Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995
From: Juan R Cole
Subject: Aqdas, Pillar I: K47

I'm posting this passage because I think it has something at least to do with the theme we're on of Recognition of God and the Manifestation for this age:

Cole's comments: The idea of `ismat or sinlessness/infallibility derives from Shi`ite Islam. It is an attribute attributed to the Prophet Muhammad and to the Twelve Imams. Some Shi`ite thinkers thought prophets and Imams could commit minor sins or lapses (Ibn Babuya) while others thought them morally perfect. I'm not aware that the Shi`ite doctrine had a great deal of stress on propositional inerrancy, but this was probably assumed.

In this passage Baha'u'llah again identifies Himself as the Self (nafs) of God. I have suggested elsewhere that "nafs" in this sense means "the totality of the manifest Names and Attributes." That is, God has an unknowable Essence, but a manifest Self, the latter being the Messenger of God. This diction, as Bijan pointed out earlier, holds on the levels of creation and command, but presumably not on the level of the Unknowable Cloud (`ama) wherein "He is He and none is beside Him."

I would like to suggest that the idea of the Most Great Infallibility is primarily *moral.* And that it is similar to Kierkegaard's notion of the teleological suspension of the ethical. That is, the new Manifestation is not bound by the culturally and historically relative ethical norms of previous religions. For him, the "ethical" as recognized up to that point is suspended, because He is the Perfect Man and attuned to the new Age. Through His revealed Book He has the prerogative of *setting* the ethical norms of the millennium, rather than being bound by past such norms. I haven't read Kierkegaard for 20 years, but my recollection is that his philosophy resonates here (though for Baha'is it is only the Manifestation who experiences the teleological suspension of the ethical).

cheers Juan Cole, History, Univ. of Michigan

Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995
From: Juan R Cole
Subject: Aqdas, Pillar I, K47

I'm glad the passage on the Most Great Infallibility from Ishraqat (Tablets of Baha'u'llah p. 108) was posted, which serves as a commentary on K47.

Note the primarily ethical content of the idea for Baha'u'llah. `Ismat is from `asama, to protect, safeguard. Its root meaning is to be protected from sin. Baha'u'llah says it is "applied to every soul whom God hath guarded against sin, transgression, rebellion, impiety, disbelief and the like."

He then adds, with regard to the Most Great Infallibility that it "is confined to the One Whose station is immeasurably exalted beyond ordinances or prohibitions and is sanctified from errors and omissions."

My humble (and possibly incorrect) reading of all this is that the Most Great Infallibility has to do with the Manifestation's ability to set norms rather than being governed by them. In an Islamic society someone who did not fast during Ramadan would have been considered a sinner. Baha'u'llah not only did not fast Ramadan but he instructed everybody else not to, either, putting the fast in March of every year. He is the embodiment, as a I said before, of the teleological suspension of the ethical by virtue of his being in tune with the ethical needs of the millennium.

Others can be immaculate, possessing `ismat. The Imams of Shi`ite Islam had this station. `Abdu'l-Baha has this station in the Baha'i Faith. But their immaculacy consists in being guarded by God against sinning against the Law of the Manifestation. The Manifestation is granted the Most Great Infallibility because He is the vehicle whereby the Law is set, and has the authority to abrogate past revealed Law.

Kierkegaard in *Fear and Trembling* identified 3 paths in life. The first is the aesthetic, wherein one searches for life's refined pleasures. The second is the ethical, in which one attempts to obey the Law. The second is nobler than the first, but it has the difficulty that one abdicates individual responsibility to a blind obedience to the Law. The third path he sees as the religious, which is higher yet. He instances here Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son; this is an ultimate (or teleological) suspension of the ethical in favor of an existential commitment to God. I am suggesting that the Most Great Infallibility is a stage beyond the religious path, wherein the Prophet determines what is ethical and what is to be sacrificed.

cheers Juan

Date: Fri, 9 Jun 1995
From: Anthony Lee
Subject: Re: Aqdas, Pillar I: K47

Concerning the Most Great Infallibility, I would agree with Juan that this concept basically establishes the moral authority of the Manifestation--but a bit more. I suppose the term "normative authority" is better. I feel that it has little or nothing to do with propositional inerrancy and is not used in this sense in the Kitab-i Aqdas or elsewhere.

The formula is: "He doeth wath He pleaseth. He chooseth, and none may question His choice. Whatsoever He, the Well-Beloved, ordaineth, the same is, verily, beloved." This, of course, referring to the Manifestation of God and his laws and teachings.

The significance of this formula is that the Manifestation, constrained by no one and no thing, will establish the (ethical and moral) norms of His Faith, and the future world society. No one can be regarded as competent to object to his statements on any grounds whatsoever. This is the Most Great Infallibility.

Now, as to the infallibility of `Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi, they are regarded as beyond reproach with regard to the interpretation of the Text. But, obviously, they themselves are constrained and limited by the entire body of the Teachings of Baha'u'llah. Therefore, their infallibility is limited--and not really comparable to the Most Great Infallibility. The Prophet, of course, is limited by nothing at all but his own will and purpose.

So, what does all this have to do with propositional inerrancy? Say: Making statements about the age of Noah or the history of the Greek philosophers. In my own (humble) opinion, nothing at all. It seems to me that the clear thrust of the issue of infallibility in the Aqdas is concerned with the laws of the Revelation, and not with details of historical or scientific fact. Actually, there is no reference to the latter in the Aqdas, and I think Baha'u'llah would have dismissed the whole issue as irrelevant to his concerns. His point was, I think it is clear, that the laws of the Revelation and the actions of the prophet cannot be constrained by the norms of past religions or the opinions of the people.

I wonder if our confusion over the issue comes from the implications of the English word "infallibility." Does the Arabic connote functional omniscience? Or is it concerned primarily with sinlessness? Perhaps we should discard the use of the word "infallibility" in favor of words like: immaculacy, purity, sinlessness, saintliness, etc.

Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995
From: "Mark A. Foster"
Subject: Re: Aqdas, Pillar I: K47

Talismanians,

A couple of days ago, I posted an excerpt from a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice re: "the universality of the authority of God's Manifestation," which was a response to a question I asked them about the Most Great Infallibility. There have been two or three new postings to the list in the last twenty-four hours about this subject but none have commented on this posting. IMV, the letter from the Secretariat presents what seems to me a more _inclusive_ view of the infallibility of the Manifestations than would one based _only_ on moral and ethical, or normative, infallibility.

Morality, as the term is commonly used in the sociology of religion (following Durkheim), is the social structure of values (the social facts of desirability) and norms (the social facts of conduct regulation). Durkheim wrote that a society's morality is its _conscience collective_ - translatable as either collective conscience or collective consciousness (though the first of these renderings seems more in keeping with the context). Morality, as a social fact, exists sui generis ([of] its own kind) and, according to Durkheim, cannot be explained through psychological reductionism. While a moral code is, as Durkheim demonstrated in his book _Moral Education_, essential to the stability of a society, its propogation does not, IMHO, fully encompass the range of authority or infallibility of the universal Manifestations.

These divine Manifestations, as the resident Beings of the spiritual Kingdom manifested, are sent down to this world by Deity - the spiritual Kingdom of God the Essence. Once here, They appear, outwardly, using, IOW, the unassisted bodily senses or mental faculties, to be ordinary human beings. They look like us, require nourishment and shelter, and, while actually "speaking in tongues," They seem to address others in the local language. Likewise, Their words, though grounded in a particular place and time, are in fact transcendent - vehicles for "... converting satanic strength into heavenly power ...." In whatever They say or write, there is wisdom and reality. As Baha'u'llah wrote (_Prayers and Meditations_), He has dominion over "all created things."

Although, IMHO, all of Baha'u'llah's propositions are, without exception, infallible, an evolving understanding of their spiritual truth is not necessarily dependent on literalism. As an obvious example, a purely literal reading of passages which tell us to be, on the one hand, forgetful of self and, on the other, to practice a daily accounting of oneself would be seen as a case of propositional conflict, while, from a God's-eye viewpoint, the harmony of the two statements would be instantly recognized.

The Sacred Text, both "veiled" and "unveiled" verses, are, IMV, inherently symbolic. They call us to a higher reality and to see the mysteries of the spirit (purpose and power) in formal emanation. That a statement about the sun or about some historical event may not be literal is, from my POV, of no signficance. The Manifestations, though Omniscient, are not sent to this world to be academic scholars or humanists. The very existence of statements which may not be literally true can, IMHO, be seen as a sign post to search for a deeper meaning in the text.

Know verily that the purpose underlying all these symbolic terms and abstruse allusions, which emanate from the Revealers of God's holy Cause, hath been to test and prove the peoples of the world; that thereby the earth of the pure and illuminated hearts may be known from the perishable and barren soil. From time immemorial such hath been the way of God amidst His creatures, and to this testify the records of the sacred Books.
Baha'u'llah, _Kitab-i-Iqan_, p.49

With loving regards, Mark F.