|
In a message dated 1/17/2005 2:51:43 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dear Firouz,
My translation of akham-i madaniyyih here is the quite literal,
though it varies slightly from the authorized translation. Akham means
regulations and madaniyyah is from a root meaning city, as in Medina. The
term 'civil' is derived from the Latin *civitas* meaning city.
I don't have the question he was responding to, but I have seen the
Persian. That's why I translated the term as I did.
Well, legislatures do usually decide the budget. ;-} However, distribution
of Huquq was originally one of the functions of the Guardian which fell to
the House more or less by default. It is actually the more 'secular' funds as
Steve Cooney enumerates (as well as waqf), which the House was given explicit
jurisdiction over. In any case, don't see any justification for the
House as exercising executive power in a Baha'i commonwealth as opposed to
the religious affairs of the Baha'i community.
Except there is another passage where He talks about power being taken to
the kings and given to the people. But that is a description of what is
happening even now. I don't have any problem with the notion of kings
co-existing with Baha'i institutions and certainly don't envision them giving up
their thrones when they become Baha'is or even when we have a Baha'i
commonwealth. As I indicated, it is my understanding that Houses of
Justice are to be legislatures. Kings could certainly continue to be the
executive under such circumstances. .
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. The Baha'i system is
not undemocratic anymore than it is anti-monarchical.
Because of the part which follows which for some inexplicable reason you
just cut out:
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) Note this last sentence is a reiteration of the first sentence you quoted. You wrote:
"Since this is in a letter by one of the
Guardian's secretaries, it
is not part of the Holy Writings." They are still authoritative and it is from these that we get most
of the Guardian's authoritative interpretations however. The Guardian
made it absolutely clear that he reviewed all of them before they were sent out:
In his own pen he stated the following:
"I wish to add and say that whatever letters are sent in my behalf from
Haifa are all read and approved by me before mailing. There is no exception
whatever to this rule."
This is one of the few letters in which we (meaning those of us outside the
World Centre) have reference the question that was asked of the Guardian which
was as follows:
"Can you make a statement which would establish the authenticity of your
letters written by Ruhi or Soheil with your P.C. [sic] attached. There are still
some people who continue to feel that these letters are not authorized by you
and only express the personal opinions of the above writers."
(The Universal House of Justice, 1996 Oct 22, Authentication and
Authority)
While that letter was written in 1927 by all accounts he adhered strictly
to that policy throughout his Guardianship. Even
when he was traveling in Europe, those letters were always forwarded to him for
approval before being sent out. You might ask Dr. Ayman about this as he has a
number of interesting details regarding that process. Furthermore the World
Centre has in its archives, the directions which the Guardian gave to these
secretaries. To throw out these letters is to disregard nearly all of his
authoritative interpretations, and thus mutilate the Cause by divorcing it from
the Guardianship.
"Although the secretaries of the Guardian convey his thoughts and
instructions and these messages are authoritative, their words are in no sense
the same as his, their style certainly not the same, and their authority less,
for they use their own terms and not his exact words in conveying his
messages."
(25 February 1951 to the National Spiritual Assembly of the British Isles) So while there might be distinctions in diction, the intent of the Guardian
is conveyed in these letters. The Research Department concludes on the basis
various passages on the authority of letters written on the Guardian's behalf
the following:
"From the above extracts it seems fairly clear that letters written on
behalf of Shoghi Effendi "related strictly to the Cause and interpretation of
the teachings" constitute authoritative Bahá'í text, while any personal advice
which they may contain is not binding. The Guardian's statement that he reviewed
every letter written on his behalf without exception makes it clear that the
authority of the letters was independent of whatever personal "sufferings" might
have been caused by certain secretaries, and that there was no "delegation"
whatsoever of his interpretative authority, but merely a use of secretarial
assistance for his huge burden of correspondence."
(The Universal House of Justice, 1996 Oct 22, Authentication and
Authority)
"An institutional merger is quite impossible,
since 'Abdu'l-
Baha explicitly laid down the voting systems for the Supreme Tribunal and for the Universal House of Justice, and they are different." I see no reason that an institutional merger
along the lines the Guardian suggested would be impossible. There are times when
the Writings are referring to different stages along the transition from the
Lesser Peace to the Most Great Peace. David Hoffman thought they would
eventually become one and the same. I discussed the issue with Dr. David Ruhe on
one occasion however, and he expressed a different opinion which I find quite
persuasive. He insisted that the Institution of the Universal House of Justice
is different from the Universal House of Justice proper the same way the
Institution of the Guardianship is different from the person of the
Guardian. He held that the Institution of the Universal House of Justice would
consist of the tri-partite system mentioned by Shoghi Effendi; namely that there
would be Supreme Tribunal, a World Executive, and the House of Justice proper
which would all form part of the Institution of the Universal House of Justice.
Women would only be excluded from the Universal House of Justice proper. The
reason I prefer Dr. Ruhe's interpretation is that I personally think we should
avoid recourse to evolutionary explanations whenever possible. Otherwise it can
become a pretense for ignoring too much of the Writings.
As a side note, I've noted that the differences between David Hoffman and
David Ruhe have been vastly exaggerated on the internet with David Hoffman being
presented as theocrat and David Ruhe as somehow embracing the notion of the
separation between religion and state. That was why I asked Dr. David Ruhe
specifically about his differences with David Hoffman on this question; and as
you can see their differences really didn't have that much to do with the
question of whether or not the Baha'i system was theocratic.
"Another point, women cannot become members of
the Universal House of Justice but they can be members of World
Tribunal."
Correct, which is one of the reasons I find David Ruhe's argument to be
more persuasive.
Yes, the passage almost immediately proceeding Abdu'l-Baha's reference
to the House making civil laws does that:
"Let it not be imagined that the House of Justice will take any decision
according to its own concepts and opinions. God forbid! The Supreme House of
Justice will take decisions and establish laws through the inspiration and
confirmation of the Holy Spirit, because it is in the safekeeping and under the
shelter and protection of the Ancient Beauty, and obedience to its decisions is
a bounden and essential duty and an absolute obligation, and there is no escape
for anyone."
I think that is a pretty big leap, Firouz. The Guardian is making a
distinction between his authoritative interpretations of the Writings and the
personal advice and opinions he sometimes gave out. The House also gives out
personal advice, and I suppose these not be regarded as infallible. But I know
of nothing in the Writings which would suggest there is distinction in regards
to the infallibility of their legislative acts. Indeed, in the above passage I
just cited Abdu'l-Baha seems to suggest that all of their *decisions* are
infallible. That could be hyperbole since He is speaking in the context of
legislation, however.
One thing that should be kept in mind is that ultimately the authority to
determine the proper relationship between these various
institutions, belongs to the Universal House of Justice itself. As
the Guardian himself stated:
"Touching the point raised in the Secretary's letter regarding the nature
and scope of the Universal Court of Arbitration, this and other similar matters
will have to be explained and elucidated by the Universal House of Justice, to
which, according to the Master's explicit instructions, all important and
fundamental questions must be referred."
BA 47
Speaking more generally, the Guardian writes later:
"And as we make an effort to demonstrate that love to the world may we also
clear our minds of any lingering trace of unhappy misunderstandings that might
obscure our clear conception of the exact purpose and methods of this new world
order, so challenging and complex, yet so consummate and wise. We are called
upon by our beloved Master in His Will and Testament not only to adopt it
unreservedly, but to unveil its merit to all the world. To attempt to estimate
its full value, and grasp its exact significance after so short a time since its
inception would be premature and presumptuous on our part. We must trust to
time, and the guidance of God's Universal House of Justice, to obtain a clearer
and fuller understanding of its provisions and implications." Bahá'í
Administration, p. 62.
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 |
- Re: Religion and State Smaneck
- Re: Religion and State Firouz Anaraki
- RE: Religion and State Susan Maneck
- RE: Religion and State Mark A. Foster
- Re: Religion and State Firouz Anaraki
- Re: Religion and State Smaneck
- RE: Religion and State Susan Maneck
- Re: Religion and State Firouz Anaraki
- RE: Religion and State Susan Maneck
- Re: Religion and State Firouz Anaraki
- RE: Religion and State Susan Maneck
