SKIP TO NEWSLETTER

My Notes:

In the second newsletter the group discusses an interesting mystery within the Baha’i community: where are all the Writings, documents, Tablets, cablegrams, letter and other texts? The most glaring absence from this list, are the Writings of the Bab, Baha’u'llah and Abdu’l-Baha; most of which have yet to be translated or even made available. I’ve already touched on this point in my introduction but it bears repeating since it is such a pivotal issue.

As it is mentioned in the newsletter, most Baha’is are aware (even proud), there has been a tremendous outpouring of Revelation in the Babi and Baha’i Faiths. Unfortunately, most of these documents are yet to be translated and the originals are locked up and kept away from the masses. Only a trickle is released every now and again as the slow translation work proceeds at the Baha’i World Centre (Gems of Divine Mystery and The Summons of the Lord of Hosts are two recent additions). Along with the Writings of the Twin Figures of the Faith, innumerous amounts of ancillary correspondence, Tablets and historical documents are also inaccessible. The most famous of these is probably the Afnan Library, administered by the NSA of UK, which holds scintillating bits and pieces of the early history of the Faith.

As well, the bulk of the communications from the Guardian to the NSA of US and Canada (at the time led by Horace Holley) is ‘missing’. One scholar’s hypothesis is that those particular cablegrams of the Guardian to the US are not released because generally the instructions they contained were ignored back then. Controversial, but interesting nonetheless.

It is important to note that although ‘authoritative’ translations of the Texts are rather slow in coming out, there is nothing wrong with using and studying provisional translations – as long as they are designated as such. In fact, many provisional translations are widely available. These are translations done by Baha’i or non-Baha’i scholars which do not have the weight of the approval of the House of Justice. But they can, nevertheless, be just as good. It is these provisional translations which should be encouraged by the wide dissemination of the contents of the Baha’i library and archives. If you are interested in learning more about provisional translations, you can google “Juan Cole”, check this out, or go here.

Finally, there is an anecdote shared by a non-Baha’i scholar (you can find it in “The Baha’i Faith and Islam” , p.25-55) where he describes the difficulty he had in accessing documents dealing with early Babi and Baha’i history. He recounts that at each stage, he would have to interview with a “gatekeeper” at the World Baha’i Centre and prove to them that he knew more than they did! Only then would he be passed on to the next level – to be then submitted to the same grilling by this next person. I confess to finding this archaic process rather strange for a Faith which has as one of its principles the individual investigation of truth and universal education. With the marvel of today’s technology, I can’t understand why the UHJ just doesn’t make all our texts (officially translated or not) available to scholars. I do console myself, however, that this particular scholar did not succumb to frustration and in the end was given the access he sought.

Before proceeding you might also want to read the introduction to the LA study class, here.

On with the 70′s class . . .

[START DOCUMENT]
[Ed. home address]
November 16, 1976
Dear Baha’i Friends,

The second meetings of the new class which we began two weeks ago was held on November 13th [Ed. date erroneously appears as 30th in text]. Only five people attended, however. All were disappointed that, because of illness and work-schedule conflicts, so many others were unable to attend.

[Ed. corrections are made for previously mentioned home addresses and phone numbers for Mehrdad Amanat and Joel Suffens]

(In addition to those listed last time, this letter is being sent to the following Baha’is:

Payam and Navid Afsharian [Ed. home address and phone number follow for each]
Gerry Ludwin
Farsheed and Mona Nourani

Unfortunately, Shahin Carrigan was ill and could not be present to make her presentation on the question of “value-free” science and its relationship to the Baha’i Faith. So, this subject was postponed until a later date (perhaps at the next session). The group decided simply to hold an informal discussion.

Soheil Sohrab lead the group by raising two points of personal concern to him. First, he explained that a non-Baha’i once complained to him that Baha’is commonly [Ed. illegible word, best estimate:] talk of the “100 volumes” which Baha’u'llah supposedly wrote. However, only a very few works of Baha’u'llah are available in English and most Baha’i literature tends to cite the same few quotations from Baha’u'llah over and over again. There may be many Baha’i books on the shelf, but their content is very repetitious — even Baha’u'llah Himself often uses quotations from His earlier Writings in later works. Soheil wondered how best to answer this question.

Everyone contributed to the discussion that followed and all comments cannot be summarized here. However, one of those present suggested that all the talk about the “100 volumes” may just be a smug way for some Baha’is to excuse themselves from studying the Writings for themselves. (i.e. “All knowledge is in the books anyway so I don’t have to know anything myself.”) Does the Manifestation of God come to reveal all knowledge and answer all questions? Of course not. And what is a “volume” supposed to be, anyway?

Someone noted that the primary emphasis which some Baha’is place on the volume and even the content of the Revelation is misplaced. The Manifestation does not come from God to deliver a set of books. (for instance, Jesus wrote nothing down and all of his recorded words would only fill ten or twenty pages of print.) The Prophets, it was argued, come primarily to affect a transformation in human society through the power of their own Person. Baha’u'llah has indicated that His Writings are only a tertiary proof of His Mission:

“Say: the first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other, He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men.”
Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u'llah p. 105

Soheil next raised the problem of explanations of progressive revelation which are usually heard at firesides. He was especially annoyed by the facile statement that Moses brought the harsh rule of Law, then Jesus brought Love, and now Baha’u'llah brings Justice. All agreed that an appalling amount of misinformation is continually being distributed at firesides. One person observed that false information about progressive revelation can also be found in some English pamphlets which are still distributed by the Baha’i Publishing Trust. (For example, can Krishna really be considered the Founder of Hinduism? Is Sabeanism the earliest known religion, with an unknown Founder? Is there any good reason why only nine Manifestations are listed in pamphlets and diagrams which explain progressive revelation? The answers are all, “No!”

After briefly discussing a few other topics, we came to the question of what to schedule for next time. As before, here is where we ran into trouble. After a while the group agreed that we would discuss Denis MacEoin’s article, “The Concept of the Nation in Islam”, which just came out in summer 1976 issue of World Order magazine. Everyone should read this article and be prepared to discuss it next time. No, Shahin Carrigan, was not forgotten. We still hope to hear from her next time, too.

Another personal note: since we are having a lot of trouble settling on subject matter to study and discuss, I am going to take the liberty of proposing four subjects (with the accompanying assignments) for the group to vote on next time. The two subjects with the highest number of votes will be the topics for the following classes:

SUBJECT #1: Baha’i history — the Conference at Badasht (everyone would read Nabil’s account in the Dawn Breakers)

SUBJECT #2: Attacks on the Faith — The Vacant Guardianship (All would read the letters of the House of Justice on this subject)

SUBJECT #3: The Baha’i Teachings — The Kitab-i-Aqdas (everyone would read atleast the introduction to the Synopsis and Codification)

SUBJECT #4: Guest speaker — I understand that Vahid Rafati has been doing some work on the concept of infallibility in the Faith. Perhaps he can be persuaded to address our goup.

NOTE: THE NEXT SEMINAR WILL BE HELD SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 27th AT 3pm AT THE HOME OF MEHRDAD AMANAT. [Ed. personal home phone number, home address and directions follow]

[END DOCUMENT]

Links:

The original scanned documents can be found here.

SKIP TO NEWSLETTER

My Notes:

I am amazed at the simplicity and elegance of the four ‘guidelines’ that the class adopts. At once they set the foundation for a fruitful and positive gathering of Baha’is. I will insist that if you wish to create a similar class for your own community, you do not try without them.

Right at the onset, the class opens up a can of worms. It has been a common complaint of Baha’i historians and scholars that Baha’i history has stopped in its tracks because of the ‘historical’ works of the Central Figures of the Faith (or their approval of similar works by others such as Nabil). Since these works did not follow prescribed and currently accepted methods of historiography, they are sometimes at odds with events and facts which have been later unearthed. However, the devotion and esteem that Baha’is hold towards the authors is such that to suggest that they could be wrong is simply taboo. The heavy burden of “setting the record straight”, while not getting lynched in the process, rests on the shoulders of modern Baha’i and Babi scholars. Unfortunately, some have not gotten away with their hides intact.

Also of interest is the name Vahid Rafati, listed as one of the Baha’is who, while not attending the classes, are interested to receive the newsletter. Dr. Rafati (Ph.D. from UCLA) would later become the director of the Research Department at the Baha’i World Centre, in Haifa, Israel.

Before proceeding you might also want to read the introduction to the LA study class, here.

On with the 70′s class . . .

[START DOCUMENT]
[Ed. private home address]
November 9, 1976
Dear Baha’i Friends:

Several Baha’is got together on October 30th to begin a new study class on the Baha’i Faith. It occurred to me that it might be useful to write up a short summary of what took place at the meeting for the information of those who did not attend and for review by those who did. The following should be regarded as a very much an informal report, however.

Thirteen Baha’is were present at the first seminar. They were:

Sidney and Karen Morrison [Ed. private home address and phone number follows for each]
Richard Grieser and John Yazdi
Soheil Sohrab, Behnaz Sohrab and Lili Sohrab
Ron and Shahin Carrington
John Zehral
Kami Namdar
Mehrdad Amanat
Anthony Lee

This letter is also being sent to the following Baha’is who have expressed an interest in the effort:

Amin Banani
Robert Ballanger
Oscar DeGruy
John and Chris Hendershot
John and Homa Snibbe
Vahid Rafati
Joel Suffens

The seminar began with a short presentation which outlined some of the purposes of the gathering and proposed certain guidelines which were to be observed by the participants. First, it was noted that under most circumstances (such as at ordinary fire sides and deepening classes) Baha’is are forced to edit their comments and avoid discussion of certain topics for fear for giving non-Baha’is and unbalanced or unfavorable impression of the Faith or to avoid confusing new believers who may not be well grounded in the teachings. This is as it should be. However, it was proposed that there should also be some place where knowledgeable Baha’is can gather to speak freely, exchange ideas and discuss difficult questions without concern for such matters. It is hoped that this new class will provide such a forum.

Four sets of guidelines were proposed as ground rules for the seminar and these seem to have been accepted by the group. They were:

1) There should be no topics which are barred from discussion, no questions which can not be asked, and no opinions which can not be put forth openly. No subject will be regarded as taboo. Rather the floor will be open to all themes.

2) During the course of the discussion it will be regarded as improper for anyone to question another speaker’s faith in Baha’ullah, his commitment to the Covenant, or his devotion to the Faith or its Central Figures. We all enter the discussion as Baha’is with a common commitment to beliefs which is beyond challenge or suspicion.

3) Ideas and points of view will inevitably differ. Everyone who speaks should expect that his ideas will be challenged and be prepared to support them with evidence which will be acceptable to others.

4) The discussion will be intellectual (in the best sense of the word). This is not to say that we will not discuss feelings or that the discussion will be pedantic or obscure. Rather is meant that we are interacting with each other on a level of ideas (not personality or emotion) and that the goal of the discussion will be an exchange of ideas, not emotions (though such an exchange will hopefully prove to be meaningful and emotionally satisfying.) There was a good deal of discussion on this point and it perhaps was not accepted as fully as the others by the group as a whole.

After this presentation, there was an extended discussion of the goals, purposes, format and subject matter of the class. A division seemed to develop between those who were primarily interested in an academic and detailed study of Baha’i history and teachings and those who expressed the need for a place to discuss personal questions and problems with the Faith as it relates to daily life.

As a compromise, the group agreed to divide each meeting into two parts for the time being. The first part will consist of a presentation by one member of the class of his research on some subject of the Faith which is of some special interest to him. This will be followed by discussion on that subject. The second part will be a more informal discussion without an established topic during which questions and problems may be raised by anyone present. It was agreed that the class should meet once every two weeks on Saturday at 3 pm. The place will rotate from home to home and will be decided at the end of each meeting.

The next seminar will be held on Saturday, November 13th at 3:00pm at the Sohrab’s home [Ed. home address and directions follows].

The discussion of goals and format was followed by a short presentation based on the letter of the Universal House of Justice, which was sent to Mr. Richard Greiser dated July 25th 1974. (A copy of this letter is enclosed for those who were not present.) The letter was read in full. The gist of the presentation was that the letter seems to indicate that neither Abdu’l-Baha, nor Shoghi Effendi need to be regarded as infallible in matters of historical accuracy. This is significant since both of these men have written histories of the Faith. (A Traveller’s Narrative and God Passes By, respectively). It was maintained that neither of these works needs be regarded as authoritative in matters of historical fact and certainly should not be regarded as “infallible history”. In fact the speaker went on to claim that since they do not conform to the accepted standards of historiography, they should not be regarded as histories at all (in the regular sense), but more as commentaries on Baha’i history. Much lively discussion followed.

The topic of discussion for the next session had to be decided with some haste. Shahin Carrigan generously offered to give a presentation next time on the problems raised by the need for “value-free science” and the commitment of a Baha’i scientist (or scholar) to his Faith. Objection was immediately raised that there is no such thing as “value-free” science or “value-free” scholarship of any kind, but the discussion was postponed for next time. Everyone was asked to do some private research on the question of values and objectivity in science and social science.

Adding a personal note, it appears to me that the seminar has not yet found its direction or really taken shape. There is a real need for a clearer focus. Next week’s topic may be a bit more diffuse than it should be. However, a clearer focus can only emerge from further discussion and practice. Anyone who expects a fully developed class of this kind to drop from the sky is going to be dissapointed.

Let me propose some topics for future study which we can discuss next time. We might concentrate on episodes and careers of Babi history for instance (the conference of Badasht, the life of Quddus or Tahirih, or of Mirza Yahya for that matter). We could look at some recent attacks on the Baha’i Faith such as William Miller’s book, and investigate the arguments and responses. The whole question of Baha’i historiography is fascinating and Balyuzi’s book, E.G. Browne and the Baha’i Faith might be a good place to start. There are also some doctoral dissertations on the Faith which might merit some study. And so on.

Let’s talk about it carefully this time when we choose the next topic of study!

Baha’i love,
[signed: Tony]

[Ed. the following is the letter from the House of Justice, referred to above.]

Mr. Richard Greiser
[Ed. personal address]

Dear Baha’i Friend,

We have received your letter stating you were disturbed by statements made in your deepening class regarding the infallibility of the beloved Guardian and we appreciate your concern.

According to your letter, this question arose in connection with Shoghi Effendi’s references in God Passes By to historical events, and in his description of the characters of opponents of the Faith, particularly that of Haji Mirza Aqasi. Letters written on behalf of the Guardian by his secretary to individuals who asked similar questions clearly define the sphere of the Guardian’s in fallibility. We quote from two of these, one written in 1944, the second in 1956.

“The infallibility of the Guardian is confined to matters which are related strictly to the Cause and interpretations of the Teachings.; he is not an infallible authority on other subjects, such as economics, science, etc.”

“The Guardian’s infallibility covers interpretation of the revealed word and its application. Likewise any instructions he may issue having to do with the protection of the Faith, or its well-being must be closely obeyed, as he is infallible in the protection of the Faith. He is assured the guidance of both Baha’u'llah and the Bab, as the Will and Testament of Abdu’l-Baha clearly reveals.”

Now in the matter of accuracy of historical fact, Shoghi Effendi had to rely on available information. For example, on page 5 of God Passes By, he refers to Haji Mirza Aqasi as “…the idolized tutor of Muhammad Shah, a vulgar, false-hearted, and fickle-minded schemer…” An appropriate and pertinent quotation supporting that characterization can be found in P.M. Sykes’s A History of Persia, Volume 2, pages 439-440, which appears as a footnote on page 235 of Nabil’s Narrative:

“The state of Persian was not satisfactory; for Haji Mirza Aqasi, who had been its virtual ruler for thirteen years, ‘was utterly ignorant of statesmanship or of military science, yet too vain to receive instruction and too jealous to admit admit of a coadjutor; brutal in his language; insolent in his demeanor; indolent in his habits; he brought the exchequer to the verge of bankruptcy and the country to the brink of revolution…’ Such – to adopt the weighty words of Rawlinson – was the condition of Persia in the middle of the nineteenth century.”

The Guardian was meticulous about the authenticity of historical fact. One of the friends in Yazd wrote to him stating that the account given by Abdu’l-Baha in one of His Tablets about events related to the martyrdom of some of the believers in that place was in conflict with known facts about these events. Shoghi Effendi replies saying that the friends should investigate the facts carefully and unhesitatingly register them in their historical records, since Abdu’l-Baha himself had prefaced His recording of the events in His Tablet with a statement that it was based on news received from Yazd.

It is a great pity if some of the friends fail to recognize the matchless prose to be found in the Guardian’s writings. Shoghi Effendi’s masterly use of the English language makes the meaning abundantly clear, and that is an essential quality of great works.

We are delighted that you and your dear wife are conducting classes for the benefit of the friends, and we will remember you both in our prayers at the Holy Threshold.

With warmest Baha’i greetings,

[Signed: The Universal House of Justice]

cc: National Spiritual Assembly of the United States

[END DOCUMENT]

Links:

The original scanned documents can be found here.
Go to the next LA Class Newsletter #2