My first post about the infallibility of the House of Justice got quite a lot of comments. To all who read and contributed: Thank you! I’m indebted to you all for your thoughts and ideas. Some comments where short, some were long, some were quite funny (unintentionally) while others were surprisingly deep and insightful.
Here is a concise summary the most important points made:
For some the concept of infallibility was quite literal, while others took a more nuanced approach. Some tried to separate the ‘intellectual’ sphere with the ‘spiritual’ or ‘divine’ sphere, saying that I should use more faith and less brains. A few suggested that this whole thing was simply a ruse to incite unity and that it really didn’t matter otherwise. Others seemed to be saying that one must simply believe that the House of Justice is infallible and by believing so they are.
I’d like to answer those who request me to stop asking so many damned questions and just believe. First of all, I am truly sorry that you are missing one of the most important and cherished characteristics of the Baha’i Faith: independant investigation of truth. And further, I’m saddened that you have not been able to cast aside the Shi’ite tradition of taqlid (blind imitation). Baha’u'llah forbids all Baha’is from this Muslim tradition saying that we must ‘see with our own eyes’ and ‘hear with our own ears’. If we just accept what we are told and follow a presented path unquestioningly, we are not Baha’is.
The Baha’i Faith and questions go together like peanut butter and jam. Why else would there be a whole month devoted to them?
To those who asked me in their comments to not use logic or intellect, I say: Are you kidding? In the Baha’i faith science and religion are both lauded as paths to truth. One is not superior nor subservient to the other. A true Baha’i would never deny logic, critical thinking and simple deduction because it might conflict with religious dogma. That is the slippery slope of superstition. Thanks, but no thanks. In fact, the history of the Faith is replete with examples where simple logic and deduction was used as an effective teaching tool.
One of my favourite examples is that used by a simple Baha’i blacksmith to open the eyes of a learned Mulla who then went on to become a Baha’i and was titled by Abdu’l-Baha, Mirza Abul-Fadl (the Father of All Learning). The story involves rain, angels and dogs. If you don’t know it, do yourself a favour and read his wiki entry.
While discussing this interesting topic over on Talisman (the venerable Baha’i discussion forum), one contributor provided this insight:
The acquired infallibility concerns the final product, not the decision making process. IMO, confusing the final product and the process is where you and others go wrong on this issue.
As I said before, the guarantee for being error free refers to the final product and not to the process no matter what the steps of the process may be called.
This is similar to other responses that I received from fellow Baha’is. Basically, they are saying that the UHJ receives guidance from God and so their decisions are protected from error. That is why they are infallible and do not make mistakes. Not because they are omniscient but because, as Dawud put it (in the comments section of the first post) they have “God whispering in their collective ear”. Or as the above contributor on Talisman put it, the process isn’t important, the final product is.
This is a curious sort of logic for me to wrap my mind around. It could very well be that my mind is shrivelled up and simply not as ‘wrappable’ as it once was. But nevertheless, please permit me to explain why I find this explanation wanting.
If we assume that the ‘process’ isn’t important, then it does neatly side-step the requirement of omniscience that I mentioned. That is a clear advantage that it presents. However, its natural corollary presents us with an insurmountable challenge.
For if we assume that the process isn’t important but rather the final outcome, then the natural conclusion is to simplify the process as much as we can; especially considering the amount of time and resources that it can require.
One especially mischevious person might even suggest that the process be simplified to a Magic 8 ball. Whenever the House of Justice needs to come to an infallible decision, all they have to do is to jiggle the Magic 8 Ball and then to read its answer. If we believe that God’s hand currently directs the UHJ to the infallible decision, then if would follow that God’s hand would direct the Magic 8 ball to an infallible decision also.
If you are not familiar with a Magic 8 ball, another option is a dart and wall system. Presumably, answers could be taped to a wall with a blindfolded and spun UHJ member launching sharp projectiles in the general direction of the ‘answer wall’ while the other 8 duck for their lives under the table. Since God has bestowed infallibility upon the final outcome, He will guide the dart to produce the proper answer (and avoid innocent bystanders).
Now, you might laugh at these silly processes. But all I am doing is going by the the logic that the process isn’t important but rather that the outcome is.
I hope that by now it is clear that the process by which a decision is made is quite important. I would say critical in fact, to the end result. And as a natural extension, the information used in the process also has a strong correlation to the quality of the decision.
It would seem that the House of Justice itself might agree with such an assertion:
Like the Guardian, the House of Justice wants to be provided with facts when called upon to render a decision, and like him it may well change its decision when new facts emerge.
(Universal House of Justice — August 22, 1977)
That seems like good old fashioned common sense, doesn’t it?
But can the Universal House of Justice make a mistake? Well, if they are not omniscient and depend on the quality of information presented to them like the rest of us mortals, then it would naturally follow that that is a possibility.
But there is also a clue in this quote that Sen provided in the comments section:
“The Guardian… is bound to insist upon a reconsideration by them (the UHJ) of any enactment he conscientiously believes to conflict with the meaning and to depart from the spirit of Bahá’u’lláh’s revealed utterances.”
(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha’u’llah, p. 150)
And as Sen pointed out:
So the UHJ can be wrong in a deeper sense than just making a mistake. It may be leading in the wrong direction, departing from “the spirit of Bahá’u’lláh’s revealed utterances.” So can anyone else — Shoghi Effendi’s words are not an invitation to stand on the soapbox of our own certainties, rather they indicate the need for humility for everyone.
I would add that what Shoghi Effendi is saying is rather alarming and it is not readily understood by most Baha’is. To me, he is saying that not only can the UHJ make a mistake, it can in fact go against the very essence of Baha’u'llah’s teachings. This is quite a dire sort of situation he describes. Of course, he is saying this in the context of the responsability of the Guardian in balancing the authority and power of the House of Justice.
And as you know, we do not have a Guardian. So that position is left unfilled and his responsabilities and duties left unfulfilled.
Related posts: