Baha'i Fundamentals for Bioethics ================================= Exported from Holy-Writings.com on 2026-06-19 1 clipping 1. Source: Bahá'í Library Online (bahai-library.com), curated by Jonah Winters. Used by permission of the curator. Original citation: Leila Rassekh Milani, Baha'i Fundamentals for Bioethics, bahai-library.com. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Bahà’i Fundamentals for Bioethics Leila R. Milani and Kavian S. Milani Abstract The recent unprecedented explosion of advances in the biological and medical sciences, especially in the arena of technology, has produced a plethora of new bioethical challenges with significant moral, economic, and public policy implications. Inherent in the Baha’i Revelation is the claim that it contains a universal moral code. The rich field of Bahd’i bioethics has not been studied to date. This article attempts to establish a framework and to open a dialogue within which medical ethical dilemmas may be addressed and analyzed in light of the Bahd’i Faith. Bahd’i psychology (science of the soul) is examined, as it is a prelude to ethical questions. The authors suggest a possible Bahd’i scriptural understanding o f suffering, theodicy, and the purpose o f creation. The definitions of life and death, as well as the purpose of human life, are also explored. Finally, a number o f principles from the Bahd’i writings are examined for use in formulating a Bahd’i approach to bioethical dilemmas. It must be noted that this article does not represent the definitive Bahd’i stance on any of the issues discussed; rather, these preliminary observations are only intended to serve as a prelude to a Bahd’i bioethical dialogue. Résumé Le foisonnement récent et sans précédent que l ’on constate dans les sciences biologiques et médicales, tout particulièrement dans le domaine technologique, a entraîné une pléthore de nouveaux défis bioéthiques ayant des répercussions morales, économiques et sociétales. Au coeur même de la révélation baha’ie, il y a l ’affirmation qu’elle renferme un code moral universel. Le riche domaine de la bioéthique baha’ie n ’a pas encore fait l ’objet d ’études. Cet article cherche donc à établir un cadre et à amorcer un dialogue où les dilemmes médicaux et éthiques peuvent être examinés et analysés à la lumière de la foi baha ’ie. La psychologie baha’ie (ou science de l ’âme) y est examinée, puisqu’elle est un prélude aux questions éthiques. Les auteurs proposent une compréhension scripturale baha ’ie de la souffrance, de la théodicité et du but de la création. L ’article explore également la définition de la vie et de la mort, de même que le but de l ’existence humaine. Enfin, un certain nombre de principes tirés des écrits baha’is sont examinés en vue de form uler une approche baha’ie face aux dilemmes bioéthiques. Il faut noter que cet article ne représente pas la position baha’ie définitive au sujet des questions à l ’étude. Plutôt, ces observations préliminaires se veulent un point de départ à un dialogue de la bioéthique baha ’ie. 48 THE J O U R N A L OF B A H Á ’ Í S T U D I E S 8.2.1998 Resumen La reciente explosion sin precedentes en las ciencias médicas y biológicas, especialmente en el campo de la tecnología, ha resultado en una abundancia de retos nuevos bioéticos que insinúan significativamente ante la politico pública, la moral, y la economiá. Inherente en la Revelación Bahďí estd la afirmación de contener dentro de si pautas universales sobre la moral. El campo abundante de la bioética bahà Y hasta la fecha no ha sido estudiado. Este artículo tratarâ de establecer un marco de referenda y comenzar un diâlogo que permitirà analizar dilemas médicos tocantes en la ética a la luz de la Fe Bahâ’i. La sicologia bahâ’i (la ciencia del alma) se investigarápor ser preludio a los asuntos éticos de actualidad. Los autores sugieren una comprensión en los escritos sagrados bahá ’ís referente al sufrimiento, la teodicea, y el propôsito de la creaciôn. Se exploran las defïniciones de la vida y la muerte, y también el propôsito de la vida humana. Por ultimo, se sondean algunos principios de los escritos bahá’is que sirven para elaborar un enfoque bahďí referente a los dilemas bioéticos. Vale anotar que este artículo está lejos de ser la màxima posiciôn bahd’i sobre los temas que se presentan; mas bién, con estas observaciones preliminares se busca solamente adelantar un preludio a un diálogo bioético bahá Y. eginning in the 1950s and 1960s, a distinct new field emerged in relation to B the ethical ramifications of medical advances. The first heart transplants, the first clinical use of kidney dialysis and respiratory support, the increased technological ability to prolong life, the capability to control human fertility and reproduction, and the new ability of genetics to orchestrate the creation of a “desirable” human being were among the many issues that prepared the way for a new set of discussions. Although the different fields of theology, philosophy, law, and sociology had independently confronted issues arising from medicine and the life sciences, rarely had this been done in terms of an interdisciplinary dialogue. By the 1970s, these dialogues gave rise to the field of bioethics (Encyclopedia of Bioethics xxi). The field of philosophy consists of the four major branches of metaphysics, epistemology, logic, and ethics. Ethics is the study of moral conduct and leading a good life. The term bioethics is derived from the Greek words bios (life) and éthiká (ethics). It has hence been defined as : . . . the systematic study of the moral dimensions—including moral vision, decisions, conduct, and policies—of life sciences and health care, employing a variety of ethical methodologies in an interdisciplinary setting. (Encyclopedia xxi) B a h à ’i F u n d a m e n t a l s f o r B i o e t h i c s 49 Biomedical ethics has now emerged as a new field of human endeavor.1 The general questions in the field of bioethics are those same questions raised in other ethical inquiries; however, bioethics asks more specific questions related to the ethics of the health sciences. The following questions are raised in the realm of bioethics: Should the lives of the terminally ill be indefinitely prolonged? Should fetal abnormalities in utero be diagnosed? To what extent should society provide and encourage alternative means of conception for those otherwise not capable? Should scientists engage in germ-line gene therapy, altering the genetic endowment of the human race? At what point, if ever, should abortion take place? It is not the purpose of this article to address specific ethical problems. Therefore, those searching for a definitive Bahà’f response to controversial issues such as the ethical aspects of abortion, euthanasia, or the patenting of the human genome will be disappointed. For instance, rather than addressing euthanasia specifically, BaháT guidelines regarding death as a means of escaping suffering are examined. In our study of selected topics, the operative texts are extracted and presented. These texts allow for the development of a common ground towards initiating dialogues in Bahá’1 bioethics. Such a study is long overdue and of interest for a variety of reasons. First, individual Bahà’fs from within or outside the medical field may face ethical dilemmas. This article establishes a framework that may be considered in management of such dilemmas. Second, it may prove of interest to scientists and healthcare providers who may be dealing with Bahá’1 scientists or patients. Third, and most important, as in many fields of human endeavor, global dialogues may eventuate in an emerging global consensus on the issue of bioethics. Jewish, Christian, and Muslim scholars of biomedical ethics have been heavily involved at the forefront of the global dialogue in the field. Buddhism and Hinduism have also made substantial contributions to the current scholarship in biomedical ethics (Encyclopedia xix-xx). The BaháT' Faith is the only major religion that has not participated in these dialogues. The BaháT' Faith, as the youngest and fastest- growing major religion in the world, has the right to contribute to the current dialogues in the field of biomedical ethics, alongside its sister religions. Contemporary Approaches to Bioethical Decision-Making Deontology To familiarize the reader with the new field of bioethics, a cursory survey of some contemporary approaches to bioethical decision-making is necessary. 1. Annually, more than 3,000 books and articles are published that contribute to this field. A large number of university centers have designed post-graduate degree programs in bioethics. Courses and electives are now offered by a large number of medical schools, and ethics questions are now standard on National Boards, Steps I, II, and III, as well as FLEX and specialty Board examinations (see La Puma and Scheidermayer, Ethics Consultation 58). 50 TH E J O U R N A L OF B A H À ’ Î S T U D I E S 8.2. 1998 Deontological, or obligation-based theory, as developed by Immanuel Kant (1742-1804), is one of the earliest normative theories of ethics. It advances the notion that moral judgments must rest on reasons that can be generalized for others who are similarly situated. Kant maintained that human beings have a rational power to resist desire and possess the capacity to act according to rational considerations. He went on to argue that it is in reason, not tradition, intuition, conscience, emotions, or attitudes that morality is grounded. A natural extension of this theory lends itself to Kant’s assertion that moral obligation depends on the rule that determines the individual’s will. In other words, an action is only morally worthy if it is performed by an agent who has a good will.2 Kant’s categorical imperative followed: “I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim become a universal law” (Beauchamp and Childress, Principles of Biomedical Ethics 56-57). Utilitarianism Utilitarianism, or consequence-based theory, determines the rightness or wrongness of an act based on the balance of its good and bad consequences. “The right act in any circumstance is the one that produces the best overall result, as determined from an impersonal perspective that gives equal weight to the interests of each affected party” (Beauchamp and Childress, Principles 48). While the proponents of utilitarianism generally agree that moral actions are valued based on their production of maximal value, there is disagreement as to which values are most important. The agent-neutral utilitarian asserts that goods are valuable in themselves regardless of their further consequences. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-73), two well-known utilitarians, envisioned utility in terms of happiness or pleasure (also known as hedonistic utilitarians). Some of the more recent philosophers have argued that values such as friendship, knowledge, health, beauty, autonomy, understanding, enjoyment, and success have intrinsic worth as well. Finally, there are utilitarians who would look more at the individual’s preferences as the determining factor (Beauchamp and Childress, Principles 48). Feminine Ethics Noting a sense of alienation that many women have experienced in trying to work within the structures of contemporary moral theory, Carol Gilligan, in a detailed study, identified distinct masculine and feminine voices in ethical reasoning. She maintained that mainstream ethical theory has been carried on in a voice that is overwhelmingly masculine and that the voices of women have 2. Cf. 'Abdu'1-Bahá, Some Answered Questions 300-305. B a h a ’i F u n d a m e n t a l s f o r B i o e t h i c s 51 been largely excluded or ignored.3 Claiming that women speak with a different voice, Gilligan discovered “the voice of care.” Not based on the universality of individual rights, but rather on the strong sense of responsibility, this ethics of care deals with emotional commitment to and willingness to act on behalf of persons with whom one has a relationship (Beauchamp and Childress, Principles 85-87). Principle-based Common Morality Theory One of the most prevalent and contemporary approaches to ethics is the principle-based, common-morality theory. Developed in 1994 by Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress, it is embedded in the common morality, and it uses principles as its structural basis. Although Beauchamp and Childress acknowledge that such a theory does not need to be principle-based, they treat the theories together to develop their tradition of ethics. For instance, a principle-based ethic argues that an ethical question or dilemma may be discovered by applying the correct ethical theory (e.g., utilitarianism) or principle (e.g., autonomy) to the case (Encyclopedia 406). The common- morality aspect of the theory takes its basic premises from the morality shared in common by the members of a society—what Beauchamp and Childress call unphilosophical common sense and tradition. Similar to utilitarianism and Kantian ethics, the principle-based theories have an emphasis on principles of obligation. However, it is important to note that common-morality theory is pluralistic.4 Moreover, it relies a great deal on ordinary shared moral beliefs for its content. This is in contrast to a heavy reliance on reason, natural law, or a special moral sense. Finally, the principles fundamental to the shared moral beliefs are usually accepted by rival ethical theories (Principles 100). Of particular interest to the BaháT tradition is the fact that “analogous to beliefs in the universality of basic human rights, the principles of the common morality are universal standards” (Principles 101). Beauchamp and Childress enumerate four: respect for autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice. Respect for Autonomy Respect for autonomy, although embedded in common morality, carries with it different interpretations and strengths. To prevent any misunderstanding, Beauchamp and Childress define it as: 3. Gilligan, cited in Sherwin, No Longer Patient 46. In her empirical study, Carol Gilligan found that when women are presented with moral conflicts, they are prone to focus on details about the relationships among the concerned parties. The solutions sought by women are usually those that protect the interests of all participants. In contrast, she maintained that men have a tendency to identify the relevant rules that govern the particular situation. Gilligan called the women’s approach an “ethics of care.” The men’s approach she titled “ethics of justice.” This study has been documented in Gilligan’s In a Different Voice (1982). 4. This term is defined on page 53 of this article, in footnote 9. 52 TH E J O U R N A L OF B A H À ’ Î S T U D I E S 8.2.1998 The autonomous individual freely acts in accordance with a self-ch osen plan, analogous to the way an independent government manages its territories and sets its policies. A person o f diminished autonomy, by contrast, is in at least some respect controlled by others or incapable o f deliberating or acting on the basis o f his or her desires and plans. (Principles 121) Stated in a negative form, the principle of respect for autonomy is: “Autonomous actions should not be subjected to controlling constraints by others” (Principles 126).5 The individual’s right to self-determination, carrying with it other rights such as confidentiality and privacy, is also correlated to this obligation. While there is a wide disagreement as to the scope of an individual’s confidentiality and privacy rights, there is little disagreement that this sacred right of autonomy can be legitimately curtailed by the rights of others. In summation, the principle of respect for autonomy has only prima facie standing and can be constrained by overriding moral obligations (Principles 126).6 Beneficence and Nonmaleficence Closely associated in medical ethics with the maxim Primům non nocere (Above all, do no harm), the principle of nonmaleficence puts forth an obligation not to inflict harm intentionally. The implications of this principle are many and cover the following range of ethical quandaries: distinctions between killing and letting die, intending and foreseeing harmful outcomes, withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatments, and extraordinary and ordinary treatments. Although there are many who would and do join nonmaleficence and beneficence as a single principle, Beauchamp and Childress make a significant distinction between the two. They indicate that while nonmaleficence means that “one ought not to inflict evil or harm” (Principles 192), beneficence dictates that “one ought to prevent evil or harm; one ought to remove evil or harm; and that one ought to do or promote good” (Principles 192). The main distinction between the two is that the three forms of beneficence require taking action by helping, whereas nonmaleficence only requires intentionally refraining from actions that cause harm (Principles 192). Justice Justice is the final principle put forth in the dialogue of principles promoted by Beauchamp and Childress. It is a principle by which the inequalities in access to health care and health insurance are addressed. The diverse approaches to 5. The principle asserts a broad, abstract obligation that is free of exceptive clauses such as, “We must respect individuals’ views and rights ‘so long as their thoughts and actions do not seriously harm other persons’.” 6. For example, if our choices endanger the public health, potentially harm innocent others, or require a scarce resource for which no funds are available, others can justifiably restrict our exercise of autonomy. B a h à ’i F u n d a m e n t a l s f o r B i o e t h i c s 53 justice—egalitarian, communitarian, libertarian, and utilitarian theories—only partially capture the range and diversity of the moral life, emphasizing the need for a coherent and complete theory of justice. Beauchamp and Childress assert that in the absence of a social consensus about these competing theories of justice, public policies will shift, emphasizing different theories at different times. Nonetheless, one point which cannot be ignored is that reliance on a theory of justice is essential to addressing current ethical issues. The above paragraphs outlined some of the contemporary approaches in ethics.7 BaháT' fundamentals of ethics, or moral theology, however, are based on ethical reflections in light of the BaháT' Revelation. In moral theology, metaphysical and theological considerations provide the moral framework in which actions and policies are to be evaluated.8 The authors maintain that the BaháT' Revelation presents a distinct ethical theory.9 However, this article will neither engage in discussions of ethical theory based on BaháT principles, nor 7. For an excellent survey of religion and morality and their implications for bioethics, see the Encyclopedia o f Bioethics 758-64. 8. This has been the basic approach in the formulations of religious bioethics. For an introduction to Islamic bioethical thought, see Encyclopedia o f Bioethics, s.v. “Islam” by Abdulaziz Sachedina. The interesting study by ‘A ttár, Islamic Medicine (75-79 and 173-82) translates theological reflections into practice. For examples of Christian bioethical studies, see Hauerwas’s Suffering Presence and A Community o f Character. 9. ‘ The authors have hesitated to engage in outlining a BaháT' moral philosophy. This choice will undoubtedly raise criticisms, and with some justification. However, this is a task clearly beyond the goals of this article and the intention of its authors. W e maintain, however, that any ethical philosophy based on BaháT' principles must be pluralistic along the lines suggested by Barukh Brody, as detailed in Life and Death Decision Making (9-11), where Brody advances the virtues of pluralistic theory. He acknowledges that there are weaknesses and strengths in each of the ethical formulations. He maintains that there is a need to recognize that each moral theory has failed because it has recognized only one of the many legitimate moral appeals. Instead of looking at the history of competing theories among which a choice must be made, Brody puts forth the proposal that it would be more beneficial to view it as a series of attempts to articulate different moral appeals, all of which will have to be combined to frame an adequate moral theory to help deal with difficult cases. Following Brody, Beauchamp and Childress (in Principles o f Biomedical Ethics) assign to themselves the title of pluralists in that they accept as legitimate various aspects of several different theories advanced in the history of ethics. A parallel in pluralism may be the comparison and contrast that Shoghi Effendi provides between diverse political theories and the BaháT' Administrative Order, where the BaháT Administrative Order is said to contain some features of existing political theories: A word should now be said regarding the theory on which this Administrative Order is based and the principle that must govern the operation of its chief institution.. . . The BaháT' Commonwealth of the future, of which this vast Administrative Order is the sole framework, is, both in theory and practice, not only unique in the entire history of political institutions, but can find no parallel in the annals of any of the world’s recognized religious systems.. . . This new-bom Administrative Order incorporates within its structure certain elements which are to be found in each of the three recognized forms of secular government, without being in any sense a mere replica of any one of them, and without introducing within its machinery any of the objectionable features which they inherently possess. It blends and harmonizes, as no government fashioned by mortal hands has as yet accomplished, the salutary truths which each of these systems undoubtedly contains without vitiating the integrity of those God-given verities on which it is ultimately founded. (Shoghi Effendi, World Order o f Bahdu'lldh 152-53) 54 T H E J O U R N A L OF B A H À ’ Î S T U D I E S 8.2.1998 present a comparison and contrast with competing ethical theories.10 As this article intends to open the bioethics dialogue within the Bahà’i religion, attention will be given prim arily to the metaphysical and theological considerations that must precede such dialogue. Bioethics and the Bahà’i Faith Religion serves a unique function in the Bahà’i worldview. ‘AbduT-Bahá argues that humanity is in need of three distinct forms of education. He enumerates the three as material, human, and spiritual education—these covering the full spectrum of human activity (Some Answered Questions 7-11). ‘AbduT-Bahá states that all three can only be found in the universal Educators, who are divine teachers. He equates the universal Educators with holy Manifestations (Some Answered Questions 11). Divine revelation then becomes a unique and most excellent source of guidance for humanity in all aspects. According to ‘AbduT-Bahá, religion is the pathway of the acquisition of perfections and attributes.11 Elsewhere, ‘AbduT-Bahá writes the following regarding religion: Religion, moreover, is not a series o f beliefs, a set o f customs; religion is the teachings of the Lord God, teachings which constitute the very life o f humankind, which urge high thoughts upon the mind, refine the character, and lay the groundwork for man’s everlasting honour. (Selectionsfrom the Writings of ‘Abdu'1-Bahá 52-53) In this, ‘AbduT-Bahá is reiterating the thesis regarding the purpose of religion that Bahà’uTlàh had already advanced in the first Ishráq: They that are possessed o f wealth and invested with authority and power must show the profoundest regard for religion. In truth, religion is a radiant light and an im pregnable stronghold for the protection and w elfare o f the p eop les o f the world. . . . Should the lamp o f religion be obscured, chaos and confusion will ensue, and the lights o f fairness and justice, o f tranquillity and peace cease to shine. (Tablets of Bahà’uTlàh 125) In the second leaf of the Kalimát-i-Firdawsíyyih, BaháVlláh writes: Religion is verily the chief instrument for the establishment of order in the world and o f tranquillity amongst its peoples. The weakening o f the pillars o f religion hath strengthened the foolish and emboldened them and made them more arrogant. Verily 1 say: The greater the decline of religion, the more grievous the waywardness of the ungodly. (Tablets of Baha'u'llâh 63-64) 10. There are, however, a few instances where a comparison and contrast is pointed out, as in the section on truthfulness. These are enumerated to support the thesis that an ethical theory based on Bahà’i principles must be pluralistic. 11. Cf. ‘Abdu’l-Baha, Promulgation o f Universal Peace 179, 152. B a h a ’i F u n d a m e n ta ls f o r B io e th ic s 55 Bahà’u’Ilàh is thus the divine physician, as the mouthpiece for the Creator, whose every diagnosis and remedy is critical to the well-being of humankind: The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse o f mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. (Gleanings from the Writings ofBahá ’u 'lláh 213) Therefore, inherent to the Bahà’i Faith is the claim that it possesses solutions to the manifold problems facing humanity, including those in the realm of bioethics. On this ground, we hold that the developing field of biomedical ethics stands to benefit from the incorporation of BaháT teachings. Bahà’i Psychology and the Purpose of Creation The chief endowment that distinguishes a human being from all else is the human spirit, which ‘AbduT-Bahá identifies with the rational soul (Some Answered Questions 208-9). It is not within the scope of this article to examine fully the concepts of rúh (spirit) and nafs (soul) in BaháT sacred texts. However, it is necessary to establish the nomenclature in order to generate a functional framework. Every human being is by definition endowed with the human spirit, as explained by ‘AbduT-Bahá. Rúh (usually translated as spirit) is divided by ‘AbduT-Bahá into five categories, consisting of vegetable, animal, human, spirit of faith, and the Holy Spirit. ‘AbduT-Bahá states that the human spirit has proceeded from God through emanation and that it is a simple (basit) substance, i.e., not composed of parts (Some Answered Questions 241).12 This spirit is not bound by time and place.13 The consummate ontological attainment for a human being is to acquire the spirit of faith (rúh-i-ímání) through recognition of and obedience to the Manifestation of God. Nafs (generally translated as soul) represents a related but different entity in psychology. ‘AbduT-Bahá, in Some Answered Questions, identifies the rational soul (nafs-i-nátiqah) with the human spirit (rúh -i-insání). However, when these collective works are considered, the classic distinction between rúh and nafs is maintained. In Paris Talks, for example, ‘AbduT-Bahá states, “There are in the world of humanity three degrees; those of the body, the soul, and spirit” (96).14 According to ‘AbduT-Bahá in that same talk, the soul “is the intermediary between [the] body and [the] spirit” (96). A particular soul may or may not acquire the life of spirit (rúh-i-ímání)}5 The degree of acquisition of the rúh-i- ímání is described in terms of stations of na/s.16 For example, the Qur’àn 12. Also see ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks 91. 13. See ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions 241. 14. Cf. the Persian record of that same talk, Khitábát-i-‘Abdu’l-Bahá 174. 15. See ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks 97. 16. For example, see Khitábát-i-‘A bdu’l-Bahá 174-75. 56 TH E J O U R N A L OF B A H À ’ Î S T U D I E S 8.2.1998 classifies nafs along a spectrum from amárah (concupiscence) to mardiah (one that has attained divine good-pleasure). The stages of nafs between the two above includes lavvámah (irascibility), mutma’inah (confirmed), and rádíah (content) as mentioned in the Qur’ân.17 Islamic mysticism and theosophy have built upon the quranic terminology and developed a rather complicated science of the soul.18 The qualities of the soul change as it increasingly gains and is influenced by the rúh-i-ímání and traverses through stages towards perfection. Bahà’u’ilàh has acknowledged these diverse stations of the nafs in numerous tablets.19 He has also considerably simplified Bahà’i fundamentals for psychology: Much hath been written in the books o f old concerning the various stages in the development of the soul, such as concupiscence, irascibility, inspiration, benevolence, contentment. Divine good-pleasure, and the like; the Pen o f the Most High, however, is disinclined to dwell upon them. Every soul that walketh humbly with its God, in this Day, and cleaveth unto Him, shall find itself invested with the honor and glory o f all goodly names and stations. (Gleanings from the Writings o f Baha’u ’lláh 159) The human spirit is a divine “trust” according to Bahà’i writings (‘AbduT-Bahá, Some Answered Questions 200). In a tablet revealed by Bahà’u’ilàh for recitation at the bedside of a dying person, the spirit (rúh) is acknowledged as both a trust (amdnah) and the agent that manifested life to the world (Ishráq Khávarí, Tasbih va Tahiti 238). This divine trust (human spirit or rational soul) is located at an ontological crossroads. ‘Abdu’l-Bahà states that the physical realm ends the “arc of descent” and that humankind is the beginning of the “arc of ascent,” which initiates spirituality. This ascent involves the acquiring of the rúh-i-ímání (spirit of faith), the best form of acquisition of virtues and perfections (‘AbduT-Bahá, Some Answered Questions 285-86). The Bahá’1 writings teach that the mystical purpose underlying the creation of human beings is twofold: That humankind should know and worship God. An example occurs in the Short Obligatory Prayer, “I bear witness, O my God, that Thou hast created me to know Thee and worship Thee” (Bahà’i Prayers 4). Another cogent example is the following, where Bahà’uTlàh establishes a link between this purpose of creation and human ontological self-understanding: Having created the world and all that liveth and moveth therein. He, through the direct operation o f His unconstrained and sovereign Will, chose to confer upon man the unique distinction and capacity to know Him and to love Him— a capacity that must needs be regarded as the generating impulse and the primary purpose underlying 17. See the following quranic references: 12:53, 89:27, and 75:2. 18. For a brief synopsis, see Nasr, Islamic Spirituality 1:294-307. 19. For example, see M ajmú’iy-Alwah-i-Mubárakiy-i-Hadrat-i-Bahá’u'lláh 97. B a h à ’i F u n d a m e n ta ls f o r B io e th ic s 57 the whole of creation. . . . Upon the inmost reality o f each and every created thing He hath shed the light o f one o f His names, and made it a recipient o f the glory o f one of His attributes. Upon the reality o f man, however, He hath focused the radiance o f all o f His names and attributes, and made it a mirror o f His ow n Self. A lone o f all created things man hath been singled out for so great a favor, so enduring a bounty. (BaháV lláh, Gleanings 65) According to the Bahà’i writings, all divine attributes are fully manifested in the Primal Will or First Intellect.20 These same attributes are also latent in every human being. The purpose of physical reality is that humankind should traverse this plane of existence, and actualize these potential virtues (Some Answered Questions 200). ‘Abdu’l-Bahà states that these perfections are at once limited and without limit (Some Answered Questions 230). They are limitless in themselves, yet they are limited with respect to the ontological sphere within which humans exist. Bahà’i theology holds that the virtues and perfections that one acquires in the physical realm are essential and needed for an ontologically happy existence after the dissociation of the human spirit from the body, just as limbs and organs developed by an embryo are utilized after birth (Fádil-i- Mazandarání, Amr va Khalq 1:120). The Best of All Possible Worlds? In the BaháT Faith, physical reality is considered to be a field for the acquisition of perfections. Questions may be asked at this point: Is this the best of all possible worlds? Could God have created a different mechanism for developing virtue? Why is physical reality plagued with earthquakes, disease, famine, suffering, and numerous other hardships? The question that this line of argumentation poses is one of theodicy, i.e., the justice of God. BaháT sacred scripture examines the question of theodicy in substantial detail. For the purposes of this article, a cursory examination of divine justice is imperative. Regarding the design of the universe, ‘AbduT-Bahá states that it is perfect: This Nature is subjected to an absolute organization, to determined laws, to a complete order and a finished design, from which it will never depart. . . . (Some Answered Questions 3) This statement is repeated on many occasions by ‘AbduT-Bahá. Early in Some Answered Questions, in the argument for the existence of God, ‘AbduT-Bahá poses the following question, “Can the creation be perfect and the creator 20. The Primal Will is the first emanation from God, as described in Baha’i writings, which exercises creative powers and begets all that exists. See ‘AbduT-Bahá, Some Answered Questions 203. 58 TH E J O U R N A L OF B A H Á ’ Í S T U D I E S 8.2.1998 imperfect?” (Some Answered Questions 5). The passage quoted below is equally emphatic: For all existing beings, terrestrial and celestial, as well as this limitless space and all that is in it, have been created and organized, composed, arranged and perfected as they ought to be; the universe has no imperfection, so that if all beings became pure intelligence and reflected for ever and ever, it is impossible that they could imagine anything better than that which exists. (Some Answered Questions 177) Admittedly, the most interesting Bahà’i response to the question of theodicy is to be found in what one may consider Bahà’uTlàh’s response to a debate that had engaged Muslim theologians for more than nine centuries.21 The great Abú Hámid al-Ghazálí (d. 1111 c.E.) is generally credited with writing a statement that proved very problematic for Islamic theologians. He states, in his best- known book, Ihyá ul-'ulum ud-din, as well as in other texts, the following: “There is not in possibility (imkán) anything whatever more excellent, more complete, or more perfect than it is” (Theodicy in Islamic Thought 37). Bahà’uTlàh acknowledges this debate and responds to the dispute in clear terms. He closely follows al-Ghazálí even in the grammatical structure. He writes that there is nothing in possibility (imkán) more wonderful (abda') than that which is.22 The statement clearly indicates that, according to Bahà’i theology, existence, as it exists, is simply the best contingent possibility. Neither BaháVlláh nor ‘AbduT-Bahá is expressing naïveté, nor are they denying the reality of suffering. Both readily acknowledge that the physical world is replete with sorrows, wrongs, and suffering. For instance, ‘AbduT- Bahá writes the following to a wife who has lost her husband: Such is this mortal abode: a storehouse o f afflictions and suffering. It is ignorance that binds man to it, for no comfort can be secured by any soul in this world, from monarch down to the most humble commoner. ( Selections from the Writings of ‘Abdu 'l-Bahá 200) According to the BaháT Faith, the corporeal world is absolutely real, yet with respect to the spiritual realms and the existence of God, it may be said to be an illusion (Some Answered Questions 278). The following passage by Bahà’uTlàh merits close examination with regards to both theodicy and the reality of the physical world: Follow not, therefore, your earthly desires, and violate not the Covenant o f God, nor break your pledge to Him. With firm determination, with the whole affection of your 21. This dispute is comprehensively examined in Theodicy in Islamic Thought by Ornsby. 22. See Ulúhiyyat va Mazhariyyat 104. This is the second volume of the collected works of ‘Ali- Murad Dávúdi, the late BaháT' martyr and philosopher. B a h a ’i F u n d a m e n ta ls f o r B io e th ic s 59 heart, and with the full force o f your words, turn ye unto Him, and walk not in the ways of the foolish. The world is but a show, vain and empty, a mere nothing, bearing the semblance o f reality. Set not your affections upon it. Break not the bond that uniteth you with your Creator, and be not o f those who have erred and strayed from His ways. Verily I say, the world is like the vapor in a desert, which the thirsty dreameth to be water and striveth after it with all his might, until when he cometh unto it, he findeth it to be mere illusion. . . . Sorrow not if, in these days and on this earthly plane, things contrary to your wishes have been ordained and manifested by God, for days o f blissful joy, o f heavenly delight, are assuredly in store for you. Worlds, holy and spiritually glorious, will be unveiled to your eyes. (Bahà’uTlàh, Gleanings 328-29) The Purpose of Suffering The purpose of suffering lies at the heart of the BaháT approach to theodicy. According to BaháT theology, suffering is an integral part of corporeal existence, and it is essential to spiritual well-being. Let us consider the statement by ‘AbduT-Bahá from Paris Talks in response to this interesting inquiry: “Does the soul progress more through sorrow or through the joy in this world?”: The mind and the spirit o f man advance when he is tried by suffering. The more the ground is.ploughed the better the seed will grow, the better the harvest will be. Just as the plough furrows the earth deeply, purifying it o f weeds and thistles, so suffering and tribulation free man from the petty affairs o f this worldly life until he arrives at a state o f com plete detachment. His attitude in this world w ill be that o f divine happiness. (178) In fact, according to ‘AbduT-Bahá, it is impossible to attain true happiness without suffering. He states, “To attain eternal happiness one must suffer” (Paris Talks 179). Suffering and pain are an integral part of the journey of the human soul towards its “heavenly homeland” and nearness to the creator as detailed in BaháT mystical theory. BaháVlláh explains the role of suffering in the “Valley of Love” as follows: Now is the traveler unaware o f himself, and o f aught besides himself. He seeth neither ignorance nor knowledge, neither doubt nor certitude; he knoweth not the mom o f guidance from the night of error. He fleeth both from unbelief and faith, and deadly poison is a balm to him. Wherefore ‘Attár saith: For the infidel, error — for the faithful, faith; For ‘Attár’s heart, an atom o f Thy pain. The steed o f this Valley is pain; and if there be no pain this journey will never end. (Bahà’uTlàh, Seven Valleys 8) 60 TH E J O U R N A L OF B A H À ’Î S T U D I E S 8.2.1998 The transforming and necessary nature of suffering is a prominent motif in Bahà’i mysticism. They may be harsh and painful, but in fact tests and trials are blessings in disguise: O SON OF MAN! My calamity is My providence, outwardly it is fire and vengeance, but inwardly it is light and mercy. Hasten thereunto that thou mayest become an eternal light and an immortal spirit. (Bahà’u’ilàh, Hidden Words 15) Suffering and hardships are especially necessary for spiritual development, as it is only in this world that we can experience them: As to the second question: the tests and trials o f God take place in this world, not in the world of the Kingdom. (Selections from the Writings o f ‘Abdu 'l-Bahá 194) The BaháT Faith teaches that suffering facilitates spiritual development. This essential understanding of suffering, however, does not translate to a disregard for the human body, nor does it imply passive acceptance of an illness. In fact, it is the duty of everyone to try to reduce the suffering of others: Those souls who during the war have served the poor and have been in the Red Cross Mission work, their services are accepted at the Kingdom o f God and are the cause of their everlasting life. (Selections from the Writings o f ‘Abdu'1-Bahá 116) Medicine in the Bahà’i Faith The topic of medicine as seen through BaháT' scripture is an incredibly intriguing and challenging one. The spectrum is very broad, covering everything from nutrition to future developments in pharmacology. In recent years, BaháT scholars have generated a number of very interesting studies in health and healing as taught in the BaháT Faith.23 A thorough examination of medicine and healing in the BaháT' Faith is yet to be done and is beyond the scope of this article. However, a few general comments are offered. That medicine is a praiseworthy profession may be gathered in that BaháVlláh most frequently conveyed his relationship to humanity in terms of two worldly occupations: the teacher and the physician. In the Lawh-i-Tibb (Tablet of Medicine) Bahà’uTlàh writes that medicine is the most exalted of all 23. See “Health and Healing” by H. Danesh and “International Health W ork” by Alfred K. Neumann and Irvin M. Lourie in World Order 13.3, as well as “The Application of Bahá’1 Teachings on Health” by A. K. Neumann and L. Femea in the same journal. There have been some attempts to establish dialogue between the Western medical tradition and non-Westem traditions, in light of the BaháT teachings on the subject. See “Maharishi Ayurveda: A BaháT Perspective” by Felicity Rawlings in the Journal o f B aha’i Studies. A relatively recent addition of substantial importance is Health and Healing compiled by the Research Department of the Universal House of Justice. B a h à ’i F u n d a m e n ta ls f o r B io e th ic s 61 sciences (Majmuih 225). In that same Tablet, the science of medicine is given priority over all other branches of learning (ulúm va’l-hikam) (Majmti’ih 225). ‘AbduT-Bahá has also paid high tribute to the science of medicine.24 BaháT' history tells us that ‘AbduT-Bahá would frequently urge his companions to study modem medicine.25 The purpose of medicine is to alleviate suffering and restore health. The BaháT Faith obligates its members to seek medical treatment. In fact, Bahà’uTlàh always sought medical advice when indicated.26 Moreover, the BaháT' Faith demands that one seek the best possible medical treatment.27 The following example is of particular interest with regard to this point. BaháT' historians note that ‘AbduT-Bahá knew old Oriental medicine and occasionally used to practice medicine as a youth. Later BaháVlláh asked ‘AbduT-Bahá not to treat the believers so that they would not develop the habit of seeking treatments from other than formally trained physicians.28 This is in accordance with the explicit text of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas: Resort ye, in times of sickness, to competent physicians; We have not set aside the use o f material means, rather have We confirmed it through this Pen, which God hath made to be the Dawning-place of His shining and glorious Cause. (Kitáb-i-Aqdas 60, paragraph 113) • ‘AbduT-Bahá has confirmed the same advice in many tablets. It is worth noting that no one is spared this duty: According to the explicit decree o f B aháV lláh one must not turn aside from the advice o f a competent doctor. It is imperative to consult one even if the patient himself be a well-known and eminent physician. In short, the point is that you should maintain your health by consulting a highly-skilled physician. (Selections from the Writings o f ‘Abdu’l-Bahd 156) The obligation to maintain physical health to the extent possible is clearly unequivocal. BaháVlláh explains that the preservation of health is imperative, in part because health is a prerequisite for the application of the laws and ordinances of God (Fádil-i-Mázandarání, Amr va Khalq 3:10-11).29 The BaháT 24. For example, see Ishráq Khâvari. Mďidiy-i-Ásmáni 5:23-26. Here ‘Abdu’l-Bahá comments on the following prophetic tradition: Knowledge consists of two sciences, the Science of medicine and science of religion. 25. For example, see Khdtirat-i-nuh Sdlih (the Nine Year Memoirs) by Afnikhtih 435. 26. For an example, see Sulaymání, Masábíh-i-Hidáyat 1:165. 27. That seeking a skilled physician is necessary may be gleaned from many Baha’i writings. Of particular interest is the first line of the Lawh-i-Tibb (the Tablet of Medicine) where it is explicitly stated that the medical advice B aháV lláh provides will suffice in absence