Intro: The following description of this compilation is provided in the cover letter accompanying it:
"The Use of the Masculine Gender in the Bahá'í Writings", a compilation of extracts from letters written by and on behalf of the Universal House of Justice. The extracts in the compilation set out a number of general principles in relation to this subject and the Bahá'í perspective on it. We note, for example, the House of Justice indicates that:
- "In many languages the use of the masculine gender, unless intended specifically to denote masculinity, is generic" (extract 1, see also extracts 2 and 6)
- "The translation of the Writings of the Central Figures of the Faith must of necessity agree in full detail with the original in conveying the exact meaning of the Words as they have been revealed" (extracts 2, 8 and 9).
- In addition, the Universal House of Justice indicates that it "does not feel it appropriate to change Shoghi Effendi's usage of certain nouns in his translations" (extract 8). Indeed, "The style of translation into English was set by Shoghi Effendi" (extract 10).
- "... the Sacred Writings of the Faith and those of the Guardian do not use the ‘gender inclusive language' now in vogue..." (extract 7).
- In relation to images of God, while using "conventional wording" Bahá'u'lláh "devoted vast numbers of Tablets to conveying the truth that God is not only neither male nor female, but is far above all human understanding" (extracts 8 and 10).
- With regard to the English language, "the issue of gender-specific nouns may be resolved either by changing the usage of nouns, or by permitting the consciousness of sexual equality to modify the meaning of nouns as they are now used. No doubt both courses will be followed in the evolution of the language. It is generally considered preferable to permit the change of consciousness to change the meaning that people attribute to words, rather than to press the use of forms of words, which may seem contrived" (extract 8).
- "The challenge ... is to accept the use of pronouns in their generic sense, which will lead one to view the matter in terms of a spiritual response, rather than one of semantics" (extracts 8 and 10).
The Use of the Masculine Gender in the Bahá’í Writings
Extracts from Letters Written By and on Behalf of the Universal House of Justice1
prepared by the Research Department of the Universal House of Justice
In many languages the use of the masculine gender, unless intended specifically to denote
masculinity, is generic. For instance, in English we speak of the race of man, or mankind, in both
instances meaning every member of the human race—men, women and children. There would be
no reason to interpret “O Son of Being”, or “O Son of Man” as addressed only to males. It is the
same with pronouns.
(5 April 1981, written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual
believer) [1]
The principle of the equality of men and women which is firmly established by the
Author of the Faith and forms one of the basic tenets of our belief will be fully realized as the
human race matures in its understanding of the significance of Bahá’u’lláh’s Revelation.
Equality will be achieved as a direct result of the adjustments the friends are required to make in
their attitude towards this fundamental issue so essential to the establishment of the unity of
mankind, and despite the exigencies of the languages in which the revealed Words have been
received and in which they have been translated. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá says: “...in His estimate there is
no question of sex.” “In the estimation of God there is no gender.”2
The translation of the Writings of the Central Figures of the Faith must of necessity agree
in full detail with the original in conveying the exact meaning of the Words as they have been
revealed. The Guardian did not even approve the changing of pronouns in Bahá’í prayers when
they are read. Therefore, no deviation in translation from the actual meaning of the words, to
accommodate the general trend of thought and behaviour affecting a language, is conceivable,
unless, of course, the equivalent of the original word does not exist in a given language. In one of
His talks quoted in “The Promulgation of Universal Peace”, page 76, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá says:
The truth is that all mankind are the creatures and servants of one God, and in His
estimate all are human. “Man” is a generic term applying to all humanity. The biblical
statement “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” does not mean that woman
1 This compilation hsted in plain-text at http://worldlanguageprocess.org/essays/uhj_on_gender.htm
(2002). It was formatted and reposted at https://bahai-library.com/compilation_masculine_gender_writings
(2021).
2 “The Promulgation of Universal Peace: Talks Delivered by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá during His Visit to the United States
and Canada in 1912”, rev. ed. (Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1995), pp. 174 and 374.
was not created. The image and likeness of God apply to her as well. In Persian and
Arabic there are two distinct words translated into English as man: one meaning man and
woman collectively, the other distinguishing man as male from woman the female. The
first word and its pronoun are generic, collective; the other is restricted to the male. This
is the same in Hebrew.
Concerning the English language, it is interesting that the 1983 edition of the Concise
Oxford English Dictionary gives “human being” as the first meaning of “man”; and only as the
fourth meaning “adult human male, opp. to woman, boy, or both.” Therefore, the use of “man”
or “men” in translating the intent of the Revealer of the Words to embrace all humankind seems
a good choice.
(20 May 1984, written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual
believer) [2]
We have considered your memorandum of 6 June 1989 and appreciate the points you
have raised concerning the sensitivity of women, both Bahá’í and non-Bahá’í, to the use of what
are construed to be exclusively masculine words in the Sacred Writings of the Bahá’í Faith.
While we recognize that the problem of gender in language presents difficulties at the
present time, we must also recognize that the problem varies considerably from language to
language, depending on the number of grammatical genders that each language uses.
Since the immediate concern in the translations … centres on usage in English, we shall
concentrate on the problem as it exists in that language. English is fortunate in having a common
gender. The problem of gender-specific nouns is, therefore, susceptible of two lines of solution.
One is to change the usage of nouns, the other is to permit the consciousness of sexual equality
to modify the meaning of nouns as now used. Undoubtedly both courses will be followed in the
evolution of the language. The word “doctor” for example, is now clearly of common gender in
English, although originally masculine. Our feeling is that, in general, it is preferable to permit
the change of consciousness to change the meaning that people attribute to the words, rather than
to press the use of forms of words that seem contrived and, to many people, ridiculous—a
reaction that does not help the advancement of the cause of the equality of the sexes. Following
this reasoning, as you will have noted, we used the word “chairman” in relation to the sessions of
the International Convention, although all were women.
In respect to the Sacred Writings, the originals, clearly, cannot be changed, and we do not
feel at liberty to change Shoghi Effendi’s usage of “man” or “mankind” to “humanity” or
“humankind”.
(27 November 1989, from a memorandum from the Universal House of Justice to a
Bahá’í Office of Public Information) [3]
There are, as you indicate, many conventions of expression in use at the present time
which reflect the male dominance of human society in the past. We must hope that as the
consciousness of human beings changes and as the equality of the sexes comes to be accepted in
theory and in practice throughout the world, the meanings attached to certain words will change
accordingly, as will the usage of words. Language is a living thing and changes as the culture
which it reflects changes….
The important point here is that one will not persuade people to change their usage of
language until one has convinced them of the true understanding of the reality of things; but
when they once understand the truth, the meaning that they attach to words changes, and thus a
change in usage becomes much less important, if not irrelevant.
(8 March 1990, written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual) [4]
… the House of Justice is well aware that, at various times, the meaning attached to
certain words becomes influenced by emotions and can assume overtones which are offensive to
some segments of the population. In the case of the generic terms in the English translations of
the Bahá’í Writings, the tendency to take such terms as being applicable only to males is a
reflection of the male-dominated society which has prevailed for so long, and to which there is a
reaction from women who are seeking legitimate recognition and equality. Bahá’ís can well
sympathize with such concerns, while pointing out that language is a living thing and that the
intended meaning of the generic terms will doubtless become more readily apparent as the
influence of the Bahá’í commitment to equality of the sexes permeates human society more
fully.
It is understandable that some non-Bahá’ís are initially disturbed by the use of those
terms in our Writings which are associated conventionally with a male orientation. Seekers after
truth should be assisted to determine the intended meaning of such terms through reference to the
Bahá’í Teachings, rather than through assuming that these terms have the meaning now prevalent
in the world; thus they will find that they should seek that meaning which is consistent with
equality of men and women, and which also happens to be the primary meaning associated with
classical usage of the English language to convey spiritual truths. A similar approach is called for
when a seeker encounters a number of other terms and phrases in the Writings.
Members of the Bahá’í community should not fall unconsciously into the error of
labelling the Bahá’í Writings as being “sexist” or “discriminatory”, or of feeling a need to
apologize to non-Bahá’ís for the terms used. Such an attitude would be indicative of a lack of
understanding of the Bahá’í approach to this issue, and a lack of confidence in the position
adopted by the Faith in regard to use of generic terms.
(26 September 1993, written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to a National
Spiritual Assembly) [5]
We regret the very long delay in responding to your request … for help in locating
something in print regarding the use of the male pronoun in the Bahá’í Writings. In this regard
we are enclosing a copy of extracts from letters written on behalf of the Universal House of
Justice to individual believers regarding the use of the masculine gender in the Writings. Related
to this subject is the reference on page seven in the introduction to “The Kitáb-i-Aqdas” where it
is stated that it is apparent from the writings of the Guardian that “where Bahá’u’lláh has given a
law as between a man and a woman, it applies ‘mutatis mutandis’ between a woman and a man
unless the context makes this impossible”.
(26 June 1994, written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual
believer) [6]
In relating the Teachings of the Faith to the discussion of contemporary social issues,
Bahá’í publications are challenged by the need to adapt editorial policies to the ever-changing
public perceptions of those issues, without compromising the fundamental Bahá’í principles and
concepts involved. The question of “gender inclusive language” guidelines is a case in point. The
editors of a publication like the Journal will certainly have acquainted themselves with the
various points of view on the subject current among the readership which they and their authors
are addressing, together with prevailing modes of expression. These factors will exercise an
influence on Bahá’í editorial policy, but must do so within the context of the Teachings.
Clearly, the Scriptures of the Faith, as revealed by the Founders and interpreted by
‘Abdu’l-Bahá and the Guardian, impose their own requirements on Bahá’í authors and editors
alike. On the one hand, an editorial board will quite properly be concerned to take into account
the preferences and convictions common to the great majority of the intended readers of its
publication. On the other, Bahá’í authors must be left entirely free to discuss the Revelation of
Bahá’u’lláh in its own terms and language as set out in the Bahá’í Scriptures themselves and in
their authorized interpretations, irrespective of current fashions in academic and other public
discourse. That is to say: the Sacred Writings of the Faith and those of the Guardian do not use
the “gender inclusive language” now in vogue, and it would therefore not be appropriate for the
Editorial Board to impose such current standards on Bahá’í authors.
(26 July 1996, written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to a National Spiritual
Assembly) [7]
Your letter of 19 September 1996 expressing your concern regarding the use of inclusive
masculine terms in the Sacred Writings has been received by the Universal House of Justice, and
we have been asked to reply.
The point you have raised regarding the sensitivity of women, both Bahá’í and non-
Bahá’í, to the use of masculine nouns and pronouns when referring to God is noted and your
concern appreciated. It is recognized that the question of gender in language presents difficulties
at this time; however, it must also be recognized that the problem varies considerably from
language to language, depending on the number of grammatical genders that each language uses.
English is fortunate in having a common gender. Therefore, the issue of gender-specific
nouns may be resolved either by changing the usage of nouns, or by permitting the consciousness
of sexual equality to modify the meaning of nouns as they are now used. No doubt both courses
will be followed in the evolution of the language. It is generally considered preferable to permit
the change of consciousness to change the meaning that people attribute to words, rather than to
press the use of forms of words, which may seem contrived.
Likewise, when considering the manner in which masculine nouns and pronouns are used
to refer to God, it is important to bear in mind that when Bahá’u’lláh was revealing His
Scriptures He had to use language and forms of expression which could be understood by those
whom He was addressing. This is the case with every Prophet; He is compelled to use old forms
through which He will raise humanity to a new level of understanding. In Arabic and Persian, as
in English and most European languages, it has been customary to refer to God as “Lord” and
“Father”, rather than “Lady” and “Mother”. While using the conventional wording Bahá’u’lláh
approached the matter on two levels. In relation to God He devoted vast numbers of Tablets to
conveying the truth that God is not only neither male nor female, but is far above all human
understanding. If you study deeply the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh that portray both the
transcendence and immanence of God you will find that the entire question of sex in this context
falls into total insignificance.
On the human level, the Bahá’í Teachings stress again and again the equality of men and
women. They do not ignore the differences between the sexes, but repeatedly emphasize their
equality. This is a universal concept, irrespective of the language in which it is expressed.
Regarding the pronouns which refer to the Deity, in Arabic there is a distinction between the
masculine and feminine; however, the Persian language does not make such a distinction in
pronouns between the sexes. As you have noted in your letter, the style of translation into
English was set by Shoghi Effendi. In respect to the Sacred Writings, the originals clearly cannot
be changed, and the House of Justice does not feel it appropriate to change Shoghi Effendi’s
usage of certain nouns in his translations. The Guardian did not even approve the changing of
pronouns in Bahá’í prayers when they are read. Therefore, no deviation in translation from the
actual meaning of the words, to accommodate the general trend of thought and behavior
affecting a language, is permissible, unless, of course, the equivalent of the original word does
not exist in a given language.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá says: “...in His estimate there is no question of sex.” “In the estimation of
God there is no gender.”
The challenge, therefore, is to accept the use of pronouns in their generic sense, which
will lead one to view the matter in terms of a spiritual response, rather than one of semantics.
The principle of the equality of men and women, which is firmly established by
Bahá’u’lláh and forms one of the basic tenets of our Faith, will be fully realized as the human
race matures in its understanding of the significance of His Revelation. Equality will be achieved
as a direct result of the transformations the believers make in their attitudes toward this
fundamental issue, and despite the exigencies of the languages in which the revealed Words have
been received and translated.
(24 October 1996, written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual
believer) [8]
In response to your email of 21 August 1998 requesting guidance concerning the use of
“gender-sensitive language” for use in your “discussions with potential authors and in the editing
of their work”, we are able to provide the following comments.
The Universal House of Justice has previously stated in response to a similar query that
the use of “gender inclusive language” is one of the many contemporary issues which challenge
Bahá’í publications to adapt editorial policies to the ever-changing public perceptions without
compromising the fundamental Bahá’í principles and concepts involved. It is the responsibility
of authors and editors to acquaint themselves with the various points of view on the subject
current among the readership which they are addressing, together with the prevailing modes of
expression. These factors will exercise an influence on Bahá’í editorial policy, but must do so
within the context of the Teachings.
Clearly, the Scriptures of the Faith, as revealed by the Founders and interpreted by
‘Abdu’l-Bahá and the Guardian, impose their own requirements on Bahá’í authors and editors
alike. On the one hand, an editorial board will quite properly be concerned to take into account
the preferences and convictions common to the great majority of the intended readers of its
publication. On the other, Bahá’í authors must be left entirely free to discuss the Revelation of
Bahá’u’lláh in its own terms and language as set out in the Bahá’í Scriptures themselves and in
their authorized interpretations, irrespective of current fashions in academic and other public
discourse.
It is not surprising that the struggle to achieve such a balance during an era of
unprecedented social and intellectual turmoil is very challenging to Bahá’í publishers. Inevitably,
there will be certain segments of the public who will object in some degree to whatever
resolution is arrived at in any given case, but this should not unduly distress either Bahá’í authors
or Bahá’í editors.
(16 September 1998, written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to a Bahá’í
Publisher) [9]
The Universal House of Justice has received your email message of 17 September 1999
requesting guidance on the question of gender as it relates to the Deity and the use of gender
specific pronouns when referring to God.
When considering the manner in which masculine pronouns are used to refer to God, it is
important to bear in mind that when Bahá’u’lláh was revealing His Scriptures He had to use
language and forms of expression which could be understood by those whom He was addressing.
This is the case with every Prophet; He is compelled to use old forms through which He will
raise humanity to a new level of understanding. In Arabic and Persian, as in English and most
European languages, it has been customary to refer to God as “Lord” and “Father”, rather than
“Lady” and “Mother”. While using the conventional wording, Bahá’u’lláh devoted vast numbers
of Tablets to conveying the truth that God is not only neither male nor female, but also is far
above all human understanding. If one studies deeply the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh that portray
both the transcendence and immanence of God it becomes clear that the entire subject of sex in
this context is essentially irrelevant….
The style of translation into English was set by Shoghi Effendi, and in respect to the
Sacred Writings the originals clearly cannot be changed. The Guardian did not even approve the
changing of pronouns in Bahá’í prayers when they are read. Therefore, when translating the
Sacred Writings it is not possible to alter the actual meaning of the words to accommodate the
general trend of thought and behavior affecting a language.
The challenge, therefore, is to accept the use of pronouns in their generic rather than
gender sense, which will lead one to view issues in terms of a spiritual response, rather than one
of semantics. The Bahá’í Teachings stress again and again the equality of men and women. They
do not ignore the differences between the sexes, but repeatedly emphasize their equality. This is
a universal principle of the Faith, irrespective of the language in which it is expressed.
(7 October 1999, written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to a National
Spiritual Assembly) [10]