From April 1, 1997, to September 27, 1997, over 2,863
messages were posted on alt.religion.bahai, from
people with wide-ranging points of view on the Baha'i
Faith. This is an average of 16 messages per day for
179 days or 477 messages a month for six months.
During this time period, approximately 513 different
individuals posted on over 1,200 threads.
From September 28, 1997, to September 21, 1998, over
31,000 messages have been posted to alt.religion.bahai,
an average of 90 messages per day for 341 days or
2,583 messages per month for nine months.
These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com
for talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time
periods. Note that www.dejanews.com cannot pick up all postings and
sometimes splits long postings into 2 or more shorter ones; while they
may not be exact, these numbers offer a clear picture of the level of
activity.
From: frank_schlatter@my-dejanews.com From: frank_schlatter@my-dejanews.com From: frank_schlatter@my-dejanews.com From: frank_schlatter@my-dejanews.com From: frank_schlatter@my-dejanews.com From: frank_schlatter@my-dejanews.com From: frank_schlatter@my-dejanews.com From: frank_schlatter@my-dejanews.com From: frank_schlatter@my-dejanews.com From: frankschlatter@my-dejanews.com Nov. 2, 1998 From: frankschlatter@my-dejanews.com
Author: frank_schlatter
Date : 1998/10/23
Is the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha passe'?
In a recent post in the thread "Is this the flaw in the Baha'i Faith?"
I closed by saying:
"The organization that follows the Haifa Universal House of Justice
can now dispense with the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha. For them it
is no longer needed. And that's why starting a thread on the Will and Testament
of 'Abdu'l-Baha is not likely to generate much interest. After all, why
bother with that which, to the majority, is now passe'?"
I personally find it fascinating that so many of those who are followers
of the Haifa UHJ maintain that they are abiding by 'Abdu'l-Baha's Will and
are so quick to identify as Covenant-breakers those who have rejected their
headless international institution. Of the 56 or 57 paragraphs that are
in 'Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament, at least 10 of those paragraphs (about
18 percent of the document) contain details that are no longer operational
for the Haifa believers. It would therefore appear that the time has come
for the Haifa organization to disencumber itself entirely from the Will
and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha and to state openly that both 'Abdu'l-Baha
and Shoghi Effendi erred: 'Abdu'l-Baha for so restricting the manner in
which a Guardian was to appoint his successor as to make it impossible for
a successor to be named, and Shoghi Effendi for emphasizing the relationship
of the Guardianship with the Universal House of Justice in his "Dispensation."
Certainly it is time for the sans-Guardian UHJ to cast off the verbiage
that Shoghi Effendi employed in his remarks about 'Abdu'l-Baha's Will, for
isn't it simply an embarrassment for that body to find it necessary to ignore
Shoghi Effendi's statement that the Will and the Aqdas are "inseparable
parts of one complete unit"? And aren't its members even the slightest
bit discomfited by Shoghi Effendi's statement that the Guardian "is
bound to insist upon a reconsideration by them of any enactment he conscientiously
believes to conflict with the meaning and to depart from the spirit of Baha'u'llah's
revealed utterances"? And aren't they, or their followers, even the
slightest bit disturbed by the fact that Shoghi Effendi identified the Universal
House of Justice and the Guardianship as "twin institutions of the
Administrative Order of Baha'u'llah" that are to be "regarded
as divine in origin, essential in their functions and complementary in their
aim and purpose"? For why should the Guardianship, an institution that
for them didn't last past the first Guardian of the Faith, be looked upon
as divine in its origin? What makes that institution's functions "essential"
and its aim and purpose "complementary" to the Universal House
of Justice, if the institution of the Guardianship is no longer in existence
because it does not have a living person ministering its functions?
Shoghi Effendi stated that the twin institutions would be "Acting in
conjunction with each other". How is it possible for the Universal
House of Justice, minus the Guardian, to act in conjunction with the Guardian?
Indeed, how can the Guardian act in conjunction with the UHJ when he's not
here? Shoghi Effendi said that the "two inseparable institutions"
are to "administer its [the Administrative Order's'] affairs, coordinate
its activities, promote its interests, execute its laws and defend its subsidiary
institutions." Can anyone in the Haifa organization explain how the
Guardian of the Cause is involved in such administering, coordinating, promoting,
and executing? How is it possible for this twin pillar to assist in supporting
Baha'u'llah's Administrative Structure? What is it about the Guardianship,
as understood by the Haifa believers, that makes it one of the "two
fundamental organs of the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha"? What's so fundamental
about the Guardianship today? And how will it be a fundamental organ in
the future?
The followers of the Haifa organization no longer need to be concerned about
such passages as these from 10 different paragraphs of 'Abdu'l-Baha's Will:
"The mighty stronghold shall remain impregnable and safe through
obedience to him who is the guardian of the Cause of God." (What's
the test for obedience to one who is no longer in this world?)
"It is incumbent upon the guardian of the Cause of God to appoint in
his own life-time him that shall become his successor, that differences
may not arise after his passing." (If there is no Guardian, then clearly
this provision is no longer viable.)
"The Hands of the Cause of God must elect from their own number..."
(The Haifa UHJ has decreed that no more Hands can be appointed.)
"The Hands of the Cause of God must be nominated and appointed by the
guardian of the Cause of God." (No Guardian = no Hands.)
"The obligations of the Hands of the Cause of God are to diffuse the
Divine Fragrances..." (For the Haifa organization the Hands are an
extinct institution.)
"This body of the Hands of the Cause of God is under the direction
of the guardian of the Cause of God. (In the next world?)
"By this body all the difficult problems are to be resolved and the
guardian of the Cause of God is its sacred head and the distinguished member
for life of that body." (The UHJ has no sacred head and thus no distinguished
member.)
"This fixed money offering (Huquq)...is to be offered through the guardian
of the Cause of God." (The sans-Guardian UHJ has provided otherwise.)
"And inasmuch as this House of Justice hath power to enact laws that
are not expressly recorded in the Book and bear upon daily transactions,
so also it hath power to repeal the same....This it can do because that
law formeth no part of the Divine Explicit Text." (Since Shoghi Effendi,
the appointed interpreter, identified the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha as a part
of the Divine Explicit Text, and since the Universal House of Justice has
disregarded or by-passed a number of the Will's provisions, this provision
is clearly no longer in effect for that institution.)
"All must seek guidance and turn unto the Center of the Cause and the
House of Justice." (The followers of the Haifa organization surely
must realize that the "Center of the Cause" referred to in this
passage is no longer here. So the only way guidance can be sought from him--Shoghi
Effendi--is through his writings and prayer, and, as shown above, Shoghi
Effendi's written words can no longer provide guidance for those who follow
the sans-Guardian Universal House of Justice.)
So, isn't it about time that the Haifa Universal House of Justice openly
declare that the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha is passe' and that Shoghi Effendi's
statements in the "Dispensation" should no longer be considered
as authoritative?
Sincerely,
Frank Schlatter
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai
Subject: Re: Is the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha Passe'?
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 20:42:50 GMT
Chess,
It clearly is not possible to ignore the technicalities of the W&T if
one is to be faithful to the Covenants of Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha,
for the Will, as Shoghi Effendi said, "is the Child of the Covenant,"
and also "the Charter of the New World Order." So, unless the
provisions of that document are no longer operational and the Will is cast
aside by the chief institution of the Faith, I think true Baha'is would
be remiss in their duties to the Covenants if they should ignore those technicalities.
That's why I maintain that the sans-Guardian UHJ should take the unprecedented
step of declaring the Will and Testament as passe'. After all, the members
of that organization have determined that there can be no more Guardians
and that there can be no more Hands. Furthermore, the Haifa UHJ has taken
over the Huquq, which, according to the Will is to "be offered through
the guardian of the Cause of God." So why shouldn't the Haifa UHJ take
another unprecedented step and declare the Will as "Bada" (God
changed His mind) and, at the same time, go on record as saying that Shoghi
Effendi's statements in the "Dispensation" should no longer be
looked upon as authoritative, since the sans-Guardian UHJ is now looked
upon by its followers as the authority in the Faith. That--it seems to me--should
be a very simple and straightforward action for the UHJ to take.
Yes, Chess, the Will is clear that a line of Guardians is anticipated by
the Master. In addition, it should be clear that 'Abdu'l-Baha recognized
in His Will and elsewhere that there was rampant Covenant-breaking in the
family of Baha'u'llah and that it would be ludicrous for him to restrict
the first Guardian's appointment of his successor to the blood-line of Baha'u'llah.
That being the case, it should be apparent that the statement that says
that if the Guardian's "glorious lineage not be matched with a goodly
character, then must he, (the guardian of the Cause of God) choose another
branch to succeed him" that the word "branch" does not refer
to the Aghsan or the blood-line of Baha'u'llah. In other words, the Guardian
must go outside the family line for the appointment.
This is in keeping with 'Abdu'l-Baha's emphasis on the spiritual family
being more important than the physical family. (Read his last Tablet to
America in which He cites what Christ had to say about His family and what
Qurratu'l-'Ayn had to say about hers. Both emphasized the spiritual connection
rather than the physical one.)
I can understand how you might find it easier "to believe that one
person has designs for power-grabbing, etc. than 20+" others. (There
was a total of 27 Hands at the time of Shoghi Effendi's death.) Since you
are not a Baha'i, I can also understand why you may not have read Mason
Remey's "Daily Observations", written while he was in Haifa from
the time of the first Guardian's passing until he left Haifa in the months
prior to his proclamation of April 1960. Were you to read those entries,
you would recognize that Mason Remey was far from an ego-driven, power-grabbing
individual. (And if you were to read the entire diary you'd also realize,
because of the way it is written, that it was not a fabricated or fictional
account that was developed for purposes of lending support to one who planned
to take over the Faith.)
As to the nine Hands who, according to the Will, were to "give their
assent to the choice of the one whom the guardian of the Cause of God hath
chosen as his successor": At the time that Shoghi Effendi identified
Mason Remey as the President of the embryonic Universal House of Justice
there were no Hands of the Faith. Orthodox Baha'is therefore maintain that,
like certain other provisions of the Will which were not then in effect,
that particular provision also was not in effect at the time of Shoghi Effendi's
appointment. (And, no, Chess, the 9 Hands are not synonymous with the UHJ.
The Will states that the Universal House of Justice "must be elected
by universal suffrage," that the "secondary Houses of Justice
must elect the members of the Universal one." All Hands of the Faith
are under the direction of the Guardian, and as the Will says, the Guardian
"must continually urge them...")
On the other hand, you have the Hands of the Faith deciding that Shoghi
Effendi's identification of them as the "Chief Stewards of Baha'u'llah's
embryonic World Commonwealth" gave them the right to assume the role
of a collective guardian of the Cause until they put into place an institution
that they would call the Universal House of Justice but which, as is called
for by the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha, would be minus its sacred
head. That, as you know, is what took place, and the Baha'i world followed
the leadership of the Hands, even though the Will makes no provision for
such a course of action.
Certainly as late as 1954 Shoghi Effendi was asserting that the Guardianship
would be continuing after he left this world. On November 27, 1954, after
making reference to the construction of the International Baha'i Archives
and noting that it was "designed by the Hand of the Cause, Mason Remey,
President of the International Baha'i Council," the first Guardian
wrote: "The raising of this Edifice will in turn herald the construction,
in the course of successive epochs of the Formative Age of the Faith, of
several other structures, which will serve as the administrative seats of
such divinely appointed institutions as the Guardianship, the Hands of the
Cause, and the Universal House of Justice." Orthodox Baha'is would
maintain that you don't need administrative seats for institutions that
are no longer going to exist in this world.
So, yes, Chess, I would aver that there is "something" that lots
of people are missing. I would also contend that history has affirmed that
the majority--even the vast majority--may not always be right, even when
the members of that majority think they are divinely guided.
Sincerely,
Frank Schlatter
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai
Subject: Re: Is the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha Passe'?
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 16:31:15 GMT
Chess,
Glad to see " those rusty cogs" in motion. Here's a bit o' me
oil... :-)
I'm not a genealogist, but my dictionary tells me that the first definition
of the word "lineage" is "descent in a direct line from an
ancestor." Thus, if 'Abdu'l-Baha wrote, as He did, that if the child
of the guardian should "not inherit of the spiritual within him (the
guardian of the Cause of God) and his glorious lineage not be matched with
a goodly character, then must he, (the guardian of the Cause of God) choose
another branch to succeed him," He was saying that the Guardian would
go outside his lineage. The sans-Guardian UHJ and the Hands of the Faith
who established the sans-Guardian body have, of course, interpreted the
word "branch" to mean "of the blood-line of Baha'u'llah".
However, if you read the English version of the Will--Shoghi Effendi's translation
and therefore his interpretation of the Will--you will see that, unlike
what the first Guardian did at an earlier place in the Will, within that
paragraph there is no added word "Aghsan" by the word "branch."
And the word within his translated version is in lower case.
Two paragraphs before the passage in question, Shoghi Effendi did set forth
this sentence: "After the passing away of this wronged one, it is incumbent
upon the Aghsan (Branches) the Afnan (Twigs) of the Sacred Lote-Tree, the
Hands (pillars) of the Cause of God and the loved ones of the Abha Beauty
to turn unto Shoghi Effendi..." You'll note that in this instance the
word "Branches" is capitalized.
Now, people can decide that the difference between a capitalized word and
a lower case word is insignificant. But that is not what 'Abdu'l-Baha indicated
in His Will and Testament. He wrote: "What deviation can be greater
than interpolating and falsifying the words and verses of the Sacred Text,
even as testified and declared by Mirza Badi'u'llah!" (By the way,
later in the Will and Testament 'Abdu'l-Baha encouraged the believers to
learn how the Sacred Text can be corrupted and He made a direct reference
to Mirza Badi'u'llah's written confession--a document in which Badi'u'llah
describes how Muhammad 'Ali falsified the Text. 'Abdu'l-Baha wrote: "Please
God, ye will peruse it.")
I agree with you, Chess, that "There is no room for doubt in the W&T
[about the one chosen to be 'Abdu'l-Baha's successor]; it's about as clear
as you can get." I also agree that if there were a "similar unambiguous
designation by Shoghi Effendi, the majority of Baha'is would have accepted
it." My immediate response to this line of reasoning, though, is to
encourage people to study closely the Proclamation of Shoghi Effendi of
January 9, 1951 and to ponder whatever implications there may be in the
exalted language that the beloved Guardian used in that Proclamation. Certainly,
he was not saying that the International Baha'i Council was just a committee
of individuals that he chose to assist him with his work and which would
be dissolved in the future, time uncertain.
He said it was a "weighty epoch-making decision"--a "historic
decision marking the most significant milestone in the evolution of the
Administrative Order of the Faith of Baha'u'llah in the course of the last
thirty years [that is, since the passing of 'Abdu'l-Baha], and he spoke
of the "evolution of this first embryonic International Institution"
that would develop into an officially recognized Baha'i Court [a stage of
its development that he established as a goal of the 10-year Crusade, a
goal that he emphasized in a Cablegram of April 25, 1951, saying that the
Baha'i Court was an "essential prelude to the institution of the Universal
House of Justice"], and then after the Court stage (which never occurred),
the body would be transformed "into a duly elected body", and
then, finally, the organism's "efflorescence into the Universal House
of Justice." Shoghi Effendi said of the "constitution of the International
Council" that "history will acclaim [it] as the greatest event
shedding luster upon the second epoch of the Formative Age of the Baha'i
Dispensation." And he identified the Council's establishment as "potentially
unsurpassed by any enterprise undertaken since the inception of the Administrative
Order of the Faith on the morrow of 'Abdu'l-Baha's Ascension, ranking second
only to the glorious immortal events associated with the Ministries of the
Three Central Figures of the Faith..." It was to this body that Shoghi
Effendi appointed Mason Remey the President.
As to the third point raised in your most recent posting (that is, "the
hands of the Cause had to approve the selection"), I have already indicated
that there were no Hands of the Faith at the time that Shoghi Effendi announced
that Mason Remey was the President of the International Baha'i Council.
I should point out, though, that the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha does not use the
word "approve" regarding the action to be taken by the nine duly-elected
Hands of the Faith. 'Abdu'l-Baha's Will uses the words "must give their
assent," and when Shoghi Effendi was asked about this in the mid-50's,
his response was provided on page one of "Baha'i News," February,
1955:
"The statement in the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha does not imply that the
Hands of the Cause of God have been given the authority to overrule the
Guardian. 'Abdu'l-Baha could not have provided for a conflict of authority
in the Faith. This is obvious, in view of His own words, which you will
find on page 13 (p. 11 of 1944 U.S. edition) of the Will and Testament of
'Abdu'l-Baha. 'The mighty stronghold shall remain impregnable and safe through
obedience to him who is the guardian of the Cause of God. It is incumbent
upon...the Hands of the Cause of God to show their obedience, submissiveness
and subordination unto the guardian of the Cause of God, to turn unto him
and be lowly before him. He that opposeth him hath opposed the True One,'
etc."
Chess, Shoghi Effendi definitely did not feel that only certain parts of
'Abdu'l-Baha's Will were to be accepted by a believer. In a letter of October
24, 1925, he set forth the qualifications for a true believer, saying: "
Full recognition of the station of the Forerunner, the Author, and the True
Exemplar of the Baha'i Cause, as set forth in 'Abdu'l-Baha's Testament;
unreserved acceptance of, and submission to, whatsoever has been revealed
by their Pen; loyal and steadfast adherence to every clause of our Beloved's
sacred Will; and close association with the spirit as well as the form of
the present day Baha'i administration throughout the world--these I conceive
to be the fundamental and primary considerations that must be fairly, discreetly
and thoughtfully ascertained before reaching such a vital decision."
During the remaining years of his ministry the beloved Guardian did not
change the qualification so that a believer's "loyal and steadfast
adherence" should be to only some parts of 'Abdu'l-Baha's Will. Instead,
he said that the Will and the Aqdas are "inseparable parts of one complete
unit." And that means that the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha was classified
by Shoghi Effendi as the Sacred Text and, as a consequence, it is not subject
to modification by anyone or any institution of the Faith.
Sincerely,
Frank Schlatter
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai
Subject: Re: Is the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha Passe'?
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 17:45:22 GMT
Rick Schaut wrote "It's worth nothing (sic) that the particular word
translated as 'branch' in that particular passage is the Arabic word 'ghusn'
(plural is Aghsan). This despite the fact that the Will and Testament is
almost entirely written in the Persian language. If 'Abdu'l-Baha didn't
have a particular meaning in mind, then one wonders why He went through
the trouble."
I'm assuming that Rick intended to write "noting" in his statement,
though I must confess that the word "nothing" gave me pause. :-)
My concern at this time is whether Shoghi Effendi, when he made his translation--and
thus his interpretation of 'Abdu'l-Baha's Will--also had particular meanings
in mind when he produced that immortal document in English for all of us.
It is my understanding that translations of the Will into other languages
were to be made from Shoghi Effendi's English version. If that is so, the
future translators of the Will need not go back to the original text.
Rick also wrote: "In fact...the word 'ghusn", when used to refer
to a person, has had one and only one meaning throughout all of the Writings
of Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha: it refers to a male descendant of Baha'u'llah."
The Research Department of the Haifa Universal House of Justice has written
otherwise. In a memorandum of 12 October 1994 to the UHJ, responding to
an extended inquiry from Brent Mathieu, it wrote: "It is clear...that
there could not be any authoritative statement limiting the meaning of these
two words ["ghusn" and "Aghsan], since they are by nature
metaphorical. The primary meaning of 'ghusn' is the branch of a tree and,
as the various quotations annexed by Mr. Mathieu to his letter show, this
metaphor has been used in many ways by the Central Figures of the Faith.
The question at issue, therefore, is not whether, in the Baha'i Writings,
the use of the word is confined to designation of the male descendants of
Baha'u'llah (it clearly is not)..."
The Research Department then went on to talk about its perspective on the
metaphorical use of the word "branch" throughout the Will, stating
that "Throughout it is applied to the two Holy Families of the Bab
and Baha'u'llah and Their descendants." Not surprisingly, then, the
Research Department wrote: "This, therefore, is the obvious meaning
of the word 'branch' in the passage in question."
Despite the fact that the Research Department made a contrary distinction
to what he thought to be true regarding what the Central Figures of the
Faith meant when using the word 'ghusn", Rick is clearly in line with
the Research Department when he stated that "It takes some very, shall
we say 'creative', exegesis for one to come away with any different meaning."
On that issue, Rick and the Research Department are in solid accord.
Indeed, any follower of the Haifa UHJ who believes differently and who would
openly declare such a position would make himself vulnerable to a charge
of Covenant-breaking, for that individual would then be promoting the idea
of a different line of authority from that which went from Shoghi Effendi
to the collective guardianship of the Hands of the Cause to the sans- Guardian
Universal House of Justice.
But before everyone in that organization gets completely comfortable with
the position taken by the present authority in their administrative order,
I think they also need to explain away 'Abdu'l- Baha's use of the word "ghusn"
for "branch" in his last Tablet to America. You will certainly
recall that the translation of that message contains the following details,
which emphasize the Master's view that the spiritual relationship is more
important by far than the physical one. He wrote:
"Consider this text of the New Testament: the brothers of His Holiness
Christ, came to Him and they said: 'These are your brothers.' He answered
that His brothers were those who believed in God, and refused to associate
with His own brothers.
"Likewise Qurratu'l-'Ayn, who is celebrated in all the world, when
she believed in God and was attracted to the Divine Breaths, she forsook
her two eldest sons, although they were her two oldest children, because
they did not become believers, and thereafter did not meet them. She said:
'All the friends of God are my children, but these two are not. I will have
nothing to do with them.'
"Consider! The Divine Gardener cuts off the dry or weak branch from
the good tree and grafts to it, a branch from another tree. He both separates
and unites."
Chess Hazlett, of course, thinks the succession of the Faith "hinges
on a lot more than capitalization in the W&T." And he's right.
Among other things is the qualification that Shoghi Effendi established
to identify a true believer: "loyal and steadfast adherence to every
clause of our Beloved's sacred Will", which the followers of the sans-Guardian
UHJ simply cannot meet. And that's why I have suggested that their Universal
House of Justice should declare the Will and Testament as passe', and, at
the same time, their UHJ should also get rid of Shoghi Effendi's "Dispensation,"
for his interpretations in that document certainly do not correlate with
the modus operandi of the sans-Guardian organization.
Sincerely,
Frank Schlatter
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai
Subject: Re: Is the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha Passe'?
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 16:13:23 GMT
Dear George,
You don't explain why you couldn't make the connection between Shoghi Effendi
and Mason Remey as Guardians. Can you explain why you could make the connection
between Shoghi Effendi and the Hands of the Faith acting as a collective
guardian prior to the establishment of the sans-Guardian UHJ?
As to my use of the word "passe'", it is a term which I think
the authority in the Haifa organization should now employ in its references
to the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha.
As far as I can tell, the Declaration of Trust for your National Spiritual
Assembly--the controlling legal document for the activities of its Trustees
and the general membership--still contains the provision that to be a qualified
member of the Baha'i Faith a person must give "loyal and steadfast
adherence to every clause of 'Abdu'l-Baha's sacred Will." Yet it is
not possible for such a commitment to be met by the believers in the Haifa
organization. For instance, the Will clearly states that the fixed money
offering is to be "offered through the guardian of the Cause of God",
and, in the absence of a Guardian, your UHJ has now gone on record as saying
that, in the absence of the Guardian, the Huquq is now under the control
of the Universal House of Justice.
George, if the authority within your Faith does not operate within the terms
of the "Charter of the New World Order" (Shoghi Effendi's characterization
of 'Abdu'l-Baha's Will), then either the authority is out of compliance
with the Charter, or the Charter is no longer current. That is, it's defunct,
out-dated, passe'. Therefore, to establish its authority, I think your UHJ
should unequivocally declare that the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha is a document
of the past. In that way, its followers won't be distracted by any of that
document's out-moded details, and the UHJ can then proceed to set up and
follow its own, divinely-inspired Charter, one that is fitting for its current
and future operations.
Sincerely,
Frank Schlatter
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai
Subject: Re: Is the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha Passe'?
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 16:19:40 GMT
Robert Little wrote:
"There will be left the Institution of the Hands of the Cause of God,
long after the three remaining die, there will be left the Institution of
the guardianship, in the form of his 36 years of writings and decisions..."
As I noted at the outset of this thread, the Haifa organization no longer
abides by the provisions of the Will and Testament, despite the fact that
people like Robert Little say there will continue to be the Institution
of the Hands of the Cause (though there will be no Hands) and there will
be the Institution of the Guardianship (though there will be no Guardian).
But surely, if the Universal House of Justice does not have a Guardian as
its "sacred head," then your organization truly must consider
the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha to be passe'.
How otherwise can that institution explain away the provision in the Will
which says that "Should he [the Guardian] not attend in person its
[the Universal House of Justice's] deliberations, he must appoint one to
represent him"? Obviously, since Shoghi Effendi is not attending the
deliberations of the UHJ, there is supposed to be someone there who is representing
him. When did Shoghi Effendi name this representative? Is there a tenth
seat on the UHJ for him? Has the UHJ ever indicated how this person is making
his reports to the Guardian of the Faith after the UHJ deliberates? And
what does the UHJ hear back from the Guardian once his representative has
talked matters over with the Guardian?
Sorry, but I don't see how the above provision related to the Institution
of the Guardianship has any meaning if there isn't a living Guardian to
implement it.. Just as I don't see how the deceased Guardian of the Cause--who
is not able to attend meetings of the Universal House of Justice--can "at
his own discretion" assume the right to expel any of the members of
the UHJ who "commit a sin, injurious to the common weal." Nor
can I see how the deceased Guardian of the Faith is going to "continually
urge" any Hands of the Cause "to strive and endeavor to the utmost
of their ability to diffuse the sweet savors of God, and to guide all the
peoples of the world."
The Institution of the Guardianship is an institution of this world, for
as Shoghi Effendi pointed out in his "Dispensation of Baha'u'llah,"
the Guardian "is bound to insist upon a reconsideration by them [the
other members of the UHJ] of any enactment he conscientiously believes to
conflict with the meaning and to depart from the spirit of Baha'u'llah's
revealed utterances." Among other things, that's why I think that the
authority in your organization should go on record as identifying both the
Will and Testament and the "Dispensation" as passe'.
Sincerely,
Frank Schlatter
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai
Subject: Re: Is the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha Passe'?
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 20:16:12 GMT
Chess:
If only some things were so simple that a one-word answer would suffice.
You asked whether Shoghi Effendi said that the person whom he appointed
as president of the International Baha'i Council would be his successor.
The short answer is "no." The longer answer is "yes."
If Shoghi Effendi had written: "This appointment of Mason Remey as
the President of the IBC means that he is the one I am appointing as my
successor," we wouldn't be having this exchange under the subject heading
"Is the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha passe?", for all the believers (except
those who committed themselves to Covenant-breaking) would automatically
have accepted his decision. At the same time, most would also have experienced
great consternation, for in 1951, when Shoghi Effendi named him as the Council's
President, Mason Remey was 77 years of age and the first Guardian was 54.
Thus, had the first Guardian stated openly that a man nearly a quarter of
a century older than he would succeed him as Guardian, the implications
would be clear: Shoghi Effendi anticipated that his departure from this
world would precede that of Mason Remey; hence, the first Guardian did not
have much longer to live.
An article entitled "How and Why Shoghi Effendi Obscured the Appointment
of His Successor and the Consequences", written in August of this year
by Joel B. Marangella, appeared in an earlier posting on alt.religion.bahai.
That document provides the longer--the affirmative-- answer to your question.
If you didn't read it previously, you can find a copy at the following address:
http://www.rt66.com/~obfusa/council.htm
As you know, in contrast to this position, the Hands and their UHJ have
deemed Shoghi Effendi as silent on the issue of his successor, and on the
basis of their perception, they took over the Faith, believing that certain
provisions of the Will and Testament are no longer operational.
It is my personal view that this whole issue of the succession of Guardians
and the UHJ is one that God has placed upon the Baha'is to test their belief
in all the provisions of the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha. And, frankly,
I think most of us have failed the test.
"If it had been thy Lord's Will, they would have all believed,"
says the Qur'an, and, of course, Baha'u'llah Himself has stated: "But
inasmuch as the divine Purpose hath decreed that the true should be known
from the false, and the sun from the shadow, He hath, therefore, in every
season sent down upon mankind the showers of tests from His realm of glory"
-and- "For the faith of no man can be conditioned by any one except
himself."
Do we who call ourselves Baha'is truly give our adherence to every clause
of 'Abdu'l-Baha's sacred Will, or are we simply giving lip service to the
"Charter of the New World Order"? In a letter written on behalf
of Shoghi Effendi on March 25, 1930, the first Guardian stated: "The
contents of the Will of the Master is far too much for the present generation
to comprehend. It needs at least a century of actual working before the
treasures of wisdom hidden in it can be revealed." We have not had
anywhere close to "at least a century" in which the provisions
of the Will and Testament have been in actual operation, yet, through one
means or another, the Baha'is have found ways to circumvent what the Will
provides. Shoghi Effendi alludes to "treasures of wisdom hidden"
within the Will. Do we have any notion of what he means? What are the "treasures
of wisdom" in the Will? What makes them hidden? Why are they hidden?
One point that I do want to make before closing this post: I think it is
important that believers recognize what 'Abdu'l-Baha had to say about the
embryo, for it is germane to Shoghi Effendi's characterization of the International
Baha'i Council as the embryonic Universal House of Justice. 'Abdu'l-Baha
stated that "the embryo possesses from the first all perfections...but
they are not visible, and become so only by degrees." You and I both
know that when we talk about the human organism, it's clear that the head
of the embryo will remain the head through the various stages through which
the organism evolves. That same pattern pertains to the embryonic Universal
House of Justice with its embryonic head.
Therefore, Chess, with regard to my viewpoint, the summing-up statement
that you made at the close of your recent posting is an accurate one.
Sincerely,
Frank Schlatter
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai
Subject: Re: Is the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha Passe'?
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 04:20:55 GMT
Oct. 29, 1998
Michela wrote:
"Let's face it, folks--we Baha'is have screwed up badly by allowing
others to lead us by the nose and tell us what the Covenant meant."
There is undoubtedly much truth in what you have said here, Michela. And
I agree that we "should study the documents." But I'm not sure
I know what you mean by "holistically," for I have seen that term
used for different purposes in different ways. I surmise, though, that because
you have indicated that "Both sides have chosen to ignore, overlook,
or selectively interpret the Will and Testament," that you maintain
that the entire document can somehow be taken in and comprehended as a whole.
I'm wondering if you can explain how that can be done.
When each of us deals with the context of the Will and Testament, we each
bring our own contextual sets with us--and they are all different. Thus,
for each of us our experience with the Will and Testament is going to be
the joint product of who we are and what we bring with us to our encounter(s)
with the Will, as well as what is in the Will itself. And our context may
or may not have included within it what Shoghi Effendi said about the Will.
If we approach the document from the perspective of a follower of the Haifa
Universal House of Justice, that perspective is clearly going to be different
from the perspective of an Orthodox Baha'i, and both of these perspectives
will be different from that of a newcomer to the teachings of the Faith
who has no historical background whatsoever with relation to the Will. So
for you to talk about a holistic approach to the documents creates more
questions for me than I may have had previously, when, in my latest response
to Chess Hazlett, I asked whether anyone had any notion with regard to what
Shoghi Effendi referred to as "the treasures of wisdom hidden in it."
During my exploration into general semantics, I found the subject of contexts
to be a fascinating one. We should know, for instance, that all words within
a given context interact upon one another--whether those words are within
a phrase, a clause, a sentence, a paragraph, a chapter, a book, a set of
volumes, etc. And then, once you have thrown in our personal experiences
with the words that are found within a given context, you have the framework
for the reading experience. As much as is possible, the interpretations
that we make need to be based on the totality of contexts. So, Michela,
if this is what you are referring to by your use of the word "holistically,"
then I am in agreement with you; and, as I indicated above, I'd like to
know from you how we should embark upon such an enterprise. What's the best
way to understand the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha?
Naturally, we could approach the Will by way of the authorized interpreter
whom we all accept (Shoghi Effendi), and we could view the Will from the
larger context that he provided when he said that the Will is to be considered
as the "Charter of the New World Order." From him we are given
to understand that the Will and the Aqdas are "inseparable parts of
one complete unit." We also know the Will to be "the Child of
the Covenant", that it is "the inevitable offspring resulting
from that mystic intercourse between Him [Baha'u'llah] Who communicated
the generating influence of His divine Purpose and the One ['Abdu'l-Baha]
Who was its vehicle and chosen recipient." So, according to Shoghi
Effendi, we know that the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l- Baha can no more
"be divorced from Him Who supplied the original and motivating impulse
than from the One Who ultimately conceived it."
In the beloved Guardian's other statements about the Will, what other views
do you feel would be instructive in our holistic approach? In other words,
what specific documents of Shoghi Effendi's are applicable? Should we incorporate
the entire Administrative Order section of the "Dispensation"
into the context at hand? Or should we leave it out? And when the decision
is made to use or not to use the "Dispensation"--or any other
of Shoghi Effendi's writings--upon what basis will we make that decision?
Truly we are in the area of judgment calls, but it will not profit us to
put down other's perspectives on the basis of what we ourselves may see
as "facile rationalizations." If we could truly come to grips
with how others have arrived at their conclusions regarding the meaning
of the Will and Testament, we might better understand the Will itself and
perhaps come to some awareness of "the treasures of wisdom hidden in
it."
At this time, my own perspective starts with Shoghi Effendi's reference
to the Will as the "Child of the Covenant." The Covenant in this
case is that bond between Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha which produced the
Will. And since the Will is likened to a "child," the connotation
that I apply to the Will is something more than the product of both Baha'u'llah
and 'Abdu'l-Baha. It is also an organism that will not have all of its features
in place at once. In "Some Answered Questions" 'Abdu'l-Baha, in
talking about the origin of man, relates how "the embryo in the womb
of the mother, gradually grew and developed, and passed from one form to
another, from one shape to another, until he appeared with this beauty and
perfection, this force and this power." Later in the same book 'Abdu'l-Baha
says: "The seed does not at once become a tree, the embryo does not
at once become a man, the mineral does not suddenly become a stone. No,
they grow and develop gradually, and attain the limit of perfection."
So it is my thesis that the Will, the Child of the Covenant, cannot be expected
to be fulfilled all at once. Yes, 'Abdu'l-Baha identified the Guardian as
the "sacred head" of the Universal House of Justice, but all Baha'is
are agreed that when Shoghi Effendi became Guardian there was no UHJ. Nor
were there any Hands. Thus, the powers identified within the Will were latent
powers. They were like the web-like appendages that one sees in a human
embryonic organism that gradually evolve into hands and fingers, etc. It
is my belief that our task as Baha'is is to do what we can to insure that
this "Child of the Covenant" has a chance to evolve into this
world with all of its features in working order.
The world cannot afford to have this Child aborted or killed once it is
born and just beginning to expand its powers for the good of mankind.
Sincerely,
Frank Schlatter
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai
Subject: Re: Is the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha Passe'?
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 16:51:48 GMT
Chess wrote:
"Frank...we appear to be at a quandary."
Chess, my dictionary says that a quandary is "a state of perplexity
or uncertainty, a dilemma," and I'm not sure that you or I view the
situation in which the Baha'i Faith finds itself today with feelings of
perplexity or uncertainty. A dilemma, of course, is a situation that requires
a choice between two evils, or it is an argument that forces an opponent
to choose one of two alternatives equally unfavorable to him or her. And
I don't get the impression, Chess, that you consider the choice you have
made as a choice between two evils, or as an unfavorable alternative.
I think the term that is more appropriate for our present debate is the
word "impasse": a position from which there is no escape, a deadlock,
because I, too, do not have the feeling that the choice I have made is one
between two evils. Granted, I do not like being labelled as a "Covenant-breaker",
even though the meaning of that term has been changed by the leadership
of your administrative order from what it was originally intended to mean.
But that's a fact of life. 'Words don't mean; people mean.' That is, with
the passage of time, the meanings of words change to fit new circumstances.
I know now, for instance, that the meaning of the word "Covenant-breaker"
for your organization is essentially this: one who rejects the authority
within the Cause and attempts to subvert the decisions of that authority.
Normally, the term is applied to an individual who is within your organization
and who has pledged his loyalty to the authority. However, the term is also
used to label anyone who accepted Mason Remey as the second Guardian of
the Faith, or any of those individuals who now call themselves Orthodox
Baha'is, regardless of whether they were ever within the organization that
is now headed by the Haifa UHJ.
As I have indicated in a previous article, an accepted definition of the
term "Covenant-breaker" in Shoghi Effendi's ministry was along
the lines of what Hand of the Cause John Ferraby provided in his earliest
editions of "All Things Made New" when he wrote: "These Covenant-breakers
profess to accept the teachings of Baha'u'llah but they turn away from the
Centre of the Cause--in the day of the Centre of the Covenant, 'Abdu'l-Baha,
and in our day, the Guardian--and thereby they deny what they profess to
accept." (Page 251 of 1957 edition.)
When Mason Remey issued his Proclamation in 1960, the other Hands, who were
then in control of the Faith, decided that Mason Remey and his followers
had to be called Covenant-breakers, even though Mason Remey and his followers
had not turned away from either 'Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi.
In the book "The Ministry of the Custodians 1957-1963" (Pub. Baha'i
World Center, 1992)one finds that Hasan Balyuzi, one of the Hands at the
time of Mason Remey's proclamation, initially expressed his strong disapproval
of the action of the Hands to declare Mason Remey and his followers as covenant-breakers.
Though he declared Mason Remey's position as "laughable, preposterous,
abominable"--and, yes, "ridiculous"--he nevertheless said,
"But I cannot accept the thesis that the Hands have the authority to
expel anyone for this reason. Where do the Hands obtain their authority
to expel anyone from the Community?"
He then went on to write: "From the Will and Testament of Abdu'l-Baha',
these are the exact words of the Master, which I have read and read, and
which I quote:
'My object is to show that the Hands of the Cause of God must ever be watchful
and so soon as they find anyone beginning to oppose and protest against
the Guardian of the Cause of God, cast him out from the congregation of
the people of Baha, and in no wise accept any excuse from him. How often
hath grevious error been disguised in the garb of truth, that it might sow
the seeds of doubt in the hearts of men!'
"Perhaps I'm mistaken, but nowhere else have I found the express authority
to expel people for any reason other than opposition to the Guardian. The
Hands can and must expel anyone who associates with Covenant-breakers, old
and new. They can and must expel anyone who disregards a definite injunction
of the beloved Guardian. Such acts constitute opposition to Shoghi Effendi.
But I'm convinced (and perfectly ready and willing at the same time to believe
otherwise, if conclusive proofs are shown to me) that the Hands have no
authority to expel anyone for any other reason, albeit they are exercising
their indubitable right to protect the Faith. By doing so, the Hands will
be setting up a new category of Covenant-breakers, for which they have no
authority, as far as I can see it."
However, Balyuzi later went along with the rest of the Hands, apparently
feeling that the changed circumstances of the Faith called for a new definition
of a Covenant-breaker, or else the other Hands provided him with undisclosed
"conclusive proofs".
Be all this as it may, you who have accepted that the Hands of the Faith
had the right to assume control of the Faith on the basis of Shoghi Effendi's
having once called them "the Chief Stewards of Baha'u'llah's embryonic
World Commonwealth"--you now follow an institution that is called the
Universal House of Justice. That is, the Hands and their followers have
given that name to the institution that they first elected in 1963. But,
according to the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha, the institution is
not complete. And, based upon one of the earliest decisions of the Haifa
UHJ, it will not be complete for at least a thousand years, because that
Universal House of Justice, as we all know, stated that it found "no
way to appoint or to legislate to make it possible to appoint a second Guardian
to succeed Shoghi Effendi."
It is clear to me that the followers of the Haifa UHJ are sincere in their
belief that the authority exercised by their supreme body is a divinely-vested
authority. It is equally clear to me that certain provisions within the
Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha must, of necessity to that organization,
be ignored--just as much of the Administrative Order section of Shoghi Effendi's
"Dispensation" must also be dismissed as no longer applicable
to the Haifa organization. It is perhaps on this basis, Chess, that you
used the word "quandary" in your recent post, for to an individual
who maintains that the line of Guardians ended with Shoghi Effendi, you
do face two unfavorable alternatives: 1) the choice you have now made, a
mutilated organizational pattern, or 2) the choice that Ruhiyyih Khanum
identified in "Twenty-Five Years of the Guardianship" when she
wrote: "The principle of successorship, endowed with the right of Divine
interpretation, is the very hub of the Cause into which its Doctrines and
Laws fit like the spokes of a wheel - tear out the hub and you have to throw
away the whole thing."
Does the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha offer any other alternatives?
Sincerely,
Frank Schlatter
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai
Subject: Re: Is the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha Passe'?
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 14:53:11 GMT
Dear Chess,
I want to thank you for your candor and for the even-handed manner in which
you have dealt with the information provided in this matter before us. In
addition, I want to commend you for the understanding you have shown with
regard to the many details that we have thus far explored together. Your
grasp of the essential elements in the stated positions of the Haifa organization
and of the Orthodox Baha'is has shown that you are indeed "close to
the Faith", and I, for one, welcome your sincere investigation and
look forward to continued exchanges with you. Based upon the depth of your
previous communications, I anticipate that you are not going to be satisfied
with a superficial knowledge of the Cause and, therefore, that you will
not be satisfied with arguments of your own or of others that are not backed
up with textual knowledge. The Faith of Baha'u'llah truly needs believers
who manifest such characteristics.
I thank you, too, for acknowledging what you perceive as my more deepened
view of the Will and Testament, but I'm afraid that what I know regarding
the Will is only the result of having wondered about it for almost forty
years. As you know, in one of my earlier posts I introduced Shoghi Effendi's
statement of March 25, 1930, pertaining to the need for "at least a
century of actual working before the treasures of wisdom hidden in it can
be revealed," and I want to come to some knowledge of what those treasures
are. As a consequence, I don't want anything that has been revealed in the
Will by the Master (and by extension, Baha'u'llah) to come to naught.
You asked in your most recent post if I couldn't "grant that they [meaning
those who are Haifa Baha'is] are actually following the W&T as best
they can". In response, let me give you a bit of my background. I became
a Baha'i in April of 1959 and shortly thereafter married a Baha'i girl whose
mother had been a Baha'i since 1928. When I made my declaration to the local
spiritual assembly, I had but a cursory knowledge of the Will and Testament,
for at that time people who were being taught the Faith were not exposed
to the entire Will. Instead, we were taught from excerpt versions of the
Will. Nevertheless, I knew enough from my reading that the Will called for
a Guardian as the Center of the Cause, and when I declared I asked the LSA
members how I was supposed to rationalize the absence of the Guardian. I
was told that it was a matter that I would have to take on faith, and I
made my declaration on that basis.
One year later Mason Remey made his proclamation, and because during that
year my mother-in-law had insisted that I know the entire Will and had gone
through the entire document with me, word by word and line by line, our
entire family accepted his Guardianship on the basis of our understanding
of the Will. Imagine my shock, then, when all those other Baha'is condemned
my family and me without giving any consideration whatsoever to why we had
made the choice we did. Thus, within just a couple of months of our acceptance
of Mason Remey's Guardianship, we resigned as members of the Haifa organization
and, following our resignations, were accused of carrying on "covenant-breaking
activities."
Chess, I wasn't a Baha'i in 1957 when Shoghi Effendi died, and when I became
a Baha'i I certainly did not know anything about the International Baha'i
Council, for in 1959 the ones who were in control of the Faith were Shoghi
Effendi's appointed Hands. I really came to a full awareness regarding the
IBC subsequent to Mason Remey's proclamation, and I found that Shoghi Effendi's
January 9, 1951, proclamation of the establishment of the IBC to be an absolutely
stunning one. When I reflected on the manner in which Shoghi Effendi trumpeted
the Council's formation, identifying it as "potentially unsurpassed
by any enterprise undertaken since the inception of the Administrative Order
of the Faith on the morrow of 'Abdu'l-Baha's Ascension, ranking second only
to the glorious immortal events associated with the Ministries of the Three
Central Figures of the Faith...," I realized that on the death of Shoghi
Effendi the institution that everyone should have turned to was not the
institution of the Hands but, instead, the International Baha'i Council.
The appointment of the Hands by Shoghi Effendi came in December of 1951,
nearly a year after the formation of the Council, and Shoghi Effendi said
that that step "paralleled the preliminary measure of the formation
of the International Council, destined to culminate in the emergence of
the Universal House of Justice."
So, upon Shoghi Effendi's death in 1957, even if there were no consideration
whatsoever given to the issue of the Guardian's successor, the institution
that the Baha'i world should have turned to was the International Baha'i
Council. That Council should have been the focus, not the institution of
the Hands. But from the outset the Council was ignored. In her November
5, 1957, announcement in a cablegram of the Guardian's death, Ruhiyyih Khanum,
the Guardian's widow, wrote: "Urge believers remain steadfast, cling
institution Hands lovingly reared, recently reinforced, emphasized by beloved
Guardian." And in the United States a day later, the NSA informed the
friends that "The Hands of the Cause will meet in Haifa shortly thereafter
[following the funeral of Shoghi Effendi on November 9] after which announcement
will be made to the Baha'i World concerning the future direction of the
Faith."
I can grant, Chess, that because of the direction that was taken by the
Haifa organization back in 1957, and which that organization's members found
impossible to modify in 1960, that "they actually are following the
W&T as best they can." But I don't think it's good enough.
Sincerely,
Frank Schlatter
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai
Subject: Re: Is the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha Passe'?
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 20:17:07 GMT
Richard Schaut stated:
> The issue doesn't hinge on technicalities, and the problem with getting
very
> deeply involved in a discussion of any technical issues is that it
obscures
> the salient facts, facts which are not in dispute, upon which the issue
of
> any successor to Shoghi Effendi must hinge. These salient facts are:
1) that
> Shoghi Effendi passed away without issue; 2) that Shoghi Effendi never
> explicitly appointed a successor; and 3) that Shoghi Effendi never
sought the
> assent of the Hands of the Cause regarding any appointment he is alleged
to
> have made.
I agree that Richard's three numbered items are statements of fact.
I disagree with Richard's view that "In light of this, there really
are only two possibilities." There actually is at least a third, which
is that the divine guidance that Baha'is have felt to be promised the Baha'i
Faith actually is not there, and thus the administrative order will simply
end up being a man-made product.
I also disagree with Richard's position that if Shoghi Effendi appointed
a successor and subsequently "failed to implement the provision [of
the Will] regarding the assent of the Hands of the Cause," that such
a failure on Shoghi Effendi's part would "constitute a violation of
the provisions of the Master's Will and Testament." The reason why
I think that Richard is wrong is that the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha does not
make it incumbent upon the Guardian of the Cause of God to appoint Hands.
Granted, the Will establishes that it is the Guardian who is the one responsible
for appointing whatever Hands there are, but the Will doesn't say that Hands
must be appointed. Because of the other provisions within the Will, I think
most people assume that 'Abdu'l-Baha made it mandatory for the Guardian
to appoint Hands. After all, there are designated responsibilities for the
Hands, most important of which, I think, is their responsibility to "diffuse
the sweet savors of God..."
But note what the Will says: "O friends! The Hands of the Cause of
God must be nominated and appointed by the guardian of the Cause of God."
To be sure, when there is a sufficient number of Hands of the Cause available,
one of their important duties is that they "must elect from their own
number nine persons that shall at all times be occupied in the important
services in the work of the guardian of the Cause of God." However,
during the lifetime of Shoghi Effendi, when there were enough Hands to have
such an election, that election was not held. In point of fact, it also
wasn't held after Shoghi Effendi's death. It is the elected body of nine
Hands that is charged with the responsibility of assenting to the choice
of the Guardian's successor. If, then, there was a violation of the Master's
Will, it would appear that the Hands were at fault for not having such an
election and seeing to it that those nine persons were "at all times...occupied
in the important services in the work of the guardian..." After all,
the Will is explicit in this matter:
"The Hands of the Cause of God must elect from their own number nine
persons that shall at all times be occupied in the important services in
the work of the guardian of the Cause of God."
Why didn't THAT election take place? Is the fact that it didn't take place
sufficient cause to set aside a host of other provisions in the Will and
Testament? For a moment, completely put aside the history of the Faith from
1957 to 1998 , and set up the following hypothetical situation. Consider
that the Guardian of the Faith makes the choice of his successor and he
announces it to the Baha'i world. Consider that there are a sufficient number
of Hands of the Faith at the time to elect from their own number the nine
who are to assent to the Guardian's choice of his successor. Now throw into
the mix that, for whatever reason, the Hands of the Faith do not hold their
election of the nine Hands. Would that mean that the Guardian's choice of
his successor would be invalidated by this action or non-action of the Hands?
I think Shoghi Effendi answered that question when, in the "Baha'i
News" of Feb. 1955, he said that "The statement in the Will of
'Abdu'l-Baha does not imply that the Hands of the Cause of God have been
given the authority to overrule the Guardian. 'Abdu'l-Baha could not have
provided for a conflict of authority in the Faith. This is obvious..."
Finally, I do want to note that I also disagree with the position espoused
by Richard when he says: "As for the disposition of the Huquq'u'llah,
that's provided for in the Kitab-i Aqdas itself." The Kitab-i-Aqdas
does not explicitly identify the recipient of the Huquq. The identity of
the one to receive the Huquq is in the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha;
the Huquq is to be "offered through the guardian of the Cause of God."
Those who interpret the passage in the Kitab-i-Aqdas that refers to the
"endowments dedicated to charity" apparently believe that those
endowments are the same thing as the Huquq. Through that interpretation
they have sought to make it possible for the Haifa UHJ to administer the
Huquq, just as they have interpreted that passage of Baha'u'llah's to be
"One of the most striking passages which envisage the possibility of...a
break in the line of Guardians." Neither conclusion can be looked upon
as explicitly provided by the Aqdas. The interpretations to arrive at such
conclusions were not made by either 'Abdu'l Baha or Shoghi Effendi, and
I believe that those interpretations are wrong.
Sincerely,
Frank Schlatter
First, Chess, just a small clarification: It was not Mason Remey who said
that Shoghi Effendi made the appointment of him as the second Guardian in
the manner that he did because Shoghi Effendi was aware that he would die
in the near future. In one of his encyclical letters, written after his
proclamation, Mason Remey wrote: "Now _why_ Shoghi Effendi made my
appointment of Guardianship in the particular way in which he did, I do
not know."
It has been those of us who followed Mason Remey who looked for explanations
for the appointment to be made in the way it was. It is we who have come
up with such justifications as have been offered.
Your position, Chess, is that such an appointment "would require a
gross lack of foresight on the part of the guardian...and I can't attribute
that to him. For him not to have perceived this 'end result' wherein almost
six million Baha'is worldwide have 'gone astray' because of his method of
'declaring a successor without declaring a successor' is simply incomprehensible
to me, whatever the reasoning behind it."
I would stipulate that the whole matter is unreasonable.
And yet-- Are you familiar with the Battle of Badr in the second year of
the Hegira? It's my understanding that a mere 300+ men under Muhammad, mostly
unarmed, fought against a well-armed Meccan army, a force that included
experienced warriors and who numbered over a thousand, and defeated them.
That certainly was unreasonable, too. Or take the case of Gideon in the
Bible. That, also, was unreasonable. In like manner, in the annals of the
Babi Faith we have the example of the defenders of Shaykh Tabarsi, who,
at the outset, numbered some 300 Babis untrained in the art of war who remained
undefeated, even though regiment after regiment of soldiers were dispatched
to conquer them. The opposers were only able to bring about their surrender
after ignominiously making an oath on the Qu'ran to permit them safe passage
and then slaughtering them when they came out of the fort.
Perhaps it would be well to remember that the Covenant of Baha'u'llah actually
is not dependent upon the Baha'is. Rather, the success of our efforts to
establish His Administrative Order is dependent upon the power of the Covenant.
And that is probably unreasonable, too.
Indeed, so much that is related to the dispensations of the Prophets of
God simply has to be looked upon as unreasonable. It's unreasonable that
Moses could have led His people, it's unreasonable that the Christian faith
would have spread in the manner that it did, it's unreasonable that Muhammad's
influence in the world would be what it is today. Thus, it shouldn't be
any great shock to experience the unreasonable-ness of God's testing his
servants within the Baha'i Cause to insure that they abide within the Covenant.
But it is unreasonable.
The Bab affirmed: "Should it be Our wish, it is in Our power to compel,
through the agency of but one letter of Our Revelation, the world and all
that is therein to recognize, in less than the twinkling of an eye, the
truth of Our Cause." Now, Chess, DON'T ask me why that didn't happen!
:-)
Obviously, Chess, the reason why people like me are Orthodox Baha'is is
because we have the perverse notion that the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha
is sacrosanct and that, unreasonable or not, somebody needs to abide by
that Document, no matter what.
Sincerely,
Frank Schlatter
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai
Subject: Re: Is the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha Passe'?
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 16:51:07 GMT
Richard Schaut wrote:
> Is the Master's Will and Testament Passe'? Only if we do precisely
what Mr.
> Schlatter has done.
I get the impression, Richard, that your dictionary has a different definition
for the word "passe'" than mine. My dictionary says that the word
means "past, past its usefulness; out-of-date." What is it that
I have done to make the Will passe'? Throughout this thread my recommendation
has been for the Haifa UHJ to declare the Will to be passe' because insofar
as the organization for which it is the authority is concerned the Will
is no longer useful. Truly, any organization that calls itself Baha'i and
which is minus a living Guardian cannot consider the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha
to be a current document. So, clearly, for that organization the Will is
passe'.
You have indicated, Richard, that I have introduced issues that are "irrelevant
to the fundamental question." What do you see as the fundamental question,
and what issues have I introduced that are unrelated to it?
You have also indicated, Richard, that my logic is flawed, saying that I
have begged the question. In my introductory post to this thread I identified
10 statements from the Will and Testament that the Haifa organization can
no longer see as operational. On the basis of those statements, I have suggested
that the Haifa UHJ should openly declare the Will of 'Abdul'-Baha to be
passe'. My contention has been that such an action by the Haifa UHJ would
mean that the members of that organization would no longer be distracted
by the provisions of the Master's Will and they can therefore proceed to
make whatever adjustments they feel necessary to develop their administrative
order. What is so illogical about that?
I might point out also that your most recent post appears to be predicated
on the assumption that the acceptance by Orthodox Baha'is of Mason Remey's
Guardianship came prior to an exploration into the Writings themselves.
I did not say that we accepted Mason Remey's Guardianship before studying
the Sacred Text. We accepted his Guardianship on the basis of having studied
the writings of the Faith. I know for a fact that to accept his Guardianship
makes as much sense as to accept the takeover by the Hands of the Faith
on the basis of a single reference to them by Shoghi Effendi as the "Chief
Stewards of Baha'u'llah's embryonic World Commonwealth". The explanations
that we have developed in discussing why Shoghi Effendi made his appointment
of Mason Remey in the way that he did came after--not before--our acceptance
of his Guardianship.
Finally, you have made reference to my creative interpretations of a number
of the provisions of 'Abdu'l-Baha's Will, for which you provide no supporting
documentation; and, in all fairness, you should provide some specifics to
support that view, even though you went on to say that it "is not the
logical fallacies themselves" that have placed me outside Baha'u'llah's
Covenant. Rather, you say, I am a covenant-breaker because of my support
of an illegitimate claim to leadership within the Baha'i Faith. Richard,
can you provide supporting documentation from the writings of the Faith
to show how the take-over by the Hands in 1957 made them the legitimate
authority of the Faith? And bearing in mind that 'Abdu'l-Baha was Baha'u'llah's
authorized Interpreter, can you establish unequivocally that a Universal
House of Justice that is minus its "sacred head" should be identified
as the Faith's legitimate authority? If you can do that, perhaps I--and
anyone else who is reading this thread--will see the error of my ways.
I look forward to studying your documentation.
Sincerely,
Frank Schlatter
From: frankschlatter@my-dejanews.com
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai
Subject: Re: Is the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha Passe'?
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 16:58:09 GMT
In article <19981103144558.06765.00003377@ng137.aol.com>,
laaeterna@aol.com (LaAeterna) wrote:
> I think this is what happened with both the Remey followers and those
who set
> up the Universal House without the Guardian. Neither can find explicit
textual
> refeences allowing their function as they stand now. So---perhaps finger
> pointing and labeling are inappropriate responses on either side.
> nancy
So, Nancy, what's your solution? Do you have an alternative in mind to the
current situation? Granted that Baha'is shouldn't be finger pointing and
labeling at this time. What do you think Baha'is SHOULD be doing today?
(What are you doing?)
Sincerely,
Frank Schlatter
From: frankschlatter@my-dejanews.com
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai
Subject: Re: Is the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha Passe'?
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 16:06:41 GMT
It has been my experience over the course of a goodly number of years that
a member of the Haifa organization will either attempt to pass off a number
of judgments and inferences as proof, resort to name-calling, or back away
from further discussion when he or she is asked to provide supporting documentation
that would unequivocally establish the legitimacy of the actions of the
Hands of the Faith when, following the death of Shoghi Effendi, they assumed
control of the Cause and subsequently established their sans-Guardian UHJ.
I do hope that such will not be the case in the current thread "Is
the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha passe'?", because I would really like to see
whether anyone in the Haifa organization can provide something more than
a series of assumptions and unauthorized interpretations to justify that
which was done by the Hands when they proclaimed themselves the authorities
for their administrative order.
Haifa Baha'is are quick to accuse Orthodox Baha'is of using flawed logic
when we point to Shoghi Effendi's proclamation of January 9, 1951, establishing
the embryonic Universal House of Justice and extolling that action in the
most laudatory of terms, and then our postulating that the succession of
the Faith stemmed from that action by the first Guardian. In a similar vein,
Orthodox Baha'is question how the Haifa Baha'is can maintain with assuredness
that their reasoning is sound. We who believe that the institution of the
Guardianship requires a living Guardian have maintained that, at the very
least, following the first Guardian's passing, the institution of the Faith
that should have been looked to by all Baha'is was the International Baha'i
Council--not the Hands of the Faith. After all, as the embryonic Universal
House of Justice, the International Council would take precedence over those
who, according to the Will and Testament, are to work under the direction
of the Guardian of the Cause. Insofar as I can determine, the Will of the
Master does not place the Hands of the Faith on the same level as the UHJ.
Unfortunately, though, from the very first announcement of Shoghi Effendi's
death by Ruhiyyih Khanum, the International Council was ignored and the
institution of the Hands was highlighted. You will recall that in an earlier
posting I pointed out that Ruhiyyih Khanum's cablegram of November 5, 1957,
said: "Urge believers remain steadfast, cling institution Hands lovingly
reared, recently reinforced, emphasized by beloved Guardian." Clearly,
Ruhiyyih Khanum did not see the Council to be as important as the Hands,
and apparently most NSA's also viewed the Hands as the ones who should be
in control of the Faith. Otherwise, the members of the 26 NSA's at the time
would not have passed resolutions that gave their support to the Hands.
It was, of course, on this basis alone that the Hands could say that they
had the legal authority to do what they did, for neither the interpretations
and instructions of the first Guardian nor the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha
provides for the exercise of such authority by the Hands.
So, when the situation is looked at logically, what was put into place was
something other than what the writings have called for, and Shoghi Effendi's
constitution of the International Baha'i Council was by-passed for a new
line of authority.
Aside from the NSA's giving the Hands this authority, what statements in
the writings were the Hands able to employ to justify their new position?
Didn't they seize upon Shoghi Effendi's having characterized them as "the
Chief Stewards of Baha'u'llah's embryonic World Commonwealth"? And
didn't they maintain that they found further support for their position
in Shoghi Effendi's reference in a 4 June 1957 statement to their twin functions
of protecting and propagating the Faith of Baha'u'llah? Never mind that
those functions of the Hands were already established in the Will and Testament.
Indeed, those functions weren't something that Shoghi Effendi dreamed up.
The Will says "that the Hands of the Cause of God must be ever watchful
and so soon as they find anyone beginning to oppose and protest against
the guardian of the Cause of God cast him out from the congregation of the
people of Baha." And, of course, it indicates that "The obligations
of the Hands of the Cause of God are to diffuse the Divine Fragrances..."
So the protection and propagation functions of the Hands cannot be looked
upon as adequate justification for their takeover. 'Abdu'l-Baha's Will simply
does not provide for such an interpretation.
Upon what authority, then, did the Hands assume control? The answer is a
simple one. They did it on their own recognizance and with the blessing
of the NSA's. They certainly did not do it on the basis of the Will and
Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha because, for them, the Will and Testament was
no longer a viable instrument to guide their administrative order. No, as
the Department for the Secretariat of the Haifa UHJ stated in a 4 June 1997
letter, "the Hands of the Cause concluded that, among all the then
existing institutions of the Faith, it was upon them, as Chief Stewards,
that the responsibility for directing the affairs of the Cause rested pending
the election of the Universal House of Justice."
So I ask once more: Can any Haifa Baha'i provide sufficient documentation
to establish conclusively that the Hands had the authority of the writings
of the Faith to do what they did when they assumed control of the Faith?
Does the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha--the "Charter of the New
World Order"--provide an irrefutable basis for the formation of a Universal
House of Justice that is minus its "sacred head"?
Sincerely,
Frank Schlatter
From: frankschlatter@my-dejanews.com
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai
Subject: Re: Is the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha Passe'?
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 21:25:59 GMT
Richard McKinley has stated that my reference to the International Baha'i
Council "is something of a red herring across the trail." I disagree.
The reference to the International Council is not a means of drawing attention
from the real issue. The issue at hand is whether the Will and Testament
for the Haifa organization is passe'. If, therefore, the International
Baha'i Council was identified by Shoghi Effendi as the embryonic Universal
House of Justice, and if, as Shoghi Effendi has said, the institutions of
the Guardianship and of the Universal House of Justice are the "two
fundamental organs of the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha" (p. 147 of "The
World Order of Baha'u'llah"), then the reference to the International
Council is definitely germane.
Clearly, the obsolescence of the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha for
the vast majority of Baha'is came when they accepted the Hands of the Faith
as their chief authority in the Cause, for once they gave the Hands the
right to act as their collective Guardian, they found it impossible to see
that the embryonic Universal House of Justice was already conceived and
in place as an organism that awaited the next stage in its evolution. (As
you know, the next stage for the Council, as set forth by Shoghi Effendi,
was one of the goals of the ten year crusade: its evolution into a Baha'i
Court in the Holy Land--a stage which the Hands by-passed.)
Richard, you have said that Shoghi Effendi extolled the Hands "as the
Faith's highest ranking officers after the Guardian and the House of Justice."
I'm not sure I have ever seen where Shoghi Effendi called the Hands "officers."
Chief Stewards--or chief servants--yes, but not officers. In a letter written
on his behalf in 1957, Shoghi Effendi said that "the Rank and Position
of the Hands of the Cause are superior to the position of the National Assemblies,"
and my tattered copy of "Messages to the Baha'i World" tells
me that, in a cablegram of February 29, 1952, he did refer to their "direction
of institutions paralleling those revolving around the Universal House of
Justice," so, perhaps, that is where you got the concept of officers.
Or do you have one or more specific instances where Shoghi Effendi identified
the Hands as the "highest ranking officers"?
I do believe, Richard, that your aside regarding Shoghi Effendi's formation
of the International Baha'i Council in January of 1951--"in a cablegram,
not a proclamation"--is a means of denying the importance of what the
first Guardian wrote. If that should be the case, I believe you will also
need to recognize that any number of the Guardian's references to the Hands
were also in cablegrams (most of the appointments of the Hands, for instance,
came through cablegrams). So maybe the Hands were not so important either.
I would note, though, that the word "Proclaim" is the first word
of the Guardian's message of January 9, 1951, establishing the International
Baha'i Council. Was that word used with regard to the appointment of the
Hands? If so, I don't see it in the writings that I have.
No, Richard, my reference to the International Baha'i Council was not--is
not--a red herring.
Naturally, at this time there is no way to know what would have happened
if, in 1957, all the Baha'is had had their attention directed to the International
Baha'i Council instead of to the institution of the Hands. So, Richard,
your questions about what the Council would have done differently, or what
Mason Remey would have done differently are obviously moot. We will never
get the answers to those questions in this world.
In addition, none of us can say what Shoghi Effendi had in mind by having
extolled the International Baha'i Council in the manner he did and then
maintained it in an inactive state. Nor can we know why he himself did
not identify himself as that body's president, unless he had something else
in mind when he brought that embryonic institution into being.
Finally, Richard, I am not going to accuse you of name-calling. You certainly
were not guilty of that, for which I thank you. I do believe, though, that
you have provided a number of judgments and inferences to support the position
you have espoused. I am particularly interested, for instance, in your
providing some specifics regarding what you described as "a challenge
and test that flies in the face of the teachings of Baha'u'llah, 'Abdu'l-Baha
and the explanations of Shoghi Effendi."
Would you please identify at least some of the teachings and explanations
that you make reference to here? I would further request that you emphasize
the teachings of 'Abdu'l-Baha and the explanations of Shoghi Effendi because
it is the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha which is the true focus--the Document that,
as the first Guardian has stated, "confirms, supplements, and correlates
the provisions of the Aqdas." So the emphasis should be on what the
authorized Interpreters have provided us inasmuch as Shoghi Effendi told
us "the system of Baha'i administration derives its authority from
the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha, is specifically prescribed in unnumbered
Tablets, and rests in some of its essential features upon the explicit provisions
of the Kitab-i- Aqdas." (WOB, p. 5)
Certainly, references may be made to what was specifically prescribed and
what was explicitly provided for by Baha'u'llah; but for the rest, it is
the statements of 'Abdu'l-Baha and the explanations of Shoghi Effendi that
should be the focus. After all, as Shoghi Effendi stated, "By leaving
certain matters unspecified and unregulated in His Book of Laws, Baha'u'llah
seems to have deliberately left a gap in the general scheme of Baha'i Dispensation,
which the unequivocal provisions of the Master's Will has filled."
(WOB, p. 4)
Therefore, please bear in mind, if you will, that it is my contention that
a number of those "unequivocal provisions of the Master's Will"
are no longer operational for the Haifa organization, and that is why I
have recommended that, insofar as your organization is concerned, the authority
for your administrative order should declare the Will as passe'.
Sincerely,
Frank Schlatter
From: frankschlatter@my-dejanews.com
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai
Subject: Re: Is the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha Passe'?
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 03:40:40 GMT
If the subject for the thread "Is the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha passe'?"
were written in the form of a debate question, it might read as follows:
"Resolved that the Haifa Universal House of Justice should declare
the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha as no longer operational for its
followers."
And if the pro and con arguments that have appeared thus far in this thread
were analyzed carefully, the arguments in favor of such a resolution are
clearly more compelling by far than those that oppose the idea. To show
what I mean, let's review some of the arguments that the members of the
Haifa side have either allowed to stand without rebuttal, or in making their
arguments they resorted to inferences and judgments and thus failed to provide
supporting documentation for their views.
(1) My very first posting alone contained ten statements from the Will and
Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha about which I said the followers of the Haifa
organization no longer need to be concerned, since those provisions are
no longer operational for the Haifa body. Naturally, most of the statements
pertain to the role of the Guardian of the Faith; i.e., the need for obedience
to the Guardian, the provision that the Guardian must appoint his successor
in his own life-time; the need for the Hands to elect nine who would serve
the Guardian directly; the provision that the Guardian is to nominate and
appoint Hands, who are to be under his direction; and, of course, the identification
of the Guardian as the "sacred head and the distinguished member for
life" of the UHJ. In addition, I included the statement in the Will
that the UHJ is to enact laws that are not a part of the Divine Explicit
Text, and it is clear that the Haifa UHJ can no longer claim to be in accord
with that provision inasmuch as the Haifa UHJ has changed what is within
the Will and Testament itself. (Shoghi Effendi said that the Will and the
Aqdas are "inseparable parts of one complete unit"; hence neither
can be changed by the Universal House of Justice.) No one has taken issue
with the view that those 10 statements are no longer viable for the Haifa
organization.
(2) To date, no one from the Haifa organization's perspective has countered
the view that 'Abdu'l- Baha emphasized the importance of the spiritual family
over the physical family, a position that I supported by what He said in
His last Tablet to America. In addition, those who maintain that the word
"branch" in 'Abdu'l-Baha's Will must mean a blood-line descendant
of Baha'u'llah have made an interpretation of the word "branch"
that does not completely square with what the Research Department of the
Haifa UHJ had to say on the meaning of the words "ghusn" and "Aghsan".
In a memorandum of 12 October 1994 pertaining to an inquiry by an individual
who is not a Haifa Baha'i, the Dept. wrote that "It is clear...that
there could not be any authoritative statement limiting the meaning of these
two words [ghusn and Aghsan] as they are by nature metaphorical."
(3) To date, those from the Haifa organization have not provided statements
from the writings that unequivocally show that the Hands of the Faith had
the right to become a kind of collegial Guardian of the Cause, an interim
authority which the Hands assumed in 1957 after the passing of Shoghi Effendi.
(4) No documents of Shoghi Effendi's have been produced from Haifa Baha'is
that would counteract the first Guardian's statement of November 27, 1954,
that the construction of the International Baha'i Archives "will in
turn herald the construction, in the course of successive epochs of the
Formative Age of the Faith, of several other structures, which will serve
as the administrative seats of such divinely appointed institutions as the
Guardianship, the Hands of the Cause, and the Universal House of Justice."
(5) No Haifa Baha'i has provided documentation to show that the qualifications
for a believer in the Faith as set forth by Shoghi Effendi on October 24,
1925, were changed so that the believer no longer has to give his or her
"loyal and steadfast adherence to every clause of our Beloved's sacred
Will." And yet the actions of the authorities within the Haifa organization
have made it impossible for such adherence to be given. For this reason
alone, then, the Haifa authority should declare the Will passe'.
(6) No Haifa Baha'i has provided documentation to discount what 'Abdu'l-Baha
had to say about the embryo; thus, there has not been a counter-statement
presented from the Writings to irrefutably discount the Orthodox Baha'i
position that the International Baha'i Council, the embryonic Universal
House of Justice, had all its perfections, but they were not immediately
visible.
(7) Insofar as I can tell, no Haifa Baha'is have provided any kind of a
rebuttal to my view that their organization changed the meaning of "covenant-breaking"
subsequent to the passing of Shoghi Effendi. The identification of Covenant-breakers,
according to their organization, now extends beyond 'Abdu'l-Baha's statement
in the Will that the "Hands of the Cause of God must be ever watchful
and so soon as they find anyone beginning to oppose and protest against
the guardian of the Cause of God cast him out from the congregation of the
people of Baha'." Their definition of a "covenant-breaker"
is anyone who goes against the authority in their organization-- the Hands
between 1957 and 1963 and then the Haifa UHJ from then on.
(8) There has been silence on the issue that the Hands of the Faith during
Shoghi Effendi's lifetime did not elect "from their own number nine
persons that shall at all times be occupied in the important services in
the work of the guardian..." and Shoghi Effendi's statement of Feb.
1955 in which the first Guardian said that in His Will, the Master could
not have given the Hands the authority to overrule the Guardian. (That
statement, I believe, would also apply to actions of the Hands after the
death of the first Guardian.)
(9) No one within the Haifa organization seems willing to admit that when
the Haifa UHJ took over the Huquq it found it necessary to INTERPRET a passage
from the Aqdas which it identified as "one of the most striking passages
which envisage the possibility of...a break in the line of Guardians."
The UHJ interpreted "endowments dedicated to charity" to be the
same as the Huquq, and then, because of its interpretation that the terms
"Aghsan" and "Guardians" are somehow synonymous, the
Haifa body took the reference to the House of Justice after the word "Aghsan"
to mean that it had the right to receive the Huquq. But, of course, the
terms "Aghsan" and "Guardian" are not identified by
either 'Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi as synonymous; nor has anyone in the
Haifa organization shown the Interpreters' interpretations on "endowments..."
and the Huquq. At least, no one in the current thread has documented such
interpretations.
(10) Individuals who are followers of the Haifa UHJ imply that the beliefs
of Orthodox Baha'is fly "in the face of the teachings of Baha'u'llah,
'Abdu'l-Baha, and the explanations of Shoghi Effendi," but when asked
to provide some of the teachings and explanations that are counter to those
espoused by Orthodox Baha'is, they do not give specific references from
Baha'u'llah, and especially from the two Interpreters whom they accept:
'Abdu'l-Baha, and Shoghi Effendi.
In conclusion, then: Because the Haifa organization has actually abandoned
some of the unequivocal provisions of the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha,
the authority within that organization should announce to its followers
that it has determined the Will to be passe' and the believers within their
organization no longer obligated to abide by the terms of that Document.
Sincerely,
Frank Schlatter