An historical analysis of critical transformations
Yüklə 2,06 Mb.
|
|
being “the perfect exemplar” of Baha’u’llah’s teachings: No Guardian of the Faith, I feel it my solemn duty to place on record, can ever claim to be the perfect exemplar of the teachings of Baha’u’llah or the stainless mirror that reflects His light. Though overshadowed by the unfailing, the unerring protection of Baha’u’llah and of the Bab, and however much he may share with ‘Abdu’l-Baha the right and obligation to interpret the Baha’i teachings, he remains essentially human and cannot, if he wishes to remain faithful to his trust, arrogate to himself, under any pretense whatsoever, the rights, the privileges and prerogatives which Baha’u’llah has chosen to confer upon His Son. In the light of this truth to pray to the Guardian of the Faith, to address him as lord and master, to designate him as his holi- ness, to seek his benediction, to celebrate his birthday, or to commemo- rate any event associated with his life would be tantamount to a depar- ture from those established truths that are enshrined within our beloved Faith. The fact that the Guardian has been specifically endowed with such power as he may need to reveal the purport and disclose the implications of the utterances of Baha’u’llah and of ‘Abdu’l-Baha does not necessarily confer upon him a station co-equal with those Whose words he is called upon to interpret. He can exercise that right and discharge this obligation and yet remain infinitely inferior to both of them in rank and different in nature.32
religions, Shoghi Effendi writes in the following sentence: The Revelation identified with Baha’u’llah abrogates unconditionally all the Dispensations gone before it, upholds uncompromisingly the eternal verities they enshrine, recognizes firmly and absolutely the Divine origin of their Authors, preserves inviolate the sanctity of their authentic Scriptures, disclaims any intention of lowering the states of their Founders or of abating the spiritual ideals they incul- cate, clarifies and correlates their functions, reaffirms their common, their unchangeable and fundamental purpose, reconciles their seemingly divergent claims and doctrines, readily and gratefully recognizes their respective contributions to the gradual unfoldment of one Divine Revela- tion, unhesitatingly acknowledges itself to be but one link in the chain of continually progressive Revelations, supplements their teachings with such laws and ordinances as conform to the imperative needs, and are dictated by the growing receptivity, of a fast evolving and con- stantly changing society, and proclaims its readiness and ability to fuse and incorporate the contending sects and factions into a universal Fellowship, functioning within the framework, and in accordance with the precepts, of a divinely conceived, a world-unifying, a world-redeem- ing Order.33
chain of continually progressive Revelations” is underscored unequivocally by the Baha’i teaching that its own faith is not final:
the range of the Dispensation its Author has inaugurated, it emphati- cally repudiates the claim to be regarded as the final revelation of God’s will and purpose for mankind. To hold such a conception of its character and functions would be tantamount to a betrayal of its cause and a denial of its truth. It must necessarily conflict with the fundamental principle which constitutes the bedrock of Baha’i belief, the principle that religious truth is not absolute but rela- tive, that Divine Revelation is orderly, continuous and progressive and not spasmodic or final. Indeed, the categorical rejection by followers of the Faith of Baha’u’llah of the claim to finality which
advance is as clear and emphatic as their own refusal to claim that same finality for the Revelation with which they stand iden- tified.34 Baha’u’llah’s revelation, although being a link in the chain of revelations, is nonetheless greatly distinguished from the other revelations: It should be viewed not merely as yet another spiritual revival in the ever-changing fortunes of mankind, not only as a further stage in a chain of progressive Revelations, nor even as the culmination of one of a series of recurrent prophetic cycles, but rather as marking the last and highest stage in the stupendous evolution of man’s collective life on this planet.35 The manifestations of God following Baha’u’llah will reside in the “shadow” of Baha’u’llah, and their revelations, by implication, will not be as resplen- dent as Baha’u’llah’s revelation. The Baha’i faith, although disclaiming finality, does claim supremacy. Is it not the claims of the various religions to supremacy, rather than their claims to finality, which hinder their unification? Worth noting also in discussing the faith’s relationship to other religions is that as Baha’i begin to develop in India, the question arose concerning the possible divine founding of Hinduism, Shoghi Effendi wrote to a Baha’i in India: As regards your study of the Hindu religion. The origins of this and many other religions that abound in India are not quite known to us, and even the Orientalists and the students of religion are not in complete accord about the results of their investigations in that field. The Baha’i Writings also do not refer specifically to any of these forms of religion current in India. So, the Guardian feels it impossible to give you any definite and detailed information on that subject.30 Hinduism was, however, too important a religion to be overlooked. In time, Baha’is selected Krishna from among the Hindu avatars to be added to the list of Baha’i manifestations and founders of religions.
secret of its strength, according to Shoghi Effendi, is its administrative order.
that any Prophet has previously established, inasmuch as Baha’u’llah has Himself revealed its principles, established its institutions, appointed the person to interpret His Word and conferred the necessary authority on the body designed to supplement and apply His legislative ordinances. Therein lies the secret of its strength, its fundamental distinction, and the guarantee against disintegration and schism. No- where in the sacred scriptures of any of the world’s religious systems, not even in the writings of the Inaugurator of the Babi Dispensation, do we find any provisions establishing a covenant or providing for an administrative order that can compare in scope and authority with those that lie at the very basis of the Baha’i Dispensation.37 Shoghi Effendi contends that neither in Christianity nor Islam nor even in the Babi religion are there written and explicit directions establishing the precise nature of the institutions to be formed, investing in the successive heads of the faith an unassailable authority, and providing the safeguards to guarantee the religion from breaking into the contending sects and factions which history has demonstrated became the unavoidable fate. Only in the Baha’i faith, Shoghi Effendi holds, may one find those provisions which guard it from schism. The “twin pillars that support this mighty Administrative Struc- ture are “the institutions of the Guardianship and of the Universal House of Justice.’38 These “two inseparable institutions,” Shoghi Effendi main- tains, “should be regarded as divine in origin, essential in their functions and complementary in their aims and purpose.” The hereditary guardianship provides for the continuous office of one qualified to interpret the Baha’i writings and thus prevent divisions which might result over differing interpretations; and the Universal House of Justice provides a legislative body with powers to enact laws on matters not dealt with in the Baha’i scriptures and with power to abrogate its own enactments to meet the changing needs. Both these institutions, therefore, have their own sphere of authority and “neither can, nor will ever, infringe upon the sacred and prescribed domain of the other.”39 The guardian is the permanent head of the Universal. House of Justice and, while having power to interpret what is specifically revealed in Baha’i scripture, “cannot legislate except in his capacity as member of the Universal House of Justice.”40 The Baha’i administrative order is “the sole framework” of the future Baha’i commonwealth.41 Shoghi Effendi delineates the essential futures of the future world commonwealth in an important passage a portion of which is as follows: The unity of the human race, as envisaged by Baha’u’llah, im- plies the establishment of a world commonwealth in which all nations, races, creeds and classes are closely and permanently united, and in which the autonomy of its state members and the personal freedom and initiative of the individuals that compose them are definitely and completely safeguarded. This commonwealth must, as far as we can visualize it, consist of a world legislature, whose members will act as the trustees of the whole of mankind, ultimately control the entire resources of all the component nations, and will enact such laws as shall be required to regulate the life, satisfy the needs and adjust the relationships of all races and peoples. A world executive, backed by an international Force, will carry out the decisions arrived at, and apply the laws enacted by, this world legislature, and will safe- guard the organic unity of the whole commonwealth. A world tribunal will adjudicate and deliver its compulsory and final verdict in all and any disputes that may arise between the various elements consti- tuting this universal system. A mechanism of world inter-communica- tion will be devised, embracing the whole planet, freed from national hindrances and restrictions, and functioning with marvellous swift- ness and perfect regularity. A world metropolis will act as the nerve center of a world civilization, the focus towards which the
influences will radiate. A world language will either be invented or chosen from among the existing languages and will be taught in the schools of all the federated nations as an auxiliary to their mother tongue. A world script, a world literature, a uniform and universal system of currency, of weights and measures, will simplify and facilitate intercourse and understanding among the nations and races of mankind. In such a world society, science and religion, the two most potent forces in human life, will be reconciled, will coöperate, and will harmoniously develop. The press will, under such a system, while giving full scope to the expression of the diversi- fied views and convictions of mankind, cease to be mischievously manipulated by vested interests, whether private or public, and will be liberated from the influence of contenting governments and people. The economic resources of raw materials will be tapped and fully utilized, its markets will be coördinated and developed, and the distributions of its products will be equitably regulated.42
Effendi turned his attention to the institutional development of the faith. Unlike ‘Abdu’l-Baha who travelled extensively after his release from im- prisonment, taking part in numerous public appearances and speaking engage- ments, and who before his death was planning yet another world tour, Shoghi Effendi was content to reside in relative seclusion in Haifa, from whence he directed, through a constant flow of letters and cablegrams, the ever- growing affairs of the worldwide Baha’i community. National and Local Assemblies Shoghi Effendi began urging the immediate formation of a “National Spiritual Assembly” in every country where conditions were favorable and where Baha’is had reached a considerable sise.43 Such assemblies were instituted in the United States in 1925 (superseding the Baha’i Temple Unity, organized during ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s ministry), in the British Isles, Germany, and India in 1923, in Egypt in 1924, in Iraq in 1931, and in Persia and Australia in 1934.44 He urged that in every locality where the number of Baha’is exceeded size a “Local Spiritual Assembly” be established. Shoghi Effendi called for the establishment of a Baha’i fund to be under the control of the assemblies and to be expended for the promotion of the cause in the respec- tive locality or country.45 He urged the assemblies, national and local, to elect committees to discharge particular responsibilities and welcomed their reports along with the reports from the national assemblies. Shoghi Effendi named over sixty national committees, originating mainly in the West, which were functioning by 1944.46
Shoghi Effendi set about to place them on a clear legal basis. Two signi- ficant milestones in the faith’s evolution were the drafting and adoption by the Baha’is in the United States in 1927 of the first Baha’i national Constitution and the drafting of by-laws by Baha’is in New York City in 1931.47 This national constitution became the pattern for other national constitutions, and the New York by-laws became the pattern for other local assemblies. In 1929, the National Spiritual Assembly in the United States was incorporated, followed by the incorporation of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of Egypt and the Sudan in 1934, of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of Australia and New Zeeland in 1938, and of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of the British Isles in 1939. Local assemblies also were similarly incorporated, beginning with the Chicago assembly in 1932.48
encouraging the Baha’is in their work, projecting goals, defining their authority, clarifying issues, settling disputes and answering questions,
lation of Baha’i writings into native tongues, keeping before Baha’is the ultimate purposes of the faith, reminding them of promises of divine assis- tance, and continuously directing them to greater accomplishments. A series of campaigns was initiated in 1937 designed to spread the faith throughout the world. The “first seven year plan” for American Baha’is (1937-1944) had three objectives” (1) to complete the exterior ornamentation of the Baha’i temple in Wilmette, Illinois; (2) to establish a local spiritual assembly in every state in the United States; (3) and to create a Baha’i center in every Latin American republic. Although the “seven year plan” was carried out during the difficult years of the war, Baha’is successfully achieved their goals. After the American Baha’is began their “seven year plan,” similar plans also were initiated by other national assemblies. After a “two-year respite,” a “second seven year plan” was ini- tiated (1946-1953), having four objectives: (1) consolidation of the vic- tories won on the American continents during the “first seven years” effort; (2) completion of the interior ornamentation of the Wilmette Baha’i temple; (3) formation of three new national assemblies in Canada and in Central and Southern America; (4) and “the initiation of systematic teaching activity in war-torn, spiritually famished European continent.”49 The emphasis fell on the fourth objective, and thus this “second seven year pan” became known as “the European Campaign,” aiming at establishing spiritual assem- blies in ‘Ten Goal Countries,” Spain, Portugal, Holland, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Italy, the Duchy of Luxembourg, and Switzerland. Finland later was added to the list. Baha’i pioneers (missionaries) were dispatched from the United States into Europe in the first systematic effort to carry the faith to the European continent. In the middle of the European campaign, Baha’i pioneers from Latin America were sent to aid in the work.50 International Stage of the Faith The Baha’i faith entered a new international stage in its evolu- tion as the decade of the 1950s began. Shoghi Effendi, who had previously addressed individual national spiritual assemblies, began directing his mes- sages to the Baha’i world community. Three important developments at this stage were the launching of a “Ten Year World Crusade,” the establishing of the International Baha’i Council, and the appointment of “Hands of the Cause.” The Ten Year World Crusade: The ten year crusade (1953-1963) aimed at planting the faith in all the chief remaining territories of the world not yet opened to the faith. At the beginning of the crusade, Shoghi Effendi wrote to the believers: The avowed, the primary aim of the Spiritual Crusade is none other than the conquest of the citadels of men’s hearts. The theater of its operations is the entire planet. Its duration a whole decade, its commencement synchronizes with the centenary of the birth of Baha’u’llah’s Mission. Its culmination will coincide with the cen- tenary of the declaration of that same Mission. The agencies assis- ting in its conduct are the nascent administrative institutions of a steadily evolving divinely appointed order. Its driving force is the energizing influence generated by the Revelation heralded by the Bab and proclaimed by Baha’u’llah. Its Marshal is none other than the Author of the Divine Plan. Its standard-bearers are the Hands of the Cause of God appointed in every continent of the globe. Its generals are the twelve national spiritual assemblies participating in the execution of its design. Its vanguard is the chief executors of ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s master plan, their allies and associates. Its legions are the rank and file of believers standing behind these same twelve national assemblies and sharing in the glo- bal task embracing the American, the European, the African, the Asiatic and Australian fronts. The charter directing its course is the immortal Tablets that have flowed from the pen of the Center of the Covenant Himself. The armor with which its onrushing hosts have
the principles underlying the order proclaimed by His messenger, and the laws and ordinances governing His Dispensation. The battle cry animating its heroes and heroines in the cry of Ya-Baha’u’l-Abha, Ya ‘Aliyyu’l-A‘la.51
accepted the challenge and went forth as spiritual crusaders to establish the faith triumphantly around the globe. The faith penetrated into some 131 new countries and territories, and Baha’i literature was translated into 220 additional languages. The number of national assemblies increased in this period from the original twelve52 entrusted with executing the Ten Year Plan to fifty-nine, through the formation of twelve new assemblies in the American continent, thirteen in the European continent, eight in the Asiatic continent, three in the African continent, and one in Aus- tralasia. Baha’i temples were built in Sydney, Australia, and in Kampala, Uganda (both dedicated in 1961) and the superstructure completed for the first European Baha’i temple, in Frankfurt, Germany (later dedicated in 1964).53
1951. Shoghi Effendi announced the “weighty epoch-making decision of for- mation of first International Baha’i Council” which he called the “first embryonic International Institution” which in time would develop into the Universal House of Justice. He declared that history would acclaim the constitution of this International Council as “the greatest event shedding luster upon second epoch of Formative Age of Baha’i Dispensation potentially unsurpassed by any enterprise undertaken since inception of Administrative Order of Faith.” Shoghi Effendi outlined its threefold function: first, to forge link with authorities of newly emerged State [Israel]; second, to assist me to discharge responsibilities involved in erec- tion of mighty superstructure of the Bab’s Holy Shrine; third, to con- duct negotiations related to matters of personal status with civil authorities.54 To these would be added other functions in the course of its evolution. Among the nine members of the Council were Amatu’l-Baha Ruhiyyih, Shoghi Effendi’s wife, serving as liaison between him and the Council, and Mason Remey, serving as its President.55 The Hands of the Cause: ‘Abdu’l-Baha in his Will and Testament had indicated that the guardian must appoint Hands of the Cause of God to be under his command with obligations to “diffuse the Divine Fragrances,” to edify men’s souls and improve their character, and to be detached from earthly things.56 Baha’u’llah had appointed during his lifetime four hands to serve him. ‘Abdu’l-Baha did not appoint any additional hands, but he did refer to some outstanding Baha’i teachers after their deaths as hands, a practice continued by Shoghi Effendi until his first appointment of living hands on December 24, 1951, when he announced in a cablegram the elevation to that office of twelve Baha’is, equally allocated (three each) to the Holy Land (Israel) and to the Asiatic, American, and European continents.57
hands to nineteen and maintained this number until October, 1957, by appoin- ting new hands to take the places of five who passed away during this period. In Shoghi Effendi’s last message to the Baha’i world (October, 1957) before his death, he appointed eight additional hands, bringing the total number to twenty-seven. In this last message, Shoghi Effendi referred to the hands as:
who have been invested by the unerring Pen of the Center of His Covenant with the dual function of guarding over the security, and of insuring the propagation, of His Father’s Faith.58 Shoghi Effendi also called upon the hands to appoint nine members from each of the five continents to serve on auxiliary boards to assist the hands as their adjuncts or deputies.59
of the Baha’i institutional structure sharply distinguished the faith under Shoghi Effendi from its previous forms, the heart of Shoghi Effendi’s trans- formation was the molding of Baha’i into an independent religion. This some- what unexpected development was foreshadowed in Shoghi Effendi’s refusal, unlike ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s practice, to go to the mosque. Ruhiyyih Khanum remarks: With the reading of the Will and the establishment of the Guardianship, came quite naturally and organically a new phase in the development of the Faith. This was typified by one of the first acts of the Guardian: Shoghi Effendi never set foot in the Mosque, whereas ‘Abdu’l-Baha had attended it until the last Friday of His life.60
the Muslim mosque dramatically symbolizes the different approaches of their ministries regarding other religions and helps focus on Shoghi Effendi’s transformation of the faith from that which existed under ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s leadership. ‘Abdu’l-Baha lived the outward life of a Muslim. Amelia Collins, one of the hands of the faith, comments: “The Master Himself, though so widely loved and respected, was not known as the Head of an independent religion, but rather regarded as a Moslem notable and Holy Man.”61 H. H. Jessup, who visited ‘Abdu’l-Baha around 1902, left this report: “On Fridays he prays with the Moslems in the mosque, as he is still reputed a good Moham- madan of the Shiite sect.”62 Myron Phelps speaks of how ‘Abdu’l-Baha kept the Muslim fast of Ramadan and all the other Muslim observances for the sake of peace and to avoid the imputation of social innovation.”63 Consistent with his practice, ‘Abdu’l-Baha did not ask any believer to leave the church or religion with which he was identified. Shoghi Effendi, however, who made no pretense of living the life of a Mus- lim, was destined to bring about a significant change in Baha’i outlook and practice. The transformation thus effected may be brought into better focus by taking a closer look at Baha’i philosophy during ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s ministry. Baha’i as an Inclusive Religion The Baha’i faith which made its first significant impact in the Western world during the time of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, especially during his Western travels, was regarded more as a new spiritual attitude of unity and coopera- tion than as a competing religion. Favorite phrases were that Baha’i was “the spirit of the age” or “religion renewed” and not a new religion. The faith was an inclusive rather than exclusive religious movement. One could be a Baha’i, it was held, and still retain membership in other religious bodies. This aspect of the faith was regarded as one of its unique features: The Baha’i is the first religious movement that does not insist on the alienation of the convert from his own traditional religion. Instead, he approves of his becoming a better Muslim, Jew, or Chris- tian.64
Apparently, it is not so much an organization as a spiritual atti- tude, not so much a new religion as religion renewed. Its followers are found in all sorts of ecclesiastical organizations. To be a Bahai a man need not sever his previous religious affiliation; he may remain a Buddhist, or Hindoo Braman, a Parsee, a Mohammedan, or a Christian. He becomes one of the Bahai Movement when he catches the Bahai spirit.65
‘Abdu’l-Baha: “If I became a Baha’i, can I keep the religion of my saintly Christian mother?” ‘Abdu’l-Baha replied: “Of course you may keep it. If you become a Baha’i you will apply it.”66 Stanwood Cobb saw this aspect of the faith as a reason for its missionary success:
that no one is asked to abandon his own religion in order to become a Baha’i. The Baha’i propagandist, because he does not have to argue the inferiority of other religions, avoids arousing a spirit of com- bative ecclesiastical loyalty on the part of those to whom he preaches, of whatever religion they may be.67 Thus, Cobb says: The Baha’i missionary can do what no other missionary can. He goes among various races and religions and wins adherents to his cause without attack, without invidious comparison, without offense to the sensibilities and loyalties of other religíonists.68 Consistent with the practice of retaining membership in one’s original ecclesiastical or religious institutions were ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s broad, humanitarian definitions of a Baha’i:
for the universal peace and the universal brotherhood of mankind.69 He is a true Baha’i who strives by day and by night to progress and advance along the path of human endeavor; whose cherished desire is to live and act so as to enrich and illumine the world.70
an interpreter, ‘Abdu’l-Baha had listed nine Baha’i principles and added: If a man does and believes these things then he is a Bahaist, no matter whether he calls himself Shintoist, Confucianist, Buddhist, Hindoo, Jew, Mohometan, Zoroastrian, Parsee or Christian. No matter in what church or temple he worships.71 Esslemont points out that in one of ‘Abu’l-Baha’s London talks he said “that a man may be a Baha’i even if he has never heard the name of Baha’u- ’llah.”72
Baha’i was not a religion alongside other religions but stood in the relationship of fulfillment to promise. All the religions found their fulfillment and higher expression in Baha’i. Thus, one did not cease being a Christian, Buddhist, or whatever in becoming a Baha’i but only accepted the new form of that religion. Baha’i was, therefore, compatible with existing religious traditions. Moreover, Baha’is hoped that by working from within the various religious institutions—as a leaven—they could expand the horizon of the conflicting viewpoints and bring about their eventual unification in the Baha’i philosophy. Maude Holbach wrote: A Baha’i was a Mohammedan reformer, a Bahai may be a reformer in any Church to which he happens to belong, for Abdul Baha asks none to leave their own religion but to love it—to look back through the mists of ages and discern the true spirit of its founder—to cast off dogma and seek reality!173 The Baha’i view that in becoming a Baha’i one did not cease being a Chris- tian or advocate of his own religion was upheld in a very literal sense, for the believer could retain his membership of affiliation.
Baha, but it was not considered in any sense as competitive with other religions organizations because of its inclusive character. E. A. Dime quotes ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s words: The Bahai Revelation is not an organization. The Bahai Cause can never be organized. The Bahai Revelation is the spirit of this age. It is the essence of all the highest ideals of this century. The Bahai Cause is an inclusive movement: the teachings of all religions and societies are found here.74
Cause does not mean that the people cannot organize and cooperate for the accomplishment of the work of the Cause.75
sion to the broad understanding of Baha’i. He maintains that the “slightest appreciation” of the Baha’i revelation “leads one to realize that the spirit of the age cannot be thus conveniently confined” to “the Bahai Movement.” The slight Bahai organization which exists is, in comparison with the Revelation itself, only as body in comparison to soul. Obviously, the cosmically conscious person of to-day cannot accept any arbitrary, li- miting classification.76 Even during the early years of Shoghi Effendi’s administration, Horace Hol- ley wrote: A Baha’i community differs from other voluntary gatherings in that its foundation is so deeply laid and broadly extended that it can include any soul. Whereas other associations are exclusive, in effect if not in intention, and from method if not from ideal, Ba- ha’i association is inclusive, shutting the gates of fellowship to no sincere soul. In every gathering there is latent or developed some basis of selection. In religion this basis is a creed limited by the historical nature of its origin; in politics this is party or platform; in economics this is a mutual misfortune or mutual power; in the arts and sciences this basis consists of special training or activity or interest. In all these matters, the more inclusive the basis of selection, the stronger the movement—a con- dition diametrically opposed to that existing in the Baha’i Cause.77
Baha’i would undergo a complete reversal. Baha’i as an Exclusive Religion Shoghi Effendi, early in his administration, called for lists of members of all local assemblies to be sent to him through the national assembly. The question arose, therefore, of what the qualifications for
longer considered adequate as defining qualifications for Baha’i membership. Shoghi Effendi considered as fundamental the following qualifications:
the True Exemplar of the Baha’i Cause, as set forth in ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s Testament; unreserved acceptance of, and submission to, whatsoever has been revealed by their Pen; loyal and steadfast adherence to every clause of our Beloved’s sacred Will; and close association with the spirit as well as the form of the present day Baha’i administra- tion throughout the world ….78
National Spiritual Assembly as part of the qualifications for a voting member of the Baha’i community.
decision by the Supreme Religious Court of Egypt that the Baha’is of that land were adherents of a heretical faith at variance with accepted beliefs of Islam and were, therefore, outside of its jurisdiction. In a communication to the National Spiritual Assembly in the United States, dated January 10, 1926, Shoghi Effendi wrote: This decision, however locally embarrassing, in the present stage of our development, may be regarded as an initial step taken by our very opponents in the path of the eventual universal acceptance of the Baha’i Faith, as one of the independent recognized religious systems of the world.79
that the text of the court’s decision refers to the Baha’i faith as a “new religion” and “entirely independent” and that its adherents could no more be called Muslims than Muslims could be called Christian or Jew. He notes that the decision places the Baha’is of Egypt in “a most humiliating and embarrassing position,” but he maintains that: they, however, cannot but rejoice in the knowledge that whereas in various Muhammadan countries and particularly in Persia the over- whelming majority of the leaders of Islam are utterly opposed to any form of declaration that would facilitate the universal recognition of the Cause, the authorized heads of their co-religionists in one of the most advanced communities in the Muhammadan world have, of their own initiative, published to the world a document that may justly be termed as the first chapter of liberty emancipating the Baha’i Faith from the fetters of orthodox Islam.80
of the Baha’is who were required to divorce their Muslim wives until they recant their Baha’i faith.
National Spiritual Assembly of the United Staten and Canada, of New York, N. Y., filed in the United States Patent Office on March 10, 1928, an appli- cation for registration of the name “BAHA’I” as a trademark. The name was registered on August 7, 1928, as Trade-Mark 245,271. An application for re- gistration of the symbol of the “Greatest Name” also was made on April 12, 1934, and was registered on August 28, 1934, as Trade-Mark 316,444. Regis- tered in Canada also were the name “BAHA’I” on November 13, 1935, and the symbol of the “Greatest Name” on December 3, 1935.81
are Horace Holley’s words, in his short discussion of the legal protection now granted to the name “Baha’i” and to the symbol of the “Greatest Name”:
to the entire world. The Baha’i Faith, however, involves an adminis- trative order and a degree of discipline raising it above the realm of the spiritual philosophies which can be adapted to suit the indi- vidual understanding. The believers, therefore, realize a responsi- bility in upholding the full and complete standard of faith, which remains incomplete until membership in the Baha’i order is attained.32
being replaced by a concrete, institutional concept. Then in a communication appearing in Baha’i News, August, 1933, regarding membership in the World Fellowship of Faiths and similar societies, Shoghi Effendi indicated that Baha’is “should refrain from any act or word that would imply a departure from the principles … established by Baha’u- ’llah,” and then stated:
whose program or policies are not wholly reconcilable with the Teachings is of course out of the question.83
diately recognized. That the Baha’i faith increasingly was being regarded as independent of its parent faith of Islam did not necessarily suggest to Baha’is that their faith also should become independent of other religions. The copyrighting of the name “Baha’i” and the instruction to refrain from joining bodies not wholly reconcilable with Baha’i teachings did not neces- sarily mean that present religious memberships should be severed.
these words: Concerning membership in non-Baha’i religious associations, the Guardian wishes to re-emphasize the general principle already laid down in his Communications to your Assembly and also to the individual believers that no Baha’i who wishes to be a whole-hearted and sincere upholder of the distinguishing principles of the Cause can accept full member- ship in any non-Baha’i ecclesiastical organization. … For it is only too obvious that in most of its fundamental assumptions the Cause of Baha’u’llah is completely at variance with outworn creeds, ceremo- nies and institutions. … During the days of the Master the Cause was still in a stage that made such an open and sharp dissociation between it and other religious organizations, particularly the Muslim Faith, not only inadvisable but practically impossible to establish. But since His passing events throughout the Baha’i world, and particu- larly in Egypt where the Muslim religious courts have formally testi- fied to the independent character of the Faith, have developed to a point that has made such an assertion of the independence of the Cause not only highly desirable but absolutely essential.84 After this statement appeared in the Baha’i News, letters from various local spiritual assemblies and individual Baha’is were written to the national assembly, and in October, 1935, the national assembly sent out a general letter in reply to some of these communications in which it upheld the gGuardian’s instructions, pointing out that various statements in Shoghi Effendi’s communications were leading in this direction and that it was as necessary and inevitable result of the steady development of the World Order of Baha’u’llah.”85
the October issue of Baha’i News, the Guardian recalled: the separation that set in between the institutions of the Baha’i Faith and the Islamic ecclesiastical organizations that oppose it— a movement that has originated in Egypt and is now spreading steadily throughout the middle East and will in time communicate itself to the West.86
recognized nor even anticipated in the years immediately preceding ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s passing, may be said to have signalized the Formative Period of our Faith and to have paved the way for the consolidation of its administrative order.87
the religions that preceded it and upholds the spiritual truths which lie at their very core and are common to them all, its institutions, whether administrative, religious or humanitarian, must if their dis- tinctive character is to be maintained and recognized, be increasingly divorced from the outworn creeds, the meaningless ceremonials and man- made institutions with which those religions are at present identified.88
One case in particular involving “an aged believer, afflicted with illness, for whom severance of church relations might have been too great a shock”89 was brought to Shoghi Effendi’s attention. He replied: In this case, as also in that of suffering believers, the Assemblies, whether local or national, should act tactfully, patiently and in a friendly and kindly spirit. Knowing how painful and dangerous it is for such believers to repudiate their former allegiances and friend- ships, they should try to gradually persuade them of the wisdom and necessity of such an action, and instead of thrusting upon them a new principle, to make them accept it inwardly, and out of pure convic- tion and desire. Too severe and immediate action in such cases is not only fruitless but actually harmful. It alienates people instead of winning then to the Cause.90 Thus, Shoghi Effendi’s transformation of the faith was complete. He had transformed it from a spiritual leaven working within the various religions into a new independent faith operating outside of and alongside of the other “obsolete” religious institutions. Had the “spirit of the age” become confined to an exclusive religious order? ‘Abdu’l-Baha had indicated that one might be a Baha’i who had never even heard of Baha’u’llah, but with the National Spiritual Assembly holding copyright on the name “Baha’i,” steps were taken to restrict the use of the name by anyone outside of the Baha’i organization. Some, however, opposed the new developments.
some important members who, after their defections, became strong critics of the faith. Some, however, continued to consider themselves loyal adherents of the Baha’i religion but drew a sharp distinction between the Baha’i religion and the Baha’i organization of which Shoghi Effendi was the head. Ruth White One of these was Ruth White, an actress and newspaper writer whose varied religious background included being a Roman Catholic, a Protestant, an agnostic, and nearly a Communist. She met ‘Abdu’l-Baha in Boston in 1912 and became a Baha’i. After receiving the news of the appointment of a successor to ‘Abdu’l-Baha, which came, Ruth White main- tains, “as a thunderbolt out of a clear sky to everyone,”91 since ‘Abdu’l- Baha, as she holds, had never indicated any intention of appointing a successor, she carried on a solitary effort to prove the inauthenticity of the alleged will.
of the will and turned them over to Dr. C. Ainsworth Mitchell, handwriting expert for the British Museum and editor of The Analyst, to compare with photographs which she had also obtained of ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s inscriptions written in 1912 in the Guest Bible of City Temple, London, and in the Bible of the Unitarian Church, Montclair, New Jersey, and with authenticated signa- tures of ‘Abdu’l-Baha on two letters and another signature on an older letter.
Ruth White’s book Abdul Baha’s Questioned Will and Testament, indicates that he made a “minute examination” of the photographs and states near the begin- ning:
ment, any conclusions to be drawn from an examination of the photogra- phic enlargements must necessarily be of a provisional character con- tingent upon the accuracy of the photographic records, Moreover, some of the facts which are taken into consideration in the scientific exami- nation of an original document cannot be perfectly studied in a photo- graphic reproduction, such as, for example, the ink, paper, penstrokes, and so on.
approximately the same period as that at which the disputed will is alleged to have been written and signed, the points which can be accu- rately compared in the photographic enlargements are the mode of formation of the writing, the changes in pressure, the form of individual letters and the relationship in the size of parts of the letter to the whole.92
as authentic since it agrees closely with the other signatures, but he maintains that “a comparison of the four signatures on the envelope of the alleged will with the four authenticated signatures reveals many striking differences in the mode of formation of the characters” and that in his opinion “these differences are not consistent with the signatures upon the envelope being in the writing of the writer of the authenticated signature.”
writing on every page of the alleged will … has failed to detect in any part of the will the characteristics of the writing of Abdul Baha, as shown in the authenticated specimens. Mitchell also maintains that the writing in the will “does not agree with the hypothesis that it was all written by one person,” for he observes that page two, except the last two lines, agrees with the writing on page three. The last two lines of page two agree with pages four, five, six, seven and eight. Pages nine and ten show points of resemblance with the writing on the envelope.93 J. R. Richards holds that “it is somewhat doubtful how much value can be set on the report in question,” because Mitchell had said that “any conclusions” were of a “provisional character contingent upon the accuracy of the photographic records.” Richards believes, therefore, that “the evidence produced by Mrs. White … is not sufficiently strong to merit acceptance.”94 Mitchell did indicate, however, “the points which can be accurately compared in the photographic enlargements,” and it was upon these points that Mitchell arrived at his conclusion. Mitchell’s report sharply contradicts the claims of Shoghi Effendi and the Baha’is who accept the will that it was “signed and sealed by ‘Abdu’l-Baha; entirely written with His own hand.”95
concerning the will by assuring her that a number of well-known Baha’is had examined the will and concluded that it was written by ‘Abdu’l-Baha and by pointing out to her that the British government, mandatory power over Pales- tine under the League of Nations, officially recognized the will.
will were not handwriting experts and were not disinterested witnesses, they were not legally qualified to judge its authenticity; and the British govern- ment’s recognition of the will consisted simply in permitting Shoghi Effendi to be custodian of the tombs of Baha’u’llah and the Bab and that this would have been conceded to him, as ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s oldest male descendant, even without a will and, therefore, had no direct bearing on the vital issue of the will’s authenticity.96 Ruth White’s objection to the Baha’i organization was not based merely on the question of the will’s authenticity, for she maintained that “whether the will is valid or invalid does not alter the fact that the Bahai organization is the worst enemy of the Bahai Religion and its only real one.”97 She maintained that “the policies of the Bahai organization are the inversion of the Bahai Religion.”98 She argued that under Shoghi Effendi and the Baha’i organization “the great universal Bahai Cause has been changed into a narrow bigoted sect and many of the tactics of the dark ages have been revived.”99
individual conscience must be subordinated to the decisions of the elected Spiritual Assmbly”100 was in violation of ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s teachings concern- ing the liberty of the human conscience. She opposed the copyrighting of the name Baha’i.
the Baha’i religion as promulgated by ‘Abdu’l-Baha led her to believe that Shoghi Effendi was in collusion with Muhammad ‘Ali in forging the will to give Shoghi Effendi the succession from which they might profit financial- ly.101 Shoghi Effendi expressed his amusement at
mover and the focal center of unyielding hostility to the person of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, should have freely associated himself with the members of the family of ‘Abdu’l-Baha in the forging of a will which in the words of the writer herself, is but a “recital of the plottings” in which for thirty years Muhammad-‘Ali has been busily engaged.102 Shoghi Effendi elsewhere refers to Mrs. White, though unnamed, as “a besot- ted woman” who flouted ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s Will but who was unable “to produce the slightest breach in the ranks of its valiant upholders.”103 Ruhiyyih Rabbani refers to Mrs. White’s efforts as “the attacks of a thoroughly foolish American believer,” noting that Shoghi Effendi had written to Tudor Pole that “the most powerful and determined opponents of the Faith in the East … have vehemently attacked its provisions, but never questioned its authenticity,” and she remarks that “all Mrs White ever achieved was to stir up a temporary and insignificant cloud of dust.”104
the authenticity of ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s will and testament. Her religious pil- grimage did not end with Baha’i. Miller points out that Mrs. White seems
wrote in 1957 about visiting him.105 Meher Baba claimed to be the last of a series of avatars including Zoroaster, Krishna, Rama, Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad.106 Perhaps being disillusioned by the great changes which had overtaken the Baha’i faith, she found an affinity of outlook with Baha’i in Meher Baba. Ruth White was not able to adjust to the transfor- mation in the Baha’i faith effected by Shoghi Effendi.
organization. Two persons, whose story is significant in Baha’i history, were at first members of the Baha’i organization, accepting ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s will as authentic and regarding Shoghi Effendi as the appointed successor. They were opposed, however, to the organization’s control of their activi- ties in propagating the Baha’i teachings, and in time the society which they founded encountered a head-on collision with the organized Baha’is in a lawsuit in New York City. They were Julie Chanler and Mirza Ahmad Sohrab. Julie Chanler was wife of Lewis Stuyvesant Chanler, New York’s onetime lieutenant governor and a respected criminal lawyer, the marriage of whose daughter in a Baha’i ceremony was noted in Time, March 10, 1930. Ahmad Sohrab was a Persian scholar and poet, nephew of a powerful Baha’i leader in Isfahan. He served as secretary to ‘Abdu’l-Baha for eight years (1910-1919) and accompanied him on his Western travels, serving also as his interpreter. In 1919, ‘Abdu’l-Baha sent him to the United States bearing the “Tablets of the Divine Plan,” which were read at the eleventh annual International Baha’i Congress, April 26-30. After the Baha’i Congress, he travelled extensively throughout the United States and Canada, giving lec- tures on the faith and on ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s Divine Plan. When ‘Abdu’l-Baha died in 1921, Ahmad Sohrab’s allowance from ‘Abdu’l-Baha stopped and he was forced to seek extra work. He gained some work in Hollywood movies, as extras or atmosphere, portraying pirates, beggars, and Oriental princes. He also continued his lecturing. He became secretary to the Persian minister to the United States and later founded the “Persian-American Educational Society” and the “Orient-Occident Unity.”
that he come to New York and teach on Baha’i. On April 5, 1929, Mr. and Mrs. Chanler and Ahmad Sohrab formed the New History Society with twenty-eight original members.107 Over the years, the society carried on active programs. It sponsored well-attended lectures by personalities such as Albert Ein- stein, Rabindranath Tagore, Helen Keller, Margaret Sanger, Grand Duke Alexan- der of Russia, and Count Ilya Tolstoy. Annual prize competitions were held on subjects such as world peace, world religion, world reconstruction, and racial amity. The society published a number of books and pamphlets, includ- ing the 743-page The Bible of Mankind, edited by Ahmad Sohrab, containing selections from the scriptures of Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Con- fucianism, Taoism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and the Baha’i faith. The society forged the Caravan of East and West, an international correspon- dence club, which in 1943 had 1,300 chapters in thirty-seven countries with a membership of 100,000 children, young people and adults.108 The society commissioned Max Brand, Austrian composer, to coauthor with Ahmad Sohrab “The Gate,” a dramatic history of the Baha’i movement, which premiered at the New York Metropolitan Opera House on May 23, 1944, the centennial of the Bab’s declaration of his mission.
early years of its activity. Julie Chanler sent reports of its progress to Shoghi Effendi, her “Beloved Guardian.”109 Shoghi Effendi at first approved of the work, which was attracting large numbers to the faith. Shoghi Effendi’s secretary wrote: He wishes me to assure you of his prayers and best wishes that you may succeed in your ardent labors.”110 Soon, however, friction developed between the Baha’i organization in New York and the New History Society. The organized Baha’is resented the fact that the New History Society had been formed without consulting them and was operating without their supervision. Julie Chanler, in her letters to Shoghi Effendi, expressed the hope that the society could be kept inde- pendent and free to conduct its activities as it saw fit, feeling that control by the New York assembly would impede the activities and hinder the success of the effort. She even indicated that, although working indepen- dently, the society would urge those whom it attracted to Baha’i to join the Baha’i organization and would serve as a “recruiting station” for the organization.
pronouncement against the New History Society in an article entitled “The Case of Ahmad Sohrab and the New History Society.” The article pointed out that the society was formed without consulting either the National or Local Spiritual Assembly and that its activities were “maintained apart from the principles of consultation and Assembly supervision which today, under the Will and Testament of Abdul Baha, form the basis of Baha’i unity and pro- tection of the Cause,” and therefore the National Spiritual Assembly informed the Baha’is that
are to be considered as independent of the Cause; as outside the juris- diction of the Local and National Assembly, and hence in no wise entitled to the cooperation of Baha’is.111 A cablegram printed in Baha’i News, September, 1930, read: “Approve action regarding History Society. Deeply appreciate loyalty (of) believers. Sho- ghi.”112
operating without the approval of Shoghi Effendi or the Baha’i organization. On November 7, 1939, the society opened a “Baha’i Bookshop” on Lexington Ave- nue in New York, and a month later, a letter, dated December 5, 1939, from the law firm of Watson, Bristol, Johnson & Leavenworth, representing the Na- tional Spiritual Assembly and Trustees of the Baha’is of the United States and Canada and the Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of the city of New York, in- formed Julie Chanter and Ahmad Sohrab that they had infringed on the copyright on the name “Baha’i.”
infringement but held that the defendants were conducting meetings and lectures without the authority of the plaintiffs, who, they alleged, were the authorized representatives of all Baha’is in the United States and Canada, and that the defendants were giving the erroneous impression that they were connected with the Baha’i organization and were qualified to solicit contributions.
down the following judgment: 1. In the Court’s opinion, the complaint fails to state a good cause of action. The plaintiffs have no right to monopoly on the name of a religion.
gion, have an equal right to use the name of the religion in connection with their own meetings, lectures, classes and other activities.
defendants have been guilty of any act intended or calculated to deceive the public into believing that their meetings, lectures or book shop are identified with or affiliated with the meetings, lectures, etc., and book shop of the plaintiffs.
(b) to conduct meetings, (c) to collect funds, (d) to sell literature in connection therewith, and (e) to conduct a book shop under the title of “Bahai Book Shop.”113 An appeal was made by the organized Baha’is, but the appellate court upheld the decision of Justice Valente. The New York World-Telegram, June 19, 1941, expressed the decision in journalistic language that “Baha’i Is Placed In Public Domain.” Ahmad Sohrab saw the victory as meaning that “Baha-O-Llah has freed his Cause!”114
his words in reference to Ahmad Sohrab, as printed in Baha’i News, October, 1941, were that “the latest protagonist of a spurious cause cannot but in the end be subjected, as remorsely as his infamous predecessors, to the fate which they invariably have suffered.”115
release of “innermost thoughts, pent up and stored away during the passage of rears.”116 For twelve years, he says, he followed the advice to remain silent and “held my tongue and pen in leash, the while witnessing the daily crucifixion of the movement which I love and believe in.”117 During the
magazine of the society, which were later incorporated in his book Broken Silence. Sohrab maintains that “reactionary and dogmatic forces” which set in after ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s death little by little, gained ground until at present this movement, which was the most universal and liberal of all movements, past or present, has been reduced to a sect, while its spirit is all but extinguished. The principles of Baha-O-Llah are forgotten and in their stead we see nothing but a mass of rules and regulations that duplicate, to say the least, the ecclesiastical paraphernalia of previous organized reli- gions.118
but unlike Ruth White, Sohrab held that ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s will was authentic. Sohrab writes in Broken Silence:
until today, it has been charged against me by the Bahai Organization and by members of the Community that I deny the Will of Abdul Baha and refuse to accept Shoghi Effendi as Guardian. Therefore, I take this opportunity to make a plain and unequivocal statement: Never in thought, word or writing have I questioned the authenticity of the Will, nor denied the validity of the appointment of Shoghi Effendi. Let us now hope that once and for all time, this fact has been made clear and manifest.120
ghi Effendi,” but maintains that it is not because I, in the least, contest the genuineness of the Will of Abdul Baha or question the appointment of Shoghi Effendi to the Guardianship, but because, as a Bahai, I maintain my freedom of con- science and hold to the injunction of Baha-O-Llaha: Independent investi- gation of Truth.121
Effendi to the guardianship, how could he question Shoghi Effendi’s policies, for, according to that will, whoever contends with him contends with God? Some light on this question is thrown by a later writing of Ahmad Sohrab, The Will and Testament of Abdul Baha: An Analysis. In this work, Sohrab again affirms his belief that the will is genuine. He indicates that through the years he “became fully familiar with the turns, strokes and trims of the art of caligraphy” as used by ‘Abdu’l-Baha, that he had read volumes of his works and was “thoroughly conversant with his choice of words, his mode of expression and his manner of phraseology,” and that he had in his possession more than a hundred of ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s tablets addressed to him, some being wholly written in ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s handwriting, the majority only signed by him. Sohrab asserts “without any hesitation and with no mental reservations, that the Will and Testament was written, signed and sealed by ‘Abdu’l-Baha, every word being in his own handwriting.”122
felt when news came of the appointment of a successor to ‘Abdu’l-Baha, because, he says,
tion that there would be a successor to himself. On the contrary, a number of addressee delivered by him on various occasions had made the opposite impression. Consequently, it took several years before a section of the Baha’i’s could adjust themselves to the new situation.123
‘Abdu’l-Baha’s passing was to go to Muhammad ‘Ali, who was next in authority to ‘Abdu’l-Baha. Richards had earlier made this observation, noting that after Muhammad ‘Ali the control of the faith’s affairs was to go to the House of Justice, and concluded, therefore, that ‘Abdu’l-Baha, even though his will be considered authentic, did not possess the right to nominate Shoghi Effendi and his descendants as guardians of the faith.124
that Muhammad ‘Ali was not fit to become the new leader and so “made the stupendous decision of setting aside his Father’s commands as to the suc- cession” and that “the action of Abdul Baha, wherein he brought into play his own conscience in the face of the written text of Baha-O-Llah, relieves the fabric of religion of the weighty dogma of infallibility.” Sohrab goes on to say that ‘Abdu’l-Baha, thus, “in an urgent crisis lived up to his own teaching … that the station of the Prophet is twofold—divine and human.” The prophet’s words at the divine level are “imperishable truths,”‘ whereas “those spoken on the human plans, in regard to material con- ditions, may be subject to change according to the requirements of advancing times.”125 Sohrab, therefore, saw ‘Abdu’l-Baha, because of the existing cir- cumstances, placing his conscience (or will) above the explicit text of the prophet’s words concerning the succession. He believes that ‘Abdu’l-Baha advocated this freedom of conscience for all men.
implicitly obey Shoghi Effendi as the Guardian of the Cause, and, to all intents and purposes, to accept him is an infallible leader,” but he maintains:
Baha’is are super-literalists), agreeing that to obey Shoghi Effendi is to obey God and to oppose him is to oppose God, there is no escaping the conclusion that the Master asks of us the surrender of our wills, minds and reason to the Guardian—a surrender which is fraught with far-reaching consequences for it implies a betrayal of the very Bahai ideals which the Master himself spent his life sharing with the world.126
he believed was guaranteed to him in the Baha’i teachings, to the demanding will of Shoghi Effendi, who, he believed, had completely reversed the charac- ter of the Baha’i religion. He believed that he had helped win a victory for religious liberty in America, but to the organized Baha’is he was only one more fallen luminary before the advancing evolution of the Baha’i faith. Ruhi Afnan
of the organized Baha’is, is Ruhi Afnan, son of ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s second daugh- ter, Tuba Khanum and her husband, Mirza Muhsen Afnan. Unlike Ruth White who could not accept ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s will as authentic, and unlike Julie Chanler and Ahmad Sohrab who could accept the will as authentic but who could not accept the control of the Baha’i organization, Ruhi Afnan accepted both the authenticity of the will and the organizational hold upon the Baha’i communi- ty. In fact, Ruhi Afnan was a leading figure in the Baha’i organization. He served for fourteen years as confidential secretary to Shoghi Effendi. During those years (1922-1936), he was active in various capacities. As Shoghi Effendi’s personal representative, he delivered an address on the Baha’i faith in 1924 before the Conference of Some Living Religions within the British Empire. He visited the United States in 1927 and fervently championed the system of Baha’i administration before declared Baha’is and as an honored guest at the twentieth annual Baha’i convention in Chicago, participating in all its proceedings. He travelled from coast to coast delivering speeches in churches and colleges and before other gatherings and was guest speaker at Green Acre Baha’i summer school in Maine. In Geneva, Switzerland, in 1928, he was the accredited representative of the Baha’i religion at the Conference of International Peace though the Churches,127 In 1935, Ruhi Afnan made a second visit to the United States. Baha’i News recorded: The National Spiritual Assembly is privileged to announce that Ruhi Effendi Afnan, great-grandson of Baha’u’llah, has come to America and with the Guardian’s approval can remain until November in order to take part in the National Meeting at the Temple on October 26 and 27, and visit local Baha’i communities to assist in teaching on his way to and from Chicago.128
a number of Baha’u’llah’s family who were so excommunicated in the years 1941 and 1942.129 Appalled by these excommunications, Ahmad Sohrab in 1943 wrote a study of Ruhi Afnan’s contributions to the Baha’i organization and the reasons for his excommunication, prefacing that work with a “Protest against the Excommunication of Members of Baha’O’Llah’s Family” signed by various leaders of religion and educators who were opposed to the practice of excommunication by any religious body.130 As indicated in cablegrams from Shoghi Effendi, the reasons for Ruhi Afnan’s excommunication seem to have been three: (1) Ruhi’s sister had married the “covenant-breaker Fayzi,” a previously excommunicated person, with whom all communication, association, or aid was, therefore, to have been severed; (2) Ruhi Afnan’s alleged failure to obtain Shoghi Effen- di’s approval of his second visit to the United States, a charge which con- tradicts the report in the Baha’i News (quoted above) that he had the Guar- dian’s approval to be in the States until November; (3) Shoghi Effendi’s disapproval of Ruhi Afnan’s own marriage.131
from ‘Abdu’l-Baha which he believed had special advice to Ruhi Afnan now that he had been excommunicated by the Baha’i organization:
into the arena of explanation. Convey the Message of thy Lord with clearest speech and most complete elucidation. This is better for thee than solitude.132 Ruhi Afnan did continue to spread the Baha’i teachings, although he has no connection now with the Baha’i organization nor does he have their approval. Ruhi Afnan’s book, The Great Prophets, a study of Moses, Zoroas- ter and Jesus, although it would not be regarded ordinarily, or officially, as a Baha’i book, nevertheless manifests a basic underlying Baha’i philo- sophy. Ruhi Afnan advances in this work the view of a “perennial religion” which progressively manifests itself in such religions as Judaism, Zoroas- trianism, Christianity, Islam, and the Baha’i faith.133
Afnan attempts to bring out the complementary nature of the Zoroastrian culture, with its definitely religious base, and the Greek culture, with its more secularly oriented outlook.134 A more recent work, The Revelation of Baha’u’llah and the Bab, is the first of a series of volumes intending to set forth the teachings of Baha’u’llah and the Bab on a number of subjects.135
tinctive character, Ruth White refused to join the Baha’i organizations; Julie Chanler and Ahmad Sohrab, without denying the validity of the Baha’i organization, attempted to work independently of it; Ruhi Afnan, at first a strong supporter of the Baha’i administration, was cast forth from the or- ganization. Each had to make his own particular adjustment in the face of Shoghi Effendi’s transformation of the faith.
ing Trust, 1969), p. 4. 2 David Hofman, A Commentary on the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-
red to as Commentary). 3 Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Baha (Wilmette, Ill.: Baha’i Pub- lishing Trust, 1944), p. 11. 4 ibid. 5 ibid., p. 26. 6 Hofman, Commentary, pp. 27-28. 7 See above, p. 209. 8 Samuel Graham Wilson, Bahaism and Its Claims (New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1915), p. 15. 9 Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha’u’llah (rev. ed.; Wil- mette, III.: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1955), p. 123. 10 ibid., p. 61. 11 Shoghi Effendi, Dawn of a New Day (New Delhi., India: Baha’i Publishing Trust, n.d.), 94. 12 ibid.
13 ibid., pp. 78-79. 14 ibid., p. 95. For a list of the Bab’s better known works, see The Baha’i World: An International Record, Vol. XIII (Haifa, Israel, Uni- versal House of Justice, 1970), p. 1062. 15 Shoghi, The World Order of Baha’u’llah, p. 62. 16 ibid., p. 163. 17 ibid., pp. 112-13. 18 ibid., p. 114. 19 ibid., p. 137. 20 ibid., pp. 132-37. 21 ibid., p. 133. 22 ibid., p. 132-33. 23 ibid., p. 134. 24 ibid.
25 ibid., p. 139. 26 ibid., p. 5. 27 Shoghi Effendi, Baha’i News, April, 1927, cited by Eunice Braun,
p. 10.
28 Shoghi Effendi, Baha’i News, May, 1939, cited by Braun, Know Your Baha’i Literature, p. 10. 29 See Braun, Know Your Baha’i Literature, p. 8. 30 Braun, Know Your Baha’i Literature, pp. 11-12. 31 Shoghi, World Order of Baha’u’llah, p. 132. 32 ibid., p. 151. 33 Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By (Wilmette, Ill.: Baha’i Publish- ing Trust, 1957), p. 100. 34 Shoghi, World Order of Baha’u’llah, p. 115. 35 ibid., p. 163. 36 Shoghi, Dawn of a New Day, p. 198. 37 Shoghi, World Order of Baha’u’llah, p. 145. 38 ibid., p. 147. 39 ibid., p. 150. 40 ibid.
42 ibid., pp. 203-4. 43 Shoghi Effendi, Baha’i Administration (rev. ed.; Wilmette, Ill.: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1968), p. 39. 44 Shoghi, God Passes By, p. 333. 45 Shoghi, Baha’i Administration, pp. 37, 41. 46 Shoghi, God Passes By, p. 334. 47 ibid., p.335; Rabbani, The Priceless Pearl, pp. 302-3. 48 Shoghi, God Passes By, p. 336. 49 Shoghi Effendi, Messages to America (Wilmette, Ill.: Baha’i Publishing Committee, 1947), p. 86. 50 Rabbani, The Priceless Pearl, pp. 403-5. 51 Shoghi Effendi, Messages to the Baha’i World: 1950-1957 (rev. ed.; Wilmette, Ill.: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1971), pp. 152-53. 52 These twelve national assemblies were those of the Baha’is in the United States; the British Isles; Germany and Austria; Egypt and the Sudan; ‘Iraq; India, Pakistan and Burma; Persia; Australia and New Zealand; Canada; Central America; South America; and Italy and Switzerland. 53 See above, p. 27. 54 Shoghi, Messages to the Baha’i World, p. 7. 55 The Baha’i World, Vol. XIII, p. 395. For the importance which Mason Remey attached to his being the president of the embryonic council, see the following chapter. 56 Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, pp. 12-13. 57 The Baha’i World, Vol. XIII, p. 336; Shoghi, Messages to the Baha’i World, pp. 20, 55, 57, 91, 124. 58 Shoghi, Messages to the Baha’i World, p. 127. 59 ibid., pp. 44, 59, 128. 60 Ruhiyyih Khanum., Twenty-Five Years of the Guardianship (Wil- mette, Ill.: Baha’i Publishing Committee, 1948), p, 7.
Baha’i Publishing Trust, n.d.), p. 5. 62 Henry Harris Jessup, “Babism and the Babites,” The Missionary
63 Myron H. Phelps, Life and Teachings of Abbas Effendi (New York & London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, Knickerbocker Press, 1904), p. 101. 64 The Baha’i World: A Biennial International Record, Vol. III (New York: Baha’i Publishing Committee, 1930), p. 419. 65 Albert Vail, “Bahaism—A Study of a Contemporary Movement,” Harvard Theological Review, VII (July, 1914), 339. 66 Jessyca Russell Gaver, The Baha’i Faith (New York: Award Books, 1967), p. 17. 67 Stanwood Cobb, Security for a Failing World (Washington., D.C.: Avalon Press, 1934), p. 92. 68 ibid., p. 93. 69 Quoted by Ethel Stefano Stevens, “The Light in the lantern,”
modification by J. E. Esslemont, Baha’u’llah and the New Era (3d rev. ed.; New York: Pyramid Books, 1970), p. 63. 70 From Baha’i Prayers, cited by Cobb, Security for a Failing World, p. 197. 71 Abdul Baha Abbas, “America and World Peace,” The independent, LXXIII (September 12, 1912), 606-7. 72 Esslemont, Baha’u’llah and the New Era, p. 83. 73 Maude E. Holbach, “The Bahai Movement: With Some Recollec- tions of Meetings with Abdul Baha,” The Nineteenth Century and After, LXXVII (February, 1915), 453. The problem of Baha’is seeking membership in Chris- tian churches J. R. Richards saw as great enough to suggest that “all seekers after Baptism should be asked to declare publicly before the whole Church that they consider Baha’u’llah a false prophet. Some such formula as the following would probably meet the case, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God; that He really died on the Cross for our salvation; that He really and truly rose from the dead, leaving behind Him an empty tomb; that He was really and truly seen by the disciples as the Gospels bear witness. I believe that He alone is the Saviour of the World. I deny the doctrine of
the Bab and Baha’u’llah were “returns” of Jesus, and I declare it to be false teaching. Accepting Jesus as my Lord and Saviour I declare Mohammad, the
men away from the truth.’” (J. R. Richards, The Religion of the Baha’is [London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1932; New York: Mac- millan Company, 1932], pp. 236-37). 74 Eric Adolphus Dime, “Is the Millennium upon Us?” The Forum, LVIII (August, 1917), p. 175. 75 ibid. 76 Horace Holley, Bahai: The Spirit of the Age (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Truübner and Co., Ltd., 1921), pp. 27-28. 77 The Baha’i Year Book, Vol. I (New York: Baha’i Publishing Committee, 1926), p. 47. 78 Shoghi, Baha’i Administration, p. 90. 79 ibid., p. 101. 80 ibid., pp. 121-22. 81 Photographs of these trademark certificates appear in The Baha’i
Committee, 1937), pp. 347-57. 82 The Baha’i World, Vol. VI, p. 72. 83 Cited in The Baha’i World, Vol. VI, p. 200. 84 ibid., pp. 200-201. 85 ibid., p. 199. 86 Messages to America, p. 4. 87 ibid.
88 ibid., p. 5, The Baha’i World, VI, 201. 89 The Baha’i World, VI, 201n. 90 ibid., pp. 201-2. 91 Ruth White, Abdul Baha’s Questioned Will and Testament (Beverly Hills, Calif.: By the author, 1946), p. 27 (hereinafter referred to as
92 ibid., pp. 63-64. 93 ibid., pp. 67-68. 94 Richards, The Religion of the Baha’is, pp. 199-200. 95 Shoghi, God Passes By, p. 328. 96 White, Questioned Will, pp. 43-45. 97 Ruth White, The Bahai Religion and Its Enemy, the Bahai Organi-
as Bahai Organization). 98 ibid., p. 2. 99 White, Questioned Will, p. 26. 100 The Baha’i Year Book, I, 55. 101 Cited in White, Questioned Will, p. 74. 102 Shoghi, World Order of Baha’u’llah, p. 126. 103 ibid., p. 90. 104 Rabbani, The Priceless Pearl, p. 119. 105 William McElwee Miller, The Baha’i Faith: Its History and Teachings (South Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey Library, 1974), p. 262. 106 See Meher Baba, Listen Humanity (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1967), and Jacob Needleman, The New Religions (rev. ed.; New York: Pocket Books, 1972), p. 74. 107 Mirza Ahmad Sohrab, Broken Silence: The Story of Today’s
Co. for the New History Foundation, 1942), p. 51. 108 Mirza Ahmad Sohrab, “The Bahai Cause,” Chapter XIX of Living
Adams & Co., 1965), p. 314. 109 Sohrab, Broken Silence, p. 86. 110 ibid., p. 88. 111 ibid., p. 104. 112 Cited in Sohrab, Broken Silence, p. 107. 113 ibid., p. 186; also cited in White, Questioned Will, p. 93. 114 Sohrab, Broken Silence, p. 168. 113 Cited in Broken Silence, p. 253. 116 Sohrab, Broken Silence, p. 28. 117 ibid., p. 27. 118 ibid., p. 51. 119 See Ouise Vaupel, “Changing a World,” The Open Court, XLV (July, 1931), 421. This article (pp. 418-24) gives a brief account of the work of the New History Society. 120 Sohrab, Broken Silence, p. 49. 121 ibid., p. 52. 122 Mirza Ahmad Sohrab, The Will and Testament of Abdul Baba: An Analysis (New York: Published by Universal Publishing Co. for the New History Foundation, 1944), p. 11 (hereinafter referred to as Will: Analysis). 123 ibid., p. 61. 124 Richards, The Religion of the Baha’is, p. 200. 125 Sohrab, Will: Analysis, p. 25. 126 ibid., pp. 52-53. 127 Mirza Ahmad Sohrab, Abdul Baha’s Grandson: Story of Twentieth
the New History Foundation, 1943), p. 67. 128 Baha’i News, October, 1935, p. 3, cited by Sohrab, Abdul Baha’s Grandson, p. 151. 129 For a list of the excommunicated members, see Sohrab, Abdul
130 See Sohrab, Abdul Baha’s Grandson, pp. 11-18. 131 ibid., pp. 22-27, 166-69. 132 ibid., p. 172, citing Tablets of Abdul Baha Abbas, Vol. III (Chicago: Baha’i Publishing Society, 1919), p. 520.
(New York: Philosophical Library, 1960). See especially pages 11 and 146. 134 Ruhi Muhsen Afnan, Zoroaster’s Influence on Greek Thought (New York: Philosophical Library, 1965). 135 Ruhi M. Afnan, The Revelation of Baha’u’llah and the Bab (New York: Philosophical Library, 1970). Yüklə 2,06 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|