“Matters of State” or “administrative matters”: the scope of the House of Justice

In the 1978 translation of Tablets of Baha’u’llah by Habib Taherzadeh “with the assistance of a committee,” the eighth section of the Tablet of Ishraqaat says:

“This passage, now written by the Pen of Glory, is accounted as part of the Most Holy Book: The men of God’s House of Justice have been charged with the affairs of the people (‘amuur-e mellat). They, in truth, are the Trustees of God among His servants and the daysprings of authority in His countries.
O people of God! That which traineth the world is Justice, for it is upheld by two pillars, reward and punishment. These two pillars are the sources of life to the world. Inasmuch as for each day there is a new problem and for every problem an expedient solution, such affairs should be referred to the House of Justice that the members thereof may act according to the needs and requirements of the time. They that, for the sake of God, arise to serve His Cause, are the recipients of divine inspiration from the unseen Kingdom. It is incumbent upon all to be obedient unto them. All matters of State (‘amuur-e siyaasiyyah) should be referred to the House of Justice, but acts of worship (`ibaadaat) must be observed according to that which God hath revealed in His Book.” [1]

There is a previous translation by Ali Kuli Khan, made in 1906 or earlier,[2] in which the italicised passages read:

“The affairs of the people are in charge of the men of the House of Justice of God … Administrative affairs are all in charge of the House of Justice, and devotional acts must be observed according as they are revealed in the Book.”

Ali Kuli Khan’s translation was included in the widely used compilation of Bahai scriptures, Baha’i World Faith (p 200), and was therefore the text used in the English-speaking Bahai communities during the Guardian’s ministry and later, until Tablets of Baha’u’llah was published in 1978. Both, successively, are officially endorsed translations, and it must be supposed that the change was regarded as an improvement. For various reasons it appears to me that Ali Kuli Khan’s reading is preferable.

In the first place, there are contextual arguments. How are we to square Taherzadeh’s translation with the context of the Ishraqat itself, in which the “sovereigns of the world” are described as “manifestations of the power of God and the daysprings of His authority.” How could Baha’u’llah place the affairs of the people in the hands of the House of Justice, while making governments responsible for the appointment of officials and charging them to “fully acquaint themselves with the conditions of those they govern?” How could it be squared with the wider context of Baha’u’llah’s writings, which from the early Kitab-e Iqan until Epistle to the Son of the Wolf (See e.g., pages 91-2.) teach that God has granted temporal power to temporal rulers, and reserves human hearts for Himself:

“By the righteousness of God! It is not Our wish to lay hands on your kingdoms. Our mission is to seize and possess the hearts of men.”
(Baha’u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 49)

“Dispute not with any one concerning the things of this world and its affairs, for God hath abandoned them to such as have set their affection upon them. Out of the whole world He hath chosen for Himself the hearts of men — hearts which the hosts of revelation and of utterance can subdue. Thus hath it been ordained by the Fingers of Baha, upon the Tablet of God’s irrevocable decree, by the behest of Him Who is the Supreme Ordainer, the All-Knowing.”
(Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u'llah, p. 279)

To support Taherzadeh’s translation we would have to suppose that in the midst of a career, and in the midst of a Tablet, Baha’u’llah changed one of his fundamental beliefs, and then quickly changed back again, for in the ninth Ishraq Baha’u’llah again refers to “the sovereigns and rulers on earth” as “the manifestations of the power of God.”

In the second place, we have some specific translation issues. The first critical phrase is ‘amuur-e mellat. The translation ‘affairs of the people’ is good, if we do not jump to conclusions about the identity of ‘the people.’ The word mellat means people, but with two connotations: it is used in the Quran and in Ottoman law to refer to specific religious communities, and it is used to contrast the people to the government. In modern Arabic and Persian usage, it is also used for the nation-state, and the affairs of a state are naturally those of a government, but the Middle East of Baha’u’llah’s time did not have any nation-states. The word has shifted its meaning in the same way as a ‘nation’ in English has shifted from meaning ‘a people’ to ‘a state’ in the course of the 20th century.

In this passage in the Ishraqat, the affairs of ‘the people’ (singular) are put in the hands of the members of the House of Justice who are “daysprings of authority in His countries” (Bilaadihu, a plural: it can also mean regions). The ‘people’ are therefore found in more than one country, and I think it reasonable to read ‘God’s countries’ as a synonym for the whole of creation. A reader of the time would surely have concluded that ‘the people’ are the Bahais as a worldwide religious community, whose affairs are in the hands of the House of Justice and, by implication, not in the hands of the ulama, as in the case of the Muslim mellat, or of the patriarchs and priests, as in the case of the Greek orthodox mellat, and also not in the hands of any individual: the leadership of the religious community, for this ‘people,’ is to be collective. Baha’u’llah is also rejecting anarchism in religion: some authorised leadership and direction is required.

Taherzadeh’s translation then says “O people of God,” which is unduly general, for the original says yaa hezb-e Allah, ‘O party of God.’ It refers specifically to the Bahais as a community, and is commonly used in this sense in the Bahai writings. The authority of the Houses of Justice that follows – to determine rewards and punishments in accordance with the needs of the time – is an authority within the sphere of the mellat, within the hezb-e Allah, it is authority over the religious affairs of the Bahai community alone.

Taherzadeh’s translation continues: “All matters of State (’amuur-e siyaasiyyah) should be referred to the House of Justice, but acts of worship (`ibaadaat) must be observed according to that which God hath revealed in His Book.” The crux of the matter is whether ‘amuur-e siyaasiyyah means ‘administrative matters’ as Ali Kuli Khan says, or ‘matters of State’ or something like that. There is no reference to a ‘state’ in the original, and the House of Justice at this time existed only at the local level and was envisioned at an international level, so Taherzadeh’s translation as it stands is anachronistic. It was Abdu’l-Baha who concluded that national level Houses of Justice would be required, and so created the possibility for the Baha’is to confuse them with national governments. In Baha’u’llah’s time there was no such possibility. However an argument could be made that siyaasiyyah here means civil politics at any level, as it does in some places in Abdu’l-Baha’s Sermon on the Art of Governance and elsewhere in the Bahai writings. Moreover Ali Kuli Khan’s ‘administrative matters’ seems too broad: it does not reflect either the specific context here, which refers to reward and punishment, nor the normal connotations that siyaasiyyah has from its etymology and use.

Siyaasiyyah can mean leadership and civil governance, but it also refers to sentencing and sanctions. In the latter case it refers specifically to those punishments that are designed to be appropriate to the place and time, in contrast to stipulated punishments that are specified in the Islamic Shariah and may not be changed by the judge or the ruler, such as amputation for theft, stoning for adultery, death for highway robbery, and so on. In English usage, specifying rewards and punishments would normally be regarded as a legislative, rather than administrative, activity: siyaasiyyah is not simply keeping records and collecting funds, but shaping laws to achieve a desired virtuous order. The Arabic word derives from a root referring to the training of horses or camels. The most appropriate short translation, in the context of the Ishraqat appears to me to be ‘wise administration’, or ‘administrative matters,’ or simply a literal translation: ‘matters of policy.’ None of these carry the desired connotation of setting punishments, which the reader must infer from the context.

In this sentence of the eighth Ishraq, matters of siyaasiyyah are contrasted to matters of `ibaadaat, acts of worship. Acts of worship constitute one of the two main categories of Islamic law. They are matters that primarily concern the individual’s relations with God, although congregational prayer, for instance, incidentally involves a relationship between the believer and the prayer leader. The other main category of Islamic law is mu`aamalaat, transactions or social relations. The authority of the House of Justice in matters of policy is thus limited on two sides: it refers to the affairs of the religious community only, and it does not extend to making rulings about acts of worship. This contrasts with the situation in Islam, in which a mufti or mujtahid may issue a fatwa on the legitimacy of a business transaction in one breath, and in the next decide whether a prayer said in a wine shop is acceptable to God. It also contrasts with the situation in Christian churches – even Protestant ones – in which ‘the church’ is at once the body that organises the affairs of faith community, the community at worship, and the body that determines doctrine. In other words the contrast between siyaasiyyah and `ibaadaat here points us towards a unique quality of the Bahai community: the Houses of Justice and Houses of Worship are distinct institutions, neither infringing on the sphere of the other, and neither with any authority in matters of doctrine, which is a third sphere. But that is another story.

The 13th numbered section in the Tablet of Bisharat, which is identical to the text of the eighth Ishraq, provides confirmation that we can read these words as a contrast to the practices of other religions. Baha’u’llah summarises the theme of the Bisharat, at the end, as the abolition of the ordinances of previous religions such as “holy war, destruction of books, the ban on association and companionship with other peoples or on reading certain books.”[3] To this list we could add the abolition of restrictions on clothing and the cut of the beard (abolished in the seventh Bisharat), the abolition of priestly celibacy and confession (eighth and ninth Bisharat), and, in the thirteenth Bisharat and the identical eighth Ishraq, the removal of control over the affairs of the religious community, from the hands of priests and ulama to bodies elected by the believers themselves (for matters of policy and punishment) and to the individual conscience and the individual’s own reading of the sacred texts (in relation to acts of worship).

Thirdly, there is a translation by Shoghi Effendi of a similar phrase in Baha’u’llah’s Lawh-e Hikmat (Tablet of Wisdom) that seems to have been overlooked by Taherzadeh and others who have worked on these translations. Habib Taherzadeh translates:

Say: The beginning of Wisdom and the origin thereof is to acknowledge whatsoever God hath clearly set forth, for through its potency the foundation of statesmanship, (bunyaan as-siyaasah) which is a shield for the preservation of the body of mankind, hath been firmly established.[4]

Compare that to Shoghi Effendi’s translation:

The beginning and the true foundation of wisdom is to acknowledge that which God hath revealed, for upon this sure basis rests the edifice of wise administration. Verily this is the shield that hath ever protected the body of mankind.(The Baha’i World Vol. 4 (1930-1932) 105 (emphasis added))

Here, Shoghi Effendi agrees with Ali Kuli Khan, and against Taherzadeh. Shoghi Effendi’s translation stops at this point, but Taherzadeh’s translation continues:

Say, every matter related to state affairs (‘amr siyaassii) which ye raise for discussion falls under the shadow of one of the words sent down from the heaven of His glorious and exalted utterance.

The expression here, (‘amr siyaassii ) is a variant of the same term that Shoghi Effendi has just translated “wise administration.” The questioner (Nabil-e Akbar, a Shi’ah scholar, whose biography is in Abdu’l-Baha’s Memorials of the Faithful, page 5) is being told that his remaining questions fall under the shadow of what has already been revealed in the Tablet of Wisdom, which does not include ’state affairs,’ and there is no reason to think that the remaining questions would have been about state affairs. Therefore Shoghi Effendi’s translation is to be preferred here just as, in the eighth Ishraqat, it is administrative affairs (‘amuur-e siyaasiyyah) and not “matters of state” that are entrusted to the House of Justice

If yet more confirmation were needed, we have what looks like a self-interpretation, by Baha’u'llah, of the eighth Ishraq and thirteenth Bisharat in the Lawh-e Dunya (Lawh-e Dunyaa ). Like Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, this was written in the summer of 1891, and so represents almost Baha’u’llah’s last word on the topic. The date also places it within the context of protests against the tobacco concession in Iran, in which the relationship between religious leaders and politics was a central issue. In the Lawh-e Dunya Baha’u’llah says:

According to the fundamental laws which We have formerly revealed in the Kitab-e Aqdas and other Tablets, all affairs are committed to the care of just kings and presidents and of the Trustees of the House of Justice.

The ‘other tablets’ referred to must include the thirteenth Bisharat and eighth Ishraqat, from the similarity of the wording. This self-interpretation tells us that Baha’u’llah understood the passages in his writings that give authority to the House of Justice and those that give it to the Kings and rulers as complementary, and also that his understanding of the authority given to the House of Justice did not seem to him contradictory to praising the British form of government, with its monarchy, elected parliament, and established church. For him the eighth Ishraq, which puts authority in the hands of the House of Justice, and the Aqdas, which says that political authority in Tehran will fall into the hands of the people, are two aspects of a principle that applies in religion as in politics – that popular self-management through elected and consultative organs is preferable to absolute individual authority, whether of kings, priests or ulama. Another passage that speaks of authority per se, without differentiating between its civil and religious aspects, is in the second of the Words of Paradise:

The Pen of the Most High exhorteth, at this moment, the manifestations of authority and the sources of power, namely the kings, the sovereigns, the presidents, the rulers, the divines and the wise, and enjoineth them to uphold the cause of religion, and to cleave unto it. (Tablets of Baha’u’llah 63)

In the Lawh-e Dunya (and also in the 9th Ishraq), Baha’u’llah goes on to speak of the relationship between religion and government, saying that laws rest on penalties (the state relies on coercion) whereas religion gives us the inner motivation to do good and avoid evil.

From all of this I conclude that the authority in matters of policy and punishment given to the House of Justice in the eighth Ishraq is an authority within the religious sphere, which is exercised through exhortation and by using rewards and sanctions relating to status in the religious community, and is not the authority of governments, who may use physical and monetary rewards and punishments to get their way. In other words, ‘matters of policy and punishment’ are divided up into two spheres, just as Baha’u’llah divides the concept of sovereignty in the Kitab-e Iqan into worldly sovereignty and spiritual sovereignty.

Among numerous later interpretations that indicate that the authority of the House of Justice relates to the religious sphere only, are these from Shoghi Effendi: “Not only with regard to publication, but all matters without any exception whatsoever, regarding the interests of the Cause in that locality … should be referred exclusively to the Spiritual Assembly … unless it be a matter of national interest, in which case it shall be referred to the national body. … By national affairs is not meant matters that are political in their character, for the friends of God the world over are strictly forbidden to meddle with political affairs in any way whatever, but rather things that affect the spiritual activities of the body of the friends in that land.” (Unfolding Destiny 8 ) In Baha’i Administration p.8 the scope of the Administration is defined as “matters pertaining to the Cause.”

Given that those who prepared the 1978 translation of the Ishraqat had Ali Kuli Khan’s translation before them, one has to wonder why they would have chosen a translation in the eighth Ishraqat that is inconsistent with the remainder of that tablet, with Baha’u’llah’s explanation in the Lawh-e Dunya, and with Bahai teachings in general. One possible answer lies in a paragraph of Abdu’l-Baha’s Will and Testament, which Shoghi Effendi translated:

O ye beloved of the Lord! It is incumbent upon you to be submissive to all monarchs that are just and to show your fidelity to every righteous king. Serve ye the sovereigns of the world with utmost truthfulness and loyalty. Show obedience unto them and be their well-wishers. Without their leave and permission do not meddle with political affairs (‘umuur-e siyaasii), for disloyalty to the just sovereign is disloyalty to God Himself. (Will and Testament 15)

It could be that because Shoghi Effendi translated ‘umuur-e siyaasii as ‘political affairs’ here, the committee translating the Ishraqat and Bisharat felt obliged to give the phrase a similar meaning, if not exactly the same wording. In the Will and Testament, however, ‘political affairs’ are firmly under the control of civil rulers, whereas using the same translation in the new translation of Ishraqat and Bisharat puts political affairs in the hands of the Bahai House of Justice! Consistency in translation here produces inconsistency in teachings. Abdu’l-Baha’s use of siyaasii in the Will and Testament (and frequently in the Sermon on the Art of Governance) is more modern than Baha’u’llah’s usage in the Ishraqat, as the word shifts its meaning to reflect the development of an autonomous political sphere in the formerly patrimonial lands of the Middle East.

The ninth Ishraq, the last numbered section, returns to the role of religion in society:

Religion bestoweth upon man the most precious of all gifts, offereth the cup of prosperity, imparteth eternal life, and showereth imperishable benefits upon mankind. It behoveth the chiefs and rulers of the world, and in particular the Trustees of God’s House of Justice, to endeavour to the utmost of their power to safeguard its position, promote its interests and exalt its station in the eyes of the world. In like manner it is incumbent upon them to enquire into the conditions of their subjects and to acquaint themselves with the affairs and activities of the divers communities in their dominions. We call upon the manifestations of the power of God — the sovereigns and rulers on earth — to bestir themselves and do all in their power that haply they may banish discord from this world and illumine it with the light of concord.

Civil rulers have a general duty to promote the interests of religion, while the “Trustees of God’s House of Justice” have a special duty. The concern of the ‘chiefs’ is not confined to one religious community, they should be aware of the actions and affairs (a`maal wa ‘umuur) of every religious community. Baha’u’llah’s understanding of the role of religion in society takes religious pluralism as a self-evident context.
__________

This is adapted from the discussion of the translation of the Ishraqat in Church and State by Sen McGlinn, pages 181-186, available from Amazon Books or Kalimat Press.

1. Tablets of Baha’u’llah 128-9, cf. Majmu`ih az alwah-ye Jamal-e Aqdas-e Abha 75
2. Tablets of Baha’o’llah Revealed at Acca (1906). The eighth Ishraq is on pages 129-30 of that volume, and is unchanged in Baha’i World Faith.
3. Tablets of Baha’u’llah 28, cf. Majmu`ih az alwah-ye Jamal-e Aqdas-e Abha 15.
4. Tablets of Baha’u’llah 150, cf. Majmu`ih az alwah-ye Jamal-e Aqdas-e Abha 90.

Do assemblies learn?

The Spiritual Assemblies that administer affairs in Bahai communities suffer from growing pains: and the members themselves are the nerve that feels it the most. If the problem is disunity, is there a point at which it is better for some members to resign? Or should the assembly be maintained, and meet, come what may – even if the problems in the meeting seep out and undermine the good work and good feeling in the community?

On the one hand, we have quotes such as this:

“The assemblies of the North American continent, constituting the base for the gigantic operations destined to warm and illuminate, under American Bahá’í auspices, the five continents of the globe, must, at no time and under no circumstances, be allowed to diminish in number or decline in strength and in influence. The movement of pioneers, whether settlers or itinerant teachers, which in fields so distant from this base, has exhibited so marvelous a vitality, must, within the limits of the homeland itself, be neither interrupted nor suffer a decline. The groups and isolated centers so painstakingly formed and established must, conjointly with this highly commendable and essential duty, be maintained, fostered and if possible multiplied. “ (Shoghi Effendi, Citadel of Faith, p. 75)

This is not the same as saying that every individual assembly must be held, come what may. It seems to me to be saying that the institutional foundation in the country must be maintained, it should not be sacrificed by sending out too many pioneers.

In a situation where the number of active Bahais in the country is pretty much constant, or even declining, there will certainly be communities that shrink and assemblies that will be lost. They will mainly be in more rural areas affected by the drift to the cities, and areas with older populations. It is to be hoped that these losses can be compensated with new assemblies and new capacities elsewhere, so that the foundations for pioneering, teaching work, the support of the funds and for the next generation of Bahais can be maintained. In a rapidly changing society, we should not imagine that the institutional foundations can always be maintained in the same places.

Assembly work is quite demanding: it is conceivable that a community could have 9 or more adult Bahais, but not 9 whose circumstances and character enables them to serve on the Assembly.

Sometimes, concentrating on individual and community activities is the solution to disunity in the Assembly. Most Assemblies have a terrible tendency to over-administer anyway. Scaling back the Assembly meetings, holding a brief meeting on the margins of some other activity, and limiting the decisions to essentials, while at the same time increasing the deepenings, devotional meetings, proclamation, social activities and teaching, may reduce the pressure on assembly members to allow unforced growth in their relationships with one another, while also offering some hope of new ideas and new people refreshing the community. This solution will be particularly effective if a substantial part of the problem is that some assembly members are unenthusiastic about the assembly work itself. Perhaps there is little real call for assembly decisions, and frequent meetings, so long as the assembly is elected and is there as the first authority to turn to if an administrative issue should arise. In small communities, many matters can best be taken care of by individual initiatives, by friends working together in groups on particular projects, and by common consent at the Feast. The Assembly is a means, not an end in itself, and sometimes other means will work better.

“As the administrative work of the Cause steadily expands, as its various branches grow in importance and number, it is absolutely necessary that we bear in mind this fundamental fact that all these administrative activities, however harmoniously and efficiently conducted, are but means to an end, and should be regarded as direct instruments for the propagation of the Bahá’í Faith. Let us take heed lest in our great concern for the perfection of the administrative machinery of the Cause, we lose sight of the Divine Purpose for which it has been created.” (Shoghi Effendi, Baha’i Administration, p. 102)

However, if the cause of the difficulty is not a shortage of people able to serve, but disunity about some particular Bahai issue, the most likely solution is to get together to define the question as clearly as possible, and then to seek an answer to it. However one or two members who think they know the answer, and are personally qualified to define the question, can easily prevent this working.

There seems to be very little “institutional learning” in the Spiritual Assemblies, especially in the local assemblies. They can grow and develop for a while, and then lapse back: a sure sign that it was the individuals who did the learning, but it was not passed on in the form of maturity for the institution. A business or organisation would improve institutional learning by turning its learning, year by year, into training course materials, situation response scenario’s, “best practice” codes, and the like, and then by calling individuals to account if they failed to use what had been learned in the past. Most Local Assemblies are not going to do that, and if they were to devote much of their time to writing their learning down it would be a distraction and largely a waste of time.

That means that the maturity of the assembly never becomes “bedded- in” : it is the sum of the maturity and learning of the members, and little more. We will have more mature assemblies when there are more mature Bahais, and when the more mature among us are in fact elected and serve.

The first half of this means that the focus of all that “institutional learning” stuff should be the Bahai community, particularly children and youth, not the Assembly members. Not the procedures of the assembly, but skills such as consultation and attitudes such as humility about one’s supposed knowledge of ‘The Faith’ will have to be studied and practised.

The second part requires first of all larger communities (so that the voters have some choice), maturity in the voters (they must really be told that they harm the assembly by voting for Mr. Knowitall and that rich couple with the enormous house where every feast can be hosted), and more openness between the assembly and the community. If the voters do not know which assembly member seldom attends, who comes up with good ideas, who squelches every initiative, who does the real work and who complains that other people should — then the voters cannot give the assembly better members at the next election.

Ending the secrecy of LSA deliberations (but not the confidentiality of personal matters) is an important step: put the minutes of the Assembly on the table at Feast, or publish them or a summary in the newsletter (without the confidential matters relating to individual’s situations). Let the minutes, or the Assembly report, go to the Feast: say who was present, who sent apologies, who came up with ideas and who brought what argument in support or against the proposals. There is nothing in the Writings to prevent the community being told that Alice sent her apologies, Mary presented an idea for regular newspaper advertisements, Majnun offered to help while Mary was on holiday, Tahireh and Peter said that media proclamation was being discouraged, since Ruhi classes would be more effective, and Dawn said that the decision should be postponed until more members could attend, or perhaps a committee could be formed to study the Guidance. In fact, openness between the assembly and the community is encouraged:

“Every institution in the Faith has certain matters which it considers should be kept confidential, … Such matters, however, are but a small portion of the business of any Bahá’í institution. Most subjects dealt with are of common interest and can be discussed openly with anyone. Where no confidentiality is involved the institutions must strive to avoid the stifling atmosphere of secrecy; … (From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to a National Spiritual Assembly, August 2, 1982)

“… Their functions is not to dictate, but to consult, and consult not only among themselves, but as much as possible with the friends whom they represent. … They must at all times avoid the spirit of exclusiveness, the atmosphere of secrecy, free themselves from a domineering attitude, and banish all forms of prejudice and passion from their deliberations.”
(Shoghi Effendi, From a letter to the Bahá’ís of America, February 23, 1924: Bahá’í Administration, p. 64)

If the community is informed about the assembly’s work and functioning, informed voting by the believers will in time turn lame-duck assemblies into Assemblies going somewhere. Members of the community will get a boost just from the respect that is implicit in being informed.

Closed, insular communities tend to be very stuck in their ways: after a while people just don’t see how strange their accepted ways are, because there is no perspective from outside. So visitors who stay a while and contribute are important: not necessarily Counselors or ABMs (whose aura of expertise can get in the way), but simply visitors from other Bahai communities. We used to have a flow of travel-teachers who not only taught, but also refreshed the communities, but that practice has fallen into disuse. How about an exchange programme, say a house-swap at Ridvan: a couple from the coast goes to the mountains, and vice versa, or between Canadian and American cities? Another way to open the community culture up is to shift the prime focus of the community from Feast and Assembly (Bahais only) to devotional meetings and to the institution (not necessarily a building) of the Mashriqu’l-Adhkar or House of Worship. When we see ourselves more as others see us, we become more ready to change and to see that what we have always done might be open to criticism.

Sen