I don't want to be Tāhirih E-Book

Hanna A. Langer

• Herausgeber: tredition
• Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 264

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2015

Beschreibung

The relations between religion and sexuality have been understudied for a long period of time within German Study of Religion. This is remarkable for two reasons: Firstly, sex and gender are somewhat frequently discussed in almost any other field of research at present; secondly, many religions still have problems to accept homosexuality as a normal and permissible way of life. This is furthermore astonishing for the Bahā'ī Faith as it is often mentioned as a particularly tolerant and open minded religious community. Coming from a profound historical analysis of sexual practices in 19th century Iran and their understanding from a religious point of view Hanna Langer further exemplifies the Bahā'ī Institutions' attitude towards homosexuality and homosexuals and their standing within the Bahā'ī Community. The second part of the book focuses on three major aspects related to the experiences of homosexuals: How do homosexuals themselves interpret and understand the core writings? How do they apply this understanding to their personal lives? How do they experience community life within the Bahā'ī Faith and the Institutions' and believers' approach towards them? Langer's comprehensive analysis of the current situation of homosexual Bahā'īs was originally written as a master thesis at the Interfaculty Programme for the Study of Religion at Munich University and has been supervised by Prof Horst Junginger who also contributed a preface for the publication. Hanna A. Langer was raised in Dresden and studied Religion, Iranology and Crosscultural Communication at Ludwig-Maximilians-University in Munich.

Leseprobe

www.tredition.de

Hanna A. Langer

“I don’t want to be Tāhirih”

Homosexuality in the Bahā’ī Religion in Theology and Practice

www.tredition.de

© 2014 Hanna A. Langer, geb. Bludau Lektorat, Korrektorat: Louisa Hezseltine

Verlag: tredition GmbH, Hamburg

ISBN

Paperback:

978-3-7323-1654-0

Hardcover:

978-3-7323-1655-7

e-Book:

978-3-7323-1656-4

Das Werk, einschließlich seiner Teile, ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages und des Autors unzulässig. Dies gilt insbesondere für die elektronische oder sonstige Vervielfältigung, Übersetzung, Verbreitung und öffentliche Zugänglichmachung.

Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München

Interfakultärer Studiengang Religionswissenschaft

“I don’t want to be Tāhirih”

Homosexuality in the Bahā’ī Religion in Theology and Practice

Wissenschaftliche Arbeit

zur Erlangung des Grades eines Magister Artium (M.A.)

Referent: Prof. Dr. Horst Junginger (Religionswissenschaft)

Koreferentin: Prof. Dr. Paula-Irene Villa (Gendersoziologie)

Vorgelegt von: Hanna A. Langer, geb. Bludau

März 2014

For him,

who inspired me to write this thesis

and

for all other LGBT Bahā’īs

Table of Contents

Preface (by Prof Horst Junginger)

1.

Introduction

1.1.

Definitions

1.2.

Current state of research

2.

Homosexuality within the Bahā’ī theology

2.1.

Bahā’ī administration and legislation – an overview

2.2.

Homosexuality in the Writings of Bāb and Bahā’u’llāh

2.3.

Homosexuality in the Writings of ʿAbdu’l-Bahā and Shoghi Effendi

2.4.

Homosexuality in the Writings of the Universal House of Justice

3.

Positioning of homosexual Bahā’īs in terms of a ‘queer study of religion’

3.1.

Understanding homosexuality and exegeses of the ‘Holy Writings’

3.1.1.

Gaybahai.net and an open letter to the Bahā’ī Administration

3.1.2.

Heterosexual supporters on Gaybahai.net and Sonja van Kerkhoff

3.1.3.

Interview with ‘Ethan’

3.2.

Being homosexual and Bahā’ī: Self-discovery and acceptance

3.2.1.

Gaybahai.net

3.2.2.

Interview with ‘Ethan’

3.3.

Being Bahā’ī and homosexual: Experiences in the Bahā’ī community

3.3.1.

Gaybahai.net and two cases of Bahā’īs in a same-sex marriage

3.3.2.

Interview with ‘Ethan’

4.

Conclusion and future prospects from the perspective of the study of religion

Bibliography

Primary Literature

Secondary Literature

Preface

Almost all religions have an issue with same-sex relationships. While this is a well-known fact in the history of religions, it has not yet become an object of systematic research. In particular the question as to why religions decline homosexuality. The general male dominance of religion makes it a priori likely that gay activities arouse indignation against their challenging of the religious order of nature attributed to them. Concern for the basic principles of life, especially vis-à-vis the beginning and end of human existence, is probably even more important as to why all forms of sexuality, outside of the religiously sanctioned family and for other reasons than procreation, are met with disapproval. Having sex “just for fun” appears from a strict religious point of view not only as an evil sin that leads people away from their obedience to god’s law but to a contradiction of life itself.

It is, therefore, of little wonder that the dismissal of homosexuality lessens when religions become secularized. Christian westernised denominations have started to allow female clerics to move up to the highest ranks and do not hesitate to approve gay marriages these days. But their orientation towards the world is dearly bought by a decreasing religious impact on the majority of their followers and on society as such. Secularism comes along with the disintegration of traditional family structures and leads to a much greater degree of autonomy and individuality even among religious devotees. In its wake, sexual self-determination has become a matter of course and a positive value proposition shared by many believers as well. On the other hand, fundamentalists and the representatives of an orthodox understanding of religion usually call sexual liberty an expression of decadence and identify it as hotbed of vice. Aren’t they right, from their point of view, to uphold tradition and to brace themselves against the on-going demise of faith and moral? Isn’t it understandable that they reject extramarital sex as an assault against what has been appreciated as good and right on religious grounds for such a long time? For them, the whole spectrum of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) conduct emerges as a sign that the end of the world is, indeed, nigh.

Whereas homosexuality causes trouble upon most religions, some even threatening with schism, a scientific occupation with religion and sexuality takes advantage of evading these kinds of internal conflicts. Since the academic study of religion is based on the principle of religious non-involvement, its research objects are transferred from theological discourses and the insider’s view to the overarching framework of society, history and culture. Apart from a religious reasoning, it concentrates on historical contexts, on aspects of comparison and on the question of how the behaviour and rationale of religions change under the adjustment pressure they are exposed to. All so-called world religions originate from ancient times and revere Holy Scriptures written in fundamentally different circumstances. It is normal that these texts contain values and customs up to a certain point incompatible with a modern understanding of life. Especially religions without a particular class of theological exegetes like the Bahā’ī find it difficult to differentiate in the thicket of a given situation holding clear-cut demarcation lines, which are necessary, even vital, to distinguish between indispensable and non-negotiable doctrines on one side and teachings to be valued non-essential and therefore feasible to modification on the other. To which of these does homosexuality belong to?

The great strength of Hannah A. Langer’s study is to liberate this question from its religious constraints and to address it on firm scientific grounds. It starts with the observation that even the cosmopolitan and open-minded Bahā’ī religion is trapped in an almost insoluble dilemma of tradition and modernity when it comes to sexuality. Traditionalist and contemporary views on “normal” sexual behaviour differ from each other on a large scale, sometimes to the extent of an insurmountable antagonism. Without ignoring the right of sexual self-determination, as stated, for instance, by the United Nations Human Rights Council, Langer avoids projecting a modern understanding of human sexuality in a backwards manner. She focuses instead on a proper contextualization of same-sex relations by way of close reading the authoritative Bahā’ī writings over the course of time. Her profound knowledge both in historical and religious respect enables her to put the problem of “sodomy” into perspective, permitting new insights into the fundamental difference between the perception of anal intercourse in Persian 19th century and the conclusions of today’s gender or queer studies. The Islamic notion liwāṭ describes gay relations usually occurring between higher-ranking and young men, often beardless juveniles, which originate from the hegemonic structures of that time. They depended on disparity and dominance and had nothing to do with the idea of an individual human right belonging to all people irrespective of their social and other status. Any literal application of an ancient perception of “sodomy” to the sexual manners of our time must inevitably lead to problems in its wake. Have religions, when political systems and prevailing opinions change, to follow suit? The answer is Yes and No.

At the end of the last century North American Bahā’ī members brought the issue of LGBT rights to the fore. In response, the Universal House of Justice in Haifa published an official communiqué in November 1995 to clarify its position. Though adopting a moderate language, the statement left no doubt about its disapproval of homosexuality. It condemned it as blatant act of immorality, a distortion of human nature and something to be dealt with like a handicap or cured like an illness. The rationale of this declaration was a religious one, being also applied to the argument that a rejection of homosexuality would not imply a rejection of homosexuals. However, what the Bahā’ī leadership might have intended as a compromise, fails to gratify those Bahā’īs, who want to be gay and regular members at the same time without impairment of their established rights. In the second part of her study Langer gives an illustrating description of the problems and harm caused by the ex cathedra pronouncement of the Universal House of Justice. Since an honest religious commitment always affects social relations and is closely linked with cultural, political, economic and many other matters, the suggested splitting of religion and sexuality would, if embraced, unavoidably damage a person’s life and integrity. Leaving a community that has proven to be important in numerous regards, surely causes pain, distress and cognitive dissonance. The same holds true for gay Bahā’īs remaining under these circumstances.

The book of Langer stands out not only due to the capability of its author for a reflected empathy scarcely to be found in academic theses but also due to its notable scientific findings. They shed new light on the intimate relationship of religion and sexuality and underline how closely religions are attached to their non-religious environment. The fact that religions usually refer to god’s word and divine law does not release their representatives, leaders as well as followers, from the duty to interpret propagations from the beyond and to adequately adapt them to mundane circumstances. The problem, though, lies in the word “adequate”.

Time will tell in which direction the discussion about same sex relations develops among Bahā’īs in the future. Homosexuality as a damnable sin and homosexuality as a human right seem to be mutual exclusive at the moment. A closer look into the history of religions and the number of dilemmas of this sort, provides evidence for the assumption that a way out is always possible. Thoroughly examining the adaptive responsiveness of a religion, as this excellent study does, raises in any case our awareness for the great complexity of religious behaviour patterns.

Prof Horst Junginger

1.  Introduction

On the welcome page of the international Bahā’ī community’s website it says that Bahā’īs believe, amongst others, that “All humanity is one family. […] All prejudice […] is destructive and must be overcome. […] Science and religion are in harmony”1. With statements like these, the Bahā’ī Faith, which was founded in 19th century Shi’ite Iran and since then spread to almost every country worldwide, presents itself to be potentially the most inclusive religious community of all which coincides with one of its most important principles promoting ‘unity in diversity’. Accordingly, everyone is welcome to be a part of it. Nevertheless, there are laws the Bahā’īs need to obey – which is also a characteristic of many other religious communities – which are perceived as serving the (spiritual) development of both the community and the individual. These laws include the prohibition of certain behaviour or actions which may be challenging for some believers. One example which is highly controversial is the prohibition of homosexual behaviour by the current Bahā’ī administration order. Many persons concerned consider homosexuality as a question of identity instead of behaviour and refer to their own experiences in addition to scientific studies which prove that this identity cannot be changed. Nevertheless, there are homosexuals who grow up in Bahā’ī families or choose to become a Bahā’ī although they know the negative stance toward homosexual expression in Bahā’ī administration. This raises the question for the way those persons do or do not harmonise their religion and sexual orientation and for the resulting consequences.

The research subject of this thesis therefore is twofold: firstly, the subjective understanding and evaluation of statements in the Bahā’ī writings concerning homosexual behaviour, as well as their official interpretation, by homosexual Bahā’īs; and secondly, the consequences for the individual conception of life of homosexual Bahā’īs including their positioning in local Bahā’ī communities. In support of a better understanding of this issue it is necessary to analyse the official Bahā’ī stance towards homosexuality at first. From a theological point of view, a context in form of Bahā’ī ethics and the understanding of meaning of Bahā’ī laws in general would be required2 but will not be included due to the limits of this thesis and its scholarly focus precisely on the analysis of individual cases and personal experiences. Furthermore, this thesis is set in the study of religion rather than theology and therefore does not deal with questions of either right or wrong nor true or false. For the same reasons scientific findings on homosexuality will not be included although some readers might feel that they are necessary because of the Bahā’ī principle of the harmony of religion and science. Besides one has to bear in mind that the “Bahā’ī faith is […] not orthodox (insisting on right dogma) but orthoprax (insisting on right action). It is not what one believes in one’s conscience that matters, but how one actually behaves”3 which is an issue to the second part of this thesis. The title “I don’t want to be Tāhirih” corresponds to this chapter, especially when it comes to experiences in the Bahā’ī communities.

‘Tāhirih’ is the honorific title of Fātima Umm Salmā, better known as ‘Qurrat al-‘Ayn’, who was one of the first followers who believed in the message of the Bāb who is recognised as the precursor of Bahā’u’llāh, the founder of the Bahā’ī Religion, and therefore an important part of the Bahā’ī history4. Furthermore she was well-known for her impressive “personality, theological knowledge, and mastery of Arabic”5 and is considered to be a pioneer for women’s rights in Muslim countries6 because she casted off her facial veil on some occasions when being among men7. Her opponents complained about her in a letter to the Bāb but he defended her and “significantly acknowledged the progressive tendency in the [Bābī] movement, even at the expense of losing some of the more traditionalist followers”8. Tāhirih at that time was already an important leader of the Bābī community in her region but often wrongly accused of unchastitiy also by non-Bābīs because there were males among her followers9. In 1852 she was sentenced to death for her beliefs including the equality of men and women.

Among homosexual Bahā’īs there is a mostly unspoken wish for a person who fights for them like Tāhirih did for women’s rights. So if one of them does something which is considered a brave act, e.g. coming-out in front of other Bahā’īs who might not welcome homosexuals, he or she is sometimes complimented with “You are our Tāhirih!”. On the other hand when someone is at a loss with being Bahā’ī and homosexual he or she might state “I don’t want to be Tāhirih”10 which is an expression of his or her dilemma, possibly including grief, being overextended or exhaustion. These feelings and the experiences which cause them are shared by many – yet not all – homosexual Bahā’ī, which is the reason for choosing this quote as a title, and they will be analysed in chapter 3.

The material on which this thesis is based consists of primary literature including the ‘sacred’ writings of the Bahā’ī Faith by Bāb and Bahā’u’llāh as well as the authoritative interpretation by their successors ‘Abdu’l-Bahā and Shoghi Effendi and letters based on these by the current supreme authority, the Universal House of Justice, on the one hand and reports as well as theological statements by homosexual Bahā’īs and their supporters on the other hand. The latter include a core-question interview which I conducted with a homosexual Bahā’ī for this thesis. There will be no analyses of statements made in any closed groups on the Internet since these constitute safe spaces for the participants and their privacy needs to be protected. The specific selection of all these sources will be explained in the corresponding chapters. They are completed by secondary sources which (apart from a few theological exceptions) do not explicitly deal with the issue of homosexuality in the Bahā’ī Faith11 since this was not yet subject to scholarly research. Concerning the notation of Arabic and Persian words including names and book titles there is no consensus among authors writing about the Bahā’ī Religion12. Following a German standard work on the Bahā’ī Faith by Hutter13, I chose to base my transcription on the internal Bahā’ī notation with the exception of the use of lines over long vowels instead of accentuating and putting hyphens only where placed in Arabic/Persian transcription. This way both Bahā’īs can recognise the words and scholarly transcription is maintained at a satisfactory level.14

1.1. Definitions

In the fields of both the study of religion and queer theory, there exist no explicit definitions for most terms. The scholarly and colloquially use of them often include a wide range of meanings and connotations.

A first example is the term ‘religion’. Long before the study of religion became an academic discipline, many scholars tried to approach what religion may comprise, e.g. the function of providing communities, giving meaning to one’s life or the existence of mankind, settling fundamental standards of morality and so on. Since this thesis deals with the Bahā’ī Faith only, it is not necessary to define ‘religion’ in general, but it is necessary to define the Bahā’ī Faith since there are various groups of believers within this religion. When it is spoken of the Bahā’ī Faith here, it pertains to the community based on the founder Bahā’u’llāh and the rulings of his son ʿAbdu’l-Bahā, his great-grandson Shoghi Effendi and the Universal House of Justice whose seat is on Mt. Carmel (Haifa, Israel)15.

There is more certainty about ‘gender’ which can be defined as “one’s personal, social, and legal status as male or female, or mixed, on the basis of somatic and behavioural criteria more inclusive than the genital organs alone”16. Yet ‘gender’ and ‘sex’ are interrelated, as both need to be understood as culturally determined. Within the study of religion, asking for ‘gender’ means asking for structures of (religious) powers which communicate and control the concepts of sexual identities17. Judith Butler therefore states:

To claim that gender is a norm is not quite the same as saying that there are normative views of femininity and masculinity, even though there clearly are such normative views. Gender is not exactly what one ‘is’ nor is it precisely what one ‘has’. Gender is the apparatus by which the production and normalization of masculine and feminine take place along with the interstitial forms of hormonal, chromosomal, psychic, and performative that gender assumes.18

Butler goes even further by stating that in the mutual constitutive triangle of sex, gender and desire, none of these three are fixed poles. While gender as well as sex (which can be understood as being its ‘biological raw material’) are a never-ending performative production of the idea of a distinct sexuality, the desire follows them by identifying men as those who desire women and they desire them because they are men (and vice versa).19 The idea of a distinct, everlasting, natural and consistent heterosexual identity thus is a powerful idea – nothing more and nothing less. Heterosexuality as a gender identity is a process of approximating oneself to a norm.20 This applies to homosexual identities as well.

For many decades, ‘homosexuality’ was and is “the most generally accepted designation for same-sex orientation”21. As mentioned above, homosexual as well as heterosexual positions are norms which cannot be fully internalised (as nobody is in himself or herself a German, a Bahā’ī, and so on) since these abstractions are an effect and part of power dynamics.22 As debates about homosexuality involve not only “public policy and legal issues [but also] fundamental issues of morality and justice [as well as] issues of personal identity and self-definition”23, they tend to be strongly polarized. Influenced by these debates, scholars researching on this topic take mainly two different paths. The first one means looking for historical figures who are engaged in some kind of same-sex attraction and therefore arguing for a “common historical entity underlying sexual attraction, whether one called it ‘inversion’ or ‘homosexuality’”24. Where some scholars (called essentialists) trace this history back to the Ancient Greeks, others point out that these are more likely forms of pederasty25. An important historical concept for this thesis is ‘sodomy’, which (as an abstract noun) could “cover almost the whole range of illicit sexual acts, the noun of agent, sodomite, tended to be restricted to the male homosexual”26 although it is argued that this understanding differs from the current western concept of homosexuality27, which is the same with the Islamic concept of liwāṭ which will be dealt with in chapter 2.2. Nevertheless the argument of essentialists is that “categories of sexual attraction are observed rather than created”28 whereas Judith Butler states that everything we speak of is already interpreted, nothing has an inherent essence29. This thought harks back to the idea that “class relations, the human sciences, and other historically constructed forces create sexual categories and the personal identities associated with them”30, an approach which is called social constructionism or historicism and is related to scholars like Michel Foucault.

As we will see, homosexual Bahā’īs contradictorily use both kinds of approach, saying on the one hand that there always existed homosexual behaviour which proves that it is an inherent part of a person31 while saying on the other hand that Bahā’u’llāh could not have been talking about a homosexual lifestyle since this concept did not exist at his time and so nobody should interpret his words like this. The official Bahā’ī theology in contrast does not care about if homosexual behaviour is inherent or not, it says in short that Bahā’u’llāh told his community not to behave like this, it is simply not wanted. Therefore it follows the so-called Natural Law Theory which was, according to the political scientist Brent Pickett, first hold by Plato who argued “unchanging truths underpin the flux of the material world”32, so even if there is a diversity of mankind, there still is an unwritten law for all humans. In this case it is strongly linked to heteronormality and procreation. So a famous Bahā’ī, Udo Schaefer, sums up that the primary purpose of sexuality and marriage is procreation of offspring and he goes even further in saying that it is ‘God’ who determines (hetero-)sexual identities33 which is an essentialist approach as well.

Beside ‘homosexual’ there are many other terms used by authors quoted in this thesis but even this concept is understood differently: Some understand it as restricted to male-male relations, while female-female relations are called ‘lesbianism’ which is a difficult term itself34. In each case “homosexuality is not synonymous with same-sex acts, since a person can identify as a homosexual without actually acting upon it or a person can engage in same-sex acts without identifying him- or herself as a homosexual”35. In contrast it is not as clear if the concept includes e.g. ‘bisexuality’ or ‘male/female bonding’ which sometimes is in turn called ‘homosociality’. Others prefer terms like ‘sexual orientation’, as it means to imply a stable pattern, or ‘homophile’, which is said to be “theoretically at least, broader in scope than homosexual, in that it includes nongenital as well as genital relations, but less broad than homosocial, which comprises all significant relations between members of the same sex”36. In this thesis I adopt the understanding of the ‘Encyclopaedia of homosexuality’ in defining “homosexuality [as] embrac[ing] the entire range of same-sex relations and affections, male-male and female-female”37 ‚ in concrete cases depending on the selfdefinition of the particular homosexual.

As this thesis positions itself both in the field of study of religion and queer theory, a few words about the term ‘queer’ need to be said before continuing. Used as a popular insult for homosexuals in the beginning (and sometimes even now) the term was adopted by the homosexual movement in the 1970s and 1980s as positive self-designation38. Unlike other concepts related to homosexuality ‘queer’ does “not refer to an essence, whether of a sexual nature or not”39. What exactly the term includes is consciously left open because it is not the aim of a queer position to include the excluded in the current normality but to expound the problems of normality40 which shall be done here, too.

1.2. Current state of research

As there has been no scholarly research on the Bahā’īs’ stance on homosexuality or the environment of homosexual Bahā’īs (as far as I know), the context for this thesis is to be found in general research concerning the intersection of religion and sexuality and will be summarised in this chapter.

A first field to mention is the relationship between study of religion and gender studies as well as queer studies. In terms of the first discipline it has been asserted that the gender perspective has provoked a radical paradigm shift within the arts and social sciences which influences the study of religion as well41. The anthology ‘Frau Gender Queer’42 (‘Woman Gender Queer’) as well as e.g. Ursula King, Professor Emerita of Theology and Religious Studies, in her article in the ‘Handbuch Gender und Religion’43 (‘Compendium Gender and Religion’), propose a wide range of possible approaches for a cooperation between gender and religious studies. At the same time, the theologian and scholar in religious studies Theresia Heimerl states that gender should not be understood as a topic of religious studies but as a basic and natural question put to every object of research within the study of religion44. In contrast, queer religion is made an explicit topic of several books, e.g. the two volumes of ‘Queer Religion’45 which provides a wide but detailed range of issues related to religion and same-sex desires within modern religious history and the LGBT Movements. A comparable anthology is ‘Gay Religion’46 which as well raises the question of how LGBT people express their religiousness and take part in activities of all kinds of religion.

One religious system which is of special interest to this thesis is (Shi’a) Islam since it provided the environment for the emergence of the Bahā’ī Faith in 19th century Iran. Since the scholar of Islamic and Iranic studies, Kamran Ekbal, asserted that the Bahā’ī laws are (amongst others) influenced by it47 it will be useful to look at the Islam’s stance on homosexuality. Samar Habib, currently teaching Gender and Islamic Studies at UC Berkeley, has excelled at researching this topic, particularly with her monograph ‘Female homosexuality in the Middle East’48 and her editing of the anthology ‘Islam and homosexuality’49 to which I will get back in chapter 2.2. Brian Whitaker, a ‘Guardian’ journalist and graduate of Arabic studies, submits another remarkable study and commentary on ‘Gay and lesbian life in the Middle East’50. Of great value for my research are studies especially concerned with same-sex attractions in 19th century Iran, namely the publications of sociologist Willem M. Floor51 ‚ historian Janet Afary52 and Professor of History and of Studies of Women, Gender and Sexuality, Afsaneh Najmabadi53. When coming to Bahā’u’llāh’s statements based on the concepts of liwāṭ and ghilmān (chapter 2.2), to which the discussions about the Bahā’īs’ stance on homosexuality refer, I will refer back to these publications.

Although there is no scholarly research on the issue of the Bahā’ī Faith and homosexuality there are two noteworthy theological publications by Udo Schaefer who is a German retired jurisprudent and called a ‘Bahā’ī theologian’ for his commitment notwithstanding the fact that there is no clergy in the Bahā’ī Faith and his words do not have more significance than those of any other Bahā’ī. He contributes a discussion of sexual ethics in Bahā’u’llāh’s chief work, the ‘Kitāb-i Aqdas’,54 and two volumes of ‘Bahā’ī Ethics’55 providing a framework for the first one. Whereas he is totally in line with the interpretations of the highest body of the Bahā’ī Community, the Universal House of Justice, there are contrary theological arguments by people supporting a prohomosexual reading of Bahā’u’llāh’s scriptures. One of those is Sonja van Kerkhoff, an artist and Bahā’ī from New Zealand, living in the Netherlands and blogging about this issue frequently on justabahai.wordpress.com. There are other bloggers and authors writing on this issue but Schaefer and van Kerkhoff seem to be the most influential (disregarding the ‘Holy Writings’ of the Bahā’ī Faith, the Universal House of Justice and the homosexual Bahā’ī’s themselves). Therefore this thesis is going to work primarily on their arguments. The inclusion of all other voices on this debate lies outside the scope of this thesis.

1 Bahá’í International Community: The Bahá’í Faith. 2014. http://www.bahai.org (accessed March 21, 2014)

2 A German Bahā’ī argues for this kind of approach and attempts to deal this way with Bahā’ī laws concerning sexuality in: Schaefer, Udo: Sexualethische Positionen in Bahā’u’llāhs Kitāb-i-Aqdas. Hofheim: Bahá’í-Verlag 2011

3 Cole, Juan Ricardo: The Evolution of charismatic authority in the Bahā’ī Faith (1863 – 1921). In: Robert Gleave (ed.): Religion and society in Qajar Iran. Proceedings of the conference held on 4 – 6 September 2000 in Bristol. London/ New York: RoutledgeCurzon 2005, pp. 311–345, p. 335.

4 For more information on the Bahā’ī history and especially the two founders of the Bahā’ī Religion, see chapter 2.2.

5 Amanat, Abbas: Resurrection and renewal. The making of the Babi movement in Iran, 1844–1850. Ithaca: Cornell University Press 1989, p. 330.

6 However, she did not see herself as a part of any feminist movement or something similar but acted only on the basis of her religious beliefs, cf. ibid., pp. 330–331.

7 Cf. ibid., pp. 305–306.

8 Ibid., p. 307.

9 Ibid., p. 320.

10 I do not give a source for these quotes intentionally to safe the anonymity of their authors who agreed to the use of their statements in this thesis.

11 Cf. chapter 1.2.

12 Hutter, a German scholar of religion, shows the differences in detail by using the example of a chief work by Bahā’u’llāh which can be written in the following ways: Kitāb-i Aqdas (official Bahā’ī transcription), al-kitāb al-aqdas (Arabic transcription), ketāb-e aqdas (Persian transcription), cf. Hutter, Manfred: Handbuch Bahā’ī. Geschichte – Theologie – Gesellschaftsbezug. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 2009, p. 11.

13 Ibid.

14 Cf. ibid., pp. 11–12.

15 There is another Universal House of Justice of Bahā’īs which says to have the Davidic King as its president. This is not meant here as well as other Bahā’ī communities like “Reform Bahā’ī Faith” or “Orthodox Bahā’ī Faith” and so on. Another research on homosexuals within these communities needs to be done.

16 Johansson, Warren: Gender. In: Wayne R. Dynes (ed.): Encyclopedia of homosexuality. London: St. James Press 1990, pp. 461–464, p. 462.

17 Pezzoli-Olgiati, Daria: Einfuehrung. In: Anna-Katharina Hoepflinger / Ann Jeffers / Daria Pezzoli-Olgiati (eds.): Handbuch Gender und Religion. Goettingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2008, pp. 11–19, p.14.

18 Butler, Judith: Undoing gender. New York: Routledge 2005, p. 42.

19 Villa, Paula-Irene: Judith Butler. Eine Einfuehrung. 2nd. Ed. Frankfurt am Main: Campus 2011, p. 78.

20 Ibid., p. 72.

21 Johansson, Warren: Homosexual (term). In: Wayne R. Dynes (ed.): Encyclopedia of homosexuality. London: St. James Press 1990, pp. 555–556, p. 555.

22 Villa: Judith Butler, p. 116f.

23 Pickett, Brent: Homosexuality. In: Edward N. Zalta (ed.): The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2011.

24 Ibid.

25 Johansson, Warren: Homosexuality. In: Wayne R. Dynes (ed.): Encyclopedia of homosexuality. London: St. James Press 1990, pp. 556–560.

26 Ibid.

27 „ A sodomite was understood as act-defined, rather than as a type of person. Someone who had desires to engage in sodomy, yet did not act upon them, was not a sodomite. Also, persons who engaged in heterosexual sodomy were also sodomites. [..] Finally, a person who had engaged in sodomy, yet who had repented of his sin and vowed to never do it again, was no longer a sodomite.” (Pickett: Homosexuality).

28 Ibid.

29 Villa: Judith Butler, p. 40.

30 Pickett: Homosexuality.

31 It is likely that it is politically necessary to position oneself as a homosexual by nature because only then one is capable of demanding rights (cf. Villa: Judith Butler, p. 109).

32 Pickett: Homosexuality.

33 Schaefer: Sexualethische Positionen in Bahā’u’llāhs Kitāb-i-Aqdas, p. 81.

34