Religion and State

[Smaneck]

My
understanding is that the word siyasat in 19th century (and early 20th
century) Persian and  Arabic means leadership and not politics as it is
commonly used. The 1943 translation of the eighth Ishraq in the Baha'i World
Faith reads:
"Administrative affair are all in charge of the House of Justice, and
devotional acts must be observed according as they are revealed in the
Book."
This is a translation by Ali Kuli Khan in 1906.

Dear Firouz,

And as you know, it has been consistently translated as 'matters'of state' or 'affairs of state' ever since. The term siyasat does come from a root meaning leadership, however, the term came to increasingly refer to statecraft well before the 19th century. I presume you are familiar with the Siyasat Name, by Nizamu'l-Mulk. It is the most famous Iranian book of statecraft and was written in the 11th century, I believe. In any case, particularly, it would not make much sense to translate amur siyasat as "administrative affairs' because the passage is talking about the use of reward and punishment. Without temporal power, the Houses of Justice aren't going to be able to administer much in the way of that.

Shoghi Effendi, in a letter written on his behalf, has his secretary write the following:

"Eventually, however, as you have rightly conceived it, the Movement will, as soon as it is fully developed and recognized, embrace both religious and political issues. In fact Bahá'u'lláh clearly states that affairs of state as well as religious questions are to be referred to the House of Justice into which the Assemblies of the Bahá'ís will eventually evolve."  30 November 1930. Cited in a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice and addressed to Sen McGlinn April 27, 1995.

Abdu'l-Baha also makes it perfectly clear that the Houses of Justice have jurisdiction over enacting secular  [qanun] and civil law [akham-i madaniyyih] as well. *Qanun * or secular law, is the word used in the passage from the Will and Testament: "The House of Justice enacteth the law and the government enforceth it." The reference to the House of Justice making civil law can be found in 'Abdu' l-Bahá's Tablet on the the Universal House of Justice and the principles of jurisprudence which  can be found here: http://bahai-library.com/provisionals/bayt.adl.usul.qadai.au.html


You wrote cited the following passage from the  Lawh-i Dunya:

"According to the fundamental laws which We have formerly
revealed in the Kitab-i-Aqdas and other Tablets, all affairs are
committed to the care of just kings and presidents and of the
Trustees of the House of Justice. ... ""

What Baha'u'llah is doing here is making the distinction between the legislative and executive functions. The same distinction is made by Abdu'l-Baha in the Will and Testament when He says "This House of Justice enacteth the laws and the government enforceth them. The legislative body must reinforce the executive, the executive must aid and assist the legislative body so that through the close union and harmony of these two forces, the foundation of fairness and justice may become firm and strong ..."

Likewise there is a talk given by Abdu'l-Baha, recorded in Star of the West wherein He reiterates this point:

"Thee centre of the executive power is the government, and the legislative power lies in the hands of thoughtful and wise men. On the other hand, if these strong pillars and firm foundations are not complete and comprehensive, how can it be supposed that there will be safety and salvation for the nation? But as, in these latter days, such excellency is rare, the government and the whole body of the nation are in sore need of just and discerning directions. Thus it is of the utmost importance to establish an assembly of learned men, who, being proficient in the different sciences and capable of dealing with all the present and future requirements will settle the questions in accordance with forbearance and firmness. All the civic affairs and the legislation of material laws for the increasing needs of the enlightened humanity belong to the House of Justice. This the House of Justice, will be not only a body for the legislation of laws according to the spirit and requirement of the time, but a board of arbitration for the settlement of all disputes arising between peoples. When the Universal House of Justice is organized the members will do their utmost for the realization of greater cordiality and comity amongst the nations. The Laws of Bahá'u'lláh are the unchangeable, organic laws of the Universal House of Justice. They are the very foundation upon which the structure of additional legislation is built... Again, I repeat, the House of Justice, whether National or Universal, has only legislative power and not executive power...
( Star of the West, Vol. VII, No. 15, pp. 138-139)

In traditional Islamic thought, legislation is not really a legitimate function of government. Law is seen as something divinely revealed and interpreted by the 'ulama. The functions of government were ideally restricted to the execution of this  law. When Western democratic ideals were first introduced to the Islamic world the notion of an elected leader was not at all religiously problematic, at least not to Sunni Muslims. It was the notion of a man-made legislature that was more controversial. But thinkers like Muhammad Iqbal argued that the 'consensus of the community' had always been a legitimate pillar of Islamic law and that there was no reason this had to be determined by the 'ulama instead of by an elected consultative assembly. What has happened in practice in the more recent 'Islamic Republics' is that the 'ulama are allowed to exercise oversight over those legislative bodies, thus preserving their traditional prerogatives. But this constitutes an innovation.

That distinction between legislative and executive functions is maintained in the Baha'i Writings, however legislative functions are given,not to learned clerics but to the elected consultative assemblies, in other words, the Houses of Justice. What the Central Figures called for was a separation of the 'ulama from the state, not a Western-style separation of 'church and state.'   This separation of the functions of learned and the rulers, is something which is already reflected in the Bahá'í Administrative Order itself wherein legislative function was given to the Houses of Justice, while the learned serve merely in an advisory capacity. Law is still seen as ultimately divine in nature, as in Islam, but the now the democratic process itself has been sacralized.

I would argue with that this dual-partite conception of the state organization resolves some of the apparent contradictions found in Bahá'í texts without resorting to the an evolutionary concept, which, while undoubtedly there in some cases, do not adequately address the question as to precisely what role Bahá'í institutions are to play in the Bahá'í Commonwealth. It also can serve to relieve concerns which might arise in connection with the idea that religious institutions might possess the coercive power of the state. By the 'government' retaining the executive functions, the power of coercion remains theirs, not that of specifically Bahá'í institutions.

You wrote:

"This tells us that Baha'u'llah understood the tablets that give
authority to the House of Justice and those that give it to the
Kings and rulers to be complementary, and that his
understanding of the authority given to the House of Justice
did not seem to him contradictory to praising the British form
of government (monarchy, elected parliament, established
church)."

I don't think that is what He is saying. I think the House of Justice are seen as parliamentary bodies in this case. But you are correct that Baha'u'llah does not see a contradiction between such elected consultative assemblies and a monarchy.

"He then goes on speak of the relationship between
religion and government, saying that laws rest on penalties
(the state relies on coercion) whereas religion gives us the
inner motivation to do good and avoid evil."

Again, go back to the passage which speaks of 'matters of state" being in the hands of the House of Justice and how He very explictly ties it up with rewards and punishments:

"O people of God! That which traineth the world is Justice, for it is upheld by two pillars, reward and punishment. These two pillars are the sources of life to the world. Inasmuch as for each day there is a new problem and for every problem an expedient solution, such affairs should be referred to the House of Justice that the members thereof may act according to the needs and requirements of the time. They that, for the sake of God, arise to serve His Cause, are the recipients of divine inspiration from the unseen Kingdom. It is incumbent upon all to be obedient unto them. All matters of State should be referred to the House of Justice, but acts of worship must be observed according to that which God hath revealed in His Book."

Notice that in this particular passage there is no mention of kings or other rulers of any type. However, I agree with you that ultimately the power of coercion rests with them. The Houses of Justice merely decide what kinds of rewards and punishments should apply.

You qoute Abdu'l-Baha as stating in the Risáliy-i-Síyásíyyih:

"Abdu'l-Baha further in "Treastise on Leadership" states that :
"The function of the religious leaders and the duties of the clerical
jurisprudents are to attend to spiritual affairs and to promulgate divine
attributes. Whenever the leaders of the manifest religion and the pillars
of the mighty divine law have intervened in the world of political
leadership, put forward their rulings and attempted to manage affairs, it
has ever caused the unity of the believers in the one true God to be
destroyed, and resulted in the dispersal of the faithful into factions. The
flames of turmoil flared up, and the blaze of rebelliousness scorched the
world. The country was plundered and pillaged, and the people became the
prisoners and hostages of oppressors. "

What you are missing here is that Abdu'l-Baha is referring to the 'ulama, not Houses of Justice. Ultimately the Houses of Justice are not being seen as 'religious' bodies per se.

"From all above and many other Baha'i texts personally I conclude the
separation of Church and State is very clear in Baha'i Faith. Why should
there be a World Tribunal if all maters of politics to be referred to UHJ?"

Well, this is what the Guardian conveyed through his secretary:

"The Universal Court of Arbitration and the International Tribunal are the same. When the Bahá'í State will be established they will be merged in the Universal House of Justice." Letter written on behalf of the Guardian in June 17 1933.

I'm sure you are familiar with this document but some of the friends might be interested in reading what the House of Justice itself has to say on this topic. The letter is addressed to Sen McGlinn and basically refutes the arguments he has made in various articles on this topic: http://bahai-library.com/uhj/theocracy.html

I think if we are going to look at the distinction between Islam and the Baha'i Faith on this issue of the proper relation between religion and state I think that distinction would like in the fact that the Baha'i Faith gives no special prerogatives to the 'ulama. The prerogatives of legislation, adjudication, and jurisprudence instead rest with the House of Justice, an elected body of laymen whose decisions are based on consultation.

warmest, Susan

















__________________________________________________
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com
To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st
News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st
Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist
Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu