![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Here are a some quotes from Shoghi Effendi and the Univeral House of Justice to clarify the guidance on Baha'i administration. While no local or national spiritual assembly is perfect, this is what Baha'is are aiming for. I'm not sure that long quotes are suitable for the article, which is why they are being copied here.
Character of Baha'i Administration
The three forms of secular government to which the Guardian refers are Autocracy (rule by one person), Aristocracy (rule by the best people) and Democracy (rule by all the people). Referring again to these three forms of secular government, the Guardian writes, later in that same document:
(Letters of The Universal House of Justice, 1995 Dec 02, Email Discussion Group Concerns) Occamy 20:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Purpose of Baha'i Administration
Qualifications for Membership
Duties of Elected Representatives
-- Occamy 19:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The quote referring to the British parliament on the Character... section has been deleted because in this context it implies Baha'u'llah preferred parliamentary democracy, which is not the case. Baha'u'llah writes of the importance of kingship too, which is not democratic in nature:
In any case, the Baha'i Administrative Order in its current early form is not identified with the future world government foretold by Baha'u'llah and outlined by Shoghi Effendi in a letter written on his behalf:
The "hierarchical" structure of local-national-global, or hierarchies of scope are not, strictly speaking, simplified political hierarchies, but Holarchies [1]. They are microcosm-macrocosm levels. Additionally, while authority flows from the top, funding flows from the bottom up, as does "power" in the sense that Spiritual Assemblies cannot really do much on their own without active participation of the generality of believers in their area of scope. I'm not sure how to represent this, or if it's even possible to do so without confusing the issue, but hierarchy is loaded, and it implies certain aspects of the relationships - some of which are true, and others of which are untrue. -- ChristianEdwardGruber 17:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I removed this:
It is obviously POV and needs to be re-worked. There needs to be references too.
Cuñado
-
Talk 20:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the Baha'i contributors to these articles are trying hard to edit in an NPOV way; Wikipedia is a wonderful opportunity for Baha'is to apply their principle of "independent investigation of the truth". Picking up on the incumbency issue, i.e. "...no Universal House of Justice member has ever been voted out...", it really is a non-issue and a red herring, insofar as the House of Justice is concerned. Unlike political parties, which are voted in and out by electors according to partisan political and economic factors, International Conventions elect House of Justice members on the basis of individual suitability. Someone elected in his forties is likely to be just as suitable when he is in his sixties, so there is no real reason for voters to elect someone else, especially when Baha'is are assured in their Writings that the House of Justice (i.e. regardless of membership) operates under the protection of the Bab and Baha'u'llah. And concerning membership of the International Teaching Centre, I have not seen any denial that its members are among the most brilliant and selflessly devoted Baha'is; i.e. the House of Justice is selecting ITC members on the basis of their qualities rather than "self-selection". One point that is overlooked by sceptics is the unique relationship between House members: where else would you find nine powerful personalities working intimately with each other over decades without them splitting into cliques? I have heard retired House members Ali Nakhjavani and Douglas Martin refer several times movingly about the deep brotherly love that characterises the relationship between House members; this may be a tough fact for sceptics to swallow. The electoral process is not perfect: for example, should electors afflict another five years of crushing responsibilities on someone in his late seventies? But participants in multiple International Conventions will agree that the maturity of voting and consultation at the five-yearly gatherings improves significantly each time. -- Occamy 23:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, the title of this comment is really just a personal in-joke, and a mild reference to the "Structure" section rework that cunado is doing. I just wanted to approve of the clean-up so-far, and suggest that we need to really work on referencing in this section. I'm as bad as the rest, and have added stuff without proper referencing. I'll try to improve that, but we can all improve. -- Christian Edward Gruber 19:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I noticed that the picture diagram of the administrative order was moved to the election "rulers" section. However, the scope of the diagram is much more inclusive in scope as it also includes the appointed "learned". Thus, its current placement may not be ideal. The diagram was designed to show the overview of the entire process. Perhaps it is better at the top as it was originally located. What does everyone think? Nmentha 08:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Wiki, I couldn't see anything at that link. It looks all black. Maybe a browser issue on my side.
Cuñado
-
Talk 01:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
What about the way this is solved in Peter Smith's A Concise Encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith? The title of the diagram on page 26 is 'Present structure of Bahá'í administration'. It shows only the UHJ with on the left the Institutions of the Rulers (NSA's and LSA's) for 'direction and administration' and on the right the Institutions of the Learned (ITC, Counsellors, ABM's and their assistants) for 'advice and encouragement'. Wiki-uk 12:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
A new diagram has been added to the article now. With thanks to MARussellPESE for improving it. Wiki-uk 16:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Is it true that elections always happen on the same day? If yes, should this information be added to the text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.131.8.100 ( talk) 16:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Image:Counsellors 2005-12-28.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 21:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bahá'í administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
There has been significant criticism of the Baha'i administration in reliable sources, e.g., Juan Cole, Denis MacEoin, Bei Dawei. This is not reflected in the article. Furthermore, it is based on many primary religious texts, and otherwise Baha'i sources most of which aren't RS (though some are). There is one newspaper article but we would hope for scholarly material if possible. I am tagging this for now, but hopefully I will get to improving it soon. Gazelle55 ( talk) 01:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Here are a some quotes from Shoghi Effendi and the Univeral House of Justice to clarify the guidance on Baha'i administration. While no local or national spiritual assembly is perfect, this is what Baha'is are aiming for. I'm not sure that long quotes are suitable for the article, which is why they are being copied here.
Character of Baha'i Administration
The three forms of secular government to which the Guardian refers are Autocracy (rule by one person), Aristocracy (rule by the best people) and Democracy (rule by all the people). Referring again to these three forms of secular government, the Guardian writes, later in that same document:
(Letters of The Universal House of Justice, 1995 Dec 02, Email Discussion Group Concerns) Occamy 20:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Purpose of Baha'i Administration
Qualifications for Membership
Duties of Elected Representatives
-- Occamy 19:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The quote referring to the British parliament on the Character... section has been deleted because in this context it implies Baha'u'llah preferred parliamentary democracy, which is not the case. Baha'u'llah writes of the importance of kingship too, which is not democratic in nature:
In any case, the Baha'i Administrative Order in its current early form is not identified with the future world government foretold by Baha'u'llah and outlined by Shoghi Effendi in a letter written on his behalf:
The "hierarchical" structure of local-national-global, or hierarchies of scope are not, strictly speaking, simplified political hierarchies, but Holarchies [1]. They are microcosm-macrocosm levels. Additionally, while authority flows from the top, funding flows from the bottom up, as does "power" in the sense that Spiritual Assemblies cannot really do much on their own without active participation of the generality of believers in their area of scope. I'm not sure how to represent this, or if it's even possible to do so without confusing the issue, but hierarchy is loaded, and it implies certain aspects of the relationships - some of which are true, and others of which are untrue. -- ChristianEdwardGruber 17:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I removed this:
It is obviously POV and needs to be re-worked. There needs to be references too.
Cuñado
-
Talk 20:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the Baha'i contributors to these articles are trying hard to edit in an NPOV way; Wikipedia is a wonderful opportunity for Baha'is to apply their principle of "independent investigation of the truth". Picking up on the incumbency issue, i.e. "...no Universal House of Justice member has ever been voted out...", it really is a non-issue and a red herring, insofar as the House of Justice is concerned. Unlike political parties, which are voted in and out by electors according to partisan political and economic factors, International Conventions elect House of Justice members on the basis of individual suitability. Someone elected in his forties is likely to be just as suitable when he is in his sixties, so there is no real reason for voters to elect someone else, especially when Baha'is are assured in their Writings that the House of Justice (i.e. regardless of membership) operates under the protection of the Bab and Baha'u'llah. And concerning membership of the International Teaching Centre, I have not seen any denial that its members are among the most brilliant and selflessly devoted Baha'is; i.e. the House of Justice is selecting ITC members on the basis of their qualities rather than "self-selection". One point that is overlooked by sceptics is the unique relationship between House members: where else would you find nine powerful personalities working intimately with each other over decades without them splitting into cliques? I have heard retired House members Ali Nakhjavani and Douglas Martin refer several times movingly about the deep brotherly love that characterises the relationship between House members; this may be a tough fact for sceptics to swallow. The electoral process is not perfect: for example, should electors afflict another five years of crushing responsibilities on someone in his late seventies? But participants in multiple International Conventions will agree that the maturity of voting and consultation at the five-yearly gatherings improves significantly each time. -- Occamy 23:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, the title of this comment is really just a personal in-joke, and a mild reference to the "Structure" section rework that cunado is doing. I just wanted to approve of the clean-up so-far, and suggest that we need to really work on referencing in this section. I'm as bad as the rest, and have added stuff without proper referencing. I'll try to improve that, but we can all improve. -- Christian Edward Gruber 19:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I noticed that the picture diagram of the administrative order was moved to the election "rulers" section. However, the scope of the diagram is much more inclusive in scope as it also includes the appointed "learned". Thus, its current placement may not be ideal. The diagram was designed to show the overview of the entire process. Perhaps it is better at the top as it was originally located. What does everyone think? Nmentha 08:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Wiki, I couldn't see anything at that link. It looks all black. Maybe a browser issue on my side.
Cuñado
-
Talk 01:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
What about the way this is solved in Peter Smith's A Concise Encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith? The title of the diagram on page 26 is 'Present structure of Bahá'í administration'. It shows only the UHJ with on the left the Institutions of the Rulers (NSA's and LSA's) for 'direction and administration' and on the right the Institutions of the Learned (ITC, Counsellors, ABM's and their assistants) for 'advice and encouragement'. Wiki-uk 12:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
A new diagram has been added to the article now. With thanks to MARussellPESE for improving it. Wiki-uk 16:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Is it true that elections always happen on the same day? If yes, should this information be added to the text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.131.8.100 ( talk) 16:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Image:Counsellors 2005-12-28.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 21:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bahá'í administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
There has been significant criticism of the Baha'i administration in reliable sources, e.g., Juan Cole, Denis MacEoin, Bei Dawei. This is not reflected in the article. Furthermore, it is based on many primary religious texts, and otherwise Baha'i sources most of which aren't RS (though some are). There is one newspaper article but we would hope for scholarly material if possible. I am tagging this for now, but hopefully I will get to improving it soon. Gazelle55 ( talk) 01:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)