Dearest Susan,
I did not mean at all that you personally were taking any argument from Ruhi SC or any of counselors. I am so sorry, I think I am to be blamed. I was just mixing up my thoughts on two issues. Later I wrote another post on "Ruhi in Thailand". I was trying to reply two things in one email and obviously I caused the confusion. And I am so sorry for it. I do respect your research papers on various topics and your integrity on what you're saying. Peter Smith and I do have great respect for you here in Thailand and we count a lot on what you have to say. I have read many of your papers and in my opinion you are one of the "Learned in Baha".
You quoted Dr. Ruhe saying "the Institution of the Universal House of Justice is different from the Universal House of Justice" it does not sound right to me. Universal House of Justice is an institution by itself. What is the institution of an in institution then?
And of course I do consider Universal House of Justice as the Authorized Head of Baha'i Faith and they are authorized to make decisions and legislate on various issues. But I think based on my poor understanding that the House will not make laws for civil society and that will be the function of World Tribunal. And my understanding is that they will never merge to become a single institution. At the same time I believe that majority (if not all) of the members of world tribunal will be Baha'is some time in future and they do their best to follow the instructions and advice of Universal House of Justice to the best of their abilities. I don't think this World Tribunal will be ever in conflict with the House. And I do believe the kings and presidents and representative of various governments and the World Tribunal will consult with the House on various issues and seek their advice.
Is it possible that a House some time in future come to conclusion that not all letters written on behalf Guardian have passed his authority or some letters do not really reflect what the Guardian had in mind? Personally I think this statement written on behalf of Guardian conflicts with other Baha'i Writings related to the same topic by Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha.
regards, Firouz
"Generally I believe that various Baha'i Writings should be read about a given subject before making a ruling out of them."
Dear Firouz,
Well, as Abdu'l-Baha said individuals don't make 'rulings' in such cases, the Universal House of Justice does:
"Today this process of deduction is the right of the body of the House of Justice, and the deductions and conclusions of individual learned men have no authority, unless they are endorsed by the House of Justice. The difference is precisely this, that from the conclusions and endorsements of the body of the House of Justice whose members are elected by and known to the worldwide Bahá'í community, no differences will arise; whereas the conclusions of individual divines and scholars would definitely lead to differences, and result in schism, division, and dispersion. The oneness of the Word would be destroyed, the unity of the Faith would disappear, and the edifice of the Faith of God would be shaken." http://bahai-library.com/provisionals/bayt.adl.usul.qadai.au.html
You wrote:
"Regarding the letters written on behalf of Guardian, I have seen a few letters that make no sense at all Baha'i wise so I cannot count much on them."
Well, as Abdu'l-Baha says ultimately jurisprudence is the prerogative of the House of Justice alone and they clearly *do* regard letters written on the Guardian's behalf as authoritative sources, as did the Guardian himself.
You wrote:
"Regarding individual talks given by various House members or counselors these days, again I don't think we should count much on them. I have seen some Baha'is that consider what a House member or a counselor talks is part of the Holy Writings and I am very afraid of such Baha'is who in order to prove something, they quote a counselor for example."
I think you misunderstood what I was doing there. I was not citing these former House members as authorities. On the contrary, I was demonstrating where their opinions differed. But I was also pointing out that Dr. David Ruhe's understanding does resolve some of the problems you raise in reconciling certain passages. My other reason for bringing this up was because I've seen Dr. Ruhe's views completely distorted elsewhere on the internet and I wanted to go on record with this corrective.
You wrote:
"I recommend Baha'is should read more the Writings of the Central Figures of our Faith and the interpretations of Guardian rather than to stick to explanations given by various counselors or comments in Ruhi books."
Well, as I said, nearly all of the Guardian interpretations are conveyed through his secretaries. But are you excluding the Universal House of Justice itself as an authoritative source?
And where did I bring in any explanation given in Ruhi Books or by Counsellors? I don't recall that Ruhi even deals with this question nor do I know of any Counsellor who has written anything substantive on it, do you? Now, the Counsellors are certainly familiar with my own views on this topic, but none of them have ever shared theirs with me. I take that back. Six or seven years ago Steve Birkland wrote me and said he thought my early formulations along the lines of a dual-partite government were fascinating. I think that means in part, it never occurred to him. ;-}
It seems to me that nearly all the sources I have brought to bare on this topic are authoritative with the exception of the pilgrim's note from the Star of the West. The reference to David Ruhe was purely anecdotal and never intended to serve as a source. Otherwise I have drawn my arguments almost entirely from Abdu'l-Baha's Writings and Shoghi Effendi's interpretations (which includes letters written on his behalf.)
"Thanks again for your discussion on this topic but let's agree to disagree on this specific issue"
Well, if you want to move on that is certainly your prerogative but I'm very curious to know which of my arguments you thought were taken from Ruhi or one of the Counsellors and where they are these to be found?
I've been accused of plagiarism before, but this is the first time anyone has ever accused me of stealing from Ruhi!
warmest, Susan
__________________________________________________
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st
News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st
Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist
Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
__________________________________________________ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
