision for them.' By 'trustees' is meant the representatives of the people, that is to say the members of the House of Justice."

(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 120)

Sen McGlinn

From Star of the West - vol. 1 no 19 = March 1911:

Fadl

As head of the faith, and the recipient of the Huquq'u'llah, are you suggesting that he was giving alms in the way that it is forbidden us and not as the institutional aid that is prescribed for and executed by the trustee?

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but you dropped a quote where one could make such an inference without stating how or why you feel the quote relates to the topic. Perhaps you'd like to state what you mean by it?

Sen McGlinn

As in the thread on honesty -- it is all in how you go about it. Any virtue can become a vice through wrong application, and there are circumstances that justify acts such as lying that are reprehensible in general.

Abdu'l-Baha was a systematic giver to the poor -- he sustained them. We see this also in Akka, especially during the war years, when he fed and clothed hundreds, perhaps thousands. On a certain day in autumn, the poor would assemble to receive winter coats. An outsider might see them as beggars, just as Schokry Effendi saw the poor begging alms, and receiving them.

The lesson is, not to be too quick to criticize "begging" and "giving to beggars" : it could be all in the eyes of the viewer

GenuineSeeker

Was Schokry Effendi his son?

Noexalt

During the week following His passing, from fifty to a hundred of the poor of Haifa were daily fed at His house, whilst on the seventh day corn was distributed in His memory to about a thousand of them irrespective of creed or race. On the fortieth day an impressive memorial feast was held in His memory, to which over six hundred of the people of Haifa, 'Akká and the surrounding parts of Palestine and Syria, including officials and notables of various religions and races, were invited. More than one hundred of the poor were also fed on that day.

(Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, p. 313)

Fadl

Two things to consider here, Sen.

Firstly, 'Abdu'l-Baha was head of the faith and was the recipient of the Huquq'ullah. This means that he was much more than an individual Baha'i. He was head of a faith and the head of an institution, meaning that his constant giving could be regarded as the prescribed institutional support for the poor and needy. The writings condemn begging and forbid giving to beggars, but they do not prescribe denying assistance to the needy or reviling them.

Secondly, the laws of the Aqdas are not in full fruition yet, and there is the principle of the gradual unfoldment of them. When we consider the present state of the faith and of the world, it is clear that there are not enough institutions to assist the poor and the needy. Perhaps in the west this is not so obvious, but I can assure anyone that if they go out into the larger world the situation is deplorable.

When we consider the laws of the Aqdas regarding this matter, we can all understand the intent of the law and appreciate it. Everyone needs to strive for themselves and do something. No free ride. But there are times when people need a leg up and a hand to hold on to, and they should get it. That being said, it is also clear that if such a law were fully implemented at the present time, where there are no institutional solutions for helping and rehabilitating the poor, then it could cause a lot of harm. This is why it is indeed why to gradually unfold laws as society changes and is able to shoulder them rather than demanding them prematurely.

I've experienced this as a personal dilemma in the past. I am very bothered by poverty and when I see someone in need I want to help. I used to feel that this law about begging was prohibiting me from something. Now, however, I do give to someone who seems desperate if I am able, because I don't understand this law to be applicable now, and don't think it is wise or in the spirit of the law before the future institutions are brought online to provide help. In the case of 'Abdu'l-Baha doing it, however, I view this as an institutional giving and as the duty of his office and in his right to dispense the Huquq to those in need and in a way that he saw fit.

BruceDLimber

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenuineSeeker Was Schokry Effendi his son?

You need to bear in mind that Sen lives elsewhere and that English probably isn't his native tongue. That spelling may be standard where he lives.

The standard English spelling is Shoghi Effendi, and he was 'Abdu'l-Baha's grandson--not son--as well as head of the Baha'i Faith from 1921 to 1957.

Peace, :-)

Bruce