An historical analysis of critical transformations
Yüklə 2,06 Mb.
|
| CONCLUSION
That the Baha’i World Faith has undergone an extensive evolu- tion in its short history from 1844 to the present is freely acknowledged by Baha’is. The extent of this evolution in its various stages is subject to some difference of interpretation, but this study has attempted to show that the religion has endured and progressed through a series of critical transformations. SUMMARY OF THE TRANSFORMATIONS The most far-reaching transformation was that effected by Baha’u- ’llah, the prophet after whom the religion is named. Baha’u’llah’s trans- formation gave the religion a new name, a new central prophet, and a new book of laws. That the Baha’i religion, although distinguished in name from the Babi religion, was a transformation of the latter faith is seen in these considerations: (1) that Baha’is date the beginning of their faith not from Baha’u’llah’s declaration of his mission but from the Bab’s declaration on May 22, 1844;, (2) that Baha’is regard the Bab and Baha’u- ’llah as “Twin Manifestations” in the new era and as “co-founders” of the faith; (3) and that Baha’is see the Bab not only as an independent manifestation but as the herald of Baha’u’llah.
within the Babi movement, carrying over into the new form of the faith much of the basic Babi doctrine and abrogating only the more obnoxious features of the faith not calculated to render it a universal hearing. To this base, Baha’u’llah added his own particular touches which turned the Persian Muslim sect of the Babi faith into a world religion. ‘Abdu’l-Baha, eldest son and appointed successor of Baha’u’llah, carried the religion to further stages of development and won for himself a place beside the Bab and Baha’u’llah as one of the “three central figures of the faith” with his own writings being placed beside those of Baha’u’llah as the sacred scriptures of the religion. ‘Abdu’l-Baha gave the Baha’i teachings an analytic form couched in the terminology of Western ideas and slanted to their more social and humanitarian aspects which rendered them more readily acceptable to a modern, progressive, and scientific audience.
and appointed successor of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, transformed the religion from a loosely knit, inclusive, spiritual philosophy infiltrating the exis- ting religions to an exclusive, tightly run organization existing out- side of and alongside the religions bodies of the day.
Effendi when the faith’s leaders announced in effect the end of the system of leadership in the religion vested in a single appointed head of the faith and elected as their supreme authority the nine-member Universal House of Justice. The religion henceforth will be con- trolled and directed not by one authoritarian figure appointed by his predecessors but by a body of elected officials whose term of office will be temporary. CRITICAL NATURE OF THE TRANSFORMATIONS Each transformation was critical for the faith, for against each effort to innovate were segments of the faith’s adherents who ob- jected to the new developments and who saw themselves as loyal to the previous leader or system of the religion. Baha’u’llah’s opposition came from those who saw themselves as loyal to the Bab and to Subh-i-Azal, the Bab’s nominee for leader- ship in the movement after his death. They saw the Bab as a great mani- festation whose dispensation would extend for 1,511 or 2,001 years into the distant future. They anticipated the time when the Babi faith would become the state religion of Persia. The value they placed upon the Bab and his revelation is fully revealed in the Kitab-i-Iqan by Baha’u’llah, written before his own declaration. The Bab’s rank excelled that of all prophets, and no revelation was considered more glorious than his reve- lation.1 They consider the Bab the revealer of twenty-five of the twenty-seven letters of the alphabet. All the last prophets combined had revealed only two letters.2 They were unable to believe that the Bab’s revelation was destined to be surpassed within their own genera- tion. The accusations hurled and the murders committed as a result of the Babi-Baha’i altercation testify to the critical condition in the faith occasioned by Baha’u’llah’s transformation. ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s opposition was from those who saw themselves as faithful followers of Baha’u’llah, who had said that no new manifes- tation would come before the expiration of a full 1,000 years. They did not contest ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s appointment as Baha’u’llah’s successor but believed that ‘Abdu’l-Baha was assuming to himself the prerogatives which belonged only to a manifestation of God and that he, therefore, was overstepping the bounds of his rightful authority.
was basically conflict between two commands of Baha’u’llah, both in Baha’u’llah’s Kitab-i-Aqdas:
shines from the horizon of this heaven. Whenever it sets, go back to that which was sent down from Him.3
Beginning is finished in the End, then turn to the one whom God desires, the one who is a Branch from the ancient Root.4
after Baha’u’llah’s death to Baha’u’llah’s revealed words to settle dif- ferences which might arise among the believers, holding that even Baha’u- ’llah’s appointed successor was bound to those words. ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s fol- lowers stressed the latter command to turn after Baha’u’llah’s passing to “the one whom God desires,” identified in Baha’u’llah’s Kitab-i-‘Ahd as ‘Abdu’l-Baha, regarding ‘Abdu’l-Baha as the interpreter of Baha’u’llah’s words and the final arbiter in any and all disputes among the faithful. The former, therefore, placed stress on the importance of Baha’u- ’llah’s words over those of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, whereas the latter adhered to ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s words over their individual interpretations of Baha’u’llah’s words.
The seriousness of this crisis is seen in the fact that, as Shoghi Effendi points out, Muhammad-‘Ali “succeeded in ranging on his side almost the entire family of Baha’u’llah, as well as a considerable number of those who had formed his immediate entourage.”5 The crisis was augmented also by the fact that it occurred when the faith was gain- ing a foothold on the American continent and threatened to wreak the foundations of the American Baha’i community in its earliest stages of growth, a community which later formed the base of the faith’s develop- ment and extension in other parts of the world. Ibrahim George Khayru- ’llah, responsible for attracting and organizing the faith’s earliest ad- herents in America, revolted against ‘Abdu’l-Baha and sided with Muhammad- ‘Ali and succeeded in creating a division in the early American Baha’i community. The crisis had its effects outside the community also. Edward G. Browne, who had begun his study of the faith, wrote: This last schism, I confess, and the bitterness to which it gave rise, created a very painful impression on my mind, for, as I have repeatedly enquired of my Baha’i friends, where is the com- pelling and constraining power which they regard as the essential and incontrovertible sign of the Divine Word, when, in face of such texts as “Associate with [the followers of all] religions with spiri- tuality and fragrance” and “Ye are all the fruit of one Tree and the leaves of one Branch,” they can show such bitter animosity towards those of their own household.?6 Likewise, the faith’s opponents of Shoghi Effendi regarded them- selves as loyal followers of the faith as taught by ‘Abdu’l-Baha and opposed the guardian on the basis that he was reducing the faith with its liberal and universal spirit, capable of uniting itself to the various religious and philosophical movements and organizations of the age, to a narrow, sectarian faith operating hopelessly outside the existing structures and subjecting itself to the deteriorating influences to which all organized religions had inevitably succumbed. As Muhammad-‘Ali and his supporters had not challenged the legitimacy of ‘Abdu’l-Baha as the appointed successor of Baha’u’llah, so Ahmad Sohrab and the New History Society did not challenge the authen- ticity of ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s will and testament and the appointment of Shoghi Effendi as ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s successor. The charge was that Shoghi Effendi, as the appointed successor, was introducing into the faith innovations contrary to the faith’s character. These Baha’is were heirs of ‘Abdu’l- Baha’s transformation, holding vividly in their memories the teaching of ‘Abdu’l-Baha with its emphasis on independent investigation of the truth, its approach to the progressive spirit of the day, its broad defi- nitions of what constituted a Baha’i, and its view that the faith by its very nature could never be orgainized. The crisis in the faith at this point was brought to a head in the lawsuit in New York City, when the two Baha’i groups—the New History Society and the National Spiritual Assembly together with the New York local assembly of Baha’is—fought the issue as to whether the organized Baha’is could restrict the use of the name “Baha’i” to their own organi- zation.
of Shoghi Effendi was the most devastating of the crises the religion has had to face, for the young religion was attempting to establish an unassailable administrative structure when, for the Baha’i majority group, one of its major pillars was destroyed. In referring to the Baha’i administrative system, Shoghi Effendi said that “the pillars
institutions of the Guardianship and of the Universal House of Justice.”7 But because Shoghi Effendi made no explicit appointment of a guardian during his lifetime, because he excommunicated all possible choices in Baha’u’llah’s family for a successor and named no one to this position in a last will and testament, the line of succeeding guardians to direct the faith, as established by ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s will and testament, came to a sudden and abrupt conclusion upon the death of the very first guardian. ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s will and testament, called by Shoghi Effendi “the Charter of the New World Order,”8 which was to remain is force along with Baha’u’llah’s Kitab-i-Aqdas for the duration of the Baha’i dispensa- tion, has of necessity already been modified in some of its provisions. The requirements that the guardian “appoint in his own life-time him that shall became his successor” and that he be the “sacred head” and “distin- guished member for life” of the Universal House of Justice9 necessarily must be overlooked if there are no more guardians. The stipulation con- cerning the “fixed money offering (Huquq)” which is “to be offered through the guardian of the Cause at God”10 must now also be modified. On this matter, the Universal House of Justice acted on May 27, 1966, saying that the Universal Home of Justice “must, in the absence of the Guardian, re- ceive and disburse the Huququ’llah.”11 With the House of Justice ruling that it could not appoint or legislate to make possible the appoint- meet of another guardian, it had no choice but to make some modification of this provision in ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s will, but it did so in the face of Shoghi Effendi’s definition of Baha’i membership qualification as being “steadfast adherence to every clause of our Beloved’s sacred Will.”12 The Baha’is who followed Mason Remey as second guardian saw themselves as being faithful to the established system in the faith which existed before Shoghi Effendi’s passing. So again the division in the faith is between those who accepted and those who rejected the new trans- formation.
against appointed and acknowledged successors. Muhammad-‘Ali and his supporters did not question ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s station as appointed successor but questioned the prerogatives which he, as the designated successor, as- sumed to himself. Ahmad Sohrab and those connected with the New History Society did not challenge Shoghi Effendi’s appointment as guardian but challenged his strict organizational control of the faith. Ruth White, who did oppose Shoghi Effendi’s appointment as guardian, marks an excep- tion.
successor in these former cases was clearly designated and acknowledged for the most part even by those who opposed them. In this last crisis, however, the succession is not so clearly established. Two forms of the faith emerged, each in a sense claiming the rightful succession from Shoghi Effendi. The hands who assumed the direction of the faith’s affairs after Shoghi Effendi’s passing elected nine from their number to serve as “custodian” hands to exercise “rights and powers in succession to the Guardian” until the Universal House of Justice could be elected. When the Universal House of Justice came into power, it declared that “the Covenant of Baha’u’llah is unbroken.”13 Mason Remey, leader of the minority form of the faith, claimed to be the second guardian of the faith in succession to Shoghi Effendi by virtue of his appointment by Shoghi Effendi as president of the International Baha’i Council, the embryonic Universal House of Justice, whose president is the guardian. By claiming to be the second guardian from the time of Shoghi Effendi’s death, Remey also maintained that the covenant was unbroken.
is the fact that the succession is not as certainly established. Each of the two forms of the faith emerging after Shoghi Effendi’s passing claims to be the true form; each sees itself as remaining faithful to the covenant and regards the other form as having violated the covenant; each has expelled from the faith those of the other position; each regards itself as protecting the future integrity of the faith.
powers. The majority form accuses Mason Remey of having advanced his claim of guardianship in the absence of an appointment to that position by Shoghi Effendi and regards his claim to the hereditary guardianship as clearly unacceptable by his not being of the family of Baha’u’llah. Remey’s followers, in turn, see the hands as assuming unrightful powers when they took over the direction of the faith’s affairs by virtue of their designation as “chief Stewards” of the faith, when they elected nine from their number to exercise “rights and powers in succession to the Guardian of the Baha’i Faith,” and when they called for the election of a new International Baha’i Council, whose members had been appointed by Shoghi Effendi himself. In considering the crises in the faith connected with the faith’s transformations, two further observations may be made. Edward G. Browne, at an earlier period in the faith’s history, remarked that it is curious to observe … how in the Babi church the ‘stationary’ or conservative party seems ever doomed to defeat.”14 His observation was based on two crises in the faith—the Baha’i-Azali controversy and the ‘Abdu’l-Baha- ‘Muhammad-‘Ali dispute. Subh-i-Azal and his followers, who represented the old school Babis, lost to Baha’u’llah and his new form of the faith, and likewise Muhammad-‘Ali and his supporters, who saw themselves as faithful to Baha’u’llah’s original form of the faith, lost to ‘Abdu’l- Baha, who, they believed, was departing from Baha’u’llah’s teachings and making innovations in the faith. The latter two periods in the faith’s history provide further confirmation of Brown’s observation. The majority of Baha’is followed Shoghi Effendi and his institutionalizing of the faith against those who wanted to cling to the earlier universal form of the religion. Again, the majority of Baha’is at the present time are following the Universal House of Justice against those who are holding fast to the institution of the guardianship. In each case, those accepting the various transformations were in the majority and those opposing in the minority.
is that the opponents of the transformations were raising serious objections to the transformations. They were looked upon often by the majority party in each crisis as attempting to subvert the faith because of their own personal ambitions and visions of power. Baha’i literature draws a sharp distinction between those who followed the successive leaders and those who questioned their actions and policies in a manner remini- scent of old-time dramas where the all good heroes (dressed in white) are clearly distinguished from the all bad villaians (dressed in black). Life generally is not so easily divided into such convenient and clearly distinguished categories. The Baha’i heads of the faith, however, stand in a position closely approximating the station which Christians give to Christ, and the opponents of these leaders, therefore, take on the charac- ter of “antichrists.” A study of the Baha’i transformations reveals that these oppo- nents of each new leader were motivated not simply from selfish inte- rests but from serious concern about safeguarding the faith which they thought to be threatened by the new policies in the faith. The irony of this is that Baha’is who, by their beliefs and attitudes, would be con- sidered faithful and honorable Baha’is at one point in the faith’s his- tory become the castaways and despised profligates at a later stage in the evolving faith, if they are unable to make the transition to the new stage in the religion. This is why the religion manifests various examples of loyal Baha’is at the center of the movement who at a later stage become either inactive, disillusioned apostates or active leaders in the opposition against the new developments. SEEDS OF THE TRANSFORMATIONS
was raised, the seeds of each transformation were planted is the preced- ing stage of the religion. Baha’u’llah’s transformation, for example, grew out of the necessity for lessening restrictions and making modi- fications in the original Babi faith to secure for it a more universal hearing. The Bab’s emphasis given to his doctrine concerning “Him whom God shall manifest’ and his repeated admonitions to his followers to accept this coming one when he appeared opened the way for Baha’u’llah’s later manifestation.
not meant to grant ‘Abdu’l-Baha the full power which be later assumed, nevertheless made the assumption of that power possible. The Baha’i teaching that Baha’u’llah was “the Father” and ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s designa- tion as “the Master” led the early American converts with their Western Christian background to see ‘Abdu’l-Baha in a position comparable to that of Christ, resulting in the revered position accorded to him in the faith and in his wards being accepted as scripture. Shoghi Effendi later, in order to bring the veneration accorded to ‘Abdu’l-Baha into conformity with Baha’i teachings, had to compromise or synthesize the perspectives so that ‘Abdu’l-Baha was seen not as a manifestation (thus in accord with Baha’i teaching) but as one of “the three central figures of the faith” (in accord with the veneration bestowed on ‘Abdu’l-Baha) and his words were not regarded as equal in rank with Baha’u’llah’s (thus in accord with Baha’i teaching) but equal in validity (in accord with the popular viewpoint which regarded them as scripture). The institutional form of the faith which Shoghi Effendi developed during his administration, moreover, already was under way to some extent in the days of ‘Abdu’l-Baha. ‘Abdu’l-Baha approved of organizing “Houses of Justice” for men and “Assemblies of Teaching” for women;15 he sent Mirza Assadu’llah to the United States in 1901 to organize the House of Justice (House of Spirituality) in September, 1901.16 The election of certain persons to the “Spiritual Meeting” ‘Abdu’l-Baha describes as a “source of joy.” ‘Abdu’l-Baha indicates that the Spiritual Meeting of Con- sultation of New York and the Spiritual Meeting of Consultation of Chicago must “unitedly approve” of writings for publication, and then if ‘Abdu’l- Baha approves, the writing may be printed and published.17 The translation of Baha’u’llah’s tablets, ‘Abdu’l-Baha says, is to be done by a committee of two Persian translators and two competent English writers. The material is to be sent then to ‘Abdu’l-Baha for his consent for its publication and circulation.18
Baha’i faith, which Shoghi Effendi carried to completion. The argument, therefore, that ‘Abdu’l-Baha was opposed to organizing the faith is not entirely valid. This organization, however, in ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s time was not inconsistent with the inclusive character of the religion, for appa- rently no restrictions on membership were observed and one who considered himself a Baha’i could also hold membership in other religious bodies. Where Shoghi Effendi departed from previous policy was in requiring the Baha’i to sever his membership with other religious organizations. This action was one small step for the guardian of the faith but a giant leap far the religion as a whole, for the faith thereby ceased being the inclusive religion which ‘Abdu’l-Baha conceived it to be and became a highly exclusive religion whose character is revealed dramatically in the copyrighting of the name “Baha’i” and in the lawsuits aimed at restricting use of the name.
Effendi’s excommunication of all possible choices for a guardian among Baha’u’llah’s descendants and in his not naming explicitly a successor during his lifetime or leavings a will naming one. TENSIONS CREATED BY THE TRANSFORMATIONS The various transformations in the faith have created certain tensions within the religion. A tension is created by the philosophy of a preceding stage of the religion being carried over into its later stages to exist alongside the new philosophy or state of the faith. The first tension created in the religion by a transformation as that caused by Baha’u’llah’s transformation of the Babi movement into the Baha’i faith. The philosophy of the Babi dispensation was that the Bab was an independent manifestation in line with Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad and was the founder of his own religion centering in his person. After Baha’u’llah’s transformation, however, the religion’s new center became Baha’u’llah, thus raising in the faith the problem of the rela- tionship between the Babi and Baha’i religions and between the corres- ponding manifestations of the Bab and Baha’u’llah.
and this development helped to explain in part the Bab’s relationship to Baha’u’llah; but the tension remains, for the faith also regards the Bab as an independent manifestation. If he is an independent manifes- tation, then would not his religion be one in the series of religions and technically distinct from the Baha’i religion? Some early Baha’is took this view. Mirza Abu’l-Fadl maintained, for example, that the Babi religion “is not the same religion or creed as Bahaism,”19 and held, therefore, that the Baha’i religion should not be persecuted for the actions of the Babis. If this contention is true, then the Baha’i religion should not count as its own the numerous celebrated martyrs of the Babi faith, an argument sometimes advanced by non-Baha’i critics. Edward G. Browne had noted that ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s Traveller’s Narrative had “passed over very lightly” the “deeds and sufferings of the early apostles if Babiism”‘ as well as “many of the most remarkable events of the older dispensation” and had treated “very fully” certain martyrdoms belonging to the new dispensation.20 Mason Remey, during the early years of the faith in America, wrote that “Babism fulfilled its purpose, and when this was accomplished in the appearance of Baha Ullah, it, as such, ceased to exist.”21 Remey, in his later years, maintained that the Babi and Baha’i religions were distinct faiths. Shoghi Effendi perhaps sensed a danger that the Baha’is were minimizing the importance of the Bab and his dispensation, holding that “the greatness of the Bab consists primarily, not in His being the divinely-appointed forerunner. … but rather in His having been … the inaugurator of a separate religious Dispensation.”22 Shoghi Effendi explained that the chief motive actuating me to undertake the task of editing and translating Nabil’s immortal Narrative has been to enable every follower of the Faith in the West to better understand and more readily grasp the tremendous implications of His exalted station and to more ardently admire and love Him.23
hood of the Bab, they date the beginning of the Baha’i religion with the Bab’s declaration of his Mission, not with Baha’u’llah’s. Although Baha’is date the beginning of their faith with the Bab’s declaration, the Bab’s religion may at times be considered as distinct and inferior to the Baha’i faith, as in the following quotation from Shoghi Effendi: Can the Author of the Babi Dispensation however much He may have succeeded through the provisions of the Persian Bayan in averting a schism as permanent and catastrophic as those that afflicted Christianity and Islam—can hHe be said to have produced instru- ments for the safeguarding of His Faith as definite and effica- cious as those which must for all time preserve the unity of the organized followers of the Faith of Baha’u’llah?24
ministry, for Baha’u’llah had indicated that no new manifestation would appear for 1,000 years, yet the veneration which Baha’is accorded to ‘Abdu’l-Baha placed him essentially in this category, although theore- tically ‘Abdu’l-Baha is not a manifestation. He is regarded, however, as having lived the Christ life, as being the perfect Baha’i and the perfect reflection of Baha’u’llah’s glory, and his words, as those of Baha’u’llah, are sacred and infallible. Another tension is created by equating the validity of ‘Abdu’l- Baha’s words with those of Baha’u’llah, for whose words carry the more authority in determining points of doctrine or policy? Both have the same authority since they are equal in validity, but Baha’u’llah’s words in Baha’i thought hold a higher rank for being words of a mani- festation of God. Yet, ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s words are more determinative in establishing faith and practice, since the believer must approach Baha’u- ’llah’s teachings through ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s interpretations. A certain tension also exists between original teachings and adapted teachings, for ‘Abdu’l-Baha often credits Baha’u’llah with teachings which owe their form of expression to ‘Abdu’l-Baha and which bear the influence of a later time. Shoghi Effendi’s transformation also created a tension in the faith, for in spite of that transformation some of the philosophy of the previous period continued to be expressed. In ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s time, the faith was described as undogmatic because of its open, inclusive, universal character with its emphasis on humanitarian and social prin- ciples which people of many different creeds and outlooks could easily accept. The faith was not viewed as a church or denomination, since its adherents were found in various religious groups, and since no one was asked to sever his religious membership affiliation, the faith was not seen as proselytizing. This character of the faith, however, was changed by Shoghi Effendi’s transformation. The faith took on a dogmatic character with the many definitions of Baha’i doctrine which Shoghi Effendi propounded. The faith definitely became a religious organization with its own of- ficers, boards, committees, offerings, and missionary program. As an illustration of this tension, Jessyca Russell Gaver writes:
does not have a formal creed to be recited, or sacraments, or a clergy. It is not a denomination of Christianity or Islam or Ju- daism. It is a religious community, composed of laws, principles and institutions for community life.25
Baha’s day, but it was written some ten years after Shoghi Effendi’s pas- sing. The statement, true of the faith’s character prior to Shoghi Ef- fendi’s administration, would hardly be appropriate in describing the faith since Shoghi Effendi’s time.
the Baha’i organization constitutes a church. Shoghi Effendi’s state- ment of Baha’i membership qualifications, to which every Baha’i must subscribe to be a member of the community, constitutes a kind of “creed.” Although Baha’is do not have a formal clergy, the hands of the cause, the auxiliary board members, the officers of the spiritual assemblies, the Baha’i pioneers (missionaries), and now the members of the continen- tal boards of councilors and of the Universal House of Justice function much as the clergy of the faith.
cussing whether the Baha’is are a church and have clergy, creeds, and sacraments. The Jehovah’s Witnesses make no distinction between clergy and laity, calling all their members ministers. Baha’is also seek to involve all their members in the work of the faith but designate no one as clergy. The original form of Christianity made no sharp distinction between clergy and laity, and one of the main principles of the Protes- tant Reformation was “the priesthood of all believers,” which places all believers on an equal footing in their relationship and service to God.
matic character of the faith may be explained as a carry-over into the modern period of the philosophy prevalent during the time of ‘Abdu’l-Baha. This philosophy received such an emphasis in the popular press during the early development of the American Baha’i community in ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s time that it persists into the present period in spite of the faith’s evident institutional form today. The latest transformation in the faith also creates certain tensions. One tension is between the faith’s basic writings underscoring the essen- tiality and complementary functions of the various features of the adminis- trative system and the obvious inability of the faith to operate fully according to these provisions and definitions. Another tension may be created by the faith’s attempt to carry on the philosophy of its previous periods that the faith, by its unique administrative order, is protected from schism when the primary institution in the faith to safeguard the religion’s unity, namely the guardianship with its rights of infallible interpretation of Baha’i scripture, is no longer operative as a continuous institution in the faith. A further danger is that the Universal House of Justice may assume to itself some of the prerogatives of the guardian- ship. THE TRANSFORMATIONS AND THE QUESTION OF SCHISM A study of the Baha’i transformations reveals that connected with each transformation was a conflict within the religion between those who accepted and those who rejected the transformation. Non- Baha’i writers readily speak of schism within the faith,27 yet Baha’is insist that their religion is protected from schism. Conflicts may occur, they admit, but not schism. Shoghi Effendi wrote: “Though fiercely assailed, ever since its inception, it has, by virtue of its character, unique in the annals of the world’s religious history, suc- ceeded in maintaining the unity of the diversified and far-flung body of its supporters. “28 David Hofman maintains: “There are no Baha’i sects. There never can be.”29
faith is rather technical and depends in part on how schism is defined. If schism in a religion means the dividing into two or more factions of those who identify themselves with the said religion, then obvious schism has occurred in the Baha’i religion, for various factions each claiming to belong to the Baha’i religion have existed in the course of the faith’s history. In saying that schism has not occurred in the Baha’i religion, Baha’is, then, evidently do not mean that only one group of those profes- sing to be Baha’is has ever existed. If this is their meaning, then history proves them wrong. Sometimes Baha’is seem to mean that no schism has occurred in the sense that no lasting schism has occurred or that the schismatic group is so small numerically as to be hardly significant. The objection to this attitude would be that regardless of how small, ineffective, or temporary a schismatic group may be, it nonetheless marks schism within the faith. The Baha’i scholar, Abu’l-Fadl, recognized this when he called attention to the “Nakezeen“ (Covenant-breakers) in ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s time, “whose number does not exceed thirty,”30 yet lamented that the one community of Baha-Ullah which was as the breeze of Paradise and the fragrance of the morn of Providence, free from the foul odors of animosity and discord, became divided through the evil intrigues of these few. …31 What the Baha’is seem primarily to mean, however, in saying that the Baha’i faith is immune to schism is that schism cannot occur in the religion because a Baha’i is faithful to the covenant and one who violates that covenant cease to be a true Baha’i and after excommunication ceases in any sense to be a Baha’i. In Baha’i thought, if one accepts Baha’u’llah without reservation, then he must also accept the leadership of ‘Abdu’l- Baha, who was appointed by Baha’u’llah as his successor. Then, if ‘Abdu’l- Baha’s leadership is accepted, he also must accept Shoghi Effendi, appointed in ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s will and testament as ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s successor and as the guardian of the cause. In this way of thinking, those who opposed the constituted authority in the faith automatically excluded themselves from the faith, and they, therefore, are regarded not as schismatics within the faith but as violators of the covenant and therefore outside the fold of the religion. The two organizations today, both calling themselves Baha’i, do not constitute schism in their way of thinking because each one has declared the other to be outside the faith. In this line of reasoning, various other religious bodies could claim that no schism has occurred within their religion. The Roman Catholic Church claims that it is the one true Christian church. If this claim is true, then the unity of the Christian church would be preserved, for bodies calling themselves Christian churches outside the Roman system would be outside the true church. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormonism) claims that it is the true Christian church restored in the latter days. Some Baptist bodies claim to be the church founded by Jesus Christ and trace their history outside of the Roman Catholic Church from the time of Christ to the present. Shi‘ah Islam considers itself the true form of Islam, acknowledging ‘Ali as the prophet Muhammad’s choice of a successor. The Baha’i faith follows Shi‘ah Islam in this belief. Shoghi Effendi labels the institution of the caliphate as illegitimate and an institution which from its inception trampled upon the sacred right of Muhammad’s lawful successors and “‘unchained the forces of so distressful a schism” within the religion of Islam.32 Shoghi Effendi believes, therefore, that Shi‘ah Islam represents the lawful form of Islam, based on the authority of Muhammad to appoint his successor and his successor’s right to appoint his successor, and so on through the line of the Imams. Why should the opposition against Muhammad’s appointment of ‘Ali as his successor constitute schism within Islam but the opposition against the appointed successors in the Baha’i faith not constitute schism within Baha’i? In each case, lawful appointments were made, the former by the spoken word and the latter by the written documents.
of proof of appointment. The followers of Muhammad were not equipped with written proof of ‘Ali’s appointment and, therefore, could not fore- stall schism among the faithful. Shoghi Effendi asks: Could Peter, the admitted chief of the Apostles, or the Imam ‘Ali, the cousin and legitimate successor of the Prophet, produce in sup- port of the primacy with which both had been invested written and
silenced those who either among their contemporaries or in a later age have repudiated their authority and, by their action, precipi- tated the schisms that persist until the present day?33 Shoghi Effendi affirms concerning the Baha’i religion: Alone of all the Revelations gone before it this Faith has, through the explicit directions, the repeated warnings, the authen- ticated safeguards incorporated and elaborated in its teachings, succeeded in raising a structure which the bewildered followers of bankrupt and broken creeds might well approach and critically examine, and seek, ere it is too ]ate, the invulnerable security of its world-embracing shelter.34
which might have silenced those who opposed the lawful appointments, and the Baha’i faith has such written documents of appointment. The Baha’i faith is protected from schism by the written documents in its possession. The Baha’i faith, therefore, has proof of the succession of its appointed heads of the faith, and those who have opposed the appointed heads have done so in the face of written proof against them. This is why the Baha’i faith can maintain, regardless of the apposition which may be raised against the appointed leaders, that its unity is safeguarded and pre- served.
cing opposition? Baha’u’llah’s written appointment of ‘Abdu’l-Baha did not silence Muhammad ‘Ali and his supporters. ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s written appointment of Shoghi Effendi did not silence Shoghi Effendi’s opponents. Ruth White, with photographs of the will and testament of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, proceeded to try to prove the inauthenticity of the will and managed to raise questions about the will which the Baha’is have not bothered to explain.
preventing opposition to the appointed successors is that the opposi- tion was not against their appointment, whether in word or in writing, but against the extent of their authority as the appointed successors. The appointed successors have been opposed on the grounds of their exceed- ing their authority and transforming the religion into modified and per- verted forms, contrary to the previously established character of the religion. Is the value of the written documents in proving to the adhe- rents of a religion that, in spite of the opposition, it is the true form of the faith, or is their value in silencing that opposition? It the Baha’i concedes, as Shoghi Effendi did, that the Shi‘ah form of Islam is the true form of Islam, wherein would lie the value of the written proof of its true form? Those of the Shi‘ah form of Islam are already convinced of its true form, with or without written documents. The value of the written appointments would have to be, therefore, in silen- cing “those who either among their contemporaries or in a later age” might repudiate the appointments of the successive heads of the faith. But the written documents in the possession of the Baha’i faith, although serving to confirm the belief of Baha’is in the truth of their religion or of their form of the religion, have not actually been too effective
in silencing opposition and thereby preventing schism in the faith, then their purpose in being written is unfulfilled and their value is questionable. But even if the written documents were effective in preventing schism, their effectiveness could last only so long as each successor continued by the written document to appoint his successor. Shoghi Effendi was the last successive leader in the religion appointed by a written appointment. Mason Remey possessed no written document of his appointment to the guardianship which might have silenced those who opposed him. The Universal House of Justice, being an elected and not appointed body, holds no written document of appointment. This is why the present crisis in the faith is probably the greatest the religion has faced. The succession of leadership by written documents of appoint- ment, which formerly was seen as the distinguishing feature of the faith guaranteeing that the Baha’i religion would not break into contending sects like the religions which held no such written documents, now has ended.
by schism, considered by Baha’is a major reason for the greatness of the Baha’i religion, may be in the end its great weakness. Other religions have survived their division into numerous sects, but will the Baha’i faith be able to survive the divisions within it which may occur over the years? Sects within the Baha’i faith would annul the major claim of Baha’i that it is immune to schism and has the power to unite all mankind within its fold. A FINAL TRANSFORMATION? Undaunted by the crises of the past and inspired in their hopes for the future, Baha’is have continued to move forward to ever new triumphs in the belief that their religion eventually will embrace all the world. The words of Shoghi Effendi’s prophecy still ring out for Baha’is:
this priceless gem of Divine Revelation, now still in its embryonic state, shall evolve within the shell of His law, and shall forge ahead undivided and unimpaired, till it embraces the whole of man- kind.35
that one final transformation is destined for the faith and for the world which it then will embrace—a transformation which will result in world brotherhood and peace on earth, when will be fulfilled the purpose of all the prophets of God “of transforming the world of man into the kingdom of God.”36 Are the transformations which the religion has undergone in the past mere preludes to this final transformation? Are the Baha’i transformations but “progressive stages in a single evolutionary process, vast, steady and irresistible,”37 pressing toward the God-ordained goal of “the Most Great Peace”? Is the Baha’i World Faith, indeed, the true and ultimate religion in which all religions may find their common unity? Worth pondering are the words of Thornton Chase: The truth of any religion can be proved and confirmed only by the heart, by testing its tenets in the life. The Bahai Reve- lation is unshaken in the arena of intellect, but powers of reasoning cannot make final decision concerning spiritual truth. One may read or hear it for a lifetime, may listen to opinions or express them endlessly, but no judgement is just, no opinion reliable except that of the personal living and decision of the heart. It is not a matter of philosophical reasoning, but a question of facts, and facts are demonstrable only by experience.38
must confirm itself in man’s experience, in his heart more than in his mind. It follows also that the Baha’i faith will make its impact on the world not on the basis of the logic of its doctrines and the reitera- tion of its principles but as it puts its faith into practice, its logic into love, and its dreams into deeds. The truth of the Baha’i faith will be revealed when or if it shall succeed in its continued evolution to transform “the world of man into the kingdom of God.” Only time can reveal what the future holds in store for the Baha’i faith or what the Baha’i faith holds in store for the future. NOTES TO THE CONCLUSION 1 See above, p. 195. 2 Baha’u’llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan: The Book of Certitude, trans. by Shoghi Effendi (Wilmette, Ill.: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1960), p. 143. 3 Earl E. Elder and William McE. Miller, trans. and ed., Al-Kitab Al-Aqdas or The Most Holy Book, Oriental Translation Fund, New Series, Vol. XXXVIII (London: Published by the Royal Asiatic Society and Sold by its Agents Luzac and Co., Ltd., 1961), p. 39. 4 ibid., p. 56. 5 Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By (Wilmette, Ill.: Baha’i Publish- ing Trust, 1957), p. 247. 6 Edward G. Browne, ed., Kitab-i Nuqtatu’l-Kaf, Being the Earliest
London: Luzac & Co., 1910), p. xlix (hereinafter referred to as Nuqtatu’l- Kaf). 7 Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha’u’llah (rev. ed.; Wil- mette, Ill.: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1955), p. 157. 8 ibid., p. 144. 9 Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Baha (Wilmette, Ill.: Baha’i Pub- lishing Trust, 1944), pp. 12, 14. 10 ibid., p. 15. 11 Universal House of Justice, Wellspring of Guidance: Messages 1963-1968 (Wilmette, Ill.: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1969), p. 91. 12 Shoghi Effendi, Baha’i Administration (Wilmette, Ill.: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1968), p. 90. 13 Universal House of Justice, Wellspring of Guidance, p. 13. 14 Browne, Nuqtatu’l-Kaf, p. xlviii. 15 Tablets of Abdul-Baba Abbas (3 vols.; Chicago: Baha’i Pub- lishing Trust, 1909-1919), I, p. 27. 16 ibid., I, p. 8. 17 ibid., I, p. 124. 18 ibid., I, p. 152. 19 Mirza Abul Fazl, Hajaj’ul Behaeyyeh (The Baehai Proofs), trans. by Mirza Kuli Khan (New York: J. W. Pratt Co., 1903), p. 78 (hereinafter referred to as Baehai Proofs). 20 Edward G. Browne, ed. and trans., A Traveller’s Narrative Written to Illustrate the Episode of the Bab (Cambridge: University Press, 1891), p. xlv. 21 Charles Mason Remey, The Bahai Movement: A Series of Nineteen
Sons, 1912), p. 20. 22 Shoghi, The World Order of Baha’u’llah, p. 123. 24 ibid., p. 146. Italics mine. 25 Jessyca Russell Gaver, The Baha’i Faith (New York: Award Books, 1968; London; Tandem Books, 1968), p. 24. 26 Funk & Wagnalls, Standard Dictionary of the English Language:
27 See for example, Browne, Nuqtatu’l-Kaf, p. xlix, and J. R. Richards, The Religion of the Baha’is (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1932; New York: Macmillan Company, 1932), pp. 90- 91. 28 Shoghi Effendi, The Faith of Baha’u’llah (Wilmette, Ill.: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1959), p. 13. 29 David Hofman, The Renewal of Civilization, Talisman Books (London: George Ronald, 1960), p. 110. 30 Abul Fazl, Baehai Proofs, p. 118. 31 ibid., p. 116. 32 Shoghi, The World Order of Baha’u’llah, p. 178. 33 ibid., p. 145. Italics mine.
35 ibid., p. 23. 36 Words of ‘Abdu’l-Baha in The Baha’i World: A Biennial Inter-
p. 50; quoted by Mabel Hyde Paine, comp., Divine Art of Living: Selections from the Writings of Baha’u’llah and ‘Abdu’l-Baha (Wilmette, Ill.: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1944), p. 107. 37 Shoghi, God Passes By, p. xv. 38 Thornton Chase, The Baha’i Revelation (New York: Baha’i Pub- lishing Co Committee, 1919), p. v.
Yüklə 2,06 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|