I have never understood the logic of the bogus Universal House of Justice that justifies their position of not having a living guardian, yet claiming to be the central authority of the Bahá'í Faith. They use a segment of the Most Holy Book, the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, to give credence to their position. The line of the Aghsán (Bahá'u'lláh’s sons; page 239 “God Passes By“) had ended, and were thus not available for succession. But that possibility had been addressed by ‘Abdu'l-Bahá (with Bahá'u'lláh’s co-authorship) in His Will and Testament in His discussion of guardianship succession. He provided that another branch, with specific spiritual attributes, would be appropriate should an Aghsán not be available. The Will mentions nothing about endowments dedicated to charity among the requirements for succession. Nor does it address that a Universal House of Justice may be formed without a living guardian, and then assume the guardianship responsibilities.
The
Will stipulates the manner in which a proper Universal House of Justice
must be organized in order for it to comply with the Mind of
Bahá'u'lláh. It additionally tells of the essentiality of the guardian
of the Cause of God to provide its proper leadership in the conduct of
its responsibilities. The Kitáb-i-Aqdas discusses the mechanics of
neither of them. The Will does that quite adequately. Nowhere in any of
the Holy Writings does it discuss that a Universal House of Justice may
exist absent a living guardian, nor that the Bahá'í Faith may exist
without his presence as the Center of the Covenant.
The
Kitáb-i-Aqdas does indeed refer to endowments dedicated to charity as
well as the Huqúq'u'lláh, the fixed money offering (the Right of God.)
However, it discusses them separately, only with reference to their
handling. The Huqúq'u'lláh, is to be managed within the offices of the
guardian of the Cause, while endowments dedicated to charity resides
with the UHJ. The two were to be managed separately, yet the bogus UHJ
handles both. Neither was intended to be a vehicle for guardianship
succession.
David Maxwell
Comments