---

Juan Cole wrote:

Khan's family was originally from Pakistan, where they had been Punjabi Sunni Muslims but they emigrated to Australia and converted there to the Baha'i faith. Khan was brought up as a moderate fundamentalist, suspicious of liberal arts scholarship but nevertheless committed to education and to the sorts of science (e.g. engineering) that would not disturb his scriptural  literalism. Those who knew him in Australia remember him as a fierce anti-communist cold warrior, a man of the political Right.

Susan Maneck's comment:

First off, you should be aware that Juan knows virtually *nothing* about Peter Khan's background. If you look at the archives of Talisman going back a couple of years you will see that he stated there that Peter Khan was raised an evangelical *Christian* in the Punjab and this was supposed to account for his supposed fundamentalism. When I met with Peter Khan in Haifa, I found out that, to the contrary, Peter Khan's father was a Sunni Muslim who became a Baha'i. Anyhow, when I confronted Juan with the correct information on TRB, he then changed his story and what you see is now the result. Instead of Peter Khan's representing an attempt to introduce Evangelical Christian thinking into the Baha'i Faith, it know represents an intrusion of Sunni fundamentalism.  The reference to Pakistan represents another attempt at using emotionally laden images to discredit Peter Khan, since Pakistan today tends to be associated with right-wing extremism. Cole reinforces that image with his reference to Pakistani generals towards the end of his post. In other words, it's basically a ethnic slur. I expect, btw, that  Peter Khan's family left India before partition and before a Pakistan even exited. Or if it did exist it was when Pakistan was still very much a secular, socialist state.

Juan Cole wrote:

By that time he seemed colder, more haughty, less level-headed than the man I had heard speak a decade and a half earlier.

Susan Maneck's comment:

Peter Khan has not changed, what has changed is Juan's perceptions of him. My impression of Peter Khan is that he is very much of an 'idea' person who like to systematize everything. It is the Dr. Khan's ability to formulate such systems which won him a reputation as an intellectual in the Baha'i community. But systems often acquire a certain hardening of the categories, and so the same thing has sometimes made him appear somewhat rigid in his thinking.

I think it is probably Peter Khan's tendency to tilt up his head when he is talking to people which sometimes creates the impression he is haughty. In my mind, it is just one of those personality quirks that can easily be misinterpreted, like my tendency to laugh when I'm nervous which sometimes gets interpreted as mocking.

Juan Cole wrote:

Khan has perfected a personal style of address that allows him to telegraph to other fundamentalists in the community that he is one of them, while not appearing to attack the liberals. This stealth fundamentalism ....

Susan Maneck's comment:

This is the language of someone seriously paranoid. There is a much more logical (and human) explanation for what Peter Khan's behavior. While he may have some very conservative streaks he would not at all imagine himself to be fundamentalist. But his tendency towards systemization often sends a double message.

Juan Cole wrote:

I remember in Ann Arbor how he criticized the U.S. retail chain Walmart for refusing to carry a t-shirt emblazoned with a plea for a woman to be elected president of the U.S. Baha'is, he said, would support a woman for president. This tack appears to have been his way of papering over the fact that the Universal House of Justice on which he serves is all-male, and, as a Pakistani-Australian brought up in a highly patriarchal family, that he is among those most dedicated to keeping it that way.

Susan Maneck's comment:

Yeah, right. Everything is a plot. Maybe, just maybe, Peter Khan would It *love* to see women on the House  He just  isn't willing to mutilate the Cause by having the House of Justice divorce itself from the Guardianship by ignoring Shoghi Effendi's authoritative interpretations in order to
accomplish this.

Juan Cole wrote:

The talk he gave in Wilmette in September of 1995 was much more hardline. He appears in some large part to have intended it as an attack on the talisman discussion group, without coming out and saying so.

Susan Maneck's comment:

That is probably correct.

Juan Cole wrote:

It was in the wake of Khan's visit that David Langness began being threatened with removal of his administrative rights, apparently for disagreeing with Bob Henderson about what had happened during the NSA's crackdown on dialogue magazine.

Susan Maneck's comment:

Nonsense. David Langness was threatened with the removal of his administrative rights because the NSA felt it had been willfully slandered when David Langness said  they had acted without the authorization of the House of Justice in removing four people's right to pilgrimage, not withstanding the fact that David Langness had in his possession, a letter from the House of which stated quite the opposite. This had nothing to do with Peter Khan's visit.

Juan Cole wrote:

Gradually it has become apparent that Khan has for some time been a secret hardline fundamentalist, and that he has used his influence in the counselor corps and now on the Universal House of Justice to push the Baha'i faith in a strongly fundamentalist direction.

Susan Maneck's comment:

Again, notice the wording used. Juan is trying to persuade people that this is all part of a secret cabal which has taken over the Faith.

Juan Cole wrote:

He appears to think that it should adopt all the same main positions as the literalist Sunni Islam that is his family's background. The problem of undeepened Baha'is from Muslim societies trying to import into the Faith of Baha'u'llah the literalism and rigidity of their upbringing is a huge challenge ....

Susan Maneck's comment:

As I said, previously Juan was insisting it was Peter Khan's evangelical Christian background that he was trying to push on all of us. Now we will blame it on an illegitimate intrusion from the East rather that the West. But I must admit that this does lead to much more colorful rhetoric such as this description: "Khan straps on his scimitar, binds up his pugri turban and issues the fatwa of being a despicable infidel against inoffensive New Zealand business consultants." Much more interesting the hell, fire and brimstone Punjabi prairie preacher that Juan Cole used to project Peter Khan as, don't you think?

Juan Cole wrote:

Indeed, Khan has begun saying that Baha'u'llah's principles are not very important, that what is significant about the faith is its administration.

Susan Maneck's comment:

Peter Khan has never said anything of the sort. The problem is that Juan & co. would like to be able to judge the Institutions on *their* interpretation of those principles. That puts these them above both the principles and the institutions.

Juan Cole wrote:

It is a frightening heresy, to put aside Baha'u'llah's teachings for the sake of the prerogatives of counselors (never mentioned by Baha'u'llah!) and UHJ members.

Susan Maneck's comment:

And where did Peter Khan ever imply that? Everything he says about the prerogatives of the House comes from the Will and Testament of `Abdu'l-Baha and, as for the prerogatives of the Counselors, where did Peter Khan say anything about those whatsoever?

Juan Cole wrote:

In this talk of June, 2000, Khan delivered some fluff about five
"developments" during the completion of the "Four Year Plan." These Communist-style "plans" have been a feature of our religion for decades now, and it is time they were done away with.

Susan Maneck's comment:

If Juan wants to blast the Baha'i community for making use of "Plans" he really should be honest enough to blame the House of Justice for following the Guardian's lead rather than the community party.

Juan Cole wrote:

But this is not new with the Khan Administration.

Susan Maneck's Comment:

In order to discredit the House, Juan wants you to believe that Peter Khan is running the House of Justice. That is sheer, paranoid nonsense.

Juan Cole wrote:

There have not been any really significant numbers of conversions anyplace in the world for a decade and a half (the rumors about Albania were vastly exaggerated).

Susan Maneck's comment:

The greatest area of growth right now is in Mongolia where the Faith is enjoying tremendous success.

Juan Cole wrote:

That is, to be able to spend some $300 million over 15 years on major building projects is remarkable. Of course, a lot of the money came from *** Baha'i billionaires.

Susan Maneck's comment:

I've deliberately blanked out the location where wealthy (but by no means billionaire) Baha'is are supposed to be making generous donations from. As Juan well knows he is endangering their lives by revealing this kind of information on a public list. Not that he likely cares, but as he well knows to this kind of thing is a violation of the professional ethics which we are both bound by.

Juan Cole wrote:

The Universal House of Justice took an average of $6 million a year from that. It impoverished the US community. It funneled enormous amounts of money to these projects. Local communities were left strapped.

Susan Maneck's comment:

Local communities gave only what they wished to give. No one coerced them.

Juan Cole wrote:

And, when one local community expressed its aspiration to build a local Mashriqu'l-Adhkar (house of worship), the UHJ sent agents out to bully these devoted Baha'is and make it clear to them that such a step (which would after all interfere with building terraces in Haifa) was out of the question and they should shut up and sit down ....

Susan Maneck's comment:

He is referring to what happened to Terry Culhane and it is a gross distortion, as anyone will find out who asks Terry themselves. The House of Justice sent a couple of ABMs to talk to Terry about a talk he had given in California which they had received misleading reports about. This Board Member, who had in for Terry partly because he opposed a local worship center which Terry and his community tried to build, decided, on his own authority to bring this other stuff into the picture. Terry Culhane wrote me the very day of his interrogation and told me what had happened. I wrote Peter Khan and the Counselors and told them what had happened. They immediately put a stop to this nonsense and  House of Justice subsequently wrote Terry a letter of apology for the behavior of the two ABMs on that occasion. As far as Omaha building a Baha'i community and worship center, the House of Justice, far from opposing it, had approved it in writing years
earlier.. They had simply  asked the Omaha community not to call it a Mashriq. I should note that Baha'i Centers were generally needed for purposes other than just prayer, which is all that is allowed in a Mashriq. The Omaha community only consisted of about 50 people. I think they could hardly have afforded a building that would be available only for prayer and nothing else.

Juan Cole wrote:

There is enormous work to be done in emancipating them, [the Baha'is of Iran]  and his glib suggestion that the kind of persecution they face every day is just fine now, and we don't have to worry about them any more is just incomprehensible.

Susan Maneck's comment:

As though, Peter Khan said anything about not having to worry about them anymore! But I find Juan's reference to worry most touching in light of the fact he has just made statements which compromise the safety of Baha'is in a neighboring country.

Juan Cole wrote:

"Development" of the world center really just means more big buildings, more landscaping, more infallible pronouncements that no one can contradict without facing ostracism.

Susan Maneck's comment:

Except the major goal for the World Centre in the upcoming plan is to translate the Writings.

Juan Cole wrote:

The development of the "administrative order" means promoting the power of counselors and ABMs to dictate policy to local assemblies and national assemblies, turning the Faith into a centralized dictatorship instead of a democratic, consultative community.

Susan Maneck's comment:

The recent document on the Institution of the Counsellors in fact makes it clear they *cannot* dictate policy to those elected  bodies.

Juan Cole wrote:

What he really means by this spiritual consciousness is that Baha'is should give more and more money to Khan and his cronies.

Susan Maneck's comment:

Interesting way of referring to the body which 'Abdu'l-Baha described as the "source of all good." Especially since elsewhere in his posting Juan is accusing Peter Khan of discarding 'Abdu'l-Baha's writings.

Juan Cole wrote:

What Khan is referring to, without being brave enough to come out and say it, is that he and his colleagues summarily declared Alison Marshall of the Dunedin, NZ community, to be "not a member of the Baha'i  community." They declared her an infidel, which in Islam is called a decree of takfir.

Susan Maneck's comment:

As Juan well knows they never declared her an 'infidel.' They simply said they concluded she wasn't a Baha'i.

Juan Cole wrote:

Her messages were to small, private email lists with no-forwarding policies.

Susan Maneck's comment:

Not so. Talisman did not have a no-forwarding policy at the time. They instituted one subsequently.

Juan Cole wrote:

So even the "evidence" of her objectionable views could only have been obtained by Khan through spying ....

Susan Maneck's comment:

Nonsense. Peter Khan gets information from Talisman the same way I get information from lists such as this which I am not subscribed to. People send me things and ask for my comments. People who write things on Internet lists and then accuse others of spying on them make about as much sense as an exhibitionists at a shopping mall complaining that people are staring at them.

Juan Cole wrote:

This is the "disillusion" Khan is speaking of. It is the disillusion of devoted Baha'is who thought they were joining Baha'u'llah's religion of universal peace, love and tolerance.

Susan Maneck's comment:

Actually the disillusionment of some of the New Zealand Baha'is goes much deeper, back when the Service of Women paper was banned. Also, New Zealanders, if anything, tend to be more libertarian, if anything, than Americans.

There has apparently been a lot of problems when it came to enforcing Baha'i laws in the face of flagrant violations.  I think Peter Khan is referring to some very different incidents here than that involving Alison.

Juan Cole wrote:

In other words, Khan is outraged that some Baha'is in New Zealand (and, actually, some non-Baha'i friends of the Faith) dared protest the arbitrary, summary expulsion of Alison Marshall to the House of Justice. The letters of protest I have seen were not the sort of poison pen letters Khan describes them as.

Susan Maneck's comment:

Someone who writes with as much malice as Juan is hardly a good judge of what constitutes poison pen letters.

Juan Cole wrote:

Of course, all cultists would say the same thing. Jim Jones wanted his People's Temple followers to believe that drinking poison cool-aid, which they quite reasonably thought was not normal, was in fact normal.

Susan Maneck's comment:

A good example of what I was just referring to above. This kind of exaggerated nonsense only discredits Juan's whole argument.

Juan Cole wrote:

In other words, what is "normal" is to have a permanent Spanish Inquisition, in which the Baha'is who are "knowledgeable" about the "covenant" constantly spy on, inform on and bully the community into abject surrender of any hint of independent thinking.

Susan Maneck's comment:

Funny. I didn't see where Peter Khan said that.


Juan Cole wrote:

How remarkable, to find Khan discouraging Baha'is from reading Baha'u'llah. What am I missing here?

Susan Maneck's comment:

Only the fact that Peter Khan is *not* discouraging anyone from reading Baha'u'llah's writing.  He is simply pointing out that we have done a better job reading Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha than we have Shoghi Effendi. The reason he is doing that is because if people were familiar with Shoghi Effendi's writings Juan would not be able to pull the wool over people's eyes and make it look like our present-day policies are an innovation by an imaginary fundamentalist cabal which as supposedly taken over the Faith.

Juan Cole wrote:

In other words, Khan is reinterpreting the Calamity that Baha'is have been waiting for

Susan Maneck's comment:

And what would Juan have us do, go back to the old 'literal' fundamentalist understanding?

Juan Cole wrote:

Khan continues answering questions. Someone asks him, "Why is it not appropriate to exchange the word "he" or "she" when reading a healing prayer for a woman?" He replies: " This is part of a much broader issue in terms of gender neutral language and you find that what we're doing is, rather than adjusting to the existing system, we want to move the goal  posts. What we want to do is to recover the original meaning of "he", which is the meaning in the Oxford English Dictionary, where "he" is used as a generic term applying to male as well as female.

This will take probably some generations to do, and in the interim it feels a little awkward to be using "he" when referring to a woman, but one can condition oneself psychologically to return to the original meaning of the word, where "he" is used as a generic rather than a male term."

Susan Maneck's comment:

Peter Khan's argument here didn't make much sense to me either. I can't see why returning to sexist language which uses the male form as the default is somehow 'moving the goal posts.' Is Arabic better than Persian because Persian, unlike Arabic, is gender neutral? IMO a  better argument would have been for Peter Khan to simply say that one doesn't interpolate a holy text in the interest of being PC, trendy or even non-sexists. So where Baha'u'llah or 'Abdu'l-Baha used the male form, we are compelled to use it as well. But I would certainly hope that Peter Khan is wrong when he suggests  it is the intention of the Universal House of Justice to turn back
the clock 'generations' in order to go back to this older, more sexist English usage in the world at large.

Juan Cole wrote:

Moreover, what Khan says here is grammatically absurd. "He" has never been used to refer to a woman in English.

Susan Maneck wrote:

<Sigh> Not so. "He" in English used to always be the default when gender was not stated.

Juan Cole wrote:

What in the world is he talking about? This is the mouthpiece of infallibility???

Susan Maneck's comment:

What in the world is Juan Cole talking about? Since when is a talk from an individual House member supposed to be regarded as the 'mouthpiece of infallibility'????

Juan Cole wrote:

Khan as a counselor ran odd people called auxiliary board members for "protection" who of course are the KGB of the Baha'i faith. And of course they snoop on Baha'is and conduct witch hunts against them. Alison Marshall was the victim of one such witch hunt. I was.

Susan Maneck's comment:

Well, I'm glad we got the 'of courses' down. :-) As though anyone had to 'snoop' in order to know what Juan Cole and Alison were saying on the Internet!

Juan Cole's comment:

The New Zealand protest letters were complaining that Alison Marshall suddenly and without warning was declared not a member of the Baha'i community, and that such an action contravened not only civilized norms of governance but the explicit procedures of Baha'i law.

Susan Maneck's comment:

First, we are not a government whatever future aspiration the Baha'i Faith might have. Second, as Cole well knows the administrative institutions have not yet developed explicit procedures of Baha'i law. Perhaps it would be good if they did so, sooner rather than later. But you can't say procedures weren't followed which didn't exist.


In response to  Peter Khan's comment:

"There is no way in the world in which you can sit down logically and prove to somebody that this group of nine individuals who gather in the holy land several times every week and deliberate and make their decisions,
that their decisions are divinely guided by the Bab and Baha'u'llah and are
free from error."

Juan Cole writes: :

This is because their decisions are obviously not free from error. In fact, their decisions since 1996 or so have frequently been inquisitorial, fascistic and illogical. Moreover, dragging the poor Bab into it seems awfully cruel. I have seen him in dreams, and he deeply disapproves of what they did to Alison. Khan says that Baha'u'llah guaranteed the houses of justice "divine guidance" but he did not do so in a blanket way. Baha'u'llah says that they are centers of divine inspiration when they engage in true consultation and strive to do what is best for their constituents.

Susan Maneck's Comment:

I am intrigued by Juan Cole's reference to seeing the Bab in dreams, apparently suggesting that the Bab communicated to him His disapproval of the House's removing Alison from the rolls. I wasn't aware Juan had been receiving revelations these days. First we have paranoid delusions and now. . . ;-}

But back to our subject. While Baha'u'llah certainly urges the House of Justice to engage in consultation considering the needs of the people, He in no way suggests that the divine guidance given to them is conditional. But let me assure Dr. Cole that the House of Justice does indeed consult and consider people's needs. The statement that the House of Justice is freed from error is, of course, from 'Abdu'l-Baha. Maybe He is part of that secret fundamentalist cabal as well. That is probably why Baha'u'llah called Him the Mystery of God. :-)

Peter Khan's Comments:

... one of the forms of opposition at the moment that's being spread in a clandestine way, is to say: well, the word is mistranslated, it really doesn't mean "infallible", it means "immaculate" in terms of integrity, or sinlessness, or freedom from moral stain or anything like that, and that somehow these folk in Haifa have taken it to be "infallible" and they go around sort of parading up and down the place saying that they're free from error in their decisions. And the problem with that school of thought, whether you can speak Arabic or Persian or Turkish or any language at all, the problem is that Shoghi Effendi has, as authorised interpreter, used the word infallible over and over again, explaining that he means this, even though it doesn't mean that, and so on and so forth. So one then has to tackle Shoghi Effendi, and that leads you then to have to tackle what Abdu'l-Baha said about Shoghi Effendi and his authority as interpreter in the Will and Testament, and then you have to deal with Abdu'l-Baha and so it goes on.

Juan Cole's comments:

This argument is so ridiculous that I wonder if I need say anything about it. First of all, the word ma`sum in Arabic does not mean "infallible" in the Roman Catholic sense. It does mean protected from sin, among other things. How Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha used it in the original is not irrelevant to understanding it. That Shoghi Effendi translated it "infallible" does not tell us everything that the word means in the Baha'is scriptures.

Susan Maneck's comments:

Actually the concept of infallible in the Roman Catholic tradition is rather limited, perhaps more so than the Imami-Shaykhi-Baha'i concept of ma'sum. More problematic, in my view  though, is confusing it with evangelical notions of inerrancy as in biblical inerrancy. But I have to agree with Cole here that we cannot presume that because the Guardian translated a term in a certain fashion that this somehow exhausts its meaning. Besides, a good unabridged English dictionary can give us definitions of infallibility which match ma'sum rather precisely. (Sorry, I don't have one at hand right now.)

But I too, find Peter Khan's remarks on infalliblity to be troubling. First off, he seems confused as to who is arguing what. As should be clear from Dr. Cole's comments here, he can't hardly be said to believe that the House of Justice is ""immaculate" in terms of integrity, or sinlessness, or
freedom from moral stain or anything like that." While Cole may have once held this position, once he rose in opposition to the House he abandoned it. But both Mark Foster and I have discussed the meaning of 'mas'um' as immaculate on
various occasions and I would not think we would be considered guilty of opposition. For this reason I found Peter Khan's remarks on this point rather distressing. In fact I wrote him about it in hopes he would give me some clarification on this point, but so far he hasn't responded.

I should add that Peter Khan does not seem to be all that aware of what is in the Persian and Arabic writings. I read a speech he wrote one time where he argued that most of the untranslated writings consisted only of encouragement. I think one could only say that if they had no familiarity with those writings! Anyhow, I wish Peter Khan would show a little more tolerance towards those who are absorbed by the subtleties of Persian and Arabic words. We can learn something from this, even if it is a term which the Guardian has translated. That hardly makes Peter Khan the raging fundamentalist Cole would like to depict to him as, but I think he is short-sighted on this issue.

Juan Cole wrote:

In other words, Khan considers that crowd in Haifa who call themselves the UHJ to be omniscient (contrary to what he says above). They always know about any "stuff" they choose to take up. Why, they are Oxford dons when they write history, and they are Cardinal Ratzinger when they promulgate doctrine, and they are Ayatollah Khomeini when they lay down the law and declare Baha'is to be infidels. If anyone ever utters so much of a peep in contradiction of some silly thing they have done or said (and by now the list is a long one), then that is "vitriol" and spiritually dangerous, little short of murder on the scale of sins.

Susan Maneck's comment:

Now what could possibly make Peter Khan describe this kind of stuff as 'vitriol'? ;-}As far as being 'little short of murder on the scale of sins', I don't know whether that would be Peter Khan's judgment or not. But I know what 'Abdu'l-Baha says:

"The worst human quality and the most great sin is backbiting, more especially when it emanates from the tongues of the believers of God."

And Baha'u'llah writes:

"Material fire consumeth the body, whereas the fire of the tongue devoureth both heart and soul. The force of the former lasteth but for a time, whilst the effects of the latter endure a century. That seeker should also regard backbiting as grievous error, and keep himself aloof from its dominion, inasmuch as backbiting quencheth the light of the heart, and extinguisheth the life of the soul. " KI193

And then we have Bahiyyih Khanum:

"It is particularly important to refrain from making unfavourable remarks or statements concerning the friends and the loved ones of God, inasmuch as any expression of grievance, of complaint or backbiting is incompatible with the requirements of unity and harmony and would dampen the spirit of love,
fellowship and nobility. Therefore it is incumbent upon the members of the exalted Spiritual Assembly to exercise the utmost care with firm determination and not to allow the doors of complaint and grievance to be opened, or permit any of the friends to indulge in censure and backbiting. Whoever sets himself to do so, even though he be the very embodiment of the Holy Spirit, should realize that such behaviour would create disruption among the people of Baha and would cause the standard of sedition to be raised."

I guess all three of them are part of this secret fundamentalist cabal. :-)