Do not adjust your monitor… This is another installment of “Its a little known fact…”
I feel it my duty to tell you that you will be shocked and awed by what you read below. So for your own safety the factoid will not appear at the top, as it usually does. Instead, we’ll take a more gentle approach…
In the Kitab-i-Aqdas, Baha’u'llah writes:
God hath prescribed matrimony unto you. Beware that ye take not unto yourselves more wives than two. Whoso contenteth himself with a single partner from among the maidservants of God, both he and she shall live in tranquillity.
This has always been a bit of a sticky wicket for Baha’is because Baha’u'llah says ‘more wives than two’ - not, more wives than one. To be fair the next sentence does nudge towards monogamy but keeping true to the letter of the law, it does allow polygamy.
But as you probably have noticed, no Baha’i around has more than one wife. So what gives? Shoghi Effendi was asked about the apparent allowance for bigamy and his secretary wrote on his behalf in answer:
He [Bahá’u'lláh] made plurality of wives conditional upon justice; `Abdu’l-Bahá interpreted this to mean that a man may not have more than one wife at a time, as it is impossible to be just to two or more women in marriage.
[11 February, 1944 to an individual believer]
The common sense argument is made that Baha’u'llah used words very carefully to allow for a gradual shift to monogomy. At the time of the revelation of the Most Holy Book, Baha’u'llah Himself had three wives and many Baha’is of the time also had more than one wife. This is understandable since most of the Baha’is then were still transitioning from an Islamic religious background and had mainly entered into bigamy while still technically Muslims. As well, a Baha’i culture had yet to develop. Therefore, it was Baha’u'llah’s wisdom that they were not suddenly forced to drastically change their lives to abide within the new laws. You can imagine the jarring and unjust result this would have had on family life.
Yet, that is not all there is to it. As you read above, Shoghi Effendi says that Abdu’l-Baha explains: since the precondition of justice must be fulfilled, and since it clearly can not be fulfilled by mere mortal men, this means that the precondition can never be met; which therefore, means that poligamy is abolished completely.
Still with me? Alright. Here’s the thing.
First, we must acknowledge that nowhere in the Aqdas is polygamy preconditioned upon justice (or the equal treatment of both wives). This is an addition by Abdu’l-Baha. Perhaps Baha’u'llah told Abdu’l-Baha orally about this but to my knowledge there is no written document authored by Baha’u'llah laying out this precondition.
But in the Tablet in which Abdu’l-Baha is quoted, He is not referring to the Aqdas. Ofcourse, this is difficult to notice as the quote is taken out of context and inserted in the notes. In fact, the probability is that Abdu’l-Baha is referring to the Quranic law when he says “law of God” since in the Quran there is a verse as follows:
And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) only one or what your right hands possess; this is more proper, that you may not deviate from the right course.
Second, according to the Writings of Abdu’l-Baha (written to and for Baha’is about Baha’i laws), He did not say that the precondition of justice can not be met. In fact, He says the opposite:
“Concerning bigamy, this has been promulgated, and no one must abrogate it. ‘Abdu’l-Baha has not abrogated this law. These are false accusations and lies (spread by) the friends. What I have said is that He has made bigamy bound on a precondition. As long as someone does not attain certitude regarding the capability to practice justice and his heart is not at rest that he can practice justice, he should not be intent upon a second marriage. But if he should be sure and attain certitude that he would practice justice on all levels (and conditions), then a second marriage is lawful. Just as has been the case in the Holy Land: the Baha’i friends wished to marry a second wife, accepting this precondition, and this servant [Abdu’l-Baha] never abstained (from giving permission), but insisted that justice should be considered, and justice actually means here self-restraint; but they said, that they will practice justice and wished to marry a second wife. Such false accusations [charges that Abdu’l-Baha prohibited bigamy] are the slanderous whisperings of those who wish to spread doubts and to what degree they already succeed in making matters ambiguous! (Our) purpose was to state that bigamy without justice is not lawful and that justice is very difficult (to achieve).”
[Amr wa Khalq, Volume 4, p. 174]
“You asked about polygamy. According to the text of the Divine Book the right of having two wives is lawful and legal. This was never prohibited, but it is legitimate and allowed. You should therefore not be unhappy, but take justice into your consideration so that you may be as just as possible. what has been said was that since justice is very difficult (to achieve), therefore tranquillity (calls for) one wife. But in your case, you should not be unhappy.”
[ibid. Volume 4, p. 174]
It is obvious from reading the above that Abdu’l-Baha gives a much more naunced take on this whole matter. Which isn’t surprising if you knew His general approach to things. Notice that in this situation Abdu’l-Baha is talking about justice not as a one time thing - boom! there is justice - or a black and white delineation…but rather, He is referring to justice as a continuum: “…so that you may be as just as possible.”
By the way, the source is probably not familiar to Western Baha’is so it bears some elucidation. It is a provisional translation of Amr wa Khalq which loosely translates to Faith and Knowledge. It is similar - but not equal - to a book most Western Baha’is are familiar with: Lights of Guidance. It is a four volume compilation of writings about Baha’i laws which almost all Persian Baha’is have as part of their Baha’i library.
In any case, according to Abdu’l-Baha, there is a condition and contrary to the prevalent myth: it can be met. In fact, He himself gave permission and blessing for poligamous marriages to take place by Baha’is.
So there you go: under Baha’i law, polygamy is permitted. Bet you didn’t know what. Well, that’s why its called a little known fact.
(And ladies, remember that eventhough there has been a lot of talk about a plurality of wives, the Kitab-i-Aqdas is applied mutatis mutandis so technically you have the right to be exasperated by two people leaving the toilet seat up)
But what does this all mean? To be honest, the allowance for poligamy has no implication in our modern lives. After all, we as Baha’is must abide by the laws of our country and as you’ve probably clued in, most of the civilized world has taken a shine to monogamy.
And yet, there is a real benefit to thinking and talking about this law. Not for its practical implementation in our lives (yeah, you wish) but for the insight into relativism. If you haven’t yet read Brendan’s essay on Moral Relativism, please do so. It explains the concept much better than I could ever hope to. For the flexibilty inherent within this law not only allowed the early believers to live harmonious lives, it also allows future generations the same flexibility.
Another interpretation to the writings.
Homo Sapiens are slightly polygomous. Extra virile, or rich men usually have mistresses or serial wives in the west. And 2/3 wives in Islamic countries.
Bahaullah legislated what is natural — [take one wife, but if you cant keep it in your pants take two]. Regulation of sexual behaviour. In Malaysia prior to 2nd world war Muslim men could have taken up to 4 wives, and Chinese men as many concubines as they wanted.
Id like to know in depth what the Bahai writings on homosexuality are.
For over 25 years I was an active Bahai and during much of that time I accepted the official Bahai teachings about sexuality. Much to my regret these days.
The strongly conservative Iranian power base that currently control the Faith promote the line that all human sexual activity is to be confined between husband and wife, for the purposes of procreation. Nothing else is permitted. Even masturbation is forbidden. What has been learnt about human sexuality over the last few decades makes this line flat-out unsupportable.
Human sexual appetites come in a huge range, from the extremely modest and timid to the frankly depraved. I accept that some limits are required. But the case FOR the prohibition must be clear-cut and justified…whereas the current stance of the Faith is to prohibit almost everything.
In terms of homosexuality, the Faith demands life-long absolute abstinence from such people. The male hetrosexuals who promote this line would probably never dream of adhering to such a condition themselves. There is a word for this.
Personally I am a quiet boring citizen with one happy wife and several daughters…I do not plan on turning my life upside down with a series of sexual mis-adventures….but at the same time it is plain to me that I can no longer support or promote the Faith’s teachings in this area with any sort of good conscience. Which is a pity because in most other aspects I retain a lot of respect for it.
allaho abha
Whatever ‘Abdu’l-Bahá says should be thought of in the context of these two verses:
O SON OF MAN! Deny not My servant should he ask anything from thee, for his face is My face; be then abashed before Me. (Bahá’u’lláh, #30, The Arabic Hidden Words)
Were man to reflect, he would surely perceive that even the servant of His threshold ruleth over all created things! This hath already been witnessed, and will in future be made manifest.
(Baha’u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 124)
I am very surprised to read your article because I had known that in Aqdas Bahaullah say: ”Beware that ye take not unto yourselves more wives than two.” and I also know that what Abdul Baha said. but when I inquired from Bahai friends that Bahaullah is the Law maker not Abdul Baha He is only interpreter to the faith and in my view in this case I have seen nothing logically to said two mean one, it is very clear in Aqdas ,so why not you Bahais follow the Manifestation. In reply Bahai friends said that because Abdul Baha said two mean one thats why we will follow to Abdul Baha, and they not wanted to talk further on this topic and I am very surprise that as a Bahai you write this kind of thing openly and still Baha’i authorities have no objections. One thing more that in Baha’i faith no one is authorized to comment on faith by his own mind but it is a duty of “Wali Amrullah” Guardian to say some thing on holy matters and unfortunately Universal House of Justice have no Guardian. But you are out of the blue and speaks on such issues and ask questions which seems to be valid.
“One thing more that in Baha’i faith no one is authorized to comment on faith by his own mind but it is a duty of “Wali Amrullah” Guardian to say some thing on holy matters and unfortunately Universal House of Justice have no Guardian. But you are out of the blue and speaks on such issues and ask questions which seems to be valid.”
This is a common misconception. All Baha’is are totally free to comment and to interpret the Baha’i Writings as their conscience moves them. What Baha’is are not allowed to do is to insist that their own personal view is the right view and must be held by others.
I both was shocked and awed when I read this.
There’s another take on this law (PDF document):
“Bahais say that their law teaches monogamy, yet the Kitab-e Aqdas allows two wives. A glance at the law in the Bayan may help to explain — and also point to a way for Bahai family law to incorporate sperm and egg donation and surrogate motherhood as solutions to infertility. Includes some relevant scriptural texts.
Posted to Bahai_Community, 30 November 2006″
Baquia wrote:
“All Baha’is are totally free to comment and to interpret the Baha’i Writings as their conscience moves them. What Baha’is are not allowed to do is to insist that their own personal view is the right view and must be held by others.”
Also, in all our researches and discussions, we should realise that Baha’u'llah has identified the Universal House of Justice as the arbitrator and the law maker so as to avoid disunity and strife; the provisions of the Aqdas are to be applied for acts of worship, and legislation is left to the house of justice who decides how an when to apply the laws not applicable at this time. Hence, to my understanding, the move from polygamy to monogamy was destined to be a progressive one, according to the capacity of the community to apply those laws, and not according to God’s will. It is still not applicable in some Baha’i communities in teh world.
When Christ announced his mission by reading the words of Isaiah in the Synagog in Galilee, He announced that He had been anointed and sent to release the captives; He did not abolish slavery, but provided the teachings for it, and it took Christians several centuries to accomplish that promise.
Farhan,
the UHJ’s sphere of authority is legislation, as you pointed out. The discussion in the comment above was not about legislation but rather interpretation.
Baquia wrote:
“The discussion in the comment above was not about legislation but rather interpretation.”
Well, from what I gather, Baquia, the UHJ “elucidates” which I understand as drawing practical implications from a number of concepts available at a given time, and does not interpret.
To my personnal (and unwarrented) understanding, the UHJ can decide when, if, where and which laws of Aqdas are practically applicable. They might, for example guide one national institution to forbearance and patience and another to a strict attitude depending on prevailing conditions; for example, at a certain time, they might suggest more forbearance about moral issues in the West than in Iran.
This is an important concept to me for ethical decision making. Understanding the law is one thing, how you apply it is another.
Farhan,
in your opinion, what is the difference in ‘elucidation’ and ‘interpretation’? I have yet to hear a lucid explanation that sets the two apart… which doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist!
Baquia,
you write:
“in your opinion, what is the difference in ‘elucidation’ and ‘interpretation’?”
Baquia,
you will find some explanations on:
http://bahai-library.com/uhj/power.elucidation.uhj.html
We read:
“In a letter dated 9 March 1965, the Universal House of Justice stresses the “profound difference” that exists between the “interpretations of the Guardian and the elucidations of the House of Justice in exercise of its function to ‘deliberate upon all problems which have caused difference, questions that are obscure, and matters that are not expressly recorded in the Book.”‘ (Wellspring of Guidance, p. 52) Among these is the outlining of such steps as are necessary to establish the World Order of Baha’u'llah on this earth. The elucidations of the Universal House of Justice stem from its legislative function, while the interpretations of the Guardian represent the true intent inherent in the Sacred Texts. The major distinction between the two functions is that legislation with its resultant outcome of elucidation is susceptible of amendment by the House of Justice itself, whereas the Guardian’s interpretation is a statement of truth which cannot be varied.”
As a professionnal, I sometimes need _immediate_ guidance, for example when a child needs transfusion and the parents refuse consent; I refer to the judge who does not “interpret” the law, but “elucidates” from the laws and jurisprudence available the line of action that I am to adopt.
To my understanding, elucidation is a practical line of action in a given case, at a given time, and interpretation is theoretical. Do you agree? My understanding is available for download under Yazdani on the BMAC site.
To my understanding, in many discussions I read individuals attempt to do work of the UHJ for which they will never obtain universal adhesion.
Sonja,
You wrote:
“There’s another take on this law (PDF document):
“Bahais say that their law teaches monogamy, yet the Kitab-e Aqdas allows two wives. A glance at the law in the Bayan may help to explain — and also point to a way for Bahai family law to incorporate sperm and egg donation and surrogate motherhood as solutions to infertility. Includes some relevant scriptural texts.
Posted to Bahai_Community, 30 November 2006″
The law in the Bayan reminds me of the movie entitled “The Big Chill” where old friends mate so that the woman can get pregnant. Its a melancholy, sweet movie. But this law — which apparently is being ignore by the Bahais as is the Bayan by most Bahais these days — is easily abused, don’t you think.
The PDF you reference implies that alternative methods of fertilization — such as sperm and egg donation and surrogate motherhood — are not lawful under Baha’i law outside of the provisions of the Bayan — is this a correct reading?
As I’ve told Sen, I find it difficult to understand how a book of laws and the most holy book of a faith can be dependent on another book that is not generally available. I can understand how this might happen but from a practical viewpoint it seems crippling to the faith.
I do not reject Sen’s theory regarding the Bayan and Aqdas, I don’t have enough knowledge. But I do believe that if it is true it makes the Baha’i system of laws appear ridiculous. The system includes the way in which the laws are set out, how they are promulgated and how they are enforced.
Sen’s explanation in this matter while designed to make things clearer only serves to make them appear so convoluted that only a highly educated and knowledgeable clergyman can possibly understand and explain them in this way. I know when I repeat this it is annoying to Sen but I believe that it is this approach to explaining the writings that is partly behind Sens disenfranchisement from the main body of the Baha’i faith. The UHJ wants Baha’i belief to appear very straight forward, Sen implies that it is not. He may well be and probably is correct.
Question: are there other learned or not so learned Baha’is who have the same position re: the Bayan and the Aqdas? If so have they written about it?
If Sen is correct I wonder when the Bayan will be translated and made available to a wider group. (I know Sen can’t answer that question but it is an important one if he is correct)
Until that happens Baha’ullah’s exhortation that the Aqdas isn’t a mere book of laws will continue to read like a cop out saying ‘Don’t hold my law book up to the normal standard for law books…’
Perhaps as we are taught God doeth whatsoever he willeth, even reveal half a book of laws and then expect people to understand it. The books are open for the first time — yes but apparently that doesn’t include the Baha’i most holy book of laws!
Frank