Infallibility 3

Infallibility is an attribute

In the last installment, we saw that Baha'u'llah says that infallibility "has diverse meanings and stations", which is the opposite of John Hatcher's claim that "Infallibility admits of no degrees". I also covered the basic idea of infallibility, which, Baha'u'llah says, is that it is the name given to a person – any person, not just leaders of religion - who God protects from sin. (I'll note here for clarification that the meaning of infallibility has another dimension altogether when it is applied to the manifestation. But for now, I want to focus on infallibility as it is applied to ordinary humans. I'll discuss the Most Great Infallibility later. Infallibility is such a big topic that I have to deal with small chunks at a time.)

In order to shed more light on the above, I want to discuss next the idea that infallibility is an attribute of God. In my view, this idea is very important because it gives us a way of understanding how infallibility works in the scheme of things. The trouble Baha'is face, I think, is that they see infallibility as a magical thing because they have no framework in which to view it. And, because they see it as magical, they are happy to apply it to others such as their religious leaders, who are people they will never know personally, and assume it couldn't possibly apply to them.

What do I mean by 'attribute of God'? I simply mean the attributes of God that we see referred to all through the writings. A good place to find attributes of God is the Long Healing Prayer. It is a prayer based entirely on the recital of attributes and names of God. Let's quote a few lines from the US Baha'i prayer book (p91) to see what I'm talking about:

"He is the Healer, the Sufficer, the Helper, the All-Forgiving, the All-Merciful.
I call on Thee O Exalted One, O Faithful One, O Glorious One! Thou the Sufficing, Thou the Healing, Thou the Abiding, O Thou Abiding One!"

The above are attributes and names of God. Examples of attributes are: healer, sufficer, helper, all-forgiving, all-merciful and so on; examples of names are: O Exalted One, O Faithful One, O Glorious One. The point I want to make is that 'infallible' is another attribute too – God is also infallible or, as a name, Infallible One. It may seem to some like I'm saying something obvious, but believe me, this obvious idea cuts ice in a big way when the logical consequences of it are examined. If infallibility is an attribute like any other, then we should view it in the same way that we view other attributes. Whatever principles apply to other attributes apply to it also. We know from the writings a lot about the attributes of God and the way they behave, and so we can get a long way to understanding infallibility simply by applying those principles to it.

It is clear from the passage about infallibility in Some Answered Questions that Abdu'l-Baha thought of infallibility as an attribute of God. This comes through in these two sentences:

"Know that infallibility is of two kinds: essential infallibility and acquired infallibility. In like manner there is essential knowledge and acquired knowledge; and so it is with other names and attributes." (`Abdu'l-Baha: Some Answered Questions, p171)

I expect you'll be familiar with the first sentence: that infallibility has two stations – essential infallibility and acquired infallibility. But you may not have taken much notice of the second sentence. Here, Abdu'l-Baha is likening knowledge to infallibility. He is saying that, like infallibility, which has two stations, knowledge has two stations also. And, what's more, so do other names and attributes. What Abdu'l-Baha is doing here is thinking of infallibility as an attribute of God; he is explaining how infallibility works in terms of the framework that all attributes operate in. And, in this passage, he is making the point that all names and attributes have two basic stations: an essential one and an acquired one.

Now, the thing is this: Baha'is like to say all over the place that infallibility has two levels – they are very aware that there is this thing called 'essential infallibility' and this thing called 'acquired infallibility', which they usually refer to as 'conferred infallibility'. Take John Hatcher's classic mainstream explanation about infallibility for example. He is aware of the two levels. I've italicised the two words that indicate where he is referring to the passage above from Some Answered Questions:

"Thus, in this dispensation, only Baha'u'llah as a Manifestation partakes of the 'Most Great Infallibility'; only He is inherently infallible. The infallibility of guidance from 'Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi and the Universal House of Justice is conferred and derives from Baha'u'llah." John Hatcher, "Letters from God". The Amercian Baha'i Online, 18 September 2007

But there is not, as far as I'm aware, a single Baha'i commentator who has pointed out that the other attributes have two levels too. Baha'is don't emphasise, when discussing trustworthiness for example, that there are two levels: essential trustworthiness and conferred trustworthiness. And yet, there are. There is essential trustworthiness and conferred trustworthiness. What's more, there is also essential loving kindness and conferred loving kindness, essential forgivingness and conferred forgivingness, essential generosity and conferred generosity, essential truthfulness and conferred truthfulness. In the sentences following the above passage in Some Answered Questions, Abdu'l-Baha does something similar to what I have just done, he points out that, just as there is essential infallibility, there is also essential knowledge and essential power.

"Essential infallibility is peculiar to the supreme Manifestation, for it is His essential requirement, and an essential requirement cannot be separated from the thing itself. The rays are the essential necessity of the sun and are inseparable from it. Knowledge is an essential necessity of God and is inseparable from Him. Power is an essential necessity of God and is inseparable from Him." (`Abdu'l-Baha: Some Answered Questions, p171)

The characteristic of the two levels – essential and conferred – is a characteristic of the framework in which all the names and attributes operate. All attributes have an essential dimension and a conferred dimension to them. This is because the essential dimension applies to God and the manifestations, and the conferred dimension applies to the rest of us. For God and the manifestations, their attributes are an inherent part of them and this means that they do not lack perfection on any level. We, on the other hand, receive our perfections as a ray of bounty from the manifestation (who reflects them to us from God). All our perfections are conferred on us from the manifestations. They are not an inherent part of us; we have to work at acquiring perfections by carrying out the spiritual disciplines outlined for us by Baha'u'llah, such as reading the writings, praying and fasting. Abdu'l-Baha refers to these things when he says the following about acquired infallibility: "But acquired infallibility is not a natural necessity; on the contrary, it is a ray of the bounty of infallibility which shines from the Sun of Reality upon hearts, and grants a share and portion of itself to souls." (`Abdu'l-Baha: Some Answered Questions, p172)

In light of this, let's go back to the statements in the first paragraph. First, Baha'u'llah says that infallibility "has diverse meanings and stations", which is the opposite of John Hatcher's claim that: "Infallibility admits of no degrees." Let's look at this using another, different, attribute, such as patience. You probably have no problem accepting the idea that being patient has diverse meanings and stations. One person might wait patiently while a disabled person slowly moves across in front of them on the footpath; another person might put up with decades of irritating behaviour from a spouse. It is certainly not true that "Patience admits of no degrees." This is not true of any attribute of God. The attributes are reflected by us in varying degrees and at varying levels, and this principle applies equally to the attribute of infallibility.

Baha'u'llah says that infallibility is the name given to any person who God protects from sin. Let's look at this in terms of degree. A person refuses to participate with fellow believers in a backbiting session about another member. This person is reflecting the attribute of infallibility. A person stops themselves from making a cutting remark in response to an underhand comment from a spouse. This person is reflecting the attribute of infallibility. A person walks through a valley of gold and doesn't notice it. This person is reflecting the attribute of infallibility. A person refuses to recant their faith even though it means they lose their life. This person is reflecting the attribute of infallibility. A person says publicly 'I believe in Baha'u'llah' even though this means being ostracised by their family. This person is reflecting the attribute of infallibility. We can show the attribute of infallibility in a multitude of situations. To everyone who has ever stood up for truth, justice and moral integrity in the face of adverse circumstances, 'infallibility' is your name. We are selling ourselves short in a big way if we imagine that only our religious leaders can be infallible. We never say that only the House of Justice can be loving, powerful and knowledgeable. Similarly, we should not imagine that only it can be infallible.

Ali Kuli Khan translation

Recently, a reader emailed me and pointed out that the Ishraqat, which contains the passage about infallibility that I discussed in my last entry, was translated by Ali Kuli Khan. He was also able to tell me that the translation is available online at:

http://www.archive.org/details/tabletoftarazatt00baharich

At the beginning of this document, there is a notice saying that the document was digitised in 2007 for Microsoft by the Internet Archive. It goes on to say that anyone can use it for non-commercial purposes. The site also has several other Baha'i-related historical documents of interest to scholars. The document contains translations of other tablets also, including Tablet of Tarazat, Tablet of the World, Words of Paradise, Tablet of Tajalleyat, and Glad Tidings.

The Ali Kuli Khan translation accords with Sen's translation in that the second sentence uses the word "one" in the lower case, indicating that infallibility applies to anyone whom God has guarded against error and not just the manifestation (which the Taherzadeh translation implies).

"Know thou, verily, there are numerous meanings and divers stations for 'Infallibility.' In one sense, the name 'Infallibility' is true of one whom God hath guarded against error. Likewise, the name 'Infallibility' is true of every one whom God has guarded against sin, transgression and unbelief, infidelity, polytheism and the like." p12 of Ishraqat

For comparison, here again is Sen's literal translation:

"Know that infallibility (`is.mat) has diverse meanings and stations. If God guards (`s.mahu) someone from slipping (az-zalal), God confers upon him this name (infallible) as a station (fii maqaam). Similarly if God has guarded someone from sin (khataa'), rebellion (`is.yaan), impiety (`iraaz), disbelief (kufr), joining partners with God (shirk) or the like, God grants each of them the name of 'infallibility.'"

And here again is the Taherzadeh translation from Tablets of Baha'u'llah:

"Know thou that the term 'Infallibility' hath numerous meanings and divers stations. In one sense it is applicable to the One Whom God hath made immune from error. Similarly it is applied to every soul whom God hath guarded against sin, transgression, rebellion, impiety, disbelief and the like." (Baha'u'llah: Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p 108)

Infallibility 2

'Infallibility' means protection from sin or error

I argued last time that, when discussing an issue in the Faith, we should start with what Baha'u'llah has to say about it. This time I will look at how Baha'u'llah defines the concept of infallibility.

Baha'u'llah's definition is given in Ishraqat (Splendors), which is found in Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p 108. In an email message about infallibility that I published on my blog last year, Sen McGlinn gave a literal translation of the relevant passage. Recently, I obtained from Sen a slightly revised translation of the first three sentences. With thanks to Sen, here they are:

"Know that infallibility (`is.mat) has diverse meanings and stations. If God guards (`s.mahu) someone from slipping (az-zalal), God confers upon him this name (infallible) as a station (fii maqaam). Similarly if God has guarded someone from sin (khataa'), rebellion (`is.yaan), impiety (`iraaz), disbelief (kufr), joining partners with God (shirk) or the like, God grants each of them the name of 'infallibility.'"

First up, let's deal with discrepancies with the official translation, which says:

"Know thou that the term 'Infallibility' hath numerous meanings and divers stations. In one sense it is applicable to the One Whom God hath made immune from error. Similarly it is applied to every soul whom God hath guarded against sin, transgression, rebellion, impiety, disbelief and the like." (Baha'u'llah: Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p 108)

Sen explains that "in one sense" is not in the original Arabic. Moreover, the capitalisation of the word "One" in the second sentence is an interpretation of the translator, which Sen argues is incorrect. The word "one" should not be capitalised, which means that, in this short passage, Baha'u'llah is talking about infallibility in general, as it applies to everyone and not specifically to the manifestation. He introduces the infallibility of the manifestation (the Most Great Infallibility) in the next sentence. But here I am concerned with the general meaning of 'infallibility' as it applies to ordinary humans.

What is Baha'u'llah saying about infallibility in this passage? First of all, he tells us that it has diverse meanings and diverse stations. Note that this is the opposite to the claim of John Hatcher that "Infallibility admits of no degrees". Instead, Baha'u'llah is telling us that it has a diversity of meanings in a diversity of stations or levels. In this sense, it is like the word "sun" in the scriptures, which Baha'u'llah explains in the Iqan has many meanings, each depending on the station one is looking at; for example, 'sun' refers to the manifestations and the holy ones, the divines of a previous dispensation who live in the time of a new revelation, and the laws and teachings of each religion such as prayer and fasting.

If you look again at the first sentence of Sen's translation, you'll see that the Arabic word "`is.mat" follows the word "infallibility" in brackets. Sen has added that word in brackets to indicate that it is the Arabic word being translated here as "infallibility". Without going into detail about the way Arabic works, I'll simply say that the word "`is.mat" comes from the Arabic root "`s.m", which means to guard or protect. Sen explains: "Baha'u'llah is emphasising that the word `is.mat comes from the verb `s.m, to guard or protect, and the concept 'infallible' means that God has protected someone from something - in the first case, from a slip."

Let's recap what we have so far: infallibility applies to a person who God has guarded or protected from slipping. From this, we know at least two things:

1. that infallibility is about being protected from slipping (in the first instance)
2. that the word 'infallible' can be applied to any person that God has so guarded; that is, any person, not just the manifestation, and not just a leader of religion.

In the third sentence of the passage from Ishraqat (quoted above), we learn that the word 'infallible' also applies to those that God has guarded from other wrongs such as sin, rebellion, impiety, disbelief, and joining partners with God.

"Similarly if God has guarded someone from sin (khataa'), rebellion (`is.yaan), impiety (`iraaz), disbelief (kufr), joining partners with God (shirk) or the like, God grants each of them the name of 'infallibility.'"

Examples of 'infallibility' being applied to believers

In order to reinforce the idea that being free from sin or error is an attribute that any person can attain and not just leaders of religion, I cite below passages from the writings where the term is used to refer to ordinary believers. I've put the relevant phrases into italics.

From Baha'u'llah:

"Thou hast mentioned Husayn. We have attired his temple with the robe of forgiveness and adorned his head with the crown of pardon. It beseemeth him to pride himself among all men upon this resplendent, this radiant and manifest bounty. Say: Be not despondent. After the revelation of this blessed verse it is as though thou hast been born anew from thy mother's womb. Say: Thou art free from sin and error. Truly God hath purged thee with the living waters of His utterance in His Most Great Prison." (Baha'u'llah: Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p77)

"O son of worldliness! Pleasant is the realm of being, wert thou to attain thereto; glorious is the domain of eternity, shouldst thou pass beyond the world of mortality; sweet is the holy ecstasy if thou drinkest of the mystic chalice from the hands of the celestial Youth. Shouldst thou attain this station, thou wouldst be freed from destruction and death, from toil and sin." (Baha'u'llah: Persian Hidden Words, p70)

From Abdu'l-Baha:

"O Thou forgiving Lord! Although some souls have spent the days of their lives in ignorance, and became estranged and contumacious, yet, with one wave from the ocean of Thy forgiveness, all those encompassed by sin will be set free." (`Abdu'l-Baha: Baha'i Prayers (US edition), p47)

"Saints are men who have freed themselves from the world of matter and who have overcome sin. They live in the world but are not of it, their thoughts being continually in the world of the spirit. Their lives are spent in holiness, and their deeds show forth love, justice and godliness." (`Abdu'l-Baha: Paris Talks, pp60-61)

"O Lord! Make this youth radiant, and confer Thy bounty upon this poor creature. Bestow upon him knowledge, grant him added strength at the break of every morn and guard him within the shelter of Thy protection so that he may be freed from error, may devote himself to the service of Thy Cause, may guide the wayward, lead the hapless, free the captives and awaken the heedless, that all may be blessed with Thy remembrance and praise. Thou art the Mighty and the Powerful." (`Abdu'l-Baha: Baha'i Prayers (US edition), pp38-39)

"This is why He says: 'I am the bread which descended from heaven; whosoever shall eat of this bread will not die'(- that) is to say, that whosoever shall partake of this divine food will attain unto eternal life: that is, every one who partakes of this bounty and receives these perfections will find eternal life, will obtain preexistent favors, will be freed from the darkness of error, and will be illuminated by the light of His guidance." (`Abdu'l-Baha: Some Answered Questions, p121)

The real Baha'u'llah

Yesterday I was interested to read a comment that appeared on Baquia's blog, which had been pointed out to me by Steve. It is written by Andrew Carter, who I interviewed for this blog last year. Back then, he was saying that he believed Baha'u'llah was a manifestation of God. But it seems that he has changed his mind. He says:

"I was once swayed by the idealism and casuistry of certain Baha’i writers who insist that Baha’u'llah was actually a teacher of inner freedom and transformation. I no longer believe this. No matter how one gilds the lily, Baha’u'llah was not a spiritual guide, but rather a religious dictator, and the religion he created expresses the thematic continuity of his authoritarianism." Andrew

This accusation that Baha'u'llah is a "religious dictator" reminded me of a similar accusation made by someone else many years ago. At that time, Juan Cole wrote an enlightening and moving defence of Baha'u'llah and posted it on H-Baha'i. I thought it would be timely, given the above, to repost that message here. A key thing that comes through for me is that the authoritarianism we see in the Baha'i community today is assumed to reflect the way Baha'u'llah was. But this isn't the case.

---

Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 11:55:34 -0400
From: jrcole@... (Juan R. I. Cole)
Subject: H-Bahai Baha'u'llah's authority

I wanted to follow up on the nature of Baha'u'llah's authority in the 19th century Baha'i community. XX has presented an image of it as absolute, and many have agreed with him. But I don't find in the historical record such a situation.

There are two sorts of lattitude I'd like to point to. The first is lattitude of relatively free thought. Because Baha'u'llah accepted Ibn al-`Arabi's and Rumi's Sufi notion of standpoint epistemology with regard to metaphysics, he did not believe there was only one right answer to any particular doctrinal question. Which answer one gave would depend on one's own "maqam" or spiritual station, and upon one's degree of spiritual discernment or "idrak." Since maqams and idrak were so numerous and disparate, in Baha'u'llah's view, he did not expect the Baha'is all to adhere to the same theological beliefs at the same time. That is why he refused to intervene in the dispute between Jamal-i Burujirdi (who insisted that Baha'u'llah was man, not God) and other prominent Baha'i teachers (some of whom saw Baha'u'llah as a manifestation of God's very essence). This tablet and Khazeh's translation is in Baha'i Studies Bulletin and also on my Web page. It is very instructive. (cf. Iqtidarat p. 219). One prominent Baha'i in Iran told Browne (I think it was Mirza Haydar `Ali Isfahani) that Baha'u'llah was just "a man, perfect in humanity." Browne also reports a good deal of wine drinking and drug use among the Baha'is, if my memory serves.

Along the same lines, in Iqtidarat, p. 100, Baha'u'llah tells the Baha'is who keep writing him with questions that *they* are the springs of his own discourse, and that they should strive to cleanse their water of idle fancies so that they can answer their questions *themselves*:

ta az shuma: khu:d dar amtha:l-i i:n masa:'il-i mas'u:lih java:bha:-yi muhkamih-'i mutqanih za:hir shavad

In this dispensation, he says, all bear the divine effulgence according to their own capacity, and all are able to discern the truths in the revealed scripture. This is an encouragement to all Baha'is without exception to develop their own midrash on the Baha'i scriptures and to try to answer questions for themselves. This is very different from the attitude of some authoritarian leaders that everything must be referred to them, and they must have the option of settling all important questions.

There are also many instances where Baha'is wrote to Baha'u'llah with local disputes about, say, the disposition of property, and he wrote back that they should consult (mushavirih) with the local community and follow the consensus that was reached. Several such letters are in the later volumes of Athar-i Qalam-i A`la (vols. 6-7).

So I would argue that Baha'u'llah farmed out a lot of authority to individuals and to local communities, and often declined to intervene decisively in disputes back in Iran. I don't see this sort of lattitude as terribly authoritarian, though I agree that later Baha'i tradition may have imagined it that way.

From another point of view, I find all sorts of evidence that the Baha'is very often ignored Baha'u'llah's advice and instructions, and did as they pleased. A very serious such instance was when, in 1872, some Baha'is in Akka came to him and said they wanted to kill Sayyid Muhammad Isfahani, the Azali who had been sent by the Ottomans to spy on the Baha'is. Baha'u'llah strictly forbade them, according to Mirza Ja`far Qazvini in the Epitome translated by Browne (Materials 54-55), but they went ahead and murdered the Azalis anyway. Baha'u'llah was very upset by all this, and sanctioned them both by refusing to intervene with the Ottoman authorities on their behalf, and by banishing them from his presence for a long time. But some of the murderers at least, such as Ustad Salmani, eventually were able to rejoin the community. My point, in any case, is that even these close companions of Baha'u'llah would not listen to him on such a serious matter!

There are many other instances of cavalier disobedience. Baha'u'llah wanted meetings back in Iran kept very small, but his emissaries reported back to him that he was regularly being ignored and that meetings of 40 and more were not uncommon. Baha'u'llah wanted the Baha'is not to bicker over doctrinal and other matters, but they went ahead and did, anyway. The historical records and the Tablets of Baha'u'llah and letters of Khadimu'llah are full of such details. Baha'u'llah even confesses at one point that his biggest headache was the 300 Baha'is living in the Akka area, who had their ups and downs (Iqtidara 26-27). Obviously, they were not causing him such grief because they were kowtowing to a despotic Prophet figure.

Very often, Baha'u'llah would respond to major disputes by telling the parties to work it out themselves, or by declining to comment (as with his non-response to the controversy caused by Jamal-i Burujirdi's plan for mass Baha'i emigration to Russia). I see him as having exercised moral suasion, as having attempted to persuade, as having sometimes issued rather stern counsels or reproaches. But his authority was only moral, and he was far more often ignored than Baha'is nowadays would like to admit. (Indeed, as time has gone on, some of his major emphases, such as standpoint epistemology and its accompanying tolerance, answering one's own questions, and the value of democracy, have been almost erased within the community, so that he is less and less a real authority and more and more just an icon to whom lip service is paid). There was a core of very devoted and sincere Baha'is, of course, who engaged in an almost court-like etiquette around Baha'u'llah. But as far as I can tell, these were a minority. One forgets the rude, the insolent, the unbalanced, the petty squabblers, the independent of mind, the wine-bibbers. One forgets that most Baha'is of the time were very lightly socialized to Baha'i values, and did a lot of dissimulating and picking and choosing. Baha'u'llah had more authority among Baha'is than did a mujtahid like Mirza Hasan Shirazi among Shi`ites, but it was authority and not power, and it probably worked practically in many of the same ways--persuasion, tacking with the wind, encouraging people to get along.

cheers

Juan Cole
History
U of Michigan

---

Be fair: are these the words of a "religious dictator"? If these reflect the characteristics of a dictator, then may we have more of them!

"By Myself, the True One, O Ali! The fire that hath inflamed the heart of Baha is fiercer than the fire that gloweth in thine heart, and His lamentation louder than thy lamentation. Every time the sin committed by any one amongst them was breathed in the Court of His Presence, the Ancient Beauty would be so filled with shame as to wish He could hide the glory of His countenance from the eyes of all men, for He hath, at all times, fixed His gaze on their fidelity, and observed its essential requisites." (Baha'u'llah: Gleanings, CXLII)

Interesting passages in the Qur'an

I've been reading the Qur'an now for several months. Baha'u'llah says we're to read the writings every morning and evening. Over 25 years, I've managed to read an awful lot of Baha'u'llah's writings! And I began looking around to see what else I could read. I've read the Gospels and now I'm onto the Qur'an. Every evening, I read from the Qur'an. I didn't start at the beginning; I started at the Surah of Hood because Baha'u'llah mentions it in the Iqan. I've read just under half of the Qur'an - surahs 10-36, about 250 pages out of 650. I'm reading Arberry's translation, just because I have it on hand and because he's made an effort to make the English readable.

I've read enough now to start getting an impression of recurring themes. I'm starting to fall in love with the style, which is interesting because, at first, I struggled with the style and the way language is used. It certainly has a unique 'voice' and way of putting things! But after reading it for some months, I have become used to the style and the voice and started to see the beauty in passages that are repeated, which are often verses that describe attributes of God. The book also puts up some very sophisticated arguments and makes insightful comments about the positions unbelievers took in response to Muhammad. After striking a few of these, I got out my trusty pencil and began underlining them as I went along. I thought I'd share some of these with you.

One of the themes of the Qur'an is that God is One and we must not set up associates with Him. This leads to verses in which God points out distinctions between Himself and any potential associate; for example, "16:20 Those whom they invoke besides Allah create nothing and are themselves created." This same idea is also found here: "7:191 Do they indeed ascribe to Him as partners things that can create nothing, but are themselves created?" I particularly relish these passages because I think the Baha'is have set up the House of Justice as a partner to God; they see its every whim as the road to salvation and success. These quotes are God reminding them of why the House is no such thing. For starters, it can't create anything at all. But not only that, it can't remove affliction from the community: "Say: 'Call on those you asserted apart from Him; they have no power to remove affliction from you, or to transfer it.' Those they call upon are themselves seeking the means to come to their Lord..." (17:55-56) God reminds us that the House of Justice has no power to change the fortunes of the community. Like the rest of us, it must also appeal to God. And again: "36:23 Should I take to worshipping [other] deities beside Him? [But then,] if the Most Gracious should will that harm befall me, their intercession could not in the least avail me, nor could they save me."

Here's a passage that reminds me of those who have lost their faith in Baha'u'llah because of the unjust deeds of the Baha'i administration: "29:10 Then there are among men such as say, 'We believe in Allah'; but when they suffer affliction in (the cause of) Allah, they treat men's oppression as if it were the Wrath of Allah. And if help comes (to thee) from thy Lord, they are sure to say, 'We have (always) been with you!' Does not Allah know best all that is in the hearts of all creation?" This speaks to me of those who have become Baha'is saying "We believe" but then when they are treated unjustly by men (ie, the Baha'i administration) in the cause of God, they blame God and lose faith. Interestingly, this proves that the House is viewed as a partner of God, because injustice from the House is considered a shortcoming on the part of the Divine. But the Qur'an is pointing out that the deeds of men are different to that of God. It is also pointing out that some people who claim to believe only do so in favourable circumstances. You see, if the Baha'i administration hadn't lost its way as it has, those who have now left the Faith because of it would still be in the Faith saying "We believe!". In which case, what would that testimony amount to?

This is an interesting one, which pertains to generosity and charity: "36:47 Thus, when they are told, 'Spend on others out of what God has provided for you as sustenance,' those who are bent on denying the truth say unto those who believe, 'Shall we feed anyone whom, if [your] God had so willed, He could have fed [Himself]? Clearly, you are but lost in error!'" This argument uses a fascinating piece of logic; it turns the logic of God in the Qur'an against the believers: why should I spend a cent on the poor when God could provide for them if He willed? If God is all-powerful, then why should I bother? Well, I guess the unbelievers have a point here, except that the Qur'an is emphatic about our duty to help the poor, so there's no way out really. When it comes to it, we are exhorted to help the poor because it's good for us spiritually to do so. It's not as if God could not eliminate all poverty in a heartbeat. However, there is one area where I think the logic does apply and that's where people don't want to believe. If a person chooses not to believe, then the Qur'an tells us that we can do nothing about it for only God can make a person see.

I loved this: "36:66-7 And had We willed, We verily could have quenched their eyesight so that they should struggle for the way. Then how could they have seen? And had We willed, We verily could have fixed them in their place, making them powerless to go forward or turn back." The verses say to me, if God wanted to, He could remove the eyesight of the unbelievers, but if He did that, how could they see the path (should they chose to do so)? And if He stopped them in their path of error, how could they return to Him (if they chose to)? That got me thinking about the idea of seeing with one's own eyes. It's not quite the point the Qur'an is making here, but it's related. If we are to see the Baha'i revelation with the eyes of the House of Justice, and take as gospel all that it says, then effectively we obliterate our own eyes in favour of others. But this is precisely what I hear God saying that He won't do. He could have removed their eyes, but such a person cannot see at all. Not only can they not see the wrong path (for that's the purpose here, to protect people from error) but they can't see the straight path either. If one does not use one's own eyes, then one sees nothing at all.

And here, I think, is a good one for those who don't believe that God created us or that we pass on after death to the next world: "36:78-9 36:78 And he makes comparisons for Us, and forgets his own (origin and) creation: He says, 'Who can give life to (dry) bones and decomposed ones (at that)?' Say, 'He will give them life Who created them for the first time! for He is Well-versed in every kind of creation!'" I think this is a cracker. If life can appear once, why can't it appear again? If you don't know where the life you see now has come from, how do you know it can't appear again or in other ways that are outside your understanding?

I'll finish off with this pithy thought for those who have borne false testimony against me: "34:49 Falsehood originates not, nor brings again." In other words, you cannot build a flourishing Baha'i community on calumnies told about others, nor can you restore a degenerating one.

Infallibility 1

I've decided to discuss at length the concept of infallibility. I think misunderstandings about infallibility are doing incalculable damage to the Baha'i community, and, contrary to what my detractors say about my hating the faith, I actually care about nothing more.

"Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements." (Baha'u'llah: Gleanings, CVI)

Sen McGlinn wisely has concerned himself with misunderstandings in the Baha'i community about church and state, demonstrating beyond any doubt that Baha'u'llah never intended the Baha'i institutions to morph into state governments. In a similar way, I want to focus on misunderstandings about infallibility, which prevent believers from fulfilling their spiritual capacity because, they are told, the covenant requires them to just follow the 'infallible' House of Justice.

A brief outline of mainstream understandings

For mainstream Baha'is, the concept of infallibility means being free from error in the sense of never being wrong; that is, being 100 percent 'right' (whatever that means) all the time. This capacity of being always right is an attribute of 'the hierarchy' only; no one else has it. It passes from God to Baha'u'llah, who is inherently infallible, then he 'confers' it on the faith's leaders of religion – previously Abdu'l-Baha and the Guardian, and now the institution of the House of Justice. This unerring guidance will go on through the centuries until the next manifestation comes, at which time the House of Justice will do its best to recognise the new manifestation (should be OK; it's infallible, after all) - but there's no knowing what the rest of humanity will do (see reference below).
I'll quote two passages to illustrate this thinking. The first one is from John Hatcher and it was published in the American Baha'i Online. It gives a neat overview of the understanding mainstream Baha'is are expected to have about infallibility and how it runs through the hierarchy.

"The Guardian called the revealed writings of Baha'u'llah the 'creative word' because His works constitute the holy scriptures of the Baha'i Faith. Of course, there are other 'authoritative' writings in the Baha'i Faith: the writings of 'Abdu'l-Baha, the writings of Shoghi Effendi, and the decisions and guidance of the Universal House of Justice.

What we may not understand is that while the writings of Baha'u'llah are regarded as the Revelation itself, these other sources are equally authoritative – they should likewise be regarded as infallible guidance from God.

Therefore, we correctly regard the Most Holy Book as containing the foundational laws for our personal lives, but the elucidation, interpretation, and implementation of these laws by 'Abdul-Baha, Shoghi Effendi, and the House of Justice should be regarded as having the same weight and authority.

Infallibility admits of no degrees. That is, a statement or advice is either infallible or it is not. Thus, in this dispensation, only Baha'u'llah as a Manifestation partakes of the 'Most Great Infallibility'; only He is inherently infallible. The infallibility of guidance from 'Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi and the Universal House of Justice is conferred and derives from Baha'u'llah."

John Hatcher, "Letters from God". The Amercian Baha'i Online, 18 September 2007

Next, I quote from a Department of the Secretariat letter about how things will pan out when the next manifestation comes.

"There is nothing in the Writings to support the view that the opposition or persecution [of the next manifestation] will be instigated or inflicted by the Universal House of Justice.

You are aware, of course, that one of the reasons for the appearance of a new Manifestation of God is to bring forth a spiritual renewal, as the former Dispensation would have passed through its stages of growth and reached its zenith. You can be sure that the Supreme Institution of the Faith, "under the care and protection of the Abhá Beauty, under the shelter and unerring guidance of His Holiness, the Exalted One", will exert every effort to recognize, when the time is ripe, the reality of the new Manifestation, and lead men to Him. How the majority of the people at that time will respond is a truth locked up in the treasury of God's knowledge."

Letter from the Department of the Secretariat, 1997

I could say much more about the mainstream understanding of infallibility, but I'll go into details as I move on.

We should start with what Baha'u'llah says

This may sound obvious to some, but a discussion on infallibility should start with what Baha'u'llah has to say about it.
This is an issue of methodology. Consideration of any matter concerning the faith should start with Baha'u'llah and what he has to say (if anything). My experience of Baha'is is that they don't understand this principle. They pick up a book like Lights of Guidance or a collection of letters from the House of Justice or the Guardian, read what it says and go no further. Worse, they read what is said in the Ruhi materials and take that as gospel.
If you think about it, it is logical. Is there any need to go any further, when what the House or the Guardian says is infallible anyway? Surely, their statements alone suffice for understanding. Moreover, if the House of Justice counsels the believers to study Ruhi, then surely the Ruhi materials must be right (infallible) also, because otherwise the House wouldn't recommend them.
This logic comes through in the passage above from John Hatcher. He tells us that the "other sources" – that is, those apart from Baha'u'llah - are "equally authoritative" as Baha'u'llah. So why bother to look up what Baha'u'llah has to say when the other sources will do? For many Baha'is, what Baha'u'llah says is difficult to understand anyway because it is assumes a knowledge of Islam.
It's not my intention to discuss the issue of methodology at length, but I do want to address it in order to explain why I begin my discussion on infallibility with Baha'u'llah and not jump in, for example, with passages of Abdu'l-Baha from Some Answered Questions or his Will and Testament, where most Baha'is begin and end their discussion on the topic.
The statement that 'other sources are equally authoritative as Baha'u'llah' is at best, horribly misleading, and, at worst, plain wrong. The principles that define the relationship between the word of Baha'u'llah and the sayings of other sources are in many ways the same as those that define the relationships between the various institutions of a democracy.
In a democracy, the people elect a group of people to represent them and these elected representatives are empowered to make law that binds the people. The law they make is called 'legislation' and is found in statutes or Acts of Parliament. Sometimes, this legislation gives other institutions the power to make law themselves; for example, it might empower local councils to make law for their towns and cities. Sometimes, this legislation gives people like judges the power to interpret the law and decide disputes between people. Sometimes, this law gives institutions like the police the power to arrest people and take them into custody. A lot of legislation gives powers to others to do things that are law-like; in other words, to do things that restrict the rights and freedoms of others. What's happening is that the legislation 'confers' these powers on others.
But, and this is important, the powers that legislation confers on others have limits. For example, the police are allowed to arrest people, but only in certain circumstances, which are spelled out in the legislation. They can't arrest you just because you are enjoying an ice cream in a public place. But they can if you kill someone in a public place. Local councils in New Zealand are allowed to make law controlling dogs. This means that if your dog mauls someone, the council can have it put down. But it can't put your dog down just because it happened to bark the other night and wake up the neighbours. And so on it goes: limits like this apply to everyone with the powers to do law-like things.
As a result, you get a lot of debate in democracies about whether an action of a person or institution is within the limits set down by the legislation. For example, let's say a local council makes a law that says "The council can put down any dog that attacks a person". However, the legislation governing the council says something like "Local councils may impound dogs but may not put them down." This would mean that the law made by the council was outside the powers given to it by the legislation. A person could go to court and have the law struck down. The point to note here is that, when there is dispute over the extent of the powers given to a person or institution, the issue is decided by going back to what the legislation says. No one can do anything that is inconsistent with what the legislation says. What the legislation says controls what others can do or say. The legislation is the boss, and everyone else must act in accordance with it.
The same is true in the Baha'i context. The 'other sources' must act and speak in accordance with what Baha'u'llah has written. No one can do anything that is inconsistent with what Baha'u'llah says. What Baha'u'llah says controls what others can do or say. Baha'u'llah is the boss, and everyone else must act in accordance with his word. Therefore, if there is any question about any matter, the first step is to find out what Baha'u'llah says on the matter. He establishes the principles and, from there, we may get further insight from other sources. But whatever other sources say, it must be in accordance with what Baha'u'llah says.
In light of this, let's look briefly at the statement 'other sources are equally authoritative as Baha'u'llah'. This is like saying 'what judges decide is equally authoritative as legislation'. However, what a judge decides is not equally authoritative as legislation. A judge's decision is made in accordance with legislation. A judge simply applies law in order to make a decision. At all times, the judge and everyone else involved in the case have regard to the applicable legislation and any other relevant law. And, to find out what that law says, they must consult the original source. All decisions are based on the source.
The best that can be made of the statement that a judge's decision is 'equally authoritative' as legislation is that it is binding; in other words, the parties to the case must abide by the decision. In this sense, the judge's decision is 'law' (this is particularly the case if the decision is made by a high court). But the decision is not equally authoritative as legislation because it does not stand on its own. All decisions are made with reference to primary law and principles and cannot be understood except in the light of them. For this same reason, Baha'is should not content themselves with the words of the 'other sources' alone. They should read what those sources say in the light of the primary law and principles that Baha'u'llah has set down.

"O people, look not upon Me through your eyes or the eyes of your leaders, for by God, the Eternal Truth, that shall never profit you in any way, even should ye appeal for help to the first creatures to be created. Rather, look upon My beauty with My eyes, for if ye gaze with the eyes of anyone else, ye will never know Me. Thus hath the matter been revealed in the tablets of God, the Almighty, the Glorious, the Wise." Baha'u'llah, Garden of Justice, paragraph 14

Official sites on Baha'u'llah

The other day, I found time to look at the World Centre's new site on Baha'u'llah, "The Life of Baha'u'llah. A Photographic Narrative". The URL is http://www.bahaullah.org/.

As the title suggests, the site provides an overview of Baha'u'llah's life using photographs and short pieces of text. The site is based around the places where Baha'u'llah lived, starting in Iran where he grew up and taking you through each of his places of exile (Baghdad, Constantinople, Adrianople, Akka) through to the places he lived when he left Akka, Mazra'ih and Bahji and areas where he pitched his tent on Mt Carmel. Overall, I found the site a good one. The structure is intuitive, the pictures help you to get an idea of the environment Baha'u'llah lived in (for example, he seemed to live amongst stone!) and the small pieces of text do tell you useful things, although I felt the use of quotes was a bit overdone. Perhaps someone who hadn't read those quotes before would have a different reaction. The highlight for me was the series of photographs under the heading Holy Relics.

I congratulate whoever it was at the World Centre that came up with the idea of producing a photographic narrative. It is difficult to get Westerners to view a Middle Eastern figure in a sympathetic light. The social, religious and legal context is so far removed from anything Westerners know. It takes a lot of reading and understanding to see through the social milieu to the person of Baha'u'llah and the extent to which he subverted, rather than participated in, the society in which he lived.

I had seen some of the photos before, but enjoyed going over them again because they take me to the places where Baha'u'llah experienced the highs and lows of his life. Takur, the tiny village in the mountains where Baha'u'llah grew up, always strikes me as exotic, as does his summer residence in Shirman. There's a photo of the place where Baha'u'llah was bastinadoed, a mosque in Amul, Mazindaran. It is a ruin now and that seems a fitting end for the site of such a despicable act. There's a good shot of the mountains Baha'u'llah had to cross in winter on his way to Baghdad. Just imagine trying to walk over these in winter, with clothing unsuitable for the journey! And here are the mountains Baha'u'llah wandered over when he went off on his own to Sulaymaniyyih in northern Iraq. Interestingly, there's a photo of Baha'u'llah's alms bowl, which he used during this time when he was passing himself off as a dervish.

The site has a good series of photographs of Akka, including this shot, which captures the imposing stone walkways within the city. Also included in the Akka series are a series of photos of the barracks and the cells inside, which give you a good idea of what the building and the conditions were like. You can see the skylight that the Purest Branch fell through. The World Centre has recently restored the barracks building but left as is the spot where the Purest Branch landed when he fell. Also found in the series of photos on Akka are some good ones of the House of Abbud. Despite having been on pilgrimage, I hadn't really understood that the house was in fact two independent residences. Baha'u'llah initially rented the back one, known as the House of Udi Khammar, and then later rented the whole building when the owner took down the wall between the two.

I've also been to the Garden of Ridvan and remember the seat where Baha'u'llah liked to sit under the mulberry tree. I spend time admiring and sitting in my garden and I like the fact that Baha'u'llah liked to sit in gardens too. But I hadn't realised that waterways used to flow down both sides of the garden. As a gardener, I must say that really appeals to me. And I also didn't realise that water flowed just below the bench where Baha'u'llah used to sit. No prizes for those who remember the oft-repeated line from the Qur'an, which states that paradise is a garden under which rivers flow!

"Two seats on which Baha'o'llah used to sit under the trees. Abul Kassim, the gardener of baha, stands on the steps leading to the stream which flows through the garden." Source: Views of Akka

"But give glad tidings to those who believe and work righteousness, that their portion is Gardens, beneath which rivers flow. Every time they are fed with fruits therefrom, they say: "Why, this is what we were fed with before," for they are given things in similitude; and they have therein companions pure (and holy); and they abide therein (for ever)." Qur'an 2:25

Perhaps, most exciting for me were the holy relics. I've already mentioned the alms bowl, but I also loved seeing Baha'u'llah's cut-reed pen and ink spoon. They give you a good idea of the tools people used in those days to write and help with the imagery of writing used throughout the writings, such as "the Pen" and the reed pen. The series also includes photos of Baha'u'llah's pocket watch, brocade pouch (have you ever wondered what brocade looks like?), prayer beads and seals. But the last photo in the series is an odd one; it's a photograph of the cabinets in the Archives Building used to house the photographs of Baha'u'llah and drawings of Baha'u'llah and the Bab. The photo is of three closed cabinets and the text explains that the photo of Baha'u'llah is shown only on very special occasions.

Finally, I wanted to mention the Haifa series. It includes a photo of the tents Baha'u'llah used to stay in when he camped on Mt Carmel. Two photos I found particularly interesting were (no 5) a shot of the circle of cypress trees where Baha'u'llah indicated that the Bab would be buried and (no 6) a recent photo of the Shrine of the Bab, which shows the cypress trees right next to it. These photos have been done well, leaving you with a clear impression of how much change has happened on the mountain since Baha'u'llah pitched his tent there. I know the World Centre has been criticised for spending so much money on the arc, but I think the following passage in Gleanings provides a scriptural basis for what it's done, even if some question the wisdom of it:

"If a man be found willing to rear, in Our name, an edifice of pure gold or silver, or a house begemmed with stones of inestimable value, such a wish will no doubt be granted. He, verily, doeth what He willeth, and ordaineth that which He pleaseth. Leave hath, moreover, been given to whosoever may desire to raise, throughout the length and breadth of this land, noble and imposing structures, and dedicate the rich and sacred territories adjoining the Jordan and its vicinity to the worship and service of the one true God, magnified be His glory, that the prophecies recorded by the Pen of the Most High in the sacred Scriptures may be fulfilled, and that which God, the Lord of all worlds, hath purposed in this most exalted, this most holy, this mighty, and wondrous Revelation may be made manifest." Gleanings, LIX

At the top right-hand corner of "The Life of Baha'u'llah" site is a little option called "Other Baha'i sites". I clicked on this to take a look at what was listed there. Oddly, I found under the heading "The Life of Baha'u'llah", which was the site I was on, another heading "Baha'u'llah". Curious, I clicked on it and it took me to the URL www.bahaullah.com. The home page of that site had a list of options down the left-hand side, which were divided into two principal headings: "Baha'u'llah - History" and "Baha'u'llah - Writings". I wondered what the purpose of this site was. But, in any case, I quickly found that the site wasn't well written, whatever its purpose. Here's the three opening paragraphs on the home page, which doubles as an introduction to Baha'u'llah's life:

"In the middle of the last century, one of the most notorious dungeons in the Near East was Tehran's "Black Pit." Once the underground reservoir for a public bath, its only outlet was a single passage down three steep flights of stone steps. Prisoners huddled in their own bodily wastes, languishing in the pit's inky gloom, subterranean cold and stench-ridden atmosphere.

In this grim setting, the rarest and most cherished of religious events was once again played out: mortal man, outwardly human in other respects, was summoned by God to bring to humanity a new religious revelation.

The year was 1852, and the man was a Persian nobleman, known today as Bahá'u'lláh. During His imprisonment, as He sat with his feet in stocks and a 100-pound iron chain around his neck, Bahá'u'lláh received a vision of God's will for humanity."

For a site like this, the writer must assume that the audience knows nothing about the faith and is coming to find out the basics. On this page in particular, one expects to get an idea of the setting for Baha'u'llah's life: the century and year, the country, where Baha'u'llah fitted into the scheme of things and so on, so that the reader can get a handle on the context. However, instead of providing that in a straightforward way, the page opens up with "In the middle of the last century, one of the most notorious dungeons in the Near East was Tehran's 'Black Pit.'" and carries on about the Siyah Chal and Baha'u'llah's receipt of revelation there. What the page is attempting to do is draw the reader in using the shocking details of the Siyah Chal so that the reader just has to read on. It's a technique that Simon Schama (one of my heroes) uses to great effect on his documentaries, if you've ever had the joy of watching them. But you have to know what you're doing to pull it off, because it takes real skill. And if you don't get it right, you achieve the opposite of what you intended - you quickly lose your audience rather than captivating it, because you have forced it to wade through waffle and demonstrate your incompetence in the process. That, in a nutshell, was the impression I came away with after viewing this site. It's such a pity, because the URL is a key one - www.bahaullah.com - and what's on that site, it seems to me, just has to be right.

And so the home page opens up with "In the middle of the last century..." (err, does that mean the 20th century?) "one of the most notorious dungeons in the Near East was Tehran's 'Black Pit.'" Immediate confusion: why is it talking about dungeons? The rest of the first paragraph offers a once-over lightly of the horrors of the Siyah Chal and fails to deliver an impact. The second paragraph goes into "In this grim setting, the rarest and most cherished of religious events was once again played out". Again, what is it on about? You get no clue from the odd idea that the religious event was 'cherished', although 'rare' tells you something. Then you're told something about 'mortal man': "mortal man, outwardly human in other respects". Hmm, outwardly human in other respects? What other respects? Then it goes on to tell you that "mortal man" was summoned "to bring to humanity" a new revelation. How could mortal man be summoned to bring itself a revelation? Throughout, the words just fail to conjure up in the reader's mind any image that helps communicate the meaning.

Paragraph 3 attempts to fill in the blanks: "The year was 1852" (Oh good, a date, now we know what century we're in) "and the man" (Hah? What man? Have we been talking about a man?) "was a Persian nobleman, known today as Bahá'u'lláh." "During His imprisonment," (Oh, you mean he was in the dungeon?) "as He sat with his feet in stocks and a 100-pound iron chain around his neck, Bahá'u'lláh received a vision of God's will for humanity." Oh, so this must be what's meant by "mortal man" summoned by God to bring humanity a new revelation.

To be fair, I haven't read the whole site and I'm sure it's not all this bad. But these are the first three paragraphs of the home page and I'd predict that readers would be scared off by the time they got that far.

The other major problem with the site is this: you click on the links under the first major heading "Baha'u'llah - History" and you get, as you'd expect, text written by the site's author, telling you the details of Baha'u'llah's life. You then click on the first link under "Baha'u'llah - Writings", which is "God and His manifestations" and you expect to find similar explanatory text about what Baha'u'llah wrote on the subject. But instead what you get, without any warning, is a direct quote from Baha'u'llah. Just click on the link and straight into the quote - no quote marks to indicate a direct quote taken from elsewhere, like this:

All-praise to the unity of God, and all honor to Him, the sovereign Lord, the incomparable and all-glorious Ruler of the universe....

And the quotes go for four pages. If you scroll down the page and look very hard, you notice small footnotes that tell you what books the quotes come from. That's the only indication the text is from somewhere else. This problem could be easily fixed with some explanatory text at the beginning of the page, telling the reader that what follows are some quotations from Baha'u'llah on the subjects of God and the manifestations (whatever that means). But it would be better still if the World Centre could get its writers to produce summaries of these topics (as you find on other sites about the Faith, such as Wiki) and provide direct quotes from Baha'u'llah in a way that makes them accessible to the reader.

Baha'u'llah's slippers. Photo taken by Alison, 1987

As I said earlier, bahaullah.com is (obviously) a key URL for promoting Baha'u'llah. I think it's tragic that more energy hasn't been put in to make the site a real eye catcher. Seekers find a much better treatment on Baha'u'llah from Wiki, where the admin people are forced to do the job properly because they're acting under the eyes of independent editors, competing with other perspectives of the Faith for the space, and working on a site the world's public will readily use to find out about the Faith. Meantime, bahaullah.com has been left to languish.