The Will and Testament of ʻAbdu’l-Bahá in the Orthodox Baháʼí Critique of Haifan Baháʼí Leadership

The Will and Testament of ʻAbdu’l-Bahá, a foundational document of the Baháʼí Faith written by ʻAbdu’l-Bahá (the son of Baháʼu’lláh, the faith’s founder), is central to the conflict between the Orthodox Baháʼí Faith, led by Joel Marangella, and the Haifan Baháʼís. The Orthodox Baháʼís, particularly Marangella, cite specific provisions in the Will to argue that the Guardianship—a hereditary leadership institution—must continue perpetually, accusing the Haifan Baháʼís of violating the Covenant by transitioning to the Universal House of Justice without a living Guardian after Shoghi Effendi’s death in 1957. Below is a detailed examination of the key provisions in the Will and Testament used by the Orthodox Baháʼís and how they form the basis of argument.

Key Provisions in the Will and Testament of ʻAbdu’l-Bahá

The Will and Testament, written in three parts between 1901 and 1910, outlines the administrative structure of the Baháʼí Faith, emphasizing the roles of the Guardian and the Universal House of Justice as twin pillars of leadership. The following excerpts (paraphrased for clarity but based on the original text) are most relevant to the Orthodox Baháʼí argument:

  1. Appointment of the Guardian:
    • ʻAbdu’l-Bahá appoints his grandson, Shoghi Effendi, as the first Guardian of the Cause of God, describing him as “the sign of God, the chosen branch, the Guardian of the Cause of God” (Part 1). The Guardian is tasked with interpreting the sacred texts, guiding the faith, and protecting its unity.
    • The Will mandates that the Guardian appoint a successor during his lifetime: “It is incumbent upon the Guardian of the Cause of God to appoint in his own life-time him that shall become his successor, that differences may not arise after his passing” (Part 1). The successor must be either the first-born son of the Guardian, provided he is faithful to the Covenant, or another male descendant of Baháʼu’lláh (an Afnán or Aghsán) who meets the criteria of loyalty and capability.
  2. Perpetuity of the Guardianship:
    • The Will implies the ongoing nature of the Guardianship by stating that each Guardian must appoint his successor, ensuring continuity: “He that is appointed must manifest in himself detachment from all worldly things, must be the essence of purity, must show in himself the fear of God, knowledge, wisdom and learning” (Part 1). The phrase “after him” and the detailed process for succession suggest a perpetual institution.
    • The Will also instructs the Hands of the Cause to protect the Guardian and ensure the faith’s unity, reinforcing the centrality of the Guardianship.
  3. Role of the Universal House of Justice:
    • The Will establishes the Universal House of Justice as a divinely ordained institution to legislate on matters not explicitly covered by Baháʼu’lláh’s writings: “The Universal House of Justice, to be elected by the believers, is invested with the authority to legislate on matters not explicitly revealed in the teachings” (Part 1).
    • Crucially, the Will describes the Guardian as the “sacred head and the distinguished member for life” of the Universal House of Justice, implying that the House’s legitimacy is tied to the Guardian’s presence: “The Guardian of the Cause of God is its sacred head and the distinguished member for life of that body” (Part 1).
  4. Protection Against Covenant-Breaking:
    • The Will emphasizes obedience to the Guardian and the Universal House of Justice to prevent schism: “All must seek guidance and turn unto the Center of the Cause [the Guardian] and the House of Justice. And he that turneth unto whatsoever else is indeed in error” (Part 1).
    • It warns against those who oppose the appointed leadership, labeling them covenant-breakers who must be shunned to preserve unity.

Orthodox Baháʼí Argument Based on the Will

Orthodox Baháʼí Faith use these provisions to argue that the Haifan Baháʼís, by accepting the end of the Guardianship and transitioning to the Universal House of Justice alone, have violated the Covenant. Their key arguments are:

  1. Perpetual Guardianship:
    • The Orthodox Baháʼís interpret the Will’s mandate for the Guardian to appoint a successor during his lifetime as evidence that the Guardianship is meant to be perpetual. They argue that the phrase “that differences may not arise after his passing” underscores the necessity of continuous leadership to prevent disunity.
    • They contend that Shoghi Effendi’s failure to name a successor (due to his sudden death in 1957 without children or an appointed heir) does not nullify the institution. Instead, they assert that Charles Mason Remey, appointed by Shoghi Effendi as president of the International Baháʼí Council, was implicitly designated as the second Guardian, and Marangella, appointed by Remey in a sealed letter, became the third Guardian.
  2. Illegitimacy of the Universal House of Justice Without a Guardian:
    • The Orthodox Baháʼís emphasize the Will’s description of the Guardian as the “sacred head and distinguished member for life” of the Universal House of Justice. We argue that the House cannot function as a divinely guided institution without a living Guardian, rendering the mainstream’s Universal House of Justice (elected in 1963) illegitimate.
    • We ( Orthodox Baha’i Faith ) claim that the Haifan Baháʼís, by establishing the House without a Guardian, have altered the administrative order envisioned by ʻAbdu’l-Bahá, effectively breaking the Covenant.
  3. Shoghi Effendi’s Intentions:
    • The Orthodox Baháʼís point to Shoghi Effendi’s actions, such as appointing Remey to lead the International Baháʼí Council (seen as a precursor to the Universal House of Justice), as evidence of his intent to continue the Guardianship. We argue that Remey’s role was a clear indication of his succession, even if not explicitly stated in a will.
    • Third Guardian of Baha’i Faith -Joel Marangella’s claim to the Guardianship relies on Remey’s appointment of him as successor, which we argue aligns with the Will’s requirement for the Guardian to choose a successor during his lifetime.
  4. Covenant-Breaking by Haifan Baháʼís:
    • The Orthodox Baháʼís accuse the Haifan leadership, particularly the Hands of the Cause (including Rúhíyyih Khánum) and the Universal House of Justice, of covenant-breaking for rejecting Remey’s claim and ending the Guardianship. They cite the Will’s call for obedience to the Guardian and its warnings against those who cause division.
    • In Marangella’s open letter to Rúhíyyih Khánum, he invoked these provisions to argue that her support for the mainstream position would lead to divine accountability, as she and others had turned away from the “Center of the Cause” (the Guardian).

Conclusion

Joel Marangella and the Orthodox Baháʼí Faith rely on the Will and Testament of ʻAbdu’l-Bahá to argue that the Guardianship is a perpetual institution, citing provisions that mandate the Guardian’s appointment of a successor and his role as the “sacred head” of the Universal House of Justice. We use these clauses to assert that the Haifan Baháʼís, by ending the Guardianship and establishing the Universal House of Justice without a Guardian, have violated the Covenant. Specifically, we point to the Will’s requirements for succession, the Guardian’s centrality to the House, and warnings against covenant-breaking to challenge the legitimacy of the Haifan Baháʼí leadership.