Does the Bahai Faith hope and intend to be a World Theocracy?

[Rick O'Shez]

I assume you're talking about those walking catfish. I guess you could teach them to ride a bike.

You could probably teach monkeys to type another Bible given long enough.

 

[Sen McGlinn]

" .... No nation with separate and restricted boundaries — such as Persia, for instance — will exist. The United States of America will be known only as a name.
Abdu’l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 18.

Your text is not an authentic record of Abdu'l-Baha's words, either by historical standards or by the criteria of Bahai scripture. Shoghi Effendi writes "I have insistently urged the believers of the West ... to quote and consider as authentic only such translations as are based upon the authenticated text of His recorded utterances in the original tongue." (Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 5). There is no authenticated record of what Abdu'l-Baha said in Persian on this occasion, so we are reliant on shorthand notes made in English, by an unknown stenographer, of what a unnamed interpreter said Abdu'l-Baha had said. These notes were then worked up into English and published in Star of the West vol. 3, no 10 p7, and were then altered by Howard MacNutt, the editor of The Promulgation of Universal Peace. For example, the Star of the West version says:
" No nation like Persia will be left. America will be known only in name; Germany also..."
and MacNutt makes this
"No nation with separate and restricted boundaries--such as Persia, for instance-- will exist. The United States of America will be known only as a name. Germany, ..."
MacNutt tries to clarify the text and raise the literary style, but sometimes he changes the meaning. MacNutt has also changed the attributed source, from "stenographic notes" to "Notes by Ahmad Sohrab." Sohrab is quite notorious for putting his own ideas into the mouth of Abdu'l-Baha, leading to all sorts of misunderstanding and mischief.

Here's an authentic text from a reliable translation, to make the same point:

As to the patriotic prejudice, this is also due to absolute ignorance, for the surface of the earth is one native land. Every one can live in any spot on the terrestrial globe. Therefore all the world is man's birthplace. These boundaries and outlets have been devised by man. In the creation, such boundaries and outlets were not assigned. Europe is one continent, Asia is one continent, Africa is one continent, Australia is one continent, but some of the souls, from personal motives and selfish interests, have divided each one of these continents and considered a certain part as their own country. God has set up no frontier between France and Germany; they are continuous. Yea, in the first centuries, selfish souls, for the promotion of their own interests, have assigned boundaries and outlets and have, day by day, attached more importance to these, until this led to intense enmity, bloodshed and rapacity in subsequent centuries. In the same way this will continue indefinitely, and if this conception of patriotism remains limited within a certain circle, it will be the primary cause of the world's destruction. No wise and just person will acknowledge these imaginary distinctions. Every limited area which we call our native country we regard as our motherland, whereas the terrestrial globe is the motherland of all, and not any restricted area. In short, for a few days we live on this earth and eventually we are buried in it, it is our eternal tomb. Is it worth while that we should engage in bloodshed and tear one another to pieces for this eternal tomb? Nay, far from it, neither is God pleased with such conduct nor would any sane man approve of it.
(Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 300)

 

[loverofhumanity]

Your text is not an authentic record of Abdu'l-Baha's words, either by historical standards or by the criteria of Bahai scripture. Shoghi Effendi writes "I have insistently urged the believers of the West ... to quote and consider as authentic only such translations as are based upon the authenticated text of His recorded utterances in the original tongue." (Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 5). There is no authenticated record of what Abdu'l-Baha said in Persian on this occasion, so we are reliant on shorthand notes made in English, by an unknown stenographer, of what a unnamed interpreter said Abdu'l-Baha had said. These notes were then worked up into English and published in Star of the West vol. 3, no 10 p7, and were then altered by Howard MacNutt, the editor of The Promulgation of Universal Peace. For example, the Star of the West version says:
" No nation like Persia will be left. America will be known only in name; Germany also..."
and MacNutt makes this
"No nation with separate and restricted boundaries--such as Persia, for instance-- will exist. The United States of America will be known only as a name. Germany, ..."
MacNutt tries to clarify the text and raise the literary style, but sometimes he changes the meaning. MacNutt has also changed the attributed source, from "stenographic notes" to "Notes by Ahmad Sohrab." Sohrab is quite notorious for putting his own ideas into the mouth of Abdu'l-Baha, leading to all sorts of misunderstanding and mischief.

Here's an authentic text from a reliable translation, to make the same point:

Well thanks for pointing that out and posting the other quote which is awesome.

How come that quote is still on the official Bahá'í Library website under authoritative texts? They didn't have to put PUP in the official library.

I know that they said the Guardian agreed to its circulation.

For many of His addresses included in "The Promulgation of Universal Peace" and "Paris Talks", for example, no original authenticated text has yet been found. However, the Guardian allowed such compilations to continue to be used by the friends. (Universal House of Justice23 March 1987)

Having it on their official site I understand means there's no harm in using it otherwise it wouldn't be there.

http://www.bahai.org/library/authoritative-texts/abdul-baha/promulgation-universal-peace/#f=f2-120

 

[oldbadger]

You could probably teach monkeys to type another Bible given long enough.

But can anybody teach a naughty mini-dachshund to go outside to wee?
Nah!

 

[Sen McGlinn]

How come that quote is still on the official Bahá'í Library website under authoritative texts?

There are bits of The Promulgation of Universal Peace, Abdu'l-Baha in London and Paris Talks that are authoritative and in reliable translations. The trick is to know which bits. But you don't really need these books to get a good picture of Abdu'l-Baha's thinking. Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha and the new translation of Some Answered Questions are authoritative and well translated, though I've spotted a couple of mistakesiin the latter. A Traveller's Narrative and The Secret of Divine Civilization are authorative and reasonably well translated. Memorials of the Faithful is authoritative and I assume reasonably well translated, but I haven't checked. The Art of Governance is authoritative, and since I'm the translator I won't say anything about how reliable the translation is

 

[loverofhumanity]

There are bits of The Promulgation of Universal Peace, Abdu'l-Baha in London and Paris Talks that are authoritative and in reliable translations. The trick is to know which bits. But you don't really need these books to get a good picture of Abdu'l-Baha's thinking. Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha and the new translation of Some Answered Questions are authoritative and well translated, though I've spotted a couple of mistakesiin the latter. A Traveller's Narrative and The Secret of Divine Civilization are authorative and reasonably well translated. Memorials of the Faithful is authoritative and I assume reasonably well translated, but I haven't checked. The Art of Governance is authoritative, and since I'm the translator I won't say anything about how reliable the translation is

While you're on these forums I will be very grateful if you can correct any mistakes I make with regards to authenticity as one cannot be too thorough.

Also, the Art of Governance I can't find it in the reference library. Is it a recent publication by the World Centre.

Also the subject of Church and State from a Baha'i view I need to study this topic more in depth because on my travels I've not come across this topic hardly until now.

Do you know of any good Bahai material on the topic to recommend that is authoritative?

Thank you in advance.

 

[Sen McGlinn]

While you're on these forums I will be very grateful if you can correct any mistakes I make with regards to authenticity as one cannot be too thorough.

Also, the Art of Governance I can't find it in the reference library. Is it a recent publication by the World Centre.

Also the subject of Church and State from a Baha'i view I need to study this topic more in depth because on my travels I've not come across this topic hardly until now.

Do you know of any good Bahai material on the topic to recommend that is authoritative?

Thank you in advance.

"The Art of Governance" is my title for a book Abdu'l-Baha wrote about the separation of church and state. At the time, in the lead-up to the 1906 Constitutional Revolution in Iran, reformers and opportunists posing as reformers were getting the Islamic clerics (what Shoghi Effendi calls "the divines") involved in their attempt to limit the powers of the Shah, and eventually overthrow the monarchy. Abdu'l-Baha is very much against that, but he makes his argument in general terms, based on "Render unto Caesar" and the writings of Baha'u'llah, and Islamic traditions. He says that God has appointed two kinds of governance for society, two "powers", the temporal and the spiritual, one exercising hard power, the other appealing to altruism and seeking to improve human character. Whenever the spiritual power interferes in the affairs of government, the result is catastrophe for society and for the religious community. My translation is a "provisional translation" (not endorsed by the House of Justice), but you can compare it to an earlier English translation by Cole, a French translation by Dreyfus, and now a German translation by Eschraghi, Abhandlung über Politik. In principle you should start with the last of these, since Eschraghi is a very good translator whose translation of the Epistle to the Son of the Wolf was published in an academic edition with the approval of the House of Justice, and because Eschraghi has used all the previous translations and can be expected to improve on them. If you don't read German, my translation is next in line. I will eventually revise it using Eschraghi's translation, but it's not a top priority now. You can find my translation at

http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/trans/vol7/govern.htm

In addition to being a book about Church and State, "The Art of Governance" cast light on the meaning of a pair of terms that Abdu'l-Baha continued to use for these two "powers" throughout his life, including the Will and Testament, they are the tashri` and tanfidh , which in the Will and Testament are translated as legislative and executive. These correspond to Church and State, and not to the legislative, judicial and executive powers of western political theory. The latter are three powers within the state apparatus, while Abdu'l-Baha's legislative and executive are two powers in society, the state being the executive power, and religion -- the other power -- being excluded from it. See
https://senmcglinn.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/executive-and-legislative/

It's good news to hear of a Bahai who hasn't had to deal with this issue. Because of the misunderstandings that arose, in part because of Dreyfus' 1908 translation of Some Answered Questions, this was for many years a hot button question within the Bahai community. There were apparent contradictions between Baha'u'llah's writings in Gleanings and Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, and what many Bahais thought was the Bahai aim of establishing a theocracy ruled by Houses of Justice. The OP question from oldbadger is a reasonable one, if you look at secondary Bahai literature and the web sites of breakaway groups who have held fast to the theocratic idea. That's all changed now, mainly because in the 1990's the Persian text of "The Art of Governance" was published electronically by the Bahai World Centre, Dreyfus's unpublished French translation was discovered in the NSA archives in France and published digitally, and Juan Cole did his English translation.

 

[loverofhumanity]

"The Art of Governance" is my title for a book Abdu'l-Baha wrote about the separation of church and state. At the time, in the lead-up to the 1906 Constitutional Revolution in Iran, reformers and opportunists posing as reformers were getting the Islamic clerics (what Shoghi Effendi calls "the divines") involved in their attempt to limit the powers of the Shah, and eventually overthrow the monarchy. Abdu'l-Baha is very much against that, but he makes his argument in general terms, based on "Render unto Caesar" and the writings of Baha'u'llah, and Islamic traditions. He says that God has appointed two kinds of governance for society, two "powers", the temporal and the spiritual, one exercising hard power, the other appealing to altruism and seeking to improve human character. Whenever the spiritual power interferes in the affairs of government, the result is catastrophe for society and for the religious community. My translation is a "provisional translation" (not endorsed by the House of Justice), but you can compare it to an earlier English translation by Cole, a French translation by Dreyfus, and now a German translation by Eschraghi, Abhandlung über Politik. In principle you should start with the last of these, since Eschraghi is a very good translator whose translation of the Epistle to the Son of the Wolf was published in an academic edition with the approval of the House of Justice, and because Eschraghi has used all the previous translations and can be expected to improve on them. If you don't read German, my translation is next in line. I will eventually revise it using Eschraghi's translation, but it's not a top priority now. You can find my translation at

http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/trans/vol7/govern.htm

In addition to being a book about Church and State, "The Art of Governance" cast light on the meaning of a pair of terms that Abdu'l-Baha continued to use for these two "powers" throughout his life, including the Will and Testament, they are the tashri` and tanfidh , which in the Will and Testament are translated as legislative and executive. These correspond to Church and State, and not to the legislative, judicial and executive powers of western political theory. The latter are three powers within the state apparatus, while Abdu'l-Baha's legislative and executive are two powers in society, the state being the executive power, and religion -- the other power -- being excluded from it. See
https://senmcglinn.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/executive-and-legislative/

It's good news to hear of a Bahai who hasn't had to deal with this issue. Because of the misunderstandings that arose, in part because of Dreyfus' 1908 translation of Some Answered Questions, this was for many years a hot button question within the Bahai community. There were apparent contradictions between Baha'u'llah's writings in Gleanings and Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, and what many Bahais thought was the Bahai aim of establishing a theocracy ruled by Houses of Justice. The OP question from oldbadger is a reasonable one, if you look at secondary Bahai literature and the web sites of breakaway groups who have held fast to the theocratic idea. That's all changed now, mainly because in the 1990's the Persian text of "The Art of Governance" was published electronically by the Bahai World Centre, Dreyfus's unpublished French translation was discovered in the NSA archives in France and published digitally, and Juan Cole did his English translation.

Thanks very much Sen for taking the time to explain and post these links. I find that I never stop learning thanks to people asking difficult questions. It makes me research topics that I may only have studied lightly before such as this and only a couple of weeks ago, evolution. And both times I've had well meaning Bahá'ís somehow turn up out of thin air experts in that field or I have found them by searching and in both cases found good publications to really learn from.

I always have this letter from the Guardian very helpful. It separates clearly to me, the features distinguishing the Baha'i from the non Baha'i world. The world tribunal and such things was always to do with happenings outside the Baha'i Faith as with the international force.

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/WOB/wob-56.html

 

[oldbadger]

Wow! @Sen McGlinn .......... just how many languages can you speak, be fluent in, and translate?

I've read the to-and-fro of posts, and you will surely understand that much of the content was beyond my understanding. Despite that I have noticed that Abdul Baha's spoken and written words do seem to direct the foundations of your faith in places? It seems as if Shogi Effendi did have significant leverage as well?

This issue of accurate translation is obviously not new to religion, and there are 3000+ differing denominations, churches and creeds within the Christian Faith, varying massively even in fundamentals such as trinity and unitarian beliefs.

Even if a religion would be spoken and written in one language for all people fluent in same, there would be differences of opinion because of a comma here or there.

1. Separate from main-stream Bahai, how many factions and schisms might there be, and do they vie with each other separate to the main stream Bahai, as well as to main-stream?
2. Within Christianity, Paul and even Cephas made significant additions or alterations to that which Jesus actually said or did. For instance Cephas's vision at Joppa changed the eating habits of Christians, making Cephas a minor prophet with Christianity if you like. Are Abdul Baha and Shogi Effendi prophets of the Bahai faith?
3. If Bahauallah wrote something down, is that as if carved in granite, or were Abdul Baha and Shogi Effendi able to alter or redirect Bahai?

 

[CG Didymus]

Your text is not an authentic record of Abdu'l-Baha's words, either by historical standards or by the criteria of Bahai scripture. Shoghi Effendi writes "I have insistently urged the believers of the West ... to quote and consider as authentic only such translations as are based upon the authenticated text of His recorded utterances in the original tongue." (Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 5). There is no authenticated record of what Abdu'l-Baha said in Persian on this occasion, so we are reliant on shorthand notes made in English, by an unknown stenographer, of what a unnamed interpreter said Abdu'l-Baha had said. These notes were then worked up into English and published in Star of the West vol. 3, no 10 p7, and were then altered by Howard MacNutt, the editor of The Promulgation of Universal Peace. For example, the Star of the West version says:
" No nation like Persia will be left. America will be known only in name; Germany also..."
and MacNutt makes this
"No nation with separate and restricted boundaries--such as Persia, for instance-- will exist. The United States of America will be known only as a name. Germany, ..."
MacNutt tries to clarify the text and raise the literary style, but sometimes he changes the meaning. MacNutt has also changed the attributed source, from "stenographic notes" to "Notes by Ahmad Sohrab." Sohrab is quite notorious for putting his own ideas into the mouth of Abdu'l-Baha, leading to all sorts of misunderstanding and mischief.

Here's an authentic text from a reliable translation, to make the same point:

That is so funny. That is exactly what we are dealing with in the New Testament. But I doubt that anybody even took notes. We have to rely on hearsay, and then make a religion out of it? I wonder what it would be like if we had Jesus's exact words? At least with the Baha'i Faith there is such a thing as "authenticated" text.

 

[loverofhumanity]

One of the beautiful things about the Baha'i Faith is that it's flexible without being compromising. For instance Baha'is do not drink alcohol but if prescribed by a doctor it's permissible. Again, Baha'is must bury not cremate their dead but in a case of a dangerous epidemic this law does not apply so Abdul Baha and Shoghi Effendi who were appointed interpreters could broaden the scope and definition of the laws but not change them altogether.

Although Baha'is are all different we all have one central authority which is our uniting factor - The Covenant - unbroken succession. Baha'u'llah in His Will appointed Abdul-Baha as interpreter and in turn He appointed both Shoghi Effendi and referred to the authority of the Universal House of Justice.

Here is an excerpt from His will. The Guardian here refers to Shoghi Effendi. After Shoghi Effendi passed away the Universal House of Justice was elected by the Baha'is of the world. He says they are both under the care and protection of the Bab and Baha'u'llah.

"....The sacred and youthful branch, the Guardian of the Cause of God, as well as the Universal House of Justice to be universally elected and established, are both under the care and protection of the Abhá Beauty, under the shelter and unerring guidance of the Exalted One (may my life be offered up for them both). Whatsoever they decide is of God. Whoso obeyeth him not, neither obeyeth them, hath not obeyed God; whoso rebelleth against him and against them hath rebelled against God; whoso opposeth him hath opposed God; whoso contendeth with them hath contended with God; whoso disputeth with him hath disputed with God; whoso denieth him hath denied God; whoso disbelieveth in him hath disbelieved in God; whoso deviateth, separateth himself and turneth aside from him hath in truth deviated, separated himself and turned aside from God. "

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/WT/wt-1.html

So when any Baha'i makes a statement that we are unsure of we can always check to see what the Universal House of Justice has said or write to them. As 'whatever they say is from God' their decision is accepted and no further contention or dispute is permitted.

Because we have a central authority we don't fall apart. Their authority comes not from the Baha'is but from Baha'u'llah in His Most Holy Book as well as what is written in Abdul-Bahá's Will.

But note that He says they are to be 'universally elected'. The first Universal House of Justice to be elected in 1963 was elected by 56 National Bahá'í Assemblies and in 2013 it was elected by 157 countries as opposed to these fake websites who are manly only situated in one country the USA and have no worldwide Bahai Community so cannot universally elect a House of Justice even though they use the name.

 

[arthra]

If Bahauallah wrote something down, is that as if carved in granite, or were Abdul Baha and Shogi Effendi able to alter or redirect Bahai?

Thanks for the question "old Badger"!

The authenticated words of Baha'u'llah are scripture for Baha'is... that is His Writings... He also had secretaries who transcribed what He dictated and He later authenticated what was transcribed. For Baha'is hearsay or hand me down sayings are not authentic... They are referred to also as "pilgrim notes". They may be of interest but are not accepted as authority.

Baha'u'llah designated Abdul-Baha His eldest Son as His Interpreter and the Center of the Cause.... in His Will and Testament. Abdul-Baha in His turn designated the Guardian Shoghi Effendi as Guardian of the Cause and as an Interpreter in His Will and Testament. He also defined how the Universal House of Justice would be established. Shoghi Effendi passed away without leaving a Will and the Hands of the Cause He appointed worked to establish the Universal House of Justice.

Baha'is regard these above noted designations as a Covenant for the believers.

His Holiness Abraham, on Him be peace, made a covenant concerning His Holiness Moses and gave the glad-tidings of His coming. His Holiness Moses made a covenant concerning the Promised One, i.e. His Holiness Christ, and announced the good news of His Manifestation to the world. His Holiness Christ made a covenant concerning the Paraclete and gave the tidings of His coming. His Holiness the Prophet Muhammad made a covenant concerning His Holiness the Báb and the Báb was the One promised by Muhammad, for Muhammad gave the tidings of His coming. The Báb made a Covenant concerning the Blessed Beauty of Bahá'u'lláh and gave the glad-tidings of His coming for the Blessed Beauty was the One promised by His Holiness the Báb. Bahá'u'lláh made a covenant concerning a promised One who will become manifest after one thousand or thousands of years. He likewise, with His Supreme Pen, entered into a great Covenant and Testament with all the Bahá'ís whereby they were all commanded to follow the Center of the Covenant after His departure, and turn not away even to a hair's breadth from obeying Him.

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - p. 357

 

[Sen McGlinn]

Wow! @Sen McGlinn... I have noticed that Abdul Baha's spoken and written words do seem to direct the foundations of your faith in places? It seems as if Shogi Effendi did have significant leverage as well?
...
1. Separate from main-stream Bahai, how many factions and schisms might there be, and do they vie with each other separate to the main stream Bahai, as well as to main-stream?
2. Within Christianity, Paul and even Cephas made significant additions or alterations to that which Jesus actually said or did. For instance Cephas's vision at Joppa changed the eating habits of Christians, making Cephas a minor prophet with Christianity if you like. Are Abdul Baha and Shogi Effendi prophets of the Bahai faith?
3. If Bahauallah wrote something down, is that as if carved in granite, or were Abdul Baha and Shogi Effendi able to alter or redirect Bahai?

Hi oldbadger,
Baha'u'llah is the pivot on which it all turns for Bahais. Starting from a very young age, perhaps as young as 12, he re-imagined how religion could work in the modern world. He named his eldest son Abdu'l-Baha to lead the community and interpret the Bahai teachings after his (Baha'u'llah's) death. Abdu'l-Baha travelled to Egypt, Europe and North America and gave public talks. He spoke via an interpreter which is why we have so much literature in English, and also in French and Hungarian, that is based on oral sources and is not entirely reliable. It's the apocrypha of Bahai scriptures, we treat it with respect and scepticism, roughly the same way the Catholics treat their apocrypha, printing it in the Bible but in a separate section at the back of the Bible. Abdu'l-Baha appointed his grandson Shoghi Effendi to be the Guardian: the leader of the community and interpreter of its writings, but without the power to make Bahai law. Shoghi Effendi does not have the same status as Abdu'l-Baha. You might call him the official theologian of the Bahai Faith.

In addition to these figures, there's the Bab, who is and is not co-founder of the Bahai Faith. In practical terms, on matters of religious law and metaphysics, there is almost 100% continuity and it quite often happens that a point of law or of symbolism in the Bahai teachings is clearer in the Bab's teachings, which are also used as scripture. On the other hand, Baha'u'llah changed some of the Bab's religious laws: raising the age of maturity for example. There's a whole area that Baha'u'llah added that is not in the Bab's teachings, or at least not in an accessible way: the election of houses of justice to administer the community, and the idea of international collective security to guarantee peace are two examples.

Because Baha'u'llah appointed Abdu'l-Baha in writing, and Abdu'l-Baha appointed Shoghi Effendi in writing and set out, in writing, how the Universal House of Justice should be elected, the Bahai community is remarkably unified. The "main stream" account for 99.99% of the membership.

Apart from main-stream Bahai, there are said to be Babis in Iran who have not become Bahais, but given conditions there, they are keeping their heads down if they exist. If they do exist, they would be the fullest alternative form of the religion. Apart from that, there are some descendants of Abdu'l-Baha's brothers who bear a grudge at being left out, and who have a different vision of how the history I sketched above should have worked out, but as far as I know they function more as a family than as a religious community. Then there are various small groups in the west that originate either with the death of Abdu'l-Baha (from some of his brothers' claims to succeed him and rejection of Shoghi Effendi as too young), or from the death of Shoghi Effendi, when an American, Mason Remey claimed he was the second Guardian. These groups, especially the Remeyites, had significant numbers at one time but they have split into numerous tiny factions and withered away. Finally, there are religious entrepreneurs (using the sociological term): individuals who think they have a calling as a new prophet and try to interest the Bahais in joining them. They come and go, and so far have not been significant at all.

Abdu'l-Baha is hugely significant, but the case is quite different than with Paul. Paul never met Jesus, but Abdu'l-Baha spent most of his life closely associated with Baha'u'llah. That means that when Abdu'l-Baha says something that we cannot find in Baha'u'llah's writings, we don't know whether that is Abdu'l-Baha adapting and extending the religion in the light of his own wide knowledge of the world (he both travelled and read newspapers and books), or is it Abdu'l-Baha drawing on something Baha'u'llah told him? What I can say is that I have not found any question of principle on which Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi differ from Baha'u'llah. Shoghi Effendi is much more tightly bound to the written record from Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha. He quite often says that he cannot find anything in the Bahai Writings on a topic, so he has nothing to say. He too can draw on what he heard Abdu'l-Baha say, over a period of a few years, but he was sent to Beirut and then Oxford to study, and he was still quite young when Abdu'l-Baha died.

 

[oldbadger]

Thanks for the question "old Badger"!

The authenticated words of Baha'u'llah are scripture for Baha'is... that is His Writings... He also had secretaries who transcribed what He dictated and He later authenticated what was transcribed. For Baha'is hearsay or hand me down sayings are not authentic... They are referred to also as "pilgrim notes". They may be of interest but are not accepted as authority.

Baha'u'llah designated Abdul-Baha His eldest Son as His Interpreter and the Center of the Cause.... in His Will and Testament. Abdul-Baha in His turn designated the Guardian Shoghi Effendi as Guardian of the Cause and as an Interpreter in His Will and Testament. He also defined how the Universal House of Justice would be established. Shoghi Effendi passed away without leaving a Will and the Hands of the Cause He appointed worked to establish the Universal House of Justice.

Baha'is regard these above noted designations as a Covenant for the believers.

His Holiness Abraham, on Him be peace, made a covenant concerning His Holiness Moses and gave the glad-tidings of His coming. His Holiness Moses made a covenant concerning the Promised One, i.e. His Holiness Christ, and announced the good news of His Manifestation to the world. His Holiness Christ made a covenant concerning the Paraclete and gave the tidings of His coming. His Holiness the Prophet Muhammad made a covenant concerning His Holiness the Báb and the Báb was the One promised by Muhammad, for Muhammad gave the tidings of His coming. The Báb made a Covenant concerning the Blessed Beauty of Bahá'u'lláh and gave the glad-tidings of His coming for the Blessed Beauty was the One promised by His Holiness the Báb. Bahá'u'lláh made a covenant concerning a promised One who will become manifest after one thousand or thousands of years. He likewise, with His Supreme Pen, entered into a great Covenant and Testament with all the Bahá'ís whereby they were all commanded to follow the Center of the Covenant after His departure, and turn not away even to a hair's breadth from obeying Him.

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - p. 357

Thank you...
And so, Abdul Baha was able to define what was written. His proven words are as valuable as Bahauallah's. Correct?
This would give him status as a prophet, I'm thinking.

 

[oldbadger]

Hi oldbadger,
Baha'u'llah is the pivot on which it all turns for Bahais. Starting from a very young age, perhaps as young as 12, he re-imagined how religion could work in the modern world. He named his eldest son Abdu'l-Baha to lead the community and interpret the Bahai teachings after his (Baha'u'llah's) death. Abdu'l-Baha travelled to Egypt, Europe and North America and gave public talks. He spoke via an interpreter which is why we have so much literature in English, and also in French and Hungarian, that is based on oral sources and is not entirely reliable. It's the apocrypha of Bahai scriptures, we treat it with respect and scepticism, roughly the same way the Catholics treat their apocrypha, printing it in the Bible but in a separate section at the back of the Bible. Abdu'l-Baha appointed his grandson Shoghi Effendi to be the Guardian: the leader of the community and interpreter of its writings, but without the power to make Bahai law. Shoghi Effendi does not have the same status as Abdu'l-Baha. You might call him the official theologian of the Bahai Faith.

In addition to these figures, there's the Bab, who is and is not co-founder of the Bahai Faith. In practical terms, on matters of religious law and metaphysics, there is almost 100% continuity and it quite often happens that a point of law or of symbolism in the Bahai teachings is clearer in the Bab's teachings, which are also used as scripture. On the other hand, Baha'u'llah changed some of the Bab's religious laws: raising the age of maturity for example. There's a whole area that Baha'u'llah added that is not in the Bab's teachings, or at least not in an accessible way: the election of houses of justice to administer the community, and the idea of international collective security to guarantee peace are two examples.

Because Baha'u'llah appointed Abdu'l-Baha in writing, and Abdu'l-Baha appointed Shoghi Effendi in writing and set out, in writing, how the Universal House of Justice should be elected, the Bahai community is remarkably unified. The "main stream" account for 99.99% of the membership.

Apart from main-stream Bahai, there are said to be Babis in Iran who have not become Bahais, but given conditions there, they are keeping their heads down if they exist. If they do exist, they would be the fullest alternative form of the religion. Apart from that, there are some descendants of Abdu'l-Baha's brothers who bear a grudge at being left out, and who have a different vision of how the history I sketched above should have worked out, but as far as I know they function more as a family than as a religious community. Then there are various small groups in the west that originate either with the death of Abdu'l-Baha (from some of his brothers' claims to succeed him and rejection of Shoghi Effendi as too young), or from the death of Shoghi Effendi, when an American, Mason Remey claimed he was the second Guardian. These groups, especially the Remeyites, had significant numbers at one time but they have split into numerous tiny factions and withered away. Finally, there are religious entrepreneurs (using the sociological term): individuals who think they have a calling as a new prophet and try to interest the Bahais in joining them. They come and go, and so far have not been significant at all.

Abdu'l-Baha is hugely significant, but the case is quite different than with Paul. Paul never met Jesus, but Abdu'l-Baha spent most of his life closely associated with Baha'u'llah. That means that when Abdu'l-Baha says something that we cannot find in Baha'u'llah's writings, we don't know whether that is Abdu'l-Baha adapting and extending the religion in the light of his own wide knowledge of the world (he both travelled and read newspapers and books), or is it Abdu'l-Baha drawing on something Baha'u'llah told him? What I can say is that I have not found any question of principle on which Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi differ from Baha'u'llah. Shoghi Effendi is much more tightly bound to the written record from Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha. He quite often says that he cannot find anything in the Bahai Writings on a topic, so he has nothing to say. He too can draw on what he heard Abdu'l-Baha say, over a period of a few years, but he was sent to Beirut and then Oxford to study, and he was still quite young when Abdu'l-Baha died.

Thank you.....
On the basis of your explanation, I would stick rigidly to what Bahauallah wrote in any investigation that I might undertake. That is just my line drawn in sand.... Nobody else's.
The problem is that anything that I will ever read of his has been translated by some other mind. Further to that, I get the feeling that some of his writings could be withheld in order to protect from a world 'not ready' for them.

And there seem to have been changes in some of thebfocused points of the faith over the years. Back in the 60s Baha'is often mentioned that there were miracles in the faith, that seemed important then.
I would say, after this and the previous discussion elsewhere that if Bahai should reach a massive enough percentage of yhebpopulation that controlvwould begin to pass to housesofjustice. The fact that their names were changed to LSAs suggests media juggling for a better image.

You seem to be not only the most knowledgeable western Baha'i to me, but also the most frank one.
Question. Are you yourself an lsa or a nsa exec?

 

[arthra]

Thank you...
And so, Abdul Baha was able to define what was written. His proven words are as valuable as Bahauallah's. Correct?
This would give him status as a prophet, I'm thinking.

Abdul-Baha and after Him Shoghi Effendi were designated Interptreters of the Writings of Baha'u'llah. Abdul-Baha was not a "Prophet". He was an Exemplar of what a Baha'i should be.

Abdul-Baha explained His station as follows:

Regarding the station of this servant: My station is Abdul-Baha, my name is Abdul-Baha, my qualification is Abdul-Baha, my praise is Abdul-Baha, my title is Abdul-Baha. All the friends of God must declare this word, in order that all of them become united and harmonized upon it. No difference must arise. Collect, translate, print and spread all the Tablets written by me regarding this question.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Tablets of Abdu'l-Baha v2, p. 466)

"Abdul-Baha" means Servant of Baha (Baha'u'llah)

 

[arthra]

I would say, after this and the previous discussion elsewhere that if Bahai should reach a massive enough percentage of yhebpopulation that controlvwould begin to pass to housesofjustice. The fact that their names were changed to LSAs suggests media juggling for a better image.

I think you're looking for some kind of motive that we want to "control" things or seize power.. this isn't the case. In the distant future should there be a community with an advanced graasp of the Baha'i virtues and character there may be an institution known as a House of Justice... but it will likely be more concerned with Baha'i law not so much influence in the secular realm as such. A Baha'i culture is not after domination or control of society but I think more the acceptance of the oneness of humanity ..the equality of men and women.. world peace... harmony between science and religion and other such virtues.

 

[George-ananda]

Shoghi Effendi then argued robustly against these already established ideas (among Bahais in the West, not among Persian Bahais). He writes for example that

"Theirs is not the purpose, while endeavoring to conduct and perfect the administrative affairs of their Faith, to violate, under any circumstances, the provisions of their country’s constitution, much less to allow the machinery of their administration to supersede the government of their respective countries,"​

As I understand it Baha'is are not to involve themselves with the politics and governments of the 'old world order' but instead are working to build the new 'World Order of Baha'u'llah' that in the course of time is to replace the old world order and create a Baha'i Era. So the quote above is concerning involvement with the crumbling old world order as I understand it.

What do you envision the future 'World Order of Baha'u'llah' will look like in its Golden Age then?

 

[CG Didymus]

As I understand it Baha'is are not to involve themselves with the politics and governments of the 'old world order' but instead are working to build the new 'World Order of Baha'u'llah' that in the course of time is to replace the old world order and create a Baha'i Era. So the quote above is concerning involvement with the crumbling old world order as I understand it.

What do you envision the future 'World Order of Baha'u'llah' will look like in its Golden Age then?

That's the very question I've been talking about too. But let me ask you Baha'is my question in the reverse direction... If the Law that comes from God is perfect, then why not enforce it? Why allow imperfect and self-serving people to run the world? And if you say that God appointed the different kings and rulers and presidents as part of His plan, then what is God doing? Don't all religions say the world system is corrupt and evil? So then institute a fair and just ruler ship under God's leadership. Or, is God too busy for the next 1000 years to be a hands on leader?

 

[arthra]

That's the very question I've been talking about too. But let me ask you Baha'is my question in the reverse direction... If the Law that comes from God is perfect, then why not enforce it? Why allow imperfect and self-serving people to run the world? And if you say that God appointed the different kings and rulers and presidents as part of His plan, then what is God doing? Don't all religions say the world system is corrupt and evil? So then institute a fair and just ruler ship under God's leadership. Or, is God too busy for the next 1000 years to be a hands on leader?

Abdul-Baha made comment about political affairs then in the United States that for me still "rings" true...

O thou servant of Baha'! Thou hast asked regarding the political affairs. In the United States it is necessary that the citizens shall take part in elections. This is a necessary matter and no excuse from it is possible. My object in telling the believers that they should not interfere in the affairs of government is this: That they should not make any trouble and that they should not move against the opinion of the government, but obedience to the laws and the administration of the commonwealth is necessary. Now, as the government of America is a republican form of government, it is necessary that all the citizens shall take part in the elections of officers and take part in the affairs of the republic.

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Tablets of Abdu'l-Baha v2, p. 342

Baha'is are not registered in partisan organizations... See the following:

Active support. . . of an individual who has announced his candidacy for political office is not permissible to Bahá'ís. Even if the person is not attached to a political party, the very fact of promoting his candidacy over that of other competitors is an act of partisanship, which is inimical to the principles of the Faith. As you well know, campaigning and nominations are forbidden in Bahá'í elections. The friends should endeavor to keep in mind the non-partisan character of the Faith and to employ the attitude of non partisanship, to the greatest extent possible, in the exercise of their civic responsibilities as voters. Bahá'í are, of course, free to vote except, in primaries, but should not express support for any candidate.

Letter on behalf of the Universal House of Justice, dated May 25, 1992
(Compilations, NSA USA - Developing Distinctive Baha'i Communities)

Our Unit Conventions were just held across the United States last weekend to elect delegates to the National Convention next Spring (Ridvan)... and we vote by secret ballot...without making nominations or having campaigning in stark contrast to the political partisanship around us.

Shoghi Effendi also characterized how Baha'is are to align themselves:

Though loyal to their respective governments, though profoundly interested in anything that affects their security and welfare, though anxious to share in whatever promotes their best interests, the Faith with which the followers of Bahá'u'lláh stand identified is one which they firmly believe God has raised high above the storms, the divisions, and controversies of the political arena. Their Faith they conceive to be essentially non-political, supra-national in character, rigidly non-partisan, and entirely dissociated from nationalistic ambitions, pursuits, and purposes. Such a Faith knows no division of class or of party. It subordinates, without hesitation or equivocation, every particularistic interest, be it personal, regional, or national, to the paramount interests of humanity, firmly convinced that in a world of inter-dependent peoples and nations the advantage of the part is best to be reached by the advantage of the whole, and that no abiding benefit can be conferred upon the component parts if the general interests of the entity itself are ignored or neglected.

~ Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 198