World Order/Series2/Volume 5/Issue 2/Text
←Issue 1 | World Order, Series 2 Volume 5 - Issue 2 |
Issue 3→ |
Return to PDF view![]() |
World Order
- COLLECTIVE SECURITY-THEN AND NOW
- James Avery Joyce
- THE POLITICS OF FAITH
- A. L. Lincoln
- THE CITIES MEN BUILD
- Robert W. McLaughlin
- A BAHÁ’Í SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM OF POVERTY
- Daniel C. Jordan
World Order
A BAHÁ’Í MAGAZINE • VOLUME 5 NUMBER 2 • PUBLISHED QUARTERLY
WORLD ORDER is intended to stimulate, inspire and serve thinking people in their
search to find relationships between contemporary life and contemporary religious
teachings and philosophy
- Editorial Board:
- FIRUZ KAZEMZADEH
- BETTY FISHER
- HOWARD GAREY
- ROBERT HAYDEN
- GLENFORD E. MITCHELL
- GAYLE MORRISON
- Subscriber Service:
- VIRGINIA FINCH
WORLD ORDER is published quarterly, October, January, April, and July, at 112 Linden Avenue, Wilmette, Illinois 60091. Subscriber and business correspondence should be sent to this address. Manuscripts and other editorial correspondence should be addressed to 2011 Yale Station, New Haven, Connecticut 06520.
The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the publisher, the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States, or of the Editorial Board. Manuscripts should be typewritten and double spaced throughout, with the footnotes at the end. Return postage should be included. The contributor should also keep a carbon copy.
Subscription: Regular mail USA, $3.50; Foreign, $4.00. Single copy, $1.00.
Copyright © 1971, National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States, World Rights Reserved. Printed in the U.S.A.
IN THIS ISSUE
- 1 War—All in All
- Editorial
- 4 Interchange: Letters to and from the Editor
- 7 Collective Security—Then and Now
- by James Avery Joyce
- 13 The Politics of Faith: A New Political Culture
- by A. L. Lincoln
- 32 The Ascents
- a poem by Rowell Hoff
- 36 The Cities Men Build
- by Robert W. McLaughlin
- 41 Guardians of His Trust: A Bahá’í Solution to
- the Problems of Poverty, by Daniel C. Jordan
- 47 Setting the Record Straight
- a book review by Farhang Jahanpur
- 52 Authors and Artists in This Issue
War—All in All
EDITORIAL
THIS IS THE CENTURY of total war. The application of modern science and technology to warfare has enormously increased man’s capacity for self-destruction. The old distinctions between front and rear, soldiers and non-combatants, military and civilian production, have almost entirely disappeared. The economy, politics, education, mores, and even the arts, reflect the threat or the actuality of war.
All human problems are exacerbated by the absence of peace. Resources which ought to be spent on the elimination of poverty are squandered on military hardware and the maintenance of armed forces. Poverty in turn deepens racial animosities, feeds crime, and produces a vast array of other social ills. Universal militarization is undoubtedly responsible to a large degree for increased violence and brutality of contemporary life. Bahá’u’lláh’s prophetic words uttered a hundred years ago have assumed a new significance:
- How long will humanity persist in its waywardness? How long will injustice continue? How long is chaos and confusion to reign amongst men? How long will discord agitate the face of society? The winds of despair are, alas, blowing from every direction, and the strife that divides and afflicts the human race is daily increasing. The signs of impending convulsions and chaos can now be discerned, inasmuch as the prevailing order appears to he lamentably defective.
Commenting on this and other texts, Shoghi Effendi in 1931 provided an insight into the nature of the world’s crisis and pointed out the sovereign remedy:
- Humanity, whether viewed in the light of man’s individual conduct or in existing relationships between organized communities and nations, has, alas, strayed too far and suffered too great a decline to be redeemed through the unaided efforts of the best among its recognized rulers and statesmen—however disinterested their motives, however concerted their action, however unsparing in their zeal and devotion to its cause. No scheme which the calculations of the highest statesmanship may yet devise; no doctrine which the most distinguished exponents of economic theory may hope to [Page 2]
advance; no principle which the most ardent of moralists may strive to inculcate, can provide, in the last resort, adequate foundations upon which the future of a distracted world can be built.
- No appeal for mutual tolerance . . . can calm its passions or help restore its vigor. Nor would any general scheme of mere organized international cooperation . . . succeed in removing the root cause of the evil that has so rudely upset the equilibrium of present-day society. Not even . . . would the very act of devising the machinery required for the political and economic unification of the world—a principle that has been increasingly advocated in recent times—provide in itself the antidote against the poison that is steadily undermining the vigor of organized peoples and nations.
- What else, might we not confidently affirm, but the unreserved acceptance of the Divine Program enunciated with such simplicity and force . . . by Bahá’u’lláh, embodying in its essentials God’s divinely appointed scheme for the unification of mankind in this age, coupled with an indomitable conviction in the unfailing efficacy of each and all of its provisions, is eventually capable of withstanding the forces of internal disintegration which, if unchecked, must needs continue to eat into the vitals of a despairing society. It is towards this goal—the goal of a new World Order, Divine in origin, all-embracing in scape, equitable in principle, challenging in its features—that a harassed humanity must strive.
Interchange LETTERS FROM AND TO THE EDITOR
THIS ISSUE of WORLD ORDER presents a variety of perspectives on some critical concerns of our time—war and peace, political organization, poverty, and urbanization. Much has already been written about these problems; they have been examined at length from many points of view. Nevertheless, we feel that this collection of articles has much to offer. Although words, no matter how brilliant and perceptive and appropriate, often seem to be futile, they are not—as long as they retain their power to motivate even a small segment of mankind to decisive action.
The articles by Daniel Jordan, A. L. Lincoln, and Robert McLaughlin are of special interest because the authors bring to bear, in addition to their professional competence, their perceptions as Bahá’ís. Marxism and other ideologies which emerged in the nineteenth century have had eloquent spokesmen, while the Bahá’í world view has remained relatively unknown. Indeed many educated people have gained their knowledge of the Bahá’í Faith entirely from the writings of one man, Edward G. Browne, the subject of a new biography which is reviewed in this issue. It is appropriate at this time, when the Bahá’í Faith is growing rapidly in many parts of the world, that an increasing number of Bahá’í writers are working to dispel the obscurity which it has suffered. Moreover, in a climate of ferment, it is impossible for any movement which addresses itself to the current situation to remain unknown.
One of Browne’s major criticisms of the Bahá’í position was that its internationalism prevented specific involvement in the affairs of Persia, its homeland. Now, decades later, it is apparent to more and more people that mankind’s problems cannot be dealt with in a nationalist context. Despite genuine national allegiances, despite all those who have suffered or died for their countries, the issues simply cannot be confined within arbitrary lines on a map. Poverty, racism, imperialism and totalitarianism, uncontrolled technology, the unequal status of women, all of the conditions which degrade life are world problems—outgrowths of the desperate need for mankind, including its humblest, most “insignificant” members, to achieve the fullness of human rights.
In “Collective Security—Then and Now” James Avery Joyce, a distinguished student of international relations, attacks this anachronism—in an era of world war, peace cannot be maintained through “collective security” among sovereign nations. Although our Bahá’í readers will find that they differ from some of Mr. Joyce’s conclusions, the areas of agreement are central—and his controversial perspectives are certainly worthy of consideration regardless of one’s personal conceptions about the achievement of world order.
* * * * *
A brief note on poverty, the subject of
Dan Jordan’s “Guardians of His Trust.”
[Page 5] One of the contradictions of the work
ethic in the United States is that the
functioning of our economy necessitates a
small percentage of unemployment. The
argument that people on welfare simply
ought to go out and get jobs sounds
particularly hollow when one reads in the
newspaper that the economy is improving
—unemployment is up several points.
Furthermore, even when work is available,
acute poverty is not necessarily
avoided. We hear a good deal about
underemployment and perhaps think this
means no one wants to accept jobs as
janitors, dishwashers, or sanitary workers.
In fact underemployment has much less to
do with the kind of work than with the
livability of the income. A little arithmetic
helps to emphasize this point. A man or
woman working full-time at the legal
minimum wage—$1.6O an hour—makes
only $3,328, i.e. $225 less than the figure
established by the Social Security Administration
as the subsistence income for a
family of four (hardly a liberal allowance,
at that). Bahá’u’lláh’s dictum that there
should be no idle rich and no idle poor
means that the organization of the economy
and the traditional conceptions of
work will have to be revolutionized before
human rights can be attained by all strata
of society.
* * * * *
To The Editor
LETTER TO MY FRIEND
The point raised by Ruth Perrin in her letter which you published in the summer issue of WORLD ORDER is an interesting one. As Bahá’ís we should seek to be conciliatory with people of other persuasions and like ‘Abdu’l-Bahá draw them out by stressing the good points in their position. However I have not understood from this that we should be mealy-mouthed or completely neutral in all issues. The remark in “Letter to My Friends” [Winter 1969-70] to which Ruth Perrin refers was critical of the atheistic posture but this certainly did not imply disrespect for persons who have this viewpoint, nor did it preclude sympathy for the atheist’s reaction against manmade religious superstitions, and least of all did it imply an unwillingness to discuss the issue in an atmosphere of love and goodwill. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá Himself was very direct on this question (see “Tablet to Dr. Forel,” p. 229 of The Bahá’í Revelation).
As for the use of the word “arrogant” in the letter which I gather is the core of the issue, I had two points in mind at the time of writing. First it seemed to me that atheism is an assertion unsupported by evidence. In view of the nature of the subject that seems to me to be arrogance. It might be objected that the same is true of the man who believes in God. Quite apart from the question of evidence at least he is down on his knees in humility before a Supreme Being. Secondly, atheism inevitably has as a corollary the concept that man is master of the world—if not the universe. This is both arrogant and dangerous. For all the evil that has been committed by man in the name of religion, I do not believe any “advanced” society with religious constraints has ever equalled the horrors perpetrated by the atheistic Nazi regime between 1933 and 1945. This I am convinced was not by chance.
- JOHN HUDDLESTON
- McLean, Virginia
Collective Security—Then and Now
By JAMES AVERY JOYCE
AS 1970 MARKS the 25th anniversary year of the United Nations and also the 50th anniversary of the League of Nations (which held its first Assembly in 1920), a political scientist who recalls the last tragic years of the League in Geneva and who has attended most of the U.N. General Assemblies in New York might be allowed some personal reflections on a common factor which has run through both experiences, namely, “collective security”—how collective and how secure has it been; has it an existence; has it a future?
As a starting point for these reflections I blow off the thirty years’ accumulation of dust from a remarkable little book written by a certain Mrs. H. M. Swanwick, which was not too widely noticed at the time, entitled Collective Insecurity, published by Jonathan Cape (London) in 1937. Formerly editor of the British journal Foreign Affairs, Mrs. Swanwick was no insignificant personality in her time. She had been a member of the British Government delegation to the Fifth and Tenth Assemblies of the League of Nations and was created a Companion of Honour for her public work.
Although a contemporary record, her book carried an interpretation of those turbulent inter-war years which shatters the concept of “collective security.” She held that the League had an essential work of peacemaking to perform, but she insisted that it was a fundamental error in world constitution-making to attempt to bind sovereign states to impose on other states military sanctions which might at any time draw them into a League war.
The 1930’s had been marked by a double race among the nations of Europe: a race for “security” and an arms race away from it. Mrs. Swanwick saw that this double race was its own contradiction: armaments and “security” were incompatible and self-canceling. Her book, Collective Insecurity, was her rationale against a world order which rested on armaments—collective or otherwise. Wars could never be stopped by making them “collective.” Mrs. Swanwick has gone; the League has gone. But the United Nations, a quarter of a century later, is indeed with us. Yet the same problem remains: can world order be based on collective security—on collective arms? Can, with hindsight, anything be learned from the mirror that Mrs. Swanwick held up to the League during her lifetime?
The first thing that we notice about this almost forgotten book is that, although Mrs. Swanwick was a “peacenik” herself, her strongest criticisms were directed against her fellow “peaceniks.” Why was this? Let her speak for herself. She says: “If a machine breaks down, the only sensible course is to inquire the cause of the breakdown. We must not, like savages, beat the machine. We must ask: was it adapted to the work it was expected to do? In the case of a new, even revolutionary institution like the League, can we think that the men who undertook to cooperate in it were themselves revolutionary enough to make it a success?”
To be specific, was it wise, she asked, when
constructing an organization “to promote
international peace and security” to attempt
to arm that organization with coercive and
destructive force, before it had been armed
with ordinary goodwill? Her grievance was
thus directed against the basic assumption of
the League—backed as it was by her own
close friends in the League of Nations Union
—namely that military sanctions could keep
[Page 8] the peace. The League of Nations Union
(L.N.U.) was the national organization that,
however reluctantly at times, advocated collective
war-making operations to stop “aggressors”
when all the other mediatory provisions
of the League Covenant had failed.
There can be no doubt that this was the
essence of League policy, though the League
had many other important jobs to do and did
them with varying degrees of success. Nor is
there any doubt that it was the sanctions
requirement of the League which kept the
United States out of it. In any case, in twenty
years sanctions never got off the drawing
board.
Mrs. Swanwick declared quite bluntly: “Between sovereign states, sanctions can never work.” In taking this line, she was going against the trends of the organized peace movement itself in Britain. The 1930’s had built a broad-based organization in the L.N.U., as one of the most representative voluntary policy-shaping bodies in Britain. The L.N.U. had, moreover, focused public opinion on this central issue by initiating in 1935 a National Peace Ballot, in which a considerable range of other voluntary bodies cooperated. Some eleven and a half million citizens eventually voted in this nationwide popular plebiscite in general support of the League of Nations—a unique and magnificent effort in itself. Of this total nearly seven million voted in favor of military sanctions, the specific question being:
- “Do you consider that, if a nation insists on attacking another, the other nations should combine to compel it to stop by, if necessary, military measures?”
Two and a half million voters abstained on this issue. (Incidentally, there was a separate Christian Pacifist vote also recorded on this particular question which came to a bare seventeen thousand, out of the overall eleven and a half million votes.) So the L.N.U. had done its work well.
In building her case against collective military action, Mrs. Swanwick pointed out that the “good” (i.e., peace loving) members of the League were never in a moral (or even legal!) position to punish the “bad” members. For example, it was necessary, she said, “to take into account the French view, which was that the only way to secure France was to hold Germany down forcibly for ever and ever. There were a good many Frenchmen who doubted whether this was a feasible policy; there must have been few indeed who reflected that with the passage of time, as Germany was treated, so she would re-act.” France’s occupation of the Ruhr was inevitably followed by Hitler’s occupation of the Rhineland—both were a breach of the Versailles Treaty. We need well pause at this point to reflect that the containment of Germany by France was unsuccessful then as the containment of China by the United States has proved to be in our own time.
Mrs. Swanwick insisted that France never had any confidence in the security provided by the League Covenant, nor the least appreciation of the fact that it was her treatment of Germany, more than anything else, which menaced her own security. “Security—in France’s opinion—and a very tenacious opinion it has been—could be attained only by the possession of preponderant military force, available at short notice. Germany was still the only Power to be feared, and France was determined to run no risk of her ever becoming preponderant again.” This may be forgotten history to this generation; but not a word need be changed today, except to substitute U.S.A. for France and Soviet Russia for Germany. This abject reliance on a predominant military force outside the U.N. rather than within it, will be the subject of the second part of this discussion. for “collective security” is still the official mythology of NATO. Times have changed, but not minds.
The United States never even belonged to
the League’s Collective Security system, yet
Secretaries of State since World War II have
never hesitated to sermonize the League’s
failure to stop “aggression” in Manchuria
and Ethiopia, and Britain’s failure at “Munich”
as examples in reverse to justify America’s
[Page 9] military ventures in Vietnam and elsewhere.
The League was expected to implement the immoralities of the peace treaties in terms of military force. “What is intolerable,” Mrs. Swanwick states, “is the pretension that though pre-League diplomacy may have been black and bloody, post-League diplomacy is so radiantly pure that it can be trusted with the sword of the Lord and of Gideon; in other words, with the threat and the use of starvation, incendiary bombs, high explosives, poison gas, and—doubtless in time—a death ray.” Mrs. Swanwick’s imagination could hardly have conjured up the obscene abominations of the H-bomb; yet, at the recent meeting of NATO warlords in Brussels, actual deployment of unlimited megatons of nuclear death rays was unanimously voted as guarantees of collective insanity in the 1970’s.
Under the pretext of implementing the League’s Covenant the military men of Europe were steadily building their primitive NATO system against possible aggressions— while the arms race accelerated. The Draft Treaty of Mutual Assistance, the Geneva Protocol, and so on were all doomed to futility. Mrs. Swanwick calls these outside League alliances a “House of Cards.” Analyzing the Draft Treaty of Mutual Assistance, for example, she says:
- These measures included the summoning of all the signatory States . . . to provide naval, air and land forces and to organize priority of communications, financial cooperation and the appointment of the Higher Command. In the event of actual hostilities breaking out, the Council was to decide in four days which parties were the objects of aggression. So, on the mere suspicion of aggression, or ‘menace of aggression’, the Council of the League was entitled to wage war in the completest sense and was also given the task of deciding within four days which Power was the aggressor, although there was no definition of aggression.
More important, perhaps, than these promises to act, were the actions of the military compulsionists behind the scenes. “When the military got going on these provisions,” she pointed out, “they naturally declared that ‘if the assistance is to be immediate and effective’ it must be given ‘in accordance with a pre-arranged plan’ and this plan must be made ‘an integral part of the Treaty’. Moreover, ‘as the methods of attack and defence are constantly changing’, the Treaty will have to be ‘periodically revised’.” That, of course, is where NATO is today. And she concludes: “Although at that time perhaps the conception of ‘possible aggressors’ was not as extensive as, owing to bitter experience it now is, these intensive studies would have kept the League happily employed for an indefinite period on planning League wars. . . .”
THE TRAGICOMEDY of our own time is not that the Treaty of Mutual Assistance (like its successors) never produced peace in their time, but that the more sophisticated planning of NATO in our own time has practically reduced the United Nations to impotence in terms of peacemaking and mutual disarmament. The military men have taken over at a cost of $70 billion a year and ABMs are succeeded by MIRVs. The U.N. Secretary-General has gravely warned that less than ten years remain to reverse the process and replace collective insecurity under NATO by collective cooperation under the U.N.—or, as Mrs. Swanwick boldly called it: Collective Neutrality. But isn’t “neutrality” a naughty word today?
It would take us too far from our present
purpose to follow Mrs. Swanwick’s rejection
—which she skillfully argues—of the false
analogy between soldiers and police. Figurative
language, she states, “hampers clear
thinking. There is no such thing, for instance,
as a criminal nation; but there are criminal
individuals against whom police measures
may be bath necessary and practicable. Police
measures are not practicable against a nation,
[Page 10] which is composed largely of decent citizens,
whom war welds into a whole.” But her
startling new thesis on “Collective Neutrality”
takes a new dimension in the 1970’s, and
has a special reference to the U.N. for a
number of specific reasons.
The first is the new role of the United Nations as (to use U Thant’s frequent words) “a center for harmonizing the actions of nations.” The second is the emergence of a Third World, which we call the unaligned. The third is the fact that World Law, as a basis of World Order, must by its nature be collective neutrality between sovereign states.
We shall take each of those points in turn, but the relevance of Mrs. Swanwick’s forgotten thesis to the present crisis can be seen in her vision of the League’s real purpose over three decades ago:
- If Collective Neutrality could be secured, it would be one of the chief duties of the League to offer continuous mediation and at the same time to do all in its power to broadcast the facts, so far as they were ascertainable; not merely the facts concerning the progress of the war but the facts relating to its alleged causes and objects and also to the mediation proposals. It would be of incalculable benefit if there were some centre from which something resembling truth could radiate.
Finally, Mrs. Swanwick, in calling for a “neutralized” fact-finding body, acting impartially amidst the disputes of its members, was a prophetic voice preparing the way for U Thant’s constant emphasis on “harmonizing the actions of the nations.” She estimated correctly that “if the League itself were involved in the war, that would be good-bye to truth. . . . Every type of peaceful settlement should be offered, not once for all, but at frequent intervals: conciliatory, arbitral, judicial. The neutral world should stand solid behind the League in approving this.”
It is significant that, for whatever reason, the military sanctions embodied in the U.N. Charter—Chapter VII—have never been used and presumably never will. Chapter VII, “Action with respect to threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression,” was carried over from the League Covenant; but Mrs. Swanwick’s argument still runs true—the U.N. cannot wage war on a sovereign nation. The Korean War, where a U.N. Command was (and still is) technically in operation—due to the unjust rejection of Peking’s legal claims to representation in 1950 and thus the absence of Russia’s veto on that occasion—is no exception to the rule. In fact, the inconclusive and ruinous outcome of the Korean War, which still threatens to resume, proves just how right Mrs. Swanwick was.
Since that unsettling experience of “collective security” under the U.N. flag, the slowly emerging peace-keeping functions of the U.N. have been developing techniques of local “policing” very different in motivation and character from the war-making functions of those sovereign states which still like to parade as world policemen. The Congo, Suez, Kashmir, and Cyprus incidents have varied in their origins and purposes; but each of these growing points of world order has had its base of success on those chapters of the Charter calling for peaceful procedures, not collective security. (There were 64 meetings of the Security Council in 1969 alone and none called for warlike action.) It is noteworthy that, after preserving the delicate balance of Mid-East peace for eleven years, it was the very withdrawal of the U.N. Emergency Force in Suez in 1967 which was blamed by U.N. opponents for the outbreak of hostilities.
This writer has described elsewhere, how
the U.N. has saved the peace, as well as the
face of the world’s most powerful nation, in
its military confrontations in Lebanon, Cuba,
and San Domingo.[1] But no one would deny
that the U.N.’s principles and resolutions are
still treated with disdain and hostility by its
members time and time again, thus delaying
[Page 11] the expansion of world law. There are, under
the U.N. Charter as under the League Covenant,
no “private wars” anymore. War anywhere
is a threat to peace everywhere. That is
the true meaning of collective security. But
military sanctions against sovereign states are
never the answer to intransigence, however
rigid. The defiance of the U.N. Charter by
[Page 12]
the United States in Southeast Asia (note,
again, its pretended reliance on a Southeast
Asia “Pact of Mutual Assistance”), and of
the Government of Israel’s repeated evasion
of the unanimous proposals of the Security
Council of 22 November 1967, are only two
different but blatant instances of how the
U.N. members, big or little, are crippling its
peacekeeping functions by insisting on their
right to wage private wars. While military
sanctions are so obviously not the answer, in
both Southeast Asia and the Middle East, the
central mediating and peace-keeping operations
of the U.N. will ultimately prove to be
the means by which “collective neutrality”
will oust private wars, where one or the other
parties rejects the way of the Charter.
Secondly, the Third World—unknown to the League of Nations—brings a stability to World Order of many new and promising dimensions. For one thing, the Third World has little or no concern at all for the Cold War. Its leaders in Africa, Asia, and Latin America are saying so plainly. For another thing, the Third World is bridging the ideological gap between the Western and Communist factions; it is drawing both factions together in sharing their common primary needs for training and technology, for trade and economic development.
The insane arms race between the Big Powers is becoming increasingly irrelevant to the interests of the developing countries, who make up eighty percent of U.N. membership. Incidentally the voting at the 1969 General Assembly revealed that, on issue after issue, this growing segment of small and middle powers are pressuring the Big Powers to revise their assumptions on the nuclear arms race and much else. Again, the “collective neutrality” ideas expressed in the original Rapacki plan for a neutralized zone, running from Finland and across central Europe, Austria, and Switzerland, to Yugoslavia, has more recently been supplemented by tentative proposals to bring the NATO and Warsaw antagonism into an All-European Non-Aggression Treaty. Collective Neutrality may not sound positive in its terminology, but it is a positive step to European security; it does what neither League military sanctions nor NATO nuclear “capacity” could ever do, and that is stop European war before it begins.
Thirdly, and finally, the new areas of World Law that are emerging out of the peaceful pursuits of mankind cannot conceivably be based on military force, but on what modern international lawyers have come to call the “law of cooperation.” The old “law of coexistence” between states, which became the bedrock of diplomacy since the days of Grotius, has been yielding rapidly to a global law touching individuals as world citizens.[2] Within the U.N. family, for example, functional agencies are building daily a permanent structure of legal relationships which, although still mostly framed within the traditional treaty-making concepts of sovereign states, are covering a vast range of true law-making from the Antarctic wastes to Cosmic Space, from international airline operations to working conditions in the world’s coal mines, from locust control in the Middle East to protein production in the Indian Ocean, from urban planning in South America to freight and insurance facilities for African shipping.
Never has World Law had a broader or more positive meaning for the future of the earth’s billions. And as World Law expands, World War recedes. But the real question is what sort of law is it to be? Is it to be law between states or law between men? We have really only just begun to answer that question. If it is the former, backed by so-called “collective security,” we know what the end results will be. If it is the latter, man in his global village is still at the beginning of a New Age of Discovery—the discovery of an emerging World Order centered not on sovereign States but on Sovereign Man.
The Politics of Faith: A New Political Culture
By A. L. LINCOLN
THIS IS ESSENTIALLY a case study of an attempt to create an alternative political culture in the world today. The legal and political system which will be the subject of study is of comparatively recent origin and has demonstrated extraordinary vitality in its rapid growth and development. Its institutions have been raised in virtually every nation and territory of the world, in primitive rural as well as modern urban settings, and it counts among its adherents members of almost every race, tribe, and ethnic minority. It has brought together Brahmin and untouchable in India; black and white in the United States and South Africa; Christian, Moslems, and Jews in the Middle East; and Catholics and Buddhists in Vietnam. Without suppressing the diversity of regional cultures, it has introduced new concepts of authority and social purpose, claimed allegiance for new institutions, and implemented new standards of political participation and community behavior as well as personal and family life. From affluent Americans and impoverished Bolivian Indians, it has evoked intense loyalty and sacrificial contributions of time, energy, and resources sufficient to assure its continued rapid expansion and consolidation.
The basis of this system, as unique as its accomplishments, lies in the writings of One named Bahá’u’lláh (1817-1892) whom Professor E. G. Browne described as “the object of a devotion and love which kings might envy and emperors sigh for in vain.”[1] Bahá’u’lláh, whose name means “the Glory of God,” claimed both to be the most recent in a continuing series of Prophets or “Manifestations of God” and to fulfill the millennial prophecies of all the earlier religions about the Promised One Who would usher in an age of peace and justice and a unified world society. He asserted that, as the recipient of a direct and independent revelation from God, He had a twofold mission—to confirm and renew the ethical and spiritual teachings of past religions and to offer the new social teachings required for mankind to attain the goal of a just and peaceful society in this age. Thus, to a greater extent than the Founders of earlier religions, Bahá’u’lláh was directly concerned with the implementation in the social realm of the ethical teachings of religion. He wrote a great deal about practical affairs and explicitly laid down the laws and established the institutions of a new order. In essence He wrote the constitution for the system which is being raised by His followers in each of the 313 nations and territories where they now reside. Upon His words rest the legitimacy and authority of this new legal and constitutional order, whose purpose is to embody and apply His social teachings. His followers are building up His sy5tem both to fulfill their own religious beliefs and to offer it as an alternative pattern for future society.
Within the limited scope of this study, it
will not be possible to make any final
judgments of Bahá’u’lláh’s system on any
standards but its own, nor will it be possible
[Page 14] [Page 15]
to measure the quantum of human happiness
produced. No attempt will be made to prove
or disprove the validity of the divine guidance
claimed. The normative purpose rather
will be to open up a dialogue of standards.
Every social or political system has a set of
answers to the basic underlying problems of
political culture which are treated as assumptions
or norms not subject to proof. According
to Lowi it is the failure of the current
political ideology to deal coherently with
these issues which underlies the deadlock and
sterility of modern American politics.[2] He
depicts the sixties as a period of crisis affecting
the very legitimacy of public authority,
and he predicts that the crisis will deepen
and the political culture which holds the
nation together will continue to crumble
until we call into question “the very structure
of authority” and “the entire modus operandi
of power.”[3] In the return to first principles
which must ensue if a better foundation is to
be laid, I think we will find these basic
values deeply rooted in religious and ethical
teachings. I think it will be clear that the
kind of secular society under which we have
been living is not a viable alternative value
system, but rather an attempt to deny the
existence of shared or common values because
of our inability to mold a political
system around them. When we reach that
point, Bahá’u’lláh’s claim and the features of
His system will assume a new relevance.
Accordingly, the purpose of this study is not to advocate any reforms in the present system, nor is it to prove the validity of any pet proposition. It is rather to set forth a provocative alternative in such a way as to clarify its essential features and indicate its relevance to the issues which need to be discussed in American politics.
I. Divine Law as Constitution
MOST POLITICAL SYSTEMS have a body of basic law, written or unwritten, which provides a generally accepted definition of the underlying purposes or principles of the polity, of what shall constitute legitimate authority, and of how it shall be exercised. In most stable systems this fundamental law is seldom changed and assumes an almost sacred position in the rhetoric and ritual of politics. When revelation is used as the constitution for a political system, the difference may only be one of degree—but it is an important difference nonetheless. Within a system composed of believers, its authority is absolute and the legitimacy of the order founded upon it almost beyond question. The important questions to consider relate to the purpose, scope, and qualities of the divine law, and particularly whether it possesses the necessary flexibility to permit implementation, growth, and change.
A. Purpose, Scope, and Binding Effect.
Bahá’u’lláh wrote that God has a twofold
purpose in sending His Manifestations into
the world: The first is to educate men as
individuals and the second “is to ensure the
peace and tranquillity of mankind, and provide
all the means by which they can be
established.”[4] He further explained that
“The Prophets of God should be regarded as
physicians whose task is to foster the wellbeing
of the world and its peoples, that,
through the spirit of oneness, they may heal
the sickness of a divided humanity.”[5]
Bahá’u’lláh used this metaphor again when
He addressed the elected representatives of
the people in every land: “That which the
Lord hath ordained as the sovereign remedy
and mightiest instrument for the healing of
all the world is the union of all its peoples in
one universal Cause, one common Faith. This
can in no wise be achieved except through
the power of a skilled, an all-powerful and
inspired Physician.”[6] As Divine Physician
and Law-Giver for this age, Bahá’u’lláh
brought the laws which “constitute the highest
[Page 16] means for the maintenance of order in the
world and the security of its peoples.”[7]
These social laws brought by Bahá’u’lláh form an important and integral part of His Revelation. He called His book of laws the Kitáb-i-‘Aqdas or “Most Holy Book.” In its opening paragraphs, Bahá’u’lláh wrote:
- The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition of Him Who is the Day Spring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause and the world of creation. Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof, hath gone astray, though he be the author of every righteous deed. It behoveth every one who reacheth this most sublime station, this summit of transcendent glory, to observe every ordinance of Him Who is the Desire of the world. These twin duties are inseparable. Neither is acceptable without the other. Thus hath it been decreed by Him Who is the Source of Divine inspiration.[8]
Thus the recognition of the Manifestation of God is the first requirement, and the duty of obedience to His laws flows directly and “inseparably” from that recognition. In another place, Bahá’u’lláh exhorted man:
- O SON OF BEING!
- Walk in My statutes for love of Me and deny thyself that which thou desirest if thou seekest My pleasure.
- O SON OF MAN!
- Neglect not My commandments if thou lovest My beauty, and forget not My counsels if thou wouldst attain My good pleasure.[9]
While individuals may be led to investigate the claim of the Manifestation by the logical attractiveness of His laws and teachings or their good results when put to the test of use, in the end a Bahá’í will obey them because he has recognized and literally fallen in love with their Author and sees the laws as pure indicators of the will of God Himself. In the Bahá’í teachings this is not seen as in any way a negation of human intelligence or reasoning, but rather a challenge stimulating it to rise to higher planes than it could unaided.[10]
B. Interpretation. “Think not that We have
revealed unto you a mere code of laws. Nay,
rather, We have unsealed the choice Wine
with the fingers of might and power.”[11]
With these words Bahá’u’lláh warned against
any effort to impose an overly strict and
legalistic construction upon what He wrote.
It is apparent to anyone who has perused His
writings that there is much poetry in them
and that they speak to the heart and soul of
man as well as to his intellect. In His Kitáb-i-Íqán
(The Book of Certitude), Bahá’u’lláh
spoke about the twofold language used by
the Manifestations of God:
- One language, the outward language, is devoid of allusions, is unconcealed and unveiled; that it may be a guiding lamp and a beaconing light whereby wayfarers may attain the heights of holiness, and seekers may advance into the realm of eternal reunion. . . . The other language is veiled and concealed, so that whatever lieth hidden in the heart of the malevolent may be made manifest and their innermost being be disclosed. . . . None apprehendeth the meaning of these utterances except them whose hearts are assured, whose souls have found favour with God, and [Page 17]
whose minds are detached from all else but Him.[12]
In the light of this statement, interpretation of the writings of the Manifestation can no longer be regarded as the prerogative of a class of narrowly trained specialists. For precisely this reason, there is no clergy and no ecclesiastical hierarchy in the Bahá’í Faith. Bahá’u’lláh’s teachings were written down so that each individual could read them himself, and most of his principal works are now readily available in published form in many languages. Bahá’u’lláh conferred on each individual not only the privilege but the sacred duty of reading His Writings and forming his own conclusions independent of any pressure or persuasion. This is the only way Bahá’u’lláh expected individuals to make the decision to embrace His Faith. Once one has declared one’s faith in Bahá’u’lláh and joined the Bahá’í community, one does not escape the obligation to pursue and deepen one’s own understanding of the Sacred Writings nor lose the right to express one’s own opinion without pressing it on others. As in any other legal system, however, so long as one is within it, one must treat the text of its laws as the final authority and attempt to harmonize one’s interpretation with its general principles and purpose. This is probably the reason why Bahá’u’lláh stressed in the above quoted passage that qualities of heart and soul are as important as qualities of the mind in extracting the true meaning from His writings. He even stated that the language contains traps for those who seek to use it in contravention of its spirit. If the spirit of the law is the key to unlocking its hidden meanings, the humblest and most unlettered soul may have insights and understanding beyond the grasp of the most cultured and educated.
These characteristics of the divine law have important consequences for the nature of a society, the role and purpose of education, and the very structure of collective decision-making. They make broader and more egalitarian participation in community affairs possible but may, at the same time, make it harder to maintain the integrity of the law as it develops through necessary interpretation to fit new situations.
Bahá’u’lláh appears to have anticipated this danger. He specifically provides not only for elected and therefore perpetual institutions to which His followers could turn for the settlement of disputes, but also for a period of completely authoritative interpretation of His teachings which lasted for sixty-five years after His death in 1892. In His Will, Bahá’u’lláh appointed His eldest son ‘Abdu’l-Bahá as the “Center of His Covenant” with the believers, the “perfect Exemplar of His teachings,” and the “unerring Interpreter of His Word.”[13] This succession was confirmed in several other places including the ‘Aqdas, the Kitáb-i-‘Ahd (“The Book of the Covenant”), and a special tablet revealed in ‘Abdu’l-Bahá's honor and called the “Tablet of the Branch” (Súriy-i-Ghusn).
Between Bahá’u’lláh’s death in 1892 and His own in 1921, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá wrote a constant stream of letters to believers and inquirers all over the globe, explaining the teachings, answering questions, advising on personal and community affairs. In 1912 he undertook an extended speaking tour of Europe and North America. Many of his talks on this trip were recorded and later published with His approval.[14]
‘Abdu’l-Bahá left a Will and Testament, a
document important for the development of
the legal and insritutional structure of the
Bahá’í administrative order. In it ‘Abdu’l-Bahá
confirms the authority and outlines the
method of election and operation of the
elective institutions ordained by Bahá’u’lláh.
[Page 18] Elucidating and building upon an earlier
allusion in Bahá’u’lláh’s writings,[15] He also
appointed Bahá’u’lláh’s great-grandson
Shoghi Effendi as the “Guardian of the
Cause” after His death. As Guardian, Shoghi
Effendi was to continue the work of interpreting
and applying Bahá’u’lláh’s laws and
teachings and of establishing the institutions
of the Faith on a permanent basis.
Most of the Guardian’s ministry was spent raising up, nurturing, and guiding the elective institutions at the local and national levels all over the world. Under his guidance, these institutions, composed in many cases of new believers without any experience in administration or public affairs, grew gradually in their ability to operate under the new legal system brought by Bahá’u’lláh. Shoghi Effendi’s numerous letters and messages to believers, institutions, and whole communities thus represent a vast amount of authoritative guidance on the detailed problems of implementing the teachings in the governing of community affairs.
The writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi, most of which, like those of Bahá’u’lláh, are available in published form, thus constitute an extremely important part of the system of Bahá’í law. They provide both definitive interpretations of what Bahá’u’lláh taught and wrote, in complete harmony with His intent, and the elaboration necessary to make the system He ordained fully functional. The process of codifying and indexing all the available published and unpublished writings of these two figures is still going on, but already they are in constant use by the elective institutions at all levels and by individuals throughout the world in their efforts to build the world community envisaged by Bahá’u’lláh.
C. The Power of Legislation. As a result of this well-developed body of basic law, it was possible following the death of Shoghi Effendi in 1957 for the elective institutions to take over the administration of the affairs of the Cause. The local and national assemblies ordained by Bahá’u’lláh, and outlined in more detail by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, had been erected under the supervision of Shoghi Effendi. Acting on the instructions of the Guardian and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, the members of all the existing National Assemblies gathered in an International Convention in 1963 to elect the world-governing body to be known as the Universal House of Justice.
This institution, the “supreme organ of the Bahá’í Commonwealth,”[16] had been repeatedly referred to by Bahá’u’lláh, and it was He Who laid down its functions and conferred upon it its special authority:
- It is incumbent upon the Trustees of the House of Justice to take counsel together regarding such laws as have not been expressly revealed in the Book. Of these whatever they deem advisable and proper that must they enforce. Verily, God will inspire them with that which He willeth, and He is the ruler, the knower![17]
‘Abdu’l-Bahá in His Will and Testament confirmed and elaborated this grant of authority:
- Unto the Most Holy Book every one must turn and all that it not expressly recorded therein must be referred to the Universal House of Justice. That which this body, whether unanimously or by a majority doth carry, that is verily the Truth and the Purpose of God Himself. Whom doth deviate therefrom is verily of them that love discord, hath shown forth malice and turned away from the Lord of the Covenant. . . . It is incumbent upon these members [of the Universal House of Justice] to gather in a certain place and deliberate upon all problems which have caused difference, questions that are obscure [Page 19]
and matters that are not expressly recorded in the Book. Whatsoever they decide has the same effect as the text itself. 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.[18]
In another place in the same document, He referred to the Universal House of Justice as that institution “which God hath ordained as the source of all good and freed from all error.”[19] This explicit grant of infallibility is thus firmly embedded in the text of the fundamental law.
The Will and Testament also made it clear that this elective body, infallible within its sphere of legislation, would have to work in close harmony with the appointive figures whose interpretations delineate the limits of what had been laid down in the writings of Bahá’u’lláh. Again and again in his messages to the believers, Shoghi Effendi deferred to the exclusive policy-making and lawmaking functions of the future House of Justice in areas where the sacred text was silent.[20] At a time when most people envisaged the Guardianship and the Universal House of Justice functioning contemporaneously, Shoghi Effendi wrote:
- The interpretation of the Guardian, functioning within his own sphere, is as authoritative and binding as the enactments of the International House of Justice, whose exclusive right and prerogative is to pronounce upon and deliver the final judgment on such laws and ordinances as Bahá’u’lláh has not expressly revealed. Neither can, nor will ever, infringe upon the sacred and prescribed domain of the other. Neither will seek to curtail the specific and undoubted authority with which both have been divinely invested.[21]
The Guardian died unable to appoint a successor within the terms of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s will, and the Universal House of Justice, when it was formed six years later, ruled that there was no way it could legislate to permit the appointment of further Guardians.[22] The House of Justice, however, made it clear that it would rely on the copious writings of Shoghi Effendi as its guidelines[23] and would employ restraint and rigorous self-discipline to keep within its sphere of promised divine guidance. The example set by this institution eStablishes a tone and spirit for the entire system:
- Service to the cause of God requires absolute fidelity and integrity and unwavering faith in Him. No good but only evil can come from taking the responsibility for the future of God’s Cause into our own hands and trying to force it into ways that we wish it to go regardless of the clear texts and our own limitations. It is His Cause. He has promised that its light will not fail. Our part is to cling tenaciously to the revealed Word and the institutions that He has created to preserve His Covenant.
- It is precisely in this connection that the believers must recognize the importance of intellectual honesty and humility. In past dispensations many errors arose because the believers in God’s Revelation were overanxious to encompass the Divine Message within the framework of their limited understanding, to define doctrines where definition was beyond their power, to explain mysteries which only the wisdom and experience of a later age would make comprehensible, to argue that something was true because it appeared desirable and necessary. Such compromises with essential truth, such intellectual pride, we must scrupulously avoid.
- If some of the statements of the Universal House of Justice are not detailed, the friends should realize that the cause of this is not secretiveness, but rather the determination of this body to refrain from interpreting the teachings and to preserve the truth of the Guardian’s statement that “Leaders of religion, exponents of political theories, governors of human institutions . . . need have no doubt or anxiety regarding the nature, the origin, or validity of the institutions which the adherents of the Faith are building up throughout the world. For these lie embedded in the Teachings themselves, unadulterated and unobscured by unwarranted inferences or unauthorized interpretations of His Word.”[24]
This statement, more than any other, expresses the spirit of the emerging Bahá’í jurisprudence. By clearly distinguishing between that which is divine—the revealed word and the divinely-ordained institutions —and the limited understanding of men, it is possible to combine an extraordinary firmness and clarity on essential principles with the flexibility needed for change and growth. As Bahá’u’lláh Himself stated, He did not reveal a detailed “code of laws”; His writings are not definitive, but seminal. They lay down the basic principles to maintain the integrity and guide the growth and development of His new world order until the next Manifestation of a thousand years hence. He did not attempt to anticipate and forestall every crisis and difficulty, since these are a necessary part of growth; but he did provide a fundamental structure that could not be shaken by them.
The Universal House of Justice is the crowning feature of this new order. Through this institution the entire system is promised continuous and timely divine guidance over the thousand or more years of Bahá’u’lláh’s dispensation. In this institution, as ‘Abdu’l-Bahá explained, the qualities of unshakable integrity and organic dynamism are blended:
- Those matters of major importance which constitute the foundation of the Law of God are explicitly recorded in the Text, but subsidiary laws are left to the House of Justice. The wisdom of this is that the times never remain the same, for change is a necessary quality and an essential attribute of this world, and of time and place. Therefore the House of Justice will take action accordingly.
- 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.[25]
II. Institutions in Operation
“In this day,” wrote ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, “assemblies of consultation are of the greatest importance and a vital necessity. Obedience unto them is essential and obligatory.”[26] Bahá’u’lláh, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, and Shoghi Effendi wrote a great deal about these “assemblies of consultation,” referring to them as both “Spiritual Assemblies” and “Houses of Justice.” They are at present the central institutions of the Bahá’í administrative order and exist on the international, national, and local levels around the world. Assemblies exercise plenary powers which partake of the legislative, executive, and judicial. While they may delegate some of their functions to subsidiary organs such as committees or an executive arm or secretariat, they retain full authority and must exercise continual supervision over these delegations.
The Writings of the Central Figures of the
Faith, like any constitution, prescribe the
[Page 21] structure of legitimate institutions and the
procedure for their formation and perpetuation.
In this case they also deal in great depth
with the institutions’ aims and methods of
operation and the spirit which should pervade
their process of decision-making and
their relations with the constituent communities.
A. Legitimacy and Participation. In the ‘Aqdas, Bahá’u’lláh stated that:
- The Lord hath ordained that in every city a House of Justice be established wherein shall gather counsellors to the number of Bahá [nine], and should it exceed this number it does not matter. . . . It is incumbent upon them to take counsel together and to have regard for the interests of the servants of God, for His sake, even as they regard their own interests, and to choose that which is meet and seemly. Thus hath the Lord your God commanded you.[27]
The Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá further provides that “in all countries a secondary House of Justice must be instituted. . . .”[28] Thus, together with the references to the Universal House of Justice quoted above, a three-level structure is provided with “Houses of Justice” at the local, national, and international levels. The local and national bodies are also referred to in the Writings as “Spiritual Assemblies” and are currently known by that name, but with the stipulation that they will “evolve into” local and national houses of justice.[29]
In some of his earliest messages Shoghi Effendi established the principle that “in every locality, be it city or hamlet, where the number of adult (21 years and above) declared believers exceeds nine, a local ‘Spiritual Assembly’ [must] be forthwith established.”[30] The nine members of these bodies are currently elected annually by the Bahá’ís living within the civil boundaries which define the “locality.” When the number of believers and of local assemblies reaches a substantial size within a nation or self-contained territory, a national spiritual assembly is elected. The members of this institution, also nine in number, are elected indirectly; the believers in the different geographic subdivisions gather in state or area conventions to choose delegates to the annual national convention, where ballots are cast for the election of the national assembly. Every five years the members of all existing national assemblies gather in an international convention to elect the members of the Universal House of Justice.
Even more important than the mechanics of the election process, which can be changed by the Universal House of Justice,[31] are the teachings about the spirit and meaning of an election. Every adult believer, the Guardian wrote, “far from standing aloof and assuming an indifferent or independent attitude, should regard it his sacred duty to take part conscientiously and diligently” in the elections.[32] The nature of this diligent participation is somewhat unusual; campaigning is strictly forbidden:
- What the friends should do is to get thoroughly acquainted with one another, to exchange views, to mix freely and discuss among themselves the requirements and qualifications for such a membership [on an Assembly] without reference or application, however indirect, to particular individuals. We should refrain from influencing the opinion of others, of canvassing for any particular individual, but should stress the necessity of getting fully acquainted with the qualifications of membership referred to in our Beloved’s Tablets and of learning more about one another through direct, personal experience rather than through the reports and [Page 22]
opinions of our friends.[33]
There is no nomination, and it is incumbent on each voter “to consider without the least trace of passion and prejudice, and irrespective of any material consideration, the names of only those who can best combine the necessary qualities of unquestioned loyalty, of selfless devotion, of a well-trained mind, of recognized ability and mature experience.”[34] Balloting is always preceded by prayer; and in a “silent and prayerful” atmosphere the voter, “unhampered and unconstrained by electoral necessities, is called upon to vote for none but those whom prayer and reflection have inspired him to uphold.”[35]
These principles affect not only the customs, atmosphere, and attitudes which surround the act of voting, but they also help to bring about an entirely different kind of relationship between constituents and their elected officials. Those who are chosen to serve on assemblies come to their work owing no debts and committed to no platform. They must “endeavor, by their open-mindedness, their high sense of justice and duty, their candor, their modesty, their entire devotion to the welfare and interests of the friends, the Cause, and humanity, to win, not only the confidence and the genuine support and respect of those whom they serve, but also their esteem and real affection.”[36] They should “consult . . . as much as possible with the friends whom they represent” and should seek their advice and counsel.[37] Their decisions, however, must reflect the voice of their own consciences and not necessarily the wishes of the majority of their constituents.[38] Their constituents may offer suggestions to their assemblies, through the annual national convention or the local Nineteen Day Feast,[39] but they have no right to overrule the act of an assembly, to direct it to take action, or even by way of lobbying or other techniques to press their views upon it. Instead, they have the explicit assurance of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, as restated by Shoghi Effendi, “that every Assembly elected in that rarefied atmosphere of selflessness and detachment is, in truth, appointed of God, that its verdict is truly inspired, that one and all should submit to its decision unreservedly and with cheerfulness.”[40]
B. Consultation as a Decision-Making Process. The Bahá’í Writings also contain standards relative to the internal functioning of these institutions. In fact, “one of the basic laws of the Administration,” applicable to all Bahá’í' activities,[41] is a new method of cooperative problem-solving in which the consultative group is seen as an organic whole, functionally dependent on the diverse attributes and contributions of the individuals who make it up. The process of consultation draws out the contributions of each member, with a special premium on unusual ideas, and then uses the minds of all to evaluate and synthesize these bits of information and ideas into a coherent solution or policy decision. In an experiment conducted at Harvard, groups of non-Bahá’í students trained in the rudiments of this technique performed significantly better in several respects than control groups working on the same problems.[42] On the basis of this study, the experimenter suggested that the difference should be considerably greater with groups of experienced Bahá’ís more thoroughly familiar with and committed to the technique.[43]
[Page 23]
Indeed the Universal House of Justice in a
letter to the Bahá’í youth of every land stated
that “Consultation is no easy skill to learn,
requiring as it does the subjugation of all
egotism and unruly passions, the cultivation
of frankness and freedom of thought as well
as courtesy, openness of mind, and wholehearted
acquiescence in a majority decision.”[44]
The Universal House of Justice
expressly emphasized the contrast between
the Bahá’í technique of consultation and the
adversary or partisan model of decision-making
and urged the youth to demonstrate by
their conduct the superior efficiency and
vigor of the former.
It was ‘Abdu’l-Bahá who explained most fully the principles of Bahá’í consultation:
- They must then proceed with the utmost devotion, courtesy, dignity, care and moderation to express their views. They must in every matter search out the truth and not insist upon their own opinion, for stubbornness and persistence in one’s views will lead ultimately to discord and wrangling and the truth will remain hidden. The honored members must with all freedom express their own thoughts, and it is in no wise permissible for one to belittle the thought of another, nay, he must with moderation set forth the truth, and should differences of opinion arise a majority of voices must prevail, and all must obey and submit to the majority.[45]
And again, in a talk in Chicago:
- The purpose is to emphasize the statement that consultation must have for its object the investigation of truth. He who expresses an opinion should not voice it as correct and right but set it forth as a contribution to the consensus of opinion. . . . Man should weigh his opinions with the utmost serenity, calmness and composure. Before expressing his own views he should carefully consider the views already advanced by others. If he finds that a previously expressed opinion is more true and worthy, he should accept it immediately and not wilfully hold to an opinion of his own. By this excellent method he endeavors to arrive at unity and truth.[46]
To draw out the best from each individual while preventing any one personality from becoming dominant is a challenging task and requires considerable self-discipline on the part of each participant. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá stated, perhaps for this reason, that “The prime requisites for them that take counsel together are purity of motive, radiance of spirit, detachment from all else save God, attraction to His Divine Fragrances, humility and lowliness amongst His loved ones, patience and long-suffering in difficulties and servitude to His exalted Threshold.”[47] Perhaps also for this reason prayer is an integral and necessary part of the decision-making process; indeed ‘Abdu’l-Bahá revealed special prayers for use by spiritual assemblies.
The spirit of reverence and humility, of
diverse and egalitarian interaction which underlies
this entire method of collective decision-making
is the same as that exemplified
in the statement of the Universal House of
Justice quoted at the end of Part I. It
pervades the entire Bahá’í system of administration.
The elected members of local and
national assemblies, no matter how magnificent
their qualifications or how large the vote
which placed them in office are warned that
“They should never be led to suppose that
they are the central ornaments of the body of
the Cause, intrinsically superior to others in
capacity or merit, and sole promoters of its
teachings and principles. They should approach
their task with extreme humility. . . .
And, when they are called upon to arrive at a
certain decision, they should, after dispassionate,
anxious and cordial consultation,
turn to God in prayer, and with earnestness
and conviction and courage record their vote
and abide by the voice of the majority. . . .”[48]
[Page 24] Once they have reached a decision, acting
as a body, there can be no dissent or
minority view. The decision can be reconsidered
later, but in the meantime it must be
obeyed without criticism or objection.[49]
‘Abdu’l-Bahá explicitly stated that “If they
agree upon a subject, even though it be
wrong, it is better than to disagree and be in
the right,” for the disunity will be “the cause
of a thousand wrongs” whereas, if they
remain unified, “the truth will be revealed
and the wrong made right.”[50]
When the Universal House of Justice consults in this manner, it is assured that its final decision will be “freed from all error.”[51] Local and national assemblies, however, can and do make wrong decisions. Even with these institutions, the believers are told by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá Himself that if the decision is obeyed and unity maintained “the truth will be revealed and the wrong made right.” This has obvious consequences for the degree of allegiance which such institutions can command.
C. Decentralization and Guidance. Local spiritual assemblies have the duty and the exclusive jurisdiction within their localities to witness marriages, to promote the spiritual and material education of youth, to extend help “to the poor, the sick, the disabled, the orphan, the widow, irrespective of color, caste, and creed,” to organize community activities including meetings, Nineteen Day Feasts, and holy day observances.[52] They must represent the community in its relations with the national assembly, the Universal House of Justice, other local communities, and the general public. They must by general supervision ensure the integrity and accuracy with which the Bahá’í teachings are presented in local meetings and publications. They must recognize all applicants for membership in the community. They have control over all local funds and properties.[53]
The national spiritual assemblies’ main
purpose is “to stimulate, unify and coordinate
by frequent personal consultations, the manifold
activities of the friends as well as the
local Assemblies” and to “direct in general
the affairs of the Cause” in their jurisdiction.[54]
They have original jurisdiction over
disputes between local assemblies or members
of different communities. National assemblies
may receive and decide appeals
taken from any decision of a local assembly
by a member of its community. They have
the power to decide which matters are purely
local and which so affect the interest of the
national community as to come under the
jurisdiction of the national assembly.[55] They
must supervise the local activities of the
Bahá’ís where no local assembly has yet been
formed. National assemblies at this time
share with the Universal Hause of Justice the
authority to impose the administrative sanction
of deprivation of administrative rights
[Page 25] (discussed in Part III). Any decision of a
national spiritual assembly is subject to review
by the Universal House of Justice,
which body, as explained above, has the sole
power of authoritative legislation, conferred
on it by Bahá’u’lláh Himself.
At each level the institutions must work within the framework of the revealed Word and the Writings of its authorized interpreters which form the constitution for the entire system. This divine law, supplemented by the legislative enactments of the Universal House of Justice is the fabric on which the consultation of the assemblies, both local and national, is based. Consultation on a problem starts with the ascertainment of the facts and the applicable principles from the Writings and then moves into a consideration of how best to apply or carry out the spirit of those guiding principles in the particular case. The appropriate parts of the Writings may completely define the proper solution or only suggest the direction in which a solution should be sought. They almost always supply the ultimate goals and the underlying spirit of a policy decision.
The Writings are also generally used as the standard in the decision of appeals or the general review of local assembly policies by the national assembly and of national policies by the Universal House of justice. Shoghi Effendi repeatedly warned the national assemblies against the dangers of over-centralization, rigidity, and red tape, which would result from the issuance of excessively detailed rules and regulations of premature blanket statements.[56] He stressed that while the fundamental principles of Bahá’í law must be adhered to at all levels, the sensitivity to local conditions and diversity of approaches made possible by decentralization was also essential to preserve “the elasticity of the Administrative Order.”[57] National assemblies generally intervene in the affairs or reverse the decisions of local assemblies only in the most extreme cases where a vital principle is violated. Far more often they simply return the matter to the assembly concerned for its reconsideration or gently suggest that a certain principle has apparently been overlooked. The Universal House of Justice works much the same way in its supervision of the national assemblies. It reads the minutes of their meetings, reviews actions taken, and on its own motion points out discrepancies with Bahá’í law. To each assembly, it gives the assistance and guidance appropriate to its stage of development and sophistication. In each case the guidance comes not in terms of detailed instructions but of statements of principles which should be applied. Thus the autonomy of the inStitutions at each level is respected, and the diversity and elasticity of decentralization is maintained. At the same time the essential unity and integrity of the whole system and the healthy development of each of its parts is ensured.
III. The Role of the Individual
THE NATURE of the relationship of the individual to his society is perhaps the most critical issue of all those faced by a political culture, because it is most directly related to the purpose of the society and the “ends of government.” Addressing the ruling élite of Persia, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá wrote:
- The primary purpose, the basic objective, in laying down powerful laws and setting up great principles and institutions dealing with every aspect of civilization, is human happiness; and human happiness consists only in drawing closer to the Threshold of Almighty God, and in securing the peace and well-being of every individual member, high and low alike, of the human race; and the supreme agencies for accomplishing these two objectives are the excellent qualities with which humanity has been endowed.[58]
The purpose of civilization is human happiness,
[Page 26] but this happiness is no mere state of
material comfort. In further amplification
‘Abdu’l-Bahá stated:
- How excellent, how honorable is man if he arises to fulfil his responsibilities; how wretched and contemptible, if he shuts his eyes to the welfare of society and wastes his precious life in pursuing his own selfish interests and personal advantages. Supreme happiness is man’s, and he beholds the signs of God in the world and in the human soul, if he urges on the steed of high endeavor in the arena of civilization and justice.[59]
Happiness is not a passive state, but one of active service and concern with the welfare of others. Both a closer approach to God and the well-being of every member of society depend on the development by “high endeavor” of the “excellent qualities with which humanity has been endowed.”
This view requires society to be deeply concerned with the welfare and participation of every individual member. Each is seen as “a mine rich in gems of inestimable value,”[60] a unique resource whose development and fulfillment is essential for his own happiness and the well-being of society.
A. The Covenant and the Standard of Conduct. Since the Bahá’í system sees the development of individual potential in spiritual and moral as well as material terms, it is greatly concerned with cultural and behavioral norms. “The companions of God,” Bahá’u’lláh wrote, “are, in this day, the lump that must leaven the peoples of the world. They must show forth such trustworthiness, such truthfulness and perseverance, such deeds and character that all mankind may profit by their example.”[61] Shoghi Effendi wrote to the American believers in 1938 that these attributes of character were the “spiritual prerequisites” of success in all their efforts to raise up the new system Bahá’u’lláh had envisaged.[62] He described standards of behavior which were in sharp contrast to the prevailing norms:
- A rectitude of conduct, an abiding sense of undeviating justice, unobscured by the demoralizing influences which a corruption-ridden political life so strikingly manifests; a chaste, pure, and holy life, unsullied and unclouded by the indecencies, the vices, the false standards, which an inherently deficient moral code tolerates, perpetuates, and fosters; a fraternity freed from that cancerous growth of racial prejudice, which is eating into the vitals of an already debilitated society—these are the ideals which the American believers must, from now on, individually and through concerted action, strive to promote, in both their private and public lives. . . .[63]
The necessity of individual self-discipline and growth in connection with the consultative method of decision-making have been mentioned earlier; in many other areas as well the process of social change must start with the individual. This is the kind of change which no society has ever been able to legislate; such values are transmitted only by inspiration, by individual commitment, and by example.
In the Kitáb-i-‘Aqdas, Bahá’u’lláh stated
that if a man were to understand the significance
of the revealed laws, “he would,
though the treasures of the earth be in his
possession, renounce them one and all, that
he might vindicate the truth of even one of
His commandments. . . .”[64] In another
passage, Bahá’u’lláh made it clear that the
duty of obedience to God’s laws is not
dependent on complete understanding. He
stated that the “ornament of every belief, and
its very foundation” is the firm commitment
to obey without question or hesitation.[65]
[Page 27] “True liberty,” He explained, “consisteth in
man’s submission unto My commandments,
little as ye know it.”[66] This commitment is
part of the covenant which each believer
makes with God and His Manifestation. The
standard is so high that no one can claim to
have completely fulfilled it; but, to the extent
of his efforts, the individual is promised
assistance, growth, and fulfillment.[67]
Bahá’u’lláh does not promise that no sacrifice
will be required, but He does state that “This
is a Revelation, under which, if a man shed
for its sake one drop of blood, myriads of
oceans will be his recompense.”[68] As in
earlier religious teaching, sacrifice is seen as a
necessary element in the development of the
human soul.[69]
The compulsion on each individual to obey the laws brought by Bahá’u’lláh and to try to live up to His standards is thus very great, but it is stated in positive terms—education and development of potential, not sin and atonement. Rather than threatening dire punishment for each transgression, Bahá’u’lláh emphasizes the opportunities for growth which may be lost through ignorance or stubbornness.[70] This affirmative, inspirational approach combines a profound respect for the freedom and individuality of every human being with an extraordinary firmness and clarity of standards for society as a whole.
The concept of a covenant direct with God applies to all of the legal obligations of the system. The duty to obey the institutions, the duty to keep one’s word to others, even the duties relating to marriage and the education of children are owed to God; one may not be released from one’s obligations by the failure of another individual to perform his part. This would seem to dictate a kind of private law quite unlike the fault-based common law system. It might free the legal institutions to be more positive and remedy-oriented. The notions of private contracts would remain, but they would be clearly subordinated to Bahá’u’lláh’s standards of justice and human dignity.
B. The Role of the Institutions. According to Shoghi Effendi, the supreme and distinguishing function of Bahá’u’lláh’s Revelation is to bring about such a radical change in the standards of conduct of His followers as to bring into action “a new race of men” and a new culture.[71] By far the preponderant share of this task must be accomplished through the inspirational power of Bahá’u’lláh’s exhortations and by the exemplary effect of those who truly understand His laws. It is never easy, however, to change deep-rooted customs, whether they be polygamy, dependence on alcohol or drugs, or an almost instinctual antipathy to authority.
For this reason, the Bahá’í institutions at
present have the duty not only to educate the
believers to the necessity of obeying Bahá’u’lláh’s
new laws but also to intervene when
disobedience is so flagrant that it threatens to
spread misunderstanding and disrespect for
the Teachings. They must often act firmly to
forestall an impression among people used to
institutionally enforced standards that flagrant
disregard of the Teachings is being
condoned.[72] The sanction sometimes imposed
in such cases is the suspension of the
right to attend certain kinds of meetings and
to vote in elections. This sanction, when
imposed, is temporary, and restoration of
rights is conditional only on a sincere statement
of repentance and the rectification, if
[Page 28] possible, of the error.[73] The individual
whose rights are suspended remains a Bahá’í
and may attend such Bahá’í-sponsored functions
as are open to the general public.[74]
Shoghi Effendi’s secretary wrote to the National Spiritual Assembly of Canada on his behalf that:
- He considers that under no circumstances should any Bahá’í ever be suspended from the voting list and deprived of his administrative privileges for a matter which is not of the utmost gravity. By that he means breaking of laws, such as the consent of parents to marriage etc., or acts of such an immoral character as to damage the good name of the Faith.
- He has informed, some years ago, the American National Spiritual Assembly that, before anyone is deprived of their voting rights, they should be consulted with and lovingly admonished at first, given repeated warnings if they do not mend their immoral ways, or whatever other extremely serious misdemeanor they are committing, and finally, after these repeated warnings, be deprived of their voting rights.[75]
Not all of Bahá’u’lláh’s laws are subject to enforcement by sanction; many which are stated by Bahá’u’lláh to be fully binding and obligatory on every believer, such as the laws of daily prayer, the fast, and the parental duty to educate the children, are left entirely between the individual and God. Even with the marriage laws and the law against use of alcoholic beverages, which are enforceable by deprivation of voting rights, there is no attempt to compel full conformity with Bahá’u’lláh's high standard. The threshold for the application of sanctions is a much lower minimum standard related to the negative effect of flagrant disobedience on others. The enforceable standard is clearly not a substitute for the far greater duty owed to God and His Manifestation under the believer’s covenant, nor does it interfere with the dominantly inspirational and educative influence of divine law. The Universal House of Justice has instructed the assemblies, both national and local, that it is their
- vital and urgent duty . . . not only to apply the Laws of Bahá’u’lláh with justice and firmness, but to increase the believers’ understanding of and devotion to these Laws. In this way they will obey them not through fear of punishment but out of love for Bahá’u’lláh, and because their whole lives have been transformed and reoriented in the Way of God.[76]
‘Abdu’l-Bahá wrote that:
- there are two safeguards that protect man from wrongdoing. One is the law which punishes the criminal; but the law prevents only the manifest crime and not the concealed sin; whereas the ideal safeguard, namely, the religion of God, prevents both the manifest and the concealed crime, trains man, educates morals, compels the adoption of virtues and is the all-inclusive power which guarantees the felicity of the world of mankind.[77]
Elsewhere He stated that eventually through
education crime will be virtually eliminated.[78]
In the meantime society must use
both education and more direct methods for
deterrence and the protection of others. In
the Bahá’í system the two methods work
together. Institutional enforcement acts only
as a minor adjunct of the “ideal safeguard” as
a kind of slap on the wrist to alert an
individual to the deeper spiritual consequences
of disobedience. It is clear that in the
long run only the inspirational power of the
“ideal safeguard” can succeed in re-orienting
[Page 29] a whole culture.
C. The Goal of Universal Participation. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s description of human happiness in society quoted earlier involved more than mere obedience to its laws and adoption of its values—it also involved urging on “the steed of high endeavor in the arena of civilization and justice.” Bahá’u’lláh also exhorted the believers to “Address yourselves to the promotion of the well-being and tranquillity of the children of men. Bend your minds and wills to the education of the peoples and kindreds of the earth, that haply the dissensions that divide it may . . . be blotted out from its face . . . .”[79]
Speaking of the critical tasks lying ahead for the Bahá’í community, Shoghi Effendi wrote in a message to the American believers:
- This challenge, so severe and insistent, and yet so glorious, faces no doubt primarily the individual believer on whom, in the last resort, depends the fate of the entire community. He it is who constitutes the warp and woof on which the quality and pattern of the whole fabric must depend. He it is who acts as one of the countless links in the mighty chain that now girdles the globe. He it is who serves as one of the multitude of bricks which support the structure and insure the stability of the administrative edifice now being raised in every part of the world.[80]
The Universal House of Justice, using yet another analogy, compared the Bahá’í world community to a human body:
- In the human body, every cell, every organ, every nerve has its part to play. When all do so the body is healthy, vigorous, radiant, ready for every call made upon it. No cell, however humble, lives apart from the body, whether in serving it or receiving from it. This is true of the body of mankind in which God “has endowed each humble being with ability and talent,” and is supremely true of the body of the Bahá’í world community, for this body is already an organism, united in its aspirations, unified in its methods, seeking assistance and confirmation from the same Source, and illumined with the conscious knowledge of its unity. Therefore, in this organic, divinely guided, blessed, and illumined body the participation of every believer is of the utmost importance, and is a source of power and vitality as yet unknown to us. For extensive and deep as has been the sharing in the glorious work of the Cause, who would claim that every single believer has succeeded in finding his or her fullest satisfaction in the life of the Cause? The Bahá’í world community, growing like a healthy new body, develops new cells, new organs, new functions and powers as it presses on to its maturity, when every soul, living for the Cause of God, will receive from that Cause, health, assurance, and the overflowing bounties of Bahá’u’lláh which are diffused through His divinely ordained Order.[81]
Universal participation in the life of the
Cause has been referred to by the Universal
House of Justice as a “salient objective” that
[Page 30] “must be pressed toward attainment in every
continent, country and island of the
globe.”[82]
This goal is to be attained not only through intensified exhortation to each believer, and particularly “the affluent, the independent, the comfort-loving and those obsessed by material pursuits, to step forward, and dedicate their resources, their time, their very lives to a Cause of such transcendence that no human eye can even dimly perceive its glory,”[83] but also through patient efforts to encourage and stimulate every minority and diverse element in the community. Shoghi Effendi specifically instructed the Bahá’í communities of America that “If any discrimination is at all to be tolerated, it should be a discrimination not against, but rather in favor of the minority, be it racial or otherwise.” He continued:
- Unlike the nations and peoples of the earth, be they of the East or of the West, democratic or authoritarian, communist or capitalist, whether belonging to the Old World or the New, who either ignore, trample upon, or extirpate, the racial, religious, or political minorities within the sphere of their jurisdiction, every organized community, enlisted under the banner of Bahá’u’lláh should feel it to be its first and inescapable obligation to nurture, encourage, and safeguard every minority belonging to any faith, race, class, or nation within it.[84]
The motivating force of the determined effort to mold a new kind of society based on the blending of unity and diversity is the principle of the oneness of mankind, “the pivot round which all the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh revolve.”[85] This principle, Shoghi Effendi stated, “does not constitute merely the enunciation of an ideal, but stands inseparably associated with an institution adequate to embody its truth, demonstrate its validity, and perpetuate its influence.”[86] “It implies,” he further asserted, “an organic change in the structure of present-day society, a change such as the world has not yet experienced.”[87]
Conclusion
WE ARE LIVING in an age when political institutions, due to past promises unkept, are under tremendous pressure to accomplish normative goals and realize popular aspirations. They are unable to respond to such demands, largely because they have disavowed normative ends and have tried to be mere weathervanes seeking an equilibrium among the forces acting on them.[88] Large blocks of the citizenry have lost faith in the integrity of their governmental institutions and see them as mere tools of one interest group or another; great principles are quickly lost in the wrangling of pressure politics. The population is deeply divided, and governmental bodies are finding it necessary to use increasing amounts of force to maintain order.
In contrast, the Bahá’í political and constitutional order has the power to organize its efforts around normative principles and to achieve its objectives. It is clear that more than a passing interest should be given to Shoghi Effendi’s claim that:
- Leaders of religion, exponents of political theories, governors of human institutions, who at present are witnessing with perplexity and dismay the bankruptcy of their ideas, and the disintegration of their handiwork, would do well to turn their gaze to the Revelation of Bahá’u’lláh, and to meditate upon the World Order which, lying enshrined in His teachings, is slowly and imperceptibly rising amidst the welter and chaos of present-day civilization.[89]
- ↑ 1. Professor Browne’s description of his interview with Bahá’u’lláh in April, 1890, quoted by Shoghi Effendi in God Passes By (Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1944), p. 194.
- ↑ Theodore Lowi, The End of Liberalism (New York: Norton, 1969), p. xi.
- ↑ Ibid., p. xiii.
- ↑ Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, rev. ed. (Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1952), pp. 79-80.
- ↑ Ibid.
- ↑ Ibid., p. 255.
- ↑ Bahá’u’lláh, Kitáb-i-‘Aqdas, hereinafter referred to as ‘Aqdas, excerpted in Gleanings, p. 331.
- ↑ Ibid., pp. 330-1.
- ↑ Bahá’u’lláh, The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh (Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1954), pp. 12-3.
- ↑ ‘Abdu’l-Bahá states, “If religion were contrary to logical reason then it would cease to be a religion and be merely a tradition. Religion and science are the two wings upon which man’s intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress.” Paris Talks, 11th ed. (London: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1969), p. 143.
- ↑ ‘Aqdas, in Gleanings, p. 332.
- ↑ Bahá’u’lláh, Kitáb-i-Íqán, 2nd ed. (Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1950), pp. 254-5.
- ↑ Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, rev. ed. (Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1955), p. 134.
- ↑ Paris Talks; The Promulgation of Universal Peace, 2 vols. (Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Committee, 1943).
- ↑ The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 147.
- ↑ The Universal House of Justice, Wellspring of Guidance: Messages 1963-1968 (Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1969), p. 90.
- ↑ Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Bahá’í World Faith, 2nd ed. (Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1956), pp. 182-3.
- ↑ ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá (Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1968), pp. 19-20.
- ↑ Ibid., p. 14.
- ↑ For example, see Shoghi Effendi, Bahá’í Administration, rev. ed. (Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1968), pp. 40, 41, 63. 78, 82, 135.
- ↑ The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 150.
- ↑ Wellspring of Guidance, p. 11.
- ↑ Ibid., pp. 52, 84.
- ↑ Ibid., pp. 87-8.
- ↑ Ibid., pp. 84-5.
- ↑ In Bahá’í Administration, p. 21.
- ↑ Ibid.
- ↑ Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 14.
- ↑ Bahá’í Administration, pp. 20, 39.
- ↑ Ibid., p. 37.
- ↑ Ibid., pp. 40-1.
- ↑ Ibid., p. 39.
- ↑ In Principles of Bahá’í Administration, 2nd ed. (London: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1963), p. 46.
- ↑ Bahá’í Administration, p. 88.
- ↑ Ibid., p. 136.
- ↑ Ibid., p. 64.
- ↑ Ibid.
- ↑ The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 153.
- ↑ A local Community meeting held every nineteen days, at the start of each month in the Bahá’í calendar. The Feast has spiritual, business, and social portions.
- ↑ Bahá’í Administration, p. 65.
- ↑ Shoghi Effendi, in The Covenant and Administration (Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1969), p. 68.
- ↑ P. Christensen, “The Unity-Diversity Principle and Its Effect on Creative Group Problem Solving: An Experimental Investigation,” Thesis Harvard Univ. 1969.
- ↑ Ibid., p. 53.
- ↑ Wellspring of Guidance, p. 96.
- ↑ In Bahá’í Administration, p. 22.
- ↑ Promulgation of Universal Peace, I, 69.
- ↑ In Bahá’í Administration, p. 21.
- ↑ Ibid., p. 64.
- ↑ Ibid., pp. 21-2.
- ↑ In Principles of Bahá’í Administration, p. 48.
- ↑ Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 14.
- ↑ Bahá’í Administration, p. 38.
- ↑ Article III, “By-Laws of a Local Spiritual Assembly,” in National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States, Declaration of Trust (Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1969), p. 16.
- ↑ Bahá’í Administration, p. 39.
- ↑ Article VII, Sections 8-9, 11. “By-Laws of a Local Spiritual Assembly,” in National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States, Declaration of Trust, pp. 11-12.
- ↑ Messages to Canada, pp. 8-9.
- ↑ Ibid., p. 9.
- ↑ ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, The Secret of Divine Civilization (Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1957), p. 60.
- ↑ Ibid., p. 4.
- ↑ Gleanings, p. 260.
- ↑ In Shoghi Effendi, The Advent of Divine Justice, rev. ed. (Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1963), p. 19.
- ↑ Ibid., p. 18.
- ↑ Ibid., p. 19.
- ↑ ’Aqdas, in Gleanings, p. 332.
- ↑ Ibid., pp. 86-7.
- ↑ Ibid., p. 336.
- ↑ See passages collected in The Covenant of Bahá’u’lláh: A Compilation, rev. ed. (London: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1963), pp. 73-83.
- ↑ Gleanings, pp. 5-6.
- ↑ See ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s explanation in Promulgation of Universal Peace, pp. 444-8.
- ↑ The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 28-9.
- ↑ The Advent of Divine Justice, p. 14.
- ↑ The foregoing is my understanding of the policy of administrative intervention based on my work for the institutions and perusal of unpublished Universal House of Justice letters to the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States.
- ↑ Shoghi Effendi, in Principles of Bahá’í Administration, p. 84, and Universal House of Justice letters as above.
- ↑ Shoghi Effendi, in Principles of Bahá’í Administration, p. 84.
- ↑ Messages to Canada, pp. 51-2.
- ↑ Universal House of Justice letter to the American National Spiritual Assembly, dated Oct. 4, 1965, quoted by permission of the latter institution.
- ↑ Bahá’í World Faith, p. 289.
- ↑ ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, (Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1964), pp. 307-8.
- ↑ Gleanings, p. 333.
- ↑ Citadel of Faith, p. 130.
- ↑ Wellspring of Guidance, pp. 37-8.
- ↑ Universal House of Justice letter to the Bahá’ís of the World, Nov. 16, 1969.
- ↑ Citadel of Faith, p. 131.
- ↑ The Advent of Divine Justice, p. 29.
- ↑ The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 42.
- ↑ Ibid., p. 43.
- ↑ Ibid.
- ↑ Lowi, p. xiii.
- ↑ The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 24.
The Ascents
- The expectation ocean
- projects great fish
- pressing up rivers
- over cataracts.
- Not one will be lost.
- The dead will be found in pools and eddies.
- Diamonds sits in edges, hardly living,
- electrons
- dribbling in and out, the lattice holding
- by love;
- remembering
- martyrdom of fire and oppression of earth:
- prayer of the form of diamond.
- Behold blackberries
- burgeoning with transactions of earth and air:
- already the life leaps!
- The juice had been cloud and stone.
- Roots do not edge but verge, and the leaves too.
- Earth air and water and fire
- achieve the bush and flower; sunlight
- becomes the sweets of the fruits of summer.
- achieve the bush and flower; sunlight
- Prayer and love of blackberries send ten thousand bushes out
- among bushes and leaves of blackberries
- and dead leaves dead bushes, the dead
- of which life means in very act.
- O God, these, these must be the very cap of the arch of the name blackberry!
- But for these or their coming or having been
- the wheeling starry universes could not be!
- Not boundaries did the beasts accrue,
- but centers strong as planets’ pull
- to hold the incredible machines
- in equilibrium with air,
- earth and water, and the sun,
- and calculate the sum of sense
- upon an abacus of acts.
- Air, light,
- water, heat,
- plant and meat—
- all
- enter: become: excrete.
- Those lions there: lion and lioness,
- like oceans, merge
- beneath the arched bridge of flesh.
- Behold:
- beneath the arched bridge of flesh.
- like oceans, merge
- In the womb new gravities
- gathering beasts about them.
- Oh, I tell you sir, I comprehend your incredulity,
- this is all, as you say, impossible: I too would own it, except—
- (I swear it by the disappearance of dead flesh into the earth and air)
- I myself have seen—
- prodigies!
- These eyes have beheld—
- Listen:
- The bees, you understand; roses—
- the plankton, the fish, the seabirds,
- eagles wheeling
- skitter of mice
- swoop of owl
- scurry of lizard—
- snake, bacteria—
- eagles wheeling
- the plankton, the fish, the seabirds,
- algae (do you comprehend?) moss worms grass
- zebra
- lions at red feasts
- O bamboo, jasmine, oak, piranha,
- white-tail deer, laurel,
- shark, orchid, jay—
- white-tail deer, laurel,
- phyla and species ranked and ranged—
- Oh the thrust of it!
- The speech of the blessed chromosomes of the earth!
- The unspeakable beauty of the terrific heave of life!
- Ages behold
- aeons cradle
- this gestation
- this form gathering.
- Like our rockets, to which air
- is neither barrier not breath,
- through all ecologies we pressed,
- hastening through the layers of life
- upriver, over cataract,
- past pools and eddies of the dead,
- upriver, over cataract,
- an only fish in rivers of the sky—
- an only bird in endless air.
- Teaching the suns and worlds to be
- is God’s least work. The prayer of our ascents
- the far trajectory
- gathers each age about it as a cloud,
- we wear planets and all creatures as robe,
- worn and outworn.
- The cycles of the year,
- the disappearance of dead flesh in earth and air,
- He taught most anciently,
- ere we had crept from our home
- in the belly of the mothering sea
- to learn our pain upon the rocks.
- And when among dinosaurs
- and we too as if reptile
- we roamed,
- and we too as if reptile
- He taught our loins one letter of the prayer,
- thrusting us thus through timeless soaring epochs
- to a ripened hour when a star shone
- and devastations of tests shattered the old night.
- We gave all ancient over to the flames.
- And lessons He gave of blood to be warm,
- of womb to bear, of tongue to speak,
- taking at every test for sacrifice
- the seamless garment, mesh and matrix,
- perfected beauty of the ecology of the elder age,
- the split chrysalis, the dry form wherein His love had coursed of old,
- love
- by which life pierces every death.
- by which we find the new Home at fixed times.
- The Holy University of Evolution irrevocably requires
- these sacrifices by only which high commencement
- he who is raised may step
- astonishingly across a foretold unforeseen threshold
- into the new world’s ordinary days.
- On earth, when the names of the naked earth
- achieved the last form,
- He set curriculums of living man.
- And hearts He teaches flight, and souls
- the courses of rivers towards the sun,
- and river to be the fish’s bride.
- In crisis of tempest
- birds die
- caught in the gears of the wind with teeth of rain;
- and thunder eats their cries. Pain
- shrieks not to mercy this exigent engine.
- High and higher air the storm rends;
- and the sea,
- on the storm’s account mountainous,
- and the sea,
- tosses (the jagged fall after) as flotsam
- birds’ shards, feathers of dead birds, the dead
- of which life spends in every sea;
- and fish float up-belly in the swell.
- Ocean will cast or change the dead ere long.
- But there — oh high!
- in the invisible far-ever-arches of sky,
- ocean without end—
- There,
- ocean without end—
- high song calling
- soaring on strong wings
- friend of the wind
- intimate of the sea
- with flash of scales
- soaring on strong wings
- mirroring the noon sun—
- There—
- here! in this place
- in this heaven, world upon world,
- these lovers’ joy clangs out tumultuous song
- among these deeds and journeys
- among the amazing glad harmonies and Kingdoms of His Greatest Name
- among these deeds and journeys
- of Whom life sings in every praise.
The Cities Men Build
By ROBERT W. MCLAUGHLIN
WE CAN be sure of one thing about our cities: it is we who make them. They are our doing, obviously not a part of the natural world that is given us, and we are responsible for whatever they have become and are to be.
Beyond the immediate physical environment that we create, we have for centuries held aloft images of cities as they might be. Plato’s Republic, St. Augustine’s City of God, or Sir Thomas More’s Utopia, which have held important places in man’s consciousness, were regarded essentially as unattainable expressions of otherworldliness. It can be said for our present generation that we no longer accept such an inevitable dualism. If the problems of our cities on this earth are acute, so is our concern for them, here and now.
What I would like to indicate is something of the inexorable nature of the forces that have produced the “problem of the cities,” and the inadequacy of anything short of the most basic remedies for the disease. During several decades of involvement in urbanistic theory and practice (with quite a schism between the two) one managed to become exposed to most of the palliatives that were advocated with the best of motives, and indeed found oneself making whatever contribution one could to their development and advancement. But however much we may be intrigued by schemes for urban renewal or development, slum clearance or subsidized housing, new towns or satellite cities, industrialized construction methods or new ways of composing dwelling units, we become appalled by their inadequacy. For, in trying to deal with urban problems in this way, we may run fast but do not begin to keep up. The back of an envelope will do for showing arithmetically the dollar relationship between the billions most optimistically proposed as palliatives, as against the many more billions spent each year in creating the disease.
IT HELPS to leave the familiar surroundings of one’s own country to see a stark and simple urban phenomenon that indicates how we are creating our urban environment.
It happens from time to time in Peru. Indians come down to the bright lights of coastal cities from a squalid existence in the Andes to seek economic betterment. They get jobs and find hovels in the slums of Lima or perhaps Trujillo. They acquire a little money, only to see it go for high rents for poor quarters. Colorful homespun garments are shed for the pants and shirt of the mestizo, with a resultant change in social status that is superficial but expedient. The social structure of their indigenous background remains, however, in their capacity for group action.
They eye an area of vacant land near the city, perhaps a piece owned and held out of use for centuries by a “first family.” Quietly they plan a new community or barriada for the site already preempted in their minds and stealthily fabricate sections of house walls and roofs out of saplings, reeds, scrap metal, or whatever they can salvage from the city dump. One dark night, when all is ready, trucks roll out to the site of the new community, loaded with families and prefabricated house units. Streets and house locations are marked out with stones according to a carefully conceived plan.
By dawn hundreds of little houses have
[Page 37] been erected, and a Peruvian flag flies at
the peak of each. Another invasión de
tierras—a term taken for granted in the
urbanistic language of Peru as is the new
town of England or the satellite city of
Sweden—has occurred. In a few instances,
where the invaded land is under strong
local ownership, bulldozers may be sent in
to level the structures, and within twenty-four
hours a town has been built and
destroyed, a record hardly matched even
by North American enterprise. But for the
most part the owners are expatriates who
may cable frantically from a Riviera
beach while the government looks the
other way. After all, who would fire on
the Peruvian flag?
Before long, electric wires are strung, some sort of water supply is improvised, and a community center and cantina established. A bus of some sort makes the rounds. A new urban complex with as many as several thousand people has been planned and consummated, complete with inadequate sanitation, social ills, and all the other problems of urbanism, even to Peace Corps volunteers to help solve them and sociologists from the United States to explain them.
The point of these invasiones de tierras,
[Page 38] these new satellite communities that have
invaded the lands of urban Peru, is that
they are conceived and executed with a
unity of purpose and with a speed made
possible by a primitive but effective technology.
A quarter of the population of
Lima is housed in this way.
In the United States we find counterparts of the Peruvian city planning and city building drama, superficially different but quite similar in impact, in the mobile home communities that spring up wherever land can be reached on wheels. Statistically, mobile homes now constitute about a fourth of all houses being built in the United States, and the proportion increases. This is not the place to discuss this phenomenon of man-made environment in the detail that its importance deserves. Its growth has only started, and no one concerned with housing can sweep it under the rug.
The mobile home park (a pretty word for collections of houses with as little as three feet between them) starts with a perfectly understandable need for compact, efficiently engineered dwellings that can be set up rapidly and without the tedious complications and expense of downgraded traditional building methods. Behind the development is a young, ambitious industry with a strong profit motive, spreading from central producers to local entrepreneurs.
Typically, the promoter first seeks a piece of land, hopefully one near a town or city but without zoning or other legal restrictions. Once he has a site that is adequate for anything from ten to thousands of units, the promoter deals with matters of water, sewers, electricity, and roads, arranges financing, and develops a plan. While the Peruvian invasion of the land is dramatic in its suddenness and disregard for ancient property rights, the American invasion proceeds quietly, deviously, but generally within the letter of the law.
The mobile homes arrive over the roads as fast as sales or rentals dictate. The larger parks will have a sort of community center, and some have golf courses, ponds stocked with fish, and shopping centers. Costs are about ten dollars a square foot, furnished, considerably less than for conventional houses, and there is much to be commended in the basic technological concept.
A few mobile home colonies are well planned, but many are overcrowded, with units arranged for maximum land use and without adequate utilities and other facilities. The units are subject to rapid obsolescence, a prime cause of slums. Since three-quarters of all new single family houses costing less than $12,500 (which represents a maximum for families with incomes of $5000) are now mobile homes, the potentiality for future slums is enormous. Basically, this is a development with great economic force which is unplanned for public good.
Invasiones de tierras and mobile home parks represent two ways in which cities are being built on expanding fringes. What about the core of the city, the area already built up? Here New York offers examples as well known as any.
NOT LONG AGO Park Avenue above Grand Central Terminal was New York’s preferred high rental apartment area. This has now been destroyed, and new office buildings have risen, to the best of my knowledge completely without benefit of basic urban planning considerations. No tears need be shed here for the displaced persons, and no slum, at least in the usual sense of the word, was created. But this area is another example of the forces within us that are determining the character of our cities.
In the years soon after the Second World War the structures that were built around the time of the First World War were demolished, although obviously they were eminently habitable. Again our technical capacity to destroy or build just about whatever we choose was demonstrated. Why did the Park Avenue owners, who were getting a good return from a prosperous, stabilized, fully rented area, want to destroy it for another use? The answer is that the owners saw alternatives that would increase their financial yields, even after allowing for the destruction of existing investments. Real estate appraisers refer to the “highest and best use” of a property, meaning highest and best in terms of dollars, not human values.
Our cities are being built and altered by the computed decisions of balance sheets and profit and loss statements that seldom allow for the underlying values that give life and meaning to the city as environment for human beings.
So far we have said nothing about blighted areas or slums of which we are so aware because of the miseries they produce and the problems they generate. Slums tend to appear when dominant commercial forces can find no “higher and better use” for an area. In New York the Bedford-Stuyvesant section vies with and indeed exceeds Harlem[1] as a great concentration of disadvantaged population.
In the first quarter of this century the Bedford section of Brooklyn was the unquestioned home of prosperous, middle-class Americans. Its broad, tree-lined streets were faced with rows of brownstones interspersed with occasional mansions for the really wealthy. Churches were abundant in that part of the “City of Churches” and were well attended as a matter of course. Men routinely took trolleys, ferries, and subways to their offices, and women took them to the department stores. All was quiet and apparently stable, with the houses serviced by immigrant girls from Ireland and northern Europe.
But people grew old, and after the First World War the steerage of ships stopped providing servants to climb the typical four or five flights of steps between high ceilinged rooms. The houses, lined up so properly with neat stoops and areaways, no longer seemed convenient. Perhaps quiet and stability had reached the point of dullness and boredom. Suburbs beckoned. For sale signs appeared in increasing numbers, and any semblance of a “higher and better use,” as understood in terms of real estate profit, had disappeared. The potato fields of Long Island became housing developments and the exodus was on. So by force of a vacuum the least privileged poured in.
Bedford-Stuyvesant was abandoned by the economic and social forces that build and maintain our cities—in so far as they are maintained, that is. An outstandingly staid neighborhood became within a decade a ghetto, a slum, and a “problem” area. Social services, renewal plans, and proposals for subsidies appeared, all too slight as remedies, while the deterioration of the environment went on and New York awaited more hot summers.
THE FOUR EXAMPLES given indicate four
of the dominant ways in which cities are
being built and changed: by invasion, by
devious economic expediency, by the
tyranny of the balance sheet, and by
ruthless abandonment. What can we really
expect of the palliatives of urban renewal,
slum clearance, or subsidized housing,
when the underlying causes of the
disease go on at many times the possible
[Page 40] rate of the most ambitiously hoped for
remedies? Shall we not do better to consider
and deal with the causes?
Since it is we who make our cities, perhaps we shall want to look within ourselves. Are the motives behind our four examples the best within us? What about justice, specifically for the Andean Indian who is otherwise driven to invasion? What about an awareness of the God-given qualities within us that would make unthinkable the incipient slums of our more expediently conceived city-fringes? Can’t we lift our eyes above the figures of the balance sheet? How shall we take within our hearts the concept of the oneness of mankind that would stop the affluent from turning their backs and abandoning a city while the poor crowd in?
From the prison-city of ‘Akká, Bahá’u’lláh wrote of Himself: “He Who hath come to build anew the whole world, behold, how they . . . have forced Him to dwell within the most desolate of cities!”[2] We can ask ourselves whether, when we ignore the deeply underlying concepts of justice and of the oneness of mankind, we do not inevitably doom ourselves to the most desolate of cities. For more than a century we have generated an outpouring of material resources and techniques for building whatever we choose. But what shall we choose?
As we observe the current deterioration of our cities, it is quite apparent that this is not just another case of physical decay or obsolescence. What we see demonstrates that mankind’s ordered life has been revolutionized. Age-old assumptions are no longer valid. Extremes of poverty and wealth, for example, accepted for centuries and expressed in the big house on the hill with clay hovels below, are no longer tolerable. Segregation by race, color, religion, or national origin, until recently assumed and blocked out on almost every urban pattern, just will not work. We are swept up in a vast unifying force that both destroys old boundaries and creates a new wholeness.
The world’s equilibrium has been upset, and that is what the crisis of our cities is about. We of this material age have accepted this fact in the material realm, and for the past century and a quarter we have enthusiastically immersed ourselves in the wonders of science and technology. But we have also become aware of social injustices which we have received with some reluctance, considerable trepidation, and quite a lot of activity.
We exploit technology and adapt to social change as we build our cities, but we are still shadowed by a sense of insecurity when we view our urban handiwork. For these technological and social happenings are only surface fragments of the divinely ordained world order that is even now in process of becoming; the strife and disintegration that have seized our cities are evidence that an old order is dying.
We care too deeply about our cities to accept knowing only the fringes of this world-embracing force. We shall want to seek its source and to grasp its underlying concept of the oneness of mankind. Bahá’ís believe that, once this concept has pervaded our consciousness, the debilitating tensions within our cities will fall away.
The message of Bahá’u’lláh is not a matter for idle worship. It is most assuredly for those who build. When we accept it, we can envisage cities of men that will come to partake of the attributes of the City of God.
Guardians of His Trust
A Bahá’í Solution to the Problem of Poverty
By DANIEL C. JORDAN
THE CAUSES OF poverty are institutionalized. Any serious attempt to do anything about poverty on a widespread scale will meet resistance from the most prestigious of the world’s religious institutions; economic institutions; business and industrial organizations, legal systems; civic, educational, recreational, and medical organizations; and government itself. Therefore, a permanent and effective solution to the problem of poverty will ultimately require, in Bahá’í terms, a “rolling up of the old world order” and “spreading out a new one in its stead”— one which will be free of the values which sustain the cycle of poverty. This is not to say that nothing can be done at the present time to alleviate the conditions of the poor. The Bahá’í teachings concerning poverty provide a spiritual perspective on the issue. The spiritual principles involved can be applied with guaranteed efficacy, even though, in ultimate terms, the permanent solution may require the establishment of a new world order.
Trying to deal with the problems of poverty through purely economic means can only result in failure. The institutionalized values which perpetuate the poverty cycle through successive generations, while having a bearing upon the economy, are not primarily economic in nature. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, son of the Founder of the Bahá’í Faith, stated that “When we see poverty allowed to reach a condition of starvation, it is a sure sign that somewhere we shall find tyranny.”[1] Thus, until the causes of tyranny are dealt with, the problems of poverty cannot be solved. Over one hundred years ago, Bahá’u’lláh addressed all the kings of the earth collectively in a message known as the “Tablet of the Kings.” In this message, He speaks to the issue of tyranny and injustice as it relates to the economy and the condition of the poor:
- O kings of the earth! We see you increasing every year your expenditures, and laying the burden thereof on your subjects. This, verily, is wholly and grossly unjust. . . . Do not rob them to rear palaces for yourselves; nay rather choose for them that which ye choose for yourselves.[2]
- Tread ye the path of justice, for this, verily, is the straight path. Compose your differences, and reduce your armaments, that the burden of your expenditures may be lightened, and that your minds and hearts may be tranquilized. Heal the dissensions that divide you, and ye will no longer be in need of any armaments except what the protection of your cities and territories demandeth. Fear ye God, and take heed not to outstrip the bounds of moderation, and be numbered among the extravagant. We have learned that you [Page 42]
are increasing your outlay every year, and are laying the harden thereof on your subjects. This, verily, is more than they can bear, and is a grievous injustice.[3]
In that same Tablet, Bahá’u’lláh places the responsibility of caring for the poor on those who occupy positions of power:
- Know ye that the poor are the trust of God in your midst. Watch that ye betray not His trust, that ye deal not unjustly with them and that ye walk not in the ways of the treacherous. Ye will most certainly he called upon to answer for His trust on the day when the Balance of Justice shall be set, the day when unto every one shall be rendered his due, when the doing of all men, be they rich or poor, shall be weighed![4]
Although Bahá’u’lláh wrote these words over one hundred years ago, societies the world over still expend vast sums on armaments while funds for alleviating their own domestic conditions of poverty are in short supply. If all the military budgets of the world were totaled up, they would amount to a financial resource of staggering magnitude. These budgets stand as a colossus of tragedy —a monument to our collective ignorance and an agonizing manifestation of the extent to which injustice and prejudice operate as determinants of economic policies. The basic injustice to which Bahá’u’lláh refers time and again is the exploitation by those who are in positions of power of those whom they govern, largely through excessive taxation and the misuse of public funds. This misuse reflects a set of priorities which is morally and spiritually reprehensible. No social system can tolerate indefinitely the kinds of pressures which build up when such priorities serve as the basis of governmental policy. Bahá’u’lláh Himself predicted the consequences of ignoring His counsel concerning these inverted priorities when He warned the monarchs that their kingdoms would be thrown into confusion, their empires would pass from their hands, commotion would seize all the people, and abasement would hasten after them as long as they remained heedless.[5] From the middle of the nineteenth century to the present time, we have been witnessing the commotion and confusion that have arisen in the wake of the efforts of the oppressed and the poor to secure their rights.
Another manifestation of the kind of injustice associated with poverty in the United States and a number of other countries is reflected in the disproportionate number of non-whites and members of ethnic minorities who are poor. In this country alone there are over thirty-five million people living in poverty as defined by the Office of Economic Opportunity. About half of them are non-white. For the most part they consist of American Indians living both on and off the reservation; Negroes who have migrated recently from the rural south to the industrial centers of the north; Spanish-speaking people with a rural background living in the west and middle-west and Puerto Ricans who have moved to several northern metropolitan areas; and, to a lesser extent, European immigrants with a rural background. It is obvious that the problem of poverty cannot be dealt with successfully so long as ethnic prejudices prevail because these prejudices severely reduce the number of opportunities available for gaining economic security and destroy incentives for work.
The expenditure of so much of the public
treasury on armaments and the perpetuation
of the vicious cycle of poverty through
prejudice and discrimination is bad enough.
But the true picture is even bleaker. A
significant percentage of the vast sums spent
on trying to deal with the problem of poverty
actually makes the situation worse. A number
[Page 43] of researchers have demonstrated that
behavior which guarantees a low economic
status in the future is socialized in early
childhood and that no program of intervention
will be effective unless it involves the
socialization or re-socialization of children
from welfare families. Since welfare monies
are not used in any way to assist in the re-socialization
of children, society’s present way
of dealing with poverty does not eliminate it,
but, in fact, institutionalizes it. This has the
consequence of creating a permanent “welfare
class.”[6] We are thus confronted with a
doubly demoralizing situation: not enough
funds to do anything significant with the
problem, and available money used in a way
which effectively perpetuates the problem
rather than solves it.
Responsibilities of the Powerful and Affluent—the Guardians of His Trust
BAHÁ’U’LLÁH has placed special obligations upon those who occupy positions of power in the government and upon the affluent in working out a permanent solution to the problem of poverty. In His communications to the heads of states, Bahá’u’lláh identifies the poor as the “trust of God” and cautions the rulers to establish justice if they are to avoid betraying His trust. In The Hidden Words Bahá’u’lláh extends this responsibility to the affluent: “O YE RICH ONES ON EARTH! The poor in your midst are My trust; guard ye My trust, and be not intent only on your own ease.”[7] Thus, both the powerful and the affluent are guardians of His trust. Throughout His Writings, Bahá’u’lláh assigns a number of specific responsibilities to these “guardians.” In addition to the ones already mentioned, Bahá’u’lláh calls for the abolition of both chattel slavery and industrial slavery. He insists on the reduction of the extremes of wealth and poverty through legislative means and the voluntary efforts of those with ample incomes to assist the poor. Bahá’u’lláh’s teaching on inheritance establishes a new pattern for distributing the estates of the deceased which makes the massive accumulation of wealth within particular families very difficult, yet does not deprive such families of a high standard of living. Bahá’u’lláh also advocated the adoption of a graduated income tax so that the tax burden would not exacerbate the economic condition of the poor. Capital must not exploit labor. When ‘Abdu’l-Bahá was in Dublin, New Hampshire, in 1912, he told one of his audiences that “According to the divine law, employees should not be paid merely by wages. Nay, rather they should be partners in every work.”[8] In the Tablet of Ishráqát, Bahá’u’lláh says:
- The fifth Ishráq (Effulgence) is the knowledge by governments of the condition of the governed, and the conferring of ranks according to desert and merit. Regard to this matter is strictly enjoined upon every chief and ruler, that haply traitors may not usurp the positions of trustworthy men nor spoilers occupy the seats of guardians.[9]
While Bahá’u’lláh does not forbid the charging
of interest on money, He cautions that it
is a matter that must be conducted with
moderation and justice and indicates that in
order to keep the poor from being exploited,
the maximum rate of interest allowable will
have to be determined by the government. In
essence these last three responsibilities entail
the obligation of the affluent and government
leaders to establish and maintain legitimate
incentives for the poor to work and to
accumulate as much wealth as their efforts
[Page 44] will bring them.
The guardians of His trust also have a responsibility for providing the poor with the kind of education which will guarantee their employability. Thousands of Americans who have worked in anti-poverty programs sponsored by the Office of Economic Opportunity have been disillusioned by their discovery that providing an economic opportunity—a job opportunity or the opportunity to train for a job—is not enough to help someone out of the cycle of poverty. Being offered a job and accepting it is one thing. Being able to perform on the job responsibly enough to keep it is another. Developing a marketable skill and having an employment opportunity which requires that skill solves only half the problem. Being reliable in showing up for work, being on time, working at a reasonable rate, and being motivated to do quality work represents the other half of the problem. Educational programs having the objective of intervening successfully in the cycle of poverty must equip the person not only with a marketable skill but must also help him to develop a set of attitudes and commitments which will enable him to keep a job once he has the opportunity to take one. Characteristics which guarantee job tenure, such as reliability, trustworthiness, and promptness, do not have survival value in a poverty culture. That is why a welfare system which provides only subsistence, but does nothing about the problem of helping to socialize or re-socialize children who are born into very low-income families, simply ends up financing the transmission from one generation to the next of attitudes and behaviors that are not compatible with reliable performance on the job. It is for this reason that Bahá’í education is concerned with character development as much as it is with the development of good scientists, artists, technicians, and craftsmen. Modern psychology has demonstrated the fact that the roots of character development lie in the experiences of early childhood. That is why ‘Abdu’l-Bahá stresses the importance of early childhood education:
- As to thy question concerning training children: It is incumbent upon thee to nurture them from the breast of the love of God, to urge them towards spiritual matters to turn unto God, and to acquire good manners, best characteristics and praiseworthy virtues and qualities in the world of humanity, and to study sciences with the utmost diligence; so that they may become spiritual, heavenly, and attracted to the fragrances of sanctity from their childhood and be reared in a religious, spiritual and heavenly training.[10]
Furthermore, if parents are unable to provide an appropriate education for their children, then it becomes the responsibility of the Bahá’í community.
Responsibilities of His Trust— the Poor and Needy
STRIVING TO FIND ways of eradicating poverty is not only the responsibility of the affluent. Bahá’u’lláh assigns a number of responsibilities to the poor, so that they may be worthy of being His trust. He forbids begging and makes it incumbent upon everyone to engage in some occupation. The poor are not permitted to sit by passively and receive the attention and bestowals of the wealthy. Bahá’u’lláh says:
- Please God, the poor may exert themselves and strive to earn the means of livelihood. This is a duty which, in this most great Revelation, hath been prescribed unto every one, and is accounted in the sight of God as a goodly deed. Whoso obsrveth this duty, the help of the invisible One shall most certainly aid him.[11]
[Page 45]
In His message to the rulers and the people of
Persia, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá exhorts the poor and the
downtrodden to make efforts on their own
behalf: “Open your mind’s eye, see your
great and present need. Rise up and struggle,
seek education, seek enlightenment.”[12] Furthermore,
it is important for the poor to
strive to become educated because ignorance
invites the very oppression, exploitation, and
injustice which perpetuates poverty. In that
same message, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá makes the point
that the uneducated lack the vocabulary to
explain what they need and cannot adequately
plead their case in court, even when the
chance is given.[13]
Spiritual Values and the Abolition of Poverty
IT IS REMARKABLE that in the one hundred years since Bahá’u’lláh promulgated these teachings about poverty, some progress has been made by the United States in applying every one of them. Many legislators have been making efforts to end war, reduce armaments, cut military expenditures, and turn those funds into domestic programs for the eradication of poverty. Vast segments of the entire population have been outraged by the extravagance of the military budget, particularly when compared with the resources put into efforts to reduce poverty. As recently as the 1950’s, very little money outside of minimal welfare assistance was allocated by state and federal governments to finance programs designed to abolish poverty. The last decade and a half has witnessed the passage of legislation which provided for the establishment of an Office of Economic Opportunity—an agency officially charged with the responsibility for designing permanent solutions to the problem of poverty. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and the Higher Education Act of 1965 both provided billions of dollars to finance educational programs for disadvantaged children from low-income families—special programs which are designed to prevent the poverty culture from being transmitted from one generation to the next. The Manpower Development Training Act also provided means for establishing training programs for the poor so that their employability might be increased and job tenure secured.
Yet, we can never achieve ultimate success in arriving at a permanent solution to the problem of poverty until there is a shift from material to spiritual values as the basis of our economic policies. So long as material values dominate our lives, avarice, greed, and a compulsion to exploit the poor, rather than assist them, will ever be present. Bahá’u’lláh taught that true religion is the only instrument capable of inducing man to make that shift from material to spiritual values as the dominating force in his life. Although it is important that special laws be made in order to reduce the extremes of riches and want, nonetheless, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá says that “The rich must give of their abundance; they must soften their hearts and cultivate a compassionate intelligence, taking thought for those sad ones who are suffering from lack of the very necessities of life.”[14] In a letter to the Central Organization for a Durable Peace, written in 1919, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá emphasized the voluntary nature of assuming responsibility for the welfare of others:
- Among the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh is voluntary sharing of one’s property with others among mankind. This voluntary sharing is greater than (legally imposed) equality, and consists in this, that one should not prefer oneself to others, but rather should sacrifice one’s life and property for others. But this should not be introduced by coercion so that it becomes a [Page 46]
law which man is compelled to follow. Nay, rather, man should voluntarily and of his own choice sacrifice his property and life for others, and spend willingly for the poor, just as is done in Persia among the Bahá’ís.[15]
Furthermore, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá affirms that:
- Wealth is praiseworthy in the highest degree, if it is acquired by an individual’s own efforts and the grace of God, in commerce, agriculture, art and industry, and if it be expended for philanthropic purposes. Above all, if a judicious and resourceful individual should initiate measures which would universally enrich the masses of the people, there could be no undertaking greater than this, and it would rank in the sight of God as the supreme achievement, for such a benefactor would supply the needs and insure the comfort and well-being of a great multitude.[16]
And again:
- Is there any greater blessing conceivable for a man, than that he should become the cause of the education, the development, the prosperity and honor of his fellow-creatures? No, by the Lord God! The highest righteousness of all is for blessed souls to take hold of the hands of the helpless and deliver them out of their ignorance and abasement and poverty, and with pure motives, and only for the sake of God, to arise and energetically devote themselves to the service of the masses, forgetting their own worldly advantage and working only to serve the general good.[17]
Not only is it of benefit to the poor to receive assistance from the wealthy, but it is good for the rich to understand the nature of true wealth and to give to the poor in a spirit consistent with that understanding. Bahá’u’lláh states: “The essence of wealth is love for Me. Whoso loveth Me is the possessor of all things, and he that loveth Me not is, indeed, of the poor and needy!”[18] Repeatedly, Bahá’u’lláh cites the debilitating and destructive force of being heedless of the needs of others and teaches that to be happy, stable human beings we have to assist in meeting the needs of others. Excessive wealth not used in spiritually correct ways will bring despair and tragedy upon its possessor precisely because it prohibits him from becoming and remaining aware of the nature of true wealth. Contemporary life is full of examples of the wealthy whose existence is an utter misery because they are heedless of their spiritual and moral obligations. They squander and waste their fortunes, eventually facing both spiritual and material bankruptcy. Bahá’u’lláh makes the point in unequivocal terms:
- O CHILDREN OF DUST!
- Tell the rich of the midnight sighing of the poor, lest heedlessness lead them into the path of destruction, and deprive them of the Tree of Wealth. To give and to be generous are attributes of Mine; well is it with him that adorneth himself with My virtues.[19]
As the spiritualization of the planet takes place, new institutions which will deal with the problem of poverty from a spiritual point of view will be raised up, and the guardians of His trust will more and more assume their responsibility for looking after that trust. When this happens, Bahá’u’lláh’s promise to the poor that “the Lord of wealth” will visit them will come true.
- O SON OF BEING!
- If poverty overtake thee, be not sad; for in time the Lord of wealth shall visit thee. Fear not abasement, for glory shall one day rest on thee.[20]
- ↑ In J. E. Esslemont, Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era (Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1970), p. 149.
- ↑ In Shoghi Effendi, The Promised Day Is Come (Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Committee, 1941), p. 26.
- ↑ Ibid., p. 21.
- ↑ Ibid., p. 22.
- ↑ Bahá’u’lláh, “Tablet to Napoleon III,” in The Promised Day Is Come, p. 29.
- ↑ Robert D. Hess, “Educability and Rehabilitation: The Future of the Welfare Class,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 26 (Nov. 1964), 422-9.
- ↑ Bahá’u’lláh, The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh (Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1963), p. 41.
- ↑ In Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, pp. 152-3.
- ↑ Ibid., p. 147.
- ↑ ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Tablets of Abdul-Baha Abbas, (Chicago: Bahai Publishing Society, 1909-16), I, 87.
- ↑ Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Bahá’í World Faith, 2nd ed. (Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1956), p. 131.
- ↑ ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Secret of Divine Civilization (Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1957), p. 91.
- ↑ Ibid., p. 18.
- ↑ In Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 149.
- ↑ Ibid., p. 150.
- ↑ The Secret of Divine Civilization, p. 24.
- ↑ Ibid., p. 103.
- ↑ Bahá’í World Faith, p. 141.
- ↑ The Hidden Words, p. 39.
- ↑ Ibid., p. 16.
Setting the Record Straight
A Review of H. M. Balyuzi’s Edward Granville Browne and the Bahá’í Faith (London: George Ronald, 1970), 142 pages
By FARHANG JAHANPUR
THE ALREADY VAST FUND of Bahá’í literature has recently been enriched by the appearance of two significant books which will prove to be of intense and abiding interest for many generations to come.
One is The Priceless Pearl, the first full-length biography of Shoghi Effendi, Guardian of the Bahá’í Faith for thirty-six years. Written by his wife, Rúhíyyih Khánum, it has already been published in Persian translation and will soon appear in English. The other, published in July, is Mr. H. M. Balyuzi’s brief but brilliant book entitled Edward Granville Browne and the Bahá’í Faith. There are few Bahá’ís who have not heard the name of the distinguished Cambridge Orientalist or have not read his excellent and oft quoted pen-portrait of Bahá’u’lláh, Whom Browne visited in April, 1890, two years before His ascension. What is not widely realized, however, is that some of Browne’s writings were uncomplimentary to the Bahá’í Faith.
Ever since its inception, the Faith heralded by the Báb and founded by Bahá’u’lláh has met with fierce hostility in the country of its origin and with lively interest among Western scholars. As early as 1866, Mírzá Kazem-Bek, himself an orthodox Muslim, wrote five long and sympathetic articles in the Journal Asiatique, in which he remarked, “Il n’est pas dans l’histoire de l’Asie de schisme aussi remarquable que celui des Babis . . . .” (There is in the history of Asia no schism as remarkable as that of the Bábís . . . .)[1] He wrote further, “Dès con apparition, la doctrine de Báb s’est distinguée entre toutes les réformes qui jusqu’ici se sont produites en Perse, et généralement en Orient, par une aspiration bien caractérisée vers la vérité et vers une liberté qui a conscience d’elle-méme.” (From its beginning, the Báb’s doctrine has distinguished itself from all the reforms which have been produced until now in Persia, and generally in the Orient, by a very clearly defined aspiration towards truth and towards a freedom which is conscious of itself.)[2]
The erudite French writer and diplomat, Comte de Gobineau, devoted more than half of his celebrated book Les religions et les philosophies dans l’Asie centrale (Paris: Didier, 1865) to the history of the Báb, and gave moving accounts of the persecutions of the early believers. It was through this book that Edward Browne first became interested in the Bábí Faith. Two other famous French scholars, C. Huart and A. L. M. Nicolas, also contributed a great deal to the study of the new Movement.[3]
[Page 48]
But it was Edward Granville Browne, a
latecomer in the field, who surpassed all his
predecessors both in the depth of his studies
and in the amount of work which he produced
on the early history of the Faith. To
him also goes the unique distinction of
having met both Bahá’u’lláh and Ṣubḥ-i-Azal,
and having recorded for posterity the
impressions that they made on him. To quote
Mr. Balyuzi: “No Western Scholar has ever
equalled the effort of Edward Granville
Browne in seeking and preserving for generations
to come the story of the birth and the
rise of a Faith which was destined, as he
foresaw at the onset of his distinguished
career, to have a significance comparable to
that of the other great religions of the
world.”[4]
Yet, it must also be added that no one else bears such a great responsibility as Browne for having spread grave accusations about the Bahá’í Faith in the West, and for having completely distorted some of the facts of its history. Edward Browne’s preeminence as an Orientalist has blinded most of his readers to certain basic flaws in his assessment of the Bahá’í Faith, while his works have been regarded by many as the last words on the subject and have sometimes been exclusively used even by those who have written doctoral dissertations on topics related to the Bábí and Bahá’í dispensations. His emotional and unscholarly introductions to the Táríkh-i-Jadíd[5] and the Kitáb-i-Nuqṭatu’l-Káf[6] put powerful weapons in the hands of the enemies of the Faith; and, in Persia, they have been frequently and viciously used by those who wished to emphasize the extent of the controversy between the Bahá’ís and the Azalís.
There was a great need for a book which would correct these mistakes and clarify certain historical facts. The passing of time would have made this task more and more difficult, as the events of the past became obscured by a growing haze of uncertainty. Mr. Balyuzi’s book admirably fulfils this function and goes a long way towards disposing of some of the erroneous ideas and accusations which Browne perpetuated about the Bahá’í Faith. Mr. Balyuzi’s immense and intimate knowledge of the early history of the Faith, coupled with the fact that his father was a close friend and correspondent of E. G. Browne’s, makes him eminently qualified to write this book.
Browne’s interest in the Bábí Faith started
early in his career. Soon after his election in
May, 1887, as a Fellow of Pembroke College,
Cambridge, Browne set out for Persia, and
during the time that he spent in that country
(from October 23, 1887, to September 27,
1888), he found ample opportunity to meet
and converse with many Bahá’ís. On his
return to Cambridge, Browne wrote two long
articles under the title of “The Bábís of
Persia” which were published in the Journal
of the Royal Asiatic Society in 1889.[7] In
spite of a few inaccuracies as to various dates
in the life of the Báb and the books ascribed
to Him, the general tone of the articles was
very warm and sympathetic. Another article
entitled “Catalogue and Description of 27
Bábí Manuscripts” appeared in the same
Journal in 1892.[8] The recounting of the
discussions that he had held with those early
believers and the knowledge that he had
gained about the new revelation also occupied
many pages of his A Year Amongst the
[Page 49] Persians (London: Adam and Charles
Black), which was published in 1893.
In 1890 Browne visited Cyprus and ‘Akká, and during the five days (April 15-20) that he was Bahá’u’lláh’s guest at Bahjí he was granted four interviews by Him. In ‘Akká Browne also received a copy of the Kitáb-i-Íqán (The Book of Certitude), and a copy of Maqála-yi-Shacksí Sayyáḥ, which was later edited and translated by him under the title of A Traveller’s Narrative (Cambridge, Engl.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1891). There can be no doubt that during his visit to ‘Akká and when he was writing his introduction to A Traveller’s Narrative, in which appears his vivid description of Bahá’u’lláh, Edward Browne was genuinely touched by the spirit of the Bahá’í Faith and by the “august presence” of its Founder.
Yet, by the time Browne published his next book on the Faith, many things had happened and a great change of attitude had come over him. In his introduction to Táríkh-i-Jadíd (The New History), translated in 1893, Browne leveled many accusations against the Bahá’ís and seemed to have shifted his sympathies to Ṣubḥ-i-Azal. He had often heard of the existence of a history book written by Hájí Mírzá Jání, who was an early believer from Káshán and who had been martyred in 1852. After having lost hope of ever finding this book, Browne happened to “chance” on a copy of a book in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris which bore the title of Nuqṭatu’l-Káf and was alleged to have been written by Hájí Mírzá Jání.
Without making a critical examination of its character, he compared its contents with the two other and later history books and found them at variance. Browne, who was excited by the discovery of the unique manuscript of a book which seemed to him to be of such vast importance, built a most impressive case upon it and accused the Bahá’ís of dishonesty, of the suppression of facts, and of the distortion of historical truth.
Shaykh Aḥmad-i-Rúhí, one of the leading Azalís, had sent Browne another book called Hasht Bihisht (Eight Paradises), and had claimed that it had been dictated by yet another of the Báb’s disciples, the illustrious Hájí Siyyid Javád of Karbilá. This book, too, was full of support for the cause of Azal and calumny against Bahá’u’lláh.
But as Mr. Balyuzi conclusively proves, both these books were mere forgeries containing, perhaps, something of the original, which was heavily tampered with and corrupted by Azal’s supporters. Furthermore, even if the genuineness of Nuqṭatu’l-Káf be accepted, Browne’s outburst was unjustified, for the later books had not claimed to be mere imitations of the older one.
The reasons for Browne’s change of opinion and his ready and uncritical acceptance of two obvious forgeries are numerous and complex. Mr. Balyuzi tells of a savage attack on Browne which appeared in a review in the Oxford Magazine after the publication of A Traveller’s Narrative and which had a great share in dampening his enthusiasm for the new Movement. He also rightly asserts that Browne’s works on Persian literature and the Constitutional Revolution distracted his attention from the Bahá’í Faith. Yet, it can also be added that Browne, always a zealous champion of the oppressed, regarded Ṣubḥ-i-Azal as the weaker rival, and his sympathies went instinctively towards him—not realizing that if Azal’s position was wrong and if his claims were false, then his wounds were self-inflicted, and, although he might have merited pity, he certainly did not deserve support and encouragement.
In the articles that Browne had published
in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society in
1889, he had stated that “The whole question
on which the Bábí schism hinges is therefore
this: ‘Is Behá [sic] “He whom God shall
manifest,” or is he not? If he is, then Ṣubḥ-i-Ezel’s
[sic] appointment ceases to be valid.’”[9]
Furthermore, referring to the contents
of the Bayán, Browne had spoken of “the
[Page 50] stress which is laid on the doctrine that this
revelation is not final, but that believers
therein must continually expect the coming
of Him who God shall manifest, who will
confirm what he pleases of the Beyán [sic],
and alter what he pleases . . . .[10] But in his
later works he seems to have overlooked the
criterion that he himself had set, and quibbled
about Azal’s successorship to the Báb. It
is also a fact that Browne knew more about
Azal and his followers than about the
Bahá’ís. He received sixteen letters from
Ṣubḥ-i-Azal including a brief account of the
Bábí history written at Browne’s request, as
well as seven letters from Azal’s sons.
Browne also felt a sense of loyalty to the Báb, Whom he had discovered first and towards Whom he was greatly attracted; and thus he was reluctant to accept the claims of Bahá’u’lláh, Whose mission, he thought, had abrogated that of the Báb and had reduced its importance. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth; for the Bahá’ís’ love for and devotion to the Báb are boundless. Although they believe Bahá’u’lláh’s dispensation to be the fulfilment and the consummation of the mission of the Báb, yet their love for the latter, Whom they regard as the co-author of their Faith, is not in the slightest diminished.
It should also be noted that Browne’s prime interest in the Bábí and Bahá’í faiths was in the extent to which they could bring about a speedy transformation in the affairs of Persia and put an end to its decadence. With the passing of time Browne realized that the Bahá’í Faith’s vision was not limited to the regeneration of the Persians, but that it had a global mission. Consequently, Browne, who considered the Constitutional Revolution as a more practical means of curing the immediate ills of Írán, concentrated his attention upon that Movement. In his Introduction to the Nuqṭatu’l-Káf Browne observed: “Bahá’ism, in my opinion, is too cosmopolitan in its aims to render much direct service to that revival. ‘Pride is not for him who loves his country,’ says Bahá’u’lláh, ‘but for him who loves the world.’ This is a fine sentiment, but just now it is men who love their country above all else that Persia needs.”[11] It took the tragic experience of a global conflict based on nationalism to make Browne realize that a narrow patriotism was no longer sufficient. It was in reference to the bitter results of the First World War that Browne wrote: “‘in the realm of science at least we see some foreshadowing of that universal brotherhood of mankind which elsewhere is but dreamed of and hoped for, wherein the limitations of nationalities and tongues vanish away, and even East and West, so widely separated by thought, custom, feeling, and belief, are reconciled in the Light of that Knowledge which is the Creator’s Supreme Attribute and the student’s ultimate goal.’”[12]
The chief merits of Mr. Balyuzi’s book are
its objectivity and complete honesty, as well
as its total freedom from resentment. The
writer openly admits the attempt of two
frenzied Bábís on the life of Násiri’d-Dín
Sháh in order to avenge the death of their
martyred Leader and the persecution of their
fellow-believers; and he confirms the allegation
that three Azalís were killed by Bahá’ís
in ‘Akká, although he adds that this vile
action was without the consent and contrary
to the wishes and frequent admonitions of
Bahá’u’lláh. He does not conceal the fact that
[Page 51] Ṣubḥ-i-Azal was the Báb’s nominee, although
here there is an apparent contradiction. On
page 1 the author quotes Shoghi Effendi’s
words describing Ṣubḥ-i-Azal as “the nominee
of the Báb, and recognized chief of the
Bábí community”; but on page 37 he refutes
Browne’s statement that the Báb had chosen
Ṣubḥ-i-Azal as His successor. It is true that
there was not “in existence a specific document,
written by the Báb, explicitly naming
Mírzá Yaḥyá as His successor”; but the
Báb’s Tablet to Mírzá Yaḥyá bestows
upon him the important appellation of the
“Remembrance of God unto the worlds,” and
Shoghi Effendi categorically states that Ṣubḥ-i-Azal
was “the nominee of the Báb.” Mr.
Balyuzi seems to make a distinction between
Azal as “the nominee of the Báb,” which he
was, and the “apostolic successor,” which he
was not, but this point could have been
further elaborated to great advantage. However,
the author soon affirms that “the
Bahá’ís have never questioned the fact that
immediately after the execution of the Báb,
leadership, even if nominal, was accorded to
Mírzá Yaḥyá,” but that “over and above any
argument and consideration stand two supreme
facts: the awesome injunctions of the
Báb concerning ‘Him Whom God shall make
manifest’, and the erratic behaviour of Ṣubḥ-i-Azal
throughout the years of transition.”[13]
The book suffers from a few other minor defects. The account of Siyyid Jamálu’d-Dín Afghání (pp. 23-28), although very interesting in itself, is rather too long for its limited relevance to the subject. In a few places, however, greater elaboration of the statements would have been useful. On page 82 the author rejects the explanation given for the banishment of Bahá’u’lláh to ‘Akká as being due to the appearance of renewed hostility between the Bahá’ís and the Azalís, but he does not suggest an alternative reason. Again, on page 77 we read: “Another amazing conclusion reached by Browne, unruffled by any shadow of doubt, was that the Báb considered the span of time intervening between His Dispensation and the next to be of the same duration that separated one Advent from another in the past. The Writings of the Báb Himself prove that this assumption was unfounded.” Here, in view of the importance of this matter, the inclusion of a few quotations from the Báb about the next Manifestation, especially His references to the years 9 and 19, would have supported the argument. Finally, for a book which deals so thoroughly with Browne’s relations with the Bahá’í Faith, reference should have also been made to Risáli-yi-Siyyid Mahḍí of Dahaj, and also Mírzá Riḍván ‘Alí’s allegations concerning ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s treatment of Mírzá Áqá Ján of Kashán (Khádimu’lláh).
But, judged as a whole, the merits of the book far outweigh its few faults. Its language is precise and scholarly, and its treatment of different subjects is fair and well-balanced. Its chapter on Táríkh-i-Jadíd and Nuqṭatu’l-Káf is particularly well written and informative. Its final verdict on Browne is warm and affectionate. Recognizing all the services that he rendered the Faith, the author concludes: “Bahá’ís undoubtedly owe to Edward Granville Browne a deep debt of gratitude. He gave to posterity the only pen-portrait of Bahá’u’lláh, majestic and awe-inspiring. He wrote an obituary note on the passing of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá which is just and noble and true. Despite some mistaken views, his well-merited fame is enduring.”[14] The book ends with the translation of significant passages from ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s letters to Professor Browne.
In spite of its small size, this book constitutes yet another landmark in the course of Bahá’í scholarship and is indispensable to serious students of the Bahá’í Faith. After reading the book, one can only wish that the author had treated the reader to a bigger share of his insight and erudition.
- ↑ Journal Asiatique (sixième série, 1866), Tome vii, p. 333.
- ↑ Ibid., p. 331.
- ↑ See Clément Huart, La Religion de Báb, Vol. 64, Bibliothèque Orientale Elzévirienne (Paris, 1889); the Báb, Le livre des sept preuves, French trans. A. L. M. Nicolas (Paris: n.p., 1902); Seyyèd Ali Muhammad, dit le Bâb (Paris: Dujarric & Cie, 1905); Le Béyân Arabe, le livre Sacré du Bâbysme de Seyyèd Ali Muhammad dit le Bâb (Paris: Dujarric & Cie, 1905); Essai sur le Chéïkhismeh (Paris: P. Geuthner, 1910-1911).
- ↑ H. M. Balyuzi, Edward Granville Browne and the Bahá’í Faith (London: George Ronald, 1970), p. 121.
- ↑ Mírzá Hamadání Husain, Táríkh-i-Jadíd, or New History of Mírzá ‘Alí Muhammad the Báb, by Mírzá Huseyn of Hamadán, trans. Edward G. Browne (Cambridge, Engl.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1893).
- ↑ Hájjí Mírzá Jání of Káshán, Kitáb-i-Nuqṭatu’l-Káf, ed. Edward G. Browne, E.J.W. Gibb Memorial Series, Vol. XV (London: Luzac & Co., 1910).
- ↑ Edward Granville Browne, “The Bábís of Persia,” The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 21 (1889), 485-526; 881-1009.
- ↑ E. G. Browne, “Catalogue and Description of 27 Bábí Manuscripts,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 24 (1892), 433-99. Also see Edward G. Browne, “Some remarks on the Bábí Texts edited by Baron Victor Rosen,” pp. 259-335.
- ↑ Browne, “The Babís of Persia,” p. 998.
- ↑ Ibid., p. 919.
- ↑ Hájjí Mírzá Jání of Káshán, p. LII. In a lecture that Browne delivered at the Central Asian Society in London on November 11, 1908, in reply to a question about the role of the Bábís in Persian reforms, Browne replied that he had “at one time felt that the regeneration of Persia was in their hands. But his sympathy was now transferred to the Constitutionalists, for he felt that their programme was more practical than that of the Bábís.” Edward G. Browne, The Persian Constitutionalists, from Proc. of the Central Asian Society (London, 1909), p. 13.
- ↑ Edward G. Browne, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Oriental MSS. Belonging to the Late E. G. Browne, ed. Reynold A. Nicholson (Cambridge, Engl.; Cambridge Univ. Press, 1932), p. viii.
- ↑ Balyuzi, p. 39.
- ↑ Ibid., pp. 121-2.
Authors & Artists
ROWELL HOFF, a musician, a poet, and a Chinese language specialist, published a poem (“America”) in the Summer 1968 issue of WORLD ORDER. He has taught English and Humanities at the Central YMCA Community College in Chicago and at present is living in the Dominican Republic.
FARHANG JAHANPUR graduated from the University of Shíráz, Persia, with First Class Honors in Persian literature, English, and French. He continued his education at the University of Leeds, from which he graduated with another Honors Degree in English literature. At Hull University he wrote a thesis on “Oriental Influences on the Work of Ralph Waldo Emerson.” After five years as Lector in Persian at the University of Cambridge, Mr. Jahanpur has returned to Írán to assume the post of Associate Professor of English and Chairman of the Department of Foreign Languages at the University of Isfahan.
DANIEL C. JORDAN has become a cherished and reliable contributor to our pages. One of his articles for WORLD ORDER (“Becoming Your True Self,” Fall 1968) has been reprinted in pamphlet form. Dr. Jordan is Professor of Education in the Center for Aesthetics at the School of Education, University of Massachusetts, and has served as consultant on educational and social programs at all levels of government. He is a member of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States.
JAMES AVERY JOYCE is now Senior Research Associate of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and is also a Consultant at United Nations headquarters. He has been a visiting professor at various American universities for over twenty years. He holds degrees in Law, Political Science, and History from the Colleges of the University of London, where he has taught the same subjects, and has attended the Geneva School of International Studies. His contributions to such periodicals as The Nation, Saturday Review, and The Christian Century have been numerous. His recent book, End of an Illusion (1969), contrasts the dangers and futilities of military alliances with the constructive but less publicized achievements of the U.N. His nineteenth book, on the history of the League of Nations, is in the press.
A. L. LINCOLN’s first contribution to WORLD ORDER was an article on “A New Unionism” that appeared in the Summer 1968 issue. He has since graduated from the University of Chicago Law School and is now with the firm of Coudert Frères in Paris.
ROBERT W. MCLAUGHLIN, F.A.I.A., a member for twenty-five years of the architectural firm of Holden, McLaughlin & Associates of New York, was responsible for a number of housing projects and urban planning studies. He founded and was chairman of American Houses, Inc., the first company to produce industrialized housing in volume. He established a research laboratory for the development of building techniques and holds some thirty patents in that field. As Director of the School of Architecture of Princeton University he continued research in urban plnnning and building technology. Currently he serves the Universal House of Justice in developing plans for the Bahá’í World Centre on Mount Carmel, Haifa, Israel, and as consultant for the Bahá’í House of Worship now under construction in Panama.
ART CREDITS: P. 3, photograph by Jay Conrader; p. 6, pen and ink drawing by Ian Bamber; p. 11, drawing by Tom Kubala; p. 14, pen and ink drawing by Ian Bamber; p. 31, pen and ink drawing by Mark Fennessy; p. 37, pen and ink drawing by Mark Fennessy; back cover, pen and ink drawing by Mark Fennessy.
IAN BAMBER is pursuing an undergraduate degree in art education at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.
JAY CONRADER, a regular contributor to WORLD ORDER, is a freelance writer and photographer.
MARK FENNESSY continues to be a prolific source of art for WORLD ORDER. He graduated from Yale University with honors after having been a Scholar of the House in sculpture and drawing.
TOM KUBALA was introduced to WORLD ORDER readers in the Fall 1970 issue; he is a student of architecture at the University of Illinois.