Mehrangiz Kar: the Exclusion of Baha’i Woman from Membership!
Abstract
This article examines a collection of viewpoints and debates surrounding the exclusion of women from membership in the Universal House of Justice, the global governing body of the Bahá’í community. It begins with a speech by Dr. Mehrangiz Kar, delivered in commemoration of Táhirih Qurrat al-‘Ayn, in which she criticizes the absence of women from the Universal House of Justice and seeks an explanation for it. The article then reviews various reactions from Bahá’ís and non-Bahá’ís alike, including defenses by Kavian Sadeghzadeh and criticisms by Touraj Amini, alongside the views of others such as Dr. Erfan Sabeti. It also discusses a statement by Kent Bowers condemning the hostility and dispute surrounding the issue, as well as the presentation of the matter from different perspectives by Raha Sabet. Overall, the article demonstrates that the issue of gender equality within the administrative structures of the Bahá’í Faith and the reasons given for women’s exclusion from the Universal House of Justice constitute a controversial and complex subject that requires logical and transparent responses.
Introduction
A review of the speech delivered by Dr. Mehrangiz Kar, a jurist and human rights activist, at the ceremony marking the bicentenary of the birth of Táhirih Qurrat al-‘Ayn shows that Dr. Kar highlighted Táhirih’s qualities as an Iranian Bahá’í woman and challenged her historical role within the Bahá’í community by posing a question that effectively turned into an intellectual and social crisis:
“Why are Bahá’í women not allowed to be members of the Universal House of Justice?”
This question regarding the exclusion of women from the Universal House of Justice provoked a variety of reactions from both Bahá’ís and non-Bahá’ís and gave rise to diverse interpretations about the role of women within Bahá’í institutions and the reasons for their absence from organizational bodies.
Correspondence between Dr. Kar and other Bahá’í activists, such as Mr. Kavian Sadeghzadeh and Ms. Mona, is also addressed in this discussion. In these exchanges, the positive and negative aspects of the issue, the historical and cultural dimensions of the Bahá’í Faith, and social concerns about gender equality are evaluated.
Dr. Kar’s Speech and the Question of Women’s Position in the Universal House of Justice
Dr. Mehrangiz Kar, a jurist, human rights activist, and advocate for women’s rights, delivered a speech at the ceremony marking the 200th anniversary of Táhirih Qurrat al-‘Ayn’s birth among Iranian Bahá’ís living in Virginia, USA. She paid tribute to Táhirih’s stature as an Iranian Bahá’í woman. The gathering proceeded in a positive and celebratory atmosphere until, toward the end of her speech, Dr. Kar asked the audience:
“Close your eyes and imagine that Táhirih, with the same courage, were to return today. Would she be able to stand as a candidate for membership in the Universal House of Justice?”
With this question, Dr. Kar directly challenged the exclusion of women from the Universal House of Justice. Following the event, she wrote on her Facebook page:
“When this question was raised, the atmosphere of the gathering was shaken. I did not hear a convincing answer. I hope they too will speak of the discriminatory and gender-based shortcomings of their faith without resorting to religious justifications. Respect for gender is not achieved merely by praising Táhirih; it will only be complete when the Universal House of Justice itself adheres to gender equality within its sphere of authority.”
Dr. Kar’s question prompted varied reactions, and a number of Bahá’ís and non-Bahá’ís protested or defended her position on social media. This article aims to provide a summary of the debates and arguments raised in these discussions.
Reactions: Reflection of the Speech and the Beginning of the Debate
Mr. Kavian Sadeghzadeh Milani, one of the organizers of the conference, responded by claiming that Dr. Kar’s objection stemmed from an ahistorical conclusion and an incorrect reading of the realities of the Bahá’í community. He emphasized the prominent role of women in Bahá’í society, their strong presence in administrative institutions at national and local levels, and the prioritization of women’s education as a fundamental transformation in social structure. He further suggested that membership in the Universal House of Justice was not of such importance that women would necessarily seek it.
In response, Dr. Kar stated:
“My intention in entering this discussion was not to deny the other achievements of Bahá’í women. I acknowledge the positive aspects and have not disputed them. But even if you present thousands of affirmative arguments, you still have not answered this very simple and friendly question. Even saying ‘I do not know and we must reflect on this’ would serve your faith better than insisting that the Universal House of Justice is unimportant. Even under that assumption, women should have equal opportunity to serve as members. If I invoked Táhirih, it was to give strength to my question. Táhirih is not a myth; she proclaimed the Bábí Faith, and Bahá’ís emerged from that legacy. Why all this deflection? Why do the answers not address the question? Equal membership of women in the Universal House of Justice is a right, nothing more and nothing less.”
Ms. Mona’s Article: Analysis and Critique
A few hours after Mr. Sadeghzadeh’s post appeared on Facebook, an article titled “Discriminatory Shortcomings?” addressed to Dr. Kar was published on the official Bahá’í website (Negaah). This action itself indicated that Dr. Kar’s challenge was perceived as valid.
Ms. Mona, the author, acknowledged the positive aspects of Dr. Kar’s speech and her fresh interpretation of Táhirih’s character, but attributed some of Dr. Kar’s statements to a lack of familiarity with Bahá’í laws and teachings.
She cited Bahá’u’lláh:
“Today, humanity is one who rises to serve all who dwell on earth.”
She argued that in the Bahá’í Faith there is no boundary to service based on gender, belief, race, or nationality. She emphasized that membership in the Universal House of Justice is a form of service, not a privilege, and not an indication of superiority.
Ms. Mona also rejected explanations offered by some Bahá’ís for women’s exclusion, such as the burdensome working hours or issues related to pregnancy and motherhood, stating these were personal interpretations and not official positions of the Bahá’í Faith.
Further Responses and Counterarguments
Several other commentators weighed in, including Nezam Mithaqi, Mansour Ta’yid, Pejman Mahboubi, Shahin Iqaniyan, and others. Supporters of Dr. Kar argued that the question remained unanswered and that excluding women constituted clear discrimination. Critics dismissed the objection as uninformed or ideologically influenced.
Dr. Erfan Sabeti, a prominent Bahá’í scholar in the UK, stated that Dr. Kar’s criticism was justified and expressed shock at the reactions.
Eventually, Mr. Kavian Sadeghzadeh issued a public apology to Dr. Kar, asked that previous comments and links be removed, and invited her to speak at a future conference in Chicago. Subsequently, the video of the speech and online discussions were removed, leaving no visible trace of the debate.
Statements by Kent Bowers
Kent Bowers, Secretary of the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States, issued a statement condemning the harsh criticism directed at Dr. Kar. He discouraged conflict and urged Bahá’ís to clarify that acceptance of this principle is rooted in faith, even if its rationale is not fully understood. He emphasized that women’s exclusion does not imply male superiority and expressed sympathy toward Dr. Kar for the insults she received.
Views of Raha Sabet
In a detailed essay titled “Táhirih or Táhirihs,” Raha Sabet praised Dr. Kar’s research but suggested that the question of women’s membership in the Universal House of Justice might depend on future developments or even a future revelation. Implicitly, she deferred the possibility to an undefined time, potentially centuries away.
Touraj Amini’s Historical Critique
Historian Touraj Amini reopened the debate in his article “Imaginary Táhirih, Real Táhirihs.” He attributed Dr. Kar’s critique to misreadings of Bábí history and feminist ideology, arguing that the issue is among the complex and unresolved questions of divine religions. He even questioned Táhirih’s identification as a Bahá’í figure.
Participants’ Views and Final Remarks
Many participants in the debate failed to provide a logical answer to Dr. Kar’s question or misunderstood it entirely. The core issue, as argued here, is not symbolic representation but discrimination and inconsistency between the proclaimed principle of equality of men and women and its exceptions in practice.
Conclusion
The issue of women’s exclusion from the Universal House of Justice reveals a profound and controversial challenge within the Bahá’í community. Dr. Mehrangiz Kar’s remarks during the bicentenary of Táhirih Qurrat al-‘Ayn brought longstanding gender concerns to the forefront. While some scholars seek historical explanations, Dr. Kar’s critique underscores persistent discrimination. The range of reactions highlights internal tensions and the urgent need for dialogue, reassessment, and deeper analysis of women’s rights and roles within Bahá’í institutions. Achieving genuine gender equality appears to require critical re-evaluation of past interpretations and policies.
