 | Translations of Shaykhi, Babi and Baha'i Texts, vol. 5, no. 1 (January 2001) |
| Translations of Shaykhi, Babi and Baha'i Texts, vol. 5, no. 1 (January 2001) |
`Abdu’l-Baha
“On
the House of Justice and Baha’i Jurisprudence”
Letter
of circa 1899
Text, Translation, Commentary
Juan R. I. Cole
University of Michigan
You who are clinging to
the hem of the covenant, your letter was read.
The detailed questions you asked were noted. Troubles have affected my limbs and members and joints like
mortal poison, so that the pen is prevented from writing and the tongue from
speaking. Moreover, my work is so
pressing that it is indescribable. In
view of the warm love that this servant has for that gentleman, however, a
clear and concise, spiritual answer has been given in accord with the divine
decree. Within every door, a hundred
doors will be opened by these comprehensive words, this station, these
acceptable and sought-after entryways, which clarify, explain, elucidate,
allude, interpret, and give inner meanings.
Otherwise, all the pages in all the world could not encompass it.
You
asked about the wisdom of putting the house of justice in charge of important
ordinances. First of all, this divine
cycle is solely spiritual, full of godly compassion, and is a matter of
conscience. It has no connection at all
to physical, material (mulki), or worldly (nasuti) matters. In the same way, the Christian dispensation
was purely spiritual. In the entire new
Testament, the only laws are the prohibition on divorce and the allusion to the
abrogation of the Sabbath. All the
injunctions were spiritual and the ethics divine. Just as he said, “the son of man [sic] did not come to judge the
world but to save the world.” [Jn 12:47].
Now, this most great cycle is also purely spiritual, the bestowal of
eternal life. For the foundation stone
of the religion of God is the betterment of morals, the improvement of
character, and the sanctification of deeds.
The goal of all this is that beings who are veiled might attain to the
station of the beatific vision, and that defective, dark essences might be illumined.
As for the rest of the
commandments, they are derivatives of certitude, faith, assurance and mystical
insight. Nevertheless, this blessed cycle is the greatest of divine
dispensations, and for this reason, it encompasses spiritual and physical
aspects and is perfect in its power and
authority. Therefore, the universal
precepts that form the foundation of the religious law are expressly stated in
the text. Subsidiary regulations are
the purview of the house of justice.
The wisdom therein is that the times do not stand still. Change and alteration are among the
characteristics and exigencies of contingent existence, time and place. Thus, the house of justice acts in
accordance with these changes. It
should not be thought that the house of justice will make decisions out of
self-interest. I take refuge in God! The greatest house of justice makes
decisions and laws by virtue of the inspiration and confirmation of the holy
spirit. For it is under the protection
of the ancient Beauty. It is an
indisputable duty to follow its rulings.
It is incumbent, and there is no refuge for anyone.
Say: O people, the greatest house of justice is
under the wing of your lord, the merciful, the compassionate—that is, under his
patronage and protection. For he
commanded the firm believers to obey this good and pure group, this holy and
triumphant assembly. Its dominion is
heavenly and divine and its ordinances are inspirational and spiritual. This is the wisdom of giving the house of
justice the purview over personal status ordinances (ahkam-i madaniyyih). In the holy law of the Qur’an, as well, not
all the commands were explicitly stated in the text. Indeed, not a thousandth of them were explicit. Even though all the important precepts are
mentioned, obviously a hundred thousand laws remained unstated. Afterwards, they were derived by means of
the principles of jurisprudence.
Individual learned jurists derived different results from those basic
laws and these were implemented.
Now, jurisprudence is
the purview of the institution of the house of justice. The derivation of law by means of legal
reasoning on the part of individual, learned believers has no binding force,
unless it is adopted by the house of justice.
The difference is this, that the jurisprudential reasoning or adoption
of such by the institution of the house of justice, whose members are elected
and seen as legitimate by the generality of the community, will not provoke
discord. But the jurisprudential
rulings of individual scholars can provoke disputes and cause division,
dispersal and mutual hatred. Thus would
the unity of the word and the solidarity of the religion of God vanish, and the
foundation of the law of God be shaken.
As for the command to
marry, this is entirely a personal status law.
Nevertheless, in the law of God its legal conditions are stipulated and
its fundamentals are made clear. The
marriage of relatives, however, is not explicitly treated, and falls under the
purview of the house of justice, which will make a ruling based on the
principles of civilization and the exigencies of medicine, wisdom, and natural
human inclination. There is no doubt
that by the principles of civilization, medicine and nature, it is preferable
to marry into distant lines rather than near relatives. In this light, consider Christian law. Even though marriage to cousins is in
reality permitted, since there is no explicit scriptural prohibition of it, the
early Christian councils altogether forbade marriage of relatives separated by
less than seven generations. But this
ruling is implemented in all the Christian denominations, since this matter is
purely one of personal status. Whatever
the house of justice decides in this regard, that is the decisive decree and
the divine judgment. No one can
infringe against it. If you consider,
it will be apparent that this matter—that is, putting personal status law under
the purview of the house of justice--is remarkably consistent with wisdom. For whenever a difficulty arises that must
be referred for deliberation, at that point the specific house of justice can
reopen the issue, since it delivered the earlier ruling. With regard to the necessary referral, it
can, after considering the specific case, issue a new, specific ruling so as to
avoid any unfortunate results altogether.
For the house of justice can also abrogate its own rulings.
In
Islam, as well, administrative punishments (ta`zir) were the purview of
the ruling authority. There were no
scriptural texts specifying the levels of punishment. It depended on the ruler.
Such punishments ranged from verbal censure to death. This was, for the most part, the pivot of the
administration of justice (siyasat) in the Muslim community. Yes, the foundation of this most great cycle
has been so arranged that its laws can remain appropriate to and in accord with
all ages and eras in a way that past systems of religious law could not. For now, it is impossible to implement many
of their provisions. For instance,
consider the laws of the Torah. Today,
they cannot be put into effect at all.
For there are ten capital offenses in it. Likewise, the law of the Qur’an prescribes the amputation of a
hand for the theft of goods worth ten dirhams.
Is it possible to put such a law into practice today? No, by God!
But this holy, divine, law of God is appropriate to all times and
ages. “Thus have we made you a middle
community, so that you may be witnesses to the people and the prophet may be a
witness to you.” [Q. 2:137].
All
of the eloquent poetical verses that have been composed with sweet contents
should be recited and sung. In reality,
they are deserving of being chanted in the assemblies of divine unity. Glory be upon you. AA
 |
||||
![[MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY]](http://h-net2.msu.edu/~bahai/graphics/footer~2.gif) |
![[The National Endowment for the Humanities]](http://h-net2.msu.edu/~bahai/graphics/footer~3.gif) |
|||