Susan S. Maneck

Susan Stiles Maneck, A Baha'i who holds a masters degree in Oriental Studies and a PhD in history. She is currently an associate professor of history at Jackson State University in Mississippi. Her website is http://www.susanmaneck.com/ and her blog can be found at http://bahai-islam.blogspot.com

• Faculty Member, Wilmette Institute

She is a major critic of Juan Cole. [2] [3]

In her June 2009 paper, “Accusations Against Baha'is Within the Context of Islamic Heresiography”, presented at the CESNUR (Center for Studies on New Religions) conference in Utah, Baha’i and Islamic Studies Scholar, Susan Maneck, cited a self-published, un-reviewed work written by a then recent high school graduate named Adib Masumiam in relation to certain “conspiracy theories circulating regarding the Baha’i Faith”, stating that “As if to prove that refuting such charges is child's play, an eighteen year old boy, Adib Masumian, has written a book doing so entitled Debunking the Myths (Lulu:2009.) Unfortunately such refutations cannot be made in the Iranian press where these charges are usually repeated.”

See also http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/ and Wisdom and Dissimulation in the Baha'i Faith: The Use and meaning of Hikmat in the Baha'i writings

Contents

Discussion of Academic Methodologies with the Universal House of Justice

In 1997 and 1998, Ms Maneck was engaged in a number of publicly available discussion with the Universal House of Justice regarding matters of institutional and doctrinal influence on academic affairs.

"Letter Two, from Maneck to the Universal House of Justice

To: Bahai World Centre

Subject: Addendum to Sept. 21 letter

Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997

Dear Universal House of Justice,

I am writing this letter as an addendum to the letter I sent you dated September 21, 1997. There was a question I still had in regards to your message to me dated 20 July 1997 which I did not ask because at the time I could not decide how best to articulate it in a befitting manner. You will recall that I had suggested that many of the difficulties had arisen because many Baha'i historians and Middle East specialists had exceeded the proper bounds of their calling as scholars by interfering in administrative affairs with their constant criticisms of the institutions. You responded by stating that there were far greater problems involved, referring to "the behavior of a very small group of Baha'is who . . . aggressively sought to promote their misconceptions of the Teachings among their fellow believers." You further refer to attempts "to alter the essential nature of Baha'u'llah's message."

While I recognize that in some cases certain Baha'is have done precisely that, these statements were troubling to me inasmuch as they raised questions in regards to the limits of tolerance within the Baha'i Faith. Specifically, as you are no doubt aware, Dr. ... has been vigorously insisting that the investigation which was launched by the International Teaching Center against himself and others was motivated by a desire to impose a rigid doctrinal conformity on Baha'i scholars which would be inconsistent with our ability to function as academics. I had argued, to the contrary, that the investigation was largely launched in reaction to what was seen as an attack on the Institutions themselves. For this reason your letter of 20 July created much confusion for me because it seemed to vindicate Dr. ...'s perception of these events.

My question is, to what extent does the House see these problems as issues of doctrinal heresy which must therefore be suppressed and to what extent are the Institutions empowered to do this? I am aware, for instance, of the verse in the Will and Testament which reads: "To none is given the right to put forth his own opinion or express his particular conviction. All must seek guidance and turn unto the Centre of the Cause and the House of Justice." I note, however that the term for opinion here is rai which is one of the principles (usul) of Islamic jurisprudence. Given the juridical language of this entire section of the Will and Testament I would assume that `Abdu'l-Baha was speaking here largely of opinions in regard to matters of Baha'i law and practice rather than doctrine.

If the Universal House of Justice does regard the imposition of orthodoxy on the Baha'i community as within the purview of the authority of the Institutions I wonder if you could explain to me how this fits in with the tolerance which `Abdu'l-Baha calls for elsewhere within the Writings. I am thinking for instance of the passage in Kitab-I Bada'i al-Athar 1:294 where `Abdu'l-Baha insists that there must be no interference in beliefs or conscience. I also note that in another Tablet `Abdu'l-Baha states that so long as courtesy is maintained that in the Faith no one can rule over a persons conscience. He goes on to say that such freedom does not extend to matters of divine law. (Ma'idih-yi Asmani 5:17-18.) I also have in mind Baha'u'llah's Tablet to Bourjerdi where even over the vital issue of the station of the Manifestation, Baha'u'llah refuses to allow the imposition of rigid dogma.

Thank you for your careful consideration of the issues I raise and for your continued prayers at the Sacred Shrines.

Obediently yours,

Susan Maneck"

The Universal House of Justice's reply can be found in at Official Correspondence-Methdologies

Resources and articles

• Correspondence with the Universal House of Justice, accessed Jan 3, 2010.
• Correspondence with the Universal House of Justice regarding access to primary source material from the Baha;i World Center, accessed Jan 3, 2010.

Related Sourcewatch articles

• Baha'i Faith

• Wilmette Institute

• Baha’i Internet Agency

• Adib Masumian

References