Expert: Ron Price - 1/12/2010

Question
Dear Ron,

Thank you for being available to answer questions about the Baha'i Faith.

I am neither a current nor prospective Baha'i but I have Baha'i friends and I have learned anout the Baha'i Faith and have great admiration for it. I have read some of the writings which say that the Baha'i authorities exert an authoritarian control over discussion of various issues and that they are quick to censure those who disagree with them, or even to declare them "covenant-breakers" and thus anathema. What is your perspective on this issue?

A related question: do you think the Baha'i rule against exposing oneself to the writings of "covenant-breakers" is consistent with the central Baha'i principle of the independent investigation of truth? If so, how do you reconcile the two?

[By comparison: I am Jewish, and I have read the sites of -- to cite just one example -- Jews who have converted to Christianity and seek to convert me also. Other Jews might consider this a little odd, and wonder why I would want to read this material. But they would never exclude me from Judaism for doing so.]

Answer
Thanks for your honest feedback, David. I shall take note of your point about the length of my responses in future "answers" I give. I wish you well in your own search for answers to whatever questions you have in life.-Ron Price, Tasmania
--------------------------------
CONTEXT FOR THIS ROLE OF EXPERT AT THE “ABOUT SITE”

Note: Before reading my ‘answer’ to your question, please read the 1500 word framework below, a framework that trys to place my remarks in a general and relevant context.   If I don’t answer your question immediately, I will try to get back to you within 24 hours.

The function of an expert at this site is to act within the terms of reference as outlined by the About moderators.  These terms of reference specifically define the general objectives and methods of an expert.  I see my role as serving the specific need of an individual who writes to this site with a question and who is seeking an answer to that question.  I am not here to dictate arbitrarily to anyone, but rather to serve as one of the multitude of unifying factors at work in the Baha’i Faith.  I try to be courteous and tactful on the one hand and to respond in a frank and honest way on the other in dealing with questions and comments that come in. Courtesy and frankness are difficult qualities to combine.   I also aim to foster a spirit of independence rather than a spirit which excessively relies on others to carry out their research and their study of the Baha’i Faith.   Whether the person is a Bahá’í, an interested observer or, indeed, someone without any special interest in this Faith, often the answer to their question can easily be found on the internet at one or more of the thousands of sites, Baha’i and other, now in existence.  Often in answering a question, I direct the questioner to one or more of those sites for a more complete answer than the one I am providing. I often, too, provide an article, an essay and several relevant quotations, at least relevant as I see them, if not always to the recipient.

It is also important, especially for Baha’is but also for others who write in, to utilize the many sources of assistance within both Baha’i administration and the burgeoning number of locations for expertise available in our diverse society. Government organizations, non-government organizations and special interest groups, inter alia are now available at the press of a button, the dialling of a number and a few clicks on the internet. So, too, are books, journals, pamphlets and a vast cornucopia of print and electronic media.   Evolution is forcing humanity to engage in a cooperative enterprize that is global--interplanetary--intergalactic now--in its reach.  This site on About, and my contribution, is but a small part of this vast cooperative enterprize.  Sometimes, I am only too aware, my responsesare far too long. Sometimes they are too short. sometimes, readers/recipients feel i have not answered their question/s. This, of course, is often the case in the long history of questions and answers all over the world. One does one's best, but one can not keep all of the people happy all of the time.

There are generally two kinds of Baha’i literature or writings about this Faith. One presents the/an official view and has the voice of authority behind it.  Such words are not the personal opinions of individual Baha’is.  There is a second category which includes all other writing.  The writing that I place here exists in this latter category, although from time to time I insert quotations that belong to the first category to explain my answer to a particular question.  The quotations, of course, are used by me in a certain way and form a part of an interpretive schema that becomes part of the second category--that is, opinion.  

Truth, the correct and only answer, often cannot be found for many of the questions that arise here, even if the evidence of the Baha’i Revelation is included.  This is mainly because there are often many truths, many answers, depending on the circumstances and situations—and many perspectives depending on the person answering the question and the person to whom one is writing.  To put this complexity/conundrum briefly, I could simply say that truth is relative, especially religious truth which is the main variety I deal with here and with which the various questions that come in are concerned.  As much as possible I try to draw on relevant quotations from the voluminous Baha’i Scriptures.  Sometimes I simply do not have access to the relevant literature on a specific question since Baha’i literature in its many forms has become burgeoning, especially since the 1980s and 1990s.  The Baha’i Faith had some 200,000 adherents in 1953 when I first came in contact with this new Faith which claims to be the emerging world religion on the planet.  It now has some 5 to 6 million in 2010.  In those six decades much of its literature, originally in Persian and Arabic, has been translated into English.  Still, there is much that remains untranslated.

Each Baha’i seeks to acquire, in his or her own way, a deeper understanding of the Revelation of Baha’u’llah. What is written here represents some of the fruits of my own efforts, limited as they are.  As I have said above, my words are not authoritative. This site for Baha’i expertise offers but one source of opinion and this opinion is written in accordance with my capacity and understanding.  Readers might like to try drawing on other Baha’i volunteer-experts at this site if they find my answers not to their satisfaction.(1)  

The Universal House of Justice, the internationally elected body of the Baha’i Faith, pointed out recently that “the exercise of wisdom calls for a measure of love and the development of a sensitive conscience.”(2)  I am only too well aware of my incapacities on these fronts.  I feel somewhat presumptuous in taking on this role of expert.  I do not seek any preference or distinction; I do not regard my ideas or myself as superior in anyway.  All of one’s talents in life are a gift from God, a gift as one writer put it, of some unmerited grace.  After more than 50 years of association with a global Force that makes such a significant claim to be the emerging world religion on this planet, I offer these words and any answers I might give to questions simply as a service to others. If you would like a more personal, direct and continued communication with me just write to the email address I have provided below. -Ron Price, http://www.allexperts.com --11 January 2010(Original: September 2004).
____________________
(1)With the extensive development of the internet in recent years and the massive number of sites that now exist on that easily accessible medium, at least easily accessible to those who come to this “About” site,  answers to questions like the ones I receive here can, as I say and as I want to reiterate, be found by seekers, questioners, students and others written by ostensibly informed members and often authoritative sources.  These sources include those: (a) within their own religion, sect, denomination, branch, division, cult or school, (b) within what one might call some individualist position as part of the existing framework of that individual or (c) within some other interest group to chose a convenient general label.  

Often  individuals who ask questions of me here at the “About” site see themselves as “Christian,” but they are not adherents of any particular group of Christians.   The answers that I am suggesting such people seek are answers written from a perspective, a point of view, of the adherents of their own particular religious-sub-group: fundamentalist Christianity, Sunni Islam, Theravadan Buddhism, et cetera--or written from some particular philosophical stance: secular humanism, agnosticism, atheism or existentialism among others--of the questioner.  Such answers are often, if not usually, more satisfactory to such seekers.  Answers that I write here are inevitably and obviously written from a Baha’i perspective and questioners need to keep what you might like to call this Baha’i bias in their minds as they read my answers to their questions.

I am suggesting, then, that questioners seek out answers from other writers, other writers who tend to be more satisfactory from within their own specific religious or philosophical framework, from within any one of the wide variety of possible religious and philosophical positions because these answers: (1) may often confirm or conform with what these questioners already believe, (2) may provide a much more thorough or succinct answer within the framework of experience of that religious or philosophical group vis-ŕ-vis the Baha’i Faith and/or (3) may simply be more suited to the ears of the reader, more suited to their hearts and minds.

Of course I leave the approach taken by those who seek out answers that I might give to each seeker who comes to this “About” site and I trust that whatever answers I may offer to questioners are helpful to them.  After six years of answering questions at this site and after receiving a standard of feedback which indicates a high level of satisfaction on the part of questioners, I feel confident that my service here is a valued one.  Of course, again, this is not always the case, occasionally someone expresses deep or not so deep dissatisfaction with what I have written. As in life, so on the internet, one wins some and one loses some. One can not win them all, as it were.
(2) “Extracts from Letters of the Universal House of Justice on issues Related to the Study of the Baha’i Faith,” in Baha’i Canada, May 1998, p.18.
__________________
Ron Price, Tasmania, Australia
ronprice9@gmail.com
6 Reece Street
George Town Tasmania 7253
Australia
Tel: 03-63824790-from mainland Australia; or
dial your international access code #  and then 613-63824790-from outside Australia.
------------------
I will say more after I have done my shopping today.-Ron

A few hours later.......Having done my shopping I will cut-and-paste an excellent article available on the internet for your study.  It is entitled "Interpretation in the Bahá'í Faith."  It was published in 1995 by the Association for Baha'i Studies (English-Speaking Europe) by Juan R.I. Cole. I will then add some comments on the issues you raised about freedom and authority and covenant-breaking. I trust what I have quoted and written below is of value and I encourage you to write again if you are still concerned about these issues.  Many problems in relation to freedom and authority have troubled believers inside and outside of religions for millennia and I'm sure they will continue to do so for millennia to come.  If you find this article too long just skim and scan the contents as you would inevitably do in your reading.  Some of the content of this article will be relvant to your questions and some will not be so pertinent.-Ron in Tasmania
-----------------------------------------A LONG ARTICLE BY COLE BELOW----------------
The Bahá'í writings contain a complex and nuanced set of prescriptions for the interpretation of scripture. Before examining them, however, the very idea of "interpretation" must be clarified.

The modern approach to the interpretation of scriptural texts is known as hermeneutics, a forbidding technical term that simply means the science and methodology of interpretation, especially of scripture (from the Greek hermeneuein, to interpret and tekhne, art). Medieval Catholic interpretation had been diverse, but included a strong emphasis on the relevance of Church tradition to understanding scripture. Medieval European interpretation admitted both a literal meaning to a verse as well as figurative and allegorical meanings. The classic account of the rise of modern interpretive methods was that of a German philosopher Wilhelm Dilthey, who saw the modern science of hermeneutics as an after-effect of the Reformation, when Lutheran scholars strove to free interpretation from Church dogma and tradition. These Protestants held that systematic analysis of the text itself would reveal its meaning. The various parts of the scripture were therefore held to shed light on one another, an idea called the "hermeneutic circle," insofar as individual books or verses of the Bible were to be understood with reference to the whole book, while the whole book was to be understood in the light of these parts. In the nineteenth century, Dilthey argued, the need to see the scripture in its historical context as evolving over time was added to the toolkit of modern hermeneutics. It goes without saying that these approaches discarded the medieval devices of figurative and allegorical interpretation, and the entire notion of an ideal correspondence between each verse of scripture and metaphysical truths or Platonic forms. The path charted by Dilthey led ultimately to positivism, the privileging of empirical evidence, logic, and experimental verifiability over metaphysics (which was increasingly seen as meaningless).

The modernist or Romanticist approach to hermeneutics has been criticized by philosophers such as Hans-Georg Gadamer for forsaking the search for the truth-content of the scriptures and redirecting its energies toward an attempt to understand the intentions and contexts of authors. Gadamer also rejects the hegemony of what he sees as the positivist emphasis in hermeneutics, its claim to achieve objective truth. Other thinkers, such as Jürgen Habermas, have defended the objectivity of modern approaches to interpretation.(1) The later writings of Ludwig Wittgenstein, a philosopher, also took issue with the idea that there was one hermeneutic strategy that could alone yield objective truth; rather, Wittgenstein argued that interpretive approaches should be understood as language-games that grow out of a community of interpretation and meaning, and that religious and other metaphysical language is truly meaningful, and not nonsense as the logical empiricists contended. Wittgenstein has been seen by many as the founding father of postmodernist philosophy, a thorough-going attack on the tyranny of Enlightenment rationality in favour of local knowledge traditions and a recognition of the multiple and contradictory meanings contained within any text.(2)

On the surface, the interpretive world of the central Bahá'í texts, with their background in medieval Middle Eastern thought, is far removed from these modern concerns. In fact, contemporary movements of thought are seldom as entirely unprecedented as their adherents like to believe, and these debates were also echoed in the Greco-Islamic traditions of knowledge that form the background of Bahá'í texts. What are some interpretive principles delineated in the Bahá'í writings? Can points of intersection be established between any of these modern (or postmodern) approaches to hermeneutics and Bahá'í strategies of interpretation? Some confusion has occurred among English-speaking Bahá'ís because we ordinarily use only one word, "interpret," to cover several distinct activities recognized in Arabic and Persian. Another source of confusion lies in the distinction that Bahá'u'lláh and 'Abdu'l-Bahá make in the way that religious and spiritual texts are to be approached, as opposed to the interpretation of legal texts. Finally, the type of interpretation depends on who is doing the interpreting. In what follows, I by no means exhaust the types of interpretive activities authorised by Bahá'í texts, but I do discuss some major approaches and the technical terms for them employed in the original Arabic or Persian.

Scriptural texts

With regard to spiritual or religious texts, two sorts of interpretive activity are recognized for ordinary believers. The first is the subjective, figurative interpretation of scripture, called in Arabic "ta'wíl." Figurative interpretation seeks the spiritual or esoteric meaning of a text, looking beyond the surface meaning. This approach was especially identified with Sufism and Ismailism in Islam, and some aspects of it were probably influenced by Hellenistic Gnosticism.(3) In Bahá'u'lláh's Book of Certitude, when He interprets the signs of Jesus's return, including the darkening of the sun and moon and the falling of the stars to earth, in a figurative manner, He is practicing ta'wíl.(4) Bahá'u'lláh said that such non-literal explication of a text (including the Bahá'í scriptures) is legitimate with regard to eschatology, messianic prophecies, and other divine verses that had no legal or ritual import.(5) Bahá'u'lláh recognises that such a subjective approach may result in theological differences among the believers, but urges them to be tolerant of this diversity in views, since it derives from their different spiritual stations. Indeed, Bahá'u'lláh quotes approvingly Shí'í sayings that each revealed verse has seventy or seventy-one meanings.(6)

The recognition of the validity of individual figurative or esoteric interpretation of certain kinds of scripture represents an implicit denial of the assumption in Dilthey's modern hermeneutics that one can discover the sole, objective truth of a text. Rather, verses of scripture are seen as polyvalent or holding multiple meanings.

Another approach to understanding scripture is formal scripture commentary or exegesis (tafsír), which strives to be less subjective and which is best accomplished with a knowledge of the original languages in which the scripture was written, their grammar, technical terms, and cultural background. For instance, let us take the phrase in The Most Holy Book, "Whoso layeth claim to a Revelation direct from God, ere the expiration of a full thousand years, such a man is assuredly a lying impostor."(7) A formal commentary would show interest in the original Arabic word for "claim" and its connotations, and in the precise meaning of the original Arabic word for Revelation. Later in this passage Bahá'u'lláh goes on to forbid any figurative approach (ta'wíl) to this verse; that is, someone could not legitimately say that the "thousand years" is symbolic of "a thousand days."

In Islam, most schools favoured either subjective, often metaphorical hermeneutics (ta'wíl) or a more philological or rationalist formal commentary (tafsír). The former was most often chosen by Sufi mystics and by esoteric movements such as the Isma'ilis. The latter was characteristic of the clerical culture of literate, urban Islam, whether Sunni or Twelver Shí'í. Proponents of these two methods fought with one another bitterly in medieval Islam, but, remarkably, Bahá'u'lláh authorises both approaches. Bahá'u'lláh disapproved of formal commentary that became too literal-minded and lost the spiritual dimension. On the other hand, he warned against esoteric interpretation or ta'wíl that went so far as to subvert or even contradict the outward meaning of the text. He urged a balance between a concern with the inward meaning and a concentration on the outward meaning.(8) In Persian, of course, there is already a large exegetic literature, produced by eminent scholars such as 'Abdu'l-Hamid Ishraq-Khavari.(9) Relatively little Bahá'í exegesis has yet been undertaken in Western languages, though Adib Taherzadeh's study of Bahá'u'lláh's major Tablets would fall under this rubric, as would many articles that have appeared in Bahá'í Studies Bulletin (edited by Stephen Lambden); we might also stretch this genre to include the works of such academics as Todd Lawson and Christopher Buck.(10) Exegesis requires technical linguistic and philological skills, and its Bahá'í practitioners fall into the category of learned in Bahá', who were so praised by Bahá'u'lláh.(11) But their commentaries remain a sort of individual interpretation, with no special coercive authority.

Figurative interpretation and scripture exegesis are the two major forms of interpretation referred to in Bahá'u'lláh's works. Although I have included some recent works by Bahá'í academics in Western universities under the rubric of formal scripture commentary, the academic approach is in fact a new and distinct set of methodologies. Classical tafsír was concerned with contextualising Qur'ánic verses only in an anecdotal and uncritical way, and paid no attention to social or economic context or to the often Syriac or other non-Arab etymologies of some key Qur'ánic technical terms. Contemporary academic scholarship takes advantage of all the advances in historical linguistics, in sociology and anthropology, and in modern historiographical technique, which pays special attention weighting sources, to forms of textual analysis, to the hermeneutic circle, to contextualisation, and to change over time. Medieval commentators often assumed that the Qur'án was an eternal text, almost a Platonic form, that was mechanically "revealed" to the Prophet, whereas academics, even believers, would see revelation as working itself out in history. 'Abdu'l-Bahá saw society's need for such academic experts in his 1875 Secret of Divine Civilization.(12) In later years he affirmed that "We regard knowledge and wisdom as the foundation of the progress of mankind, and extol philosophers that are endowed with broad vision."(13) Since the Bahá'í Faith recognises freedom of conscience, Bahá'í scriptural commentary by individuals can gain popularity only by convincing its audience, not by being imposed from above.

Figurative interpretation, formal exegesis, and academic writing on the Bahá'í Faith all appear to fall under the category established by Shoghi Effendi, of "individual interpretation." The permissibility of individual interpretation has been affirmed by both Shoghi Effendi and the Universal House of Justice. While denying the right of any individual to impose his or her views, Shoghi Effendi wrote, "I have no objection to your interpretations and inferences so long as they are represented as your own personal observations and reflections."(14) The Universal House of Justice also affirmed that "such individual interpretation is considered the fruit of man's rational power and conducive to a better understanding of the teachings, provided that no disputes or arguments arise among the friends and the individual himself understands and makes it clear that his views are merely his own."(15) Such individual interpretation is not supposed to contradict the clear text of the Bahá'í scriptures. Still, not all texts are clear. And the authorisation of diverse individual interpretations seems to be a recognition that religious truth is difficult to standardise. This leeway for individual interpretation seems to me to accord better with postmodern conceptions of knowledge as fragmented, discontinuous and local than with Enlightenment conceptions of a single rationalist master narrative.

Another, very different sort of interpretation with regard to non-legal texts is authoritative interpretation (tabyín). Bahá'u'lláh instituted this function in The Most Holy Book, when he commanded Bahá'ís after His Ascension, "refer ye whatsoever ye understand not in the Book to Him ['Abdu'l-Bahá] Who hath branched from this mighty Stock."(16) Only two individuals have held or ever will hold this function in the Bahá'í community, Bahá'u'lláh's eldest Son, 'Abdu'l-Bahá and 'Abdu'l-Bahá's grandson, Shoghi Effendi.(17) 'Abdu'l-Bahá has commented on a large number of Bahá'u'lláh's verses. Shoghi Effendi's interpretations tended to concentrate on social and administrative principles, and on the meaning of history, and aside from "The Dispensation of Bahá'u'lláh" he rarely treated purely theological verses.(18) When 'Abdu'l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi both commented on an issue, they did not always give the same interpretation.(19) Such discrepancies point to the need for further scholarly study, and suggest the need for the development of a hermeneutical approach even to authoritative interpretive comments. All in all, the corpus of official interpretation helps Bahá'ís understand important aspects of the writings of Bahá'u'lláh, but leaves wide scope for continuing investigation of the holy writ by individuals.

Legal texts

Legal texts are treated in an altogether different fashion by Bahá'u'lláh and 'Abdu'l-Bahá. In the first place, figurative interpretation (ta'wíl) of legal commands is forbidden in The Most Holy Book.(20) Bahá'u'lláh explains elsewhere that whereas figurative interpretation may be an appropriate approach to some passages, it is strictly proscribed with regard to law and ritual. One may not neglect to perform one's ablutions with physical water before praying on the grounds that one has washed one's soul with the water of mystical insight instead.(21)

There are many instances, however, in which a legal text is not entirely clear or does not appear to cover every situation neatly. Depending upon the circumstances, a Bahá'í may be encouraged to come to her own conclusions about the application of a law, for herself. Again, this is a form of individual interpretation. In Islam, such individual juridical reasoning was called deriving (istinbát) the law or ijtihád (struggling to find the law based on a text). The major school of Shí'í Islam forbade the laity from engaging in ijtihád on any issues beyond the most basic. In the Bahá'í Faith, however, there is wide latitude for individual and collective legal interpretation by non-experts. Bahá'u'lláh said all Bahá'ís must contribute to finding answers to religious questions in the Bahá'í Faith, since in this day all things are bearers, each in its own way, of the divine effulgences.(22) Even in His own lifetime, Bahá'u'lláh urged lay believers to settle the questions they brought him, concerning the just distribution of certain sorts of property and wealth, through their own consultations.(23) The daily individual legal interpretation (ijtihád, istinbát.) of ordinary Bahá'ís and of Bahá'í scholars has no doubt provided, and will continue to provide, important insights to those charged with making legal judgments. In addition to such group consultation about the law, Bahá'í jurisconsults and jurisprudents will eventually emerge to write position papers on various issues.

All of these interpretive activities remain in the sphere of individual interpretation, and such an interpretation has no authority save for the individual that decides upon it for herself or himself, or for a group that adopts it informally. Such individual interpretation can exist only in legal areas that have not been clearly defined by Bahá'í institutions and on which they feel uniformity is not necessary. 'Abdu'l-Bahá said that "the deductions and conclusions of individual learned men have no authority, unless they are endorsed by the House of Justice."(24) Note that this statement does not forbid the publication of position papers arguing for a particular conclusion, but simply denies such individual opinions any practical authority.

There are two sorts of official interpretation of Bahá'í legal texts. The first is again the authoritative interpretation (tabyín) of 'Abdu'l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi. Their legal interpretations set precedents where it is clear that they had been provided with sufficient information to make an informed decision. Authoritative legal interpretation ended with the passing of Shoghi Effendi and the end of the Guardianship in 1957. The second is the elucidation of statutory texts engaged in by Local and National Spiritual Assemblies and by the Universal House of Justice, which is given force by Bahá'u'lláh's charge to houses of justice of resolving the community's problems and deciding on reward and punishment. The Universal House of Justice is charged with implementing Bahá'í law and with the legislative function of making new canon law, but obviously a certain amount of elucidation of existing law is necessary to both functions. Elucidation is precisely the istinbát. or ijtihád referred to in the quote from 'Abdu'l-Bahá above, and its ultimate practitioner is the Universal House of Justice. Elucidation is the process of deriving the law from existing texts so as to rule on a particular case. It differs from authorized interpretation of law in having solely to do with the processes of law-making and of implementing law, since in order to do either one must understand and fix the purport of existing law. The Universal House of Justice's "pronouncements, which are susceptible of amendment or abrogation by the House of Justice itself, serve to supplement and apply the Law of God."(25) That is, the Universal House of Justice may not only repeal its own legislation but can also repudiate earlier elucidations of a legal text as outmoded.

Aside from elective Bahá'í institutions, official rulings on the law will also be made by individuals or panels appointed for the task. We have already seen that 'Abdu'l-Bahá envisaged the House of Justice occasionally adopting a legal position worked out by an individual Bahá'í jurisprudent. Further, in his own lifetime Shoghi Effendi envisaged the establishment of a Bahá'í court in Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries to handle matters of personal status according to Bahá'í law, so that some matters of legal interpretation now in the purview of elected Bahá'í institutions will eventually be devolved by them upon Bahá'í judges.(26) Their legal interpretation will have the official sanction of the institutions, and so will not be merely "individual" interpretation.

Conclusion

Interpretation of scripture in the Bahá'í Faith involves a number of discrete activities, each referred to by a different technical term in Arabic and Persian. Religious texts may be approached by individuals through figurative interpretation or formal exegesis, in the light of the authoritative interpretations put forth by 'Abdu'l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi. Legal texts are not to be subjected to figurative or subjective interpretation. Why the difference? I would suggest that whereas narrative, eschatalogical and other texts might be amenable to subjective interpretation, the imperative mood necessitates literalism. But scope for legal interpretation by individual and community (istinbát., ijtihád) exists. Wider issues affecting the entire community are decided by the legal reasoning of Bahá'í institutions, whether current spiritual assemblies and the Universal House of Justice or a future judiciary appointed for the purpose of ruling on issues in personal status and other disputes.

Bahá'u'lláh Himself refers to interpretive issues twice in The Most Holy Book. In one instance he says that after His passing Bahá'ís should resolve their differences with reference to the revealed Book. In another passage, He instructs them to turn to 'Abdu'l-Bahá. During the period 1892-1957, Bahá'ís had an authoritative Interpreter to whom they could appeal to resolve difficulties. Since the Guardian's death and the end of the line of Guardians initially envisaged by 'Abdu'l-Bahá, Bahá'ís have been left only with texts, since there is no longer a living Interpreter (mubayyin). The judicial and legislative functions of the elected Houses of Justice are adequately delineated in the works of the Central Figures so that Bahá'í legal interpretation is not problematic institutionally, though there is increasing need for the development of Bahá'í "principles of jurisprudence" to aid Houses of Justice and Bahá'í canon law judges in interpreting the law. But theological or religious interpretation is now entirely open, constrained only by the texts left by Bahá'u'lláh and His two successors.

The picture I derive from what has gone before is that the Holy Figures of the Bahá'í Faith favoured a mix of all three hermeneutical approaches, discussed at the beginning of this article, associated with Gadamer, Dilthey, and Wittgenstein. Like Gadamer, Bahá'u'lláh and His successors believed that scriptural verses had truth-content that transcended the mere circumstances of their revelation or the immediate intentions of their authors. This truth-content can be derived from individual interpretation and techniques such as figurative interpretation (ta'wíl). Formal exegesis (tafsír) has a bias toward surface meaning, and in Islamic tradition often involves a focus on context (when and under what circumstances was a verse revealed?), intentionality (what did God mean?), and the hermeneutic circle (how can Qur'ánic verses and oral reports [adíth] of the Prophet shed light on one another?). This approach, also authorised by Bahá'u'lláh, comes close to Dilthey's conception of modern hermeneutics. Contemporary Bahá'í academics, of course, are forthrightly employing the techniques of modernist hermeneutics, paying attention to historical context and textual development in a much more rigorous manner than did classical Muslim exegetes. Formal exegesis must incorporate not only empirical and rationalist methods, but also esoteric or figurative ones. Esoteric interpretation (ta'wíl) itself is polyvalent, containing multiple meanings and accommodating individual experiences and local knowledge traditions. All these approaches must co-exist, according to Bahá'u'lláh. This simultaneous affirmation of a number of different perspectives and interpretive strategies, some of them subjective or idiosyncratic, recalls Wittgenstein's model of numerous language-games growing out of diverse interpretive communities, each an intellectual life-form, and each meaningful in its own right. Indeed, it seems that something very like a Wittgensteinian theology is posited in Bahá'í texts as an organising principle for the other approaches.
----------------------------FOOTNOTES TO THE ABOVE ARTICLE ARE FOUND BELOW------------------------

  1. See Georgia Warnke, Gadamer: Hermeneutics, Tradition and Reason (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987), esp. chapter 1; Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method (New York: Seabury Press, 1975); for the debate with Habermas see Martin Jay, "Should Intellectual History Take a Linguistic Turn? Reflections on the Habermas-Gadamer Debate," in Dominick LaCapra and Steven L. Kaplan, Modern European Intellectual History (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1982) 86-110.
  2. For Wittgenstein and interpretation see Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, trans. G.E.M. Anscombe (New York: Macmillan, 1968); Ludwig Wittgenstein, Culture and Value, trans. Peter Winch (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984); Susan B. Brill, Wittgenstein and Critical Theory: Beyond Postmodernism and toward Descriptive Investigations (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1985). For postmodernism two key texts are Paul Rabinow, Foucault Reader (New York: Pantheon, 1984) and Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology, trans. Gayatri Spivak (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976); see also articles in LaCapra and Kaplan, cited above.
  3. Farhad Daftary, The Isma'ilis: Their History and Doctrines (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990) 72-73, 138-139.
  4. Bahá'u'lláh, Kitáb-i-Íqán: The Book of Certitude (Wilmette: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1970) 24 ff.
  5. Bahá'u'lláh, Iqtidárát va Chand Law-i Dígar (Tehran: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, n.d.) 283-84.
  6. For Bahá'u'lláh's urging of tolerance of diverse theologies see K. Fananapazir, "A Tablet . . . to Jamál-i Burújirdí," Bahá'í Studies Bulletin 5 (Jan. 1991): 4-12; for his quotation of the saying about each verse having seventy-two meanings, see Bahá'u'lláh, Kitáb-i-Íqán 255-256.
  7. Bahá'u'lláh, The Kitáb-i-Aqdas (Haifa: Bahá'í World Centre, 1992) para. 37.
  8. See J. Cole, "Bahá'u'lláh's Commentary on the Surah of the Sun," Bahá'í Studies Bulletin 4 (April 1990): 4-27
  9. E.g. 'Abdu'l-amíd Ishráq-Khávarí, Qámús-i Íqán, 4 vols. (Tehran: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1972).
 10. Todd Lawson, "The Qur'án Commentary of Sayyid 'Ali Muhammad Shírazí, the Báb." 2 vols. McGill University, Ph.D. dissertation, 1987; Christopher Buck, Symbol and Secret (Los Angeles: Kalimat, 1995); Adib Taherzadeh, Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, 4 vols. (Oxford: George Ronald, 1976-1987); numerous articles by Stephen Lambden in Bahá'í Studies Bulletin.
 11. Kitáb-i-Aqdas, K173.
 12. 'Abdu'l-Bahá, Secret of Divine Civilization (Wilmette: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1970) 3, 37.
 13. 'Abdu'l-Bahá in Bahá'í World Faith (Wilmette: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1971) 337.
 14. . Shoghi Effendi, letter of 6 April 1928, in Shoghi Effendi, The Unfolding Destiny of the British Bahá'í Community (London: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1981) 423.
 15. Universal House of Justice, Wellspring of Guidance (Wilmette: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1969) 88.
 16. Bahá'u'lláh, The Most Holy Book, para. 174.
 17. 'Abdu'l-Bahá frequently referred to himself as the Interpreter or Expounder (mubayyin) of Bahá'u'lláh's revealed Scripture; see, for instance, Fáil Mazandarání, Amr va Khalq, 4 vols. in 2 (Hofheim-Langenhain: Bahá'í-Verlag, 1971-72), 4:288; this is a function he devolves upon the Guardian, Shoghi Effendi, in his Will and Testament: 'Abdu'l-Bahá, Alváh-i Vasáyá (Karachi: Sterling Garden Road Press, 1960), p. 11; the Universal House of Justice has the authority to legislate but not to interpret authoritatively, as is clear from Shoghi Effendi, World Order of Bahá'u'lláh (Wilmette: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1969) 149-150.
 18. Shoghi Effendi, "Dispensation of Bahá'u'lláh," in World Order of Bahá'u'lláh 97-139.
 19. One such discrepancy concerns the issue of the identity of the son that Abraham almost sacrificed. The Bible and Judeo-Christian tradition name that son as Isaac. The Qur'án is silent on the name. Early Muslim tradition, however, was split, with some sayings of the Prophet being circulated that spoke of Isaac, while others spoke of Ishmael as the near-sacrifice. The majority opinion among Muslims eventually settled upon Ishmael. Bahá'u'lláh uses this diction. When asked about this contradiction with the Bible, 'Abdu'l-Bahá acknowledges that early Islamic tradition admitted both possibilities, but that at that point the people of the East tended to speak of Ishmael. He says that the name is unimportant, and either could be used, since it is the symbol of the sacrifice that is key ('Abdu'l-Bahá, Makátib, volume 2 [Cairo: Matba'ah Kurdistan al-'Ilmiyyah, 1912] 328-30). Shoghi Effendi's secretary, on the other hand, wrote on his behalf that both Bahá'u'lláh and the Qur'án specified Ishmael and that Bahá'ís were bound to employ this diction (Helen Hornby, ed., Lights of Guidance [New Delhi: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1983] 370). The Qur'án, however, does not identify the son one way or the other, and 'Abdu'l-Bahá explicitly allowed Bahá'ís to use either son's name to refer to the Sacrifice.
 20. Bahá'u'lláh, The Most Holy Book para. 105.
 21. Bahá'u'lláh, Iqtidárát 279; cf. 'Abdu'l-Bahá in 'Abdu'l-Hamíd Ishráq-Khávarí, ed., Má'idih-'i Ásmání, 9 volumes and index (Tehran: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1973) 9:18.
 22. Bahá'u'lláh, Iqtidárát 100.
 23. Bahá'u'lláh, Áthár-i Qalam-i A'lá, 7 volumes (Bombay and Tehran: 1892-1978) 7:288.
 24. 'Abdu'l-Bahá, quoted in Compilation of Compilations 1:355-56. Original reference in 'Abdu'l-amíd Ishráq-Khávarí, ed., Rahíq-i Makhtúm, 2 vols. (Tehran: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 103 B.E.) 1: 203-204.
 25. The Universal House of Justice, Wellspring of Guidance 52 (I am grateful to Brent Poirier for this citation). For the legal foundations of the Universal House of Justice's right to undertake elucidation, see Bahá'u'lláh, "Ishráqát 8," Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh Revealed after the Kitáb-i-Aqdas (Haifa: Bahá'í World Centre, 1988) 128-129; 'Abdu'l- Bahá, quoted in Compilation of Compilations, 1:355-56; and "The Constitution of the Universal House of Justice," in The Bahá'í World, Volume 17 (Haifa: Bahá'í World Centre, 1981) 286.
 26. Shoghi Effendi, Messages to the Bahá'í World (Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1972) 139; cf. Shoghi Effendi, Dawn of a New Day (New Delhi: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1970 ) 170.
----------------------------
Go to/google the following site for some commentary on issues you have raised:

Bahá’i Proofs: An exploration of traditional and rational proofs Does the Bahá’i Faith have sects? A quantitative approach, By CK, Posted on 11 March 2009. At this site you will find, among other things, the following: The Unity of Bahá’is around the world can be attributed to a shared belief in a Covenant “whose power has preserved the integrity of His Faith, maintained its unity and stimulated its world-wide expansion“.   This Covenant, Bahá’is  believe, ”continues to fulfil its life-giving purpose through the agency of the Universal House of Justice whose fundamental object, as one of the twin successors of Bahá’u'lláh and `Abdu’l-Bahá, is to ensure the continuity of that divinely- appointed authority which flows, and to maintain the integrity and flexibility of its teachings.”  This involves a universal recognition by Bahá’is of the authority of the elucidations provided by the Universal House of Justice on ”problems which have caused difference, questions that are obscure and matters that are not expressly recorded in the Book“.

In the 160+ year history of the Bahá’i Faith, a miniscule number of individuals have, almost invariably for want of personal recognition, broken this Covenant and convinced themselves and occasionally some close friends and family, of having some level of personal authority within the Faith.  Such individuals are termed Covenant breakers and their numbers have historically been so low as to not satisfy any reasonable definition of “denomination” or “sect”.  

The number of individuals within such groups is generally very, very low, with the largest group of Covenant breakers numbering a minuscule number.  Expressed in terms relative to the overall population of the Bahá’i Faith, even an exaggerated estimate of 100 Covenant breakers worldwide would correspond to a percentage of 0.0017%, a number which would require further division to represent individual Covenant breaking groups.  This number is in fact plotted on the chart below for the Bahá’i Faith, however the value is too small to be visualized.  Indeed a 50-100x larger number is required to achieve some small level of visualization on these charts. The Denominations of Nine Major World Religions follow.
---------------------------AND HERE ARE SOME QUOTATIONS THAT MAY BE OF VALUE-------------------
The internationally elected body of the Baha'i Faith, the Universal House of Justice, has written that: "To read the writings of Covenant-breakers is not forbidden to the believers and does not constitute in itself an act of Covenant-breaking. Indeed, some of the Baha'is have the unpleasant duty to read such literature as part of their responsibilities for protecting the Cause of Baha'u'llah. However, the friends are warned in the strongest terms against reading such literature because Covenant-breaking is a poison and the calumnies and distortions of the truth which the Covenant-breakers give out are such that they can undermine the faith of the believer and plant the seeds of doubt unless he is forearmed with an unshakable belief in Baha'u'llah and His Covenant and a knowledge of the true facts." (From a letter dated 29 October 1974 to the National Spiritual Assembly of Switzerland)
----------------------------
"In reply to your letter of 16 March 1976 (regarding books by William Miller) the Universal House of Justice instructs us to say that it is to be expected that books will be written against the Faith attempting to distort its teachings, to denigrate its accomplishments, to vilify its Founders and leaders and to destroy its very foundations. The friends should not be unduly exercised when these books appear and certainly no issue should be made of them. There should be no attempt made to destroy or remove such books from libraries. On the other hand there is no need at all for the friends to acquire them, and indeed, the best plan is to ignore them entirely." (From a letter dated 30 March 1976 to the National Spiritual Assembly of Hong Kong)
-------------------------------
"It is true that should a believer read the writings of Covenant-breakers or enemies of the Cause and permit these words to instill doubts about the truth of Baha'u'llah's Cause such a believer would then be considered as having been infected by the poison of Covenant-breaking. However, since you returned the book to your local library upon being informed of the true nature of its contents and told your District Teaching Committee and your National Spiritual Assembly about the matter, it is clear that you took the correct steps and should therefore, with complete confidence, turn to Baha'u'llah for protection and guidance, fully assured that His promise to assist those who turn to Him will be fulfilled."(From a letter dated 29 March 1977 to an individual believer)
-------------------
"The House of Justice has instructed us to say that, as you are no doubt aware, it is not prohibited for Baha'âs to read the writings of Covenant-breakers, but they are warned strongly of the dangers of doing so, as the misrepresentations and calumnies in such writings can erode one's faith."(From a letter dated 12 October 1978 to an individual believer)
-------------------------
The House of Justice has also written in a letter dated 23 March 1975 that: “When a person declares his acceptance of Bahá’u'lláh as a Manifestation of God he becomes a party to the Covenant and accepts the totality of His Revelation. If he then turns round and attacks Bahá’u'lláh or the Central Institution of the Faith he violates the Covenant. If this happens every effort is made to help that person to see the illogicality and error of his actions, but if he persists he must, in accordance with the instructions of Bahá’u'lláh Himself, be shunned as a Covenant-breaker.”
-------------------
I leave all of this with you, David, for now and trust what I have written is of some value to you in reconciling the issue of freedom and authority which bedevils millions, indeed, billions, of souls on their earthly journey. The issues are complex ones, David, as I'm sure you can appreciate. You have indicated that you found my answer far too long for your taste; you have also indicated that I did notreally answer both of your questions. The issues you have riased have kept me busy in my decades of living and will do so in my remaining years. As in so many areas of life there are no simple answers.  You may find other experts here provide answers more suited to your taste and style.-Ron in Tasmania