Issues related to the study of the Bahá'í Faith

7 April 1999 

To all National Spiritual Assemblies

Dear Bahá'í Friends,

Issues Related to the Study of the Bahá'í Faith

In May of 1998, Bahá'í Canada reproduced a collection of letters which the Universal House of Justice had written to various individuals on the subject of the academic study of the Bahá'í Faith. Copies of this compilation were subsequently mailed by the Canadian National Spiritual Assembly to its sister Assemblies. The reprint has now been made generally available in booklet form by the United States Bahá'í Publishing Trust. The House of Justice has asked us to forward you a copy of the latter publication with the following comments.

As a number of the friends are aware, a campaign of internal opposition to the Teachings is currently being carried on through the use of the Internet, a communications system that now reaches virtually every part of the world. Differing from attacks familiar in the past, it seeks to recast the entire Faith into a socio-political ideology alien to Bahá'u'lláh's intent. In the place of the institutional authority established by His Covenant, it promotes a kind of interpretive authority which those behind it attribute to the views of persons technically trained in Middle East studies.

Early in 1996, the deliberate nature of the plan was revealed in an accidental posting to an Internet list which Bahá'í subscribers had believed was dedicated to scholarly exploration of the Cause. Some of the people responsible resigned from the Faith when Counsellors pointed out to them the direction their activities were taking. A small number of others continue to promote the campaign within the Bahá'í community.

Interpretations by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and the Guardian, and Elucidations by the Universal House of Justice

27 August 1998

Dear Bahá’í Friend,

The Universal House of Justice has asked us to convey the following reply to your letter . .. seeking clarification on the “interpretative function" of that institution...

In the light of the Teachings which are well known to you, and given the repeated statements of the House of Justice on this subject, it is not correct to insist that the House of Justice has an interpretative function. This matter has been dealt with in three published letters, dated 9 March 1965, 27 May 1966 and 7 December 1969, appearing in Messages from the Universal House of Justice: 1963-1986 (U.S. Bahá’í Publishing Trust). A careful study of these letters can provide you with the answers you seek. However, the House of Justice is happy to offer some further comments for your consideration.

Any reference to authoritative or binding interpretation of Bahá’í Scripture is a reference to the divinely guided meaning given to such Scripture by either ‘Abdu’l-Bahá or the Guardian, the two persons authorized in the sacred Texts to interpret the Teachings. With regard to Shoghi Effendi, your letter cites a passage from the 9 March 1965 letter of the House of Justice which says: "The Guardian reveals what the Scripture means; his interpretation is a statement of truth which cannot be varied. Upon the Universal House of Justice, in the words of the Guardian, 'has been conferred the exclusive right of legislating on matters not expressly revealed in the Bahá'í writings.’" In keeping with its legislative function the House of Justice exercises the role of elucidation based on passages in the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and statements in the writings of the Guardian. For example, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá states:

It is incumbent upon these members (of the Universal House of Justice) to... deliberate upon all problems which have caused difference, questions that are obscure and matters that are not expressly recorded in the Book . . . and bear upon daily transactions... (Will and Testament of Abdu’l-Bahá (Wilmette: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1971), p. 20)

"Simplified English" translations of the Bahá'í Writings

12 August 1998

Dear Bahá’í Friend,

The Universal House of Justice has asked us to . . . reply to your letters . . . elaborating your previously expressed views concerning your feeling of a need for Bahá’í sacred literature in simplified English, and we are to convey the following.

The House of Justice fully appreciates that the real purpose of your letters is to find a way to help the largest number of people, whatever their ability in English, to experience the Word of God as brought by Bahá’u’lláh; and it sympathizes with your desire to make the Teachings accessible to those who are not adept at reading English. Undoubtedly, a great deal can be done to fulfill your desire; however, it is important for you to understand basically that the standard of presentation of the divine Word cannot be lowered, and that it must be made available to all, including those who cannot read it in its elevated style. No simplification of language can take its place.

Even an unlettered person is capable of responding to the exalted language of the Holy Scriptures, as it is the inner spirit of the divine Texts that touches the heart. Bahá’u’lláh states in a well-known Tablet that, “The Word of God is the king of words and its pervasive influence is incalculable.… The Word is the master key for the whole world, inasmuch as through its potency the doors of the hearts of men, which in reality are the doors of heaven, are unlocked.” Hearts become attracted and souls confirmed through the mysterious effects of exposure to the living Word—that Word which has demonstrated the power to stimulate intellectual development. You yourself have mentioned that a mystical experience enabled you to persevere in learning to understand the divine Texts.

The age fifteen as the age of spiritual maturity

16 June 1998 

The Universal House of Justice has received your email message of 5 April 1998 regarding the responsibility of parents for their children’s behavior, and we have been asked to convey the following.

While some opportunities for service in the Administrative Order are clearly reserved for those who are over twenty-one years of age, at age fifteen the individual has the privilege of affirming, in his own name, his faith in Bahá’u’lláh. The importance of attaining spiritual maturity at the age of fifteen is that it marks that point in life at which the believer takes into his own hands the responsibility for his spiritual destiny.

The following extract from a Tablet of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá links the attainment of maturity with the deepening of one’s understanding and comprehension of the realities of life, and the enhancement of one’s very capacity for understanding:

“Know thou that before maturity man liveth from day to day and comprehendeth only such matters as are superficial and outwardly obvious. However, when he cometh of age he understandeth the realities of things and the inner truths. Indeed, in his comprehension, his feelings, his deductions and his discoveries, every day of his life after maturity is equal to a year before it.”

While parents may grieve at some of the choices their children make, at the age of maturity a son or daughter is then essentially responsible for the decisions he or she takes and becomes answerable to God accordingly. Parents should continue in every way possible to help, encourage, and guide their children, but they should recognize clearly the basic change in accountability that has occurred.

Department of the Secretariat

(Baha’i Library Online)

Pioneering, Language, Arts, Example of 'Abdu'l-Bahá

10 February 1998

Dear Bahá'í Friend,

Your email letter of 5 July 1997 posing a number of questions about the Bahá'í teachings and practices has been received by the Universal House of Justice, as was your follow-up email of 28 October 1997. We are to respond as follows. Kindly accept our apologies for the delay in responding, occasioned by pressures of work at the Bahá'í World Centre. Our answers appear in the same order as your questions were originally posed.

Pioneering

Whether to remain in North America or to pioneer internationally is a question, as explained in our letter to you of 4 September 1994, that ultimately only you can decide, in light of the current needs of the Faith and your own capacities, possibilities and responsibilities. If it is not timely for you yourself to travel abroad, then you may wish to consider deputizing someone to do so on your behalf. Another alternative could be to contribute funds towards the deputization of a teacher at a permanent training institute, as suggested by the House of Justice in its 1996 Ridvan message and also in its 6 August 1996 letter addressed to the Bahá'ís of the world.

Serving one’s parents vs. serving the Faith

Regarding the precedence to be assigned to serving the Faith as a pioneer versus one's responsibilities to one's parents, it is for the individual to judge, assisted if necessary through consultation with his Local Spiritual Assembly or with friends whose maturity and judgement he trusts. A key point would be the extent to which his parents actually have substantial need of his immediate presence and support. As you know, Bahá'u'lláh assigned great importance to serving one's parents. It would of course be highly meritorious if both could be harmonized.

Serving where the need is greatest

With regard to identifying areas of greatest need, as you are no doubt aware, there are innumerable pressing needs both in the United States and abroad. Your National Spiritual Assembly, for example, recently issued a call to establish Local Spiritual Assemblies in all cities with a population of 100,000 or more. The depth of one's commitment and willingness to serve are vitally important and these qualities can find application and expression almost anywhere where the workers are few.

Regarding factors involved in the academic study of the Bahá'í Faith

8 February 1998 

Dear Bahá'í Friend,

The Universal House of Justice received your emails of 21 September and 17 November 1997 and much regrets the delay in responding. It has instructed us to send you the following comments which it trusts will be helpful to you in your endeavour to understand various points made previously to yourself and other friends.

Your email of 21 September covers a number of issues, the first of which relates to methods followed in researching, understanding and writing about historical events, and the elements of these methods which the House of Justice regards as being influenced by materialism. The purpose of scholarship in such fields should obviously be the ascertainment of truth, and Bahá'í scholars should, of course, observe the highest standards of honesty, integrity and truthfulness. Moreover, the House of Justice accepts that many scholarly methods have been developed which are soundly based and of enduring validity. It nevertheless questions some presumptions of certain current academic methods because it sees these producing a distorted picture of reality.

The training of some scholars in fields such as religion and history seems to have restricted their vision and blinded them to the culturally determined basis of elements of the approach they have learned. It causes them to exclude from consideration factors which, from a Bahá'í point of view, are of fundamental importance. Truth in such fields cannot be found if the evidence of Revelation is systematically excluded and if discourse is limited by a basically deterministic view of the world.

Concerns raised about the absence of a Guardian to succeed Shoghi Effendi

6 January 1998

Dear Bahá’í Friend,

The Universal House of Justice has received your letter of 28 November 1997 and has asked us to provide you with the following reply.

The House of Justice appreciates your turning to it with your concerns about the absence of a Guardian to succeed Shoghi Effendi, and it stands ready to provide the clarifications required to assist you in resolving the issues troubling you.

As a well-deepened believer with a distinguished record of service to the Cause over many decades, you have undoubtedly made a careful study of the letters of 6 October 1963, 9 March 1965, 27 May 1966, and 7 December 1969, published in the volume Messages from the Universal House of Justice—1963-1986, which pertain directly to several of the issues to which you have referred in your letter.

An issue not directly discussed in these messages is that of the members of the family of Shoghi Effendi who were expelled from the Faith as Covenant-breakers, and their offspring. A detailed description of the faithlessness of this family has been provided in the book The Covenant of Bahá’u’lláh by Adib Taherzadeh, a perusal of which provides a deeper insight into the events which prompted the following statement of Shoghi Effendi in a cable of 5 April 1952: "TIME ALONE REVEAL EXTENT HAVOC WREAKED THIS VIRUS VIOLATION INJECTED FOSTERED OVER TWO DECADES ‘ABDU’L-BAHÁ’S FAMILY."

Authority of the International Teaching Centre in expelling Covenant-breakers

5 January 1998

To: Mr. ..., Canada

The Universal House of Justice has received your email of 27 November 1997 enquiring about the authority of the International Teaching Centre in matters related to the expulsion of Covenant-breakers, and has instructed us to send you the following reply, describing the procedures which have been in force since the Universal House of Justice decided upon them in June 1993.

In matters of protection, the authority to expel and reinstate Covenant-breakers, conferred upon the Hands of the Cause of God in accordance with the Will and Testament of 'Abdu’l-Baha, remains with them, and their relationship with the Universal House of Justice continues unaltered. In view of the exigencies of the development of the Cause, however, the House of Justice has vested in the International Teaching Centre added responsibilities in the context of its overall responsibility for the protection of the Faith.

Most of the attention of the International Teaching Centre and the Continental Counsellors in relation to the protection of the Faith is directed towards the deepening of the understanding of the individual believers, the strengthening of their faith, the consolidation of their communities, and watching over the unity of the Faith. It is with such matters that the members of the Auxiliary Boards for Protection are principally concerned.

Obligatory Prayer, Greatest Name, exemptions, by Universal House of Justice, procedures on contacting the Universal House of Justice

2 January 1998

Dear Bahá'í Friend,

Your email of 28 October 1997 inquiring about the recitation of obligatory prayers was forwarded by the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States to the Universal House of Justice. It in turn referred your query to the Research Department for further study, and we are enclosing a copy of the memorandum that was produced in reply.

You also inquire as to the circumstances under which an individual believer may submit questions to the National Assembly or the House of Justice, directly. As you know, Bahá'ís turn to Bahá'í literature, their fellow-believers (particularly those well-versed in the Writings) and the local and national institutions of the Faith for answers to any question they may have. If these avenues are explored to the utmost and further clarification is still needed, the friends are free to refer to the House of Justice for such guidance. It is hoped that this information will be of assistance to you in your endeavours.

With loving Bahá'í greetings,

For Department of the Secretariat

Enclosure

cc: National Assembly of the United States (with enclosure)

(Baha’i Library Online)

Bahá'í Obligatory Prayer and the Mashriqu'l-Adhkár

1998

Dear Bahá’í Friend,

The Universal House of Justice received your email of 15 February 1998 requesting guidance concerning the appropriateness of offering the Obligatory Prayer in the Mashriqu’l-Adhkár, and it has instructed us to send you the following reply.

You quote a passage from Tablets of ‘Abdu'l-Bahá Abbas, p. 464. This has been checked with the original, and a new translation has been made which reads:

“As regards obligatory prayer, this should be recited by each believer individually, albeit its performance is not dependent upon the availability of a private place. In other words, obligatory prayer may be performed alike at home or in the Temple, which latter is a public place, but on condition that each believer recite it individually. As for devotions other than obligatory prayer, if these be chanted jointly and with a pleasant and affecting melody, this would be most acceptable.”

You also cite the following statement from a letter dated 1 September 1983 from the Universal House of Justice to the National Spiritual Assembly of Norway which, you feel, contradicts the passage quoted above.

“It is striking how private and personal the most fundamental spiritual exercises of prayer and meditation are in the Faith. Bahá’ís do, of course, have meetings for devotions, as in the Mashriqu'l-Adhkár or at Nineteen Day Feasts, but the daily obligatory prayers are ordained to be said in the privacy of one's chamber, and meditation on the Teachings is, likewise, a private individual activity, not a form of group therapy.”

We are asked to explain that, just as one should not deduce from Abdu'l-Bahá's Tablet that there are only two places where one can recite the Obligatory Prayer -- at home or in a place of worship -- so the phrase "in the privacy of one's chamber" should not be read literally and exclusively.

Both passages are applications, in response to specific questions, of the laws of Bahá’u’lláh which prescribe the saying of obligatory prayers (salat), but prohibit the practice of saying salat in congregation, with the exception of the Prayer for the Dead. In a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer in 1949, this issue is expressed succinctly:

“The daily prayers are to be said each one for himself, aloud or silent makes no difference.”

With loving Bahá’í greetings,

Department of the Secretariat

(Baha’i Library Online)

Encountering Covenant-breakers online

27 October 1997

Dear Bahá'í friend,

Your letter dated 4 July 1997 concerning the situation in ... and occasions of Covenant-breakers' participating on America Online was passed by Mr. ... to the Universal House of Justice, which has considered the situation described. We are to reply as follows.

The House of Justice feels that, when Bahá'ís are teaching in an online "chat room" and Covenant-breakers intrude upon the discussion, the friends should not feel obliged to sign off simply because Covenant-breakers are present in this virtual space. They should, however, refrain from knowingly engaging the Covenant-breakers in discussions and, in any case, should avoid being drawn into contentious or disputatious situations.

With Loving Bahá'í greetings,

For Department of the Secretariat

(Baha’i Library Online)

Authority of the Hands of the Cause to direct the Faith and expel Covenant-breakers

4 June 1997

Dear Bahá'í Friend:

... As to the authority of the Hands of the Cause to assume the direction of the Faith following Shoghi Effendi's passing, the following points should be noted.

The letter which you quote, written on behalf of the Guardian on 31 March 1949, some two years before the formal appointment of the Hands of the Cause, stated that "The Hands of the Cause will have executive authority in so far as they carry out the work of the Guardian." On 4 June 1957, some six years after the appointment of the first contingent of Hands of the Cause, and but four months before his passing, the Guardian referred to the "TWIN FUNCTIONS PROTECTING PROPAGATING FAITH BAHA'U'LLAH" invested in the Institution of the Hands of the Cause by "VIRTUE AUTHORITY CONFERRED TESTAMENT CENTRE COVENANT", and stated: "TO ITS NEWLY ASSUMED RESPONSIBILITY ASSIST NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLIES BAHA'I WORLD SPECIFIC PURPOSE EFFECTIVELY PROSECUTING WORLD SPIRITUAL CRUSADE PRIMARY OBLIGATION WATCH OVER ENSURE PROTECTION BAHA'I WORLD COMMUNITY IN CLOSE COLLABORATION THESE SAME NATIONAL ASSEMBLIES NOW ADDED."

Although the authority to expel Covenant-breakers had been conferred upon the Hands of the Cause in the Will and Testament, the Guardian had reserved the exercise of this authority to himself during his lifetime. In his last message to the Bahá'í world in October 1957, when he appointed the last contingent of Hands, he characterized them as "the Chief Stewards of Bahá'u'lláh's embryonic World Commonwealth, who have been invested by the unerring Pen of the Centre of His Covenant with the dual function of guarding over the security, and of ensuring the propagation, of His Father's Faith." He referred further to "their sacred responsibility as protectors of the Faith", designating them "high-ranking officers of a fast evolving world Administrative Order" and members of "one of the cardinal and pivotal institutions" of the Faith.

“the authority of the Universal House of Justice is unchallengeable”

3 June 1997

Dear Bahá'í Friend,

The Universal House of Justice has received your email of 29 April 1997 and has instructed us to send you the following reply.

The questions you pose, arising out of an email conversation between yourself and one of the other contributors to the discussion group in which you participate, are of fundamental importance, and the House of Justice warmly appreciates the spirit of your enquiry.

The issues raised seem to resolve themselves into two points: the first being whether or not the Universal House of Justice has the authority to make authoritative interpretations; the second is whether anyone has the right to challenge the authority or actions of the Universal House of Justice. When these issues are approached with an understanding of the unity underlying all the Teachings, clarification results. Should the seeker, however, be influenced by a spirit of mistrust and conflict, then unending problems appear.

The above points have both been covered in three letters written by the Universal House of Justice on 9 March 1965, 27 May 1966 and 7 December 1969. Unfortunately it seems that many of the friends have not studied these letters deeply or understood their implications. Already in "The Dispensation of Bahá'u'lláh" Shoghi Effendi has shown, beyond any doubt, that the function of making authoritative interpretations of the Teachings is confined solely and exclusively to the Guardian. Neither the Universal House of Justice, nor any other institution, person or group of persons can assume that function. That the Universal House of Justice will never infringe on the functions reserved to the Guardian is shown, not only by its own words and actions, but by Shoghi Effendi's statement in that same document: "Neither can, nor will ever, infringe upon the sacred and prescribed domain of the other." It is guaranteed by the fact that the Universal House of Justice as well as the Guardian are both "under the care and protection of the Abha Beauty, under the shelter and unerring guidance of His Holiness, the Exalted One".

Fundamental Verities

12 November 1996 

Dear Bahá'í Friend,

With regard to your email of 8 August 1996, we have been asked to say that it is true that Shoghi Effendi considered that his letter to the Bahá'ís of the West dated 8 February 1934 outlined certain fundamental verities of the Faith, and, therefore, it should be given primary importance in the systematic study of the Cause. However, as you further observe, the term is used in a variety of contexts, since it also refers generally to the basic beliefs, teachings, laws and principles of the Faith. Three such instances help illustrate the range of referents to which the Guardian was wont to apply the term. First, he wrote in a letter to the All-America International Teaching Conference which gathered in 1953 that the House of Worship is, "dedicated to the three fundamental verities animating and underlying the Bahá'í Faith -- the Unity of God, the Unity of His Prophets, the Unity of mankind". Elsewhere, he emphasized that

“The education of the members of the community in the principles and essential verities underlying the Covenants of Bahá'u'lláh and of ‘Abdu'l-Bahá as well as the Administrative Order of the Faith -- the twin pillars sustaining the spiritual life and the institutions of every organized Bahá'í community -- must, at all costs, be vigorously pursued and systematically intensified.”

And in still another letter, the following clarification is offered on behalf of Shoghi Effendi:

“By ‘verities of the Faith’ he means the great teachings and fundamentals enshrined in our Bahá'í literature; these we can find by reading the books, studying under Bahá'í scholars at summer schools and in classes, and through the aid of study outlines.”

Moreover, the term fundamental verities was often used in the correspondence of the Guardian when introducing the basic aspects of the Faith in which all of the believers should be deepened and grounded, as for example:

Authenticity of authenticity of the words of Abdu'l-Bahá as recorded in collections such as ‘Paris Talks’, ‘Abdu'l-Bahá in London’, and ‘The Promulgation of Universal Peace’; Correspondence from the World Center signed on behalf of the Secretariat; Materials prepared by the Research Department

22 October 1996

Your email message of 2 October 1996 has been received by the Universal House of Justice, and we have been asked to convey the following information in reply to your questions regarding the authenticity of certain texts and documents.

In response to your first question regarding the authenticity of the words of Abdu'l-Bahá as recorded in collections such as "Paris Talks", "’Abdu'l-Bahá in London", and "The Promulgation of Universal Peace", we enclose a memorandum from the Research Department at the Bahá'í World Centre which specifically addresses this issue.

Also enclosed is a memorandum prepared by the Research Department at the request of the House of Justice on the subject of the authenticity of letters written by the Secretariat, on his behalf, which we believe answers the first part of your second question.

As to whether there is a distinction between correspondence from the World Centre that has been signed "The Universal House of Justice" and that signed on behalf of the Secretariat: In brief, the manner in which each of these letters is prepared depends upon the contents of the letter. Drafts of letters which contain newly formulated policies are consulted upon and approved during a meeting of the House of Justice; correspondence dealing with previously enunciated policies, or with matters of a routine nature, are prepared, as delegated by the House of Justice, by its Secretariat and initialed by at least the majority of the members of the House of Justice before being dispatched. All letters written over the signature of the Department of the Secretariat are authorized by the Universal House of Justice.

Electioneering

18 August 1996

Dear Bahá’í Friend,

The Universal House of Justice has received your fax letter of 2 May 1996, and appreciates your clearly heartfelt concern that reports of Assemblies should be presented in ways which are in accordance with Bahá’í standards of propriety and that any suggestion of electioneering be avoided. It has asked us to send you the following reply.

Electioneering is a practice foreign to the spirit of Bahá’í administration. However, it is necessary to distinguish between electioneering and those activities which should be entirely natural and normal in Bahá’í communities. Bahá’ís travel and teach the Faith, they go pioneering, they represent the Faith in relation to non-Bahá’í agencies, they serve in positions of responsibility. There is no reason why such services should be carried on anonymously. Bahá’í voters have to acquire the maturity to estimate the character and true capacities of their fellow-believers, to be able to distinguish between a person who is self-sacrificingly serving the Cause with all due modesty, and one whose activities are carried out with the primary purpose of bringing himself or herself to the attention of the friends.

Bahá’ís, nevertheless, are subject to all the pressures and standards of the prevalent culture of the society in which they live, and can only too easily be unconsciously influenced in their behavior by the accepted norms of that culture. One of our challenging tasks as Bahá’ís, however, is to establish, through our personal conduct and through the pattern of life in our communities and institutions, those cultural standards which Bahá’u’lláh wishes us to uphold. In a description of the characteristics of those who are called upon to serve in Bahá’í administrative institutions, Shoghi Effendi says:

Criticism

July 2, 1996 

Dear Baha'i Friend,

The Universal House of Justice has received your letter of May 19, 1996. It appreciates the clarity with which you have expressed your profoundly felt concern, and has asked us to send you the following reply.

The purpose of this letter is not to enter into a detailed examination of the activities and statements of the friends to whom you refer, or to discuss the responses they have received over the years from institutions of the Faith. Rather, the House of Justice wishes to relate this situation to certain aspects of Baha'i belief, in the hope that thereby it may enable you to find answers to some of the questions which preoccupy your mind.

At the very core of the aims of the Faith are the establishment of justice and unity in the world, the removal of prejudice and enmity from among all people, the awakening of compassion and understanding in the hearts of all men and women, and the raising of all souls to a new level of spirituality and behavior through the vitalizing influence of divine Revelation. The course set forth by Baha’u’llah for the attainment of these aims is the double task of simultaneously building an ideal society and perfecting the behavior of individuals. For this dual and reciprocal transformation He has not only revealed laws, principles and truths attuned to the needs of this age, but has established the very nucleus and patter of those institutions which are to evolve into the structure of the divinely purposed world society.

Central to your perception of the statements made by the believers about whom you are concerned are their assertions that they are entirely obedient to the spirit of the Covenant and the institutions of the Faith; that they are merely voicing their disagreement with certain decisions and policies made by these institutions; are protesting against what they perceive to be unjust or improper actions by some people who occupy prominent administrative positions; and are suggesting modifications to Baha'i procedures to prevent such perceived abuses of authority. These assertions, however, overlook certain important Baha'i principles which provide the methods and channels for the voicing of such grievances or disagreements, and which are designed to lead to resolution of problems while preserving the unity of the community.

Infallibility, Omniscience, and the Decision-making Role of the Universal House of Justice

14 June 1996 

Your email message … has been received, and the Universal House of Justice has asked us to reply as follows to the questions perplexing you regarding the House of Justice.…

Your first question stems from a statement made by an individual on an Internet Bahá’í discussion group which asserts that “Shoghi Effendi has allowed for the Universal House of Justice reaching a wrong decision.” In describing the House of Justice, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá states clearly,

“Whatever will be its decision, by majority vote, shall be the real truth, inasmuch as that House is under the protection, unerring guidance and care of the one true Lord. He shall guard it from error and will protect it under the wing of His sanctity and infallibility. He who opposes it is cast out and will eventually be of the defeated.”

It is the exclusive sphere of the Universal House of Justice to “pronounce upon and deliver the final judgment on such laws and ordinances as Bahá’u’lláh has not expressly revealed.” It carries responsibility for the application of the revealed Word, the protection of the Faith, as well as the duty “to ensure the continuity of that divinely-appointed authority which flows from the Source of our Faith, to safeguard the unity of its followers and to maintain the integrity and flexibility of its teachings.” However, the Universal House of Justice is not omniscient, and the friends should understand that there is a difference between infallibility and omniscience. Like the Guardian, the House of Justice wants to be provided with facts when called upon to render a decision, and like him it may well change its decision when new facts emerge, or in light of changed conditions at some point in the future. We have found nothing in the writings of Shoghi Effendi which suggests that the House of Justice would on any occasion reach a “wrong decision.”

Regarding membership on the Universal House of Justice being restricted to men, you are correct in your understanding that Bahá’u’lláh was explicit about the matter, and consequently it is not within the power of the House of Justice to rule otherwise at this time or at any time in the future. As to the additional information on this matter which “has limited distribution” mentioned in the statement posted on the discussion group, it is unclear what this statement is referring to. In 1988, the attention of the House of Justice was drawn by the National Spiritual Assembly of New Zealand to an unpublished paper which was being widely circulated on this subject; the comments of the House of Justice on the subject were conveyed in a letter to the National Assembly of New Zealand, a copy of which is enclosed for your reference.

We hope the above comments are helpful in relieving any confusion you may have felt related to these matters. You are assured of the loving prayers of the House of Justice at the Sacred Threshold, that the Blessed Beauty may guide and confirm all of your efforts on behalf of His Cause.

Department of the Secretariat

(Baha’i Library Online)

Compilation of Extracts Regarding Arius

9 June 1996 

Dear Baha’i Friend,

Your email message of 15 May 1996, regarding the station of Arius, was received at the Baha’i World Centre and referred to the Research Department of the Universal House of Justice for further study. That Department has now completed its work, and we enclose a copy of the memorandum it produced, with three attachments, in response to your queries. We hope that this information will be of assistance to you.

With loving Baha’i greetings,

Department of the Secretariat

Enclosure with three attachments

(Baha’i Library Online)

The Disintegration of Society and the Building Up of the Bahá’í Community

13 May 1996 

Dear Bahá’í Friend,

The Universal House of Justice has asked us to respond on its behalf to your thoughtful letter…

The questions raised in your letter go to the heart of the issues facing Bahá’ís everywhere at this critical point in world history. We are witnessing the disintegration of the great civilization which has, for over two centuries, dominated world history and shaped the behavior and attitudes of the most influential sectors of modern society. The defining characteristic of this civilization has been a materialistic view of reality, the conviction that both human consciousness and human society are essentially the products of material forces and that it is to these forces that we must look for the resolution of the great problems facing our world.

Clearly, this world view reflects a profound error about the nature of humankind. It has demonstrated conclusively its impotence to solve any significant problem facing the world’s people today—political, social, economic, or moral. In the face of so massive a failure, a growing majority of people everywhere are being forced to reexamine fundamental assumptions. Speaking some fifty years ago of this accelerating breakdown, the Guardian of the Bahá’í Faith wrote:

“A tempest, unprecedented in its violence, unpredictable in its course, catastrophic in its immediate effects, unimaginably glorious in its ultimate consequences, is at present sweeping the face of the earth.… Bewildered, agonized and helpless, [humanity] watches this great and mighty wind of God invading the remotest and fairest regions of the earth, rocking its foundations, deranging its equilibrium, sundering its nations, disrupting the homes of its peoples, wasting its cities, driving into exile its kings, pulling down its bulwarks, uprooting its institutions, dimming its light, and harrowing up the souls of its inhabitants.

African Americans in the United States

1 April 1996

Dear Bahá'í Friend,

With regard to the question of what public role might be played by the Bahá'í Faith in America to ameliorate in the immediately foreseeable future the plight of African-American males, the size and influence of the Bahá'í Community are, alas, too limited for it to have a determining impact on conditions which have, after all, been hundreds of years in the making. As is well known, since at least the middle of the last century significant numbers of Americans, both black and white, have long labored, often with immense resourcefulness, to counteract the baleful legacy of racism in their country, in all its complex dimensions, structural and otherwise. Indeed, when one meditates on the sweep of United States history, one can see how unlikely it is the bitter predicament of black males will be quickly or easily resolved. The obstacles are not of such character that, for example, legal reforms could dissolve them. This is not a counsel of despair. Nor is it an equivocation or a suggestion that the requirements of divine justice ought to be deferred. Nor is it to say that Bahá'ís have no critical role to play. On the contrary, the concern is with Bahá'í fundamentals, with looking deeply into underlying causes and identifying strategic lines of action which make the wisest use of our limited resources at this point in the development of the Bahá'í community.

If we are to avoid becoming entrammeled in the enervating coils of cynicism which are a characteristic of this age of transition, we must, as the "custodians of...the forces of love", ground our efforts in indomitable faith. In the future the Cause of God will spread throughout America; millions will be enlisted under its banner and race prejudice will finally be exorcised from the body politic. Of this have no doubt. It is inexorable, because it is the Will of Almighty God. However, as the House of Justice has been trying to get the friends to understand for some time, the necessary precondition to translation of our community's social vision into reality is a massive expansion in the number of committed, deepened believers who are well-grounded in the essentials of the Cause. Those who fail to comprehend the urgency assigned to the objective of achieving a large expansion have obviously failed to appreciate the moral imperative behind this aim.

No distinction between scholars and laymen

14 March 1996 

Dear Bahá'í Friend,

The Universal House of Justice has asked us to respond on its behalf to your email letter of 4 January 1996 conveying your concern about certain issues which have arisen in the discussions on the Talisman network.

You express disquiet that attempts being made to introduce a distinction between "Bahá'í laymen" and "Bahá'í scholars" with respect to the study of the Faith tend to generate a spirit of disunity among the friends. Your concern is fully justified. Such an approach to the study of the Cause would betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the pattern of Bahá'í society as set out in the Teachings of the Faith.

As you know, Bahá'u'lláh says that the pursuit of knowledge has been enjoined upon everyone, and knowledge itself is described by Him as "wings to man's life" and "a ladder for his ascent". Those whose high attainments in this respect make it possible for them to contribute in important ways to the advancement of civilization are deserving of society's recognition and gratitude.

In the study of the Revelation of God, an individual's proficiency in one of the physical or social sciences, in law, philology, or other fields of specialization will often throw valuable light on issues being examined, and such contributions are greatly to be appreciated. The field of Near East studies, mentioned in your letter, is one that can assist in this way. However, no one specialization among the many branches of scholarly research can confer upon its practitioners an authoritative role in the common effort of exploring the implications of so staggering and all-encompassing a body of truth.

Internet Communications; Virgin Birth; Encyclopedia; Administrative Order

16 February 1996 

Dear Bahá'í Friend,

The Universal House of Justice received your email of 2 December 1995, and has instructed us to send you the following replies to the questions you raise.

Email Discussion groups

The House of Justice notes that you have been disturbed by some of the postings made to the email discussion group of which you have recently been a member. Email discussion groups are a new phenomenon; they can provide immense benefits for communication between people and for the teaching of the Faith, but, as you have seen, they can also give rise to far-reaching problems. The use of email requires an adjustment of perception. In the past, discussions among Bahá'ís would take place orally among groups of friends in private, or at summer schools and other Bahá'í events, or in letters between individuals. Inevitably, many erroneous statements were made; not all comments were as temperate as they should have been; many statements were misunderstood by those who heard them. After all, not all Bahá'ís have a profound knowledge of the teachings, and it is clear that even academic eminence is no guarantee of a correct understanding of the Revelation of God. Before email such extravagances had a limited range and were of an ephemeral nature. Now, the same kind of discussion is spread among a hundred or more people, who often do not know one another, is in a form more durable than speech, and can be disseminated to a vast readership at the touch of a button. A new level of self-discipline, therefore, is needed by those who take part. Such discussions among Bahá'ís call for self-restraint and purity of motive as well as cordiality, frankness and openness.

The central, unifying element of the Faith is the Covenant. This is the institution which guarantees that the Faith and its teachings will remain true to the Revelation brought by Bahá'u'lláh and expounded by His divinely guided Interpreters. It is the one agency which can protect the Faith against the distortion and disruption to which all previous Revelations have been subjected by the efforts -- whether well-intentioned or not -- of the self-opinionated and ambitious among their followers to force the Cause of God into patterns which they personally favoured.

Persian Bahá'ís living in Los Angeles

31 January 1996

Dear Bahá'í Friend,

The Universal House of Justice has received your letter of 20 November 1995, and we have been asked to say that the House of Justice has not at any time made a statement prohibiting Bahá'ís from living in Los Angeles. However, the Guardian's exhortation to the  not to congregate in large numbers is as valid there as anywhere.

There are so many areas of the world, even within the borders of the United States, where the Faith needs to be taught, that there is always a call for Bahá'ís to pioneer for this purpose from those areas where there are dense concentrations of active believers to those where help is needed. However, the response to this call is a matter for the personal decision of each believer in light of his or her own circumstances, responsibilities and possibilities.

The friends should devote themselves to the service of the Cause, study the requirements of the Plan in all parts of the world, consider where the needs are great and where they can best render this service in light of their own personal possibilities, and then, as an outcome of consultation, prayer and much thought, devote themselves wholeheartedly to the advancement of the Word of God.

(Baha’i Library Online)

Wives of Baha'u'llah

23 October 1995

Dear ...,

Regarding the wives of Bahá'u'lláh, extracts from letters written on behalf of the beloved Guardian set this subject in context. They indicate that Bahá'u'lláh was "acting according to the laws of Islám, which had not yet been superseded", and that He was following "the customs of the people of His own land":

...as regards Bahá'u'lláh's marriage it should be noted that His three marriages were all contracted before He revealed His Book of Laws, and even before His declaration in Baghdád, at a time when Bahá'í marriage laws had not yet been known, and the Revelation not yet disclosed.(25 May 1938 to a National Spiritual Assembly)

Bahá'u'lláh had no concubine, He had three legal wives. As He married them before the "Aqdas" (His book of laws) was revealed, He was only acting according to the laws of Islám, which had not yet been superseded. He made plurality of wives conditional upon justice; 'Abdu'l-Bahá interpreted this to mean that a man may not have more than one wife at a time, as it is impossible to be just to two or more women in marriage.(11 February 1944 to an individual believer)

...Bahá'u'lláh married the first and second wives while He was still in Tihrán, and the third wife while He was in Baghdád. At that time, the Laws of the "Aqdas" had not been revealed, and secondly, He was following the Laws of the previous Dispensation and the customs of the people of His own land. (14 January 1953 to an individual believer)

The three wives of Bahá'u'lláh were: