> But as
> before the infallibility in no way comes from the Guardian.
Abdu'l-Baha envisioned a Universal House of Justice that would have a living
Guardian serving on it at all times, and as its Head. In that formulation, why
wouldn't the infallibility of the House come through the Guardian?
In all the current discussions about the scope of the House, etc, folks make
the assumption that when "Universal House of Justice" (or words that would
refer to that exalted institution) are mentioned in the Writings, the same
institution is meant. Let me add a little spice to the discussion by
suggesting (and not that I personally believe that!!), what if that wasn't the
case?
That is, consider the following:
Baha'u'llah envisioned a Universal House of Justice that was an elected office
(without any mention of the Guardian whatsoever) concerned with "affairs of
State and people" (see 8th Glad Tidings). But its scope had a limit: this
House could not change things He had revealed, nor pass laws on "acts of
worship".
The limits that Baha'u'llah envisioned for this House are quite important. It
is not a House that can legislate, say, on Obligatory Prayers, because that is
a matter of personal worship and Baha'u'llah anticipated a House that
legislated as a Islamic shari'a, but enjoyed consultative and democratic norms.
Abdu'l-Baha's vision may have been different. He instituted the office of the
Guardianship, but one that would continued indefinitely -- and not just through
letters written during 1920's thru 1950's, but a living, breathing Guardian who
served as the Head of the House.
In the W&T, Abdu'l-Baha assures that the Guardian is under the care of the Twin
Manifestations. Later, He states that the House is under this care.
It seems to me that an argument could well be made that the assurance of
infallibility, in that situation, is very much dependent on the service of the
living Guardian.
Furthermore, every bit of the writing we have from Shoghi Effendi clearly
envisions a House of Justice that had a Guardian serving on it at all times.
Could such a House of Justice, for instance, legislate on, say, obligatory
prayers? Of course. Why? Because the Guardian had a brought mandate to
interpret the Text, and he could have guided the deliberation of the House on
"acts of worship".
So an argument could be put forth (and again, I'm not necessarily suggesting
that argument, only pointing out that it has some merits), that the notion of
the scope of the House of Justice very much changed from Baha'u'llah to
Abdu'l-Baha/Shoghi Effendi. So, to say, the Writings says such and such about
the "House" seems to be talking about apples and oranges.
I don't have time now, but some time next week I might develop these thoughts
more carefully, using all the actual Texts (and not just a summary, like in the
Constitution of the House of Justice).
Regards,
Ahang.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
__________________________________________________
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:[email protected]
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/[email protected]
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
