Answering to this question is difficult and complex. The author of this article believes it is essential for a requirement for changing and rereading the worldview and theological system in Bahaism. Even, this issue has been figured out during Shoghi Effendi‘s period of time, too.
However, the main problem is in the method of reviewing it. The main problem of reviewing the Baha’i teachings is the twosome of the holy text-interpretation.
In brief, it can be said that the Baha’i academic studies posed new questions for the Baha’is in one side and researches of Bahaism’s western addressees who were asking for persuasive reasoning particularly in issues such as deprivation of women’s right for being the member of the universal house of justice, meddling with policy and basically the relation between Bahaism and the government, the independent investigation of truth and etc. created serious challenges.
Normally, the universal house of justice had to give clear answers to the mentioned problems, but because the universal house of justice possessed a conservative approach (It is in lack of proving thought), it never be able to give a clear and frank answer to the mentioned contradictions and this issue caused some Baha’is to theorize and interpret the Baha’i teachings taking academic viewpoints. The problem was that these theorizing were critical and even challenged the legitimacy of the universal house of justice.
Warburg explains that the process of Universality influence on the Baha’i studies very much and this important issue caused strict regulations to be exerted for publishing studies and holding Baha’i academic summits by the universal house of justice to such an extent that a special committee was commissioned by this foundation to investigate all journals, books, seminars and the Baha’i declarations in general.
Holding Baha’i studies seminar on Sep. 30 and Oct. 1, 1978 A.D. in Cambridge, England was going to create a new plan according to Warburg and to enter the Baha’i researchers into Baha’i academic studies. Although it was a turning point, but it was at fist accompanied by careful reaction of the universal house of justice and then caused the universal house of justice to oppose this important issue.
First, the universal house of justice reacted this seminar on Jan. 3, 1979 A.D. and it became clear that the binary of text-interpretation has been changed into a dep challenge, then.
Eventually in 1993 A.D, the universal house of justice expressed definitely and firmly that each Baha’i academic research must be exactly in accordance with Baha’i doctrines and the Baha’i holy texts.
Following such strange and explicit position of the universal house of justice, a supervising and assessment foundation was established in the form of special committee to threaten the young researchers and provide performance guarantee for punishing and boycotting Baha’i trespassing thinkers.
Several years later; in 1999 A.D., in the 1 years later; in the inaugural ceremony of Baha’i studies in Hebrew university, occupied Palestine, Peter Khan, the ex-member of the universal house of justice announced dimensions and rad lines of the Baha’i academic studies and explicitly announced that Baha’i academic studies mustn’t lead to contradicting with the Baha’i teachings.
It is necessary to be mentioned that, Peter khan spoke violently just with a group of Baha’i innovative who opposed the universal house of justice while he himself wrote a detailed article to support science management project of Farzam Arbab (the chairman of Rouhi institute) and his measures. The reason for this contradiction was clear: science management project of Arbab expanded the influence domain of the universal house justice internationally and had economic profits very much.
For this reason, John Cole and Mac Eion who were active in Baha’i studies domains were hated by the universal house of justice, but another group such as Mojan Momen and Peter Smith were boycotted and expanded their studies and he became beloved more! It shows that the controlled academic studies in Baha’i beliefs are confirmed by the Baha’is, but uncontrolled studies which are criticizing the universal house of justice and the Baha’i teachings will be quickly and firmly repressed.
Warburg clarifies that since 1980s, the universal house of justice has strictly confronted the Baha’i innovative; although it tries not to show the universal house of justice censorship serious, but it has to announce that the universal house of justice is quite strict and exact with the policies of supervising and controlling censorship though and repression of Baha’i critics’ thoughts.
The universal house of justice measure is not compatible with the independent investigation of truth and freethinking claimed by Bahaism and this issue caused interior difference in the national assembly of America and made many Baha’i academic people to turn against this deviant cult.
Source: The book Baha’ism in transition periods of time, pp. 60-63.
Keep in touch with us: bahaismiran85@gmail.com
