Baha'ism

Universal House of Justice

Baha’ Allah had referred to two levels of a legislative assembly: local Houses of Justice and an international House of Justice. ‘Abd al-Baha’ added a secondary House of Justice at an intermediate level and it is upon this pattern that Spiritual Assemblies were created.68 Early in their evolution, local and national Spiritual Assemblies had different names, constitutions and functions, however Shoghi Effendi standardised them into a single system which is still followed today. It was the members of the national Spiritual Assemblies that met and elected the Universal House of Justice in 1963 and since that time the UHJ has acted as the official head of the Baha’i faith.

The membership of the body has only seen change due to death or retirement: no member has ever been elected off the UHJ. Despite followers of the Baha’i religion coming from almost every conceivable ethnic background, the men of the UHJ have mostly been Iranian and American. The exceptions to this being two British men, a German, an Australian and a Canadian.69 As at writing, the men of the current UHJ are: Peter Khan (b.1936), Farzam Arbab (b.1941), Hooper Dunbar (b.1937), Glenford Mitchell (b.1935), Douglas Martin (b.1929), Kiser Barnes (b.1943), Hartmut Grossmann (b.?), Firaydoun Javaheri (b.?).

The UHJ has continued the efforts of the Guardian in expanding and consolidating the religion, and approving major constructions in Haifa. They have released a small number of official statements but apart from expanding the number of shari‘ah laws applicable to non-Persians, they have enacted very little legislation (their primary area of concern according to Baha’ Allah).70

The question of rightful leadership has not been an issue for the UHJ as nearly the entire Baha’i world recognises its position as head of the religion, with the exception of a small number of sectarian Baha’is and individual protesters. Instead challenges to the body have appeared in the form of criticism of its actions or lack thereof. With the advent of widespread availability and use of the internet (at least in the developed world), Baha’is who have become disaffected with the administrative bodies of the religion have had the opportunity to share their concerns publicly, something the UHJ began viewing with some alarm.

In the mid 1980s, the national Assembly in the United States successfully lobbied to stop publication of a magazine called Dialogue71 for publicising opinions and views not officially sanctioned by the US Assembly. This included a controversial article titled “A Modest Proposal”72 which had been scheduled for publication and submitted for review to the national Assembly. “A Modest Proposal”, which criticised aspects of administrative practices and proposed nine points for improving and revitalising the Baha’i community in the US, sparked the irate wrath of the national Assembly and those involved in Dialogue were publicly denounced as dissidents.73

In October 1994 two academics, John Walbridge and his wife Linda (1946-2002) created an internet discussion list called “Talisman”74 on a listserv operated under the auspices of the University of Indiana. “Talisman” included some of those formerly involved in Dialogue and other left-wing academics and liberals. Topics debated on the list included the question of women serving on the UHJ; the procedure of pre-publication literature review which was seen as a form of censorship; questions over belief in a future Baha’i world theocracy and the (mis-)functioning of Baha’i administrative bodies.75 “Talisman” became the focus of an official investigation when a private email discussing the suggestion of a whistle-blowing “manifesto” being published about Baha’i authorities accidentally became public.76 “Talisman” was thus seen to be a breeding-ground for dissent against Baha’i authorities and due to increasing pressure a number of high profile Baha’is involved in the discussion list began withdrawing from the faith with their administrative rights77 threatened as well as intimations that persistence would lead to the offenders being declared Covenant-Breakers.78 These included academics Linda Walbridge and Juan Cole79 as well as publisher Steven Scholl. “Talisman” was shut-down and then quickly restarted up again by Cole using a listserv at the University of Michigan.

In July 1997 the UHJ began using a novel method of expelling Baha’is without having to evoke Covenant-Breaker status. It expelled another “Talisman” member, Canadian writer Michael McKenny, ordering the Canadian Assembly to remove his name from the membership roll and inform him of that decision. The letter received with some surprise by McKenny said that this action was taken on the basis of “the correspondence [the UHJ] has had with you and the established pattern of behaviour you have demonstrated over the past several months.”80 McKenny’s expulsion brought into sharp public focus the increasing pressure put on various Baha’i academics, writers and members of internet mailing lists arising from their questioning of policies and activities of various Baha’i administrative bodies.

The most recent expulsion involved New Zealander Alison Marshall whose internet postings also brought her to the attention of Baha’i authorities. The UHJ ordered her expulsion in April 200081 although there is some evidence that local New Zealand authorities questioned the order and failed to fully support the UHJ in its decision. The effect of this reaction was felt by the UHJ and in June 2000 Peter Khan visited New Zealand lecturing on, among other things, the need to accept the UHJ as a divinely protected, infallible body. Hinting at the Alison Marshall case, he said:

The House of Justice has been appalled in recent weeks to receive vitriolic, nasty, vicious letters from New Zealand Baha’is concerned about actions the House of Justice took with regard to a believer from the South Island ... an indication that something is fundamentally wrong with the Baha’i community in this country in terms of its depth of understanding of the covenant and the authority of the institutions of the Faith.82

However, there is some indication that Baha’i authorities have accepted that the advent of the internet has lessened their absolute control over what is said, written and published about the Baha’i religion. Baha’is have been informed they do not need to seek pre-publication approval for private webpages involving mention of the Baha’i religion (although they are asked not to register domain names with Baha’i words), and academics interested in publishing online copies, translations and commentaries of Baha’i scriptural texts have been able to do so with some freedom.83

It should also be pointed out that many Baha’is remain largely unaware of controversy generated through the internet. A large proportion of Baha’is live in the developing world with little regular access to internet services, others refuse to participate in the more controversial discussion forums and confine themselves to media they consider officially sanctioned by Baha’i authorities.

Next > Major Modern Issues: Iran & the Baha'is

References

68Local and national Houses of Justice are temporarily known as local and national Spiritual Assemblies, a temporary intermediate form of the institutions specified by Baha’ Allah in al-Kitab al-Aqdas. See Bahá’u’lláh, The Kitáb-i-Aqdas (Haifa: Bahá’í World Centre, 1992) 189.

69Smith, “Universal House of Justice” 347-348.

70This point first came to my attention having been made by Professor Juan R. Cole, however I have been unable to find an attributable reference.

71Archives of Dialogue are available at: <http://www2.h-net.msu.edu/~bahai/docs/vol2/dialog.htm>.

72“A Modest Proposal: Recommendations Toward the Revitalization of the American Baha'i Community”, Jan. 1998, Documents on the Shaykhi, Babi and Baha'i Movements, vol. 2, no. 2, 20 Dec. 2002, <http://www2.h-net.msu.edu/~bahai/docs/vol2/modest.htm>.

73Cole, Juan R.I., “The Baha’i Faith in America as Panopticon, 1963-1997”, Jun. 1998, The Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, vol. 37, no. 2, 234-248, 20 Dec. 2002, <http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/1999/jssr/bhjssr.htm>. See also Steven Scholl’s illuminating letter regarding the Dialogue issue at: <http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/1999/scholl1.htm>.

74“Talisman” archives are available at: <http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/tarc1196.htm>.

75Johnson, K. Paul, “Baha’i Leaders Vexed by On-Line Critics”, Winter 1997, Gnosis Magazine, 20 Dec. 2002, <http://bahai-library.org/newspapers/gnosis.talisman.html>.

76Strategizing about dealing with administrative repression, 20 Dec. 2002, <http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/1999/majnun.htm>. See also Cole, Juan R.I., Commentary on Majnun Posting, 20 Dec. 2002, <http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/1999/majncole.htm>.

77Having administrative rights removed (a sanction available for use by national Spiritual Assemblies) means that an individual Baha’i cannot participate in Baha’i elections or sit on Baha’i administrative bodies; give money to Baha’i funds; go on Baha’i pilgrimages; attend Baha’i-only meetings; receive Baha’i-only publications; marry Baha’is or have their marriages solemnized. See National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States, The, “Community Membership”, Developing Distinctive Bahá’í Communities: Guidelines for Spiritual Assemblies (Evanston, Illinois: Office of Assembly Development, 1998).

78Cole, “The Baha’i Faith in America as Panopticon, 1963-1997” 234-248.

79Cole later rescinded his recantation of belief in Baha’ Allah but did not seek official re-enrollment. See Cole, J., Personal statement on Baha’u’llah, 3 years on, 20 Dec. 2002, <http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/1999/persdec.htm>.

80“Documents Related to the Expulsion by the Universal House of Justice of Michael McKenny from the Baha’i Faith, 25 July 1997”, May 1999, Documents on the Shaykhi, Babi and Baha’i Movements, vol. 3, no. 1, 20 Dec. 2002, <http://www2.h-net.msu.edu/~bahai/docs/vol3/mckenny.htm>.

81See Universal House of Justice, The, “To the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of New Zealand”, 19 Apr. 2000, Explanation given by the House of Justice for Alison’s expulsion, 20 Dec. 2002, <http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/alisonz/19-4-00.html>.

82Talk by Peter Khan: New Zealand National Teaching Conference, June, 2000, 20 Dec. 2002, <http://bahaistudies.net/khan.html>.

83See for instance the H-Bahai Discussion Network at: <http://www2.h-net.msu.edu/~bahai/>.

Next > Major Modern Issues: Iran & the Baha'is