Logs of Talisman Discussions of Bahai Faith 4/96






Wed, 6 Mar 1996 14:18:30 PST8PDT
From: "Eric D. Pierce" 
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: FYI: background messages/ Re: As I was saying
 
Hi,
 
See the appended texts for the original talisman messages that I
was able to find that reference the pilgrimage incident (reverse
chronological order).
 
   Date: 01 Oct 95 01:45:22 EDT - Publicly Confronting Injustice
   Date: 17 Jul 95 17:46:34 EDT - Review and Ruined Lives
 
Unfortunately I can't resist commenting on this item, sorry for
trashing up this archival posting with opinions.
 
As I'm sure many folks are thinking, it is hard to know the
wisdom of microscopically discussing this "publicly" on talisman
without having all (or at least most of) the available important
information about the case.
 
I would assume that since it indirectly involves the previously
discussed complex "Modest Proposal" fiasco and the response to
Steve about that matter by the Universal House of Justice (the
private letter to him was posted without Steve's permission
[he didn't even know the extent to which hardcopies of the letter
were in circulation]), we will probably not be able to make any
clear calls on this one either.
 
Really, is anyone still in doubt that both "sides" in these old
disputes probably overreacted and therefore things spun out of
control? As a subscriber privately mentioned to me a few days
ago in some comments on the "structural deficiency" issue:
 
  : When the Individual Rights and Freedoms letter was
  : first published both xxxxx and I thought that its
  : very title was indicative of a major part of the
  : problem. When one reads the letter from a non-USA
  : perspective it is a very balanced statement
  : regarding "Individual and Institutional Rights and
  : Freedoms", but the official title implies that the
  : difficulty rests solely on the shoulders of the
  : individual.  The last sentence in the first
  : paragraph sums up the whole balance. The House of
  : Justice speaks directly to both parts of the
  : equation, "The source of the potential difficulties
  : of the situation appears to us to be an inadequacy
  : of Baha'i perspective on the part of both individual
  : believers and their institutions."
..............^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
My personal experience leads me to think that these types of
incidents don't so much clearly show that there are always
nefarious forces operating within the admin (I personally think
that abuses DO happen on occasion), they indicate the
problematic aspects of the sometimes byzantine nature of the
way the system tends to currently operate (personal connections
through a quasi-elite social network). Sometimes the "honor
system" is just not going to be the best way to run admin in a
young multicultural religious community.
 
Thus the approach we take to developing an appropriate attitude
about finding solutions will fall out across a spectrum from:
 
 * embedded formalized structral guarantees of "due process",
   etc. are the "only" way to go to insure justice, so we better
   scream about rights,
 
to
 
 * divine guidance is the "only" way to go, so be submissive.
 
I guess what I trying to get around to is that there seems to be
two core issues here, one is the prevalance in the community of
denial about abuses of power, the second is what kind of
legitimate attitudes and actions should we develop as individuals
as the admin evolves into a more mature, open and spiritualized
system. The role of academic/intellectual/scholarly specialists
and writers is clearly different than that of "common" Baha'is
(me), and additional responsibilities apply to specialists.
 
If the discussion is framed in terms of screaming about the
existence and signifigance of the denial (and other related
dysfunctional authority-challenging behaviours) then we may never
get around to completing (or be allowed to complete) a workable
range of possible solutions.
 
I have absolutely no idea if that makes any sense!
 
Eric (rapidly becoming hopelessly moderate) Pierce
 
> Date sent:      Wed, 6 Mar 1996 14:30:40 -0500 (EST)
> From:           lwalbrid 
> To:             talisman@majordomo.ucs.indiana.edu
> Subject:        As I was saying
 
> Dear Richard, Alex, and other non-faint-hearted Talismanians:
>
> May I present David's "Retraction" posting as Exhibit A.
>
> As I recall, David posted several months ago that he had had his
> pilgrimage rights revoked enroute to Haifa.  I seem to remember that he
> had a discussion with David Ruhe (I know it was a standing UHJ member)
> who told him that the House had not been involved with this case and that
> he assumed this was an American NSA matter.  I also recall that David was
> ultimately allowed to continue on pilgrimage because he appealed the case
> to the House (David, please feel free to correct me if I have
> misunderstood all of this.)
>
 
*****************************************************************
******************** appended message 1 of 2 ********************
*****************************************************************
 
 
Date sent:      01 Oct 95 01:45:22 EDT
From:           David Langness <72110.2126@compuserve.com>
To:             
Subject:        Publicly Confronting Injustice
 
Dear Talismanians,
 
I extend a hearty thanks to Mary Kay and Linda, strong voices both, for
their equally frank and honest letters on the subject of Franklin Kahn's
rights.  Their unfettered expression of deeply-felt beliefs strikes me
as precisely what we developed Talisman to foster.
 
But let me say this about privacy -- I want none of it.  I agree with
Tony about what sort of judicial style we want to emulate.  Do we
actually look toward the show trials of the Chinese, the kangaroo
courts of Stalinist Russia, or the secret proceedings of the current
regime in Iran for our models?  Where in our jurisprudential canon
does the enshrinement of "privacy" come in?  Yes, we have developed a
tradition of stripping people of their administrative rights in private,
 without due process, but does that mean we should continue down that
path?
 
Any Baha'i who has ever been a victim of our "private" way of trying and
convicting believers who have offended the powers that be knows what I
am talking about.  And those who have not -- precisely because of the
cloak of silence and secrecy that surrounds such proceedings -- have no
access to information about such abuses of power, naively assuming that
removal of rights must be a serious process, and that therefore no
administrative body would ever invoke such a sanction lightly or unjustly.
 
I really don't like dragging out my own example, but since I lived it, I
will.  In 1988, on my way to pilgrimage in Haifa, I was informed by the
secretary of the NSA, in a phone conversation while I waited for a plane
in Portugal, that my pilgrimage rights had been taken away for writing
and "distributing" a Dialogue magazine article on reinvigorating the
American Baha'i Community.  At the time, I was staying with a former
member of the US NSA.  We both called other US NSA members, and none had
any knowledge of any removal of rights.  We appealed to the Universal
House of Justice, I was granted a 3-day visit, and it took four years
to regain my right to pilgrimage.
 
Had this act of administrative fiat been conducted in the open light of
day, it would not have been able to stand on its own merits.  In fact,
several UHJ members have since commented to many different people that
our rights to pilgrimage (there were four of us so sanctioned) had never
*really* been removed; that such an act was unprecedented; and that no
such administrative punishment even existed.  One House member told me
privately that the US NSA had been, to use his words, "severely
reprimanded" for their action, which probably was taken without the
knowledge of the body en toto.
 
So the next time my administrative rights are threatened, or perhaps I
should say if and when they are taken away, I want the light of day to
shine on that action.  I want access to a public, open, and honest
proceeding.  I want due process, the right to confront allegations
directly, and most of all, I want others to feel free to discuss the
case.  These are not, by the way, some "western liberal" notions of
the rights of the individual, they are basic human rights accorded by
the UN Charter and the Declaration of Human Rights.  We need, in my
view, the equivalent of a Declaration of Rights to accompany the
Constitution of the Universal House of Justice, to ensure that each
and every Baha'i is guaranteed fair and equal treatment under
Baha'u'llah's laws.
 
As to the assertion that our institutions are at an embryonic stage
now and so need love instead of criticism -- the notion strikes me as
fundamentally wrong.  Criticism *is* love, if done in the spirit of
consultation and helpfulness.  When we take our institutions to task
for a lapse in judgement or for what we see as a wrong direction taken,
we exercise our sacred duty as Baha'is to help our nascent institutions
grow.  Those who believe that love is silence; that love is an averted
gaze; that love ignores injustice -- well, for those folks, I would ask
that a hard look at the definition of love might be in order.
 
Forgive me for going on about this issue, but I know so many Baha'is who
have been on the receiving end of great injustices done to them by our
own administrative order, and the suggestion that we ought to be quiet
about such things so they can work themselves out in private sends me
screaming down the road.  I can't help but recall the example of the
Master, who confronted injustice with an insistent and strident voice
that never gave up.  We ought to emulate that quality, don't you think?
 
Love,
 
David
 
*****************************************************************
******************** appended message 2 of 2 ********************
*****************************************************************
 
Date: 17 Jul 95 17:46:34 EDT
From: David Langness <72110.2126@compuserve.com>
To: 
Subject: Review and Ruined Lives

Dear Talismanians,
 
Muchas gracias to Juan, John and the many others who have commented on
review and censorship.  Not wanting to repeat the plethora of penetrating
points already raised, I'd like to make one that I feel the strongest
about:
 
Much of the support for review comes couched in terms that seem public-
service minded, to whit, Tim Nolan's comment that "it is important to
protect the rights of individuals, but it is far more important to provide
the public with a unified and correct view of the Faith.
 
My contention:  that this premise no longer rings true.  What the public
wwants, IMHO, is not a uniformity-bound, monolithic body of opinion on all
the issues the Faith raises.  What the public wants is a place where
diversity of opinion is obvious and tolerated.
 
The statement that Tim made about dropping review requirements undermining
"all the teaching efforts of Baha'is all over the world" suffices as an
example of the fallacy of such a premise.  I personally find Horace
Holley's view of the Faith autocratic, excessively cold and bureaucratic,
and much more centrally controlled than anything I could conceivably
subscribe to, but HH's books certainly did not undermine the teaching
efforts, any more than William Sears' books did.  Both of those wonderful
and spirit-filled Baha'is made significant errors in their writings, but
still passed review with no problems.(Although I understand Mr. Sears had
review problems of his own in his later years)  Did this stop us from
printing their works?  No.  Should it have -- did their errors undermine
the teaching efforts?  Again, no.
 
On the related subject of review ruining lives -- I could recount many
true stories, but one and a half will suffice.  A dear friend who I
considered one of the finest Baha'is and even human beings I've ever known
withdrew from the Faith over review-related issues, and remains alienated
from it to this day.  This person loves Baha'u'llah immensely, and now
cannot see a way to be a Baha'i.  I recognize the element of individual
choice in that course of action, but were it not for review this person --
a talented writer and teacher of the Faith -- would still be in our midst.
 
If that isn't life-ruining, I don't know what is.
 
The half story, my own, involves dialogue magazine and an aborted
pilgrimage.  For twenty years after I declared I saved my pennies for
my trip to Haifa, and finally, in 1988, went.  Halfway there I was called
from Wilmette by an NSA member and told that my rights to pilgrimage had
been removed because I had written an unpublished article for dialogue
magazine and submitted it for review.  No Baha'i law had been broken.
The article, a plea for the revivification of the American Baha'i
community, had upset some NSA members because it called for term limits
and various other reforms, and had been sent to a group of 5-7 other
Baha'is for peer review before publication.
 
If you want a life-ruining experience, try being turned away from the Holy
Threshold. (I immediately appealed to the House and was granted a 3-day
visit, but have still never been on pilgrimage)  It took me two years to
even begin recovering, and I resolved to throw myself back into Baha'i
activity then, fearing that further separation would only permanently
alienate me.  Today I'm an active Baha'i who just finished five years
work writing a new introductory book on the Faith.  Review and its
pernicious effects almost destroyed that, and I have no doubt that others
who went down another path, who were more sensitive and less stubborn
and pigheaded than I, left the Faith and permanently crippled their own
spiritual growth.
 
I intensely want the practices of review and censorship to end in our
lifetime.  If they do not, as Juan astutely points out, we run the risk
of institutionalizing them.  Yes, we must unify behind the House of Justice
and support the review process, as Mark points out -- I had my new book
reviewed by the British NSA, thank you, where review takes on a much less
authoritarian cast -- but we must all, each and every one of us, write
independently to the House and ask them to end review.  Wouldn't it be
wonderful if we could emerge into the 21st Century (2000?  2001?  Who
cares?) free to write and publish what we think?
 
Love,
 
David

Mon, 1 Apr 1996 16:25:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram 
To: talisman 
Subject: Re: Women and the House
 
Having been serially invoked by both Tony and Richard, I feel
constrained to say something on this topic rather than be snootily
aloof.
 
The first elected body in Chicago was mixed, but the Eastern teachers
then insisted that only an all-men one was acceptable.  Their explanation
for the prohibition of women on the House of Justice was quite simply
menstrual pollution.  Unfortunately I have seen no indication that
anybody raised the obvious question of why then exclude postmenopausal
women.
 
I have said many times, only half jokingly, that the clear as the noonday
sun reason for 'Abdul-Baha saying that the explicit text said that only
men would be on the House of Justice was to keep Corinne True off!
 
Whatever her other qualities, she was not gifted for administration.  She
is certainly the mother of the Wilmette temple as without her in the
community it would never have been built there; it would have been built
elsewhere and finished by about 1908.  She certainly wanted to get on the
Chicago House; indeed she kept the letter from 'Abdu'l-Baha to herself
for some months and it was only produced by her after much rumor as to
its existence.  However, I have to also say that she has my deepest
respect, as in the late 1920s the US NSA decided that in order to bring
new blood into the administration it would send a letter to all the
convention delegates informing them that current NSA members did not wish
to be re-elected.  The letter was actually written, but never sent.
True, herself, let the delegates know that she would not accept
re-election as Shoghi Effendi had told her that she could serve the faith
better in areas other than administrative work and that she should avoid
that arena.  True certainly agitated to try to get administrative
position, and performed disastrously when she got it, but she had the
eventual humility to take good advice and recognise her limitations.
 
On the letter to Waite: One of the most interesting things about this 
letter is that it was not prompted by one from Waite.  She states that it
adressed various issues being discussed in the community at the time but
about none of which she had personally written to 'Abdu'l-Baha.  As she
was a reasonably neutral person in the disputes of the time, as well as
someone for whom 'Abdu'l-Baha had a high regard, it would seem he wrote
to her so that the tablet could be circulated without prior association
with any 'side.'
 
In relation to "general"  Houses of Justice, it should be noted that the
idea of one administrative body running community affairs was not the
common model at the time.  There could be a number of bodies with
differing, and overlapping, functions.  The House was seen in many ways
as a coordinating body, and its control over other bodies was not a
settled matter.
 
My feeling is that this is another issue in which Baha'is then and now
are looking for a mere code of laws.  I don't think 'Abdu'l-Baha gave a
flying travel teacher about the picky details of organising
administration or building the M-ul-A, he just wanted the Baha'is to quit
arguing and do it.
 
Now, having probably offended many, let me finish by saying that I see no
reason at all for excluding women from membership in the House of Justice
but heartily concur with the right of the House to decide they don't want
them there now.  This has nothing to do with prejudice against women, it
is simply discrimination.  People do not have to be prejudiced to
discriminate, but they should expect it to be viewed askance.
 
Oh, we might also note that reasoning on a similar basis to that which
limited membership on the House to men, Queen Victoria was male.  In the
Lawh-i-Dunya it is stated that the British form of government represents
the joining of the best of kingship and representational government.  In
using the word "kingship" this obviously indicates the participation of
only men, therefore Queen Victoria must have been a transvestite.  (The
interesting questions remains, was Albert also or did they have a same
sex marriage?)   Come on here, what is so hard about the difference
between gendered language and gendered referents?  Or is there really a
mass of opinion that most of the Hidden Words are addressed only to men (O
Son of ...)?
 
Jackson
 
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 13:10:43 -0500 (EST)
From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram 
To: "Don R. Calkins" 
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women and the House
 
 
 
On 1 Apr 1996, Don R. Calkins wrote:
 
> One possibility that has been totally ignored is that once Houses of Justice
> are formed at the national and local levels, women will not be allowed to
> serve on them.
 
The basic idea behind this comment may not have been mentioned in the
current discussion, but it has certainly been discussed.  I believe the
position to be simple: either women may _not_ serve on all houses of
justice, or women _may_ serve on all houses of justice.  I do not see any
way to have a split decision that permits service on some only.

I think we might note that at the time the original ruling was made that
it was seem by many as needing some leaps of interpretation to go ahead
with any election of a UHJ at all.  It is not surprising that the extent
of those leaps might be calculated to be as short as possible.  We must
remember that whatever the teachings supposedly propounded by the faith
that misogynism was hardly absent from the community in the 1960s.
Indeed, it is documented that in one country's national convention
several leading Persian pioneers of prominent family personally
counselled all the delegates that although women were technically eligible
for election to the NSA they would of course bear in mind that it would
be most unsuitable and an affront to the dignity of the body if a woman
were actually elected.
 
Jackson





Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 21:22:12 -0500
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women and the House
 
Dear Alex:
   Yes, it was me who was insisting that the (1902) letter from 'Abdu'l-Baha
which excluded women from membership on the House of Justice was addressed to
the Chicago situation.  It was written to Corinne True in response to her
petition that women should be allowed to serve on the Chicago local
body--then called the House of Justice, and addressed by 'Abdu'l-Baha as
such.
   I did not intend to say, however, that 'Abdu'l-Baha intended this
exclusion to apply only to the Chicago House of Justice.  He clearly intended
it as an exclusion from all Houses of Justice.  The New York House of Justice
was similarly composed of men only, as were all of the local Houses of
Justice in Iran at the time.  It was believed that Baha'u'llah's use of the
word rijal to address the members of the House of Justice limited the
membership on all such bodies to males.

To answer your questions:  (By the way, Rob Stockman disagrees with me
totally on most of these points, but he has not seen all the historical
evidence.  Not that such evidence would necessarily change his mind--but it
sure changed my mind.)
 
1.  Yes, there is abundant evidence that 'Abdu'l-Baha's (1902) letter refers
to the Chicago House.  We have Corinne True's letter to 'Abdu'l-Baha, his
reply, the minutes of the Chicago Assembly concerning this.  We know that
True was agitating for women's membership on the Chicago House, and that this
letter ended the controversy for a time.
    Even the House of Justice, in its letter on this subject, implicitly
accepts the fact that the "as manifest as the sun at noonday" quote cannot,
by itself, support the idea of the exclusion of women from the present
Universal House of Justice.  They base their argument mostly on a subsequent
letter from 'Abdu'l-Baha (1909) which was also directed to the Chicago
Assembly (True was still agitating) but said the same thing--this time
referring to the Chicago House as Baytu'l-Adl Ummumi (General House of
Justice, but which can also be translated universal [small u] House of
Justice--the normal term for the International House of Justice being
Baytu'l-Adl Azam).
 
2.  The restriction of membership on Houses of Justice was, in 1902,
universal.  The three House of Justice elected in America--New York, Kenosha,
Chicago--were elected in accordance with instruction and Tablets received
from 'Abdu'l-Baha, applied by the Persian teachers.
 
3.  The explicit Text 'Abdu'l-Baha refers to is the apostrophe that
Baha'u'llah addresses to the House of Justice (in general) in the Aqdas which
reads: "O ye men (rijal) of Justice!"
 
4.  There were a number of specific historical circumstances that led
'Abdu'l-Baha to lift the restriction on women's membership on Houses of
Justice in America (not in Iran).  Not the least of these was the demands of
the American women.  But still, in 1911, when specifically asked if women
should be elected to the Kenosha Assembly, 'Abdu'l-Baha said no.
    What led him to change his mind is not clear.  But, perhaps his new
experiences in America during his tour, which gave him a first had view of
how a gender-integrated society might work.  Perhaps because the Chicago
Assembly could not meet because of a shortage of active Baha'i men.  Perhaps
the fact that organization was irregular in many cities where Baha'is
lived--with various committees, Boards of Counsel, Assemblies and Houses of
Justice in session.  Above all, I think, 'Abdu'l-Baha did not want this to
become a matter of controversy and did not think it was an important matter
to be maintained at the risk of more gender tension in the community--Lord
knows there was enough already!
 
Those are my thoughts on the issue.  You might get the Women's Service on the
Institutions of the Faith paper from Eric and have a look at the full
argument.  Maybe Jackson can fill in some of the obvious blanks I have left
in the above.  (Thanks in advance, Jackson.  :-)
 
Regards,
Tony




Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 15:14:20 +0100 (MET)
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: women & UHJ
 
 
Ruhi's projection of dominating-father stereotypes onto the
House of Justice raises an interesting thought. In
Maastricht, as in Walla Walla, mommy is the discipline
side of the equation, and papa is the old softy. Is there a
correlation between family structures and willingness to
contemplate the membership of women on the Universal
House of Justice? Straw poll please.
 
If we are just projecting our upbringing and deepest desires
around, I can at least say that my Universal House of
Justice consisting of beautiful young women under the age
of 19 has a certain aesthetic advantage over Ruhi's
Universal House of Justice consisting of men of the sort
who know that children need punishing. (Ruhi, would my
tongue-in-cheek vision be more acceptable if the maids in
question were all dominatrix types?)
 
Accepting the men=discipline women=forgiveness&mercy
equation for the moment, my model might also fit the role
of the Universal House of Justice better, since Baha'u'llah
gives the role of admininistering punishment to
the kings and rulers, not to the Universal House of Justice.
A Universal House of Justice consisting of marshmallow
mommies? A world government of stern fathers? But oddly
enough, it is in the political realm, where governments are
asked to reduce any recalcitrant member to submission
using military force [1], that women are guaranteed a role:
       In this Revelation of Baha'u'llah, the women go
       neck and neck with the men. In no movement will
       they be left behind. Their rights with men are equal
       in degree. They will enter all the administrative
       branches of politics. They will attain in all such a
       degree as will be considered the very highest station
       of the world of humanity and will take part in all
       affairs. [2]
My theory is that this is because women are tougher and
better at discipline (just kidding).
 
Fortunately we are not condemned to endlessly projecting
our most freudian selves onto the white marble of Haifa.
We have some texts to help us. I enclose a compilation of
relevant texts derived almost entirely from the Service of
Women paper as an aid to more substantial discussion.
 
A: from Baha'u'llah we have:
----------------------------
      O ye Men (rijal) of Justice! Be ye in the realm of
      God shepherds unto His sheep... [3]
And:
       We have decreed that a third part of all fines shall
       go to the Seat of Justice [maqarr al-'adl], and We
       admonish its men [rijal] to observe pure justice, [4]

But:
    Today the handmaidens of God are regarded as
    gentlemen (rijal). Blessed are they! Blessed are they!
     [5]
And
      Today whoever among the handmaidens attains the
      knowledge of the Desire of the World is considered
      a gentleman (rajul) in the Divine Book. [6]
And
       Whosoever from amongst the handmaidens hath
       recognized the Lord of all Names is recorded in the
       Book as one of those men (rijal) by the Pen of the
       Most High. [7]
 
B: From `Abdu'l-Baha we have the following:
-------------------------------------------
       The House of Justice, however, according to the
       explicit text of the Law of God, is confined to men;
       this for a wisdom of the Lord God's, which will ere
       long be made manifest as clearly as the sun at high
       noon. [8]
And
       According to the ordinances of the Faith of God, women are
       the equals of men in all rights save only that of membership on
       the Universal House of Justice [bayt al-'adl 'umumi], for, as
       hath been stated in the text of the Book, both the head and the
       members of the House of Justice are men... [9]
But He knew that rijal is not exclusively masculine in the writings of
Baha'u'llah:
   Verily, according to Baha'u'llah, women are judged as gentlemen
   (rijal). [10]
and an indication of his gradualist strategy may be found here:
       In America, the cradle of women's liberation, women are still
       debarred from political institutions because they squabble.
       (Also, the Blessed Beauty has said, "O ye Men [rijal] of the
       House of Justice.") Ye need to be calm and composed, so that
       the work will proceed with wisdom, otherwise there will be
       such chaos that ye will leave everything and run away. ... In
       brief, ye should now engage in matters of pure spirituality and
       not contend with men. 'Abdu'l-Baha will tactfully take
       appropriate steps. Be assured. In the end thou wilt thyself
       exclaim, "This was indeed supreme wisdom!" [11]
And there is historical evidence which indicates (not conclusively) that
`Abdu'l-Baha, in the letter saying that the membership on the bayt al-
'adl 'umumi, was probably referring here to the House of Justice in
Chicago and not that in Haifa. If so he later changed that ruling to
permit the service of women on such assemblies, in various
permutations:
       The Spiritual Assemblies which are organized for the sake of
       teaching the Truth, whether assemblies for men, assemblies for
       women or mixed assemblies, are all accepted and are conducive
       to the spreading of the Fragrances of God. This is essential.
       [12]
and
       It is permissible to elect the members of the Spiritual Assembly
       from among the men and women; nay, rather, it is better, so
       that perfect union may result. [13]
and
       you have a spiritual Assembly of men and you can establish a
       spiritual Assembly for women. Both Assemblies must be
       engaged in diffusing the fragrances of God and be occupied
       with the service of the Kingdom. The above is the best solution
       for this problem... [14]

 
C: And from Shoghi Effendi we have
-------------------------------------
four letters from secretaries saying that women cannot serve on the
Universal House of Justice or International House of Justice [15], and
one from Shoghi Effendi himself:
       He [the Guardian] is debarred from laying down independently
       the constitution [of the Universal House of Justice] ... and from
       exercising his influence in a manner that would encroach upon
       the liberty of those whose sacred right is to elect the body of
       his collaborators. [16]
Which would seem to mean that his (secretary's) letters on this topic
do not prevent the Universal House of Justice altering its constitution,
or the delegates to the International Convention from voting, so as to
admit women.
 
In short there are grounds enough to argue the point on the basis of
texts and historical evidence, on either side. Reasoning by analogy
from family structures is unnecessary and, given that family structures
vary, will only be convincing for people within the same cultural
group.
 
Sen
 

1: Gleanings, p. 249; Proclamation of Baha'u'llah, p. 115; Gleanings, p.
254.
2: Quoted in Paris Talks (London: Baha'i Publishing Trust, 1912) pp
182-83.
3: Kitab-i-Aqdas para. 54
4: ibid
5: Quoted in Ahmad Yazdani, Mabadiy-i Ruhani, Tehran: Baha'i
Publishing Trust, 104 Badi', p 109.
6: ibid
7: Women: Extracts from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, 'Abdu'l-Baha,
Shoghi Effendi,and the Universal House of Justice, comp. by The
Research Department of the Universal House of Justice, Thornhill,
Ont.: Baha'i Canada Publications, 1986, #7, p 3.
8: Selections from the Writings of 'Abdu'l-Baha, Haifa: Baha'i World
Centre, 1978, pp 79-80.
9: 'Abdu'l-Baha to Corinne True, 24/7/09, microfilm, National Baha'i
Archives.
10: Quoted in Ahmad Yazdani, Maqam va Huquq-i Zan dar Diyanat-i
Baha'i, vol. 1, Tehran: Baha'i Publishing Trust, 107 Badi'.
11: Women, #11, pp 6-7.
12: House of Spirituality (Albert R. Windust, Librarian) to Board of
Consultation, Kenosha, Wis., 23/7/10, House of Spirituality Papers,
National Baha'i Archives.
13: ibid
14: 'Abdu'l-Baha to the members of the Spiritual Assembly and Mr.
Bernard M. Jacobsen, Kenosha, Wis., 4/5/11, House of Spirituality
Papers, National Baha'i Archives.
15: a) Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, dated July 28, 1936,
Baha'i News, No. 105 (February 1937) p 2.
    b) Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, dated December 14,
1940, quoted in Dawn of a New Day (New Delhi: Baha'i Publishing
Trust, n.d.) p 86.
    c) Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, dated September 17,
1952, Baha'i News, No 267 (May 1953) p 10.
    d) Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, dated July 15, 1947,
quoted in "Extracts on Membership of the Universal House of Justice"
(an unpublished compilation of the Universal House of Justice).
16: Dispensation of Baha'u'llah p 58 (USA booklet format); World
Order of Baha'u'llah p 150
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen McGlinn                           ph: 31-43-3216854
Andre Severinweg 47                   email: Sen.McGlinn@RL.RuLimburg.NL
 
? Help       M Main Menu  P PrevMsg     - PrevPage    D Delete      R Reply
O OTHER CMDS V ViewAttch  N NextMsg   Spc NextPage    U Undelete    F Forward
 
 







From snoopy@skipper.physics.sunysb.eduMon Aug 28 19:01:24 1995
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 15:32:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Stephen Johnson 
To: Milissa Boyer 
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women/UHJ

On Mon, 28 Aug 1995, Milissa Boyer wrote:

> Also, I have noticed that some theories, such as Ahmad's, focus on the
> DIFFERENCES between men and women. Have you noticed how when theories focus
> on differences, women lose out? 

Dearest Melissa.

Good day!

I just wanted to point out that this is not really the case.

Women are the first educators of the children.  Women are the first 
influence (_true_ influence) on the people of the society by being the 
first beings to love a child, the first to influence a child, the only to 
bear a child.  This is by nature, not by law.  Men will never be able to 
do this.  If we had the eyes of divine insight I believe that we would 
find that to be a mother (the noblest of all professions) is more 
important than anything I could do -- even being on the Universal 
House of Justice.  Most every woman can be a mother...9 in a couple 
billion chance of a man being on the Universal House of Justice.

As a man I am stronger than the majority of most women (which gets me 
really far in this day and age), will mostly likely die at a younger age 
than most women...oh, and I can serve on the Universal House of Justice 
while the entire world (Baha'i and non-Baha'i alike) can rush down on me 
with swords of evil words and vehement opposition.  The National 
Spiritual Assembly of Iran has been systematically wiped out how many 
times?  The National Spiritual Assembly of the United States has received 
how many threatening letters blaming them of threatening the soul of the 
Faith? (And yet every year they pray that they do not get reelected since 
they are paid $20,000 a year, are missing out on their career, are 
getting attacked from all sides, etc.)  In the future the Universal House 
of Justice will certainly be the point of attack for all of those who 
wish to attack the Faith.  I wouldn't doubt it if radicals will post 
themselves as snipers on the top of the mountain and take pot shots at 
the members of the Universal House of Justice.

If I had any brains I certainly wouldn't want to be on the Universal 
House of Justice.  Why do we always miss what is really important 
(people, mothers, teachers) and focus on what isn't ('leadership'?).

Just throwing in my 2 cents worth.

stephen johnson

From sindiogi@NMSU.EduMon Aug 28 19:09:34 1995
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 16:22:27 -0600 (MDT)
From: "S. Indiogine" 
To: Milissa Boyer 
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women/UHJ

Dear friends, let me delurk for just a moment.....

On Mon, 28 Aug 1995, Milissa Boyer wrote:

> Ahmad, Richard and Talismanians....
> 
> This issue of no women on the UHJ is not soul-wrenching for Juan alone.
> It is for me, too! Why?  Because it is hypocritical, that's why.  How can
> I take a body seriously when it spouts all of these nice, warm and fuzzy
> verses about equality but then does not practice it?
> 
> When I first became a Baha'i, I did so with an understanding that this was
> the first religion that truly taught the equality of men and women.  I should
> have known it was too good to be true.......

I am dead serious: the posting by Juan that not the last has been said on 
the male-only UHJ was the best thing for me for months. It gave me hope 
when I had lost it.  

However we cut, slice, or dice it, it is discrimination and it is against 
the Principles of our Faith.  It can not stand.

I like to teach the Faith when possible. I am sure you all know how the 
male-only UHJ makes everything so difficult. My first question to a Bahai 
as a seeker was the number of women on the UHJ. The answer, coupled with 
the pseudo-teaching of parallel evolution, has delayed my becoming a 
Bahai for 5 years. I immensely regret that. Enough is said...

> Also, I have noticed that some theories, such as Ahmad's, focus on the
> DIFFERENCES between men and women. Have you noticed how when theories focus
> on differences, women lose out? But 'Abdu'l-Baha said the differences were
> neglible! It is very significant to me that 'Abdu'l-Baha used the metaphor
> of a bird, with each wing like each of the sexes.  There is no active member
> here and no recipient.....in fact just the opposite! This metaphor emphasizes
> the equality of men and women and makes BOTH of them ACTIVE. And best of
> all, it distracts from their differences and emphasizes their common humanity.
> 
> And the active/passive metahpor is indeed very old. St. Paul used an active/
> passive metaphor (Christ/Church) in the NT. And of course he used it in the
> same way Ahmad has....to restrict women.  And Ahmad's theory reminds me of
> St. Augustine's yucky comment that "he who mounts is the true parent," and
> yes Augustine was making the same point Ahmad was.  I guess since he is a
> doctor, we can't hold it against him for using biological metaphors!!
> However, I am just pointing out that 'Abdu'l-Baha used many other kinds of
> metaphors so I wonder why Ahmad zoomed in on this particular one. And I hope
> Ahmad understands why women aren't too thrilled about biological metaphors....
> historically this active/passive metaphor has ALWAYS been used against us.

So true. Anytime I hear that we are equal but different I know that someone 
is trying to justify some sort of discrimination, be it racial or gender 
based, or anything else.

This biological justification has a long prescientific history.  At the 
beginning it was likely that humans did not even know that males were 
necessary for reproduction. Societies would often be matrilinear and the 
father would not be relevant or known. Later, maybe under the knowledge 
derived from the domestication of animals, a rude form of genetics was 
acquired and related to humans.  The mistake was made in equating the 
human sperm and womb to the seed and soil of the just discovered 
agriculture.  It was a totally faulty analogy which was accepted for 
centuries.  Lo and behold the patriarchal era.

"the sons of Levi ..... have come out of the loins of Abraham." Hebrews 7:5

Note that the descendance is ONLY atributed to a male source.  In reality 
we have found out that while half of our chromosomes is from each parent, 
there is also a maternal-only genetic inheritance.  That is, our 
mitochondria contain a chromosome of DNA. All our mitochondria are 
maternal. The sperm mitochondria does not enter the egg cell and perishes.

"You shall not covet your neighbor's house ; you shall not covet your 
neighbor's wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or 
his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor" Exodus 20:17 

I wonder if these 'items' owned by men are listed in order of value. But 
the message is very clear. Women are owned by men.  There are countless 
other examples in the Bible.

In order to have an idea on how advanced gentics was in those times read 
Genesis 30:31-43. Very interesting reading if you can make any sense out 
of it.

Bye,

    Eric Indiogine (sindiogi@nmsu.edu), Las Cruces, New Mexico

         ## True loss is for him whose days have been ##
          ## spent in utter ignorance of his self ##   
       
            -* Baha'u'llah, Words of Wisdom #21 *-


From PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.eduMon Aug 28 19:12:34 1995
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 15:27:48 PST8PDT
From: "Eric D. Pierce" 
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women and Houses of Justice ("Service of Women" paper) #2

Greetings Mr. Shaut and other esteemed members,

Hope all is well up in the land of MicroSerfs!

re:
> From:           Rick Schaut 
> To:             owner-talisman@indiana.edu, Talisman@indiana.edu
> Date sent:      Mon, 28 Aug 95 12:21:08 PDT
> Subject:        Re: Women and Houses of Justice ("Service of Women" paper)

...snip
> Thank you, Eric, for pointing this out.  I'm beginning to see the same
> arguments more than once, and, until such time as the Universal
> House of Justice decides to address the issue, the horse is quite
> dead.

Dead as far as voting for women, and as far as the Supreme Body 
specifically stating that there is authoritative acceptance or 
rejection of this or any other alternate "position".

> 
> Moreover, I don't see a positive result from attempts, from either point
> of view, to convince the readership of Talisman of the validity of
> one's point of view.  We are not the Universal House of Justice,
> therefore none of us is in a position to address the issue.

Well... my assumption is that there is a viewpoint commonly held
by the "usual suspects" (liberals/intellectuals), that mulling this 
one over will possibly result in the development of fresh insights 
at both high and low levels, and that seeds need to be planted in
the minds of future members of the Supreme Body. Given the current 
difficulty of addressing such "controversial" topics due to the
usual fractionalizing, I'm sure that in order to move the 
understanding of this complex issue forward, much dust will be 
flung about by those on both "sides".

> 
> I encourage all to take their concerns directly to the Universal House
> of Justice.  It is your right to do so, and is far more likely to have some
> positive effect than hasing it out amongst ourselves.

Good idea, however, I'm sure that there is some reasonable fear 
amongst the advocates of inclusion that it may not be the right 
time, and that by further developing the argument for inclusion 
of women via discussion and research, a premature setback may be 
averted.

My experience has been that there is both positive and negative
that can come from an awareness of the line of thinking that
the advocates of inclusion take. 

It can assuage the cognitive dissonance that frequently develops 
(eg the message from the delightfully uppity woman in Kansas City 
today!) when folks start deepening on this issue. Of course some 
would argue that having one's mind soothed by a possibly fallacious 
line of thinking is a "vain imagining" and/or "idle fancy". 

Another positive is that there are a lot of incredibly absurd 
rationalizations of the exclusion policy that are thrown around 
as "kitab-i-hearsay" type stuff. By moving the discussion to real 
issues such as the meaning and interpretation of the writings and 
the historical events behind the current policy, the community 
probably gains a lot by not having to fall back on such absurdist 
rationalizations, and we can coherently explain the situation to 
seekers and new members, so as to let them decide how they want to
define their own sense of obedience to the Divine Institutions.

So, we are faced with the old conundrum (or axiological conflict?), 
remain "unified" in ignorance, or become aware and divided?

> 
> >I have an electronic copy of the "Service of Women" paper that Sen
> >sent me privately earlier in the summer.
> 
> Is it possible that this can be placed on some ftp site?

Not here. I don't think that the ~powers that be~ would be very
happy to have a database technician using campus (state) resources
to make religious materials available to anonymous logins! I don't
know a religious studies (or history or sociology) professor here 
that could do it under scholarly auspices.

I'll ask the folks up at BCCA.org if they want to make it available,
but I don't know them very well.

Now that the bambino is getting older (almost 2 years) and the wife
will soon have the bulk of her masters degree done, I'm pondering the
possibility of restarting my outside RDBMS consulting, mostly to 
generate $ for purchase an internet box, a Unix system (yuk, I am 
finally going to have to learn it) and hopefully a NT box. Besides 
the business use, I would want to offer internet resources for ABS
and talisman type activities (organizing online talisman archives 
may have to wait, sorry all), and possibly helping the LSAs and 
institutes hereabouts to get wired up.

> 
> Warmest Regards,
> Rick Schaut
> 

Dan Orey just came by and shared some of the magic and a momento 
of his trip to South America! Wow.

With warmth and fuzziness,

EP

From think@ucla.eduTue Aug 29 10:19:53 1995
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 01:23:27 -0700
From: Safa Sadeghpour 
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: writings on UHJ

>
>
>Ahmad:  Thank you very much for the quotations.
>
>My question to you is this:  You initially said that the reason women 
>cannot serve on the Universal House of Justice is that Baha'u'llah called 
>its members "rijal/men" in the Most Holy Book.
>
>I think I have demonstrated that Baha'u'llah also called the members of 
>local houses of justice "rijal/men."
>
>Logically speaking, you have 2 choices:
>
>1.  To continue to make your former argument, but to acknowledge that 
>women cannot by the same token serve on local houses of justice, either, 
>given that Baha'u'llah referred to them abstractly as "men."
>
>2.  To acknowledge that your previous argument must be revised and that 
>Baha'u'llah's use of the word rijal/men does not form the basis upon 
>which women are excluded from the universal house of justice.  But then 
>what is the basis?
>
>Incidentally, aside from his use of the word "rijal/notables/men" to 
>refer to the members of the houses of justice, Baha'u'llah neither in the 
>Most Holy Book or elsewhere ever explicitly says "Women may not serve  on 
>houses of justice."  `Abdu'l-Baha at one point thought that the 
>terminology was sufficient grounds to exclude them, but he demonstrably 
>changed his mind about this, with regard to the local level, in 1912.
>It seems to me that there is therefore no longer any reason to maintain 
>that Baha'u'llah legislated women's exclusion from the House (He did 
>not).  Such an exclusion does not therefore form part of the Revelation 
>(vahy, `ibadat), and ipso facto falls into the category of matters upon 
>which the House may legislate.
>
>Contrary to what has been alleged, I am upholding the authority of the 
>Supreme Institution here.  They are dependent upon the information at 
>hand in making their rulings; I think they deserve to have more information.
Dear Juan,

It is very true that the UHJ decisions rest upon available information, but
this 
is not the case in regards to Abdul-Baha. As it is clear from His statements,
He supported, or better said, Interpreted the Writings to mean that
women may not form part of the UHJ. 

It's not enough to consider one case where it _seems_ that Abdul-Baha
"changed his mind"
to support the notion that one of the Master's interpretations was not
correct, and he would have changed his mind if given enough time. A
better argument must be presented to show how Abdul-Baha's
understanding of this matter was incorrect without denying His
title as the Center of the Covenant and the Interpreter of Baha'u'llah's 
Writings. This matter must be resolved before even trying to interpret
by ourselves the meaning of Baha'u'llah's statement regarding
"rijal/men."


your friend throughout all existence,


Safa Sadeghpour

>
>cheers   Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"NO created thing shall ever attain its paradise unless it appeareth in its
highest 
prescribed degree of perfection. For instance, this crystal representeth the
paradise of the 
stone whereof its substance is composed.  Likewise there are various stages
in the 
paradise for the crystal itself... So long as it was stone it was worthless,
but if it attaineth the excellence of ruby--a potentiality  which is latent
in it-- how much a carat will it be worth?  Consider likewise every created
thing." The Bab
"The shining spark of truth comes forth only from the clash of differing
opinions." Abdu'l-Baha 
Safa Sadeghpour (think@ucla.edu)
http://www.smc.edu/homepage/maclab/maclab.web/web/safa.web/safa.htm

IRC: painful


From derekmc@ix.netcom.comTue Aug 29 10:21:56 1995
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 01:34:35 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT 
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Women and the Universal House of Justice.

                                             Women and the Universal 
House of Justice.
The matter was raised this time by the Posting 'Seed of Creation' or at 
least that how I see it.I 
believe Lora and others are correct you can not equate Spirituality and 
Biology. no matter how 
the original poster reformats ,it was demeaning to women. Juan  is 
entitled to believe that women 
should serve on the 
 Universal House of Justice, his points in terms of the finer points of 
translation , culture and 
Baha'i administrative  evolution were of value even though I beg to 
differ. The conclusion one 
comes to is John Walbridge's that the matter rest with Baha'u'llah. As far as 
the threaded analysis that 
women on the appointed International 
Council meant women would be on the Universal House,that could be a 
stretch of logic but I 
seem to remember ,in the 10 year Crusade if the pattern is to be 
logically followed,it was laid 
down the Baha'i Court was to come into existence before the election of 
the Universal House.. 
That is one of the unfulfilled goals of the 10 year  Crusade, the 
Guardian passed on in 1957,  the 
Hands of the Cause had no option except to call for the Election of the 
House of Justice.It is an 
interesting  point but I believe it to be a redundant one.. We simple 
do not know what would have 
transpired,speculation makes interesting
after Dinner talk but it is not relevant to the issue.
Does it matter whether only women serve as members of the Body or only 
men or a mixture of 
both, or even Martians with pink spots as long as they have the 
capacity to know and worship God 
,frankly I do not believe it does.We know from the writings there is no 
gender of the soul.We are 
from a spiritual aspect a genderless Religion, so there seems a 
contradiction. On the one hand we 
believe in the equality of the genders , yet women are precluded from 
serving on the Supreme 
Body. We are told the reason will become apparent. As it hasn't yet it 
is not an act of disloyalty 
to wonder about the situation. However some of the comments and 
suggestions are unwarranted 
as I see it.
   We  need to explore what is the real situation regarding women in 
the Faith.One point of 
historical 
note ; the Baha'i Faith is the only Major Religion to have as its Head 
a woman , I know of 
branches or sects of religions have been started or run by women 
although relatively few in 
number but not a Major Religion, Bahiyyih  Khanoum was the Head of the 
Faith during the 
prolonged absences of the Shoghi Effendi in the 1920s.That fact is 
clearly recorded in His own 
handwriting , if there was some spiritual infirmity or inability in 
women which does not allow 
them to function at the highest level in accordance with the 
requirements of  God's religious law 
and teaching on this plane of existence ,then I would find it difficult 
to imagine that Shoghi 
Effendi could have left the affairs of the Faith in the hands of a 
woman. He clearly had no 
problem and left His Beloved Great Aunt on more than one occasion to 
carry the burden of the 
Cause. I must stress the Guardian's written statement is 'Head ship of 
the Greatest Holy Leaf' in 
relation to the affairs of the Cause. Over the past 30 plus years I 
heard some amazing reasons 
why women do not serve on the Universal House of Justice . It is 
difficult to pick one that 
defines the point I am trying to make perfectly , so this little gem 
will have to do. In England in 
the early 60's I attended a youth deepening at a summer school, the 
presenter  was explaining to we the gathered 'Young Turks', how the 
House functioned. So we 
could go out and teach the Faith with fire and resolve. The person was 
asked why no women on 
the House of Justice,the reply ran as follows :" this is a difficult 
concept to understand but I have 
considered it and this is my opinion which is believed to be correct." 
We waited in hushed 
silence for the enlightenment that would follow. " You see if  women 
were allowed to serve it 
could that the lady or ladies could become pregnant, by their husbands  
of course. This would mean an unelected soul was 
consulting on the affairs of the 
Faith." You could have heard a pin drop at this breakthrough statement. 
Eventually I got fed up and 
I said that has to be the stupidest reason I have ever heard ,what on 
earth are you talking 
about.Everybody started to laugh  and the presenter retired in 
confusion. The remark was 
demeaning to the station of women by bringing in that a woman's primary 
biological function  
would automatically disqualify her from being able to serve at that 
level.The same can be said for 
the coarser remark that a woman's menstrual cycle makes it impossible 
for her to be rational for 
a period of time each month.The last time it was said to me was 4 years 
ago the person stated; 
well they are crazy for 4 or 5 days each month. I believe my reply was 
well then they have a valid 
reason for those few days, how do you explain the whole month  of 
crazyness you have. Every 
man on Talisman will have heard far worse remarks than those two, as 
will most if not all the 
women .So the question still remains we have a paradox:.
It would be neat and pretty if women could be on the House of 
Justice.We would be politically 
correct, we could say see the Baha'i Community has equality at all 
obvious levels for 
women.Instead we have to show our commitment in a different way and 
reshape our 
understanding of how we value each other.One of the problems is how we 
regard the individuals 
who serve on our Institutions. By implying that service on the Supreme 
Body somehow gives 
personal power to the individual and thereby gives power to that 
gender, misses the entire 
purpose of that Institution and the lesser but sister Institutions in 
the Faith.The individual is not to 
have personal authority ,we create a defacto clergy when we say or 
imply personal power comes 
with the position. We do not have our token woman or women serving on 
the House of Justice to 
show how we are commited to female rights. The hard to swallow fact is 
the Baha'i Community 
has hardily moved down the road towards equality of the genders.I have 
this overwhelming 
feeling we are going to have to work very hard to create a Baha'i 
Society that has the required 
spiritual equality of the sexes, which can then become a model for the 
World to copy.Why do 
you think the House of Justice issued the letter on Violence and Sexual 
Abuse of Women and 
Children, because the Baha'i men are all acting in accordance with the 
teachings of the Blessed 
Beauty towards Women and Children. No the very reverse, where is the 
grassroots commitment 
towards this change. I do not know of one Community that has set up a  
scholarship fund to assist 
young women to go to College.I do not know of one community who has set 
up a similar fund to 
assist women in countries like India. We are going to have to make more 
than a token effort to 
show this vital teaching of Baha'u'llah in action.There is no 
convenient facade to hide behind we 
have to make it work at a personal level, at a family level, at a local 
community level and a 
national level.. Women in simple terms must be given preference in our 
Baha'i Community, 
Baha'i men have to provide the encouragement,the support and if 
necessary open the doors that 
allow women the freedom to grow and develop as an individual and a 
gender.There is in my 
opinion no easy way out we have to start at the bottom at the personal 
level and develop a whole 
new way of interacting based on the Teachings of Baha'u'llah.That 
paradox maybe the permanent 
reminder of the debt the Human Race owes to women and ensure the future 
Baha'i World Society 
fully reflects the Equality of the Sexes,it would be much easier to 
have a token woman or women 
on the House of Justice but then there might be those who would see no 
need to change the way 
society treats women.
Although in the Faith the people who serve on our Institutions have no 
personal power or 
authority,we do have people who are appointed to serve in the Arm of 
the Faith that is the Hands 
of the Cause,they have personal rank in the Faith. There were women 
Hands of the Cause, there is 
one woman in the remaing three. Counselors who are appointed to carry 
on that function have 
personal rank, there are women Counselors.Auxillary Board Members have 
rank, there are 
women ABM's.
I see no way that the Universal House of Justice can change a ruling of 
the Master, women it 
would seem will not serve on that Body.It might be a good idea if all 
of us attempt to put into 
practice more fully the Teachings of Baha'ullah in respect of the 
Equality of Women so that a 
Baha'i Community will emerge that reflects that as one of its 
hallmarks.Kindest Regards Derek 
Cockshut.


From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlTue Aug 29 10:42:17 1995
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 95 18:54:52 EZT
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: women on UHJ


Juan, could you be a little more explicit here:

JC>    Baha'u'llah in one Tablet says that the rijal-i buyut-i `adliyyih
       (the men of the houses of justice) are charged with ensuring
       that a universal language is chosen. 

Could you explicate 'adliyyih for non-Arabicists? Is it used by non-Baha'i 
sources for other concepts or institutions? And what is the
source? Date?

My suspicion is that the reference is to civil rulers (parliaments?) or
courts rather than the Houses of Justice as we know them, because of
other passages from Baha'u'llah on the subject:

       It beseemeth you and the other officials of the Government to
       convene a gathering and choose one of the divers languages,
       and likewise one of the existing scripts, or else to create a new
       language ... (Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, page 138)

       It behoveth the sovereigns of the world - may God assist them
       - or the ministers of the earth to take counsel together and to
       adopt one of the existing languages or a new one (Tablets of
       Baha'u'llah, page 22)

       It is incumbent upon all nations to appoint some men of
       understanding and erudition to convene a gathering and through
       joint consultation choose one language from among the varied
       existing languages, or create a new one ... (Tablets of
       Baha'u'llah, pages 165-166)

This doesn't weaken the argument at all, since Baha'u'llah says (if my
conjecture is correct) 'rijal of the parliaments/courts', yet 'Abdu'l-Baha
says:

       In this Revelation of Baha'u'llah, the women go neck and neck
       with the men.  In no movement will they be left behind.  Their
       rights with men are equal in degree.  They will enter all the
       administrative branches of politics. (Paris Talks, page 182)

Thus taking rijal in the honorific (Persian) rather than gender-specific
(Arabic) sense.

Rob: granted that the 1909 tablet to True appears to refer to the
Universal House of Justice as we know it rather than the Chicago
House of Justice (which I think we must assume unless someone can
find an instance of the name 'Universal House of Justice' being used in
Chicago in 1908/9), is a single text to an individual believer enough to
establish a principle of law? I see two problems: first, that isolated texts
can be found in the tablets of 'Abdu'l-Baha which we feel perfectly
justified in ignoring, e.g.: in Tablets of 'Abdu'l-Baha Abbas p. 337:
"Men are enjoined more than women to give the Message of the Cause
of God and to diffuse His fragrances." I've never seen that incorporated
in a teaching plan! What we do in practice is take the whole corpus of
his writings, and those of Baha'u'llah, and assign a higher priority,
tacitly or not, to those which are clearly addressed to the Baha'is as a
whole or the institutions - ie which are intended to shape the Baha'i
Faith rather than respond to the needs of an individual. In other words,
we don't in practice take each and every statement of 'Abdu'l-Baha as if
it was a decision of the supreme court on the interpretation of the
constitution. And this seems to be a sensible practice.

That leads to the second problem with putting so much weight on this
one tablet: if we do take the whole corpus of the writings, and
particularly those of 'Abdu'l-Baha, into account it seems clear to me
that there is a development (or perhaps it's just inconsistency - so many
published texts are undated it's hard to be sure). Can we take a 1909
tablet as the last word on the subject? I'm sure I've seen a tablet in
which `Abdu'l-Baha says that women are excluded from politics
because they squabble (source anyone?). The Tablet cited above (Paris
Talks, page 182) which says that they will participate in politics is
dated August 28, 1913. I assume that the one saying they are excluded
is earlier. Similarly there's a tablet of 'Abdu'l-Baha (cited in The Service
of Women) in Ahmad Yazdani, Maqam va Huquq-i Zan dar Diyanat-i
Baha'i, vol. 1, which states:

      Verily, according to Baha'u'llah, women are judged as rijal.

Could anyone date this tablet? If it comes after 1909 would it not
modify the previous tablets? [For the sources in the writings of
Baha'u'llah which `Abdu'l-Baha is referring to (also cited in The Service
of Women) see Ahmad Yazdani, Mabadiy-i Ruhani, p 109, and the
Compilation on Women #7, p 3.]

This is not to say that we can drop the 1909 tablet from consideration,
but I do think it has to be considered along with all the other texts.
Being a theologian rather than a canon lawyer, I'm inclined to a
hermeneutic based primarily on ascertaining fundamental principles,
using not only the texts but also the lives of Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-
Baha. Would one of our historians be so kind as to write anintellectual
biography of `Abdu'l-Baha?

BTW: so far as I know the issue of the election of women to the
House(s) of Justice fell off the agenda after 1909. Does anyone know of
relevant texts after this, or of a reason why it was not further discussed?

Sen
                                          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen McGlinn                           ph: 31-43-216854
Andre Severinweg 47                   email: Sen.McGlinn@RL.RuLimburg.NL
6214 PL Maastricht, the Netherlands   
                                 ***
When, however, thou dost contemplate the innermost essence of things,
                 and the individuality of each, 
         thou wilt behold the signs of thy Lord's mercy . . ." 
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 


                                          


From jrcole@umich.eduTue Aug 29 10:44:31 1995
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 12:43:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole 
To: Ahmad Aniss 
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: writings on UHJ



Ahmad:  Thank you very much for the quotations.

My question to you is this:  You initially said that the reason women 
cannot serve on the Universal House of Justice is that Baha'u'llah called 
its members "rijal/men" in the Most Holy Book.

I think I have demonstrated that Baha'u'llah also called the members of 
local houses of justice "rijal/men."

Logically speaking, you have 2 choices:

1.  To continue to make your former argument, but to acknowledge that 
women cannot by the same token serve on local houses of justice, either, 
given that Baha'u'llah referred to them abstractly as "men."

2.  To acknowledge that your previous argument must be revised and that 
Baha'u'llah's use of the word rijal/men does not form the basis upon 
which women are excluded from the universal house of justice.  But then 
what is the basis?

Incidentally, aside from his use of the word "rijal/notables/men" to 
refer to the members of the houses of justice, Baha'u'llah neither in the 
Most Holy Book or elsewhere ever explicitly says "Women may not serve  on 
houses of justice."  `Abdu'l-Baha at one point thought that the 
terminology was sufficient grounds to exclude them, but he demonstrably 
changed his mind about this, with regard to the local level, in 1912.
It seems to me that there is therefore no longer any reason to maintain 
that Baha'u'llah legislated women's exclusion from the House (He did 
not).  Such an exclusion does not therefore form part of the Revelation 
(vahy, `ibadat), and ipso facto falls into the category of matters upon 
which the House may legislate.

Contrary to what has been alleged, I am upholding the authority of the 
Supreme Institution here.  They are dependent upon the information at 
hand in making their rulings; I think they deserve to have more information.

cheers   Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan

From LORA_M@meddeans.creighton.eduTue Aug 29 10:54:58 1995
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 09:25:04 CST
From: Lora McCall 
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Male language in the Revelation

Dear Talismanians,

I like Tony's points about the use of male-coded language not 
excluding women, but includes them (us) implicitly.  I want to 
believe he's absolutely right.  I want it to be that way, and it is 
for many Baha'is who have managed to transcend our culture and 
socialization in a way that gets us beyond the subtleties of male 
superiority and patriarchy.  Here's an experiment for the fearless 
male:  at the next Feast, Holy Day, Assembly meeting or wherever you 
get the opportunity, read a handmaiden prayer.  Not one of the "bless 
*that* handmaiden because she is special to me" prayers, but one of 
the "bless me Lord, *I* am Thy handmaiden" prayers.  Observe the 
responses from members of the community.  Does anyone act uneasy?  
Talk to individuals who may have noticed your prayer to get their 
responses.  

This is an interesting exercise.  I've watched it happen in my own
community on occasion.  I agree with Tony that prayers that use male 
pronouns are not believed to be reserved exclusively for men.  
However, there *is* a perception that prayers that use female pronouns 
*are* exclusively for women.  If you don't believe me, try my 
experiment!  :)

My comments are meant to be descriptive not judgemental.  I'm not 
trying to throw fuel on a fire.  But, my challenge remains, Men: 
start saying those Handmaiden prayers as if you mean it!  :)

I feel profoundly grateful to Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha:
> Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha that say quite explicitly that Baha'i women, in
> this day, are to be regarded as "rijal."  (Tony)

Warmly,

Lora

 
}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
**********************************************************************

"Beloved friends:  Do not be dismayed or deterred.  Take courage in
the security of God's law and ordinances.  These are the darkest
hours before the break of day.  Peace, as promised, will come at
night's end.  Press on to meet the dawn."

                                The Universal House of Justice

**********************************************************************
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{



From rvh3@columbia.eduTue Aug 29 11:01:48 1995
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 10:45:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Richard Vernon Hollinger 
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: The issue of a male-only UHJ


It seems to me that the exclusion of women from the UHJ rests not on 
letters from the Guardian or his secretary, the latter of which appear to 
misunderstand the context of the 1902 tablet to the Chicago House of 
Spirituality.  Rather, the crux of the matter is that `Abdu'l-Baha 
specifically stated in the 1909 tablet that women were excluded only from 
the baytu'l-adl-i ummumi.  The latter almost certainly refers to the UHJ, 
as this is the terminology that he used in his Will and Testament to 
refer to the UHJ (in passages probably written about this same time) and 
the 1909 tablet contains a reference to the head of the House of Justice, 
which can only be the Guardian. 

`Abdu'l-Baha did reverse himself concerning women's service on local 
bodies, and in Baha'i jurisprudence the later position  would take 
precdence, I presume.  But he did not reverse himself concerning women on 
the UHJ.  He might well have done so had he lived longer and it might 
well be a fuller expression of the Baha'i principle of gender equality if 
women were on the UHJ (I believe it would).  But the issue *really* is 
who now has the authority to overturn a ruling from `Abdu'l-Baha?

Richard

From richs@microsoft.comTue Aug 29 16:01:44 1995
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 95 10:33:48 PDT
From: Rick Schaut 
To: owner-talisman@indiana.edu, Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women and Houses of Justice ("Service of Women" paper) #2

Eric and friends,

>From: "Eric D. Pierce"  
>Greetings Mr. Shaut and other esteemed members,

>Hope all is well up in the land of MicroSerfs!

Fairly well.  It'd be nice if the stock went back up, but I can't
complain.  I'm still 'serfing' along.

>> From:           Rick Schaut 

>> Thank you, Eric, for pointing this out.  I'm beginning to see the same
>> arguments more than once, and, until such time as the Universal
>> House of Justice decides to address the issue, the horse is quite
>> dead.

>Dead as far as voting for women, and as far as the Supreme Body
>specifically stating that there is authoritative acceptance or
>rejection of this or any other alternate "position".

I didn't want to cut short discussion.  There is, however, a distinct
difference between discussion and argumentation.  In general, when
the same line of reasoning has been posted more than once, we've
moved from the realm of discussion and into the realm of argumentation.

[Deletia]

>> I encourage all to take their concerns directly to the Universal House
>> of Justice.  It is your right to do so, and is far more likely to have some
>> positive effect than hasing it out amongst ourselves.

>Good idea, however, I'm sure that there is some reasonable fear
>amongst the advocates of inclusion that it may not be the right
>time, and that by further developing the argument for inclusion
>of women via discussion and research, a premature setback may be
>averted.

Most attempts to advocate inclusion miss the fundamental conflict which
exists in this case.  On the surface, it looks like a conflict between
principle and action (or words and deeds).  However, upon closer
examination, one sees that the real conflict is between the Covenant
and the principles of the Faith.

The facts are rather clear.  Baha'u'llah gave `Abdu'l-Baha the
authority to interpret His Writings.  This was not conditioned upon
our ability to make sense of 'Abdu'l-Baha's interpretations.  In an
exercise of this authority, `Abdu'l-Baha has stated that only men
may serve on the Universal House of Justice.  This contradicts
the basic principle of the equality of men and women, and does
not seem to make sense given the history of this issue.

The questions, then, are:

* To whom would devolve the authority of interpreting the writings
when we no longer have a living human being occupying an
institution to which this authority has been granted?

* If the Universal House of Justice decides that women really
ought to be allowed in its membership, would such a decision
be outside the bounds of the authority granted to the Universal
House of Justice?  Would it constitute a usurpation of the authority
reserved for `Abdu'l-Baha and the institution of the Guardianship?

Or, in sum total,

* Can this exclusion be changed without violating the Covenant
of Baha'u'llah in some way or another?

At present, I don't believe it can, though I am _eager_ to entertain
a line of reasoning which would lead me to conclude otherwise.  Such
a line of reasoning must be based upon the documents which define
Baha'u'llah's Covenant.  If all we can say is that it doesn't make sense,
then I'm afraid that the line of reasoning doesn't prevail.


Warmest Regards,
Rick Schaut






From richs@microsoft.comTue Aug 29 19:05:05 1995
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 95 13:16:17 PDT
From: Rick Schaut 
To: owner-talisman@indiana.edu, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: *Subverting the House*? (fwd)

Christopher and others,

>From: Christopher Buck  
>	I must protest your insinuation that there are those online
>who are engaging in *extremely skilful attempts to subvert the
>integrity of the House*.

While I don't agree with Robert's characterization, I can understand
it.  If people consider themselves "advocates of inclusion" and
talk about attempts to influence the decisions of possible future
members of the House of Justice, then they are walking very
close to the line if not over it.

There _are_ Covenantiary issues involved, here.  I've raised
them.  Having raised these issues, how should I view people's
attempts to discuss membership of the House when these
discussions fail to address the Covenantiary aspects of the
topic?


Warmest Regards,
Rick Schaut



From PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.eduWed Aug 30 10:09:49 1995
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 17:24:16 PST8PDT
From: "Eric D. Pierce" 
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: *Subverting the House*? (fwd) [*** clarification ***]

Greetings again to Mr. Shaut and the talisman members,

re:
> From:           Rick Schaut 
> To:             owner-talisman@indiana.edu, talisman@indiana.edu
> Date sent:      Tue, 29 Aug 95 13:16:17 PDT
> Subject:        Re: *Subverting the House*? (fwd)

...snip
> While I don't agree with Robert's characterization, I can understand
> it.  If people consider themselves "advocates of inclusion" and
> talk about attempts to influence the decisions of possible future
> members of the House of Justice, then they are walking very
> close to the line if not over it.

Part of the above statement sounds vaguely similar to something I 
posted yesterday :

: 
: From: "Eric D. Pierce" 
: To: Talisman@indiana.edu
: Date:          Mon, 28 Aug 1995 15:27:48 PST8PDT
: Subject:       Re: Women and Houses of Justice ("Service of Women" paper) #2
: 
...snip

: Well... my assumption is that there is a viewpoint commonly held
: by the "usual suspects" (liberals/intellectuals), that mulling this 
: one over will possibly result in the development of fresh insights 
: at both high and low levels, and that seeds need to be planted in
: the minds of future members of the Supreme Body. ...

As far as Mr. Shaut's statement "attempts to influence the decisions of 
possible future members of the House of Justice, ..."

The jump from my non-scholarly opinion about a hypothetical group 
of "the usual suspects" (a joke BTW), to an implication that there 
are attempts to influence "decisions" seems a bit vigorous, but I 
thank him for pointing out the need for clarification.

My previous statement is merely a ~supposition~ that there ~might~ 
be a viewpoint held by an abstract group who feel that "planting of 
seeds" is needed (I probably should have said "it is desired that 
seeds be planted..." rather than "need to be planted").

Clarification: first of all *I* am not specifically advocating 
adherance to (or rejection of) the "inclusion" theory. It is very 
interesting to study the issues the "Service" paper raises, and 
even more interesting to observe the various reactions of the 
membership to the ideas it puts forward. I make no pretense of 
having the scholarly/administrative training or experience to 
advocate that others adopt positions pro or con, and doubt that 
it is appropriate to have a desire to do so given the principles 
of consultation and the Baha'i definition of justice in the 
Hidden Words. We should strive to investigate all the ideas 
raised about an issue in a detached, creative and inspired 
manner, and then be patient and live with ambiguity until the
matter takes on the weight of enlightened opinion and/or 
authoritative guidance is given by the Divine Institutions.

Indeed, having survived an attempted LSA/AB investigation of
myself merely because I mentioned to some of the local members
that I had read the paper and found it and some of the rumored
wild (unpublished) opinions of some of the authors and their 
supporters interesting if not outrageous, I hope that I haven't 
become lax. To be perfectly honest, I thought that I had 
become so jaded by such experiences that there was little 
that could inspire any fear of authoritarian retribution, but
I now feel a wee bitty twinge, and thus am stimulated to plink 
out yet more blather on the keyboard. :)

> 
> There _are_ Covenantiary issues involved, here.  I've raised
> them.  ...

I'm sure that your raising of Covenantiary issues is appreciated,
but for myself, I find the topic obscure, non-intuitive and 
complex, possibly to the point where only researchers and those 
really deep into the administrative stuff really know how to 
~correctly~ respond to the leading edge of research (or dare I 
say it: dissent) on these issues. 

Being a mere cheerleader (no I don't wear a tutu ) that dabbles 
and indulges in the fluff of what I consider to be the forces of 
reform and progress here, I have only sought to describe the way 
that I have seen this issue play out in the life and development 
of the community.

I have attached the appropriate excerpt from your earlier message 
so that anyone that missed your questions will have another chance 
to peruse them.

> ...    Having raised these issues, how should I view people's
> attempts to discuss membership of the House when these
> discussions fail to address the Covenantiary aspects of the
> topic?

First of all (and I ask this without malice), other than out of
general interest, why should anybody be concerned with how you 
view the discussion? If you are stating that you are unsatisified
with the content of the discussion, so be it.

Otherwise, did I miss a message from the list owner that we now 
have thought-police on talisman? If I recall correctly, there was 
a discussion (archives from last winter?) regarding the ILLEGALITY 
of any tampering with talisman (a state sponsored project) by Baha'i
Institutions.

I hope I haven't overreacted to your statement, I know you 
have sincere concerns. Have you read all of the components of 
the "Service of Women" paper that Sen posted? Are you aware that
more in depth research is reportedly being done on the exact 
concerns you have raised?

>
> Warmest Regards,
> Rick Schaut
> 

Oh well, I just saw Dr. Cole's posting on the same topic, so
if this is a bit redundant, sorry.

EP

----- attachment -----

* Most attempts to advocate inclusion miss the fundamental conflict which
* exists in this case.  On the surface, it looks like a conflict between
* principle and action (or words and deeds).  However, upon closer
* examination, one sees that the real conflict is between the Covenant
* and the principles of the Faith.
* 
* The facts are rather clear.  Baha'u'llah gave `Abdu'l-Baha the
* authority to interpret His Writings.  This was not conditioned upon
* our ability to make sense of 'Abdu'l-Baha's interpretations.  In an
* exercise of this authority, `Abdu'l-Baha has stated that only men
* may serve on the Universal House of Justice.  This contradicts
* the basic principle of the equality of men and women, and does
* not seem to make sense given the history of this issue.
* 
* The questions, then, are:
* 
* To whom would devolve the authority of interpreting the writings
* when we no longer have a living human being occupying an
* institution to which this authority has been granted?
* 
* If the Universal House of Justice decides that women really
* ought to be allowed in its membership, would such a decision
* be outside the bounds of the authority granted to the Universal
* House of Justice?  Would it constitute a usurpation of the authority
* reserved for `Abdu'l-Baha and the institution of the Guardianship?
* 
* Or, in sum total,
* 
* Can this exclusion be changed without violating the Covenant
* of Baha'u'llah in some way or another?
* 
* At present, I don't believe it can, though I am _eager_ to entertain
* a line of reasoning which would lead me to conclude otherwise.  Such
* a line of reasoning must be based upon the documents which define
* Baha'u'llah's Covenant.  If all we can say is that it doesn't make sense,
* then I'm afraid that the line of reasoning doesn't prevail.

From rstockman@usbnc.orgWed Aug 30 10:12:16 1995
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 95 19:48:48 
From: "Stockman, Robert" 
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Service of Women on the Universal House of Justice


     I apologize for the delay in responding to this particular thread.  I 
     went home on Thursday to work there and when I tried to get my e-mail 
     Friday night, it jammed.  Everyone, if you are going to respond to an 
     e-mail I put on Talisman, PLEASE do not send it to me and to Talisman. 
     Just send it to Talisman and let Talisman forward it to me.  What 
     happens is this: the message comes to Talisman "cc"ed to me and 
     Talisman adds a second "cc" to me, so the message comes to me 
     cc:Robert Stockman cc: Robert Stockman.  This causes CC:Mail Remote 
     (our Lotus e-mail software) to freak out.  As soon as it hits such a 
     message it locks up and ceases to work.  So if I have messages waiting 
     for me, as soon as cc:mail reaches that message it shuts down and I 
     can't get any more messages.
     
     This only happens when I am at home, though even more rarely, our 
     master cc:mail program on the Baha'i National Center freaks out from 
     such messages and refuses to accept any e-mail from our server at all. 
     When that happens the Baha'i National Center itself is totally cut off 
     from e-mail until someone notices the problem and fixes it.
     
     Anyway, the Talisman people say it isn't their problem and the CC:Mail 
     people say it isn't their software, so everyone at the Baha'i National 
     Center pressures me to unsubscribe from Talisman.  And our software 
     nerds (I mean no offense) are really quite good, so if they can't 
     figure it out, its a REAL problem.
     
     In this case, I was knocked off e-mail until Monday, when our software 
     people came back to work and got my voice mail message.  Unfortunately 
     before they could act a thunderstorm rolled through and knocked out 
     all electricity for our part of Evanston for three hours, so it was 
     Monday night before I could get my e-mail.  By then I had 166 
     messages.  Since then I have come back to South Bend and, trying to 
     get my e-mail, I have had to call the Baha'i National Center three 
     times to get my e-mail unstuck, because three other messages were 
     "cc"ed to me twice.  Now I have it all, but I haven't read it yet.
     
     But I have read Juan's message, and have a brief, "clear-thinking" 
     response to offer.
     
     1.  "The 1902 letters excludes women from all kinds of House of 
     Justice": This is an interpretation of the letter, which says women 
     are excluded from "the" House of Justice.  This could mean (1) the 
     Chicago House of Justice; (2) all Houses of Justice; (3) the Universal 
     House of Justice.  `Abdu'l-Baha's tablet makes no reference to 
     "Chicago" at all.  Corinne True's letter does refer to Chicago early 
     on, but when she asks about Houses of Justice she asks about "the" 
     House of Justice as well (she is ambiguous).  And we don't know how 
     the translator summarized her letter, so we don't know what question 
     `Abdu'l-Baha was really answering.  He could also have chosen to 
     answer a different question than He was asked, something He 
     occasionally did.
     
     2.  "The 1912 oral instruction in Chicago allows women on local Houses 
     of Justice": This was not an oral instruction, it was written.  I 
     apologize I did not give the text to you in full in my last message.  
     Here it is:
     
        According to the ordinances of the Faith of God, women are the      
        equals of men in all rights save only that of membership on the     
        Universal House of Justice, for, as hath been stated in the text of 
        the Book, both the head and the members of the House of Justice     
        must be men.  However, in all other bodies, such as the Temple      
        Construction Committee, the Teaching Committee, the Spiritual       
        Assembly, and in charitable and scientific associations, women      
        share equally in all rights with men.
     
     This translation may be found in *The Baha'i Faith in America, Volume 
     Two,* page 323.  It was made by the Baha'i World Centre specially for 
     the book.  The original translation by Ameen Fareed was made on July 
     29, 1909.  This clearly is a tablet, not an oral instruction.  An 
     original text must exist in Haifa.  No doubt it would be useful to 
     this discussion for someone to request that text and type it out on 
     Talisman for all to see (any volunteers?).
     
     Now, CONCLUSIONS:
     
     1.  The 1909 tablet, I would argue, clarifies the 1902 tablet and 
     allows us to conclude that its true meaning was (3), that is, "the" 
     House of Justice meant "Universal House of Justice" all along.  Maybe 
     `Abdu'l-Baha tolerated the ambiguity because He did not feel the 
     Chicago community was ready for women to serve on its governing body.  
     Or maybe because of lack of translation He was entirely unaware of the 
     problems there.
     
     If this is true, it would explain why Shoghi Effendi and his 
     secretaries frequently referred to the 1902 tablet as the proof that 
     women could not serve on the Universal House of Justice.  Shoghi 
     Effendi knew "the" House of Justice meant "Universal" House of 
     Justice.
     
     2.  "Formal legislation of the House is called for": Why?  Besides, 
     the House has alread said that women cannot serve on the House.  And 
     those who do not like this conclusion have refused to accept it.  If 
     the House were to reopen the matter and come to the conclusion again 
     they still wouldn't accept it.
     
     Two other matters: I see no connection between the International 
     Baha'i Council and the House of Justice; we know they weren't the same 
     body, and the Council had a head who wasn't the Guardian whereas the 
     House has to have the Guardian as head, so I see no reason to push the 
     analogy very far and say if women served on the Council, they can 
     serve on the House.  If this is true, Remey can be Guardian.
     
     As for the tablet where Baha'u'llah *clearly* says local houses of 
     justice must choose the world language: I have not seen the tablet and 
     would need to study it to discuss it intelligently.  But I see no 
     problem if `Abdu'l-Baha, in His broad powers of interpretation, says 
     "rajal" means only men in the case of the Universal House of Justice, 
     but *mutatis mutandis* rajal can be extended to women in other cases.  
     That's the creative power of `Abdu'l-Baha's interpretation.  We may 
     not like it, and may not regard it as logical, but that is within His 
     power.
     
     I'll respond to other comments about this thread as I read them.
     
                Cheers to all.
     
                -- Rob Stockman

From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduWed Aug 30 10:13:49 1995
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 21:16:34 -0600 (MDT)
From: gpoirier 
To: Talisman 
Subject: Pressure from the community

Juan wrote:

> Are 
> you suggesting that public discussions of issues in Baha'i history and 
> texts are somehow illegitimate?  

This reminded me of a scene I saw in "Paint Your Wagon" on TV over the 
weekend.  A community discussion on a topic I will not bring up, was 
taking place.  Then the mayor said, "Let's put it to a vote!" and
one of the citizens says, "And any man who votes against it is a
traitor to his country!"


From richs@microsoft.comWed Aug 30 10:15:20 1995
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 95 20:24:45 PDT
From: Rick Schaut 
To: jrcole@umich.edu, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: *Subverting the House*? (fwd)

Dear Juan and friends,

From: Juan R Cole  
Date: Tuesday, August 29, 1995 7:37PM
>On Tue, 29 Aug 1995, Rick Schaut wrote:

[Deletia]

>> While I don't agree with Robert's characterization, I can understand
>> it.

>Dear Rick:  I appreciate the moderate and measured tone of your message.
>However, I think there is a fairly serious misunderstanding here.  No one
>is engaged in a political campaign of any sort here.

I'm beginning to wonder whether one of the vagaries of e-mail lists
isn't at the heart of this four-way difference in perceptions.  It's possible
that Robert and I had been influenced by messages which Christopher
and Juan hadn't seen yet.  I know that two messages I sent today
arrived in my mailbox in reverse order from that in which I sent them.

Juan, I can say that I didn't have any remarks of yours in mind when
I wrote the message to which you replied.

>Are you suggesting that public discussions of issues in Baha'i history
>and texts are somehow illegitimate?

No, and to be frank, I have absolutely no idea where that question
came from.  It has all the same flavor as, "Have you stopped beating
your wife?"  I don't think you intended to serve up such a dish, but
that's the way it tastes.


I've deleted the remainder of your remarks, Juan, because I agree
with them wholeheartedly.  We _should_ discuss these things.  I just
want the discussion to be _full_ and _completely_ open.

I don't think talk of a Baha'i public sphere answers my question.  Lacking
an address of the Covenantiary issues, any discussion of the possibility
of women serving on the Universal House of Justice has as much
potential for harm as it has for good.  If the discussion does address the
issues involving the Covenant, then no harm can come from the discussion.

Why, then, should we go through a discussion which doesn't address
the issues involving the Covenant?  Why does the development of a
Baha'i public sphere have to accept such a half-hearted treatment of
one of the most controversial issues in the whole of the Baha'i Faith?


Warmest Regards,
Rick Schaut



From tan1@cornell.eduWed Aug 30 10:16:24 1995
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 00:01:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Timothy A. Nolan" 
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Women, Universal House of Justice

    It seems to me extremely unlikely that the rule excluding women from
membership on the Universal House of Justice will be changed before the next
Manifestation of God appears.  The primary reason I believe that is that
The Universal House of Justice, in its Constitution, states that the
authority of the writings of Abdu'l Baha and Shoghi Effendi is
"absolute and immutable"  until such time as God sends a new Manifestation.
Since both Abdu'l Baha and Shoghi Effendi have clearly said that membership
on the Universal House of Justice is restricted to men, and since the
authority of those statements is absolute and immutable until the next
Manifestation, I see no reason the rule should be changed.
     If the argument is raised that this rule is a matter of legislation,
which falls outside the Guardian's sphere of infalliblity, one response is
that no such restriction applies to Abdu'l Baha. The Master had the
authority to legislate, and His Will is evidence of this. He created a new
institution, the Secondary House of Justice (National Spiritual Assembly).
Creating a new administrative institution is certainly legislating, and no
one I know of has ever questioned the validity of National Spiritual
Assemblies.  Besides, in the Guardian's statements, he isn't so much
legislating as he is explaining the meaning of statements of Abdu'l Baha.
This "explaining the meaning" is clearly within the Guardian's sphere
of expounding on the sacred text, so it is divine guidance.  That is why I
don't think the rule should be or can be changed by anyone less than
a new Manifestation of God.

Tim Nolan   tan1@cornell.edu

From tan1@cornell.eduWed Aug 30 10:16:51 1995
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 00:18:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Timothy A. Nolan" 
To: sindiogi@NMSU.Edu, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women/UHJ

>    This issue of no women on the UHJ.......
> However we cut, slice, or dice it, it is discrimination and it is against
> the Principles of our Faith.  It can not stand.

I don't understand how statements from Abdu'l Baha and Shoghi Effendi
can possibly be "against the Principles of our Faith". This seems a
contradiction; after all the principles of the Baha'i Faith are defined,
not by us, but by the writings of Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l Baha, and Shoghi
Effendi.  Whatever statements they wrote ARE the principles of our Faith.

As to whether the rule cannot stand....who are we to decide that?
We may not like the rule, we may not understand it, but those are not
sound reasons to discard or overthrow a rule given by the Head of the Faith.
The will of God is not determined by what we like or dislike.
I admit I don't understand the rule either. A response I have found useful
is to have faith God is doing what is best. God is, after all, the Source of
all knowledge and wisdom; I am not.


> My first question to a Bahai
> as a seeker was the number of women on the UHJ. The answer, coupled with
> the pseudo-teaching of parallel evolution, has delayed my becoming a
> Bahai for 5 years. I immensely regret that. Enough is said...

After I first learned about the Baha'i Faith, I delayed enrolling in the
Baha'i community for two years. This delay was because of my limitations,
not because of any flaw in the Cause of God.  God's guidance may not be
what we want to hear, but it is always what is best for us.

Tim Nolan   tan1@cornell.edu

From nima@unm.eduWed Aug 30 10:17:26 1995
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 23:21:51 -0600 (MDT)
From: Sadra 
To: "Timothy A. Nolan" 
Cc: sindiogi@NMSU.Edu, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Tertullian's Logic (Re: Women/UHJ)

> As to whether the rule cannot stand....who are we to decide that?
> ***We may not like the rule, we may not understand it, but those are not
> sound reasons to discard or overthrow a rule given by the Head of the 
Faith***.

Dear Tim--

  No offense intended, but wouldn't the above necessarily imply exactly the 
same kind of illogical reasoning (and I'm NOT calling you illogical) used by 
one of the most venomous religious fanatics in all history, namely 
Tertullian (160-220 CE), in the notorious maxim "credo quia ineptum est" 
(I believe because it's absurd) in justification of a literalist 
interpretation of the Incarnation, the "Three-in-One" doctrine and 
Bodily Resurrection? Just an observation.

  I mean, given the evidence, the sound arguments we've witnessed in the last
few days right here on Talisman (some water-tight as far as I'm 
concerned), why insist the matter a closed-and-shut case? 

Warm regards,
Nima

---
O God, cause us to see things as they really are - Hadith

Strive to lead back the divine within you to the Divine in
the All - Plotinus (d. 270 AD)


From ahmada@acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.auWed Aug 30 10:26:34 1995
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 16:08:01 +1000
From: Ahmad Aniss 
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: IBC / UHJ

Daer Friends,

Most of friends that have quoted the following writing by The Guardian
have omitted the last to paragraph (see below) that have extensive bearings
in regard to views of the Guardian on whom the members of the UHJ will
be and what the IBC represents for.  The Guardian fully acknowledges
the law of Kitab-i-Agdas in the last paragraph.  In addition, The Guardian
has clearly stated in the subsequent quotations below that the IBC was an
embryonic International Institution and not an embryonic International
House of Justice.  Such Institutions will be under the governing body,
the UHJ.
This directive from the Guardian is well after those tables of Abdu'l-Baha
and as an interpreter of the Faith, must be considered authoritative.
If the nature of the tablets of Abdu'l-Baha are not clear for some, they
must consider this directive to have precedence to those tablets.  Solely
because of chronologicality.

Directives from the Guardian (page 79-80)

"As regards your question concerning the membership of 
the Universal House of Justice, there is a Tablet from Abdu'l-Baha 
in which He definitely states that the membership of the 
Universal House is confined to men and that the wisdom of it 
will be fully revealed in the future.  In the local, as well as the 
National Houses of Justice, however, women have the full right 
of membership.  It is therefore, only to the International 
House that they cannot be elected.  The Baha'is should accept 
this statement of the Master in a spirit of deep faith, confident 
that there is a divine guidance and wisdom behind it, which 
will be gradually unfolded to the eyes of the world."
     "Regarding your question, the Master said the wisdom of 
having no women on the International House of Justice, would 
become manifest in the future.  We have no other indication 
than this."
     "At present there are women on the International Council, 
and this will continue as long as it exists, but when the International 
House of Justice is elected, there will only be men on 
it, as this is the law of the Aqdas."


Messages to the Baha'i World: 1950-1957 (pages 7-8)

"Nascent Institution now created is invested 
with threefold function:  first, to forge link with authorities of 
newly emerged State; second, to assist me to discharge responsibilities 
involved in erection of mighty superstructure of the Bab's Holy 
Shrine; third, to conduct negotiations related to matters of personal 
status with civil authorities.  To these will be added further functions 
in course of evolution of this first embryonic International Institution, 
marking its development into officially recognized Baha'i 
Court, its transformation into duly elected body, its efflorescence 
into Universal House of Justice, and its final fruition through erection 
of manifold auxiliary institutions constituting the World Administrative 
Center destined to arise and function and remain permanently 
established in close neighborhood of Twin Holy Shrines."

The above Guardian's message clearly indicates the nature of the role
IBC, (i.e. the three fold fuctions and as we know later functions), and
its difference to role of UHJ.



(page 149)

"The International Baha'i Council, comprising eight members, 
charged with assisting in the manifold activities attendant upon the 
rise of the World Administrative Center of the Faith, which must 
pave the way for the formation of a Baha'i International Court and 
the eventual emergence of the Universal House of Justice, the supreme 
legislative body of the future Baha'i Commonwealth, has been 
established, enlarged, and the functions of its members defined."


I like to say here that a few of friends have stated that such Court
was not established, before formation of UHJ.  Perhaps not in
such form or name as they perceive.  I would like to say that such
body was formed when the IBC was left with the unexpected
passing of the Guardian.  IBC at that time was left with the
task of deciding who is the successor of the Faith and after
clarifying the situation in accordance to the written text took
the task of bringing the UHJ into formation.  Hence IBC was
at that time acting as a international court.

With Baha'i, Love and Greetings,
Ahmad.

 _______________________________________________________________________
^									^
^ Dr. A.M. Aniss,			Tel: Home   [61(2)] 505 509	^
^ Bio-Medical Engineer,			     Work   [61(2)] 694 5915	^
^ Neuropsychiatric Institute,		     Mobile   019 992020	^
^ Prince Henry Hospital,		Fax: Work   [61(2)] 694 5747  	^
^ Little Bay, N.S.W. 2036,						^
^ Australia.				Email: A.Aniss@unsw.edu.au	^
^_______________________________________________________________________^







From rstockman@usbnc.orgWed Aug 30 10:44:42 1995
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 95 07:00:13 
From: "Stockman, Robert" 
To: Juan R Cole , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: rijal/men and local houses of justice


     
     Juan: How do you know the reference to "houses of justice" might not 
     refer to national houses of justice?  Baha'u'llah, to my knowledge, 
     never mentioned the various levels of houses of justice explicitly, 
     but possibly one can infer them.  I have never seen a clear reference 
     in the Baha'i writings to national houses of justice before 
     `Abdu'l-Baha's *Will and Testament,* but Hippolyte Dreyfus mentions 
     national Houses of Justice in *Essay on Bahaism* (Essaie sur le 
     Behaisme*) which was published in 1909.  And pilgrims mention them.  
     So clearly `Abdu'l-Baha was talking about them, and maybe even 
     Baha'u'llah talked about them.
     
                -- Rob


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: rijal/men and local houses of justice
Author:  Juan R Cole  at INTERNET
Date:    8/28/95 7:12 AM


     
More than one person has asked for a citation for Baha'u'llah's use of 
"rijal/men" to refer to local houses of justice.
     
In Ishraq-Khavari, ed., Ganj-i Shayigan, p. 211, Baha'u'llahs says
     
"va hududat-i munzalih dar Kitab bih rijal-i buyut-i `adliyyih tafvid. 
shudih."
     
loosely: "and the ordinances revealed in the Book have been delegated 
[for their implementation] to the men of the houses of justice."  This is 
a gloss on the pharse in the Aqdas where he calls upon the ahl-i majalis, 
or people of assemblies, to choose a universal language.  Here he is 
saying that these assemblies include not only parliaments but also houses 
of justice.
     
     
So, in answer to Ahmad's question, no, this Tablet is not an address to a 
de facto all-male consultative assembly in the Iran of the time.  It is an 
abstract discussion of future activities of houses of justice.  As I said, 
the plural demonstrates unequivocally that it is the local bodies that are 
being spoken of and not the Universal House of Justice.
     
The reason this is important is that `Abdu'l-Baha' says in his 1902 
letter to Corinne True that the *reason* women cannot serve on a house of 
justice is that Baha'u'llah refered to their members as "men/rijal."
     
It is obvious to me that this line of reason would exclude women from all 
houses of justice, local and universal.  Yet in 1912 `Abdu'l-Baha 
abruptly allowed women to serve on the Chicago local house of justice 
(and by extension all others).  
     
Ipso facto, Baha'u'llah's use of the word "rijal" to refer to members of 
local houses of justice and of the universal house of justice does not 
preclude women serving on those bodies, and this can be proven with 
reference to `Abdu'l-Baha's 1912 ruling.  
     
I am sorry, but I did not find Ahmad's message to have engaged the 
arguments being presented.  You can't dismiss a textual and logical argument 
with the wave of your hand as an "interpolation" and expect that to settle 
the issue.All I take away from your message is that your mind is made up; 
you are not interested in any evidence that might prove upsetting to your 
views.  That is, of course, your prerogative; I don't think you will find 
it a sort of argumentation that will succeed on Talisman.
     
As for John's invocation of the charismatic authority of the beloved 
Guardian, he is certainly correct; and Shoghi Effendi is very dear to 
us.  However, the Guardian's secretary's quotation of the 1902 letter 
cannot settle this issue.
     
It does matter to me whether women are on the House.  I don't think a 
House with women on it would have declared men the head of the household 
in the absence of a clear scriptural text on the issue, for instance.  
And besides, this is a soul-wrenching inconsistency in our religion.
     
So until someone can address my syllogisms, I remain convinced that there 
is something strange going on hear; and the Universal House of Justice 
has authority to rule in matters where the Text is inconsistent or unclear.
     
     
cheers  JRIC
     

From rstockman@usbnc.orgWed Aug 30 10:45:10 1995
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 95 07:00:07 
From: "Stockman, Robert" 
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re[2]: Women and Houses of Justice 


     Actually, the situation is even more complicated than Tony says.  In 
     1911 `Abdu'l-Baha said to the Kenosha Baha'is "you have a spiritual 
     Assembly of men and you can establish a spiritual Assembly of women."  
     Note, `Abdu'l-Baha does not say you cannot establish a mixed assembly. 
     (This is quoted in my *World Order* article on women in the American 
     Baha'i community, and I think it is in *Baha'i Faith in America, 
     Volume Two,* but I couldn't fin it when I looked.)   Again, we see Him 
     avoiding the direct question.  And note this is two years after 
     `Abdu'l-Baha had written Corinne True saying women are excluded from 
     the Universal House of Justice only and can serve on the spiritual 
     assembly (I quoted this tablet earlier today).  So we cannot take the 
     Kenosha letter and generalize about ther service of women on LSAs.  
     `Abdu'l-Baha had already said they could serve; but perhaps He felt it 
     wasn't yet best for Kenosha.
     
                -- Rob Stockman


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Women and Houses of Justice 
Author:  Member1700@aol.com at INTERNET
Date:    8/26/95 8:31 PM


Saman's information from Susan Maneck's book is essentially correct.  Except 
that, even in 1911, 'Abdu'l-Baha was still insisting--in a Tablet to Kenosha 
this time--that women should not be elected to local Houses of Justice.  He 
only changed things in 1912, when the Chicago "House" was dissolved and 
reelected with women serving on it.  Perhaps, this was after 'Abdu'l-Baha had 
had a chance to see women functioning in Western society, or perhaps it was 
for other reasons.  

From rstockman@usbnc.orgWed Aug 30 10:47:50 1995
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 95 07:00:11 
From: "Stockman, Robert" 
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: women and UHJ


     I have never seen the Chicago governing body called the "Universal 
     House of Justice" or the "General House of Justice."  In 1901, when it 
     was elected, the body decided to call itself "the Chicago House of 
     Justice" and `Abdu'l-Baha subsequently addressed them as the Chicago 
     "House of Justice."  In the spring of 1902--within weeks of writing 
     the tablet to True saying women could not serve on "the House of 
     Justice"-- `Abdu'l-Baha wrote Mirza Asadu'llah and said the name of 
     the Chicago body should be changed to the "House of Spirituality."  To 
     my knowledge a copy of the original of this tablet is not in Haifa; 
     all I have seen is the 1902 English translation.  If `Abdu'l-Baha 
     changed the name before writing True this would greatly weaken the 
     argument that "the House of Justice" in the 1902 tablet to True refers 
     to Chicago.  But since neither tablet bears a date, all we can say is 
     that both were written within a few weeks of each other.
     
     Once the name was changed to "House of Spirituality" this was the term 
     used in Chicago.  Interestingly, `Abdu'l-Baha always addressed it as 
     "spiritual assembly" (mahfil-i-rawhani).  He never again called it a 
     "House of Justice" and I think only once used the term "House of 
     Spirituality" in passing.  This also weakens Tony's argument that the 
     1909 tablet referring to the "House of Justice" must refer to Chicago; 
     if so, `Abdu'l-Baha was making a radical departure from his and 
     Chicago's existing vocabulary.  When Ameen Fareed translated 
     "mahfil-i-rawhani" into English he used "spiritual meeting (House of 
     Spirituality)."  I think he did this because "mahfil-i-rawhani" had 
     not yet become a specialized technical term; as I show in an appendix 
     to *Baha'i Faith in America, Volume Two,* in different tablets one can 
     find the term referring to an LSA, the committee of a group of Baha'is 
     (the "spiritual Assemblies" of the men and of the women in Kenosha; 
     the spiritual assembly of the Jewish Baha'is of Tehran), and what 
     today we would call a regular fireside.  It was in 1910 or 1911, when 
     Hippolyte Dreyfus came through Chicago and read all the tablets they 
     had received, when the Baha'is there discovered that "spiritual 
     assembly" was the term `Abdu'l-Baha used for their governing body.  
     And it was about that year that the New York Baha'is began to use 
     "Spiritual Assembly" instead of "Board of Counsel" for the name of 
     their consultative body.
     
     Oh, another comment about Tony's ideas: women were first elected to 
     the New York spiritual assembly in 1911.  This is before `Abdu'l-Baha 
     arrived, thus showing His visit was not the trigger for the inclusion 
     of women.  See *Baha'i Faith in America, Volume Two,* page 338.
     
     As for using one tablet to establish a principle: it depends on the 
     tablet and the related tablets.
     
                -- Rob Stockman


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Rob: granted that the 1909 tablet to True appears to refer to the 
Universal House of Justice as we know it rather than the Chicago 
House of Justice (which I think we must assume unless someone can
     find an instance of the name 'Universal House of Justice' being used 
     in Chicago in 1908/9), is a single text to an individual believer 
     enough to establish a principle of law? 

From rstockman@usbnc.orgWed Aug 30 10:49:20 1995
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 95 07:00:19 
From: "Stockman, Robert" 
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re[2]: Women/UHJ


     One believer wrote:
     
     I am dead serious: the posting by Juan that not the last has been said 
     on the male-only UHJ was the best thing for me for months. It gave me 
     hope when I had lost it.  
     
     However we cut, slice, or dice it, it is discrimination and it is 
     against the Principles of our Faith.  It can not stand.
     
     I like to teach the Faith when possible. I am sure you all know how 
     the male-only UHJ makes everything so difficult. My first question to 
     a Bahai as a seeker was the number of women on the UHJ. The answer, 
     coupled with the pseudo-teaching of parallel evolution, has delayed my 
     becoming a Bahai for 5 years. I immensely regret that. Enough is 
     said...
     
     My comment is:
     
     I couldn't agree more, from an emotional point of view.  I can't 
     figure this teaching out either.  It doesn't seem to make any sense.  
     But Shoghi Effendi offers an answer to this feeling of despair as 
     well: in a letter he wrote through a secretary he said the exclusion 
     of women will not satisfy feminists, but the Baha'is just have to 
     accept it.  I'm sorry I don't have the exact quote at my fingertips, 
     but will supply it if you want.
     
                -- Rob Stockman

From Member1700@aol.comWed Aug 30 18:09:29 1995
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 12:50:36 -0400
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women on the House

Concerning the Tablet of `Abdu'l-Baha to Corinne True in 1909, it seems to me
that neither Rob Stockman or Richard Hollinger have sufficiently taken into
account later developments.  Specifically, I am referring to `Abdu'l-Baha's
clear Tablet to Kenosha in 1911, in response to their clear questions, which
reaffirmed the policy of the exclusion of women from local Houses of Justice.
 
    Will either Robert or Richard kindly explain to me how `Abdu'l-Baha could
have reversed his policy (or clarified his policy, if you prefer) in 1909 in
such a way as to allow (Rob says, command) the election of women to local
Houses of Justice--how he could have done that, and then in 1911 reaffirm the
previous policy of exclusion?  That is quite nonsensical.  
    I will repeat that I do not think that it is possible to maintain
(historically) that the 1909 Tablet to Corinne True which mentions the
"universal" House of Justice represented a change of policy, because we have
the Kenosha events in 1911 to confirm the obvious.   Nobody thought so at the
time (well, except Corinne True), and they were right.

Warmest, 
Tony

From tan1@cornell.eduWed Aug 30 18:18:10 1995
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 13:56:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Timothy A. Nolan" 
To: nima@unm.edu, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: Tertullian's Logic (Re: Women/UHJ)


Tim Nolan wrote:
tn>> As to whether the rule cannot stand....who are we to decide that?
tn>>    ***We may not like the rule, we may not understand it, but those are
tn>>  not  sound reasons to discard or overthrow a rule given by the Head of
tn>> the Faith***.

The rule referred to above is the one which says only men may be members
of the Universal House of Justice.

Nima responded:
n> but wouldn't the above necessarily imply exactly
n> the  same kind of illogical reasoning (and I'm NOT calling you illogical)
n> used by  one of the most venomous religious fanatics in all history,
n> namely  Tertullian (160-220 CE), in the notorious maxim "credo quia
n> ineptum est"  (I believe because it's absurd) in justification of a
n> literalist  interpretation of the Incarnation, the "Three-in-One"
n> doctrine and  Bodily Resurrection?

I certainly do NOT advocate the principle of "I believe because it is
absurd".  I think it is not possible to believe an idea that does not make
sense. Because, in order to believe, it is necessary first to have
some degree of understanding. I don't see how it is possible for me to understand
something that does not make sense to me, and if I can't understand it, at
least a little, then I cannot believe it.  That same idea might make sense
to another person, and she might be able to believe it.
    Now, as to the rule excluding women from membership on the Universal
House of Justice, it is true I don't understand the reason for this.
I submit that no one else does either since the reason is supposed
to become as obvious as the sun at mid-day.   But what I do understand
is this:

         1.Abdu'l Baha wrote that membership on the Universal House
           of Justice is restricted to men.

         2. Shoghi Effendi repeated and confirmed what Abdu'l Baha had
           written.

         3. The Universal House of Justice, in its Constitution,
            said that the authority of the writings of Abdu'l Baha
           and of Shoghi Effendi is "absolute and immutable" until
           God sends the next Manifestation, who will do what She wishes.

The Universal House of Justice cannot change interpretations made by the
Master or the Guardian, and the House has said the authority of statements
from either Abdu'l Baha or Shoghi Effendi is "absolute and immutable".
It is true, of course, that the Universal House of Justice  has the
authority to change or reverse its own decisions.  But once they say
something is "absolute and immutable", how can they go back and change that?
It's difficult to change something which is "absolute and immutable".
"Immutable", after all, means "unchangeable".

Given the statements of the Master and the Guardian and the Universal House
of Justice, it is logical, not absurd to believe the rule is the will
of God, at least until the next Manifestation comes, which won't be for
at least 850 years.


> I mean, given the evidence, the sound arguments we've witnessed in the
> last few days right here on Talisman (some water-tight as far as I'm
> concerned), why insist the matter a closed-and-shut case?

It seems to me the rule will stand because of the statements of the Master,
the Guardian, and because the Universal House of Justice said the authority
of those statements is "absolute and immutable" until the next
Manifestation.  All the arguments in the world will not change something
which has been described as "absolute and immutable"  by
the divinely guided Universal House of Justice.  I don't see any way to
change something which is "immutable".  Of course, when the next
Manifestation of God comes, everything might be changed.

   As for Tertullian, he did not have the benefit of a divinely guided,
unerring interpreter of God's revelation, as the Baha'is do have.
This is  of the reasons the revelation of Baha'u'llah is more advanced
 than that of Jesus. Note:  It does NOT follow that Baha'is are more
 advanced than Christians.

Tim Nolan   tan1@cornell.edu

From KOLINSSM@hcl.chass.ncsu.eduWed Aug 30 22:04:14 1995
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 19:58:48 EDT
From: Steven Kolins 
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: WOM-UHJ.B

> WOM-UHJ.B
> THE FIRST BAHA'I INSTITUTIONS
Indeed. I see reconsiling the examples of Tahirih and The Greatest 
Holy Leaf as a most capticvating question to meditate on as concerns 
understanding the role of women in this Faith.

:)
Steven
All I need is Freedom of spirit, Chastity of soul, and Purity of 
heart. A pov is not even secondary. 

From ahmada@acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.auWed Aug 30 22:13:39 1995
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 11:31:49 +1000
From: Ahmad Aniss 
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: action of next Manifestation

Dear Talismanians,
Dear Derek, Sheila and Amin
In your posting you said:

>From owner-talisman@indiana.edu Wed Aug 30 08:38 EST 1995
>Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 14:56:28 -0700
>From: derekmc@ix.netcom.com (DEREK COCKSHUT )
>Subject: Women and the Universal House of Justice.
>To: talisman@indiana.edu
>
>>To: derekmc@ix.netcom.com (DEREK COCKSHUT )
>From: banani@humnet.ucla.edu (Amin Banani)
>Subject: Re: Fwd: Women and the Universal House of Justice.
>Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 13:03:39 +0800
>

>Dearest Derek,
 >       Bless you for holding up the Standard, calling out the troops and
>doing roll call (are you there, Baha'i men?)--we need men such as you to
>keep reminding other men (men tend not to 'hear' women when they speak
>about these things) they need to ENCOURAGE women.  Encouragement
>requires paying attention to what women are trying to say and do.  You are
>a defender and promoter of women and I am happy to know you.


Good for you Derek and others alike, but let me assure you that you are not
alone in your endeavours as Amin (Sheila) would like to think.  Many others
are now there.


>       As far as the absence of women's membership on the Universal House
>of Justice, did I ever tell you my "guess" as to why it is part of
>Baha'u'llah's laws?  Of course women are to vote, even if they can't be
>voted for, and they are to continually advance in Baha'u'llah's
>Dispensation until they become fully recognized partners by men.  This law
>(no women members on the highest elected administrative body) cannot be
>changed during Baha'u'llah's Dispensation

It is good to find that at least there is one person on Talisman whom accepts
the fact that such clear laws of baha'u'llah (i.e. no woman members on
UHJ) are not changeable by a legislation from UHJ.  If it was possible
the UHJ would have indicated by now that at some stage in future this
will be done, depending on its wisdom.


>					and, therefore, may represent an
>obvious reason (and perhaps the only one) to eventually need another
>Manifestation of God to enter the Baha'i Cycle,  have the "right" to change
>a "social" law (remember, this is NOT an eternal "spiritual truth," that
>women not serve on the UHJ), and close Baha'u'llah's specific Dispensation.
>Otherwise, with all the "flexibility" which Baha'u'llah has built into the
>Administrative Order, one wonders what the conditions would have to be
>to require a NEW Manifestation of God--this is a Day which is not to be
>followed by Night, so we know the Covenant protects this evolving
>Dispensation of Baha'u'llah.  But we also know that His laws are not to be
>changed during his Dispensation (not by the UHJ or anyone else) so,
>therefore, as with all religious  "social" laws, some are "outlived" or in
>some way in need of change.  This law of Baha'u'llah's Dispensation MAY be
>one of those laws which is NECESSARY to have in place in order to lead to
>the eventual REQUIREMENT for another Manifestation of God after one
>thousand or thousands of years.  If this is true, which those in the future
>will be able to judge, then it will be obvious why we needed to have at
>least one such law from Baha'u'llah.
>        You are welcome to post this on Talisman for me, since I've been
>off  for over a couple of months.
>
>Love,
>Sheila


Does this mean that the woman in our society must await one thousand
or thousands of years, so to achieve equality with men?  Is that much
time needed for achieving this objective?  Is the allowing of women
to be the members of the UHJ the ultimate goal for establishment
of equality of men and women.
Wasn't Baha'u'llah that stated that equality of men and women is
established in this Dispensation(The Promulgation of Universal Peace,
page 455).

	He establishes the equality of man and woman.  This is peculiar 
	to the teachings of Baha'u'llah, for all other religions have placed 
	man above woman.  

Wasn't Abdu'l-Baha that stated establishment of oneness of
mankind is dependent on the achievement of this equality
(The Promulgation of Universal Peace, page 77).

	  For the world of humanity consists of two parts or members.
	one is woman; the other is man.  Until these two members
	are equal in strength, the oneness of humanity cannot be 
	established, and the happiness and felicity of mankind will
	not be a reality.  God willing, this is to be so.

Wasn't the Guardian that stated this equality is one of Baha'u'llah's
principles and will be established in world (God Passes By, page 281).
Perhaps there are laws in baha'u'llah's Dispensation that will require
a change by the time of the advent of the next manifestation of god,
and that this law may be one of them, which I clearly doubt (based
on my theory of the seed of creation), but I do not see the eventual
necessity of the advent of another manifestation of god in it.
Adu'l-Baha has stated in Some Answered Question page 145 which
I have enclosed that the sole purpose of the coming of these Holy
beings is to revive the human society, and align it with the guidance of God.

	Holy Spirit is the mediator of the Holy Light from the
	Sun of Reality, which it gives to the sanctified realities.  It
	is adorned with all the divine perfections.  Every time it
	appears, the world is renewed, and a new cycle is
	founded.  The body of the world of humanity puts on a
	new garment.  It can be compared to the spring; whenever
	it comes, the world passes from one condition to another.
	Through the advent of the season of spring the black earth
	and the fields and wildernesses will become verdant and
	blooming, and all sorts of flowers and sweet-scented herbs
	will grow; the trees will have new life, and new fruits will
	appear, and a new cycle is founded.  The appearance of the
	Holy Spirit is like this.  Whenever it appears, it renews the
	world of humanity and gives a new spirit to the human
	realities: it arrays the world of existence in apraiseworthy
	garment, dispels the darkness of ignorance, and causes the
	radiation of the light of perfections."


So, again the question is: is it the inferiority / superiority or functionality?
As Abdu'l-Baha has stated in The Promulgation of Universal Peace,
page 374:

	"When we look upon creation, we find the male and female 
	principle apparent in all phenomena of existence."

I think the hardened feminist will blast me but, I must say that, I believe
it is the functionality of the genders that differ.  equality of men and
women will be established in this Dispensation and has no bearing on
why the Manifestations of God are all men and why the infallible body
of the UHJ is constituted by men only.  In addition, I would like to quote
the following passage from Writings of Abdu'l-Baha pages 79-80:

	     Know thou, O handmaid, that in the sight of Baha, 
	women are accounted the same as men, and God hath 
	created all humankind in His own image, and after His own 
	likeness.  That is, men and women alike are the revealers of 
	His names and attributes, and from the spiritual viewpoint 
	there is no difference between them.  Whosoever draweth 
	nearer to God, that one is the most favoured, whether man 
	or woman.  How many a handmaid, ardent and devoted, 
	hath, within the sheltering shade of Baha, proved superior 
	to the men, and surpassed the famous of the earth.  
	     The House of Justice, however, according to the explicit 
	text of the Law of God, is confined to men; this for a 
	wisdom of the Lord God's, which will erelong be made 
	manifest as clearly as the sun at high noon.

With Baha'i Love and Fellowship,
Ahmad.

CC: banani@humnet.ucla.edu
 _______________________________________________________________________
^									^
^ Dr. A.M. Aniss,			Tel: Home   [61(2)] 505 509	^
^ Bio-Medical Engineer,			     Work   [61(2)] 694 5915	^
^ Neuropsychiatric Institute,		     Mobile   019 992020	^
^ Prince Henry Hospital,		Fax: Work   [61(2)] 694 5747  	^
^ Little Bay, N.S.W. 2036,						^
^ Australia.				Email: A.Aniss@unsw.edu.au	^
^_______________________________________________________________________^







From ahmada@acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.auThu Aug 31 10:05:19 1995
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 15:02:12 +1000
From: Ahmad Aniss 
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: re:actino of next Manifestation

Dear Talismanians,

The following E-mail was sent to me by Ms. Sheila Banai.  As she has
requested I am posting it to you all.

With Baha'i Love and Greetings,
Ahmad.

[Her posting]

>From banani@humnet.ucla.edu Thu Aug 31 14:04 EST 1995
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 21:12:44 +0800
To: Ahmad Aniss 
From: banani@humnet.ucla.edu (Amin Banani)
Subject: Re: action of next Manifestation


Dear Mr. Aniss:

      I use the email address of my husband Amin, however he had nothing to
do with my comments regarding reasons for the next Manifestation of God in
the Baha'i Cycle posted on Talisman which were only from me (Sheila).
Derek had sent me a copy of comments he was posting on Talisman on the
subject of no women on the Universal House of Justice and, when I responded
to Derek, I said he could post them on Talisman.  I invite you to do the
same with these comments now, from me, if you please since I am no longer
on Talisman due to a very heavy load of ABS conference work until
mid-October.

        I understand the "fact" of the "equality" of men and women, which
is stated by the Central Figures of the Faith, to be one of the "spiritual"
laws or "truths" which is unchangeable from Manifestation to Manifestation.
Equality of women and men is an "eternal" truth and not a "social" law of
God.  It is these "spiritual" truths which, when mentioned by each new
Manifestation of God, renews and revivifies human creation which tends to
"forget" (ignore) all or most of these eternal laws of God and needs
periodic "reminders" from the Mercy of God through His continuing
Manifestations. So, equality of women and men is not the issue here (at
least for me).  The "truth" is we are spiritually "equal" and that is that.


         However, the "social"  laws (i.e.,those laws subject to possible
confirmation, restatement, or abrogation by the next Manifestation of God
which is His right as the Mouthpiece of God) of the Baha'i Faith, I am
suggesting, include this "social" law that women are not eligible to serve
on the Universal House of Justice during the Dispensation of Baha'u'llah.
Obedience to the "social" laws of the Faith brings an intended ordering to
the affairs of humanity during a specific period of time (the
Dispensation).  When and if any of these "social" laws are either
confirmed, changed or abrogated by a later Manifestation of God (who is the
only One entitled to do so), it is again for the benefit of the best
ordering of the world.  The principle here, for me, is that on faith I
believe that individuals do not know what is in God's Mind for the benefit
of humanity at any period in history--all we can rely on is the acceptance
that by following the laws (spiritual/eternal and social) given by God's
Manifestation for the day in which we live, that we move toward that future
time when any of the existing "social" laws again become in need of
confirmation, change or abrogation along with a new infusion of faith
("re-creation") based on reminders of the "eternal" (spiritual) laws of
God.  Therefore, this particular "social" law of Baha'u'llah, interpreted
by 'Abdu'l-Baha and confirmed by Shoghi Effendi, holds within it the
"possibility" of being one of the necessary and obvious ("clear as the
noonday sun") causes for the appearance of another Manifestation of God to
close Baha'u'llah's Dispensation within the overarching Baha'i Cycle to
last 500,000 years.  If that Loved One of God, the Bab, could continually
plead with God to be the Sacrifice for the appearance of the next
Manifestation of God (Him Whom God Shall Make Manifest--the Blessed Beauty,
Baha'u'llah), can women (or men) in Baha'u'llah's Dispensation do less?
Equality (of women and men) which is a spiritual fact becomes, in its
"social" application through this specific law of Baha'u'llah, one of the
causes of the longed-for appearance of the next Manifestation of God.
Baha'u'llah tells us in the Kitab-i-Iqan that God always "tests" the people
with the laws of each Manifestation and that is the way it will always be.
What we may "expect" does not "happen" (or not in the way we think it
should) and what humanity does not want or expect is sometimes what God
delivers.

        Sorry to have gone on so long on this, but I felt your response to
what I had said missed the mark of what I wanted to communicate.  This
probably is because you are trying to convince people of something carried
on from previous postings on Talisman (which I have not read and cannot
take the time to read now).

        Again, these comments are NOT from Amin and may not even reflect
his views (I hope that is a sufficient disclaimer).

Sheila Banani




Sheila Banani
2320 Alta Avenue, Santa Monica, California 90402
Tel  (310) 394-5449
Fax (310) 394-6167
E-Mail:  Banani@HumNet.UCLA.Edu (Sheila)



 _______________________________________________________________________
^									^
^ Dr. A.M. Aniss,			Tel: Home   [61(2)] 505 509	^
^ Bio-Medical Engineer,			     Work   [61(2)] 694 5915	^
^ Neuropsychiatric Institute,		     Mobile   019 992020	^
^ Prince Henry Hospital,		Fax: Work   [61(2)] 694 5747  	^
^ Little Bay, N.S.W. 2036,						^
^ Australia.				Email: A.Aniss@unsw.edu.au	^
^_______________________________________________________________________^







From 73613.2712@compuserve.comThu Aug 31 10:10:01 1995
Date: 31 Aug 95 02:08:47 EDT
From: Steven Scholl <73613.2712@compuserve.com>
To: Talisman 
Subject: Women on the UHJ: A Bahai Problem

Dear Friends,

Many moons ago the following paper by Bill Garlington was posted on Talisman.
Since  we are revisiting many of the issues and fine tuning the debate, I
thought it might be useful to hear Bill's position again. I think it is a rather
serious critique and shows how the Baha'i Faith is being trapped into a position
similiar to the Mormon Church's earlier stand on blacks in the priesthood and
the role of women in the Catholic Church. This is not going to be an issue that
goes away but rather will continue to be a source of conflict and confusion as
the Faith expands. Like Bill, I do not see how we can advocate equality of the
sexes and then announce that women cannot serve on the House of Justice. 

We have seen that what was once held as firm ground for the ban of women on the
House is less solid than most of us originally thought it to be. Some maintain
that we cannot get around a few statements of Shoghi Effendi's, but I have
always thought that these very minimialist statements of the Guardian's actually
do not do anything but leave the matter up in the air. He seems to be hesitating
from making some kind of hard and fixed pronouncement as he merely calls
attention to a tablet from Abdu'l-Baha with very little commentary or
interpretation. I think he may have done this for two reasons. 1. The election
of the House was not on the horizon and such issues could be dealt with in the
future. 2. He felt that he had to say something but that in fact such a
statement on a matter of Bahai legislation on unclear matters from the sacred
texts falls outside of his area of "infallibility." This is actually a matter
that falls into the House of Justice's domain and they have the power and
authority to rule on a matter of Baha'i administration that is unclear. This
does not mean that they will, but the valuable research that Bahai scholars have
done in this area at least sheds more light on the history and context of this
troubling matter. 
 

As ever,
Steve

Women and the Universal House of Justice:
A Baha'i Problem

By Bill Garlington

	I remember how impressed I was back in 1967 when I first heard about the
Baha'i Faith and its concept of the equality of men and women. Most progressive
movements at that time, both secular and religious, openly advocated the
equality of racial groups, but few took the equality of the sexes seriously. It
was with great shock, therefore, when shortly after officially declaring myself
a Baha'i I came to discover that women were not allowed on the Faith's most
august administrative body, The Universal House of Justice. I was upset, both at
myself, for not having found this out before declaring, and at the Baha'i
community in general, for not openly and directly announcing the situation
during teaching efforts. When I desired reasons for this restriction, I was
given the 'official' answer which holds that Abdu'l-Baha (the son of
Baha'u'llah, the prophet-founder of the Baha'i Faith) said that in the future
the purpose for the limitation would become apparent. For many Baha'is,
especially those of Persian ethnicity or fundamentalist religiosity, this answer
suffices, but I felt dissatisfied. For a religion that was presented as soundly
'rational' in its basic tenets (for example, the notion that science and
religion do not contradict each other) this seemed an odd exception. There were
attempts made by some believers to give me what they thought were 'good' reasons
for the ban. One gentleman told me that women in such situations would distract
the men (I guess he meant that they would provoke their lower natures). Another
man told me that during their menstrual periods women were known to act
irrationally. Still another said that the restriction could be a symbolic
reminder to men that they have a responsibility to society, that they must serve
society, and they must develop their nurturing, loving, 'feminine' sides. (Say
what?) Women believers generally remained silent on the issue. Now I admit that
these were individual interpretations, but what they shared in common with the
official response, or , for that matter, any response, was that even if they
were true, they would also apply to women serving at national or local levels
(national spiritual assemblies or local spiritual assemblies) and there were no
such restrictions in force for these institutions.

	Over the years I gradually drifted away from the Baha'i community. I
began to realize that the social idealism that brought me to the Faith was not
enough to keep me a 'true believer.' I felt that I had to sacrifice too much
both intellectually and politically. I have maintained contact, however, both
through friends and academic interests (I completed my doctoral dissertation on
the teaching activities of the Faith in India), and I am well aware that among
certain more 'radical' Baha'is the question of women and the Universal House of
Justice has not gone away. And why should it? With the great advancement forward
that the women's movement(s) has made both in this country and around the world
during the past two decades, the Baha'i Faith now seems regressive in an area
where it was  once seen as progressive. It would seem, therefore, that a major
question now confronting the movement is: 'can it change this policy?'

	Unfortunately, history and certain 'political' mechanisms seem to have
painted the community into a corner from which it will find it hard to escape.
Here I am referring to the intransigent position that has held sway within the
Faith since its inception of regarding the writings of  certain individuals, at
the present, Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi (Abdu'l-Baha's
grandson), as infallible and unalterable. What has added a vice-like grip to
this "literalism" is the fact that with the death of Shoghi Effendi there were
to be no other interpreters of the text (he died without issue). Had there been
future Guardians, to use the term Shoghi Effendi adopted, it may have been
possible for an 'infallible' interpreter to 'reinterpret' an 'infallible'
interpreter. But with no such person alive, the last spokesman's words become,
so to speak, 'carved in stone,' and since Shoghi Effendi interpreted both
Baha'u'llah's text and Abdu'l-Baha's interpretation to mean that women could not
serve on the Universal House of Justice, there seems no way out.

	This is unfortunate, given the fact that recent research on the matter
has revealed some interesting findings. It is now clear that at one time the
prohibition against women's administrative service in the Baha'i Faith was
understood to apply to the local and national levels. Thus, during the Faith's
early years of development in the United States, women were not allowed such
privileges. It was only after several 'stubborn' ( or perhaps we should say,
radical) women kept pestering Abdu'l-Baha that he finally changed the si|tuation
and allowed women to serve. Interestingly enough, the arguments used against
women's service on the local or national levels were the same ones used today as
regards the Universal House of Justice. And in this vein, it must be remembered
that during this early period there was no Universal House of Justice, and the
writings of Baha'u'llah that were cited (i.e. the Kitab-i-Aqdas) referred to the
'House of Justice' which most took to mean any administrative body. The fact
that Abdu'l-Baha could interpret it otherwise thus gave precedence for
reinterpretation of the text in this matter.

	A second fact that has come to light, and one which would have profound
implications were there a way to presently reinterpret the text, is that in the
Aqdas Baha'u'llah does not state that women cannot serve on the House of
Justice. Rather he says that only 'noblemen' (Arabic = rijal) should serve.
Although the word is a masculine noun, what many believers do not realize is
that in several other texts, Baha'u'llah has used the same word to apply to both
sexes. For example in one passage he says: "Today the handmaidens of God (i.e.,
women) are regarded as noblemen (rijal). Blessed are they! Blessed are they!"1
Again, this presents the Faith with a legitimate avenue for change. However, due
to the hand-tying that it has done to itself, such opportunities for movement
forward will likely escape the Baha'i community. The response is always, "Shoghi
Effendi said..."

	After  discussing this issue with Baha'is for some twenty-five years now,
I have finally come to believe that many of them do not really take the concept
of the equality of men and women seriously, or, should I say, seriously enough.
Perhaps an example will help make my point. I was recently visiting a very dear
friend of mine who is also a Baha'i. During our afternoon chat we arrived at the
question of women and the Universal House of Justice. He is a very open minded
person, and thus he did not try to defend the prohibition by reversion to any
kind of sophistry. Rather, being the positive minded person he is, he simply
stated that he was willing to wait for the change that he believes will
eventually come. At this point I asked him how he would react if members of
different racial groups were not allowed on the Universal House of Justice?
Would he take the same stance? After a little thought he said he would not. And
thus my conclusion that the issue is not taken seriously enough. What many
Baha'is would find abhorrent if it were applied to racial matters, they are
willing to accept when it comes to the question of gender. In other words, all
men are equal but men are more equal than women.

	Before concluding I should say that I often hear expressed in Baha'i
circles the view that the Faith must look at the international picture, and that
'feminism' is really just another 'western' ideology. This may well be, but if
the Baha'i community does not really believe in the equality of men and women,
it should stop pretending that it does, for the word equality, whether 'western'
in origin or not, is a very powerful term in the modern world and should not be
watered down or used to disguise something else. Perhaps for its own survival
the world of the future will have to do away with the notion of the equality of
men and women, but if this is your belief then state it baldly and do not try to
skirt the issue by falling back on pathetic rationalizations. Until this is
done, or the Baha'i Faith recognizes fully the equality of men and women, the
question of women and the Universal House of Justice will remain a Baha'i
problem.



   1. Quoted in Ahmad Yazdani, Mabadiy-i-Ruhani, Tehran: Baha'i Publishing
Trust, 104 Badi, p. 109.



February, 1994    

   




From burlb@bmi.netThu Aug 31 10:11:30 1995
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 95 23:33 PDT
From: Burl Barer 
To: Juan R Cole 
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: covenant

  
Our pal Juan recently wrote: 
>Besides, biotechnology and genetic research is advancing so rapidly that 
>it is possible that in half a century gender will be a matter of choice 
>(it already is to some extent).  Then what?
>
>
>This brings up the once hotly debated topic: "Can Clones be Elected to
Administrative Bodies?"
   Yes, this *was* a hot topic a few years ago, not that we had plenty o'
clones to choose from, let alone clones with mature experience, demonstrated
ability, and selfless dedication. But the "concept" of replicants embracing
the Faith did raise some questions.  If we could clone, for example, a Hand
of the Cause or a House of Justice member, or Juan Ricardo Cole, would the
clone have administrative rights? Why not? When does the soul become
manifest in the clone? At the moment at which the cloning process begins, or
when the clone's heart beats, brain functions, or what? If you have the
clone and the original alive at the same time, Juan1 Juan2, and one Juan was
elected to serve on the NSA or LSA or UHJ, which Juan would serve, and in
the absence of one Juan, could the other Juan serve in his stead? After all
they are "one" in their "Juannes".   Of course it is possible that just
because the original person recognized the Messenger of God for the age in
which they lived, it doesn't mean that the clone would also recognize the
Messenger - or vice versa, mutant
mega-mutatis.

This is not to be confused with the question "In the future, when artificial
intelligence is indistiguishable from the real thing, will androids who have
recognized the Messenger be eligible for election to administrative bodies?"
That of course is a whole 'nother matter.

Burl (as if you don't have enough to worry about already) Barer


From derekmc@ix.netcom.comThu Aug 31 15:08:39 1995
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 10:23:05 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT 
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Wrong Button Sorry

I have just relaised, I reposted Ahmad Annis Seed of Creation 
Posting.Sorry to clog up your files everyone with a posting you already 
have.I was printing it out for Erika Batdorf who 
is here at Bosch.Somehow I hit the wrong button,by the way Erika says  
Baha'i men still have not got it over the equality of women and men,I 
fully agree with her.As I said on a previous posting we  are 
going to have to find more meaningful ways of showing women that we 
have got the message over the Equality of the Sexes,than entering into 
logical or otherwise debates on why women are not on the Universal 
House of Justice,but giving women the full and right status in the 
World Baha'i and Secular is going to take far more than talk.But talk 
is easy,action will mean Men have to give up many things,which I do not 
believe they want to,in part this debate is showing just that.
Kindest Regards Derek Cockshut
 

From sw@solsys.ak.planet.gen.nzThu Aug 31 23:57:51 1995
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 95 15:14 NZST
From: S&W Michael 
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Women/UHJ

Greetings!

1.  To Sen and Juan in particular:  Is it possible that Shoghi Effendi was
unaware of the Mabadiy-i Ruhani and Maqam va Huquq-i Zan dar Diyanat-i
Baha'i?
Is there any evidence to suggest that Shoghi Effendi was unaware of certain
documents, apart from the fact that he does not appear to have commented on
these?  (Could you please elucidate on these references a little more as I
am unfamiliar with them - thanks.)

2.  To Sen and the Marshalls in particular:  Do you (or does anyone) have a
copy of the UHJ's letter to the NSA of New Zealand regarding the women/UHJ
issue, sent after the furore in New Zealand in the late eighties?  I would
appreciate a copy - or perhaps if it has not already been posted on
talisman it may be of interest here.

Thank you.

Suzanne Michael
Auckland, New Zealand


From richs@microsoft.comFri Sep  1 00:40:34 1995
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 95 13:05:06 PDT
From: Rick Schaut 
To: owner-talisman@indiana.edu, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: covenant

Juan and Friends,

Thank you, Juan, for finally bringing out the issues I've
wanted to see discussed.  These things really need to form
the focus of further discussion on the issue of women and
membership of the Universal House of Justice.

As a procedureal note, I won't be referring to any letter,
tablet or document which hasn't already been posted to
Talisman.  So, I'll refrain from quoting them at length.

Before I get to the specific issues, I'd like to expand a bit
upon the notion of the different types of authority in the
Faith.  If we categorize these types of authority in terms
of upon whom they fall, there are three kinds: authority
granted solely to those who would serve in the hereditary
line of succession (e.g. interpretation of the Writings),
authority granted to the Universal House of Justice (e.g.
legislation) and authority granted to whomever the "Head
of the Faith" might be (e.g. divising and directing the
teaching plans or the function of protection of the Faith).

This latter class is of greatest importance to this issue,
because it is an authority now held by the Universal House
of Justice and it includes the authority to decide how
Baha'u'llah's laws are implimented.  A good example of
this is in the recent decision to make the law of Huququllah
applicable to Baha'is in the West.


Interpretation vs. Implimentation

One of Juan's contentions is that `Abdu'l-Baha's exclusion
of women from membership on the Universal House of
Justice was not, in fact, an act of interpretation.  Rather, it
was an action pursuant to this authority to decide how
Baha'u'llah's Laws are to be applied to society.  If this is
the case, then the Universal House of Justice can abrogate
this provision since it has the authority to change they way
these laws have been applied (just as it changed Shoghi
Effendi's decision to not make the Law of Huququllah
binding on Baha'is of the West).

But questions arise.  Don't `Abdu'l-Baha's own words belie
the fact that this is an act of interpretation?  What do the
letters written on Shoghi Effendi's behalf, letters which are,
nonetheless, regarded as part of the corpus of Shoghi
Effendi's writings, indicate about Shoghi Effendi's view
on this question?  Lastly, how can it be an issue of
implementation when the Universal House of Justice
didn't even exist at the time?


Contradictory Interpretations.

Juan's other contention is the principle that `Abdu'l-Baha's
interpretations cannot contradict Baha'u'llah's Writings.
(It's worth noting that this line of reasoning and the line
of reasoning noted above cannot both be valid.  Since
they are mutually exclusive)

While I agree with this principle I wonder about the extent to
which we can apply this principle to the present problem.  How
do _we_ conclude that one of `Abdu'l-Baha's interpretations
contradicts Baha'u'llah's Writings without, ourselves, engaging
in the act of interpreting Baha'u'llah's Writings?  This is a
particular dicey question given the fact that other Laws of
the Aqdas, e.g. the law of dowry or the laws regarding
inheritance in the event if intestacy, appear to contradict
the principle of equality of men and women without the
benefit of any interpretation made by `Abdu'l-Baha or
anyone else.


In summary, no amount of impassioned pleas, no amount of
sophistry on the part of those outside the Faith and who are
not bound by Baha'u'llah's Covenant, and no amount of
lamentation about how this allows patriarchy to, once again,
tarnish the face of human society will succeed in changing this
exclusion.  One, and _only_ one thing will succeed, and that is
to establish a means through which this change can occur
without any violation of the Covenant of Baha'u'llah.

For anyone to take this view as an indication that I don't
take the equality of men and women seriously is to engage
in the most ridiculous form of specious argumentation.  As a
Baha'i, I have no choice but to regard Baha'u'llah's Covenant
as being _more_ important than anything else, and that
includes the equality of men and women.  This ordering of
priorities gives absolutely _no_ indication of where I place
the equality of men and women relative to other principles
of human society.


Warmest Regards,
Rick Schaut



From Jmenon@eworld.comFri Sep  1 00:41:34 1995
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 21:09:59 -0700
From: Jmenon@eworld.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Membership of House of Justice, again


Hello, everyone,

I really didn't want to post anything about this topic, but I can't resist.
Before I start, though, I will say that I don't understand the reasons for
this law either, but according to my understanding of the Writings involved,
the men-only membership of the Universal House of Justice is fully rooted in
the statements of the Central Figures, and especially the Guardian. So, I
want to make a point about the Guardian's letter in which he refers to that
tablet of 'Abdu'l-Baha. (I hope this message isn't too long, but I do make
postings to Talisman quite sparingly.)

It seems to me, that in the discussion, the significance of this letter has
been kind of left out, and the arguments have centered around 'Abdu'l-Baha's
intentions instead. In my opinion, as far as our response is concerned, it
doesn't really matter what 'Abdu'l-Baha said or wrote in this case, since our
response should be shaped by that letter of the Guardian.

Here is an arbitrary hypothetical situation to illustrate the point: let's
pretend, for example, that in the Aqdas Baha'u'llah had written this: "Women
and men may both serve on the Universal House of Justice".

And then, let's say (again, hypothetically) that 'Abdu'l-Baha made the
following statement: "Yes, women and men can both serve on the Universal
House of Justice, and indeed they must."

And then, let's pretend that the Guardian came along and wrote the following:
"Only men may serve on the Universal House of Justice, and Baha'u'llah and
'Abdu'l-Baha both make this perfectly clear in their writings."

What should be our response to this? What would be the truth, and whose
statement should we follow? The answer is that we should follow the statement
of the Guardian, since he is the authorized interpreter of the words of the
Blessed Beauty and the Centre of the Covenant. No matter what we think
Baha'u'llah and 'Abdul-Baha said or meant, Shoghi Effendi really knows for
sure.

So, back to reality now, we have the following letter of Shoghi Effendi,
printed on page 79-80 of "Directives from the Guardian":

     "As regards your question concerning the membership of 
the Universal House of Justice, there is a Tablet from Abdu'l-Baha 
in which He definitely states that the membership of the 
Universal House is confined to men and that the wisdom of it 
will be fully revealed in the future.  In the local, as well as the 
National Houses of Justice, however, women have the full right 
of membership.  It is therefore, only to the International 
House that they cannot be elected.  The Baha'is should accept 
this statement of the Master in a spirit of deep faith, confident 
that there is a divine guidance and wisdom behind it, which 
will be gradually unfolded to the eyes of the world."  
     "Regarding your question, the Master said the wisdom of 
having no women on the International House of Justice, would 
become manifest in the future.  We have no other indication 
than this.
     "At present there are women on the International Council, 
and this will continue as long as it exists, but when the International 
House of Justice is elected, there will only be men on 
it, as this is the law of the Aqdas."  


Now, there have been some opinions stated about this topic, that this letter
of Shoghi Effendi is not sufficient to establish the principle of a men-only
Universal House of Justice, since all the letter does is refer to a
particular tablet of 'Abdu'l-Baha, which is not even representative of the
rest of the Master's writings. Thus, a few people have been trying to
determine directly what the Master really thought from His tablets alone.

However, it appears to me that this letter of the Guardian is very clear.
Basically, he says the following:

"...there is a Tablet from Abdu'l-Baha in which He definitely states that the
membership of the Universal House is confined to men..."

"It is therefore, only to the International House that they [women] cannot be
elected."

"The Baha'is should accept this statement of the Master in a spirit of deep
faith...."

"...when the International House of Justice is elected, there will only be
men on it, as this is the law of the Aqdas." 

So, Shoghi Effendi explains to us, as he interprets the Central Figures'
words authoritatively, that 'Abdu'l-Baha "definitely states" that the
membership of the House is restricted to men (which is then true despite our
own understanding of the Master's words or tablets), that women "cannot be
elected" to the Universal House (which is also, then, the truth despite our
understanding), that we "should accept this statement" (this is what our
response to the issue should be), and that "there *will* only be men on it"
[i.e. the Universal House], and "this is the law of the Aqdas".

In my opinion, this closes the door quite firmly on any other interpretation.
Please note that I am *not* implying that no one has a right to any other
interpretation or that the discussion should end, but merely that in my
understanding there is no way to get around this statement of the Guardian.

The only way it is possible to get around it, is to question the
interpretation of the Guardian, to put limits on the infallibility of his
interpretation, or say that had he lived longer, he would have changed it,
but I don't think these are valid avenues of argument, since the issue of
men-only membership does exist in the Writings of Baha'u'llah and the Master,
which it is the prerogative of the Guardian to interpret--which he did. This
interpretation, as Tim Nolan has pointed out is "absolute and immutable until
such time as Almighty God shall reveal His new Manifestation, to whom will
belong all authority and power" (Constitution of the UHJ, page 4).

I hope this hasn't been too long of a message, but I haven't sent many
recently, and I think the repetition was kind of important to fully make the
point.

Again, I think this law is one of the biggest tests we have in this
Revelation, especially for us in the West where our upbringing has been so
influenced by the liberal-democratic frame of mind. I really hope I live to
see the reason for this law appear like the sun at high noon, but for some
reason I don't think I will, and I'm still pretty young. 

How true indeed is that passage from Baha'u'llah's Writings (paraphrased here
because I can't remember where it is): "Happy is the man who hath apprehended
the purpose of God in whatsoever He hath revealed from the heaven of His
glory."

Take care, everyone, :-)

Jonathan



From M.C.Day@massey.ac.nzFri Sep  1 09:50:13 1995
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 17:21:43 GMT=1200
From: Mary Day 
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: SERVICE OF WOMEN

Dear Talismans,

I have read the paper  "The  service of women  on the institutions 
of the Baha'i Faith." with great interest.  I don't feel in a 
position to comment on the possibility of women serving on the 
House of Justice in the future but I do wish to comment on another
 aspect of the analysis.  

This is the use of the words education, opportunity and experience. 
As the authors rightly point out Abdul Baha attributes inequalities
 between men and women to women having been deprived of education 
and opportunity, but a slide has occurred in this article from 
opportunity to experience. I am quoting here from the article and
 highlighting several incidences where this slide has occurred.

"Similarly, 'Abdu'l-Baha recognised that women could not take their
rightful place in the affairs of the world all at once. Throughout 
history
women have been deprived of education and opportunity. Therefore, it 
was
impossible that they would be able to immediately play an equal role 
in
Baha'i life. But 'Abdu'l-Baha has insisted that all distinctions of 
sex will be
erased once women attain PROPER EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE. He says:

      Woman's lack of progress and proficiency has been due to her 
need for
      equal education and opportunity. Had she been allowed this 
equality,
      there is no doubt she would be the counterpart of man in 
ability and
      capacity. [5]

In a talk given in New York, 'Abdu'l-Baha again pinpoints education
as the key to women's equality:

      ...if woman be fully educated and granted her rights, she will 
attain the
      capacity for wonderful accomplishments and prove herself the 
equal of
      man. She is the coadjutor of man; his complement and helpmeet. 
Both
      are human, both are endowed with potentialities of intelligence 
and
      embody the virtues of humanity. In all human powers and 
functions
      they are partners and co-equals. At present in spheres of human
      activity woman does not manifest her natal prerogatives owing 
to lack
      of education and opportunity.[6]

It was clearly 'Abdu'l-Baha's position that lack of education and
opportunity had relegated woman to an inferior position in society, 
and that
through EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE all inequalities of sex would be 
gradually
removed. His own policies and actions concerning the service of women 
on
the institutions of the Faith reflected this belief in gradualism."

Abdul Baha did not say, well certainly not in these quotes or 
anywhere else that I have seen, that it was lack of experience that
 held women back but lack of opportunity. I think this is a very 
important distinction for several reasons. Firstly often the 
experience women do have is not recognised as valuable and this 
leads to her being denied opportunity. There are many many examples
 but I will just suggest a couple. Consider the solo mother who
 brings up her children on social welfare benefits and ensures they 
are well fed, healthy and educated. To me this suggests that woman
 has extraordinary ability and experience in financial management 
but she is the least likely person to be elected as the treasurer 
of anything in the Baha'i community. She has the experience but is
 denied the opportunity. Take another example of the woman with 
three pre-school children and a husband who spends 60+ hours 
working at his professional career. This woman organises her family
to attend Baha'i functions, clean, well behaved, with a delicious
 meal to share for the potluck etc. This woman must be extremely 
able in a wide variety of management skills, she has the experience
 but as this is not recognised she is denied opportunities to use 
her skills other than in her role as mother. 

The concept of 'experience' and women's experience' in particular
 has been a central theoretical concept in the development of  much
 feminist theory and research and I don't intend to summarise those
 debates here but one of the earliest and most significant 
theoretical developments in this area was the realisation of how 
knowledge has been constructed on the basis of 'men's experience'.
 We have recently had an example of that on Talisman in Ahmad's 
piece 'the seed of creation' in which he based his arguments on the
 male experience of the sexual act. Through his characterisation of
 this act, women's experience was rendered invisible and denigrated 
to that of the passive recipient. Either Alma or Lora, sorry I've 
forgotten who, mentioned the work that has been done on sexual 
reproduction in mammals which has revealed the role of the ova is not just as 
the passive recipient of the sperm. These same results have been 
duplicated in the recent studies of human biology. In investigating
 the question of why a particular sperm is the one that is part of 
the fertilisation process of a particular egg, scientists have 
discovered that the ova selects a particular sperm from those 
available and that of the many sperm arriving on the scene so to 
speak, some have the role of assisting the chosen sperm to be 
selected. 

With the advancement of women and the development of equality 
between men and women more changes occur than just relationships 
between men and women. Advances in many aspects of knowledge are 
also being made as 'women's experience' is rendered visible as a 
basis for knowledge claims and research questions arise from it.  


Returning to questions of education and opportunity, I think it is 
very important to keep the word 'opportunity' very clearly 
highlighted in discussions like these because there are many very 
well educated women both within and without the Baha'i community 
who are denied opportunities to use their talents and education to
 the fullest potential. Within the Baha'i community we need to be 
on the alert for any processes occurring that lead to a denial of
 opportunity 
for women. The Baha'i community also seems very reluctant to me to
 front up to such issues. I think that many Baha'is have a pretty 
clear idea that Abdul Baha talks about education in relation to the 
advancement of women but there doesn't seem to be such a clear 
awareness of his use of the word opportunity.

Of course it is difficult to front up to issues like this. It is 
extremely uncomfortable to examine how our community processes may
 deny opportunity to women, but all too often any discussion 
reverts back to either 'men are getting a bit of a bashing' as 
Robert J wrote and women have to apologise that they are not 
'male bashers', that they don't 'hate men' after all some of their
 best children are boys.  . Derek's posting on these questions 
was very much to the point. We need to be able to talk about these 
questions and how our current conceptions of both the female and 
the male serve to deny women's education AND opportunity.

In another part of this paper on the service of women it said:

"At later times, when the first Auxiliary Boards to the Hands of the
Cause were appointed, and then the first contingents of Boards of
Counsellors, women were included. But circumstances dictated that it 
be
mostly Western women who were appointed, and that their numbers were 
far
fewer than those of men. As the above chart shows, that situation 
remains
the same today. THIS IS NOT DUE TO ANY POLICY OF DISCRIMINATIOM
ON THE PART OF THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE FAITH, BUT SIMPLY DUE TO 
HISTORICAL CIRCUMSTANCES."

and I have highlighted the part I am interested in discussing here. 
I agree that the disproportionate  numbers of men and women is not
 due to any policy of discrimination but that doesn't mean it is 
simply due to historical circumstances. Discrimination and the 
denial of opportunity can and does occur because we retain processes
 and prejudices that are discriminatory and we need to find out 
what these are and understand how they work in order to eliminate
 them. 
The equality of men and women requires more than just the passing 
of time in order to be brought to fruition.

In the peace statement, The Universal House of Justice wrote:

" The emancipation of women, the achievement of full equality 
between the sexes, is one of the most important, though less 
acknowledged prerequisites of peace. The denial of such equality 
perpetrates an injustice against one half of the world's population 
and promotes in men harmful attitudes and habits that are carried
 from the family to the workplace, to political life, and
 ultimately to international relations. There are no grounds, moral,
 practical, or biological, upon which such denial can be justified.
 Only as women are welcomed into full partnership in all fields of
 human endeavour will the moral and psychological climate be 
created in which international peace can emerge."

This statement about the denial of such equality is extremely 
interesting to me in terms of he feminist debates about the causes
 of women's oppression and the role of men in that. This statement
 to me means that it is not men's biology (testosterone you are 
forgiven), nor any other essentialist concepts of masculinity that
 are the problem but the denial of this spiritual principle. 

I also take this statement as an indication that we do need to 
front up to men's harmful attitudes and habits. What are they? 
How can they be changed? How can men be deepened in this spiritual
 principle to enable them to overcome these habits and attitudes? 
I believe that in order to bring about the changes required we need 
to know what these habits and attitudes are, how else will we know 
how to change them?

Cheers 

Mary




From M.C.Day@massey.ac.nzFri Sep  1 09:50:38 1995
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 17:25:30 GMT=1200
From: Mary Day 
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: FEMINISTS

Dear Ahmad,

What exactly is a 'hardened feminist'? Is this something 
undesirable? 
Are you suggesting that being feminist is undesirable and being 
hardened is even worse? What are you meaning be feminist?

I ask these questions because this is not the first time someone
 on Talisman has implied that feminist is bad and I find that a bit
 strange as I would assume that all Baha'is committed to the 
advancement of women and the spiritual principle of the equality 
Of men and women are femininsts in some senses of the word.

Thanks 
Mary

From M.C.Day@massey.ac.nzFri Sep  1 09:52:05 1995
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 17:36:33 GMT=1200
From: Mary Day 
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Men on the house

Dear Talismans,

Men on the Universal House of Justice.

When Abdul Baha was asked about this, he said that the wisdom of 
this will become as clear as the noon day sun. He did not say the 
reason will become clear. I think this distinction is extremely 
important as it leads to different kinds of questions about why 
this should be so. Asking what could be the wisdom leads to ideas 
about how this could be of benefit to humanity rather than of how 
it logically follows from a given premise, (reason), in my mind 
anyway. 

In the peace message the Universal House of Justice writes:

" The emancipation of women, the achievement of full equality 
between the sexes, is one of the most important, though less 
acknowledged prerequisites of peace. The denial of such equality 
perpetrates an injustice against one half of the world's population
 and promotes in men harmful attitudes and habits that are carried
 from the family to the workplace, to political life, and 
ultimately to international relations. THERE ARE NO GROUNDS 
MORAL, PRACTICAL, OR BIOLOGICAL, UPON WHICH SUCH DENIAL CAN BE 
JUSTIFIED. Only as women are welcomed into full partnership in all fields of 
human endeavour will the moral and psychological climate be created
 in which international peace can emerge."

I have highlighted the sentence that is central to my argument. 
There are no moral, practical or biological grounds to exclude 
women from participation in all fields of human endeavour. Are 
there spiritual grounds? I don't think so, as we have had quotes 
posted here recently that show that there is no gender in the 
spiritual world and that men and women are equal in the spiritual 
world.

So I draw the conclusion that there is nothing about women that 
excludes them from service on the Universal House of Justice with
 the corollary that there is nothing about men that makes them 
eligible. As long as I continued to misread Abdul Baha's words 
as 'the reason will be come clear' I was stumped by what appeared
 to me to be a logical inconsistency. But having had it pointed out
 to me that  He actually says 'wisdom' changes the nature of the 
dilemma.

So now I ask myself  'what could be the wisdom in this?' 

Some possibilities occur to me but I wouldn't claim that any are as 
clear as the noon day sun. 

If women were eligible to serve and they were elected, and there 
was equal representation of women on all other institutions of the
 Faith would we then be able to claim that men and women were truly
equal in this Faith? It is possible but it is also possible and 
more likely in my opinion, at this time, that it would not. We 
could have equal statistics without any change in institutional 
culture.
 Things could still be done in 'male' ways without any development
 in the culture to accommodate feminine principles. This is to be 
an age in which the feminine and masculine principles are balanced
and this requires change not only in our statistics but also in our
institutional and community cultures and in each individual. Although
 this would normally be expressed in different terms this represents
 the substance of critiques of liberal feminist arguments. 

Derek, in an earlier posting, pointed out the necessity for us to 
try even harder to live out this spiritual principle given the 
apparent anomaly we are faced with. I can see a wisdom in this in 
that in teaching the Faith to others we need to be able to 
demonstrate such a strong commitment to this spiritual principle 
that the membership of the House of Justice becomes less of a 
stumbling block.

Another possible wisdom is that large numbers of women have good 
reason to be sceptical about men's (Baha'i or non Baha'i) real 
commitment  to equality particularly when it requires changes in 
men's harmful attitudes and habits. e.g. it is easy to expound at 
the dinner table but who bought the groceries, cooked the dinner, 
did the dishes, put the kids to bed? An institution made up of men 
who truly espouse and practise this principle and are committed, 
spiritually, theoretically and practically to the advancement of 
women* could assist women in the process of forgiveness and healing
 that is required as we attempt to develop this principle in our 
lives. You may have seen a glimpse of this in the reaction of many 
women to the Universal House of Justice's letter about sexual abuse 
and family violence. This has been so heartening and inspiring for 
many women.

So it is not as clear as the noon day sun and there are many other 
possibilities, I am sure but at least we can work to make changes 
at all levels.

Cheers
Mary

* Which I claim the Universal House of Justice is.

From ahmada@acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.auFri Sep  1 10:11:40 1995
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 15:55:58 +1000
From: Ahmad Aniss 
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: factors affecting the Wisdom

Dear Talismanians,

It is true that the wisdom that Abdu'l-Baha has refered to will be
clear erelong, as He has put it. But I think the fullfilment of this
wisdom is dependent on the following factors that have some bearing
on it (of course not in this order):

1.  That the bulk majority of the inhabitants of the planet
    to accept Baha'u'llah as the Manifestation of God for this
    age and consider the laws of this Dispensation to be of God's.

2.  The current cosmological understanding (facts / observations)
    must develop to an extend which, we can reach to a point so
    to say, we have now mapped the shape of the observable Universe,
    in a similar way that we have done so for the map of the planet
    (i.e. its structures, patterns, and behaviour), which will have
    a bearing on our perspective look of the Creation.

3.  To put the writings of the Faith in regard to the Creation into
    proper perspective.

4.  All Writings of the Faith (messages of the UHJ included), regarding
    to this question (i.e. why men are only allowed to be members
    of UHJ) must be put together in a proper perspective manner.

5.  The UHJ to elaborate on their extend of powers in regard to
    legislation when it comes to such laws of the Faith.

6.  Oneness of Humanity and its prerequisite (i.e. equality of men and
    women) to be accepted by the bulk majority of the inhabitants of
    the planet.

7.  Functions (not equality) of men and women in our Faith to be put
    into proper perspective.

Looking at the above factors with my limited understanding and brain.
And looking at all the reasons that have been put forward up to now,
which I will not go into (as is not the scope of this posting) in
regard to the question, I must say that the concept of 'active
force / recipient' is the only logical proposition.
As yet I have not come up with a refutable argument against the
'male and female' concept in the structure of Creation ( see the
article 'seed of creation', and the terminology used, i.e. 'seed',
'active force / recipient' concepts). Abdu'l-Baha has stated this
principle of male and female phenomena to be apparant in all levels
of Creation, see The Promulgation of Universal Peace, page 374:

	"When we look upon Creation, we find the male and female
	 principle apparent in all phenomena of existance."

Only when the above factors come to pass in this Dispensation,
then will we see the full wisdom behind the law.  However, if
presently one puts all these factors into relative perspective
(given the limitations of our times) one can obtain a glimpse
of that wisdom from the point of the dawn and not of the point
of the noon sun.

With Baha'i Love and Fellowship,
Ahmad.
 _______________________________________________________________________
^									^
^ Dr. A.M. Aniss,			Tel: Home   [61(2)] 505 509	^
^ Bio-Medical Engineer,			     Work   [61(2)] 694 5915	^
^ Neuropsychiatric Institute,		     Mobile   019 992020	^
^ Prince Henry Hospital,		Fax: Work   [61(2)] 694 5747  	^
^ Little Bay, N.S.W. 2036,						^
^ Australia.				Email: A.Aniss@unsw.edu.au	^
^_______________________________________________________________________^







From ahmada@acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.auFri Sep  1 10:22:41 1995
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 21:21:41 +1000
From: Ahmad Aniss 
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: writing of Guardian on feminist

Dear Friends,

One of the friends requested that the statement of Guardian regarding a
feminist to be mailed in exact form, as I have this I will be posting it now.

from Lights of Guidance, page 498, No. 1358:
(This from a letter by UHJ to an individual, May 26, 1971)

	...........
	"The beloved Guardian in reply to the same query from a believer
	pointed out in a letter written on his behalf on July 15th 1947: 'People
	must just accept the fact that women are not eligible to the International
	House of Justice. As the Master says the wisdom of this will be known in
	the future, we can only accept, believing it is right, but not able to give an
	explanation calculated to silence an ardent feminist!'
	.............

With Baha'i Love and Fellowship,
Ahmad.

 _______________________________________________________________________
^									^
^ Dr. A.M. Aniss,			Tel: Home   [61(2)] 505 509	^
^ Bio-Medical Engineer,			     Work   [61(2)] 694 5915	^
^ Neuropsychiatric Institute,		     Mobile   019 992020	^
^ Prince Henry Hospital,		Fax: Work   [61(2)] 694 5747  	^
^ Little Bay, N.S.W. 2036,						^
^ Australia.				Email: A.Aniss@unsw.edu.au	^
^_______________________________________________________________________^







From JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduSun Sep  3 12:54:33 1995
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 95 13:18:54 EWT
From: JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Women and the House

1. It seems to me that this argument is badly in need of a fresh injection of 
evidence.  What was being said in the Middle East about the position of 
women in the time of Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha?  Is there any reason to 
suppose that the question of the membership of women on houses of justice 
would have come up in Baha'u'llah's time, thereby giving us some idea of 
whether `Abdu'l-Baha might have received oral instructions about it?  What 
did Baha'u'llah think about Queen Victoria as a ruler?  What was `Abdu'l-
Baha thinking about when he set up a separate "Women's Assembly of 
Teaching" in Chicago?  What evidence is there that might make sense out of 
`Abdu'l-Baha's various statements about the service of women on the 
Chicago assembly?
 
2. Alternatively, how might the inequality be redressed by legislation or 
constitutional change?  Several possibilities occur to me:
	a) Membership in the Board of Counsellors and/or the International 
Teaching Center might be restricted to women.
	b) A parliament of some sort might be set up to handle the bulk of 
administrative affairs with the House of Justice confining its legislation to 
matters of larger principle, rather like the American Supreme Court does in 
relation to Congress.  This would have the further advantage that the House 
of Justice would not have to put its prestige and credibility at stake over 
routine administrative matters.
	c) The Intl. Teaching Center might also take on this function.
 
3. On the other hand, we might simply dismiss the notion that the roles of 
women and men should never be in principle different as being yet one 
more eccentricity of the modern West.  After all, the notion of 
amalgamating the spheres of men and women would seem exceedingly 
strange to almost every society I know of.
 
4. Back in the early 70s a friend of mine was a student at the Episcopal 
(Anglican) seminary in New York when the Archbishop of Canterbury 
came to visit.  He was invited to speak to the students, who also invited the 
students from the neighboring Catholic seminary.  Among the questions 
was: "What do you think about women and the priesthood?"  Quoth the 
great man, "I think that in ten years women seeking a vocation in the 
priesthood will have two choices, become an Anglican priest or marry a 
Catholic priest."
 
john walbridge
 

From StrayMutt@aol.comSun Sep  3 22:27:11 1995
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 1995 15:56:21 -0400
From: StrayMutt@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Women on the House of Justice

Hello, again...

First of all, I want to express my gratitude and appreciation to everyone who
has weighed in on the thorny issue of female membership on the Universal
House of Justice.  In my view, this has been one of the best interchanges on
Talisman since I've been a member of this service.  The argumentation, almost
without exception, has been civil, well reasoned and thoughtful.  This is the
kind of discourse, I think, that attracted all of us to Talisman, which
remains the best internet service of its kind.

My purpose here is to add my two cents' worth (devalued to 1.37 cents because
of fluctuations in the currency market).  I trust it will come as no surprise
to anyone here that I count myself among those who argue women should be
admitted to full membership on the House of Justice.  I do not propose to
rehash the arguments already advanced by Tony, Juan and the usual gaggle of
suspects (that's a joke, guys) in this matter.

But, there are a couple of things I noticed that, if you will permit me, I
will comment on.  (If you won't permit me, hit the delete key now and save
your blood pressure a workout.)

First, I noticed that during the discourse on this topic, every person who
opposed female membership on the House is a man.  Now, forgive me if I missed
something here.  My e-mail capacity was kaputt for three days and when I
managed to get back on line, I had to slog through 205 Talisman messages
(boy, do we like to talk).  So, maybe I missed the message from the lone
female or two who said, "Oh, no, we're perfectly happy being totally
disenfranchised from serving on the supreme Baha'i policy making body whose
decisions have so much impact on our spiritual lives."

My experience, in the 30-plus years I've been a Baha'i, is that I have never
had a Baha'i woman tell me she didn't want women serving as members of the
House.  I wish we could hear from more women on Talisman on this matter.
 Janine, where are you now that we need you?  Linda Walbridge, any comments
from you?  Come on, ladies, it's your future -- and your daughters' futures
-- we're talking about here.

It strikes me as being just a little too convenient and easy for us, as men,
to dismiss this as an issue.   I wonder how we would react if the
interpretation of the passage in the Kitab-i-Aqdas came out that only women
-- and not men -- could serve on the House of Justice.  Would we, as men,
"radiantly acquiese" to such a ruling?  Don't bet the farm on it.

To me, what's at stake here is more than an issue of equity (although that is
also at the heart of the matter), it's an issue of equality.  If we look at
the quotes that have been summoned up during the course of this discussion,
we see many, many more advocating total equality for women, versus one lone
(and, to my mind, discussionable) interpretation.  As the lawyers would say,
the preponderance of the evidence is on the side of full female membership on
the House.

It seems to me, we have two choices here.  We can continue to stonewall this
issue, which is the current posture.  And that will work, at least to some
extent.  We can summon up that quote from Shoghi Effendi's letter of July 15,
1947:  "People must just accept the fact that women are not eligible to the
International House of Justice.  As the Master says, the wisdom of this will
be known in the future, we can only accept, believing it is right..."

That, by and large, will work for those of us who are already Baha'is.  After
all, we didn't let the fact that women cannot be members of the House prevent
us from becoming Baha'is or causing us to resign our membership once we
learned it.  Our commitment to the Baha'i Faith outweighs this one puzzling
anomaly, as troubling as it might be.

But, I submit that, increasingly in the future, it won't work for women (and
some men) who are interested in becoming Baha'is.  If I were a woman, I would
have a very hard time swallowing the notion that I am fully equal in rights
and opportunities in the Baha'i Faith -- except in its most important policy
arena.  

So, if we are going to stick with our current position, we better come up
with some explanation that will satisfy the increasing number of women who
will demand a satisfactory answer to this dilemma.  

It's not enough for us to quote a letter from `Abdu'l-Baha, written in 1902
that says the wisdom of this exclusion "...will ere long be made manifest as
clearly as the sun at high noon."  As I say, that will work for us who are
already enrolled because we have a commitment to the Abha Revelation.   I do
not think it will be very persuasive to many non-Baha'i females.

I have no idea what our rationale should be in this matter.  And since I have
identified myself as being on the other side of the question, anything I
might have to contribute would be suspect.  So, I will leave this to those
souls who are better able than I to craft such a position.   I will say this
much:  don't think you can get by with what we have now.  It won't work and,
to outsiders, it makes us look like hypocrites.

Some of my esteemed colleagues who have posted on this matter have said, in
effect, the issue of women serving on the House of Justice is going to have
to be settled by the next Manifestation of God.  Sorry, fellows, I don't
think this problem can languish in limbo for at least 850 years.

I disagree with those who say the House of Justice cannot rule on this
matter.  First of all, the limitations on House's ability to rule extend only
to matters that are not explicitly revealed in the Aqdas.  So, for example,
were the House to, say, shorten the period of the fast to 10 days, we would
have a major crisis of belief on our hands.   

But, as Tony and others have pointed out, the wording the Aqdas on this issue
is ambiguous at best and there is plenty of room for interpretation and
readjustment.  Now, we can argue about this -- indeed, that is the crux of
the argument here -- but I don't think we can, a priori, rule the House out
of bounds in this matter.

Permit me to speculate here for a moment to make my point.  Suppose, at some
future time (the sooner, the better, as far as I am concerned) the House
issues a ruling saying women are now eligible for full membership in its
ranks.  What would likely happen?  Well, for one thing, the 54% of the human
population directly affected by that ruling would have great cause for
rejoicing.  The promise of the Baha'i Faith as to the full equality of its
members without regard to gender would be completely fulfilled.

Baha'i males wouldn't lose anything except the statistical slim chance that
one of them might not be elected to the House because he received less votes
than a female.  This is hardly worth going to the mat about.  

Does anyone out there seriously expect that, if the House were to allow women
full membership, it would provoke some worldwide revolt among the faithful?
 Are masses of people going to tear up their enrollment cards and resign over
this issue?  That seems pretty far-fetched to me.  

What's far more likely to happen is that, when this change is made -- and I
believe it will be made, I believe it is inevitable -- the House will lay the
groundwork, the Continental Counsellors and the Auxiliary Board members and
probably the members of the major NSAs will all be briefed and consulted and
brought on board and the approrpriate preparations made.  So when the
announcement comes, it will provoke a minimum of fuss.  My prediction is the
prevailing response will be:  it's about time.

Let me put this another way to my honorable colleagues on this network who do
not believe this change is possible:  if it happened, would you resign your
membership as Baha'is?  I bet you would not.  This is not the end of the
world, guys, and it is not the destruction of the Baha'i Faith, however much
you may fear so.

Most of us, however we feel about this issue, are in agreement on one point.
  If women are allowed to be members of the House of Justice, this change
will not happen any time soon.  It is my impression that the current House
membership is not inclined to consider this matter.  Indeed, I gather they
wish it would just go away.  Well, I've bad news for anyone who shares that
view.  The issue won't go away.  The reason it won't go away has nothing to
do with the fact that people like me keep bringing it up.  It won't go away
because one of the effects of the Abha Revelation has been to awaken feminine
consciousness.  And you can try all you like but you will never get that
genie back in its bottle.

Now, that I have come this far and, presumably, offended a number of people
with my views (well, I warned you about your blood pressure), let me offer my
own scenario -- frankly speculative, but what the hell --  about how this
change will come about.

Recall that, in the early 1900's Baha'i women could not serve on any
assembly, local, national or international.  (Okay, there weren't any
national or international assemblies then, but the groundwork existed for
their formation.)  Corinne True, an early American Baha'i, wrote to
`Abdu'l-Baha in protest:

"Many in our Assembly [ie: the Baha'i community of Chicago] feel that the
Governing Board (ie: all-male Baha'i Spiritual Assembly] in Chicago should be
a mixed Board of both men & women.  Women in America stand so conspicuously
for all that is highest & best in every department and for that reason it is
contended the affairs should be in the hands of both sexes."

`Abdu'l-Baha wrote back and was exquisitely polite and, in effect, said no.
 However, Corrine True was stubborn.  She would not take "no" for an answer.
 She pestered `Abdu'l-Baha until He relented and permitted women to serve on
local spiritual assemblies.  And they have done so, with great distinction,
ever since.

I suspect that, at some point in the future, women will tumble to Corrine
True's strategy and use it, in precisely the same way she did, to achieve
precisely the same results she did.  One more thing.  Corrine True's
persistence in this matter did not land her in the dog house.  She became a
leading force in the early American Baha'i community and, ultimately, a Hand
of the Cause of God.  It's something to think about.

Bob Ballenger

From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzSun Sep  3 22:30:53 1995
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 11:26:29 +1200
From: Robert Johnston 
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: WOM-UHJ.G

Talismanians,

It fills we with with immense curiosity and wonder that anyone could still
consider it possible that women will ever be members of the House,
particularly in the light of this letter.  I wonder just what cultural
forces combined to enable persons to hold such positions.  I really don't
know.  Maybe my ignorance stems from the fact that I was raised in the
country and really didn't know much about anything but cows and bulls and
calves and the sky and the ground and so on until I was 18.  Mum and Dad
were regular people and life was OK.

I am simply constitutionally unable to disagree with a decison of the
House, and the focus of my enquiries concerning its decisions is inevitably
in the direction of understanding what has been written for the purposes of
greater clarity (etc) and never in the direction of trying to ferret out
the hidden flaw that will unravel the whole caboodle.  The latter option,
it seems to me, is an exercise in complete futility.  And, as I have said:
I just cannot understand why anyone would want to do it.  It is so
distressing to witness.  Even worse that war pictures from Bosnia.

Robert.



From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzSun Sep  3 22:31:35 1995
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 11:39:55 +1200
From: Robert Johnston 
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: equality and the House....

Talismanians,
             There are a few points that I wish to make.

1) I do not think that women will ever serve on the House in the
Dispensation and this is because the Universal House has said so.

2) I do not think that any man in this Dispensation will ever have
conceive, carry in the womb and be the first nurturer of a child, nor enjoy
the bounty of a having his wife being under an obligation,according to the
Faith, to support him, nor -- as a child -- have a prior right to education
ahead of his sister in times of economic need.

3) I do not find particularly satisfying the argument that certain persons,
by virtue of their [apparently] additional efforts about the house etc.,
have some  claim to be able to make some kind statement of universal
validity, superseding a decision of the House.  What a person does within
the context of their own family is very particular, and the result of
particular choices made.  If they made the wrong choices then I do not
think this becomes the occasion for a revolt in the body politic.  Each of
us is a victim of perverse cultural forces, but the first point of remedy
is our own selves.  This is where the revolution is required.

Robert.



From Jmenon@eworld.comMon Sep  4 00:13:50 1995
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 1995 20:26:49 -0700
From: Jmenon@eworld.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Concerning equality and the House


Dear Friends,

StrayMutt@aol.com wrote the following:

"My experience, in the 30-plus years I've been a Baha'i, is that I have never
had a Baha'i woman tell me she didn't want women serving as members of the
House.  I wish we could hear from more women on Talisman on this matter.
...Come on, ladies, it's your future -- and your daughters' futures -- we're
talking about here."


Well, as a man I can't reasonably respond to the rest of SM's message myself,
since it would appear quite ridiculous. However, I am forwarding to you all a
message which was sent to soc.religion.bahai recently about the topic we are
talking about. I think it's eloquent and provides an interesting perspective.
It was written by a woman. I have removed the name, so you will just have to
take my word for it.


Jonathan


---------------------Forwarded Message----------------------------

............ writes: <>

Yes, it's perfectly clear. What isn't clear is what YOU mean by EQUALITY!
Speaking as a man, which I assume you are, it might mean "equal in wielding
power and authority", that tired old male-dominated heirarchical world view.
As a woman, and a feminist, and one who works to promote equal opportunity
for
women in all arenas, I find the phrase "Put Up or Shut Up!" offensive. It's a
phrase which has been used to great effect to silence people, mostly women.
In
the first instance, the Bahai system bears little resemblance to that
crumbling old weltanschaung, and if you want to compare the Universal House
of
Justice to any of your tired old corrupt power mongering self-aggrandizing
control-motivated typically male systems which have brought the world to the
edge of ruin, that's your privilege and your decision. 

As a woman, as a feminist, as a Bahai, I feel no compunction whatsoever in
accepting a male Universal House of Justice. I know that these men are the
most self-effacing, humble, conscientious, soulful people we could have, and
are an example to ALL MEN!  I challenge anyone who wants to continue this
discussion to seriously examine the Universal House of Justice, the writings
which come from it, the advice and messages, to find one iota of anything but
service to humanity. Every message, from Ridvan to messages for Natioanl 
Spiritual Assemblies, have been written with care, with thought, with love, 
and always with a desire to increase the unity, the well-being, of all
mankind.
I am firmly convinced that The Universal House of Justice is male for a very 
good reason, which has nothing to do with any sorry old theory of domination.

This is THE NEW MAN! And I, as a feminist, LOVE HIM! This is Man as God meant

Man to Be. Man who does not depend on oppressing women or other men in order 
to establish his manliness. Man who values the worth of all people regardless

of gender, and who raises servitude to mankind as the standard by which we 
measure. The men of this world desperately need a model, and if men aspire to

be worthy to fill a seat on the Universal House of Justice, I say GO FOR IT! 
You'll be in for a surprise! Because those men on the Universal House of 
Justice, I have a strong feeling, when they get together as the Body, they 
put their personal selves behind. Their role erases them (IMHO). Also, 
individually, singly, the members of the Universal House of Justice have no 
"authority". They are not bishops, or mullahs, or popes, or monks, or lhamas.

If any one of them walked into your Feast or Fireside, you would accord them 
the same respect that you would to any other human being. Of course, as 
humans we always want to idolize something or someone, we want to get close 
to those we think have some kind of 'edge'. However, in my understanding of 
Bahai institutions, this is forbidden.  The Universal House of Justice is an 
institution, comprised of nine men who have been chosen by the world wide 
community of Bahai men and women to take on the role of bringing to fruition 
the Kingdom of God; a role of Servitude. It is to the Universal House of 
Justice we turn, as well as to our local House of Justice (Local Spiritual
Assemblies is embryonic form), not the individuals. 

Again, my brand of feminism is measured by an impulse to see feminism in
terms 
of humanism, and to see humanism as the recognition of the sacredness of all 
humanity. Sacredness implies spiritual responsibility. Although men have held

political and economic power for many centuries, as a whole they have failed 
utterly in their spiritual responsibilities, have used religion to
manipulate, 
control, or destroy complete populations. IN promoting their own agenda they 
have slowed the spiritual progress of the world. It's not a conspiracy, it's 
simply an assumption of superiority bred into the bone. Even today, some men 
think they are entitled to define what "equality" means for women. Get with 
the picture! It's not for YOU to determine! Quite clearly, we are equal. We 
are equal spiritually. In material terms women are behind, because of a 
historical lack of opportunity. Abdu'l-Baha clearly stated that in certain 
areas women are also superior to men in their development. I would hazard a 
guess that he was speaking of the way that women have learned, over many 
centuries, to be self-effacing. Men, as a rule, do not consider this to be a 
worthwhile quality in other men (but they like it in women!) How interesting
that this very quality is so highly honoured in Bahai writings! What a 
challenge for men! I have the deepest respect for our Bahai men who are 
struggling so hard to overcome thousands of years of assumed privilege to 
assist the women of the world, their wives and daughters, to improve their
condition, through education and opportunity, through pursuit of business, 
through taking on positions of civil or professional authority. It is indeed 
an honor and a privilege to be with these men. From the bottom of my heart I
regard our esteemed Universal House of Justice as the exemplar of what the 
future Man will be. To me it's a glorious prospect. It is completely
different 
than any other religious body on the face of the planet.

That's why I say to you, .............., before you go deciding what is equal
or 
not equal, define your terms, and decide whether or not you may be applying 
material and political motivation to a spiritual issue. To do that, I would 
suggest you might like to really examine the structures which you are 
discussing more closely. 

Regards








From Jmenon@eworld.comMon Sep  4 00:14:11 1995
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 1995 20:26:50 -0700
From: Jmenon@eworld.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Afraid of Tests?



Sen writes:

"The House naturally has to be very cautious about any changes
which could undermine the acceptance of its authority. Imagine a
family which has had five or six Baha'i generations, with martyrs
in one or two generations perhaps. Each generation has made
great sacrifices, and suffered great losses - Baha'u'llah died, the
Master died, they were devoted to the Guardian and he died and
ended the line of living Guardians. The Universal House of
Justice is the last possible focus of their devotion - and this
house then does something which, as they understand the
functions of men and women and the meaning of the 'men of the
House of Justice' renders its subsequent decisions invalid. For
such people, it would be a disaster analogous to the death of the
11th Imam. Perhaps there would be an 'occulted House of Justice'
:-(. Now, if you were on the House, would you want to be
responsible for testing these souls' faith? Perhaps initiating a
small schism which could cut off some very devoted and sincere
souls?"


Dear Sen and Talismanians,

I thought that one of the very purposes of God in sending His Manifestations
to this earth is to test His servants, so that the sincere can be
distinguished from the insincere, etc. When Baha'u'llah appointed
'Abdu'l-Baha, people left the Faith, became Covenant Breakers, etc. The same
happened when the Master appointed the Guardian in His Will and Testament. It
also happened when Muhammad turned away from Jerusalem and towards Mecca
while saying His prayer one day. The Manifestations have done this as a
matter of course, and, of course, they clearly knew what was going to happen
before they did any of these things! Yet it certainly didn't stop them, or
God.

So, I don't know why the House of Justice would be afraid of testing people.
If people want tests, there are already plenty of them in the Faith, and
tests are something we are supposed to crave in order to progress along the
path of spiritual development. The families of the martyrs often understand
this quite well.

Just a thought.

Jonathan



From sw@solsys.ak.planet.gen.nzMon Sep  4 12:11:56 1995
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 95 16:28 NZST
From: S&W Michael 
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Women & the House

Dear Stray Mutt/Bob

In defence of the male friends who have "opposed" women being on the House,
I don't actually think any of them oppose women being on the House.  I
think they see there is no way out of the current legislation, and their
argument is definitely a strong one as that is the one the House continues
to uphold.  I think most of the men would think it was wonderful if some
way could be found around this.

Further I think there are very few women, now and possibly in the future,
who have a "hard time swallowing" the legislation.  We're Baha'is and
accept the decision of the House as correct - for now - as the House, we
know, is infallible.

The House may legitimately reverse the legislation in the future without
compromising the degree of infallibility it manifested at the time of its
decision not to allow women on the house.  We therefore must accept that
the decision made by the House is, for now, the correct one, and I believe
that those of us who believe there is sufficient uncertainty in the
writings, and certainly precedent for change, that would allow the House to
reverse its decision, nevertheless fully accept the House's decision as
being right.  They are the House of Justice, they are infallible and
divinely-guided.  We can perhaps conjecture as to there being some other
reason, which we, and perhaps even the House, are unaware of, but it is
only conjecture.  What we are left with is the belief that the possibility
of change either exists or does not exist - I and many others believe it
exists.

My blood pressure's okay actually - I felt it was important to clarify this
point - I hope I'm not misrepresenting the views of both sides of the
argument.

Regards...

Suzanne Michael
New Zealand



From s0a7254@tam2000.tamu.eduMon Sep  4 12:36:53 1995
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 09:45:42 -0500 (CDT)
From: Saman Ahmadi 
To: talisman 
Subject: Re: Evolution of authority


Dear Brent and All,

jc> Now, one explicit text of Baha'u'llah says, "imruz ima'u'llah az rijal 
jc> mahsub" (Payam-i Malakut):  "Today, the handmaidens of God are accounted 
jc> as men." 
 
bp> Well, if you want to take that literally, then the Baha'i law that
bp> permissible sexual relations must be between "a man and the woman who is
bp> his wife" become permissible "between a man and the man who is his
bp> husband" and between "a woman and the woman who is her wife;" and the
bp> scheme of intestate succession in which the eldest son inherits the
bp> residence of the decedent also means that the eldest daughter 
bp> inherits the residence and personal clothing of her father; and that 
bp> fathers are the "first educators" of the children; and that combat is 
bp> not worthy of men because of their tender hearts; etc. 

bp> So, I have difficulty with the way you are applying this verse.  It's one
bp> thing to say that it means that the rank is the same, and I'm open to
bp> expansion and development of that theme.  But to say that it eradicates
bp> all of the sex differentiation in the sacred texts is to apply it in 
bp> a way that brings it into conflict with other revealed Texts, which I 
bp> understand to be one of the "rules" of interpretation of the Writings. 

I think the "mutatis mutandis" principle that the House of Justice
cites in the introduction of the Aqdas is an extension of the
quote to which Juan pointed (the test that the UHJ uses is the 
context - does the situation make it impossible for the principle 
to be applied? If the context is unclear, are there other texts that 
point to a law being applied to one gender only?).

I have a question: why does Baha'u'llah in Aqdas state that
the punishment of adultry and the inscription on the burial
ring apply to both men and women? Is it related to how similar
laws were addressed in the Qur'an?

regards,
sAmAn
 

From healy@pipeline.comTue Sep  5 11:05:57 1995
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 00:08:00 -0400
From: "Gerald J. and Virginia P. Healy" 
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women on the House of Justice

On Sun, Sep 3, 1995 3:56:21 PM  at StrayMutt@aol.com wrote: 
 
>that quote from Shoghi Effendi's letter of July 15, 
>1947:  "People must just accept the fact that women are not eligible to
the 
>International House of Justice.  As the Master says, the wisdom of this
will 
>be known in the future, we can only accept, believing it is right..." 
 
As you asked for a response from a woman on Talisman, here it 
is: 
 
Once I accepted Baha'u'llah, it seemed to me that I must accept whatever 
He said, whether or not I understood it, as it reflected God's wishes.  As 
I believe that God's guidance is for my own good, I must learn submission, 
obedience, and acceptance. 
 
The members of our elected institutions do not run for office, do not have 
constituencies to which they must pander for reelection.  The Assembly 
members are to leave themselves outside the door of the meeting chamber, 
and when voting and consulting, decide what is in the best interests of the

community (not their own personal interests).  Have not those of you who 
have served on an Assembly ever made a decision that you knew was best 
for the community even though you yourself  may not have wanted that 
particular thing. 
 
No, I do not understand why women cannot serve on the Univeral House 
of Justice.  Yes, I accept the fact that women cannot serve.  It does not 
bother me a bit (nor does it bother other Baha'i women I have asked). 
I know that the interests of women, indeed of all sectors of society, are 
fully protected by the men of the House of Justice. 
 
Insofar as equality of men and women, there are still many, many  
injustices to be corrected before true equality is realized.  But that is 
another whole subject. 
 
Warmest regards, 
    Virginia 
 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
Virginia Healy                                                             
                        
Encinitas, California 
email:  healy@ pipeline.com 
-- 
O God, cause us to see things as they really are - Hadith 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From GreyOlorin@aol.comTue Sep  5 11:14:20 1995
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 02:40:55 -0400
From: GreyOlorin@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women on the House of Justice

In a message dated 95-09-03 15:59:54 EDT, StrayMutt@aol.com writes:

>It strikes me as being just a little too convenient and easy for us, as men,
>to dismiss this as an issue.   I wonder how we would react if the
>interpretation of the passage in the Kitab-i-Aqdas came out that only women
>-- and not men -- could serve on the House of Justice.  Would we, as men,
>"radiantly acquiese" to such a ruling?  Don't bet the farm on it.


Before reading this claim, I had not planned on joining the discussion of the
membership of the Universal House of Justice, since I have no arguments to
present which have not already been presented multiple times, in better
scholarly form than I could manage, by the other denizens of Talisman.  This
claim, however, struck a chord in me.

If indeed the law of the Aqdas were the opposite of what it is, and the
membership of the Universal House of Justice were restricted to women only,
it would make not one iota of difference to me that I as a man would be
excluded from serving as a member of the Supreme Body, nor even that my sons,
and their sons, and all my male descendants for the next 850 years or longer
might be excluded from such service.

I can say this without hesitation because I am convinced beyond doubt that
the Universal House of Justice is an institution unlike any other.  I do not
need to think that one or more of its members is in some superficial/physical
way "like me" in order to know that its decisions will be in my best
interests.  The House is *not* a representative body, so I have no need to
worry about whether or not I am "represented" in its deliberations.  Its
decisions are to be followed, in terms of Baha'i belief, because they are
guided directly by God, and receive their authority by direct line of
succession from the Manifestation of God Himself, not because they spring
from a body that "represents" any particular elements of the Baha'i community
in the way human institutions such as parliaments each represent a
constituency.

The insinuation that the most recent decisions and statements of the
Universal House of Justice on this matter result from cowardice, prejudice,
or some other flaw in the current membership of that Body (as in, "...they
wish [the issue] would just go away,") strikes me as extremely dangerous
ground for any Baha'i to tread.  I hope I grossly misunderstood what the
author of those words intended.  Even more fervently, I hope I never find
myself thinking I am qualified to "provide guidance" to the Universal House
of Justice on this or any other matter.  I honestly don't know whether or not
such a thing would be breaking the Covenant, so I had better explicitly state
that I am not accusing anyone of that; but I am quite certain it is
inadvisable, to understate the case quite a bit.  
As some have stated or implied, it is not the task of the Baha'is to find
ways to change the teachings of the Faith and make them palatable to those
who might object.  Likewise, it is not our task to start with our own
conceptions of how the Baha'i principles must be applied in practice, and
then seek to "prove" those conceptions by selective reference to the Baha'i
Writings and the writings of the Guardian and the House of Justice.

There are many issues on which Western liberal democracy will attack the
Baha'i teachings:  this one, homosexuality, individualism, foundational
principles for economics, and many others.  Our task is not to abandon the
Baha'i teachings, but to show that they are actually a better means for
achieving the liberal goals of justice and equity for all human beings than
the practices evolved from human theories.

If I do participate further in the discussion of this issue, it will be only
with that purpose in mind.  Ultimately, the Universal House of Justice must
decide this issue; for the moment it has decided, and I can see no path other
than obedience to and support for that decision.

Regards,
Kevin Haines



From StrayMutt@aol.comWed Sep  6 22:39:09 1995
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 21:27:51 -0400
From: StrayMutt@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Is There a Woman in the House?

Hello, again...

First of all, an apology is in order here.  Suzanne Michael of Epsom, New
Zealand, has pointed out that no one, man or woman, posting here has opposed
women serving as members of the Universal House of Justice.  Some people
(perhaps a majority among us) do not believe that, given the interpretation
of the crucial passage in the Kitab-i-Aqdas, is will ever be possible for
women to serve on the Supreme Institution.

The distinction between outright opposition and a position of "not possible"
is a critical one, and I regret to say I failed to make it in my recent
posting on the topic of women and the House of Justice.  So, I apologize for
that lapse and hope I did not offend anyone by inadvertantly making him (or
her) sound hopelessly sexist.

As Suzanne pointed out (and I believe I said this as well) Baha'is can accept
the restriction that women may not be elected to the House, acknowledge their
feelings of discomfort (at least those of us who have such feelings) and
still remain loyal to the Covenant and continue to function as Baha'is.

My point, and perhaps it is one that I failed to make as clearly as I ought
to have, is that -- not withstanding our acceptance and understanding of the
status quo -- I believe it will become increasingly difficult for us to
attract non-Baha'i women (and men, too) to the Faith as it becomes more
generally known that women are ineligible for service as members of the House
of Justice.

Without re-hashing my entire argument, I think it is worth noting that, in
the early 1900's, Corinne True, a member of the nascent American Baha'i
community, found herself roughly in the same place we are.

Only, in her case, the prohibition against women serving on administrative
institutions extended to all assemblies, local, national and international.
 (Okay, national and international assemblies did not then exist, but the
groundwork had been laid for their creation.)  Mrs. True appealed directly to
`Abdu'l-Baha...and refused to let go of this issue until women were admitted
to membership on local assemblies.

This bit of history suggests to me that change is possible and the issue is
by no means closed, as some of us posting on Talisman have argued.  In the
meantime, until some future House of Justice revises the current policy, I
think we need a much better rationale than we can now muster to explain to
non-Baha'i women why they enjoy equal rights and opportunities in the Baha'i
Faith...except at its very top.

Bob Ballenger.

From burlb@bmi.netWed Sep  6 22:39:49 1995
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 95 19:17 PDT
From: Burl Barer 
To: StrayMutt@aol.com
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Is There a Woman in the House?

...except at its very top.
>
> That, to me, seems to be an upside down or sideways view -- I have never
considered Baha'i Administration as a ladder or a line. I see no positions
of "power" only positions of servitude and abnegation of the individual (is
that the right word?). If there is a top and bottom, the UHJ would be at the
bottom, not the top. Heck, they don't even have a chairman...they rotate
facilitation.

Burl (at the top) Barer! 
>
>


From sw@solsys.ak.planet.gen.nzThu Sep  7 10:55:42 1995
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 95 15:05 NZST
From: S&W Michael 
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Women/UHJ - not over yet ...

Dear Friends
Dear Sonja and StrayMutt/Bob

Thank you both for your comments.  I was attempting to make clear (and
didn't) exactly what Sonja proceeded to make clear, which was that having
found it difficult to put the issue of women and the House to one side (but
having done so nonetheless) I then discover this wonderful research that's
been done and I'm a changed woman!

Sonja talked about hearing Juan et al's paper for the first time in
Christchurch, New Zealand, in 1988 (the only public airing this paper ever
had I believe) and finally feeling more reassured about the position of
women and the House.  This is exactly as I feel now having read, understood
and absorbed all of the research that has been posted on talisman in the
last couple of weeks.

My point (I think) is that by being able to discuss and air these issues I
actually feel much better about this issue than I ever have, and in fact I
could almost say I feel quite 'content' about it now.  And I think if we
are able to talk more openly about the issue (as we have done the last
couple of weeks) then a lot more women in the future will also feel more
comfortable about it.  I think it is a shame that it's all been kept under
wraps so much.

So, again in response to those who'd like to see the 'passing of the
storm', I think the Baha'is and the Faith are better served by continuing
to discuss this issue, and I think it's a shame to have this attitude of
'let's get this over and done with and out of the way'.

And I want to re-iterate again that the issue, as I see it, is not one of
disagreement (and certainly disobedience or 'subversion') with the House -
we absolutely must, I believe, AGREE with what the house does and says.
(This is not to imply that we cannot ask questions - I draw a distinction
between agreeing with the House and asking questions of the House - I don't
think these two concepts are opposing.)  The issue is, as Bob has
paraphrased me, one of WHETHER THE POSSIBILITY EXISTS (given various
translatory issues raised and given apparent historical precedents set)
THAT THE HOUSE WILL, AT SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE, BE ABLE TO LEGISLATE TO
ALLOW WOMEN TO SIT ON THE HOUSE OF JUSTICE.

I believe the possibility exists.  Others, whose study is also extremely
valid, do not believe the possibility exists.

I do not believe that women should sit on the House of Justice now, because
I believe the House must be considered to be absolutely right in the
decision it has made for now.  This does not undermine my believe that, as
I have said above, that the possibility exists in the future for the House
to change this decision.  (And that is why earlier claims that certain
talismanians are trying to 'subvert' the House are utterly illogical, as I
don't believe anyone has stated that the House is wrong.  They have stated
that the possibility exists in the future for the House to change.)

I've repeated myself a few times here - my apologies - I think there is a
certain logic to the balance of these discussions that has been missing,
and I am most concerned, as Bob has seen, that we are all aware of these
logical distinctions in the argument, and that we all stay on track here.
My apologies again if I have in fact misrepresented the argument as it may
be seen by those whose work here has been the most fundamental to it, eg.
Juan, Richard, Ahang, Rob Stockman, etc etc. but I don't think so.

So, I'm going to summarise this:

1.  We should agree with the House.

2.  This does not mean we can't raise questions with the House, ad
infinitum if we want to (like Corinne True continued to raise the issue
with the Master)

3.  The possibility either exists or does not exists that the House can
legislate in the future for women to be on the House.

4.  I believe the possibility exists.

5.  Believing the possibility exists does not undermine 1. (that we should
agree with the House.)

6.  Agreeing with the House does not undermine 4. (believing that the
possibility exists for such a change).

Not being the world's greatest logician I'm now in fear and trembling that
someone more deft than I will blast what I think is logical to
kingdom-come!!
If this logic is wrong, please do point out how.

Thanks ...

Suzanne Michael
New Zealand


From sw@solsys.ak.planet.gen.nzThu Sep  7 11:11:05 1995
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 95 18:20 NZST
From: S&W Michael 
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Women/UHJ

Dear Friends
Dear Robert J.

Your view re disagreement with the House seems correct - there goes my
logic, and now I'm stuck ...

Suzanne


From sw@solsys.ak.planet.gen.nzThu Sep  7 11:11:36 1995
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 95 18:20 NZST
From: S&W Michael 
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Women/UHJ

Dear Friends
Dear Robert

You would seem to be correct on the issue of disagreement with the House -
there goes my logic - now I'm a bit stuck!

I'd point out that it is possible for the House to change its decision, ie.
the House has stated the situation is not "amenable to change", but the
House could change this view, (as well as changing its decision re women on
the House) ...

I am left with a problem about the question I wanted to raise next.  Sonja
has said, and I've reiterated, how valuable it was personally to hear this
discussion on the issue of women on the House, and such discussion took us
beyond a feeling of some degree of despair over there not being women on
the House (prior to hearing this discussion), to a feeling of greater
understanding, and, as I've put it, more of a contentment over the issue.
And I believe this discussion would be of value to a great many other
Baha'i women and men as well.

But having stated my belief in agreeing with the House, I now see that the
issue is not "subject to speculation..."

Now this is where I'm stuck!  Because I would like other Baha'is to be
aware of this discussion too - in fact anybody ...

So I've backed myself into a corner, as you may see, and I'm rather hoping
there might be a way out ...  HELP!

Suzanne




From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpThu Sep  7 11:23:12 1995
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 95 17:38:19 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg" 
To: S&W Michael 
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women/UHJ

Dear Suzanne:

> So I've backed myself into a corner, as you may see, and I'm rather hoping
> there might be a way out ...  HELP!

Backed into a corner!  No way.  

Your previous posting was the most balanced and healing 
posting on the issue of women and the House that I've seen yet.
Along with Juan's posting admitting the tentativeness of his
hermeneutical probings, it is a shining light guiding our 
path forward.  

Don't underestimate the power and enormously enhanced capabilities 
that the highly welcome participation of women at the level 
of full equality brings to Talisman.  I know that I speak for many 
when I say: Bravo!!

Stephen Friberg

From jrcole@umich.eduThu Sep  7 12:53:10 1995
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 12:09:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole 
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: interpretation


I think the intellectual level of the messages I read on Talisman this 
morning must have been a 1-day record; what a treat!


  With regard to the possibility of women on the House, it seems to me 
that no one has answered Bill Garlington's challenging analogy.  
Discrimination on the basis of sex is no different than discrimination on 
the basis of race.  Saying women cannot serve on the House is morally 
equivalent to saying that, e.g., blacks cannot serve on the House.  None 
of us (I hope) would put up with the latter position.  Why is the former 
any different?  Are women less human than blacks?  Do they have fewer rights?
As for the argument that Baha'u'llah said so, and we must simply accept 
what He said, I have gone blue in the face trying to demonstrate that He 
said no such thing; and that even though `Abdu'l-Baha at first thought He 
did, even he changed his mind later on.

	The fact is that the Universal House of Justice is the power 
center of the Baha'i Faith.  It makes policy, it legislates, it decides 
cases.  It is an executive, a legislature and a judiciary rolled into 
one.  And given the centralization of the Baha'i bureaucracy its 
statements in all three spheres have enormous and immediate impact on all 
Baha'i institutions and believers.  To exclude women permanently from 
this body is to endow them with less power in the Baha'i community than 
men.  As for those who maintain that the Universal House of Justice is 
unaffected by the gender or culture of its members, this is patently 
untrue.  In a number of important decisions, its personnel clearly have 
led it to see things one way and not another.  A House full of Western 
university professors in the humanities would never have dreamed of 
ordering a primary source such as Salmani's memoirs of Baha'u'llah to 
be bowdlerized in English translation.

	Moreover, if we look at the contemporary world, women have been 
accepted in leadership positions in most countries; there have been 
European women prime ministers, South Asian women prime ministers, Latin 
American women prime ministers, etc.  Among the two most backward areas 
with regard to women's rights, however, are the Arab world and Iran.  
Some sort of combination of Islam and cultural values has kept women 
solidly out of leadership in both cultural spheres.  The idea of a woman 
leader in Iran, Egypt or Saudi Arabia is a joke, pure and simple.  
(Women's literacy and numbers in the workforce in both are also low in 
world terms; women typically have little status in the public sphere; the 
Qur'an authorizes smacking one's wife when she gets out of hand; and 
gender segregation often excludes women from professioanal and business 
education and work opportunities).  But all this is not only a matter of 
Islam; Benazir Bhutto is prime minister of the Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan (as my wife reminds me when she wishes to demonstrate how 
backward Americans are).

	Now, the Baha'i Faith was born precisely in this area of Iran and 
the Arab world; and it managed (gradually) to overcome a great deal of the 
cultural baggage it inherited from those cultures.  But it is suspicious to 
me that it excludes women from the top leadership, just in precisely the 
same way they are excluded from being head of state or prime minister in 
Iran, Syria and Egypt.
	
	Saying we believe in the equality of women and men and yet 
keeping them off the most powerful institution in our religion is bound 
to be seen by the outside world as both hypocritical and sexist.  But it 
is also contradictory to Baha'i values themselves.

	I hear voices saying that no change is possible, things are set 
in stone.  Yet the promise of the Baha'i Faith was precisely of a 
flexible religion, able to change with the times, having as little 
immutable law as possible (Baha'u'llah, Ishraq 8).  We are children of 
the half-light, we do not yet see what the Faith may become.  We think we 
are pre-Vatican II Roman Catholics, or we think we are Shi`ites with 
infallible Imams and an Exemplar who must be imitated, because those are the 
only models we know for a universal religion with an infallible head.  But 
however appropriate they might have been to an earlier time, they are 
wretched models for the third Millennium C.E.  We need not banish reason; 
we can do better.

	As for Frank's well-reasoned message, I agreed with it almost to 
the end.  But then I was puzzled.  Are you saying that `Abdu'l-Baha had 
the authority to over-rule Baha'u'llah?




cheers    Juan



From s0a7254@tam2000.tamu.eduFri Sep  8 16:22:44 1995
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 12:08:26 -0500 (CDT)
From: Saman Ahmadi 
To: talisman 
Subject: Keeping Hope Alive


Dear Friends,

First thing's first... Burl, I am gonna buy your book. And
I have a serious (really) suggestion for the title of
your next book: Comedy and the Baha'i Faith. 

Now for something compelety different...

Is it wrong to think that the House of Justice will 
someday have women as its members? I think as long as
everyone realizes, and it seems that we do, that the
House of Justice is *the* body which may or may not
consider the matter again, it is not as harmful as other
things. Maybe thinking that the possiblity exists
will help people to not dwell on the issue and therefore
get busy with Derek's suggestions. 

I don't think that the admittedly different functions
of the sexes can explain the wisdom of the exclusion
fully - those differences were already known at the
time of Abdul Baha but He pointed to the future for
understanding the issue. 

I read both the "Service of Women" paper and the
reponse from the House. Sonja also mentioned that
the House of Justice had expressed its "disappointment"
but that the UHJ did not elaborate. I have had a few days
to think about everything.

The paper is well thought out and well written. What
I have a problem with is the concluding paragraph: the
use of the word "faulty" in particular - "the assumption...
may be a faulty one" - as the Head of the Faith the House of
Justice bears responsiblity for that assumption. I see no need 
for the use of that word (especially when an idea like this is 
presented in public) - the thesis of the paper is clear, namley the 
possiblity of the inclusion of women on the UHJ based on historical 
progressive development of the Teachings and Baha'u'llah's and 
Abdul Baha's application of the word "rijal" to women. Why then 
use a word like "faulty"?

It can't be because the authors do not respect the Supreme
Instituion - the paper is arguing for election of 
women to that Institution. If they thought the UHJ
was unimportant, they would not be arguing the case so hard.

I don't think the article would have lost any weight if it
did not include the word "faulty".

I suppose one counter argument might be that an idea
should be judged on its merits and not the means of its
expression, in this case a single word - I think that the
merits and the means are equally important.

regards,
sAmAn


From rstockman@usbnc.orgMon Sep 18 19:27:22 1995
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 95 07:00:20 
From: "Stockman, Robert" 
To: talisman@indiana.edu, Juan R Cole 
Subject: Re: logic, history and women


     
     Juan, one difficulty with your historical argument is that near as I 
     can determine, `Abdu'l-Baha used the term mahfil-i-rawhani, "spiritual 
     assembly" three or four different ways: to refer to the entire local 
     Baha'i community, to a teaching committee, to the governing body of an 
     ethnic Baha'i community, and what today we would call a regular 
     fireside meeting.  Certainly the community, the committee, and the 
     fireside were open to women; I do not know about the ethnic governing 
     body ("spiritual assembly" of the Zoroastrian or Jewish Baha'is of 
     Tehran; I can't remember which).  The fifth useage was to refer to the 
     community governing body, as in the case of the Chicago "House of 
     Spirituality." That body is called a baytu'l-adl "house of justice" in 
     a tablet addressed to it in 1901.  Then, in a tablet to Mirza 
     Asadu'llah that apparently is lost, in early 1902, he changed its name 
     to bayt-i-rawhaniyyih "house of spirituality."  Subsequently, however, 
     He always called it mahfil-i-rawhani, "spiritual assembly."  I checked 
     the tablets pretty carefully and know of no instances where He called 
     it a baytu'l-adl subsequently.  He used bayt-i-rawhaniyyih "house of 
     spirituality" once, and then as a reference to the Chicago useage of 
     that name.
     
     All of this makes me suspect that the tablet to Mirza Asadullah, 
     apparently lost, may not have used bayt-i-rawhaniyyih "house of 
     spirituality" either, but mahfil-i-rawhani "spiritual assembly."  It 
     also seems strong evidence against the argument that in the 1909 
     tablet "baytu'l-adl" refers to the Chicago body.  In 1909 He hadn't 
     called it a House of Justice for eight years, and neither had the 
     Chicago Baha'is.  He had always called it mahfil-i-rawhani "spiritual 
     assembly."
     
     As for the change of name, there is a tablet dated late 1902 that 
     makes it clear the name of the Chicago body was changed because "House 
     of Justice" could sound political; `Abdu'l-Baha says the change is 
     ordered in Iran as well.  Thus there was no demotion of the body at 
     all; just a change of name to protect the friends from persecution.  
     This tablet can be found in *Baha'i Faith in America,* volume 2.  The 
     old translation is on page 72; the new translation in note 139.  The 
     five uses of mahfil-i-rawhani can be found in appendix 1, pp. 394-96.  
     I date as many of the tablets I found as possible, and they suggest 
     that our current useage as a community governing body was the useage 
     `Abdu'l-Baha gradually favored.  Certainly for Chicago that was the 
     standard useage by 1905 of so.
     
                -- Rob Stockman


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: logic, history and women
Author:  Juan R Cole  at INTERNET
Date:    9/16/95 1:01 PM


     .......... 
     
     
With regard to the 1909 letter, I would like to point out that it is 
highly unlikely that "bayt al-`adl-i `umumi" refers to the universal 
house of justice.  I agree with Tony that it probably refers to any 
*major* house of justice such as that in Chicago.  
     
But I am seriously beginning to think that `Abdu'l-Baha may have thought 
women should be excluded from *all* houses of justice.  Note that in the 
1913 letter when he excludes women, he does not mention anything about a 
"universal" house of justice.  He simply says "the house of justice."  My 
guess is that he demoted the Chicago body from a House of Justice to a 
Spiritual Assembly after his 1902 missive.  He then decided in 
1909-1912 that women could serve on local assemblies, but not on houses 
of justice (`umumi/general or not).  There is a Tablet in Ma'idih-yi 
Asmani in which he distinguishes between spiritual assemblies as teaching 
units and houses of justice as executive and legislative ones.  And he 
does not explicitly allow women in the 1909 letter on to local houses of 
justice, only onto spiritual assemblies.  All this is consistent with my 
demonstration that Baha'u'llah referred to the memberships of both local 
houses of justice and of the Universal House of Justice as "men/rijal", 
which `Abdu'l-Baha appears to have understood as a prohibition on women's 
membership.  
     
I am not advocating this stance, only saying that as a historian it seems 
to me a scenario consistent with the available evidence.  
     
     
     
cheers    Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan



To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: re: Jonathan's comment


Dear Talismanians,
Dear Jonathan,
You wrote:

> From owner-talisman@indiana.edu Tue Aug 22 20:00 EST 1995
> From: Jmenon@eworld.com
> Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 02:20:33 -0700
> To: talisman@indiana.edu
> Subject: Female Manifestations
>
>
> Good morning Talismanians!
>
> I have just had a chance to read the theory about the "Seed of Creation" from
> our friend in Australia, as well as some of the responses to it. I really
> enjoyed reading it, although I have to admit that some of it seemed clearly
> above my level of understanding. 
>


Thank you, you are kind.  I must say I enjoyed reading your posting too.


>
> However, I am finding it hard to accept the thought that future
> Manifestations of God will not be women because of God's design of the
> universe, which will prevent Him from sending female Manifestations.
>
> I would like to quote a passage from the Suriy-i-Vafa, printed in Tablets of
> Baha'u'llah, which I feel clearly opens up the possibility of God bestowing
> the bounty of female Manifestations on us. The passage is in a section in
> which the Blessed Beauty affirms the power of God to do anything. For
> example, earlier on in the tablet, Baha'u'llah writes:
>
> "Verily God is capable of causing all names to appear in one name, and all
> souls in one soul. Surely powerful and mighty is He. And this Return is
> realized at His behest in whatever form He willeth. Indeed He is the One Who
> doeth and ordaineth all things.... For instance, were He to take a handful of
> earth and declare it to be the One Whom ye have been following in the past,
> it would undoubtedly be just and true, even as His real Person...."
>
> This is the context in which it appears Baha'u'llah is writing. Then, three
> paragraphs later, He makes this statement, which is the one I am specifically
> referring to as opening up the possibility of female Manifestations:
>
>        "Know thou moreover that in the Day of Revelation were He to
> pronounce one of the leaves to be the manifestation of all His excellent
> titles, unto no one is given the right to utter why or wherefore,...."
>
> I am interpreting "leaves" here, to refer to women, just as the references
> Baha'u'llah makes to "branches" (Aghsan) often refer to His male descendants.
> So it seems that the Blessed Beauty is saying that if God was to send a
> female Manifestation, it would be quite correct. When I first read this
> passage, I was really excited by the possibilities.
>

The "Suriy-i-Vafa" is an interesting tablet much of its first pages are in
regard to ressurection and coming of Baha'u'llah as a new manifestation,
following the Advent of the Bab (please refer to the chapter on this tablet
in the book "Revelation of Baha'u'llah" by Dr. Adib taherzadeh). In these
passages like in some other writings of Baha'u'llah it is difficult to
distinguish when He sayes He is God and when He is discribing words from
that "Unknown Essence", God.
Nevertheless, One must assume that the statments in the Tablet are meant to be
from that "unknown Essence".  I believe Baha'u'llah is mearly trying to show
the power of God, that "Unknown essence".  He is stating that O servent look
even if such an impossibility (i.e. a leaf to become the manifestation of God)
is to occur you must not dispute it.
This does not change the reality.  The statement has also an if at its bigining.Of course one must not dispute the power or ability of God in this regard.
However, He has created the universe the way it is discribed in the writings.
My article is puting a theory in its regard.  I do not think it is the will
of God to defy the form of the Creation that He has fashened.
Also this reminds me of two parables: one, that in Islam it is said that
Muhammad has divided the moon into two and put each half on the top of two
mountains.  Of course one must not dispute the power of manifestation to act
as such.  But as Abdu'l-Baha has put it, it is obscene to assume that such
an act can have scientific logic to it, as one clearly knows the size
differences (see Some Answered Questions).
The other is a parable that goes this way; If God is Almighty and Powerful,
then He should be able to create an stone that He - Himself is unable to lift.  Of course God is powerful, but to request that He to create an stone that He
can not lift, is obscene.  As lack of ability to lift a stone leads to
powerlessness.  It is easy to refer to statements by Baha'u'llah in this manner too and derive to such conclusions too, as is the case here.
If He is merely trying to show the power of God, it does not mean that He
will at some stage (if time has a meaning here) would defy the pattern of His
own Creation.  I believe that God has created the Creation in the shape that He has desired.  Although, He has the power to change things, nevertheless, he
will not will that, as His Creation is perfect.
However, I agree that perhaps, as a being I may be going to far to say that He
will never change His mind in regard to Creation.
Logic tells me that I must take the statements of Baha'u'llah in this fashion,
and assume that His Creation is perfect and hence He will not change it.

>
> Also, I would like to make another observation which has just come to me as I
> am writing, and it is this: I think that theories such as this one about the
> "Seed of Creation" are really wonderful in helping us understand the universe
> and in opening our minds to new and unique perspectives. But, I wonder if it
> is wise to use such theories -- any theories -- to limit in our minds what
> the Almighty might do in the future. In the Kitab-i-Iqan and other works,
> Baha'u'llah devotes a lot of discussion to the issue of how earlier followers
> of religion have dismissed the possibility that God would ever send other
> messengers based on their understanding of, and drawing evidence from, the
> scriptures of their own religions. The people in question felt that God's
> hand was "chained up" by the words which He had previously revealed.
> Baha'u'llah's response to this is that God cannot be considered to be limited
> by anything, especially not by the understandings of His followers. So this
> is why I am finding it hard to accept that God will not, by definition, ever
> send us female Manifestations because the laws of His universe would prevent
> Him from doing so.
>

Please refer to the above arguments.

>
> On a more personal note, I really hope we do receive female Manifestations. I
> think it's interesting that to this point in the history of this planet, no
> human male has ever had the bounty of being married to a Manifestation of
> God! (My understanding is that all the Manifestations have been men, but I'm
> not quite sure about it.) If this is true, then it has always been women who
> have had the closest contact with the Manifestations (by being married to
> them) since the Manifestations themselves are not human males who are
> created, spiritually and physically, at conception, but pre-existent souls
> created specially for the purpose and summoned by God to be His
> Representatives on this plane.
>
> Take care,
>
> Jonathan
>


Writings tell us that manifestations are simple human beings with human souls,
and their difference is only in their ability to connect to that overwhelming
power "The Holy Spirit".  Of course they are created specially for the purpose, 
but to say they are not human males is not correct.


With Baha'i Love and Greetings,
Ahamd.


 _______________________________________________________________________
^									^
^ Dr. A.M. Aniss,			Tel: Home   [61(2)] 505 509	^
^ Bio-Medical Engineer,			     Work   [61(2)] 694 5915	^
^ Neuropsychiatric Institute,		     Mobile   019 992020	^
^ Prince Henry Hospital,		Fax: Work   [61(2)] 694 5747  	^
^ Little Bay, N.S.W. 2036,						^
^ Australia.			Email: ahmada@acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.au	^
^_______________________________________________________________________^








From ahmada@acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.auFri Aug 25 10:16:31 1995
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 15:38:14 +1000
From: Ahmad Aniss 
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: re: Sen's comment


Dear Talismanians,
Dear Sen,
You wrote:

>From owner-talisman@indiana.edu Fri Aug 25 04:21 EST 1995
>From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
>Date: Thu, 24 Aug 95 19:40:24 EZT
>Subject: Female Manifestations, Women & UHJ
>To: talisman@indiana.edu
>
>Ahmad's thesis seems to be simple projection of cultural
>norms: if one assumed that the female was the active
>partner (based e.g. on the behaviour in certain animals) one
>could label the active side of each interaction female, and
>form a mirror-image of his model. In other words, the
>model is a system for organizing data, not an explanation
>of the data - therefore it cannot be used to predict new
>data. It doesn't allow for the evidence of Godesses, female
>prophets (in the sense of innovators establishing a new
>form of connection between the human and the divine) and
>religious communities centering on priestesses rather than
>priests.
>

It is not a simple projection of cultural norms.  The active / recipient
concept is as a consequence of the formation of seed, i.e. that original
 interaction for reproduction.  I have clearly stated this in the article.
It is true that in animals, in some cases the female partner has a very
active behaviour or character, one example is relationship of a lion and
lionesses.  However, in all those species the female counterpart still is the
entity that receives the sperm and rears children.  There is a fish species that
at times when there is a lack of female counterparts, one male transforms into
a female and then has interaction.  So active and recipient role is there for
reproduction.
Of course this is a model.  However, it best describes the data and as such it
gives a best approximation to reality or existence of data.  Based on these
model and assumptions it is possible to predict or interpolate to possible new
data.

 
>Re Saman's question regarding the Guardian's ruling on
>Women on the UHJ ("how the UHJ can legislate on a
>matter that has been addressed by Shoghi Effendi"): even if
>Shoghi Effendi had addressed the issue, the House could
>over-rule him in legislation:
>      Though the Guardian of the Faith has been made the
>       permanent head of so august a body he can never,
>      even temporarily, assume the right of exclusive
>       legislation.  He cannot override the decision of the
>      majority of his fellow-members, but is bound to
>       insist upon a reconsideration by them of any
>       enactment he conscientiously believes to conflict
>       with the meaning and to depart from the spirit of
>       Baha'u'llah's revealed utterances.  [WOB, 'The
>       Dispensation of Baha'u'llah' chapter on 'The
>       Administrative Order']
>But I don't think he did address the issue himself, either
>positively or negatively, though his appointment of women
>to the Internation Council is certainly suggestive of his own
>preferences. 
>
The Guardian and The House, neither can change the legislations that
are already in the Holy Text.  Baha'u'llah clearly states that "Rejal" i.e.
men can only be on the House (UHJ). So The Guardian was following the
roles that was established by Baha'u'llah and neither The House would
be able to legislate against some thing that is already in the text.

>It surprised me at first that the Guardian himself had not
>dealt with the issue: one would think that it was an
>important constitutional issue warranting at least a brief
>statement in one of his general letters to the Baha'i world.
>But looking at the continuation of the above citation, I
>think the reason is clear:
>       He interprets what has been specifically revealed,
>       and cannot legislate except in his capacity as
>       member of the Universal House of Justice.  He is
>       debarred from laying down independently the
>       constitution that must govern the organized
>       activities of his fellow-members, and from
>       exercising his influence in a manner that would
>       encroach upon the liberty of those whose sacred
>       right is to elect the body of his collaborators.
>Had the Guardian said something like 'Women may later
>serve on the Universal House of Justice' or 'Women may
>never serve on the Universal House of Justice', he would in
>effect have been laying down part of the constitution of the
>House of Justice. Even a statement about how the first
>election should be organized (would votes for women be
>considered ineligible?) would have been limiting the 'sacred
>right' of the delegates. And according to his own
>interpretation of the W&T, he couldn't do this. Thus
>delegates are free to vote for women if they feel guided to
>do so, and the House of Justice is free to change its
>constitution as it wishes. Both will no doubt be guided not
>only by direct inspiration but also by the relevant tablets of
>'Abdu'l-Baha. 
>

Guardian was just abiding the laws and was appointed as the interpreter
only. The House can not change its constitution against sections which
are from the Holy Text.
In regard to a vote for a female believer, I think that vote is considered
invalid at the international convention.  The delegates are there to vote in
accordance to Baha'u'llah's law and they have no extra "sacred rights"
as you put it.

With Baha'i Love and Greetings,
Ahmad.


 _______________________________________________________________________
^									^
^ Dr. A.M. Aniss,			Tel: Home   [61(2)] 505 509	^
^ Bio-Medical Engineer,			     Work   [61(2)] 694 5915	^
^ Neuropsychiatric Institute,		     Mobile   019 992020	^
^ Prince Henry Hospital,		Fax: Work   [61(2)] 694 5747  	^
^ Little Bay, N.S.W. 2036,						^
^ Australia.			Email: ahmada@acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.au	^
^_______________________________________________________________________^








From ahmada@acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.auFri Aug 25 10:19:11 1995
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 15:49:46 +1000
From: Ahmad Aniss 
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: trans. of Juan

Dear Juan,
I read your transelation and I enjoyed it immensely.
Please forward the second part.  I have made a copy of it. and will
take home to read and compare with original.  You must take up
such translations.  I have done some too which I may send in in near
future.  I found a few of the word in your tranlation not appropriate.
one example is the word "publish".
Looking farword to the rest.
With Baha'i Love and Greetings,
Ahmad.

 _______________________________________________________________________
^									^
^ Dr. A.M. Aniss,			Tel: Home   [61(2)] 505 509	^
^ Bio-Medical Engineer,			     Work   [61(2)] 694 5915	^
^ Neuropsychiatric Institute,		     Mobile   019 992020	^
^ Prince Henry Hospital,		Fax: Work   [61(2)] 694 5747  	^
^ Little Bay, N.S.W. 2036,						^
^ Australia.			Email: ahmada@acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.au	^
^_______________________________________________________________________^







From ahmada@acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.auFri Aug 25 10:35:49 1995
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 19:52:18 +1000
From: Ahmad Aniss 
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: A reference for "seed of creation"


Dear friends,

In support of my article "seed of creation"  I would like to bring to your
attention  the following passages from the book "The  Revelation of
Baha'u'llah" by Dr. Adib Taherzadeh.  Volume four, Chapter three, pages
42-43.  This chapter is on Tablet of Hikmat ( Lawh-i-Hikmat):

"A vital clue to the origin of creation is given in the following statement by
Baha'u'llah in
the Tablet of Hikmat:
	The world of existence came into being through the heat
	generated from the interaction between the active force and
	that which is its recipient.  These two are the same, yet they are
	different.  Thus doth the Great Announcement inform thee
	about this glorious structure.  Such as communicate the
	generating influence and such as receive its impact are indeed
	created through the irresistible Word of God which is the
	Cause of the entire creation, while all else besides His Word
	are but the creatures and the effects thereof.  Verily thy Lord is
	the Expounder, the All-Wise.		Tablets of Baha'u'llah  p. 140.

To appreciate the above passage one needs to be well versed in ancient
Greek and Islamic philosophy.  Baha'u'llah has used the terminology of the
ancient philosophers to expound the true cause of creation.  The theory of
the 'active force' and 'its recipient' is related to the four elements, fire, air,
water and earth.  To those who are familiar with this philosophy, it is clear
how the 'active force' and 'its recipient' are the same and yet different.
However, this theory, which is very ancient and complicated, is beyond the
scope of this book ( Readers are referred to a scholarly article in Persian by
Dr. Vahid Ra'fati, published in 'Andalib', no. 19).  What is important to the
general reader is the disclosure by Baha'u'llah that creation has come about
through the heat generated by the interaction of this 'active force' and 'its
recipient', and that these two were created through the Word of God.
There are many Tablets in which Baha'u'llah has elucidated the process of
creation.  But in all these He has asserted that the Word of God, sent down
from the Heaven of Divine Revelation, is the cause of life both physical and
spiritual.  In a Tablet (Ma'idiy-i-Asamani, vol. 4, p.24) Baha'u'llah states
that the life of everything is dependent upon the Word of God."

This is only but one refernce that is available in writings in regard to terms
that I have use in the article mainly, "seed", "active force" and "recipient". I
hope this posting give us more insight. 

With Baha'i Love and Greetings,
Ahmad.

 _______________________________________________________________________
^									^
^ Dr. A.M. Aniss,			Tel: Home   [61(2)] 505 509	^
^ Bio-Medical Engineer,			     Work   [61(2)] 694 5915	^
^ Neuropsychiatric Institute,		     Mobile   019 992020	^
^ Prince Henry Hospital,		Fax: Work   [61(2)] 694 5747  	^
^ Little Bay, N.S.W. 2036,						^
^ Australia.			Email: ahmada@acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.au	^
^_______________________________________________________________________^








From LORA_M@meddeans.creighton.eduFri Aug 25 11:39:58 1995
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 10:22:19 CST
From: Lora McCall 
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Active force & recipient

Dear Talismanians,

It appears to me that Ahmad Aniss would be in favor of reducing all 
meaningful human experience to biological reproduction, and that 
within that model, the active force is somehow more pertinent and 
vital than the recipient.  (I realize he hasn't stated it this 
bluntly, but the message has come through anyway, which *is* by the 
way, a projection of cultural norms.)  Baha'u'llah's active / recipient 
description illumines the *meaningfulness* of the creation of the 
universe, and this concept is a whole lot more complicated and 
beautiful  than active sperm penetrating passive recipient ova.  If 
we reduce everything to reproduction and use this model as almost the 
archetype of what it means to be human and thus interpolate and 
predict new information based on this model, I fear we will go far 
astray in our hopes of finding real human meaning.  We will have 
found all the ways in which humans are animals, and not shed any 
light on the *real* part of humanness which is spiritual.   

I reject the notion that biological reproduction can be an adequate 
model for making sense of or assigning meaning to life.  As Sen said, 
"the model is a system for organizing data, not an explanation of the 
data... ."  The reproduction model is old and outworn, and it assigns 
an inferior, subordinate role to the female as recipient (as 
INactive, which isn't a "force" at all, and therefore her role 
becomes somehow less relevant).  This model strips any sense of power 
or self-determination from the female, and relegates her to the realm 
of sitting by idly waiting for life to come to her from an outside 
force.  It leaves her without wholeness of her own, and keeps her out 
of the realm of activity.  I would argue that this notion is entirely 
culturally generated, and sheds little light on what Baha'u'llah 
means when He says the universe has come into existence through the 
heat generated between the interaction of the active force and that 
which is its recipient -- these two are the same yet different.  
(sorry for the poor paraphrase!)  

Because humans are primarily spiritual beings and secondarily 
biological beings, and because the human soul has no gender, I would 
further argue that the biological model is a weak one when we 
are seeking to attach meaning to aspects of our existence.  Each 
human, regardless of gender, is BOTH an active force AND a recipient, 
and we cannot predict or interpret spiritual matters on the basis of sex 
organs.  The extent to which each individual can balance all the different
names and attributes within her/his soul seems to me to be the issue.  

I would like to see us break from the long-held tradition of 
"masculine" and "feminine" attributes, and change our focus to 
something more along the lines of the "beautiful" and "majestic" 
names.  I'd love to take credit for having come up with that model 
myself, but I didn't.  All the credit must go to Terry Culhane, and I 
admit to feeling profoundly grateful to him for his patience in 
explaining it to me!  :)  

So, Lora, sum this up...   Let's stop reducing what it means to be 
human to the reproductive model.  It's simply inadequate.

Thanks for listening,

Lora McCall
Omaha, Nebraska
Lora_M@meddeans.creighton.edu
}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
**********************************************************************

"Beloved friends:  Do not be dismayed or deterred.  Take courage in
the security of God's law and ordinances.  These are the darkest
hours before the break of day.  Peace, as promised, will come at
night's end.  Press on to meet the dawn."

                                The Universal House of Justice

**********************************************************************
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{

Lora_M@meddeans.creighton.edu

From ahmada@acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.auMon Aug 28 00:04:28 1995
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 1995 23:56:23 +1000
From: Ahmad Aniss 
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: regarding the term rejal/men


Dear Talismanians,
Dear Ahang, Saman, Rob and Juan ,

Ahang wrote:
 
>From owner-talisman@indiana.edu Sat Aug 26 05:16 EST 1995
>From: "Ahang Rabbani" 
>To: talisman@indiana.edu
>Subject: women on the House?
>Saman jan:
>
>Thanks so much for forwarding Juan's note on "rijal/men" from
>Talisman and asking for my input.
>
>Here's my 2 cents worth ...
>
>You asked as to what the appointment of women to the
>International Baha'i Council means and whether one can
>extrapolate from that to the House of Justice.
>........
>After all, the beloved Guardian in his letter (to the Persian friends)
>did say that the International Baha'i Council is the Universal House
>of Justice in its embryonic form.  (You find a translation of this
>letter in the text of Paul Haney's address to the First World
>Congress, 1963, which is printed in Baha'i World vol. 13.)
>
>Juan's analysis/posting on the verse of Aqdas and Abdu'l-Baha's
>ruling in 1909-12 is right on mark.  But I think he should take
>into account that the fact that the beloved Guardian seems to
>have in effect further modified (interpreted?) Abdu'l-Baha's
>ruling when it came to the International Baha'i Council.  In
>other words, Shoghi Effendi, while considering the IBC to be the
>UHJ in its infant stage, thought that women can serve on it and
>in fact appointed a number to do so.  In other words, in effect,
>the Guardian seemed to have removed the last barrier for services
>of women on the House.
>

This interpolation is completely of the track.  Each of those decisions
were made for different bodies.  First a local council in Chicago, in
period of Adu'l-Baha, then the International Baha'i Council in period
of Guardian then The future Universal House of Justice.  Each of these
bodies have different constitution and played or play different roles in
the history of the Faith.
Such interpolations are misleading specially if summarised as below.


>Summary:
>
>Baha'u'llah:   men only on all Institutions.
>
>Abdu'l-Baha:   men only on the Universal House of Justice.
>
>The Guardian:  women on International Council (anticipating it to
>evolve into the International House of Justice).
>
>
>Ergo, Saman jan, I think you've found the missing piece in this
>argument ...

In addition, If the International Baha'i Council is the Universal House of
Justice in its embryonic form then there is something wrong.  Because
the embryo had women members before the present UHJ that suppose
tto be a furthe developed state to that embryo.  So can it happen that an
earlier body (the embryo) is more advanced than that state which is
presently available(present UHJ).  definitely not.
So, I don't think the Guardian meant that statement in this manner or
conclusion.  The two bodies are totally different in structure and role,
and must be looked at in their individual case.


Saman wrote:

>From owner-talisman@indiana.edu Sun Aug 27 05:38 EST 1995
>From: Saman Ahmadi 
>To: talisman 
>Subject: Women on the House
>
>Dear Friends,
>
>The following events are taken from a chapter written by Susan S. Maneck
>in the book "Religion and Women" - the title of the chapter is "Women in
>the Baha'i Faith".
>
>In 1901 Mirza Assadu'llah Isfahani reorganized the "Board of
>Council" in Chicago - they began refering to it as the House of
>Justice. As before only men were elected to the governing body.
>
>Corine True wrote to Abdul Baha asking that He rescind the
>directive confining membership on the House of Justice to
>men.
>
>In June 1902, Abdul Baha responds:
>
>  "... The House of Justice, however, according to explicit
>  text of the Law of God, is confined to men, this for a wisdom
> of the Lord God's, which will ere long be made manifest as clearly
>  as the sun at high noon".
>
>Is the text of Corine True's letter available? Because it
>seems that she was, as has been noted in previous discussions,
>refering only to the Chicago House of Justice. Abdul Baha cites
>the "explicit text of the Law of God" as the reason.
>
>Later in 1909, in response to another letter from Corine True,
>Abdul Baha uses the same reason ("stated in the text the Book")
>for the exclusion of women on the *Universal* House of Justice
>only (Abdul Baha goes on to say that women could be elected to
>"Temple Construction Committee, the Teaching Committee, the
>Spiritual Assembly...") - and that is how it was interpreted and
>Corine True began to call for the election of women to the Chicago
>House of Spirituality.
>
>So it seems that Abdul Baha had re-interpreted Baha'u'llah's
>writings from 1902 to 1909. And as has been mentioned, Abdul Baha
>completely dissolved the all-male administrative bodies on
>His visit in 1912.
>


The apparent change in decision of Abdu'l-Baha is only due to the
fact that time was needed for the society to accept the membership
of women on such bodies, specially in the East.
This is like certain current laws that was made binding by the UHJ
for the Western believers just recently.  Does this mean that UHJ
change their mind and changed the previous rulings in these regards.
I don't think so.  It is only the exigencies of the time that govern such
changes.


>Susan Maneck also points to events in Iran during the same
>period - copies of Abdul Baha's talks in America were
>distributed in Iran. Baha'i women in Iran seeing the
>development in the U.S. began calling for discarding of the
>veil and full participation in administrative affairs.
>Abdul Baha pleaded with the Iranian women not to do
>anything "contrary to wisdom". He chided women for
>their impatience saying "this newly born babe is
>traversing in one night the path needeth a hundred years
>to tread".


This statement clearly shows that Abdu'l-Baha was awaiting for the
appropriate time for the Eastern friends to be conditioned in order to
accept women on the such bodies.

>
>It seems to me that *time* is the common thread in the progression
>of Abdul Baha's interpretations. And I must admit that
>Juan's points about Baha'u'llah's uses of the word rijal
>are certainly thought provoking.


Again this is a false interpolation see above.

If the word  rejals is used in the writings one must ascertain what the
content of the letter or statement was.  If it was concerned with current
affairs that such houses should have taken care of then Baha'u'llah or
Abdu'l-Baha could have only used rejals in order to address the members
of such assemblies.

>
>Has anyone asked the House of Justice whether this is an
>issue which would fall in their sphere of legislation?
>

Good point.  I think someone must ask the UHJ if there are able in
future to change the laws that are presently assumed to be in Holy Text.
The question that  must be asked is "if changes to the Holy text such
as introduction of women on the UHJ is under the sphere of their legislative
power" 
My views are that they will reply saying that not and hence they are bond
to what ever is revealed by Baha'u'llah.
>
>

Juan wrote:
>
>From owner-talisman@indiana.edu Sat Aug 26 14:30 EST 1995
>From: Juan R Cole 
>Subject: Re: Women on the House
>
>
>Rob:  You are a very clear thinker and I am always grateful for your
>input, but for the life of me I cannot understand this posting.
>
>Baha'u'llah in one Tablet says that the rijal-i buyut-i `adliyyih (the
>men of the houses of justice) are charged with ensuring that a universal
>language is chosen.  He *clearly* means local spiritual assemblies, since
>he uses the *plural* houses of justice (buyut-i `adliyyih, not Bayt al-`Adl
>al-A`zam).  So there is nothing to "clarify."  Members of local houses of
>justice are explicitly called "rijal."
>


It would be nice when you refer to a tablet from the writings to give full
 reference so that others can look for it and then decide for themselves
what it entails into.  As for a universal language, it is my understanding
from the writings that a council of learned by institutions of the world
will be summoned to take this task in hand and make a new or approve
an existing language for world wide use.


>Moreover, to the extent that there is a clarification, it is
>contradictory.  The 1902 letter excludes women from all kinds of House of
>Justice including the Chicago LSA; the 1912 oral instruction in Chicago
>allows women on local houses of justice.
>

Yes Abdu'l-Baha did exclude the women from the Chicago's LSA in
that period and then include them into the membership in 1912.
This is not a reversal of decision on Abdu'l-Baha's behalf, but the
reason behind it was the constrains of the time in the Baha'i society
world wide at that period.  In the East (and to some extend in the West).
At that time membership of the women on such legislative bodies were
unthinkable.  So, Abdu'l-Baha was asking for time so that the society
can accept introduction of women is to such bodies.
However, the above reason does not apply to the Universal house of
justice.  As it is very clear in the writings of Baha'u'llah that the
Universal House of Justice is a different kind of fish all together
so to speak.  It is Universal, it has inferred infallibility and power to
legislate new laws that are not already given by the Manifestation.
This fact brings the UHJ into a special status in regard to other bodies.


>Let's look at the logical syllogism all this would produce:
>
>First Minor Premise:  Baha'u'llah refers to members of both local
>houses of justice and the universal house of justice as rijal/men.
>(A=B, where A is houses of justice and B is men)


Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha did refer to the members of houses of
justices as men but in such addresses to such bodies at the time they
could only do so in that manner.
As all were or would have been men.  You must refer to these writings
and judge their relevance to the context of the period.


>
>First Major Premise:  `Abdu'l-Baha points out in 1902 that women are not
>men and therefore cannot serve on houses of justice.
>(B does not equal C, where B is men/rijal and C is women).
>
>First Conclusion (Second Minor Premise): Women are excluded from all
>sorts of house of justice, local and Universal.
>(A does not equal C, where A is membership on Houses of Justice and C is
>women.)
>
>Second Major Premise:  In 1912 `Abdu'l-Baha allowed women to serve on
>local houses of justice.
>(A=C, where A is membership on houses of justice and C is women)
>
>Final Conclusion:  Women may serve on houses of justice even though
>Baha'u'llah referred to their members as "rijal/men".
>
>This syllogism is flawed, of course, since the second major premise
>contradicts the second minor premise.  That's not supposed to happen.
>And that is why it seems to me clear that formal legislation by the House
>is called for.


Wrong interpolation and The UHJ can not formally legislate such rulings as
it would violate the strict points of the Holy Text.


>
>I think Ahang is perfectly correct that the beloved Guardian's
>appointment of women to the International Baha'i Council, the embryonic
>form of the Universal House of Justice, may well have been a broad hint
>as to what he expected in the future.


Again as I stated in above an embryonic entity can not be more advanced
than its future form and hence this arguments is false.  The two bodies have
different status and the Guardian's statement refers to the way that these
bodies are elected.


>On Fri, 25 Aug 1995, Stockman, Robert wrote:

>>
>>
>>
>>      Baha'u'llah clearly states that "Rejal" i.e. men can only be on the
>>      House (UHJ).
>>
>>      This contains the germ of the problem.  Baha'u'llah said House of
>>      Justice, NOT Universal House of Justice.  It was up to `Abdu'l-Baha or
>>      Shoghi Effendi to clarify.  And `Abdu'l-Baha did:
>>
>>      "men and women are equal in all rights save in the Universal House of
>>      Justice" (`Abdu'l-Baha to Corinne True, summer 1909)
>>
>>      Whatever the earlier tablet meant, doesn't this tablet clarify the
>>      situation?
>>
>>                 -- Rob Stockman


No see the above argument.



>From owner-talisman@indiana.edu Sat Aug 26 01:53 EST 1995
>From: Juan R Cole 
>To: talisman@indiana.edu
>Subject: rijal/men
>
>
>A couple of posts have been made on the impossibility of women serving on
>the House.  One reason given is that Baha'u'llah referred to members of
>the Universal House of Justice as "men"  (rija:l).
>
>This is true.  And it is the reason given in a 1902 letter of
>`Abdu'l-Baha to Corinne True as to why women could not serve on *any*
>house of justice.
>
>You see, the problem is that Baha'u'llah *also* referred to members of
>*local* houses of justice as "men" (rija:l).


Please check those references.  Are they referring to members of the
house as an address, like "dear friends" and as such.  If that is the case
your argument is not valid.


>In 1912 while in Chicago `Abdu'l-Baha reversed himself and allowed women
>to serve on local houses of justice.  For me, this raises the question of
>why women could not also serve on the Universal House of Justice.  After
>all, Baha'u'llah called members of both institutions "men."  In order to
>attain consistency, we would have to let women serve on both, or would
>have to kick women off LSAs.


Different bodies different structure and different situation see discussion
above.


>
>There are several reasons for which Baha'u'llah's use of "rijal/men" to
>refer to members of houses of justice does not prevent women from serving
>on the House.
>
>1.  There is a well-known grammatical rule in Arabic that the masculine
>encompasses the feminine.  If you said that a group of women and men went
>to a meeting, you would use the *masculine* third person plural (dhahabu)
>as the pronoun, even though women were included in your intent.  "Rijal"
>in Arabic may therefore have been intended to include women.  This is
>more especially true since in Persian the word has connotations of
>"notables."  Thus, "Rijal-i Qajariyyih" is not all men who lived in Qajar
>Iran, but only the prominent ones; and women might well be included in
>such a biographical dictionary.


Again a false interpolation to deduce an interpretation of the text.


>
>2.  Baha'u'llah explicitly says, "imruz ima'u'llah az rijal mahsub":
>today, the handmaidens of God are considered as men."  If they are
>considered as men, they why cannot they serve "as men" on the House of
>Justice.


This statement means they are equal in sight of God in this dispensation.
But, it does not mean they have same functional role to play, as I have
stated in my article.


>
>Finally, with regard to the 4 messages by the beloved Guardian's
>secretary on this issue;  they simply quote `Abdu'l-Baha's 1902 letter to
>Corinne True.  This letter excluded women from service on houses of
>justice of all sorts, including that in Chicago (the institution at issue).
>This letter was reversed in 1912.  Since the Guardian was not omniscient
>and his rulings were dependent on the information at hand, the impression
>he or his secretary had that the 1902 letter was the last word on the
>subject renders this ruling unhelpful.
>


The Guardian was not omniscient but was infallible and so you can not put
the articles aside and say that the letters are rendered unhelpful.


>The texts on this issue, looked at historically, seem to contain
>inconsistencies and contradictions.  The Universal House of Justice
>clearly has a mandate to legislate on things that are unclear in the
>Book, and so if it desired could IMHO legislate women onto the House.
>


Unclarity is only your view others such as me do not agree with this view.
The Holy Text is very clear and the UHJ does not have mandate to
legislate on topics or laws that are clearly stated in the Holy Text.
This is an important law, how could have Baha'u'llah managed in you
opinion to leave it unclear.


With Baha'i Love and Greetings,
Ahmad.

 _______________________________________________________________________
^									^
^ Dr. A.M. Aniss,			Tel: Home   [61(2)] 505 509	^
^ Bio-Medical Engineer,			     Work   [61(2)] 694 5915	^
^ Neuropsychiatric Institute,		     Mobile   019 992020	^
^ Prince Henry Hospital,		Fax: Work   [61(2)] 694 5747  	^
^ Little Bay, N.S.W. 2036,						^
^ Australia.				Email: A.Aniss@unsw.edu.au	^
^_______________________________________________________________________^







Date: Wed, 26 Jul 95 20:41:30 EZT
From: 
To: jrcole@umich.edu, 
Subject: Service of Women paper

All going well, the paper on The Service of Women should be attached to this 
file.

I trust you enjoy the paper




*****  ATTACHMENT: c:\public\wom-uhj *****

The Service of Women on the Institutions of the Baha'i Faith

Anthony A. Lee, Peggy Caton, Richard Hollinger, Marjan Nirou, Nader
Saiedi, Shahin Carrigan, Jackson Armstong-Ingram, and Juan R. I. Cole.

(Not for publication) 

>From 1844, the year of the founding of the Babi religion, to the present day,
women have played important roles in Baha'i history. Babi and Baha'i
women have often acted as leaders in the community, holding its highest
positions and participating in its most important decisions. In the first days
of His Revelation, the Bab Himself appointed Qurratu'l-'Ayn, Tahirih, as one
of His chief disciples - one of the nineteen Letters of the Living who were
the first to believe in Him and were entrusted by Him with the mission of
spreading His Faith and shepherding its believers. This remarkable woman
would soon become one of the most radical and influential of the Bab's
disciples and the leader of the Babis of Karbala. Her vision and achievement
have become legend. [1]
      In later periods of Baha'i history, women have acted in central roles of
leadership within the community. Bahiyyih Khanum, the Greatest Holy Leaf,
the sister of 'Abdu'l-Baha, several times in her lifetime was called upon to
act as the de facto head of the Baha'i Faith. When 'Abdu'l-Baha left the Holy
Land to travel to the West, for example, He chose to leave the affairs of the
Cause in the hands of His sister. Likewise, immediately after the ascension
of 'Abdu'l-Baha - before Shoghi Effendi, the new Guardian, could arrive in
Palestine to assume control of the Faith, the Greatest Holy Leaf assumed
leadership. The Baha'is in the Holy Land instinctively turned to her as their
guide and protector. And again, during the Guardian's absences from his
duties during the early years of his ministry, he repeatedly entrusted the
affairs of the Cause to the Greatest Holy Leaf. [2]
      After the passing of Shoghi Effendi, women were once more called
upon to serve the Baha'i Faith at its highest levels. The international
leadership of the religion fell to the Hands of the Cause, the chief stewards
of the Faith who had been appointed by the Guardian during his lifetime.
The women Hands served along with the men to guide the Baha'i
community through the turbulent years preceding the election of the
Universal House of Justice. Once again, Baha'i women demonstrated their
capacity to administer the affairs of the Faith at its highest levels.

THE BAHA'I PRINCIPLE OF GRADUALISM.

Nonetheless, the service of women on the elected institutions of the Baha'i
Faith has emerged only gradually. Although a few exceptional Baha'i women
have always set the example for their sex, the role of women on Baha'i
institutions in the community as a whole has not been comparable to that of
men. Traditional notions of inequality, as well as the restrictions of a hostile
environment, have caused the participation of women to lag behind. Even to
the present day, the participation of women on National Spiritual
Assemblies, Boards of Counsellors, and Auxiliary Boards is not equal to that
of men, as the charts show. A long road has yet to be travelled.

Participation of Women in Baha'i Institutions

"The equality of men and women is not, at the present time, universally
applied. In those areas where traditional inequality still hampers its progress
we must take the lead in practicing this Baha'i principle. Baha'i women and
girls must be encouraged to take part in the social, spiritual and
administrative activities of their communities." The Universal House of
Justice, Ridvan 1984.

 Numbers of women members of National Spiritual Assemblies
                   1953  1963  1973  1979  1985

      Africa         0    4    58     53   103
      Americas     18    82    86    106   131
      Asia           0   11    35     33    39
      Australasia   5     8    26     24    33
      Europe       11    44    40     44    48

      World         34   149   245   260   354

The following table shows, by continent, the numbers of National
Assemblies with their corresponding numbers of women members indicated
by the column headings. For example, column 1, line 1, there are 4
Assemblies in Africa with no women members.
              0     1     2     3     4     5    6     7     8     9

Africa        4     9    13     6     6     4    1     0     0     0
Americas      1     4     8    10    12     4    1     1     0     0
Asia         5     14     3     3     0     2    0     0     0     0
Australasia   2     6     4     2     2     1    0     0     0     0
Europe        1     4     6     7     1     0    0     1     0     0

World        13    37    34    28    21    11    2     2     0     0


Percentage of Women members of Institutions



(Information provided by the Department of Statistics at the Baha'i World
Centre, and reprinted from dialogue, volume 1, no. 3 (Summer/Fall 1986), p
31.)
      The gradual emergence of women on the institutions of the Faith
should not come as a surprise, however. Virtually all Baha'i laws and
practices have gone through a gradual evolution in Baha'i history. The
recognition of the principle of the equality of men and women, and its
gradual application in the development of Baha'i Administration is no
exception. 
      The principle of progressive revelation, the concept of the gradual
emergence of divine purpose, is a universal principle which applies within
the dispensation of each Manifestation, as well as between dispensations.
Baha'u'llah Himself has explained:

      Know of a certainty that in every Dispensation the light of Divine
      Revelation hath been vouchsafed to men in direct proportion to their
      spiritual capacity. Consider the sun. How feeble its rays the moment it
      appeareth above the horizon. How gradually its warmth and potency
      increase as it approacheth its zenith, enabling meanwhile all created
      things to adapt themselves to the growing intensity of its light. How
      steadily it declineth until it reacheth its setting point. Were it all of a
      sudden to manifest the energies latent within it, it would no doubt
      cause injury to all created things....
      In like manner, if the Sun of Truth were suddenly to reveal, at the
      earliest stages of its manifestation, the full measure of the potencies
      which the providence of the Almighty hath bestowed upon it, the earth
      of human understanding would waste away and be consumed; for
      men's hearts would neither sustain the intensity of its revelation, nor
      be able to mirror forth the radiance of its light. Dismayed and
      overpowered, they would cease to exist. [3]

      The Universal House of Justice has demonstrated how this principle of
progressive revelation has applied, and continues to apply, to the
implementation of Baha'i law, particularly to the laws of the Kitab-i Aqdas.
The Central Figures of the Faith have promulgated these laws only gradually
as the condition of the Baha'i community would allow. [4]
      Similarly, 'Abdu'l-Baha recognised that women could not take their
rightful place in the affairs of the world all at once. Throughout history
women have been deprived of education and opportunity. Therefore, it was
impossible that they would be able to immediately play an equal role in
Baha'i life. But 'Abdu'l-Baha has insisted that all distinctions of sex will be
erased once women attain proper education and experience. He says:

      Woman's lack of progress and proficiency has been due to her need for
      equal education and opportunity. Had she been allowed this equality,
      there is no doubt she would be the counterpart of man in ability and
      capacity. [5]

      In a talk given in New York, 'Abdu'l-Baha again pinpoints education
as the key to women's equality:

      ...if woman be fully educated and granted her rights, she will attain the
      capacity for wonderful accomplishments and prove herself the equal of
      man. She is the coadjutor of man; his complement and helpmeet. Both
      are human, both are endowed with potentialities of intelligence and
      embody the virtues of humanity. In all human powers and functions
      they are partners and co-equals. At present in spheres of human
      activity woman does not manifest her natal prerogatives owing to lack
      of education and opportunity.[6]

In Paris He said:

      ...the female sex is treated as though inferior, and is not allowed equal
      rights and privileges. This condition is not due to nature, but to
      education. In the Divine Creation there is no such distinction. Neither
      sex is superior to the other in the sight of God. Why then should one
      sex assert the inferiority of the other...If women received the same
      educational advantages as those of men, the result would demonstrate
      the equality of capacity of both for scholarship.[7]

On another occasion he made the same point:

      The only difference between them [ie: men and women] now is due to
      lack of education and training. If woman is given equal opportunity of
      education, distinction and estimate of inferiority will disappear. [8]

And again:

      Therefore, woman must receive the same education as man and all
      inequality be adjusted. Thus, imbued with the same virtues as man,
      rising through all the degrees of human attainment, women will
      become the peers of men, and until this equality is established, true
      progress and attainment for the human race will not be facilitated. [9]

      It was clearly 'Abdu'l-Baha's position that lack of education and
opportunity had relegated woman to an inferior position in society, and that
through education and experience all inequalities of sex would be gradually
removed. His own policies and actions concerning the service of women on
the institutions of the Faith reflected this belief in gradualism.

THE FIRST BAHA'I INSTITUTIONS

      Any investigation of the history of the development of the Baha'i
Administrative Order will reveal that Baha'i women only gradually took
their place beside the men in this area of service - and not without struggle.
This has been especially true in the East, where women were most heavily
restricted. But lack of education and other cultural circumstances have
affected the participation of women on Baha'i institutions all over the world.
      The first Hands of the Cause appointed by Baha'u'llah were, for
example, all males. 'Abdu'l-Baha appointed no additional Hands, and it was
only during the ministry of Shoghi Effendi that women were appointed to
this rank. Even so, it has been only Western Baha'i women who have been
found qualified for this distinction.
      At later times, when the first Auxiliary Boards to the Hands of the
Cause were appointed, and then the first contingents of Boards of
Counsellors, women were included. But circumstances dictated that it be
mostly Western women who were appointed, and that their numbers were far
fewer than those of men. As the above chart shows, that situation remains
the same today. This is not due to any policy of discrimination on the part
of the institutions of the Faith, but simply due to historical circumstances.
As the position of women improves - especially in Asia and Africa - with
respect to education and experience, we can expect that the current situation
will change in favour of more participation of women.

The House of Justice of Tehran

The struggle for the equal participation of women in Baha'i Administration
has been played out most dramatically, however, in the arena of the
development of local institutions. The first of these bodies was formed in
Tehran, Iran, at the initiative of individual believers.
      In 1873, Baha'u'llah revealed the Kitab-i-Aqdas, the Most Holy Book,
His book of laws. Here He established the institution of the House of Justice
(bayt al-'adl). The Kitab-i-Aqdas states:

      The Lord hath ordained that in every city a House of Justice (bayt
      al-'adl) be established wherein shall gather counsellors to the number
      of Baha [i.e., nine], and should it exceed this number it does not
      matter ... It behoveth them to be the trusted ones of the Merciful
      among men and to regard themselves as the guardians appointed of
      God for all that dwell on earth. It is incumbent on them to take
      counsel together and to have regard for the interests of the servants of
      God, for His sake, even as they regard their own interests, and to
      choose that which is meet and seemly.[10]

In the same book it is written:

      O ye Men of Justice! (rijal al-'adl) Be ye in the realm of God
      shepherds unto His sheep and guard them from the ravening wolves
      that have appeared in disguise, even as ye would guard your own sons.
      Thus exhorteth you the Counsellor, the Faithful.[11]

There are other references in the Kitab-i-Aqdas to the House of Justice (bayt
al-'adl) or the Place of Justice (maqarr al-'adl) which define its function and
fix some of its revenues. In most cases, these references are not specific but
refer to the general concept of a House of Justice rather than a particular
institution. The Universal House of Justice has explained:

      In the Kitab-i-Aqdas Baha'u'llah ordains both the Universal House of
      Justice and the Local Houses of Justice. In many of His laws He refers
      simply to "the House of Justice" leaving open for later decision which
      level or levels of the whole institution each law would apply to.[12]

      Although the Kitab-i-Aqdas was revealed in 'Akka in 1873, it was
withheld for some time by Baha'u'llah before it was distributed to the Baha'is
of Iran.[13] It appears that it was not until around 1878 that the Baha'is of
Tehran received copies of the book and began to implement some of its laws
in their personal lives.
      Upon reading the Kitab-i Aqdas, Mirza Asadu'llah Isfahani, a
prominent Baha'i teacher living in Tehran, was particularly struck by the
command of Baha'u'llah that a House of Justice should be established by the
Baha'is in every city. Mirza Asadu'llah is an important figure in Baha'i
history: he eventually married the sister of 'Abdu'l-Baha's wife; he was (as
we shall see) one of the earliest Baha'i teachers sent to America by
'Abdu'l-Baha to instruct the new Western believers and he later accompanied
'Abdu'l-Baha on his travels in Europe. In any case, in 1878 he was the first
to undertake the organization of a local House of Justice in Iran. He took the
initiative to invite eight other prominent believers to form a body,
responding to the laws of the Kitab-i Aqdas, which they referred to as bayt
al-'adl (House of Justice) or bayt al-a'zam ( the Most Great House).
      The organization of this first House of Justice was kept a secret, even
from the believers. However, it met sporadically in the home of Mirza
Asadu'llah for a couple of years. After consulting with this body, the
prominent Baha'i men who had been invited to attend its meetings would
seek to take action as individual Baha'i teachers that would implement its
decisions.
      Around 1881, the Tehran House of Justice was reorganized and more
members were added. The House adopted a written constitution and pursued
its activities with more organization and vigour than before. The constitution
mandated, however, that the meetings remain strictly confidential, hidden
from the body of the believers. This constitution also assumes that the
members of the House would all be men (aqayan). Naturally, considering the
social conditions in Iran at the time, no other arrangement was possible.
      Some of the minutes of this early House of Justice survive today. It
was a gathering of the older and more prominent Baha'i men of Tehran.
Meetings were attended by invitation only, and at times included fourteen
members or more. Eventually, this meeting came to be called the
Consultative Gathering (majlis-i shur), while the house where the body met
was referred to as the House of Justice (bayt al-'adl). These meetings sought
to assist and protect the Baha'is through consultation on various problems.
The House in Tehran sent Baha'i teachers to other cities in Iran to organize
Houses of Justice there. Again, the decisions of the House were always
carried out by individuals, and the consultations remained secret.
      The organization of this body eventually met with some controversy.
One important Baha'i teacher, Jamal-i Burujurdi, who later - in the time of
'Abdu'l-Baha - would become a notorious Covenant-breaker, objected
strongly to the organization of a House of Justice in Tehran. Because of
these objections, the Baha'is involved on the House appealed to Baha'u'llah
for guidance. Baha'u'llah replied with a Tablet in which He approved of the
House of Justice and strongly upheld the principle of consultation in the
Baha'i Faith. [14]

Early Organisation in America
      When the first rudimentary local Baha'i institutions were organized in
the United States, their membership was also confined to men. Later, as
various forms of Baha'i organization at the local level became more
common, men and women served together. But it was the understanding of
the Baha'is at the turn of the century that consultative bodies in the Baha'i
community should be composed of men. This understanding became firmly
institutionalized in the largest Baha'i communities of New York, Chicago,
and Kenosha, Wisconsin, and was sanctioned by 'Abdu'l-Baha.
      A scholarly history of the beginnings of Baha'i organization in
America has yet to be written. Many of the details of these events have yet
to be uncovered. However, it appears that the early American Baha'is were
moved to form local councils for the first time in 1900, as a consequence of
the defection of Ibrahim Kheiralla from the community. Kheiralla, a
Lebanese Christian who had been converted to the Baha'i Faith in Egypt by
a Persian Baha'i, 'Abdu'l-Karim Tihrani, had brought the Baha'i teachings to
America and had acted as the head of the Faith in the West until that point.
His repudiation of 'Abdu'l-Baha as the rightful leader of the Faith and chosen
successor to his Father caused a temporary rift among the Baha'is.
      In the fall of 1899, Edward Getsinger, a leading American Baha'i,
appointed five men as a "Board of Counsel" for the Baha'is of northern New
Jersey.[15] Isabella Brittingham was made the honorary corresponding
secretary, but was not a member of the body. Later, in a letter dated March
21, 1900, Thornton Chase wrote from Chicago: "We have formed a 'Board
of Council' with 10 members." In this letter, Chase lists the names of nine of
these members, all of whom were men. [16]
      In June of 1900, however, it appears that the Chicago Board was
reorganized. 'Abdu'l-Karim Tihrani had travelled to America at the request of
'Abdu'l-Baha and had arrived in Chicago at the end of May. The Baha'is of
Chicago immediately asked him to draw up rules and regulations that would
govern the affairs of their Board. As a result, the Board of Counsel was
expanded to nineteen members, some of whom were women. In a statement
to the press the Baha'is indicated that this Board was being organized to
replace Ibrahim Kheiralla, whom they repudiated as the leader of the Faith.
[18]
      Although 'Abdu'l-Karim remained in Chicago for only a short time, his
nineteen -member Board appears to have functioned for about a year.
However, on May 15, 1901, a nine-member, all-male House of Justice was
elected in Chicago to replace it. This was done at the direction of Mirza
Asadu'llah Isfahani, who had been sent to America by 'Abdu'l-Baha. Writing
to the House of Justice in New York that had already been established, the
Chicago House wrote:

      Recently His Honor, Mirza Assad'Ullah, received a Tablet from the
      Master, Abdul-Baha, in which He has positively declared to be
      necessary the establishment here of the House of Justice by election by
      the believers with order and just dealing. According to this blessed
      Announcement, our believers have elected those whom they deemed
      best fitted, and thus The House of Justice was established. [19]

      It was Mirza Asadu'llah who instructed the Baha'is of Chicago that the
new House of Justice should be composed only of men. He and his company
appear to have regarded the nineteen-member Board as illegitimate, possibly
because women served as members.
      The change to an all-male institution was not accomplished without
anguish. Writing years later, Fannie Lesch, who had served on the Board of
Counsel, wrote:

      We had a Council Board of men and women after Dr. Kheiralla left
      us... Mirza Assad'Ullah ignored us, although they were all invited to
      meet with us, and he established a House of Justice of men only...[20]

Only days after the election of the Chicago House of Justice, a Ladies'
Auxilliary Board was organized at the suggestion of Mrs. Ella Nash and
Mrs. Corinne True. This Board was later to be known as the Women's
Assembly of Teaching. It appears that the Ladies' Auxilliary was able to
maintain control of the funds of the Chicago Baha'i community despite the
election of the House of Justice.[21]

Men of Justice

      The belief that women were not eligible for service on local Baha'i
institutions was based on the language of certain passages of the Kitab-i
Aqdas which refer to the House of Justice. Of course, as we have noted
above, these passages do not make a distinction between local, national, and
international bodies. The institution as a whole is addressed. Baha'u'llah
twice uses the Arabic word rijal (gentlemen) to refer to the members of the
Houses of Justice. He says:

      O ye Men (rijal) of Justice! Be ye in the realm of God shepherds unto
      His sheep... [22]

And:

      We have designated a third of all fines for the Place of Justice (maqarr
      al-'adl), and exhort its members (rijal) to show forth perfect
      equity...[23]

      The word rijal (plural; singular is rajul) is exclusively masculine in
Arabic. A dictionary would render an English definition of rajul as: man,
gentleman; important man, statesman, nobleman. (A related form of the
word, rujula or rujuliyya, would be translated as: masculinity; virility.) Since
Baha'u'llah addressed the members of the Houses of Justice using this term,
it appears that it was universally assumed that only men were eligible for
service on such institutions.

      The word rijal, meaning men, is used in the Qur'an and is part of an
important passage which establishes the relationship between men and
women in Islam (Qur'an 4:34):

      Men (rijal) are superior to women (nisa') on account of the qualities
      with which God hath gifted the one above the other, and on account of
      the outlay they make from their substance for them.

      However, Baha'u'llah has in His Writings clearly established the
principle of the equality of men and women. It is therefore possible that
when He used the word rijal He did not intend its normal meaning.
      Although rijal is the normal Arabic word for men (as opposed to
women), there are passages in the Writings of Baha'u'llah that indicate that
He may have used the term in a special sense. Such passages suggest that, in
a Baha'i context, the word may be understood to include women. Baha'u'llah
has stated that women in His Cause are all to be accorded the same station
as men -  and He has used the very term rijal to make this point. For
example, He writes:

      Today the Baha'i women (lit., the leaves of the Holy Tree) must guide
      the handmaidens of the earth to the Lofty Horizon with the utmost
      purity and sanctity. Today the handmaidens of God are regarded as
      gentlemen (rijal). Blessed are they! Blessed are they! [24]

And in another passage:

      Today whoever among the handmaidens attains the knowledge of the
      Desire of the World [i.e., Baha'u'llah] is considered a gentleman (rajul)
      in the Divine Book. [25]

And in another place:

      ...many a man (rajul) hath waited expectant for God's Revelation, and
      yet when the Light shone forth from the horizon of the world, all but a
      few turned their faces away from it. Whosoever from amongst the
      handmaidens hath recognized the Lord of all Names is recorded in the
      Book as one of those men (rijal) by the Pen of the Most High. [26]

Likewise, 'Abdu'l-Baha in one of his Tablets has made the same point:

      Verily, according to Baha'u'llah, women are judged as gentlemen
      (rijal). [27]

      However, such passages were not raised as an issue at the time, either
because the believers were not aware of them, or because they did not find
them applicable. Certainly, the American Baha'is had no access to these texts
and had to rely on the understandings of the Persian teachers who were sent
by 'Abdu'l-Baha to guide them.


Names and Terminology

In any case, it was the goal of Mirza Asadu'llah to establish a House of
Justice among the believers in Chicago, as he indicated to the Baha'is that
'Abdu'l-Baha had instructed him to do. He had been at the centre of the
organization of the first House of Justice in Tehran, and he assumed a
similar role in Chicago. At his direction, the Baha'is in Chicago elected nine
men by ballot to a new institution. Those elected were: George Lesch,
Charles H. Greenleaf, John A. Guilford, Dr. Rufus H. Bartlett, Thornton
Chase, Charles Hessler, Arthur S. Agnew, Byron S. Lane and Henry L.
Goodall. [28]
      At its first meeting, the House of Justice decided to raise the number
of its members to twelve. The body appointed three additional Baha'i men to
serve. The minutes of the meeting read:

      Motion made and seconded that Messrs. Ioas, Pursels and Doney be
      selected as add'n [additional] members of this Board of Council. Said
      motion approved by Board. Secretary instructed to notify said
      members. [29]

This action was taken, no doubt, in accordance with the statement of
Baha'u'llah in the Kitab-i Aqdas that the minimum number of members for a
House of Justice is nine, "and should it exceed this number it does not
matter."     It is instructive to note that, in its first minutes, the secretary of
the House of Justice refers to it as a "Board of Council." This illustrates the
fluidity of terminology that was used for Baha'i meetings and institutions at
the time. Standard terms for the Baha'i institutions did not become fixed and
universal until well after the passing of 'Abdu'l-Baha. Today, the elected
local and national Baha'i institutions are known as "Spiritual Assemblies,"
while the term "House of Justice" is reserved exclusively for the supreme,
international institution. In the early years of this century, however, though
these same terms were in use among the Baha'is, they were not used in the
same ways.
      'Abdu'l-Baha himself confirmed the legitimacy of the election of the
first Chicago House of Justice. A Tablet, probably received in September
1901, is addressed from 'Abdu'l-Baha "To the members of the House of
Justice, the servants of the Covenant, the faithful worshippers of the Holy
Threshold of the Beauty of El-Abha." Two such Tablets addressed to the
House of Justice of Chicago are translated in the compilation Tablets of
Abdul-Baha Abbas. [31]
      Shoghi Effendi, writing much later in 1929, has discussed the
significance of these Tablets. He says:

      That the Spiritual Assemblies of today will be replaced in time by
      Houses of Justice, and are to all intents and purposes identical and not
      separate bodies, is abundantly confirmed by 'Abdu'l-Baha Himself. He
      has in fact in a Tablet addressed to the members of the first Chicago
      Spiritual Assembly, the first elected Baha'i body instituted in the
      United States, referred to them as members of the "House of Justice"
      for that city, and has thus with His own pen established beyond any
      doubt the identity of the present Baha'i Spiritual Assemblies with the
      House of Justice referred to by Baha'u'llah. For reasons which are not
      difficult to discover, it has been found advisable to bestow upon the
      elected representatives of Baha'i communities throughout the world the
      temporary appellation of Spiritual Assemblies, a term which, as the
      position and aims of the Baha'i Faith are better understood and more
      fully recognised, will gradually be superseded by the permanent and
      more appropriate designation of House of Justice. [32]

This "temporary appellation" was assumed at the instruction of 'Abdu'l-Baha
about a year after the election of the Chicago House of Justice. The minutes
of the House of Justice for May 10, 1902, read:

      Mr/ Greenleaf stated that he was instructed by Mirza Assad Ullah to
      inform this Body that here after and until otherwise informed it shall
      be known as the "House of Spirituality," in accordance with a Tablet
      recently received from our Master.
         Motion made and seconded that the command of Master changing
      name of this Body as transmitted by Mirza Assad Ullah be entered
      upon our records.
         Approved by House.
         Motion made and seconded that a copy (translation) of that portion
      of tablet setting forth the change as above mentioned be procured and
      placed on file.
         Approved by House. [33]

Extracts from this Tablet were indeed translated for the House of Justice,
now the House of Spirituality. The heading to the translation indicates that
the Tablet was received in Chicago by Mirza Assadu'llah on May 3, 1902.
One extract reads:

      The House of Justice of Chicago should be called "the House of
      Spirituality" (or the Spiritual House).
         In short, no one must hurt the weak ones, there, but must treat them
      in kindness. Because now is the cycle of kindness and forgiveness to
      all people. [34]

      In what is apparently a second Tablet on the subject, 'Abdu'l-Baha
explained the reasons for the change. This Tablet was, some time later,
translated and published:

      The signature of that meeting should be the Spiritual Gathering (House
      of Spirituality) and the wisdom therein is that hereafter the
      government should not infer from the term "House of Justice" that a
      court is signified, that it is connected with political affairs, or that at
      any time it will interfere with governmental affairs.
         Hereafter, enemies will be many. They would use this subject as a
      cause for disturbing the mind of the government and confusing the
      thoughts of the public. The intention was to make known that by the
      term Spiritual Gathering (House of Spirituality), that Gathering has not
      the least connection  with material matters, and that its whole aim and
      consultation is confined to matters connected with spiritual affairs.
      This was also instructed (performed) in all Persia. [35]

At the same time, and in the original Tablet received on May 3,
'Abdu'l-Baha had instructed that the name of the Women's Assembly of
Teaching be changed to the "Spiritual Assembly." He instructed that
"Spiritual Assemblies" should be organized in every place. However,
although the change of name for the House of Justice was effected
immediately, the instruction to change the name of the women's institution
was ignored. This is probably because the translation of this command into
English was so poor as to render it incomprehensible.
      And so we read the following in the minutes of the House of
Spirituality three years later (July 29, 1905):

      Mr. Windust read portions of the Tablet received from the Master in
      May, 1902 authorizing change of name of this body from "House of
      Justice" to "House of Spirituality"; as it also stated in said Tablet that
      the name of the Women's "Assembly of Teaching" be changed to
      "Spiritual Assembly." It was decided that this matter be spoken of at
      some future joint meeting [with the women's group], as it had
      evidently been overlooked. [37]

As we have seen in the Tablets quoted above, in the first year after the
election of the Chicago House of Justice, 'Abdu'l-Baha Himself used various
terms to refer to that body. (Of course, we have quoted His Tablets in
translation - the translations available to the Baha'is at the time.) These
Tablets reflect the use of at least three different designations during this
period: House of Justice (bayt al-'adl) in the earliest Tablets, House of
Spirituality (probably, bayt-i rawhani) in one Tablet, and Spiritual Gathering
(mahfil-i rawhani) in another.
      This last term, mahfil-i rawhani, can also be translated as "Spiritual
Assembly." However, it was usually translated as "House of Spirituality" in
the publications and translations made at this time, even though this
translation was in error. The Chicago body came to be known as the House
of Spirituality from 1902, and so the translators rendered 'Abdu'l-Baha's
references to it in these words, even if the original Persian did not warrant
such a designation. This was because the term "Spiritual Assembly" had no
fixed meaning in the early community and could refer to a number of
different Baha'i meetings. 'Abdu'l-Baha had asked, for example, that the term
be used for the Ladies' Auxiliary. It was also used by the Baha'is of this
time to refer to any Baha'i community as a whole, some weekly teaching
meetings, any consultative body, or any gathering of believers.
      Terms used to designate the local administrative body were also fluid
in 'Abdu'l-Baha's writings. In addition to the three designations above, the
following additional names can be found: mahfil-i shur (Assembly of
Consultation), mahfil-i shur rawhani (Spiritual Assembly of Consultation),
bayt al-'adl rawhani (Spiritual House of Justice), anjuman (Council),
anjuman-i adl (Council of Justice), and marakiz-i 'adl (Centres of Justice).
[38]


The Women's Struggle

      The election of an all-male House of Justice in Chicago was a
development to which some of the women in the Baha'i community were
never reconciled. It is Corinne True in particular who stands out in the
struggle to overturn the exclusion of women from that body. After the
election, she immediately helped to organize the Women's Assembly of
Teaching which worked side by side with the House - and not always
harmoniously - for over a decade. Beyond this, she appealed directly to
'Abdu'l-Baha, asking that women be elected to the House of Justice.
      Mrs. True's letter, which has recently come to light, indicates clearly
that the change to an all-male body was the cause of some dispute. She
writes to 'Abdu'l-Baha:

         There has existed a difference of opinion in our Assembly [that is,
      the Chicago community] as to how it should be governed. Every
      believer desires to carry out the Commands of the Blessed Perfection
      [Baha'u'llah] but we want to know from our Lord himself [that is,
      'Abdu'l-Baha] what these Commands are, as they are written in Arabic
      and we do not know Arabic. Will Our Lord write me direct from Acca
      and not have it go through any Interpretor [sic] in America and thus
      grant me the Authority to say the Master says thus & so, for he has
      written it to me...
         Many in our Assembly feel that the Governing Board in Chicago
      should be a mixed Board of both men & women. Woman in America
      stands so conspicuously for all that is highest & best in every
      department and for that reason it is contended the affairs should be in
      the hands of both sexes. [39]

      She was, however, disappointed when the Master would not support
her point of view. He confirmed the practise of electing only males to the
Baha'i governing board of Chicago, admonishing her to be patient. She
appears to have received her reply from 'Abdu'l-Baha in June of 1902, but
refrained from sharing this Tablet with the Chicago House until the fall of
that year.
      The Tablet is a famous one and reads in part (in modern translation):

      Know thou, O handmaid, that in the sight of Baha, women are
      accounted the same as men, and God hath created all humankind in
      His own image, and after His own likeness. That is, men and women
      alike are the revealers of His names and attributes, and from the
      spiritual viewpoint there is no difference between them. Whosoever
      draweth nearer to God, that one is the most favoured, whether man or
      woman. How many a handmaid, ardent and devoted, hath, within the
      sheltering shade of Baha, proved superior to the men, and surpassed
      the famous of the earth.
         The House of Justice, however, according to the explicit text of the
      Law of God, is confined to men; this for a wisdom of the Lord God's,
      which will ere long be made manifest as clearly as the sun at high
      noon.
         As to you, O ye other handmaids who are enamoured of the
      heavenly fragrances, arrange ye holy gatherings, and found ye Spiritual
      Assemblies, for these are the basis for spreading the sweet savours of
      God, exalting His Word, uplifting the lamp of His grace, promulgating
      His religion and promoting His Teachings, and what bounty is there
      greater than this? [40]

Since 'Abdu'l-Baha had confirmed that women should be excluded from the
Chicago House of Justice (later, House of Spirituality), this practice
continued for some time, in Chicago and elsewhere. We might assume that
the belief that women were to be permanently excluded from local Baha'i
executive bodies was widespread, at least amongst the men. Women were to
be involved in forming women's groups, which 'Abdu'l-Baha had named
"Spiritual Assemblies" in one Tablet. 
      That did not end the issue, of course. It appears that American Baha'i
women continued to discuss the possibility of membership on governing
boards, with Corinne True being prominent among them. In 1909, Mrs. True
received a Tablet from 'Abdu'l-Baha in response to her insistent questioning.
It reads, in part:

      According to the ordinances of the Faith of God, women are the
      equals of men in all rights save only that of membership on the
      Universal House of Justice [bayt al-'adl 'umumi], for, as hath been
      stated in the text of the Book, both the head and the members of the
      House of Justice are men. However, in all other bodies, such as the
      Temple Construction Committee, the Teaching Committee, the
      Spiritual Assembly, and in charitable and scientific associations,
      women share equally in all rights with men. [41]

      This new Tablet from 'Abdu'l-Baha to Corinne True appears to have
opened up a nationwide controversy over the rights of women to serve on
Baha'i institutions. The use of the term "Universal House of Justice" in this
Tablet caused some confusion. Corinne True and others assumed that
'Abdu'l-Baha intended by this Tablet that women were now to be admitted
to membership on local Baha'i bodies, and more particularly to membership
on the Chicago House of Spirituality.
      Thornton Chase related the controversy which erupted in Chicago in a
letter written a few months later (January 19, 1910):

      Several years ago, soon after the forming of the "House of Justice"
      (name afterward changed by Abdul-Baha to House of Spirituality on
      account of political reasons - as stated by Him - and because also of
      certain jealousies) Mrs. True wrote to Abdul-Baha and asked if women
      should not be members of that House. He replied distinctly, that the
      House should  be composed of men only, and told her that there was a
      wisdom in this. It was a difficult command for her to accept, and ever
      since (confidentially) there has been in that quarter and in those
      influenced by her a feeling of antagonism to the House of Spirituality,
      which has manifested itself in various forms...
      ...Mrs True received a Tablet, in which it was stated (in reply to her
      solicitation) that it was right for women to be members of  all
      "Spiritual Gatherings" except the "Universal House of Justice", and she
      at once construed this to mean, that women were to be members of the
      House of Spirituality and the Council Boards, because in some of the
      Tablets for the House, it had been addressed as the "Spiritual
      Assembly" or "Spiritual Gathering".
         But the House of Spirituality could not so interpret the Master's
      meaning... [42]

      The difference of opinion was deep and serious. It took place within a
wider context of gender tensions within the American Baha'i community at
the time.  The Chicago House of Spirituality consulted on the new Tablet to
Corinne True at its meetings on August 31, 1909, and September 7, 1909.
While it seemed clear to them that the Tablet did not admit women to
membership on the House of Spirituality, they decided to write to
'Abdu'l-Baha for a clarification of His meaning. [43]
      It appears that no record of a reply to the House on this point has
survived. But, in the event, the practice of excluding women from
membership did not change. The men of Chicago assumed that
'Abdu'l-Baha's reference to the "Universal House of Justice" intended the
local Chicago institution. This is a reasonable assumption, given the lack of
fixed terminology at the time.
      The word 'umumi, with which 'Abdu'l-Baha qualified His reference to
the House of Justice in Arabic, means public, general, or universal. Since it
was known that Corinne True had asked about women's service on the
Chicago House - which was understood to be a House of Justice, even if
designated a House of Spirituality for various reasons - His reply seemed to
indicate that only men could serve on the general (or universal) body, while
women could serve on all subordinate bodies, such as the Assembly of
Teaching, the Philanthropic Association, and so forth. And this is the
interpretation of the Tablet that would stand for some years to come.
      In May of 1910, Thornton Chase wrote to a believer about this
question, which was still being debated:

      As to women being members of the House, there is no question at all.
      Abdul-Baha's reply to Mrs True years ago, settled that, viz, that the
      members of the House should be men, and that the time would come
      when she would see the wisdom of that. This was in direct answer to
      her question to Him as to this matter. He has never changed that
      command, and He cannot, because it is the command of Baha'o'llah
      also, as applied to such bodies of business controllers.
         But, in a Tablet to me, 'Abdu'l-Baha said "The House of Spirituality
      must encourage the women as much as possible". There is the whole
      procedure. "Encourage the women as much as possible". That is what
      He does: that is what we should do. Not to be members of the H. of
      S., but to all good works in the Cause, which they can possibly
      accomplish. It seems to me that the matter of membership in H. of S.
      should be simply ignored, not talked about, but if it obtrudes itself too
      strongly, just get out that Tablet to Mrs. True and the one to me (just
      mentioned) and offer them as the full and sufficient answer. [44]

      Chase's views are undoubtedly representative of the understandings of
the majority of Baha'is at the time. It was the common understanding that
the Chicago House of Spirituality was properly composed of men only, and
that ultimately all local Baha'i boards should be similarly composed. This
was a position which was repeatedly sustained by 'Abdu'l-Baha, but which
was never fully accepted by some Baha'i women.
      In Kenosha, which had had an all-male "Board of Consultation" for
some years, the issue of women's service on the Board became a matter of
dispute in 1910, as a result of Corinne True's 1909 "Universal House of
Justice" Tablet. On July 4, 1910, the Kenosha Board wrote to the House of
Spirituality in Chicago asking if they had any Tablets from 'Abdu'l-Baha
which instructed that women should be elected to local institutions. They
explained that two of the Baha'i ladies in their community had insisted that
such Tablets existed. [45]
      The reply from the House of Spirituality, dated July 23, 1910, is very
instructive. [46] The House was able to find three Tablets from 'Abdu'l-Baha
which had bearing on the subject. One was the 1909 Tablet to Corinne True
which had opened the controversy. Two others had been received from
'Abdu'l-Baha in 1910, in reply to more inquiries.
      In a Tablet to Louise Waite (April 20, 1910), 'Abdu'l-Baha had
instructed:

      The Spiritual Assemblies which are organized for the sake of teaching
      the Truth, whether assemblies for men, assemblies for women or
      mixed assemblies, are all accepted and are conducive to the spreading
      of the Fragrances of God. This is essential. [47]

'Abdu'l-Baha goes on to state that the time had not come for the
establishment of the House of Justice, and he exhorts the men and the
women to produce harmony and conduct their affairs in unity. [48]
      In another Tablet directed to the Baha'is of Cincinnati, where the
question of women's participation in local organization had also become an
issue, 'Abdu'l-Baha wrote something similar:

      It is impossible to organize the House of Justice in these days; it will
      be formed after the establishment of the Cause of God. Now the
      Spiritual Assemblies are organized in most of the cities, you must also
      organize a Spiritual Assembly in Cincinnati. It is permissible to elect
      the members of the Spiritual Assembly from among the men and
      women; nay, rather, it is better, so that perfect union may result. [49]

The House of Spirituality concluded from these Tablets that:

      ...in organizing Spiritual Assemblies of Consultation now, it is deemed
      advisable by Abdul-Baha to have them composed of both men and
      women. The wisdom of this will become evident in due time, no
      doubt. [50]

By this time, Baha'is in different parts of the United States had established a
variety of boards and committees as a means of local organization. Women
had served on the Washington, D.C., "Working Committee" since its
formation in 1907. They had been a part of the Boston "Executive
Committee" from its beginning in 1908. Women also acted as officers of
communities in places where Baha'is had elected no corporate body. But
these were regarded, for the most part, as temporary, ad-hoc organizations
not official Baha'i institutions, which were thought to be properly all male.
      'Abdu'l-Baha's Tablets recognized all of these local bodies as "Spiritual
Assemblies" (or Spiritual Gatherings, mahfil-i rawhani) and by 1910, He was
urging that these Assemblies consist of both men and women. The House of
Spirituality in Chicago was obviously puzzled by this command, though it
expressed confidence that the wisdom of mixed Assemblies would "become
evident in due time." However, since it knew that the Kenosha Board of
Consultation had been established as an all-male body in accordance with
earlier instructions from 'Abdu'l-Baha, the House of Spirituality suggested
that the Kenosha Baha'is might wish to take a vote to determine whether a
majority of believers would be in favour of a change. [51]
      Rather than do this, however, the Kenosha Board of Consultation
submitted the question to 'Abdu'l-Baha. The "supplication" (as they termed
it) was signed by all of the men of the Board. It asked if the Board should
be dissolved, to be reelected with women as members. The Board members
pledged to the Master that if it was His wish they would dissolve, but they
stated that their intentions had been pure at the founding of the Board and
that it had been established in accordance with a Tablet that had been
revealed for the House of Spirituality some years before. [52]
      'Abdu'l-Baha, however, would not support the idea of dissolving the
all-male Board. His reply, received March 4, 1911, explains:


      Now Spiritual Assemblies must be organized and that is for teaching
      the Cause of God. In that city you have a spiritual Assembly of men
      and you can establish a spiritual Assembly for women. Both
      Assemblies must be engaged in diffusing the fragrances of God and be
      occupied with the service of the Kingdom.
         The above is the best solution for this problem... [53]

As in other Tablets, He stated that conditions for the establishment of the
House of Justice did not yet exist, and He urged unity between the men and
women of the Baha'i community.
      And so, through 1911, the status quo that had been established by
Mirza Assadu'llah in Chicago in 1901, with the election of the first
American House of Justice, held firm. All-male institutions continued to
function in the most important Baha'i communities. These were
supplemented by parallel women's groups. A variety of committees and
boards had been established in smaller Baha'i communities that included
women as members, but these were regarded by most Baha'is as only
informal groups. While 'Abdu'l-Baha was urging that new "Spiritual
Assemblies" include both men and women, He would not sanction the
reorganization of the longer-established male bodies. Baha'i women in
various parts of the country continued to discuss the need for change.


The Change Comes

      It was not until 1912, during the visit of 'Abdu'l-Baha to America, that
a decisive change was finally made. While 'Abdu'l-Baha was in New York,
He sent word to the Baha'is of Chicago that the House of Spirituality should
be reorganized and a new election held. He chose Howard MacNutt, a
prominent Baha'i from Brooklyn, to travel to Chicago as His personal
representative. MacNutt was instructed to hold a new election for a
"Spiritual Meeting" (probably mahfil-i rawhani) of the Baha'is of Chicago.
For the first time, women were eligible for election to this body.
      MacNutt arrived in Chicago on August 8, 1912. At 'Abdu'l-Baha's
instructions, a feast was held on August 10, at the home of Mr. and Mrs.
George Lesch, where the entire Chicago Baha'i community was invited to be
the guests of 'Abdu'l-Baha. MacNutt delivered to the community
'Abdu'l-Baha's message of unity and love. The election was held the
following day on August 11.
      The Baha'i magazine, Star of the West, carried this account of that
historic election:

      On Sunday evening, the 11th, the Chicago Assembly [meaning here,
      the whole Baha'i community] selected a "Spiritual Meeting" of nine,
      composed of men and women, whose service - according to the wish
      of Abdul-Baha - is, first, to promulgate the teachings of the
      Revelation, and, second, to attend to other matters necessary to the
      welfare of the assembly. Mr. MacNutt was present and gave an
      inspiring address.

A long struggle had ended.


Baha'i Institutions in the East

      From the time of the dissolution of the Chicago House of Spirituality
and its reelection, service on local Baha'i institutions has always remained
open to women in America. 'Abdu'l-Baha had made it perfectly clear that the
restrictions placed on women in this regard were intended to be only
temporary ones. From that point forward, women were fully integrated into
the emerging Baha'i Administration erected in the West.
      The same was not true in the East, however. In Iran and in the rest of
the Muslim world, social conditions made it impossible for the restriction on
women's participation on local institutions to be lifted for some time. Local
and National Spiritual Assemblies in Iran were limited to male membership
during the entire period of the ministry of 'Abdu'l-Baha, and for most of the
ministry of Shoghi Effendi. Again, the principle of gradualism was at play.
      Of course, there were Baha'i women in Iran, as well in the United
States, who campaigned for a greater role for women in the Baha'i
community. Their concerns were not only with participation on local Houses
of Justice, but also with the elimination of other social restrictions, such as
the use of the veil in public. In a Tablet to one such woman activist,
'Abdu'l-Baha urged restraint and recommended a gradual approach:

      The establishment of a women's assemblage (mahfil) for the promotion
      of knowledge is entirely acceptable, but discussions must be confined
      to educational matters. It should be done in such a way that
      differences will, day by day, be entirely wiped out, not that, God
      forbid, it will end in argumentation between man and women. As in
      the question of the veil, nothing should be done contrary to wisdom....
         Now the world of women should be a spiritual world, not a political
      one, so that it will be radiant. The women of other nations are all
      immersed in political matters. Of what benefit is this, and what fruit
      doth it yield? To the extent that ye can, ye should busy yourself with
      spiritual matters which will be conducive to the exaltation of the Word
      of God and of the diffusion of His fragrances. Your demeanour should
      lead to harmony amongst all and to coalescence and the good-pleasure
      of all...
         I am endeavouring, with Baha'u'llah's confirmations and assistance,
      so to improve the world of the handmaidens [that is, the world of
      women] that all will be astonished. This progress is intended to be in
      spirituality, in virtues, in human perfections and in divine knowledge.
      In America, the cradle of women's liberation, women are still debarred
      from political institutions because they squabble. (Also, the Blessed
      Beauty has said, "O ye Men [rijal] of the House of Justice.") Ye need
      to be calm and composed, so that the work will proceed with wisdom,
      otherwise there will be such chaos that ye will leave everything and
      run away. "This newly born babe is traversing in one night the path
      that needeth a hundred years to tread." In brief, ye should now engage
      in matters of pure spirituality and not contend with men. 'Abdu'l-Baha
      will tactfully take appropriate steps. Be assured. In the end thou wilt
      thyself exclaim, "This was indeed supreme wisdom!" [55]

      Baha'i women were not admitted to service on the institutions of the
Faith in Iran until 1954. But this restriction was understood to be temporary,
to be removed as soon as circumstances would permit. As Iranian society
allowed a greater role for women in general, and as Baha'i women became
more educated and more prepared for administrative service, this restriction
was lifted. The Guardian eventually made women's participation on Baha'i
institutions in the East one of the goals of the Ten Year World Crusade
(1953-1963). His hopes were rewarded by the signal distinction which some
Baha'i women have achieved as administrators on local Assemblies and on
the National Assembly of Iran.

The International House of Justice

      The only remaining body within the Baha'i Faith whose membership
continues to be limited to men is its supreme institution, the Universal
House of Justice. First established in 1963, the Universal House of Justice is
elected by the members of the National Spiritual Assemblies of the world.
Naturally, the electors include many women. But the members of the House
of Justice itself, from its inception, have all been male.
      Shoghi Effendi anticipated that the Universal House of Justice would
be established as an all-male body, even though he passed away before he
could see this implemented. He did not comment generally on the subject,
and he does not seem to have devoted a great deal of time to the issue. But
in answer to questions from individual Baha'is, some letters were written on
the Guardian's behalf by his secretaries which comment on the composition
of the yet-to-be-formed House of Justice. For example, his secretary writes:

         As regards your question concerning the membership of the
      Universal House of Justice, there is a Tablet from 'Abdu'l-Baha in
      which He definitely states that the membership of the Universal House
      of Justice is confined to men, and that the wisdom of it will be fully
      revealed and appreciated in the future. In the local, as well as national
      Houses of Justice, however, women have the full right of membership.
      It is, however, only to the International House that they cannot be
      elected. [56]

And in another letter:

      As regards the membership of the International House of Justice,
      'Abdu'l-Baha states in a Tablet that it is confined to men, and that the
      wisdom of it will be revealed as manifest as the sun in the future. [57]

Again:

      Regarding your question, the Master said the wisdom of having no
      women on the International House of Justice, would become manifest
      in the future. We have no indication other than this... [58]

Again:

      People must just accept the fact that women are not eligible to the
      International House of Justice. As the Master says the wisdom of this
      will be known in the future, we can only accept, believing it is right...
      [59]

      The remarkable similarity of these letters to individual believers
should be noted. In each case, the Guardian directed his secretary to refer to
the Tablet of 'Abdu'l-Baha to Corinne True which was written in reply to her
petition that women be elected to the Chicago House of Justice. This Tablet
explains that the reason for the exclusion of women will become manifest in
the future. Subsequent events demonstrated that 'Abdu'l-Baha had intended
that this exclusion be only temporary - an exclusion that would be followed
by the full participation of women on this body.
      The exclusion of women from the Universal House of Justice today is
observed by the Baha'i community primarily in obedience to these letters of
the Guardian. Most Baha'is assume that this exclusion was intended to be a
permanent one. However, since this instruction of the Guardian is tied so
closely to the meaning of the one Tablet of 'Abdu'l-Baha which promises
that the wisdom of the exclusion of women will become manifest in the
future, and since it is known that the meaning of the Tablet was that women
should be excluded only temporarily from the Chicago House, the
assumption that women will be permanently excluded from the current
Universal House of Justice may be a faulty one. A temporary exclusion may
be intended.
      The answer to this question, as with all other questions in the Baha'i
community, will have to be worked out over time. The elements of dialogue,
struggle, persistence and anguish which are so evident in the history of the
gradual participation of women on local Baha'i administrative bodies will, no
doubt, all attend the working out of that answer in the future. These
elements are all present today.


A Tablet of Assurance

'Abdu'l-Baha repeatedly assured Baha'i women in His writings that the
women of the future would achieve full and complete equality with men. In
one of these Tablets He refers to the composition of the House of Justice.
The Tablet is dated August 28, 1913, and it appears to have been written to
a Baha'i woman in the East. In it, 'Abdu'l-Baha repeats His promise:

      In this Revelation of Baha'u'llah, the women go neck and neck with
      the men. In no movement will they be left behind. Their rights with
      men are equal in degree. They will enter all the administrative
      branches of politics. They will attain in all such a degree as will be
      considered the very highest station of the world of humanity and will
      take part in all affairs. Rest ye assured. Do ye not look upon the
      present conditions; in the not far distant future the world of women
      will become all-refulgent and all-glorious, FOR HIS HOLINESS
      BAHA'U'LLAH HATH WILLED IT SO! At the time of the elections
      the right to vote is the inalienable right of women, and the entrance of
      women into all human departments is an irrefutable and
      incontravertible question. No soul can retard or prevent it...
         As regards the constitution of the House of Justice, Baha'u'llah
      addresses the men. He says: "O ye men of the House of Justice!"
         But when its members are to be elected, the right which belongs to
      women, so far as their voting and their voice is concerned, is
      indisputable. WHEN THE WOMEN ATTAIN TO THE ULTIMATE
      DEGREE OF PROGRESS, THEN, ACCORDING TO THE
      EXIGENCY OF THE TIME AND PLACE AND THEIR GREAT
      CAPACITY, THEY SHALL OBTAIN EXTRAORDINARY
      PRIVILEGES. Be ye confident on these accounts. His Holiness
      Baha'u'llah has greatly strengthened the cause of women, and the rights
      and privileges of women is one of the greatest principles of
      'Abdu'l-Baha. Rest ye assured! [60] (Final emphasis added.)


Notes


1. Nabil-i A'zam, The Dawn-Breakers, Wilmette, Ill.: Baha'i Publishing
Trust, 1932, pp 80-81, 270-71.
2. See, for example, Ruhiyyih Rabbani, The Priceless Pearl, London: Baha'i
Publishing Trust, 1969, pp 39-42 and 57-58; Baha'i Administration,
Wilmette, Ill.: Baha'i Publishing Trust, 1928, pp 25-26.
3. The Universal House of Justice, A Synopsis and Codification of the
Kitab-i-Aqdas, the Most Holy Book of Baha'u'llah, Haifa: Baha'i World
Centre, 1973, p 5.
4. Ibid., pp 3-7.
5. 'Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, Wilmette, Ill.: Baha'i
Publishing Trust, 1922-25 (1982), pp 136-37.
6. Ibid., pp 136-37.
7. 'Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, London: Baha'i Publishing Trust, 1912, p 161.
8. Promulgation, p 174.
9. Ibid., p 375.
10. Synopsis, p 13.
11. Ibid., p 16.
12. Ibid., p 57.
13. Ibid., pp 5-6.
14. All information in this section concerning the first House of Justice of
Tehran is based on Ruhu'llah Mihrabkhani, Mahafil-i shur dar 'ahd-i Jamal-i
Aqdas-i Abha, (Assemblies of consultation at the time of Baha'u'llah) in
Payam-i Baha'i, nos. 28 and 29, pp 9-11 and pp 8-9 respectively.
15. Minutes of the North Hudson, N.J., Board of Counsel, National Baha'i
Archives, Wilmette, Ill.
16. Chase to Blake, 21/3/00, Chase Papers, National Baha'i Archives.
17. Regulations relating to the Chicago Board of Council (Abdel Karim
Effendi), Albert Windust Papers, National Baha'i Archives.
18. Kenosha Evening News, 29/6//00, p 1.
19. House of Justice in Chicago to House of Justice in New York, 23/5/01,
House of Spirituality Papers, National Baha'i Archives.
20. Fannie Lesch, "Dr. C. I. Thatcher, Chicago, Illinois", (an obituary),
Albert Windust Papers, National Baha'i Archives.
21. Minutes of the House of Justice (Chicago), 26/1/02 and 28/6/01. House
of Spirituality Papers, National Baha'i Archives.
22. Marzieh Gail and Fadil-i Mazandarani (trans.), typescript translation of
the Kitab-i Aqdas.
23. Ibid.
24. Quoted in Ahmad Yazdani, Mabadiy-i Ruhani, Tehran: Baha'i Publishing
Trust, 104 Badi', p 109.
25. Ibid
26. Women: Extracts from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, 'Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi
Effendi,and the Universal House of Justice, comp. by The Research
Department of the Universal House of Justice, Thornhill, Ont.: Baha'i
Canada Publications, 1986, #7, p 3.
27. Quoted in Ahmad Yazdani, Maqam va Huquq-i Zan dar Diyanat-i
Baha'i, vol. 1, Tehran: Baha'i Publishing Trust, 107 Badi'.
28. Minutes of the House of Spirituality, 24/5/01, House of Spirituality
Papers, National Baha'i Archives.
29. Ibid., 20/5/01.
30. Synopsis, p 13.
31. Tablets of Abdul-Baha Abbas, Chicago: Baha'i Publishing Society, 1909,
vol 1, p 3.
32. Shoghi Effendi, World Order of Baha'u'llah, Wilmette, Ill.: Baha'i
Publishing Trust, 1938, p 6.
33. Minutes of 10/5/02, House of Spirituality Papers, National Baha'i
Archives.
34. Extract from the Tablet of the Master, 'Abdu'l-Baha, to Mirza
AssadUllah, received in Chicago on the 3rd of May, 1902. House of
Spirituality Papers. National Baha'i Archives.
35. Tablets of Abdul Baha Abbas, p 6.
36. The translation reads "We named the assemblies of teaching in Chicago
the Spiritual Assemblies; you should organize spiritual assemblies in every
place"; ( extract from the Tablet from the Master, se note 35 above).
37. Minutes, 29/7/05, House of Spirituality Papers, National Baha'i Archives.
38. See various published Tablets and public talks of 'Abdu'l-Baha,
including: Kitab-i baday 'u'l-athar, Bombay, 1921, vol.1, pp 65, 119, 120,
251; and 
39. True to 'Abdu'l-Baha, 25/2/02, Document 11137, International Baha'i
Archives, Haifa, Israel.
40.  Selections from the Writings of 'Abdu'l-Baha, Haifa: Baha'i World
Centre, 1978, pp 79-80.
41. 'Abdu'l-Baha to Corinne True, 24/7/09, microfilm, National Baha'i
Archives.
42. Chase to Remey, 19/1/10, Chase Papers, National Baha'i Archives.
43. Minutes, 31/8/09 and 7/9/09, House of Spirituality Papers, National
Baha'i Archives.
44. Chase to Scheffler, 10/5/10, Chase papers, National Baha'i Archives.
45. Bahai Assembly of Kenosha to House of Spirituality, 4/7/10, House of
Spirituality Papers, National Baha'i Archives.
46. House of Spirituality (Albert R. Windust, LIbrarian) to Board of
Consultation, Kenosha, Wis., 23/7/10, House of Spirituality Papers, National
Baha'i Archives.
47. Ibid.
48. Ibid.
49. Ibid.
50. Ibid.
51. Ibid.
52. Kenosha Assembly to Albert Windust, 16/5/11, House of Spirituality
Papers, National Baha'i Archives.
53. 'Abdu'l-Baha to the members of the Spiritual Assembly and Mr. Bernard
M. Jacobsen, Kenosha, Wis., 4/5/11, House of Spirituality Papers, National
Baha'i Archives.
54. Star of the West, vol. 3, no. 10 (August 20, 1912) p 16. See also,
'Abdu'l-Baha's instructions to Howard MacNutt, August 6, 1912, microfilm
collection, National Baha'i Archives.
55. Women, #11, pp 6-7.
56. Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, dated July 28, 1936, Baha'i
News, No. 105 (February 1937) p 2.
57. Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, dated December 14, 1940,
quoted in Dawn of a New Day (New Delhi: Baha'i Publishing Trust, n.d.) p
86.
58. Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, dated September 17, 1952,
Baha'i News, No 267 (May 1953) p 10.
59. Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, dated July 15, 1947, quoted
in "Extracts on Membership of the Universal House of Justice" (an
unpublished compilation of the Universal House of Justice).
60. Quoted in Paris Talks (London: Baha'i Publishing Trust, 1912) pp
182-83. 



}



  • Return to Talisman

  • Translation Page

  • Baha'i Studies Page

  • J. Cole Home Page


    Last Updated 5-1-97
    WebMaster: Juan R.I. Cole
    jrcole@umich.edu