No use of the word “Guardian” in the Proclamation of the hands (November 25, 1957) referred to any future guardian. The word “Guardian” always refers to “the beloved Guardian” (i.e., Shoghi Effendi). That Shoghi Effendi “left no heir” did not necessarily mean nothing could be done to reinstate the guardianship.
The infallible UHJ, after election in 1963, could reexamine this question. The document does say, however, that “no successor to Shoghi Effendi could have been appointed,” meaning apparently, as they considered it, that Shoghi Effendi had no valid candidates for appointment, being that he had no son and had declared all known “branches” to be covenant-breakers.
The guardianship between 1957 and 1963 was an open question is something that was admitted by Ruhiyyih Khanum in The Ministry of the Custodians pg 16.
It is to be noted that Mason Remey’s claim was not based on his being “one of the earliest, famous believers of the West” nor having “been made a Hand of the Cause by Shoghi Effendi,”, but solely on having “been made... President of the International Baha’i Council,” the embryonic UHJ, whose president is the guardian.
Adib Taherzadeh confirms that the guardianship was an open question until election of the UHJ:
But the Guardian unexpectedly passed away in 1957 at the age of 60 and from that time until the Universal House of Justice, the question of the successor to Shoghi Effendi remained unresolved.
(Taherzadeh, The Child of the Covenant, p. 357)
However a unanimous proclamation was signed by the 26 Hands assuming control of the faith. The result of this action was the production, as it has been termed, of a “collective guardianship,” in which the hands assumed not only the legal powers once invested in Shoghi Effendi, but “all such functions, rights and powers” that the guardian had, since Shoghi Effendi was no longer able to conduct them. The hands assumed not only Shoghi Effendi’s legal powers but the authority to expel covenant-breakers, which Shoghi Effendi never allowed anyone to have other than himself, and powers at large to direct the faith.
To conclude, the transition period between 1957 and 1963 in the Bahá'í Faith, marked by the absence of a clear successor to Shoghi Effendi, laid bare the fractures within the community. The reluctance to address the question of guardianship head-on, coupled with diverse interpretations and the emergence of competing claims, underscored a profound division. The attempt to navigate this void through the concept of "collective guardianship" revealed not unity but internal discord. The Bahá'í Faith, once renowned for its unity, found itself grappling with schisms that challenged the very fabric of its communal coherence, leaving an indelible mark on its historical narrative.
Comments
Post a Comment