Importance of Nonviolence in Families

23 November 1993

Dear Bahá'í friend,

Further to our letter of 14 November 1991, the Universal House of Justice has now completed its consideration of your letter of 21 September 1991, in which you raised a number of questions pertaining to violence and to the sexual abuse of women and children. We have been instructed to provide the following response to your questions.

As you know, the principle of the oneness of mankind is described in the Bahá'í Writings as the pivot round which all the Teachings of Bahá'u'lláh revolve. It has widespread implications which affect and remold all dimensions of human activity. It calls for a fundamental change in the manner in which people relate to each other, and the eradication of those age-old practices which deny the intrinsic human right of every individual to be treated with consideration and respect.

Within the family setting, the rights of all members must be respected. 'Abdu'l-Bahá has stated:

“The integrity of the family bond must be constantly considered and the right of the individual members must not be transgressed. The rights of the son, the father, the mother - none of them must be transgressed, none of them must be arbitrary. Just as the son has certain obligations to his father, the father, likewise has certain obligations to his son. The mother, the sister, and other members of the household have their certain prerogatives. All these rights and prerogatives must be conserved...”

The use of force by the physically strong against the weak, as a means of imposing one's will and fulfilling one's desires, is a flagrant transgression of the Bahá'í Teachings. There can be no justification for anyone compelling another, through the use of force or through the threat of violence, to do that to which the other person is not inclined. 'Abdu'l-Bahá has written, "O ye lovers of God! In this, the cycle of Almighty God, violence and force, constraint and oppression, are one and all condemned." Let those who, driven by their passions or by their inability to exercise discipline in the control of their anger, might be tempted to inflict violence on another human being, be mindful of the condemnation of such disgraceful behaviour by the Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh.

Regarding Bahá'í teachings on homosexuality

5 July 1993 

Memorandum

To: The Universal House of Justice

July 5, 1993

From: The Research Department

Homosexuality

Mrs. ..., in a letter to the Universal House of Justice dated 15 March 1993, has raised several questions about the Bahá'í view of homosexuality. A number of her questions arise from an article she has read recently in the Atlantic Monthly magazine which supports the view that homosexual tendencies are biologically based. In particular she expresses concern for the plight of several Bahá'í men whom she knows and who are faced with the difficult struggle against their homosexual preferences. We provide the following response.

We attach a selection of extracts from the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, and from letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi and of the Universal House of Justice pertaining to homosexuality. These extracts offer many insights into the subject. In particular we direct Mrs. ...'s attention to the letters of the Universal House of Justice. They provide clear summaries of the Bahá'í view of homosexuality and also discuss, in the context of the homosexual affliction, the nature and purpose of man and the spiritual struggles with which he must contend in this life. In consideration of the questions raised by Mrs. ..., we summarize below some of the fundamental points made in the attached extracts:

1. Homosexuality is strongly condemned by Bahá'u'lláh (Extracts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).

2. The Bahá'í Writings do not point to the causes of homosexuality (Extracts 11, 13, 16), although they do state that

3. Homosexuality is an "aberration", and is "against nature" (Extracts 3, 4, 5, 13, 17).

4. Homosexuality can be overcome (Extracts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17), and

5. The individual is expected to make an effort to overcome the affliction (Extracts 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17).

Guidance on membership by Bahá'ís in the organization Amnesty International

14 February 1993 

Dear Bahá'í Friend,

The Universal House of Justice has received your letter of 4 January 1992 seeking guidance on membership by Bahá'ís in the organization Amnesty International. We have been instructed to provide the following reply.

The House of Justice warmly acknowledges your devoted work with the organization since becoming a member in 1981, and it can appreciate your apprehension over learning in a discussion with another Bahá'í that membership by Bahá'ís in Amnesty International is not permitted. There is no question as to the merits and great services rendered by Amnesty International, nor of the parallels between a number of its goals and those of the Bahá'í Faith. However, problems could arise if you, as a member of the organization, were called upon to undertake actions which would be politically hazardous to Bahá'ís residing in other lands, or which conflict with Bahá'í principles.

As you point out, Amnesty International, from its own viewpoint, is a non-political organization; however, its definition of "politics" is different from that used in the context of Bahá'í teachings. In addition, Amnesty International states that it is opposed to the death penalty in all cases and without reservation, while the law of Bahá'u'lláh expressed in the Kitab-i-Aqdas is that the death penalty is applicable for murder and arson under certain circumstances.

Even though it is not appropriate for Bahá'ís to become members of Amnesty International, its humanitarian aspects make it possible for Bahá'ís to have friendly relationships with the organization. Thus, Bahá'ís are encouraged to feel free to collaborate as individuals in certain Amnesty International's projects, while retaining the right to abstain from participation in actions which could conflict with Bahá'í principles.

Diacritics and meaning of "Self-subsisting"

21 January 1993

Dear Bahá'í Friend,

Your letters of 17 and 23 December have been received at the Bahá'í World Centre, and we are to provide the following response.

Although it appreciates your desire to make the Writings more accessible, the Universal House of Justice does not feel that it would be justified for your pamphlet to appear without the use of diacritical markings; nor would it be appropriate for you to change the form of word endings to make the style accord with modern usage. There are several reasons for this.

You should be aware that the system adopted by the Guardian is such that anyone familiar with the original languages (e.g., Arabic or Persian) can immediately tell exactly which word has been transliterated. Moreover, by adopting a style somewhat removed from everyday discourse, it was possible for Shoghi Effendi to capture something of the allusive, poetic, and highly metaphorical nature of the original languages without its seeming ridiculous. In any case, although the language may appear archaic at first glance -- because of the word endings, obsolete contractions and other incidental features -- in actuality the language of the Bahá'í Writings is indeed far closer to everyday English than the authorized version of the Bible which millions of English-speaking Christians are able to read with understanding even though many of the English words in the Bible have disappeared from the language or have taken on completely different meanings.

In your second letter, you have stated that the term "self-subsisting", which Bahá'u'lláh often uses to characterize God, "means nothing" in the English language. It is likely that this term signifies in some way a basic concept of the Faith; namely, that creation is an emanation from God, without Whose continuing bounty and grace it would cease to exist. The term thus underscores the immense contrast between our reality, which is related to the contingent world, and His reality which is independent of any cause and which entirely transcends the world of being. Indeed, the point is that He is the Cause of being itself. There is a way to deduce such a meaning, however, solely from the common meaning of the words. According to its primary dictionary definition, "to subsist" means to have existence, to persist or continue. The addition of "self" makes it reflexive. Knowing just these two things, can we not then say that if God is self-subsisting it means that there is nothing other than Himself upon which He depends for His continuing existence? In other words, He exists in and of Himself without being dependent on any other cause: He has no creator and there is nothing prior to Him.