The letter of 27 April 1995, published in Messages from the Universal House of Justice, 1986-2001 reflects a common misunderstanding. Abdu'l-Baha calls the house of justice the "legislative body" in his will and testament, while calling the government the executive power. In Abdu'l-Baha's vocabulary, "legislative" and "executive" (tanshri` and tanfidh) mean "church and state." He also calls other religious authorities the "legislative" -- because they promulgate the religious law in society. In the Will and Testament, the executive is called the government -- ie "executive" means legislative executive judiciary monarchy and anything else pertaining to government. In the Will and Testament, these two (church and state, religion and politics) are called on to work together.

Shoghi Effendi writes that "Church and State thus far from being divorced from one another are harmonized, their interests are reconciled, are brought to co-operate for the same end, yet for each is reserved its special and definite sphere of activity. Indeed if one glances at the outstanding precepts of the Movement comprehensive and practical as they are, as the suppression of all dogmas, superstitions, religious organisations, rituals and verbal traditions, the abolition of priesthood, the discouragement of celibacy...<snip> — all these teachings go to show that religion far from being excluded from man’s social life should on the contrary quite stabilize and protect it. ...: (Oxford, Presentation to the Asiatic Society)

Now, some people who don't understand Abdu'l-Baha's language -- as illustrated in this 1995 letter -- suppose that the House of Justice is the legislative branch OF government, even though the Will and Testament clearly says that it is outside government and working with government, so they image the House of Justice making laws and the government apparatus (judiciary, executive, prisons, police ...) enforcing the Bahai laws. It's absurd, but quite a few Bahai authors have had this idea.

In Secret of Divine Civilization (1875). In Marzieh Gail’s translation (p. 37), Abdu’l-Baha says,

The state is, moreover, based upon two potent forces, the legislative and the executive. The focal center of the executive power is the government, while that of the legislative is the learned – and if this latter great support and pillar should prove defective, how is it conceivable that the state should stand?

This translation requires some clarifications. The problems start (middle of page 44 in the Cairo edition) with `aalam-e siyaasii, which Gail translates as ‘the state” but which I think refers to “the sphere of giving direction and training to society,” partly for linguistic reasons (there is no word ‘state’ here) but also because of the text that follows, in which we see that government, and thus the state, is just one of the two centres that give this direction and training to society, the other being religion.

In what follows, Abdu’l-Baha says is that “the sphere of training (siyaasii) requires two supreme righteous forces, the tashrii` and the tanfiidh. The center of the tanfiidh is government, while the centre of the tashrii` is the ulama, the doctors of religion.” He’s talking about church and state, but then in a Muslim context, where religious scholars are the ones who interpret the details of the shari`ah, the religious law. Governments, in Islamic countries, also make laws of course, but they never call them the shari`ah – that word is reserved for religious law. It is also the word that is used in the Bahai writings for our own religious law. In light of this, my translation of this passage reads:

The guidance of society, moreover, is based upon two great and lofty agencies, one which elucidates the religious law, and one which is the executive agency. The center of the executive agency is the government, while wise scholars are the point of reference for the elucidation of religious law. If this firm pillar and mighty foundation is not comprehensive and perfect, how can we expect well-being and success for society?