Recently the Dictionary of Cults, Sects, Religions, and the Occult,
edited by yourself and Mr. Larry A. Nichols, crossed my desk and I looked up
your article on the Bahá'í Faith. By and large it is a fair
article, rather impressive in its scope and treatment. There were a few minor
factual errors, however, that I thought I would write to you about, in a spirit
of collaboration and dialogue.
My comments are divided into two groups: general comments about the article,
primarily about its use of words; and comments about specific statements.
First, about the word "Bahá'í": grammatically it is an adjective
unless it refers to an adherent, in which case it is a noun. Thus it functions
in sentences exactly the same way as the word "Christian." Consequently phrases
like "Bahá'í utilizes a unique calendar" are ungrammatical in the
same way the phrase "Christian uses a unique calendar" would be. The name of
the religion is either "the Bahá'í Faith" or "the
Bahá'í religion." It is unfortunate such a phrase is necessary,
but "Bahaism" is generally not used by English-speaking Bahá'ís
(though the equivalent is used by French, German, and Russian-speaking
Bahá'ís). Referring to the Bahá'í Faith as
Bahá'í or as Bahaism" is like referring to Islam as
"Muhammadanism," something scholars did until Muslims complained about it.
Bahá'ís have a standardized system in the Roman alphabet for
spelling Bahá'u'lláh, 'Abdu'l-Bahá, and other major terms
since 1923. These spellings are standard not only to English, but to Croatian,
Icelandic, and all other languages using the same alphabet. Well over a
thousand books have been printed using these spellings, as well as countless
pamphlets, booklets, and periodicals. We are trying to spread the spelling
standard among scholars and other writers as well, partly because it is
confusing to have words spelled different ways, and partly because these are
the names of our divine messengers. Presumably if scholars started
transliterating Jesus Christ as Iesous Christos Christians would rightly
complain.
Except for the capital "U" you spell "Bahá'u'lláh" according to
the standard spelling. A capital "U" does crop up in a few
non-Bahá'í publications, but could confuse pronunciation of the
word. The use of accent marks is optional.
Turning now to specifics in the article:
Page 32, col. 2, line 2: "were referred to as Babists": The followers of the
Báb in Persian were called Bábís. "Babist" was coined in
the late nineteenth century, but was never as common as "Bábí" in
English-speaking scholarly writing. It has never been used by the
Bahá'ís and modern work on the Bábí movement by
Islamic-trained scholars uses "Bábí." It is probably safe to
characterize the word "Babist" as archaic and nonstandard.
You might note that column 1 on the same page has an entry for "Babists." This
also would be better changed to "Bábís."
Col. 2, ¶1, line 6: "Madhi" most likely should
be "Mahdi."
Col. 2, ¶2, lines 2-3: "More than one hundred
literary contributions of Bahá'u'lláh": Shoghi Effendi described
Bahá'u'lláh literary output as consisting of "one hundred
volumes," so this is not inaccurate. But Shoghi Effendi was writing in 1944 at
a time no one had analyzed Bahá'u'lláh's literary output. The
Research department at the Bahá'í World Center has now organized
Bahá'u'lláh's writings and counts at least 15,000 "tablets," or
separate writings. Most are a page or two in length; perhaps a dozen are of
book length.
Col. 2, ¶2, lines 7-9 "Eventually the writings
of Bahá'u'lláh were elevated to the level of inspired sacred text
by Bahá'í devotees." Bahá'u'lláh made it clear in
several of His writings - for example, his tablet to the Pope -- that he
claimed to be the Return of Christ and a source of divine revelation.
Consequently Bahá'ís have always treated
Bahá'u'lláh's writings as the Word of God. There was never a time
when Bahá'ís did not view Bahá'u'lláh's writings as
"inspired sacred text."
Col. 2, ¶3, line 3: "It was during Abdu'l's
reign": Grammatically one cannot separate "'Abdu'l" from "Bahá" because
the first element means "Servant of" and the second element means "glory." The
two constitute a single compound name. Thus it would be better to say "
'Abdu'l-Bahá." Bahá'ís usually use the term "
'Abdu'l-Bahá's ministry" though it is reasonable for others to chose
other terms.
Col. 2, ¶3, lines 9-10: "A $2.5 million temple
was built by him in the Chicago suburb of Wilmette." The Bahá'í
temple in Wilmette was started in 1903 and finished in 1953; thus more than
half of its construction was done during the ministry of Shoghi Effendi
(1921-57), not that of 'Abdu'l-Bahá. Both 'Abdu'l-Bahá and Shoghi
Effendi encouraged and oversaw the construction plans, though the bulk of the
fund raising and most of the actual planning and organization was carried out
by the American Bahá'ís.
Col. 2, ¶4, line 2: Shoghi Effendi died in
1957, not 1953. He was born in 1897.
Col. 2, ¶4, line 3: "Shoghi appointed the hands
of the Cause as an institution that advises and guides the movement": Referring
to Shoghi Effendi Rabbani as "Shoghi" is like referring to President Reagan as
"Ronald." "Effendi is a title and Bahá'ís always use it when
speaking of Shoghi Effendi. Though Bahá'ís rarely use Shoghi
Effendi's last name, it would be legitimate to refer to him as "Rabbani."
The hands of the Cause of God as an institution are almost extinct, because the
Universal House of Justice is unable to appoint hands; only
Bahá'u'lláh, 'Abdu'l-Bahá, and Shoghi Effendi were
empowered to so designate individuals. When Shoghi Effendi died there were 27
hands; today there are only 3 left, and all are in their 80s. To carry forward
their functions (though not to continue their rank) the Universal House of
Justice has appointed "Counselors."
Col. 2, ¶5, line 7: "call of the Báb":
Will Christians know what "call" means here? It is a phrase with which I am
not familiar. Bahá'ís usually refer to May 23rd as the
"declaration" of the Bab instead.
Page 33, Col. 1, ¶1, lines 3-6: "Nine is the symbol of unity and stands for
the nine Manifestations - Moses, Buddha, Zoroaster, Confucius, Jesus Christ,
Muhammad, Hare Krishna, Báb, and Bahá'u'lláh":
The nine sides of the Bahá'í House of Worship do not represent
any particular nine Manifestations of God, though nine, as you note, is seen as
a symbol of unity. The Bahá'í scriptures mention about fourteen
individuals as Manifestations of God: Adam, Noah, Salih, Hud, the founder of
the Sabaean Faith, Abraham, Moses Jesus, Muhammad, Zoroaster, Krishna, Buddha,
the Báb, and Bahá'u'lláh. Bahá'í pamphlets
rarely mention the first five because of their obscurity; the scriptures also
make it clear that the names of other Manifestations have been lost. Your list
did not include Abraham and referred to Krishna as "Hare Krishna," I suppose
because there is an entry elsewhere in the dictionary under "H";
Bahá'ís, however, do not use the "Hare." Because of
mistranslation of an oral statement of 'Abdu'l-Bahá (subsequently
corrected) there has been some confusion about the status of Confucius. The
Bahá'í Faith does NOT regard him as a manifestation of God.
Col. 2, ¶1, lines 8-9: "There are nine sides to
the building, nine pillars, nine arches, nine gates, and nine fountains": where
are the nine gates? I can recall only one gate at the House of Worship. Nine
arches, pillars, and fountains may be found, but are not architectural
requirements of a temple.
Col. 1, ¶2, line 5: Because of redistricting,
primarily in India, the number of local spiritual assemblies has dropped to
20,000. The number of National Spiritual Assemblies has increased to 174,
mostly because of the opening of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union to
the Bahá'í Faith.
Col. 1, ¶2, lines 10-11: "Bahá'í
temples are situated in cities throughout the world": There are 7
Bahá'í houses of worship worldwide: Wilmette, USA; Sydney,
Australia; Frankfurt, Germany; Panama City, Panama; Kampala, Uganda; New Delhi,
India; and Apia, Western Samoa. There is no temple in Israel. The first
Bahá'í House of Worship, in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan, was damaged
by an earthquake and razed in 1963 by the Soviet authorities.
Col. 1 ¶2, lines 11-12: "The writings of
Bahá'u'lláh have been translated into hundreds of languages":
over 800, at the latest count.
Col. 2, ¶1, line 18: Islam generally does not
regard the Bahá'í Faith as a heretical "sect" if by "sect" you
mean a branch of Islam. The word "sect" is ambiguous, as it usually is used to
refer to a group that is a branch of a much bigger religious group. Muslims
regard the Bahá'í Faith as heresy, but will add that it is
non-Muslim.
Col. 2, ¶1, lines 19-24: The analogy between
Bahá'u'lláh and Joseph Smith is imperfect because Mormonism, from
a sociological point of view, is a Christian sect, while the
Bahá'í Faith is not a Muslim sect. Bahá'u'lláh
claimed to be a Mouthpiece of God and divine revealer; in contrast Smith only
claimed divine inspiration to translate an alleged sacred record of Christ's
work in the Americas.
Col. 2, ¶4, lines 4-5: "the authoritative
writings of [the] Bahá'í [Faith] are the sacred canons of
Bahá'u'lláh and Shoghi Effendi": What happened to
'Abdu'l-Bahá's writings? "Canon" could suggest a collection of writings,
in which case the sentence could be understood to mean the Bahá'í
Faith has two separate sacred scriptures. It would be more exact to say the
Bahá'í authoritative texts includes the writings of the
Báb, Bahá'u'lláh, 'Abdu'l-Bahá, and Shoghi Effendi.
"Authoritative" is s good word to use because these different writings are
viewed as having different statuses: the writings of 'Abdu'l-Bahá are
not the word of God but are sacred interpretation; the writings of Shoghi
Effendi are interpretation and are authoritative but probably are not
considered sacred.
The two addresses you give are redundant because the mail goes to the same
mailroom from either. The former is not the "Illinois headquarters" - there is
no Illinois headquarters - but another address for the national headquarters.
The latter address is preferable.