15 May 1996
To the Universal House of Justice
The National Spiritual Assembly of the
Baha'is of the United States
Counselor Stephen Birkland
Talisman
Dear Friends,
Over the last few weeks Baha'is around
the world have been informed about
the removal of David Langness' Baha'i rights,
the denunciation of David by
Firuz Kazemzadeh and Stephen Birkland from
the floor of the US National
Convention, and of the withdrawal of his
Baha'i membership by Prof. Juan
Cole. As a friend and colleague of both
of these loyal lovers of
Baha'u'llah, I am devastated by these sad
events I can not in good
conscience remain silent in the face of
such injustice.
I have known David and Juan for over 15
years. I have worked with them
professionally and have benefited from
their generosity of spirit and the
brilliance of their insights and wisdom.
I value their friendship and love
them as my dear brothers. With David I
worked in a professional capacity as
director of publications for the Hospital
Council of Southern California,
where David served with great distinction
as a spokesperson on health care
issues. David also serves as a leading
advocate for homeless Americans,
serving on the Board of Directors of the
Homeless Healthcare Project and
with Robin Williams, Whoopi Goldberg and
Billy Crystal on the Board of
Comic Relief. David has distinguished himself
to the non-Baha'i world as a
passionate leader for social justice and
political reform in America. He
also has led many missions of mercy and
relief to troubled corners of the
globe. For example he spearheaded major
relief efforts to the Philippines
and to El Salvador. He has been sought
out by national media such as the
New York Times, the Los Angeles Times,
National Public Radio, Time magazine
and the major networks to speak as a leading
authority on the crucial
issues facing the American political and
social welfare system in the face
of the conservative revolution taking place
in the United States.
I have learned a tremendous amount from
David. Much of it of a professional
nature, but the more important lessons
came from seeing how he dealt with
difficult moral and ethical issues in his
professional, personal, and
Baha'i life. I have rarely seen a person
more humble regarding the good
works he has accomplished in his life.
I feel that I have been blessed by
our friendship.
As an example of David's character, I will
share one story. After the
editors of "Dialogue" magazine were attacked
by the NSA for seditious
behavior back in 1988, many of us descended
into depression and "inactive
status." David was one of the few who stayed
active. He continued his
personal teaching of the faith, was a popular
Baha'i speaker at firesides,
the Bosch Baha'i school, and other venues.
In his local community, Los
Angeles, he remained an active Baha'i and
strong defender of the faith and
its institutions. He has spent long hours
writing an important introduction
to the Baha'i faith, THE SEEKER'S PATH:
MYTH, MATURITY, AND THE BAHA'I
TEACHINGS, which is scheduled for publication
by One World this summer.
Those close to David, the members of his
local community, recognized his
devotion to the faith, his maturity, and
his wide experience, and elected
him to serve as a member of the Los Angeles
LSA, where he served with
distinction until he and Teresa moved from
Los Angeles a few years ago. I
think this speaks volumes of David's character
and devotion to the Baha'i
administrative order.
I first became friends with Juan as I began
my undergraduate studies in
History of Religions in the late 1970s.
Juan was at that time pursuing his
graduate studies at UCLA. It was largely
through his encouragement and
example that I saw the merit of pursuing
my graduate studies in Islamic
philosophy and mysticism so as to prepare
myself for service to the Baha'i
faith through the field of Baha'i studies.
Over the years, Juan provided me
with loving support and guidance as I pursued
my studies. When I began my
publishing company, Juan was the first
person I signed as an author. I have
had the great fortune to work with him
in an author/publisher relationship.
Juan's brilliance is a source of constant
enrichment to me personally, and
his groundbreaking Baha'is studies will
be a lasting treasure and resource
to future Baha'i scholars. I believe that
he stands with Alessandro Bausani
as the two foremost thinkers that the Baha'i
community has produced in this
century. Juan's accomplishments are many
and outstanding. He has served
with distinction as Director of the Center
for Middle Eastern and North
African Studies at the University of Michigan
at Ann Arbor, one of the top
Middle East studies departments in the
nation. He was a Fullbright scholar
and has served on the Board of Directors
of the American Institute of
Iranian Studies and on the American Council
of Learned Societies, and
Middle East Studies Association.
He is author and editor of several important
academic studies including his
books COLONIALISM AND REVOLUTION IN THE
MIDDLE EAST (Princeton University
Press, 1993) and ROOTS OF NORTH INDIAN
SHI'ISM IN IRAN AND IRAQ (University
of California Press, 1991). He has published
two books of translations of
Iranian Baha'i scholar Mirza Abu'l-Fadl
Gulpaygani (both from Kalimat
Press) and two translations of the Arabic
writings of Kahlil Gibran (White
Cloud Press). He has penned dozens of articles
for prestigious academic
journals such as the International Journal
of Middle East Studies, Iranian
Studies, Comparative Studies in Society
and History, Middle Eastern
Studies, The Muslim World, Encyclopaedia
Iranica, Encyclopedia
Philosophique Universelle, and The Encyclopedia
of the Modern Middle East.
Juan is known by his academic colleagues
as an eloquent and persuasive
representative of the Baha'i faith and
a staunch defender of the Iranian
Baha'is, and he is a recognized expert
on the Middle East in general by the
press and the United States government.
Juan's great love for Baha'u'llah is evident
in all of his work, even in
his most demanding academic studies that
uncover the context and setting of
Baha'u'llah's world reforms. His translations
of Baha'u'llah's mystical
tablets show us that he is not merely a
dry academic historian but that he
is also an inspired mystic and poet whose
soul has been lit by the fire
that burned on Sinai and that he has been
transformed by the spirit of the
Abha Beauty. Juan has not only provided
me with guidance but he has been an
invaluable friend, colleague and mentor
to younger Baha'is entering the
field of Baha'is studies. He has given
us his time, encouragement,
criticisms, and friendship. He is our true
brother.
It is to my lasting benefit that I have
been able to call these men my
friends. I wish to state publicly that
I believe David and Juan have been
completely open and honest in their dealings
with the Baha'i administration
and that the Baha'i institutions have falsely
accused them of crimes
against the Covenant and, in David's case,
unjustly removed his Baha'i
rights. Moreover, the Baha'i institutions
have disregarded their own
policies in attacking and vilifying these
loyal servants. In doing so, I
believe that the Baha'i institutions have
acted in a manner that is
contrary to the letter and spirit of the
Baha'i teachings.
My reasons for this belief are rooted in
my personal knowledge of many of
the events that are reported in the communiqués
of the NSA and House of
Justice. In the House's letter of 10 April,
old distortions and half truths
are publicly declared and David is accused
by the Supreme institution of
the Baha'i faith to be "insincere" and
"duplicitous." I believe that a more
complete accounting of the events that
led us to this tragic state of
affairs will demonstrate that although
there may be faults on the part of
all involved parties, it is the Baha'i
institutions who have acted in
violation of their own clear policies and
in violation of the foundational
principles and values of the Baha'i sacred
writings. The House of Justice
letter to the US NSA of 10 April regarding
David's case demonstrates that
the House of Justice continues to accept
as truth the false statements and
distortions propagated by the National
Spiritual Assembly surrounding the
publishing activities of "Dialogue" magazine
and Kalimat Press. In doing
so, the House of Justice continues to ignore
the facts of the case as
presented in our appeal letters. Indeed,
one of the most frustrating
aspects of our appeal process to the House
of Justice is that they have
simply refused to address the specifics
of our appeals and the evidence we
have presented that contradicts the NSA's
account of our actions and
motives. In doing so, the House of Justice
has relied on the campaign of
backbiting and gossip that has been directed
at us for over 15 years by
prominent Baha'i administrators.
The easiest way for me to address these
issues is to respond directly to
accusations made against us by the Universal
House of Justice and the NSA.
Let me begin by first addressing David's
loss of pilgrimage rights.
In his appeal to the House of Justice that
was posted on Talisman, David
attempted to reconstruct the events that
led to his removal of pilgrimage
rights and his confusion as to who was
sanctioning and why. The House of
Justice letter of 10 April 96 is unsatisfactory
as it attempts to dismiss
David's detailed accounting of events with
the following statement: "The
inaccuracies and distortions of this communication
are too many and subtle
to enter into here."
As one of the four "Dialogue" editors sanctioned
(Anthony Lee and Payam
Afsharian rounded out the list), I, too,
was confused as to who was taking
action and why. The communications from
the NSA and House to us were
contradictory. On 8 June 1988 the NSA wrote
to the four of us that,
"Considering the seriousness of the matter,
the National Spiritual Assembly
has withdrawn, and will not extend, invitations
to you for pilgrimage to
the Baha'i World Centre for the time being.
In so doing, the National
Assembly is carrying out the specific instructions
of the Universal House
of Justice."
At that time some of us who received this
letter remained unsure of what
exactly we had done to receive such a reprimand
and what exactly were the
specific instructions of the House of Justice
concerning our case. Payam
Afsharian sought clarification from the
House of Justice as to why he had
been sanctioned. Their response to Payam
indicated to us that the House was
not fully involved in the case and the
sanctions, leaving the impression
that it was an NSA action. In response
to Payam's query, the Dept. of the
Secretariat of the House of Justice wrote:
"The Universal House of Justice has received
your letter of 17 December
1991 in which you ask what you may do "to
regain Baha'i status". It has
asked us to say that, to the best of its
information, your administrative
rights have not been removed and you are
a Baha'i in good standing.
Concerning your question about pilgrimage
to the Holy Places at the World
Centre, as the instruction of the National
Spiritual Assembly indicated,
the restriction placed on you and a few
others, in the heat of the problems
which arose from the actions of the editors
of "Dialogue" in connection
with the intended publication of the article
"A Modest Proposal", was
temporary, and you may apply, if you wish,
to come on pilgrimage. As to
your request to know what you did to have
caused the problems which came to
a head in the Spring of 1988, the House
of Justice feels that this matter
has been discussed exhaustively with you
and others concerned by the
National Spiritual Assembly and its representatives
both orally and in
writing (letter dated 9 Sept. 1992).
Our reading of this letter was that the
House of Justice was unsure of our
Baha'i status as it was under the jurisdiction
of the NSA and that any
questions should be raised with the NSA
and not the House of Justice.
National Center staff also interpreted
the letter to Payam in such fashion
and communicated this impression to David.
It should also be noted that we had very
good reason not to trust the
communications of the NSA sent to us by
the Secretary General. The
Secretary General had a history of attacking
us, distorting our words and
actions, and failing to provide us with
full information on issues
surrounding our case and appeals. Because
of the Secretary General's track
record for partial or dishonest communications,
we did not accept this
statement at face value and thus some of
us sought further clarification.
Unfortunately, no clear guidance came and,
indeed, the House of Justice
letter to Payam added to the confusion.
The House of Justice could have easily
cleared up the matter during David's
three-day visit in June 1988. A member
of the House and ITC representative
could have met with David to discuss events
that led up to the crisis and
stated clearly and unequivocally that the
House of Justice had taken this
action. Instead, David was shunned by the
members of the House and ITC. I
found this shunning of David difficult
to comprehend as it runs so contrary
to the examples of Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha
and Shoghi Effendi, and even
the House in earlier years. Baha'u'llah's
response to believers that he
felt might be trouble-makers was to take
them with him into exile and have
them share his imprisonment. The House
could have easily ended the
confusion on our part by spending 30 minutes
with David during his
three-day visit to the Baha'i World Centre.
Or they could have ended our
confusion by stating directly to Payam
what they are now stating. But it is
unfair to call David insincere and duplicitous
in light of the fact that
those of us who were sanctioned and the
NSA's own staff remained uncertain
about jurisdictional issues due to the
House's inability to communicate
clearly.
I am also disturbed by the manner in which
the NSA and House of Justice
have taken certain passages from our appeals
and twisted their meaning in
order to give the appearance that we are
being devious in our actions. What
comes across time and again in the letters
from the House in response to
our appeals are vague accusations that
are never substantiated with
specific examples. On the other hand, our
appeals supplied the House with
concrete evidence of lies and unethical
behavior on the part of the NSA. To
these specific charges (which I will discuss
below) the House has remained
silent and continues to misrepresent the
actions and motives of those of us
involved with "Dialogue" magazine and Kalimat
Press. As an example of how
the House of Justice has twisted our words
to make us appear insincere or
duplicitous, I refer to my second appeal
letter to the House of Justice of
26 April 1988 and their response to me
on 21 June 1989.
Selectively quoting words from my appeal
letter, the House of Justice
writes that I "assume that all is due to
the machinations of certain
individuals in positions of responsibility"
and that I lack any "awareness
that there may have been faults" on my
side; that I characterize the
"Dialogue" staff as "Baha'is who are innocent
of any wrongdoing." I find
this statement offensive and a sign of
the House of Justice's intransigence
in dealing with us. In several of my letters
to the National Assembly and
the House of Justice, I have openly acknowledged
that I am not without
fault in this dispute. In these letters
I acknowledged that feelings of
mistrust have developed in my heart toward
individual members of the
National Assembly; I recognized that I
did not always agree with National
Assembly policies and decisions affecting
"Dialogue" and have expressed
these disagreements in language that has
offended; and that I regret some
of my actions.
However, what I actually stated in my appeal
letter of 26 April 1988 to the
House of Justice was that "in our activities
associated with the
preparation, review and publication plans
for the article 'A Modest
Proposal' we were innocent of any wrongdoing."
I maintain that we did not
do anything to circumvent the authority
of the National Assembly nor did we
act in any way contrary to established
Baha'i guidelines concerning
publishing, nor did we have any intent
or motivation to undermine the
authority of the National Spiritual Assembly
specifically or the Baha'i
administration generally. Once we were
aware of the National Assembly's
concerns about the article, we did everything
possible to work with them to
alleviate their concerns. For example,
we requested to meet with two
representatives of the NSA to go over the
article word by word. This
meeting was held in Los Angeles and we
agreed to make changes to the
article based on the recommendations of
the two NSA members. We met
extensively with Counselor Fred Schechter
to find a way to achieve
reconciliation. We made proposals to the
Counselor and the NSA on ways to
achieve understanding and harmony. I personally
wrote to each member of the
NSA and invited them to contact me at any
time if they had any questions or
concerns about our activities. I invited
each NSA member to contribute an
article to "Dialogue". In May 1987 the
NSA summoned Anthony Lee, Payam
Afsharian, Richard Hollinger and myself
to Wilmette where they presented
their concerns about our activities. We
patiently answered all their
concerns and felt that we had laid to rest
some of the false impressions
held by several NSA members, particularly
Firuz Kazemzadeh. Following this
meeting, I wrote to the NSA and acknowledged
that there may still be some
lingering concerns between us and that
we needed to build bridges of
confidence, so I suggested that the NSA
should ask us to do something for
them, give us a publishing project to work
on together. I believe a similar
letter was written by Kalimat Press. We
(Kalimat Press and "Dialogue")
felt that if we could work with the NSA
on such projects it would be a
first step toward better understanding
of each other. My hope was that we
could come to recognize that we are all
co-workers in the Cause of God. I
also suggested that the "Dialogue" editorial
board and NSA meet at the
Bosch school to pray together and consult
with each other, and recommended
the calling of a "review summit" where
various independent Baha'i writers,
publishers, and Baha'i institutions might
brainstorm to find a way to make
review a more effective and less arbitrary
process. The response to each of
these attempts to achieve reconciliation
and common ground was met with
silence.
Every attempt on our part to achieve common
ground and a true
reconciliation only led to further attacks
on our motives and characters.
Our appeals to the House of Justice came
from our concern for the integrity
of the institution of the National Spiritual
Assembly as well as concern
for our Baha'i rights and the economic
viability of our work. We appealed
to the House of Justice because the Constitution
of Universal House of
Justice states that the Supreme Institution
of the Baha'i Faith is
responsible "to safeguard the personal
rights, freedom and initiative of
individuals," and "for ensuring that no
body or institution within the
Cause abuse its privileges." I remain
convinced that violation of Baha'i
law, abuse of authority and privileges,
and disregard of Baha'i teachings
and values has occurred and that the National
Assembly is the perpetrator
of such violations.
So much of what happened over the years
took place in heated discussions
off the record. For example the meeting
between the NSA and Payam
Afsharian, Anthony Lee, Richard Hollinger
and myself in Wilmette in May
1987 and the hostile interrogation of the
editors of "Dialogue" by three
representatives of the NSA in a hotel room
in Los Angeles the following
year. However, the above attempts on our
part to faithfully obey and to
work out a true reconciliation with our
detractors are on record.
Furthermore, there is one crucial element
of the controversy that can be
used by any objective person or body as
evidence of duplicity and
corruption. It is my belief that the National
Assembly lied to the 1988
National Convention delegates and observers
about our activities,
particularly that as editor of the magazine
I "widely distributed" "A
Modest Proposal" to "dozens and dozens"
of delegates, that the article was
intended as a "dissident manifesto," a
petition aimed at undermining the
authority of the National Assembly, and
that "A Modest Proposal" was an
attempt at electioneering.
I claim that I did not circulate the article
to any delegates and that the
only delegates who received copies from
me prior to the convention were
Anthony Lee, a "Dialogue" editorial board
member, and Sheila Banani, an
advisor to the magazine. I ask that the
House of Justice poll the
delegates from the 1988 convention to see
if I am lying on this matter or
whether the NSA is lying. I stand by my
belief that this is one of the key
proofs that we can turn to to demonstrate
truth from falsehood in this
case.
The House of Justice further states to
me in their June 1989 that we are
somehow violating a Baha'i principle and
canvassing support within the
community to bring pressure to bear on
Baha'i institutions. "A Modest
Proposal" is thus seen as a dissident manifesto
because I offered seven
reviewers the opportunity to become co-signers
of the article and that this
somehow "changes the circulation from an
attempt 'to elicit critical
feedback for improving it' into an effort
to raise a petition" (UHJ letter
to Scholl, 21 June 1989). First, I know
of no Baha'i law forbidding
circulation of petitions within the Baha'i
community to communicate the
will of believers to their institutions.
In fact, Baha'i history records
many instances when such petitions (stirrings
at the grassroots) were
received with careful consideration by
the Central Figures or Baha'i
institutions.
But the fact is that in this case "A Modest
Proposal" was from the
beginning envisioned as a "Dialogue" article
and not as a petition to the
NSA. Why would we only ask seven more people
to sign it? Previously, I
submitted to Wilmette and Haifa the letter
I sent to our outside reviewers.
There is no indication in that letter that
this article was envisioned by
its original authors as a petition and
never, God forbid, as a dissident
manifesto. I urge the House of Justice
to contact any of the outside
reviewers, many who are employees of the
NSA or serving within the
appointed branch of the administration,
and ask them if I or any other
"Dialogue" staff member ever spoke of this
effort with the language or even
subtle intentions that the NSA and House
of Justice accuse us of having.
If the NSA had honest concerns about the
article, all they needed to do was
tell us about them in a direct and honest
manner. If they did not like it
that we had co-signers, we would have gladly
removed the offensive list of
names or even run the article under one
name, no name, or as being from
"The Editors." Or they could have simply
banned the article for "security
reasons" and the whole matter would have
turned into one more annoyance to
the "Dialogue" staff, and another example
of the administrative attempts to
suppress any open discussion of difficult
issues facing the Baha'i
community. However, since the dissident
manifesto/petition angle seems to
be a late development in the NSA's list
of ever-changing accusations (it
appears to have emerged after the "negative
electioneering" charge was
abandoned due to utter lack of credibility),
the entire argument takes on
the quality of after-the-fact scrambling
for a sufficiently vague but
ominous sounding accusation; one that has
no merit but may eventually be
used to expel us from the faith.
In the 21 June letter to me, the House
of Justice attempts to make the case
that the work of Kalimat Press and "Dialogue"
magazine is implicitly an
attempt to undermine the Baha'i administrative
order by working outside of
the boundaries of the Baha'i administration.
I do not see how the House of Justice and
the NSA can insinuate that we
were attempting to work outside of normal
Baha'i channels any more than
George Ronald or One World Publications
or any other of the growing number
of independent Baha'i publication companies.
The Baha'i institutions
formulated the rules for independent Baha'i
publishers. Kalimat Press and
"Dialogue" accepted these rules and abided
by them. Every book published by
Kalimat and every article dealing with
the Baha'i faith published in
"Dialogue" was approved for publication
by the NSA's Review Board. The
House of Justice has no grounds for declaring
that we have acted contrary
to the letter or spirit of the law in this
regard. I am sorry but the
Baha'i institutions cannot have it both
ways. It is unfair to demand that
we abide by review and then once we publish
appropriately censored
materials to claim that they are proof
of seditious intent on our part. So,
yes, it is surprising to me that some of
the friends have surmised that we
were attempting to create and alternative
to the Baha'i administration
through our publishing activities. But
it is truly shocking that the
Universal House of Justice should be among
those who have interpreted our
faithful efforts in such a partisan and
unfair manner.
These are some of the specific events and
background that we have
previously noted in our appeals and which
have never been addressed by the
House of Justice. More recently, the House
of Justice also twisted David's
meaning and intent by taking out of context
his reference to kangaroo
courts and show trials in his Talisman
posting. But in the midst of all
these unsubstantiated accusations and false
reports on our behavior by the
Baha'i authorities and the denial of our
Baha'i rights of due process, it
appears to me that a show trial has taken
place and the verdict has been
rendered by removing David's rights even
though he has not violated any
Baha'i law and never disobeyed any Baha'i
institution. He was asked to make
a retraction of his Talisman statement
or lose his rights. He retracted and
still lost his rights. Where is justice
in all of this?
Furthermore, it is important to note that
unethical behavior and outright
lies are commonly used by the Secretary
General and Secretary for External
Affairs of the NSA in their attempt to
curtail the good work and honest
efforts of Baha'is around the country.
In is not merely a matter of the
lone case of the Los Angeles heretics,
who currently have scattered to the
four corners of the globe. It has long
been noted by mutual friends that
the Secretary for External Affairs is particularly
vindictive in his
attacks on "the LA group." National center
staff and national committee
members have been warned against associating
with us because we are clearly
"enemies of the faith" and most likely
Covenant-breakers. These statements
were made with the implied threat that
Baha'is may lose their jobs due to
association with trouble makers. Other
friends have noted that Prof.
Kazemzadeh's view of us is irrational and
unshakable. In his mind we are
beyond rehabilitation. This type of backbiting
and gossip is carried out
constantly by prominent Baha'is in positions
of authority. I have even
heard that the Secretary General has intimated
to National Center staff
that members of the DIALOGUE staff are
closet homosexuals. We have heard
over and over again for the last 15 years
these kinds of personal attacks
being made against us by members of our
NSA.
I have heard from senior staff members
at the National Center in Wilmette
that the method used by the Secretary General
in particular is to
skillfully target his victims (people who
have questioned his behavior and
personal agendas) and then begin to drop
suggestions of grave concern about
the targeted victim to other NSA members
and senior staff. He then
manufactures a crime and when he announces
that there is an evil Baha'i in
our midst, the groundwork has been laid
for discrediting and discarding any
Baha'i who interferes with his quest cult
of personality.
Recently the NSA removed the administrative
rights of Mouhebet Sobhani over
questions that emerged concerning the World
Congress. In The American
Baha'i it was stated that Mr. Sobhani and
another Persian Baha'i living in
the United States had been spreading "outrageous,
scandalous, and erroneous
accusations about how the National Assembly
administered" travel
arrangements for the World Congress.
In brief, Mr. Sobhani was accused by the
NSA of accusing the Secretary
General of the National Assembly of "enriching
himself as a result of
stealing millions of dollars from the World
Congress." This charge against
Mr. Sobhani was communicated to the House
of Justice by the Secretary
General and became the basis for Mr. Sobhani's
removal of rights. The only
problem is Mr. Sobhani claims that he did
not make this charge against the
Secretary General. I have read the correspondence
between Mr. Sobhani and
the NSA on this matter and it becomes clear
that Mr. Sobhani raised some
serious questions about the handling the
World Congress by the NSA, but he
never made these "outrageous" accusations.
The charge appears to have been
created by the Secretary General as a way
of discrediting Mr. Sobhani and
passed on to the House of Justice as fact,
similar to the manufacturing of
the charge that I spread "A Modest Proposal"
to national convention
delegates as way of discrediting the NSA
and electioneering for office.
Other examples of corruption at the National
Center abound. National
Teaching Committees have been chastised
and disbanded for preparing
accurate national convention reports that
reflected poorly on the NSA.
National center staff and Baha'is around
the country have been asked to
become informants on persons felt to be
suspect. Many Baha'is with whom I
have spoken feel the Secretary-General
consistently uses his authority to
carry out his personal agenda, frequently
leading him to abuse the rights
of individual Baha'is. There are numerous
examples of senior staff at the
Baha'i National Center being fired for
raising concerns and objections to
actions of the Secretary-General which
they felt were in contradiction to
Baha'i principles. The firing of Anna Lee
Strasburg, I believe, was a
particularly outrageous example of how
the Secretary-General manipulates a
situation to discredit honest servants
of the Baha'i administrative order.
The perception of those at the Baha'i National
Center who were very close
to the situation is that the Secretary-General's
motivation for terminating
Ms. Strasburg was his total intolerance
for any expression of views
contrary to his own, or for the expression
of concerns about his actions
which he interpreted as questioning his
authority, even when those views
and concerns were offered in forums expressly
convened for the purpose of
consultation at the national center. Mr.
Henderson construes any divergence
from his positions or actions as acts of
disloyalty to him personally,
while portraying them as acts of disloyalty
to the National Assembly.
Actions such as the firing of Ms. Strasburg
has led to a serious decline of
morale among National Center staff, and
long-time employees have left the
National Center rather than work in such
a poisoned atmosphere. Other
long-time senior staff who have voiced
concerns about the Secretary
General's behavior have become persona
non grata and have been ostracized
and marginalized and are fearful of retribution
from the Secretary General.
Many employees feel that the climate at
the administrative offices is
spiritually sick.
Above I noted that we felt that we could
not always know whether the
actions of the NSA that were being directed
to us by the NSA as a body or
by Mr. Henderson acting on his own or in
consultation with his step-father,
Firuz Kazemzadeh. This is not just a wild
paranoid perception of those of
us who have been maligned by leaders within
the Baha'i administration.
Examples of Henderson's renegade acts are
fairly well known, especially by
those who work at the National Center.
For example, for sometime the
Secretary General placed the contributions
being sent in from around the
country for the Arc projects into an account
rather than transferring them
expeditiously to the House of Justice.
He then funneled the interest from
this account to the National Spiritual
Assembly. He did this action without
the approval or knowledge of the NSA. Only
through the courageous reporting
of this fact by a few staff members to
the NSA treasurer was the NSA made
aware of the situation. When this was made
known, the NSA repaid the House
of Justice the interest and the practice
was stopped. I believe it was
shortly after this that NSA member Juana
Conrad was sent to work at the
National Center offices. I was told by
high ranking Baha'is and NSA staff
that this was done to "keep an eye on Bob."
In these and many other cases, we see a
pattern in which the Secretary
General has acted in ways that are disturbing.
In the personal cases noted
above we see how he has advanced false
accusations against individual
Baha'is who have threatened or questioned
his actions, then refuses to
allow the accused to know what evidence
has been brought against them so
that they may develop their appeal, and
he then is in a position to serve
as lead prosecutor and judge in their show
trial. This tactic is in direct
violation of Baha'i administrative procedures
and policies. For example,
the NSA of the US has stated that:
1. A Baha'i accused of wrongdoing has a
right to know that he is accused of, and
2. He has a right to know what evidence
has been presented against him.
(letter to an individual believer from
the US NSA 8 January 1985)
This policy is being violated in our case
and others. What I am formally
requesting with this letter is that the
House of Justice and the NSA abide
by established Baha'i laws, policies, and
procedures in handling the case
of David Langness and the editors of "Dialogue".
I am requesting that the
case against the "Dialogue" editors be
reopened and that we be provided
with all relevant documents including the
following:
1. All communications between the NSA and
the World Center concerning our
actions.
2. A tape or transcript of Firuz Kazemzadeh's
1988 National Convention
denunciation of the "Dialogue" staff.
3. All reports from Counselors Schechter
and Birkland to the NSA and House
of Justice concerning our actions and any
relevant communications from the
World Center to the Counselors pertaining
to our case.
4. A tape or transcript of Firuz Kazemzadeh
and Stephen Birkland's 1996
National Convention denunciations of David
Langness.
5. Any and all evidence that exists in
our files at the National Center and
the World Center including any other letters
of complaints that have been
received about us that have led to a prejudicial
attitude toward us on the
part of the Baha'i institutions.
The charges made against us have been made
public by the NSA via their
misleading convention reports and postings
on Talisman. I feel that justice
calls for the reopening the case as the
conflict has never been resolved
and is the source of disunity within the
community. If the Baha'i
institutions refuse to release all relevant
documentary evidence, then,
again, I think it will be clear that the
best beloved of all things in the
sight of Baha'u'llah is not a goal for
the institutions of his faith.
I would also suggest that the House of
Justice establish an independent
Commission of Inquiry to investigate the
corruption that exists within the
National Spiritual Assembly. It is my belief
that I have only exposed the
tip of the iceberg and that there are many
more such cases. I have heard
many stories of gay and lesbian Baha'is
losing their rights under
suspicious circumstances where Baha'i administrative
policies were ignored
and outrageous lies and distortions have
been asserted as facts and become
the basis for sanctions. It is also widely
known that good friends of NSA
members have been hired to serve the community
and betrayed the trust of
the friends. Such betrayals have included
theft of Baha'i properties and
sexual misconduct at Baha'i schools. Such
misconduct has been treated with
the utmost leniency and the true nature
of such violations of trust have
been hidden from the community.
And I have heard too many accounts of dedicated
Baha'is from all over the
country who have had a shadow cast upon
their character and activities by
NSA members and members of the appointed
institutions. In the wake of Juan
Cole's resignation of Baha'i membership,
I have heard the sad story of how
Michael Sours, who has authored several
books dealing with the Baha'i Faith
and Christianity, was publicly chastised
at the Louhelen School by the
Secretary for External Affairs, who openly
questioned Michael's firmness in
the Covenant. I have never met or communicated
with Mr. Sours, but I have
been impressed by his work and dedication
to presenting the Baha'i Faith to
the Christian West. I was saddened to learn
that Mr. Sours has followed
other Baha'i intellectuals into voluntary
exile from Baha'i activity. It
has been reported to me that Mr. Sours
is now totally cut off from the
Baha'i community and is pursuing his art
and writing projects on non-Baha'i
themes so as not to have to bother with
the types of intransigence and
intimidation that brought Juan to make
his break with the faith. I know of
dozens of other such stories and have been
personally informed by many
well-known Baha'i authors, intellectuals,
and scholars that they will not
write on Baha'i topics as they do not wish
to go though such trials.
I suggest that the Commission of Inquiry
be composed of independent Baha'is
(i.e. persons without affiliation with
the US NSA or US Counselors) who
will be regarded by all parties as unbiased
and fair. As the precipitating
issues revolve around Baha'i scholarship
and publishing, at least some
Commission appointees should be qualified
academics. Persons such as Amin
Banani, Heshmet Moayyad, and Todd Lawson
come to mind. It would also be
well for some appointees to have national
administrative experience and
perhaps members of the NSA of the United
Kingdom and Canada, who have
extensive experience with scholarship issues,
could serve on the
Commission. Through The American Baha'i,
believers could be invited to
share any experiences or concerns with
the Commission. I feel that
something along these lines will be required
if there is to be a true
healing of the American Baha'i community.
As I have noted, it has been the
Baha'i institutions that have publicly
attacked loyal Baha'is through the
bully pulpit of the National Convention,
removal of rights announcements in
the American Baha'i, through whispering
campaigns, and through their
postings on Talisman. I believe that a
public process of accounting must
take place.
It is now popular for Baha'is and Baha'i
institutions to claim that Baha'i
scholars and intellectuals are attempting
to force the Baha'i Faith to
conform to western democratic values and
procedures. First, I want to make
it absolutely clear that in all of our
appeals we drew solely on the sacred
texts and established policies of the Baha'i
administrative order. We did
not appeal on the grounds of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights or
the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Our appeals have always been
grounded in Baha'i law, values and principles.
As I noted above, our
appeals were based on the Constitution
of the Universal House of Justice
and not the U.S. Constitution.
Indeed, I think almost the exact opposite
case must be made in that it
appears to me that it is the Baha'i institutions
who have adopted old world
political tactics in dealing with Baha'i
scholars, intellectuals, and
writers. Scholars such as Juan Cole have
attempted to work within the
framework of the Baha'i system and do their
research in a way that is
consistent with the principles of the faith
and the principles of
intellectual honesty and discipline established
within academic discourse.
Karl Mannheim, the founder of the sociology
of knowledge, makes the
following distinction between political
discourse vis-a-vis academic
discourse:
"Political discussion possesses a character
fundamentally different from
academic discussion. It seeks not only
to be in the right but also to
demolish the basis of the opponent's social
and intellectual existence. . .
Political conflict, since it is from the
very beginning a rationalized form
of the struggle for social predominance,
attacks the social status of the
opponent, his public prestige, and his
self-confidence" (Ideology and
Utopia, p. 38).
This political approach of attacking the
character and public prestige of
perceived enemies of the faith is clearly
the method being used by Baha'i
institutions in their attacks against scholars
and intellectuals. It is a
sad irony that in such attacks they accuse
their targets of being enmeshed
in partisan political practices found in
"Western liberal democratic values
and traditions."
Over the years the Baha'i institutions
have painted a false portrait of who
my friends and I are. Many Baha'is who
do not know us or who are unfamiliar
with our work will take such vague but
dire warnings at face value and
conclude that we are misguided at best
and enemies of the faith at worse.
However, many hundreds of deepened and
dedicated Baha'is have a very
different perception of us than do the
Baha'i authorities. Following the
demise of "Dialogue" I received hundreds
of phone calls and letters in
support of our work. They came from all
over the world and from Baha'is at
the highest levels of service and responsibility
within the faith.
The chairman of a European National Assembly wrote to me saying:
"Of course I have heard various things
about the situation with "Dialogue"
and have read the letter from the House
of Justice to the American Baha'is
to which you refer . . . I do hope that
all misunderstandings are now
cleared up, as the magazine does provide
an interesting medium for
discussion and comment. Interestingly,
our own NSA promotes this magazine
along with all other magazines-we do not
find it at all threatening or too
controversial-many of the points raised
are heard in everyday consultation
here, even at national convention . . ."
A European Baha'i scholar and widely published author wrote:
"Although the material you sent me shocked
and saddened me, it described a
situation not altogether foreign to my
own experience here, when I
incorporated some of the details and much
of the spirit which animated A
MODEST PROPOSAL in several articles that
appeared in the [national
newsletter] . . . There was an enthusiastic
response from lots of ordinary
Bahais, but, as I learned soon afterwards,
a negative reaction from the
powers-that-were. . . .
"The point is that people in the Bahai
community are very conservative in
matters religious and social, and so long
as this attitude prevails, there
won't even be the sort of Liberal-traditionalist
tensions that exist in
say, the Anglican communion, because the
Liberal trend in the Bahai
community is so weak. How, nearly seventy
years since Abdul-Baha's death,
has this come to pass? We might well ask
ourselves this question, but the
fact remains that at this point in time
the Bahai faith is being expressed
in a very narrow and fundamentalist form
throughout its institutions,
worldwide. What you say about the negative
situation which would exist if
DIALOGUE and Kalimat folded seems to me
absolutely correct.
"That's the reality. I know through my
work [at the national institute]
people who have ended up bitter and scarred
through their struggle in the
contemporary political environment in the
Bahai community.
"As you pointed out in your letter to the
House of Justice, many good and
caring people simply no longer see the
relevance of the Bahai community to
contemporary developments, and have taken
their creativity and commitment
elsewhere. The rump that remain - well
what can one say of them? They'll
still be preaching their same old tired
message when the world is unified
and virtually running the sort of order
Baha'u'llah envisaged. A genuine
Bahai who is true to the cause of the founder
of his faith should be
ardently seeking the stones which Baha'u'llah
said he would raise if the
Bahais failed....
"As for me, I take no active part in the
community other than to give the
occasional session to the youth here -
sessions usually swamped by 10
students. I feel at a loss as to how to
live my life spiritually and
ideologically these days, but I know I
cannot go back into the ranks of
Bahais and pretend, pretend..."
Another prominent European Baha'i administrator
and widely published author
and translator of the sacred texts wrote:
"I read the issues [of dialogue] with great
interest. I was impressed by
their high standard. The articles deal
with questions that are relevant and
challenging. DIALOGUE is really an open
forum for different, even
controversial, views. It is a new type
of journal, we have never had
before. I think we need such a journal
which is in touch with society and
which provokes an interchange of thought.
. . .
"What I found really important and necessary
was the discussion on politics
and all questions which derive from it.
There is nothing more appropriate
to write than to quote from a letter you
published (issue 1, p. 37):
'Whether or not all views are accepted
is irrelevant-the stimulation of
thought will give us all new intellectual
vigor to meet the challenges put
to us by the Universal House of Justice
in 1983.'
"The journal is provocative and treats
the issues more interestingly than
the Baha'i magazines published by the institutions.
. . .
"I do hope that you will continue as, for
a new dimension of understanding,
such an open forum for the exchange of
thoughts is indispensable."
The general manager of one of the national Baha'i Publishing Trusts wrote:
"I was saddened to learn of your trials and difficulties with DIALOGUE. I
am sure you anticipated some of them, change
is a painful thing and I
believe DIALOGUE is a force for positive
change in the Baha'i Community. I
will pray for DIALOGUE and hope that from
your efforts the "spark of truth"
will emerge. . . ."
A Baha'i publisher from the South Pacific wrote:
"I want you to know that other people,
even people on this side of the
world, know something of what has gone
on with you, and sympathise with
your struggle. Whatever happens, at least
it's down on record and the
matter is kept alive in somebody's mind.
"I think you have been treated
very badly. Issues aside, you've
been treated badly as human beings. If
it was me I would be devastated. . .
Clearly there are differences of opinion
about our character and the
sincerity and value of our Baha'i activities.
Baha'u'llah warned us that it is the leaders
of religion in every age who
corrupt the pure teachings of the Manifestation
of God. Baha'is assume that
corruption within the Baha'i administrative
order is not possible. However,
I think it is naive to think that there
can ever be perfection in this
world. Ever. Abdu'l-Baha states this quite
clearly. A major theme of The
Kitab-i Iqan is the dangers posed "by the
leaders of religion in every age"
and Juan and others have posted many of
Abdu'l-Baha's concerns over tyranny
and corruption by those in authority. The
Master also notes that because of
the slippery ego, corruption can enter
the Baha'i system, even if it is
divine in its origin.
There is a very strong statement from Abdu'l-Baha
on how those in authority
within the Baha'i community are vulnerable
to the disease of corruption by
power. Speaking in Haifa in 1915, Abdu'l-Baha
observed that:
"Holding to the letter of the law
is many times an indication of a
desire for leadership. One who assumes
to be the enforcer of the law shows
an intellectual understanding of the Cause,
but that spiritual guidance in
them is not yet established.
"The alphabet of things is for
children, that they may in time use
their reasoning powers. "Following the
spirit" is a guidance by and through
the heart, the prompter of the spirit.
The Pharisees were extremely
orthodox, holding strictly to the law.
They were the cause of the
condemnation and ultimate crucifixion of
Jesus. . . .
"The ones in real authority are
known by their humility and
self-sacrifice and show no attitude of
superiority over the friends.
"Some time ago a tablet was written
stating that none are appointed
to any authority to do anything but to
serve the Cause as true servants of
the friends--and for this no tablet is
necessary; such service when true
and unselfish requires no announcement,
no following, nor written document.
"Let the servant be known by his
deeds, by his life!
"To be approved by God alone should
be one's aim. . . .
"Envy closes the door of Bounty,
and jealousy prevents one from
ever attaining to the Kingdom of Abha.
No! Before God! No one can deprive
another of his rightful station, that can
only be lost by one's
unwillingness or failure to do the will
of God, or by seeking to use the
Cause of God for one's own gratification
or ambition.
"No one save a severed soul or
a sincere heart finds response from
God. By assisting in the success of another
servant in the Cause does one
in reality lay the foundation for one's
own success and aspirations.
"Ambitions are an abomination before
the Lord!
"How regrettable! Some even use
the affairs of the Cause and its
activities as a means of revenge on account
of some personal spite, or
fancied injury, interfering with the work
of another, or seeking its
failure. Such only destroy their own success,
did they know the truth."
Star of the West,
vol. 6, no. 6 (June 24, 1915)
Even sterner is the Master when he warns
"What deviation can be more
complete than falsely accusing the loved
ones of God!"
Another disturbing aspect of these recent
events is how the Baha'i
institutions have complained about how
"the LA group" has undermined the
authority of the NSA by its disrespectful
attitude and hostile publishing
activities. Yet at the same time it is
very clear that an even more
blistering campaign of gossip is being
carried out by the House of Justice
and some of the Counselors.
For example, in several private conversations
with different Baha'is around
the country, Counselor Birkland has acknowledged
that the US NSA has a
problem with corruption. He has stated
that Baha'is should not be
concerned, that everything is under control
and that there will be "an
elegant solution." The implication being
that the House of Justice will
find a way to get some of the most offensive
members off the NSA via
retirement or re appointment.
As for the "elegant solution" coming down
from Haifa, many recent pilgrims
and visitors to the Baha'i World Centre
have returned home with interesting
stories to tell. Several have spoken of
the very blunt criticisms of the US
NSA by individual House of Justice members
and ITC members. The story line
goes something like this: "Yes, the House
of Justice is aware of the
problems and corruption surrounding the
American NSA. Haven't the Baha'is
read the May 19th letter? Why don't the
delegates do something about this?
What more can we say? Wasn't this statement
clear enough? We are waiting
for the Baha'is to reform the system via
election."
From the pilgrims' tales I have heard,
it seems clear that the House of
Justice too believes there is a problem
and is now attempting to control
the situation by supporting their May 19th
communiqué with a stream of
backbiting about the NSA in hopes that
the word will spread. This seems
contrary to the high ideals espoused by
the House and is a troubling
development within the Baha'i community.
Our position has always been that
it is time for the establishment of open
discourse within the faith via
uncensored publications and the development
of scholarship and journalism.
This path seems much more honest and healthy
than the culture of deceit
that dominates the Baha'i community in
the late twentieth century.
This is culture of deceit has existed for
some time now in the Baha'i
faith. It is a fact of life that those
of us involved with Kalimat Press
and "Dialogue" were very much aware of.
It has always been our position
that in such a climate of gossip and backbiting
our only chance for
protection is to be open and honest about
our beliefs and actions. We have
never shied away from directly stating
our views in private correspondence
with the Baha'i institutions and through
our published works. We have
nothing to hide or be ashamed of. I am
proud of what we accomplished with
"Dialogue" magazine and I am proud of the
way we handled ourselves in the
face of such hostility. In the course of
18 months we became the largest
paid subscription publication in the Baha'i
world, surpassing World Order,
which had a 50 year head start on us.
Finally, I feel it only fair to state what
my sense of the current
situation calls for. The Baha'i institutions
have invited the world to
study the Baha'i faith as a model of unity
in a world of crisis. Talisman
is a public forum with several non-Baha'is
on board. These events have
already gone beyond the Baha'i community
through the participation of these
interested non-Baha'is in the Talisman
discussions. One non-Baha'i on
Talisman has already indicated that he
plans to develop a story on these
events for a prominent national magazine.
I have also discussed this
situation with my Catholic, Jewish, and
Buddhist colleagues, who are
interested to hear about these developments
which are so contrary to the
public image of the Baha'i faith as a religion
of tolerance, peace,
compassion, and unity. I think that it
is for the good that this
controversy is spilling outside of the
Baha'i community. The Baha'i
community has asked the world to regard
it as a major player on the world
stage and the Baha'is have begun to be
more visible in world affairs. It is
important that non-Baha'is see the entire
picture so that they can judge
between Baha'i public relations and the
true state of Baha'i community
relations. Baha'is are doing good works
in the world. No one can doubt
this. But it is also clear that there is
a darker side to the Baha'i faith,
a hidden Baha'i faith, that appears in
these cases dealing with
intellectual honesty, academic integrity,
and and open community. The dark
side of the Baha'i faith is the role of
censorship and harrasment of Baha'i
authors, the punishment of any Baha'i who
publicly offers critical analysis
of Baha'i institutions, the threat of shunning
and ex-communication to
force conformity, the use of informants,
and sanctioning of faithful
Baha'is who are seen as "dissidents" by
a frustrated and over-sensitive
American administration that has presided
over thirty years of stagnation
and no growth.
The crisis of the present hour is a test
that we must face with faith and
courage. I believe that these troubling
patterns within the Baha'i
community primarily reflect that we are
passing from one phase of
development to a new one. The old ways
no longer work and adjustments need
to be made. These adjustments do not mean
we should lose heart or faith in
the fundamental verities of Baha'u'llah's
new world order, but we must work
to find new ways that meet the challenges
of the crisis. Sadly, we have
lost one of the most learned champions
for a Baha'i renewal that is firmly
rooted in the writings of Baha'u'llah and
'Abdu'l-Baha. Perhaps if justice
is truly served, a loyal servant of the
Blessed Perfection such as Juan
Cole will be able to return to the community.
This is my hope and prayer.
Whatever happens I remain confident that
Juan, David, and others who have
been unjustly accused and slandered over
the years will eventually be
vindicated as honest and faithful Baha'is.
The NSA and House of Justice in their statements
concerning those of us who
have been working for constructive change
within the Baha'i community
appear to have raised unity and obedience
above all other Baha'i values and
principles-indeed, it appears that many
fundamental Baha'i principles are
being sacrificed in the name of unity and
obedience. Yet it is clear that
for Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha it is
not a constricted and forced unity
through conformity that is the Baha'i ideal.
Nor would Baha'u'llah and
'Abdu'l-Baha, who were prisoners of conscience,
desire to see the
elimination from the Baha'i community of
personal conscience, freedom of
expression, the independent investigation
of truth, and the harmony of
religion and science. These are not western
liberal democratic values and
traditions, these are Baha'i values and
traditions that cannot be
sacrificed on the altar of personal ambitions
of Baha'i administrators or
dictatorial behavior of Baha'i institutions.
'Abdu'l-Baha notes that truthfulness is
the foundation of all virtues and
Baha'u'llah has made it clear that "the
purpose of justice is the
appearance of unity." In other words,
there cannot be true unity if
truthfulness is abandoned and justice is
not adhered to in the conduct of
our affairs. This is what I am seeking
by writing this letter: that
truthfulness and justice be the guiding
lights in dealing with these
difficult issues so that the light of unity,
a unity that embraces
diversity and preserves human honor, will
make it possible for a new
beginning.
I know that the four Baha'is who are currently
under investigation for
undermining the Covenant have acted out
of love and loyalty to the Covenant
of Baha'u'llah in all their activities.
It will be tragic if the Universal
House of Justice supports or takes further
actions against them. I urge the
members of the House of Justice to prayerfully
look into their hearts to
see if there might be a more just and honorable
way to deal with these
disputes.
With love,
Steven Scholl
White Cloud Press
PO Box 3400
Ashland, OR 97520
Phone/fax 541-488-6415
e-mail: sscholl@jeffnet.org
-----------------
Steven Scholl, Publisher
White Cloud Press, PO Box 3400, Ashland,
OR 97520
phone/fax 541-488-6415
e-mail: sscholl@jeffnet.org
http://www.jeffnet.org/whitecloud