Moojan Momen
Abstract:
PAPER:
5) millennialism;
6) elect membership;
7) sharp boundaries;
In addition there are two features suggested for Islam by Said Amir
Arjomand but which have a more general application:
The Baha'i Faith originated in the Middle East with its founder
Baha'u'llah (1817-1892) being exiled from Iran to what is now Iraq and
Turkey and finally to the Haifa-Akka area which was then part of the
Ottoman Empire and is now in the state of Israel.8 He appointed his son
`Abdu'l-Baha (1844-1921) as his successor and as the authorized
interpreter of his teachings. During the period of `Abdu'l-Baha's
leadership (1892-1921), the Baha'i Faith spread to North America and
Europe. The next leader was Shoghi Effendi (1897-1957), who was
appointed the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith and who, from 1921, directed
the spread of the Baha'i Faith around the world and its separation from
Islam. Since 1963, the Baha'i community has been led by an elected
institution, the Universal House of Justice.9 This body does not create
doctrine (as, for example, the Papacy does), but it does direct the
activities of the Baha'is and is charged with legislating in all areas
not covered by scripture. By 2006, some five million Baha'is are stated
to be found in 191 countries among more than 2,100 ethnic groups.10
In the Baha'i teachings and beliefs, one can find points that point
towards both fundamentalism and liberalism. Some have described the
Baha'i Faith as fundamentalist and have pointed to such beliefs and
teachings as:
But there are also Baha'i positions and beliefs that point towards
liberalism:
1. A belief that Satan is the animal side of human, not a real existing
figure.
One must start by agreeing with Cole and MacEoin that there is some
degree of fundamentalist-liberal tension within the Baha'i community,
indeed it would be surprising if there were not in a community the size
of the Baha'i one. Because of the social dynamics of the Baha'i
community, as described below, however, this tension tends not to be
played out in a conflictual manner within the Baha'i community. A
starting point for considering this matter would be to examine the
Baha'i Faith in relation to the characteristics of fundamentalism
described above and Cole's comments on each:
This desire to see religion at the centre of society does not lead to
the Baha'i community being fundamentalist, moreover, since individual
Baha'is and Baha'i institutions are prohibited from taking political
action at present. This prohibition has been in place since the early
1900s and means that the Baha'i community whether acting as individuals
or as a community should not be involved in trying to impose an Baha'i
ideology on others through political actions in the way typical of
fundamentalist groups. To what extent and when any Baha'i institutions
take part in any political action is under the jurisdiction of the
Universal House of Justice and it is impossible to predict how this may
develop in the future (in fact the Universal House of Justice has
mandated a small amount of political action at the international level
on such liberal issues as education for the girl child, human rights and
the social advancement of women27).
The examples that Cole gives in this section are either erroneous,
forced or irrelevant. While Cole and MacEoin see pre-publication review
of anything that a Baha'i wants to publish as a means of enforcing
doctrinal conformity,29 the Baha'i authorities see it as a temporary
measure taken because the Baha'i Faith is still relatively obscure and
any public statements published by Baha'is are likely to be taken by
readers as representative of the Baha'i position. If, for example, a
Christian says that Christianity encourages suicide, then most people
know enough about Christianity to discount such a statement; but if a
similar statement is published about the Baha'i Faith by a Baha'i, the
majority of readers who know nothing about the Baha'i Faith would
probably assume it is correct -- else why would a Baha'i publish such a
statement? Baha'is writing in the academic sphere can ask for suitably
qualified people to review their work. The decision as to when this
requirement is lifted rests with the international leadership, the
Universal House of Justice, but Cole is incorrect to assert that its
temporary nature has ever been questioned by any Baha'i authority.
Indeed the measure has already been partially lifted in that materials
to be published on the Internet are exempt from it.30
The Baha'i teachings do not in any case take a black and white view that
an individual is either "saved" or "damned". Salvation is seen as a
journey in which one becomes closer to God by acquiring the attributes
of God (attributes such as love, justice, purity, etc.). Since everyone
is on this journey and the important factor is not so much where one is
on the journey but how much progress one is making, it is clear that
there is no simple dualist division into "saved" and "damned" nor even
any easy way of making judgements about individuals (since an apparent
saint could be making little or no progress while an apparent sinner may
be taking giant strides forwards).39
Cole has pointed to the doctrine that the Universal House of Justice is
infallible as evidence of authoritarianism. One point that needs to be
made is that this question has been little debated as yet among Baha'is
and anyone who makes statements about the matter is voicing personal
opinions rather than any agreed or authoritative positions. The only
scholarly paper written on the subject suggests that the infallibility
of the House of Justice is limited to the legislation of any laws that
are not explicitly contained in Baha'u'llah's writings. Baha'u'llah
writes that he has done this because circumstances change and thus there
is a need for flexibility in the legislative framework of the Baha'i
Faith. Even here, "infallibility" does not mean a fixed and unchanging
pronouncements. Any subsequent House of Justice can abrogate and alter
previous legislation.53 In fact, the Universal House of Justice has
declared a policy of refraining from laying down new laws in exactly the
sorts of areas that it might be imagined that they would legislate (for
example, over contraception and abortion) and has merely laid out the
spiritual principles involved and left the final decision to the
individual Baha'i. It has stated that this (moving away from laying down
prescriptions for all areas of human life and leaving such matters to
individual conscience) is part of the coming to maturity of humanity.54
In practice, the Universal House of Justice appears to have imposed very
few new laws upon ordinary Baha'is in the 44 years of its existence.55
Cole has asserted that the authority of the Baha'i institutions has been
used in recent years to promote a fundamentalist agenda. He can only
maintain such a position by being highly selective with his facts,
however. He mentions, for example in his paper, a group of ultra-
orthodox incarnationist Iranian Baha'is in the United Kingdom as an
example of a move towards fundamentalism56 but fails to mention that the
Universal House of Justice warned this group about its divisive
activities as it did with the ultra-liberal groups that Cole champions.
Thus the actions of the Universal House of Justice appear not to be
prompted by a desire to promote fundamentalism or a concern to enforce a
doctrinal orthodoxy but rather to be triggered by the formation of
cabals and factions that threaten the unity of the community and may
presage sectarian fission.
An area that MacEoin and Cole have both been critical of the Baha'i
institutions is their attitude towards academic methodology and this has
undoubtedly been the subject of much discussion. The Universal House of
Justice has specifically stated that it does not wish to prescribe or
proscribe any particular methodology60 but has commented that: "In
scientific investigation when searching after the facts of any matter a
Baha'i must, of course, be entirely open-minded, but in his
interpretation of the facts and his evaluation of evidence we do not see
by what logic he can ignore the truth of the Baha'i Revelation which he
has already accepted. To do so would, we feel, be both hypocritical and
unscholarly."61
In all then, the Baha'i Faith presents a quandary for the defining
characteristics of fundamentalism in that it complies with some of them
but is diametrically the opposite of others. And indeed it is not the
only example of such difficulties. Counter-examples and problems with
any definition based on theological or sociological criteria can be
found for other religious communities. The most clear example of this is
the fourth criterion, absolutism and inerrancy of essential texts. There
are very few Muslims who do not consider the Qur'an to be the revealed
and inerrant "Word of God" but this does not make them all
fundamentalists; indeed until the rise of political Islam (Islamism) in
the 1980s, fundamentalists were a small minority. Similarly,
millennialism, while it plays a large part in the fundamentalism of
Shi`i Islam in Iran, particularly with the presidency of Ahmadinejad,
plays almost no part in the fundamentalism in the rest of the Islamic
world which is mainly Sunni. At the same time, although fundamentalists
exist among Buddhists, several of this list of characteristics would not
appear to apply to them (to a large extent items 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 of the
list).71
In the case of the Baha'i Faith there is the added complexity that,
since the religion is only about 150 years old, many of its teachings
already take modernity into account and so there is less inherent strain
between modernity and the teachings of the religion. This has the effect
that a Baha'i of fundamentalist inclination will, by virtue of these
matters being in the scripture, be forced to take positions on many
social issues that would, in other religions, be considered liberal. For
example, the five points that I have described above as Baha'i teachings
that point towards liberalism are promoted just as ardently by Baha'is
inclined to fundamentalism as by those inclined to liberalism. Thus a
mere consideration of the teachings advocated by any particular Baha'i
will not be a useful guide to distinguishing between those inclined to
fundamentalism and those inclined to liberalism.
Much of what has been written above is theoretical and has little to do
with the practice and realities of Baha'i community life. In this
section, I propose to look at the social dynamics of the Baha'i
community and the ways in which this might interact with
fundamentalists.
This aim of world unity is not left as a vague hope in the Baha'i
scriptures. These scriptures acknowledge the many causes of disunity in
the world -- poverty, lack of education, the status of women and the
numerous forms of prejudice brought about by such factors as differences
of race, ethnic group, nationality, religion, class, wealth, levels of
education, culture and opinion--and these factors are addressed in the
Baha'i social teachings. One way of addressing these prejudices and
creating unity is within the Baha'i community itself so that the Baha'i
community can act as a model for what it is advocating for the wider
society.81 In the course of the development of the Baha'i community, its
successive leaders have made a point of trying to attract into the
community members of different races, religions, cultures, social
classes and minority groups. This deliberate policy introduces into the
community a great potential for discord as individuals from different
cultures, feuding groups, opposing religious backgrounds and
incompatible ways of thinking (such as fundamentalists and liberals)
enter the community and start to interact with one another in community
consultations and activities. This is, however, not seen as a threat but
rather as an opportunity to achieve, at the local level, the overall
goal of unity. Differences of race and colour, for example, are to be
welcomed: "If you meet those of different race and colour from yourself,
do not mistrust them and withdraw yourself into your shell of
conventionality, but rather be glad and show them kindness. Think of
them as different coloured roses growing in the beautiful garden of
humanity, and rejoice to be among them."82 Even differences of opinion,
such as that between fundamentalists and liberals, are to be welcomed
since someone with a different opinion to oneself may have access to an
aspect of the truth concealed from oneself: "Likewise, when you meet
those whose opinions differ from your own, do not turn away your face
from them. All are seeking truth, and there are many roads leading
thereto. Truth has many aspects, but it remains always and forever one.
Do not allow difference of opinion, or diversity of thought to separate
you from your fellow-men, or to be the cause of dispute, hatred and
strife in your hearts. Rather, search diligently for the truth and make
all men your friends."83
Thus even when there are opposing opinions, this can be a source of
creative energy leading to the unfoldment of a higher level of truth:
"The shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the clash of
differing opinions."84 However this result can only emerge if the
"clash of differing opinions" occurs within an overall context of unity.
Indeed this passage was written in the context of the process of
consultation which is the decision-making process in the Baha'i
community and occurs in an atmosphere set by prayer and concord.85
`Abdu'l-Baha says that if there is disunity then no beneficial result
will accrue. Indeed he goes further and says that "If they agree upon a
subject, even though it be wrong, it is better than to disagree and be
in the right." He then explains this by saying that if the decision is
wrong and unity is maintained, it soon becomes evident that the decision
is wrong and it can be corrected, but if there is disunity, then the
social structure itself is destroyed and no benefit can come.86 In
summary then, clashes of opinion, such as those that occur between
fundamentalists and liberals, are not viewed as being undesirable; but
rather they are seen as opportunities to uncover the truth (by having
different aspects of it exposed by people who see things differently)
and an opportunity to build unity (through transcending the differences
exposed).
It should be understood that the above four paragraphs are still more a
matter of potential and of aspiration rather than of achievement. The
process has only been underway for a little more than a decade and it is
really only in the last 5-6 years that most of the Baha'i community has
begun to get behind it. There has been resistance to the change in the
community from individuals who were comfortable with the old system,
from those who had a great deal of knowledge and experience invested in
the old system and from those whose positions of power in the community
are threatened by the changes. Thus this democratization of power and
responsibility is only in the early stages of its development and its
application throughout the Baha'i world is patchy. One can, however,
already see that youth, women, members of minority groups, those who
lack eloquence and are poorly educated, exactly the people who remain
silent in the hierarchical and patriarchal structures of most social
groups, are taking the lead in becoming tutors in the Ruhi courses,
cluster co-ordinators (for the core activities that are underway as part
of this raising up of human resources) and are among the most energetic
and enthusiastic in taking forward these changes.98 It is too early,
however, to make firm judgements about how successful the whole project
is in terms of moving individual Baha'is across the world into taking
responsibility for Baha'i community life and in removing hierarchical
social structures.
Conclusion
A brief survey of the social dynamics of the Baha'i community has been
conducted looking at features that relate to fundamentalism. It has been
pointed out that, although the emphasis on unity and the mechanisms for
its maintenance can seem like the forced uniformity of fundamentalist
groups, in practice it works differently. Thus, since the Baha'i
community includes a wide range of people form all segments of society
in most of the places where it exists around the world, it is inevitable
that the community will include people who tend towards fundamentalist
thinking as well as those who tend towards a liberal thought. The social
dynamics of the Baha'i community, however, inhibit these fundamentalists
from creating a fundamentalist group or movement within the community.
Thus fundamentalists are forced to engage with the main body of the
community in consultation over the meaning of the scripture as well as
by working together in community activities. Since one of the mechanisms
that keeps fundamentalism going is to form social enclaves and since
prolonged exposure to other points of views tends to break down
fundamentalist structures of thought, this means that in the Baha'i
community it is unlikely that fundamentalist groups will be able to
sustain themselves for any length of time. Similarly, the programme
being developed in the Baha'is community presently is designed to
dissolve power hierarchies in the community, which will block the
emergence of the charismatic leaders typical of fundamentalist groups.
These structures and developments may act to make the emergence of
fundamentalist groups in the future unlikely.
10The Baha'i World 2006-2007 (Haifa: Bahá'í World Centre, 2008), p. 249;
cf. The World Christian Database, which has continued the work of the
World Christian Encyclopedia, lists the total number of Baha’is as
7,684,618 and lists Baha’is in 220 of 238 countries -- a global spread
second only to that of Christianity; Gordon-Conwell Theological
Seminary, Leiden: Brill. Available from: http://worldchristiandatabase.o
rg/wcd/esweb.asp?WCI¼Results&Query¼1952 (accessed 22.05.07.).
23See for example the report "Faith in the City", commissioned by Robert
Runcie, Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1985, which was widely regarded as
an effort to place the church in centre stage of the opposition to the
policies of Margaret Thatcher's government (see http://www.cofe.anglican
.org/info/papers/faithinthecity.pdf, accessed 23 April 2008).
26In line with other liberal intellectuals, Cole has a profound dislike
of any mixing of religion and government and regards this as evidence of
fundamentalism; cf Utvik, "Religious revivalism", p. 153.
27Baha'i World 2005-2006 (Haifa: Bahá'í World Centre, 2007), pp. 93-114.
See also http://www.bic.org, see under "Areas of Work" (accessed 27
April 2008)
30The Universal House of Justice has also lifted the requirement that
translation of Baha'i scripture being published in journals or on the
Internet be reviewed at the Baha'i World Centre, letter of 30 June 1999
to all National Spiritual Assemblies.
31"Fundamentalism", p. 412
of which one only is known amongst the people . . .' He also saith: 'We
speak one word, and by it we intend one and seventy meanings . . .'"
Baha'u'llah, Kitáb-i-Íqán: The Book of Certitude (Wilmette: Bahá'í
Publishing Trust, 1989), p. 255
44For example, Cole asserts that Nader Saeidi has "expressed outrage
that Bahau'llah's ability to work miracles had been questioned on the H-
Bahai discussion list." But Saeidi actually affirms that Baha'u'llah, in
the work in question, has said that he has not performed certain
miracles attributed to him; Saeidi merely points out that Cole's
assertion that this means that Baha'u'llah has stated that he cannot
perform any miracles is an unwarranted assumption; Saedi, "Sahifiy-i
Shattiyyih (Book of the River)," Journal of Bahá'í Studies, vol. 9, no.
3 (September 1999), pp. 25-61, see pp. 39-45. See also note 37 above.
59Cole implies that the member of the Universal House of Justice, Peter
Khan, is to be accounted as a fundamentalist (Cole, "Fundamentalism",
pp. 205, 206), who wishes "to affirm the existence of ether and the
chemical transmutation of elements" (Cole, "Fundamentalism", p. 205).
Cole gives as reference for this assertion Peter J. Khan, "Some Aspects
of Baha'i Scholarship," (Journal of Bahá'í Studies, vol 9, no. 4,
December 1999, pp. 43-64), p. 63. Khan says nothing at all about ether
on that page or any other page of this article and his statement about
"transmutation of elements" is against a naive and simplistic reading of
this.
64Deborah K. van den Hoonaard and Will C. van den Hoonaard, The
Equality
of Women and Men: The Experience of the Bahá'í Community of Canada,
Douglas, New Brunswick: W. C. and D. K. van den Hoonaard, 2006.
65See Dan Sarooshi, "International Law and Peace Between the Nations:
The Contribution of the Baha'i Faith" in Andrew Lewis and Richard O'Dair
(eds), Law and Religion, Current Legal Issues vol. 4 (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2001), pp. 497-508; Zaid Lundberg, "Global Claims,
Global Aims: An Analysis of Shoghi Effendi's The World Order of
Bahá'u'lláh," and Wendi Momen, "Globalization and Decentralization: The
Concept of Subsidiarity in the Bahá'í Faith," in Margit Warburg, Annika
Hvithamar and Morten Warmind (eds), Baha'i and Globalisation, Renner
Series on New Religions, vol. 7 (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 2005),
pp. 175-95; and the articles in Babak Bahador and Naz Ghanea, Processes
of the Lesser Peace (Oxford: George Ronald, 2002).
93Barr, Fundamentalism (2nd ed, London: SCM, 1981), pp. 40-55, 279-80;
Bruce, Firm in the Faith, p. 79