some questions
Rick Boatright
post replies which attack the poster. Neither will we post responses that simply say
"You're wrong." We ask that the community of belivers rise to the challenge of
answering these. Thanks. Mods. ]
I am deeply moved by Bahai beliefs and writings. But no matter how much I
feel there is real wisdom and depth here,or how uplifting much of the
material is I find myself always faced by the same set of questions.
My intention is not to call into question the beliefs of the Bahai Faith.
I know too well that every religion has its own set of
hard-to-explain-or-swallow material.
IMHO, the more the followers try to ignore such questions the more
strained the religion that is passed on to the next generation (an obvious
example is the state that Islam is in these days , with centuries of
forced belief)
We may not ask certain questions but our children's children will. It
is better to question independently rather than have the everything
'brought into question'.
In this spirit, and in the spirit of Independent Investigation of Truth,
and also in the hope that reasonable answers may be offerred by someone
who has thought along these lines, I am respectfully bringing up the
points below.
1)How is it that the Bab not only never recognized the station of
Bahaullah but instead had nominated Subh-i-Azal,Bahaullah's half-brother
as his successor.
2)Worse, Subh-i-Azal claimed for himself the station which Bahaullah had
claimed or would claim later
I mean if the Bab himself fails to recognize the Truth what chance do
others have?
It is bizarre that subh-i-azal,who was presumably understood by the Bab to
be at least someone extraordinary ,went 'bad' and made a false claim !
3)History repeats itself in asimilar way with Abdul Baha and his
half-brother. Again,this half-brother was also given some lofty titles by
Bahaullah himself. Great bitterness all around
4)History kind of repeats itself yet once again, with the succession
problems of Shoghi Effendi. This is particularly weird because Abdul Baha
had made a lot of how Baha Faith was different because there would always
be a clear chain of succession. IMHO, it is impossible to consider the
succession as being anywhere near clear. It would definitely seem that all
bahais are effectively covenant breakers.
5)Related to the above is that people extremely close to abdul baha and
shoghi effendi (like his parents I think) have been declared covenant
breakers. This is so odd coming from a religion which teaches a new level
of tolerance and unity etc (which is all extremely good, of course but it
needs to get practiced at home!)
I mean these were family members who had been thorugh all sorts of
miserable times with abdul baha etc, and if these people can be
'excommunicated' how fragile is the relationship of others going to be?
One of the really nice things about the Faith seemed to be that it
considers what are felt to be 'human essentials' (such as a person's
nature.love etc) much more important than the DETAILS of the person's
beliefs. But in this case, it is because of the details that the closest
people are effectively excommunicated.
6) This trend of intolerance continues to this day with some very active
bahais (including one,I believe,who had written one of the first
translations of bahai texts) getting declared covenant breakers for one
reason or another.
I think Bahais really need to be honest to themselves and to confront such
issues head on. Would love to get responses!
best regards,
al
Suzanne Gerstner
You seem to have some already formed conclusions you are working from which
are patently false. For instance, you say:
> 1)How is it that the Bab not only never recognized the station of
> Bahaullah but instead had nominated Subh-i-Azal,Bahaullah's half-brother
> as his successor.
You say that the Bab never recognized the station of Baha'u'llah. What
makes you think so? There is *so much* information about the Bab
recognizing Baha'u'llah that it's *way* beyond the scope of this little
posting to repeat it all, but let me repeat to you the story which is
mentioned in the Dawnbreakers of how Baha'u'llah came to accept the Message
of the Bab, and the effect this acceptance had on the Bab Himself, as well
as on Mulla Husayn -- His messenger. As soon as all the Letters of the
Living were assembled they dispersed to teach the new Faith, and the first
one to believe in the Bab, Mulla Husayn, was sent to Teheren with an
extremely important mission. The Bab told him that there was a hidden
mystery in that city which he was to find. Here are the words the Bab spoke
to Mulla Husayn, as mentioned in the Dawnbreakers:
"To Mulla Husayn, as the hour of his departure approached, the Bab
addressed these words: "Grieve not that you have not been chosen to
accompany Me on My pilgrimage to Hijaz. I shall, instead, direct your steps
to that city which enshrines a Mystery of such transcendent holiness as
neither Hijaz [i.e. Muhammad] nor Shiraz [i.e. the Bab] can hope to
rival..." (The Dawnbreakers Pages 66-67)
In Teheran, Mulla Husayn inquired of someone there if there was someone who
matched the description of the One he was looking for. He said:
"Tell me," further enquired Mulla Husayn, "is there to-day among the family
of the late Mirza Buzurg-i-Nuri, who was so renowned for his character, his
charm, and artistic and intellectual attainments, anyone who has proved
himself capable of maintaining the high traditions of that illustrious
house?" "Yea," I replied, "among his sons now living, one has distinguished
Himself by the very traits which characterised His father. By His virtuous
life, His high attainments, His loving-kindness and liberality, He has
proved Himself a noble descendant of a noble father." "What is His
occupation?" he asked me. "He cheers the disconsolate and feeds the hungry,"
I replied. "What of His rank and position?" "He has none," I said, "apart
from befriending the poor and the stranger." "What is His name?" "
Husayn-'Ali." "In which of the scripts of His father does He excel?" "His
favourite script is shikastih-nasta'liq." "How does He spend His time?" "He
roams the woods and delights in the beauties of the countryside."(1) "What
is His age?" "Eight and twenty." The eagerness with which Mulla Husayn
questioned me, and the sense of delight with which he welcomed every
particular I gave him, greatly surprised me. Turning to me, with his face
beaming with satisfaction and joy, he once more enquired: "I presume you
often meet Him?" "I frequently visit His home," I replied. "Will you," he
said, "deliver into His hands a trust from me?" "Most assuredly," was my
reply. He then gave me a scroll wrapped in a piece of cloth, and requested
me to hand it to Him the next day at the hour of dawn. "Should He deign to
answer me," he added, "will you be kind enough to acquaint me with His
reply. I received the scroll from him and, at break of day, arose to carry
out his desire.
"`As I approached the house of Baha'u'llah, I recognised His brother Mirza
Musa, who was standing at the gate, and to whom I communicated the object of
my visit. He went into the house and soon reappeared bearing a message of
welcome. I was ushered into His presence, and presented the scroll to Mirza
Musa, who laid it before Baha'u'llah. He bade us both be seated. Unfolding
the scroll, He glanced at its contents and began to read aloud to us certain
of its passages. I sat enraptured as I listened to the sound of His voice
and the sweetness of its melody. He had read a page of the scroll when,
turning to His brother, He said: " Musa, what have you to say? Verily I say,
whoso believes in the Qur'an and recognises its Divine origin, and yet
hesitates, though it be for a moment, to admit that these soul-stirring
words are endowed with the same regenerating power, has most assuredly erred
in his judgment and has strayed far from the path of justice." He spoke no
more. Dismissing me from His presence, He charged me to take to Mulla
Husayn, as a gift from Him, a loaf of Russian sugar and a package of tea,(1)
and to convey to him the expression of His appreciation and love.
"`I arose and, filled with joy, hastened back to Mulla Husayn, and
delivered to him the gift and message of Baha'u'llah. With what joy and
exultation he received them from me! Words fail me to describe the intensity
of his emotion. He started to his feet, received with bowed head the gift
from my hand, and fervently kissed it. He then took me in his arms, kissed
my eyes, and said: "My dearly beloved friend! I pray that even as you have
rejoiced my heart, God may grant you eternal felicity and fill your heart
with imperishable gladness." I was amazed at the behaviour of Mulla Husayn.
What could be, I thought to myself, the nature of the bond that unites these
two souls? What could have kindled so fervid a fellowship in their hearts?
Why should Mulla Husayn, in whose sight the pomp and circumstance of royalty
were the merest trifle, have evinced such gladness at the sight of so
inconsiderable a gift from the hands of Baha'u'llah? I was puzzled by this
thought and could not unravel its mystery...." (The Dawnbreakers: Pages
105-107)
Baha'u'llah went immediately to His native province of Nur and began
teaching the Faith of the Bab with enormous success, and Mulla Husayn wrote
to the Bab and told Him about His conversion to the Faith and His
activities. Here is a report of how that news was received by the Bab:
"I have heard Mirza Ahmad relate the following: "The Bab's maternal uncle
himself described to me the circumstances
attending the receipt of Mulla Husayn's letter by the Bab: `That night I saw
such evidences of joy and gladness on the faces of the Bab and of Quddus as
I am unable to describe. I often heard the Bab, in those days, exultingly
repeat the words, "How marvellous, how exceedingly marvellous, is that which
has occurred between the months of Jamadi and Rajab!" As He was reading the
communication addressed to Him by Mulla Husayn, He turned to Quddus and,
showing him certain passages of that letter, explained the reason for His
joyous expressions of surprise. I, for my part, remained completely unaware
of the nature of that explanation.'"
Mirza Ahmad, upon whom the account of this incident had produced a profound
impression, was determined to fathom its mystery. "Not until I met Mulla
Husayn in Shiraz," he told me, "was I able to satisfy my curiosity. When I
repeated to him the account described to me by the Bab's uncle, he smiled
and said how well he remembered that
between the months of Jamadi and Rajab he chanced to be in Tihran. He gave
no further explanation, and contented himself with this brief remark. This
was sufficient, however, to convince me that in the city of Tihran there lay
hidden a Mystery which, when revealed to the world, would bring unspeakable
joy to the hearts of both the Bab and Quddus."
The references in Mulla Husayn's letter to Baha'u'llah's immediate response
to the Divine Message, to the vigorous campaign which He had boldly
initiated in Nur, and to the marvellous success which had attended His
efforts, cheered and gladdened the Bab, and reinforced His confidence in the
ultimate victory of His Cause. He felt assured that if now He were to fall
suddenly a victim to the tyranny of His foes and depart from this world, the
Cause which He had revealed would live; would, under the direction of
Baha'u'llah, continue to develop and flourish, and would yield eventually
its choicest fruit. The master-hand of Baha'u'llah would steer its course,
and the pervading influence of His love would establish it in the hearts of
men. Such a conviction fortified His spirit and filled Him with hope. From
that moment His fears of the imminence of peril or danger entirely forsook
Him. Phoenix-like He welcomed with joy the fire of adversity, and gloried in
the glow and heat of its flame." (The Dawnbreakers page 128)
I believe that you have been receiving your Baha'i "history" from a website
of the enemies of the Faith. What would the history of Christianity have
looked like if it's history was written up by its enemies (Jews and/or
Romans) 150 years after Christ's passing? A bit distorted? Would they
have glorified the station of Christ or try to make it look like He was
basically idiotic in what He did? If you wanted to learn the true history
of the early Christians, you would have to read it from Christians. I
would suggest you read some of the legitimate Baha'i history to learn the
truth. There was a Baha'i chronicler, Nabil, living at the time when this
history was all unfolding, and he wrote a thick history about it all. We
are not in doubt about our history. We are not afraid of asking questions,
openly and honestly, but we just know way more than you do about the truth
of Azal and Baha'u'llah, and our own history.
Kind regards,
Suzanne
Suzanne Gerstner
I've already answered your first question (at least in part), but I am
still mulling over your posting. The answers to all of your questions are
in the Writings of our Faith. There are also many thick histories written
by Baha'is which beautifully explain the answer to all that you have asked.
These are not such difficult to explain questions as you seem to think, and
they are not questions which Baha'is have avoided thinking about or asking.
There is a very large volume of history, The Covenant of Baha'u'llah by Adib
Taherzadeh, which answers all of these questions and much, much more.
However, forgive me for saying so, but you have obviously believed
unquestioning the lies of the enemies of the Faith without ever even looking
into the Baha'i side.
History is a slippery thing. You weren't there and I wasn't either. So how
do we know who to believe? You can believe without questioning them the
claims of the enemies of our Faith. And I believe in my religion with all
my heart, and therefore, I take as truth whatever the Bab, Baha'ullah,
'Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi, and/or the Universal House of Justice has said
happened. This is my standpoint. I didn't come to this standpoint blindly,
however. I came through a deep investigation of truth.
So when there are two different versions of history, and both claim to be
the truth, and both are diametrically opposed to one another, how does one
sort out who is right? How does one separate out lies and slander from
truth; how can one separate the light from darkness?
Jesus Christ gave us a test in order to tell a true prophet from a false
one. He said that you can know a true one by way of His fruits. Here's
the quote:
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but
inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do
men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree
bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A
good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring
forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn
down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."
Matthew (7:15-20)
You started your posting by saying:
> I am deeply moved by Bahai beliefs and writings.
These are good fruits. The fruits of Baha'u'llah are numerous. Some of
them are the beauty and perfection of His character, and the effect He had
on those who came in contact with Him (even His enemies); the penetrating
power of His words; the transformation of the hearts of those who come in
contact with His Writings; the influence His teachings have on people's
thoughts and actions; the eloquence of His utterance; the validity of the
statements He made about the future; His long-suffering in the face of
constant persecutions; His ability to unite people of every race and creed;
the steady growth of the community of His followers; the courage and
exquisite qualities of those who joyfully gave their lives for His Cause;
the magnificence of His administrative order; the way the world is moving
towards the social principles He proclaimed; the way the principles of His
Faith are becoming universally accepted; and the power of His Covenant,
which will protect this Faith from splitting into sects. Here's a website
where more of the fruits of Baha'u'llah can be explored: www.bahai.org.
Please could you show us some of the fruits of Sub-i-Azal? Where are his
millions of followers, and what great things are they doing in the world?
Where are his writings? Do they even exist anymore? The only thing which
is left of him that I know of, are the lies which he spread about
Baha'u'llah, which have been eagerly taken up by the enemies of the Faith in
order to discredit Baha'u'llah.
Kind regards,
Suzanne
Roger Reini
I would disagree that the Bab never recognized the station of
Baha'u'llah. For one thing, He directed Mulla Husayn to take a Tablet
to Tehran, a Tablet which eventually ended up with Baha'u'llah. For
another, He bestowed the title "Baha" upon Baha'u'llah. For yet
another thing, He explicitly mentioned Baha'u'llah by name in the
Bayan: "Well is it with him who fixeth his gaze upon the Order of
Baha'u'llah, and rendereth thanks unto his Lord. For He will
assuredly be made manifest. God hath indeed irrevocably ordained it in
the Bayan."
I would also disagree with the contention that Azal (Mirza Yahya) was
the Bab's successor. That word implies authority that he didn't have.
As I understand it, Azal was merely named the ostensible head of the
Babi community to draw attention away from Baha'u'llah, Who had not
yet declared His mission but was recognized as a prominent Babi. The
appointment of Azal would last until the advent of "Him whom God shall
make manifest" (i.e., Baha'u'llah).
>
>2)Worse, Subh-i-Azal claimed for himself the station which Bahaullah had
>claimed or would claim later
>I mean if the Bab himself fails to recognize the Truth what chance do
>others have?
>It is bizarre that subh-i-azal,who was presumably understood by the Bab to
>be at least someone extraordinary ,went 'bad' and made a false claim !
Had Azal remained faithful to the Covenant, perhaps he could have been
someone who provided exemplary service to the Faith. But he broke the
Covenant.
>
>3)History repeats itself in asimilar way with Abdul Baha and his
>half-brother. Again,this half-brother was also given some lofty titles by
>Bahaullah himself. Great bitterness all around
Again, had Mirza Muhammad Ali remained faithful, he may very well have
been noted for his service. But he broke the Covenant.
>
>4)History kind of repeats itself yet once again, with the succession
>problems of Shoghi Effendi. This is particularly weird because Abdul Baha
>had made a lot of how Baha Faith was different because there would always
>be a clear chain of succession. IMHO, it is impossible to consider the
>succession as being anywhere near clear. It would definitely seem that all
>bahais are effectively covenant breakers.
No, the succession of authority is indeed clear. Baha'u'llah
established the Universal House of Justice. He also established the
line of authority from Himself to 'Abdu'l-Baha, Who in turn
established the authority of Shoghi Effendi.
The situation caused by the death of Shoghi Effendi was not explicitly
called out in the Writings. It therefore fell to the Universal House
of Justice to rule on the matter, and when it was constituted, it
ruled that there was no way to appoint a successor to Shoghi Effendi.
Those Baha'is who submit to the authority of the Universal House of
Justice, a body established by Baha'u'llah Himself, are indeed
faithful to the Covenant of Baha'u'llah.
Roger Reini (ro...@rreini.com)
Anne Furlong
The questions you have raised are important. I'd like to give you my understanding of
the issues they raise, and then very briefly address the question of why Baha'is don't
spend a lot of time talking about them.
> 1)How is it that the Bab not only never recognized the station of
> Bahaullah but instead had nominated Subh-i-Azal,Bahaullah's half-brother
> as his successor.
The station of "successor" is not always well understood. After all, while one could
make the case that Simon Peter is the "successor" of Jesus, no one would claim that Jesus
had indicated that Peter was the "Comforter" whom God would send after Jesus had ascended
to the Father. In the same way, while Subh-i-Azal was indeed given the responsibility of
caring for and leading the Babi community after the martyrdom of the Bab -- and while he
and some others certainly interpreted this as meaning that the Bab had identified
Subh-i-Azal as the One Whom God would make manifest -- in fact nothing of the sort was
intended. An attentive reading of the numerous Writings of the Bab, concerning the
Promised One, makes clear that even before His martyrdom, the Bab was indicating that
Baha'u'llah was His successor in the Greater Covenant. As several posters have
mentioned, there's a lot of material about this time in Baha'i history, and for the best
understanding of the evidence you should really go to as many books as you can find on
the subject. You should also glance at the writings of Subh-i-Azal on the subject, and
at what Baha'u'llah has written, and judge for yourself.
> 2)Worse, Subh-i-Azal claimed for himself the station which Bahaullah had
> claimed or would claim later
> I mean if the Bab himself fails to recognize the Truth what chance do
> others have?
> It is bizarre that subh-i-azal,who was presumably understood by the Bab to
> be at least someone extraordinary ,went 'bad' and made a false claim !
As I've mentioned, there's no evidence that the Bab made an erroneous choice. There are
many reasons why the Manifestations of God act, speak and write as they do, and surely
part of the reason that Subh-i-Azal was named to lead the Baha'i community was to bring
his character into a position where it could be closely scrutinised. In the event, his
behaviour -- including his claims to prophethood -- was also a test for the believers.
As the Writings put it:
"Were it not for the cold, how would the heat of Thy words prevail, O Expounder of the
Worlds?
"Were it not for calamit, how would the sun of Thy patience shine, O Light of the
worlds?"
and
"But for the tribulations which are sustained in Thy path, how could Thy true lovers be
recognized...?"
Beyond these considerations, you should also bear in mind that each of us has free will
-- the ability to recognise God and His Manifestations, and accept their revelation and
ordinances -- which means that each of us can "go bad", no matter how extraordinary we
may be. Furthermore, even the Manifestations of God cannot control the choices of Their
followers; otherwise, we'd have to blame Jesus for the atrocities of those who claimed to
love and follow Him.
> 3)History repeats itself in asimilar way with Abdul Baha and his
> half-brother. Again,this half-brother was also given some lofty titles by
> Bahaullah himself. Great bitterness all around
You are correct in pointing out the "cyclical" nature of this kind of behaviour. And
it's no accident that similar events occur at the passing of each of the Central Figures
of the Faith. It's at these times that the believers' devotion to the Covenant is
tested. In some cases, they are tested by their ambitions and desires for power -- such
believers may declare themselves the next Manifestation, or the next Master, or the next
Guardian. In other cases, the believers are tested by their responses to these claims --
which are always made, by the way, in direct contradiction to the explicit and authentic
written directions of the One Who has passed away.
So, for instance, upon the death of Baha'u'llah (and, indeed, while He was still living),
members of His family succumbed to the temptation to declare themselves His co-equals, or
to presume upon their familial relationship with Him for their own power or glory or
aggrandisement. Others, upon His death, attempted to re-interpret (or even disregard)
His own Will and Testament (the Kitab-i-Ahd) and contested 'Abdu'l-Baha's succession.
Still others worked to subvert 'Abdu'l-Baha's authority or to counter His influence among
the friends, and among the government.
All of these betrayals -- by those whom They loved and had often protected -- were great
sorrows to the Bab, Baha'u'llah, 'Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi. If you read through
the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha, you can't help but be struck, and heartbroken, by
the suffering which the Master has undergone at the hands of those who were, ostensibly,
closest to Him. The same is true of all the Central Figures of the Faith, all of Whom
were cruelly hurt by those whom They had grown up with, and who were Their closest kin.
> 4)History kind of repeats itself yet once again, with the succession
> problems of Shoghi Effendi. This is particularly weird because Abdul Baha
> had made a lot of how Baha Faith was different because there would always
> be a clear chain of succession. IMHO, it is impossible to consider the
> succession as being anywhere near clear. It would definitely seem that all
> bahais are effectively covenant breakers.
The succession is clear -- if you read the Will and Testament, you shouldn't have much
doubt whom 'Abdu'l-Baha has in mind, since He explicitly names Shoghi Effendi several
times -- but the faithfulness of the believers has been less than perfect. None of the
Central Figures of the Faith ever claimed that the Baha'i Faith would be free of
Covenant-breakers -- in fact, all explicitly warned that such spiritually corrosive
influences would assail the Faith and the believers. What all claimed, and what has been
true, was that these assaults would not splinter the Baha'i Faith into competing and
equally authoritative sects, as had happened with every previous Revelation.
Consider for a moment: why are Christians so divided? After all, if it were simply a
matter of choosing the ONE denomination or sect which was clearly the most authoritative,
or the only valid one, then all Christians would be united. The fact is, though, that
for varying reasons, all the denominations have some claim to validity and authority --
and these reasons are theological, historical and eschatological. People choose the
Christian denomination they will belong to or identify with precisely because they
believe that this denomination is the most valid or authoritative (in the sense of being
most closely identical to the "church" which Jesus founded).
The same is true for Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism and so forth: and no disrespect
is intended in any case. It is a fact that the "competing" sects all have some grounds
on which to make the case that they (alone) are most closely identical with the
intentions of the Founder.
However, no such case exists in the Baha'i Faith. There are groups of people who call
themselves Baha'is, but the grounds on which they claim validity in effect cut them off
from the body of the believers. For that reason, they can claim no authority on textual
grounds (since the Writings do not support them), and so usually they will claim to have
discovered "hidden" or "esoteric" or "higher" meanings in the Writings they do refer to.
But there are no "schools" of the Baha'i Faith. The promise of Baha'u'llah and the Bab
has been kept, and the Baha'i community is in fact one, and undivided. This is not
because of any superiority of spirituality on the part of the Baha'is, but purely the
result of the protection of the Covenant, and of the believers' devotion to it.
> 5)Related to the above is that people extremely close to abdul baha and
> shoghi effendi (like his parents I think) have been declared covenant
> breakers. This is so odd coming from a religion which teaches a new level
> of tolerance and unity etc (which is all extremely good, of course but it
> needs to get practiced at home!)
> I mean these were family members who had been thorugh all sorts of
> miserable times with abdul baha etc, and if these people can be
> 'excommunicated' how fragile is the relationship of others going to be?
> One of the really nice things about the Faith seemed to be that it
> considers what are felt to be 'human essentials' (such as a person's
> nature.love etc) much more important than the DETAILS of the person's
> beliefs. But in this case, it is because of the details that the closest
> people are effectively excommunicated.
As I mentioned above, the families of the Central Figures were often the most tempted to
take advantage of their (accidental) relationship; and their being declared
Covenant-breakers was not the result of quibbling over "details", but in fact of steady,
long-term, and corrosive opposition to the named successor -- whether that successor was
Baha'u'llah, 'Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi. If anything, all (that is, Baha'u'llah,
'Abdu'l-Baha and the Guardian) did Their best to win the hearts of those in Their
families who opposed Them; They treated them with kindness and forbearance, and it was
only after the unity of the entire community was threatened that They took action.
Furthermore, that action was always public, and the process was transparent. There was,
and is no secrecy about the process of being declared a Covenant-breaker, though details
are always kept confidential out of respect for the individuals involved. [These
individuals may disclose the details if they feel moved to do so; but the House of
Justice -- which is the only institution with the authority to declare a person a
Covenant-breaker -- does not make the details public, since that would amount at the
least to backbiting, and could be construed as character assassination.] Furthermore,
since the "penalties" connected to being so declared are spiritual ones, then there is no
point in "airing" other people's laundry (dirty or otherwise). No Baha'i may act or
speak against Covenant-breakers, though he or she may not contact them either.
Finally, let me point out that our family connections are, literally, accidents of
birth. While I come from an Irish Catholic background, and am clearly intimately related
to the people of my family (and dearly love them, too, by the way), my reality is not
genetic or material, but spiritual. In that sense, I am at least as closely related to
those who, like me, have declared faith in Baha'u'llah, and who work in His Cause. The
family members who betrayed Baha'u'llah or 'Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi were
genetically related to Them, but clearly they were spiritually divided.
> 6) This trend of intolerance continues to this day with some very active
> bahais (including one,I believe,who had written one of the first
> translations of bahai texts) getting declared covenant breakers for one
> reason or another.
As I mentioned, the process of being declared a Covenant-breaker is a very long one; in
some cases, decades pass, during which the afflicted soul is counselled, prayed for, and
lovingly guided. Only in the face of continued, and disunifying behaviour that strikes
at the Covenant itself are individuals "excommunicated" -- and then only by the Universal
House of Justice.
In fact, if you look at an average Baha'i community, you'll find both great diversity and
rather stunning unity at the same time. All Baha'is are devoted and loyal to the same
Prophet-Founders, the same Master, the same Guardian, the same House of Justice; all
Baha'is accept the truth of the same body of Writings; all Baha'is strive to deepen in a
unified understanding of these texts. However, individual interpretations differ widely,
and the range of understanding is in fact one of the great resources of the Baha'i
community, a resource we are still learning how to explore and use.
All that being said, is there intolerance in the Baha'i community? Of a sort, yes, and
one we do not want to get rid of. Baha'is are necessarily intolerant -- in themselves,
primarily -- of all those things that tend to create or aggravate disunity. We are also
intolerant, but not individually, of those forces and individuals who oppose and would
try to destroy the Covenant. The institutions express that intolerance; not, however,
through authoritarian tub-thumping, but through long-term, loving, and persistent
guidance, counselling and prayer. Only as the very last resort, when the process has
failed to persuade the individuals involved to alter their relationship to the
authorities of the Faith, and only when these people have demonstrated their enmity to
the Covenant, are they declared Covenant-breakers. It's why, in fact, there are so few
Covenant-breakers in the world... not because there aren't lots of people with wonky
understandings of the Faith, but because the standards for being declared a
Covenant-breaker are so stringent.
> I think Bahais really need to be honest to themselves and to confront such
> issues head on. Would love to get responses!
I agree with you on this last point, by the way. The more that Baha'is deepen in their
understanding of the Covenant -- and one of the best ways of doing so is to read and
study the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha -- the better they will understand the
nature of the Covenant, and be able to respond fruitfully to questions such as yours.
So why don't we spend more time talking about these specific issues? Briefly, because if
we study and deepen in the Covenant, then all these questions are addressed in the course
of our study. And we learn to leave the authority for such decisions with the Universal
House of Justice, and concentrate on working to bring about the world which Baha'u'llah
envisioned.
Regards,
Anne Furlong
afur...@upei.ca
Charlottetown, PEI, Canada
Craig Koller
Anne Furlong <afur...@upei.ca> wrote:
> Dear Al,
>
> The questions you have raised are important. I'd like to give you my
> understanding of
> the issues they raise, and then very briefly address the question of why
> Baha'is don't
> spend a lot of time talking about them.
[Sorry for hitchhiking onto your post, Anne - I couldn't find Al's
original...]>
>
> > 1)How is it that the Bab not only never recognized the station of
> > Bahaullah but instead had nominated Subh-i-Azal,Bahaullah's half-brother
> > as his successor.
I think the old addage, "A wise man keeps his friends close and his
enemies closer," might apply. Who knows what the wisdom was in
appointing Azal, when it seemed apparent from the onset that he was not
equipped to honorably handle the responsibility.
The result was that Baha'u'llah survived and the Faith flourished, and
Azal died comparitively alone on Cypress. For all we know, Azal may have
been a psychologically sacrificial lamb...
> > 2)Worse, Subh-i-Azal claimed for himself the station which Bahaullah had
> > claimed or would claim later
> > I mean if the Bab himself fails to recognize the Truth what chance do
> > others have?
> > It is bizarre that subh-i-azal,who was presumably understood by the Bab to
> > be at least someone extraordinary ,went 'bad' and made a false claim !
>
Look at the behavior of Christ's disciples. The closest of His followers
and you had doubt, denial and betrayal. Does that diminish the station
of Jesus?
>
>
> > 3)History repeats itself in asimilar way with Abdul Baha and his
> > half-brother. Again,this half-brother was also given some lofty titles by
> > Bahaullah himself. Great bitterness all around
Again, it's not ours to judge. I'm sure a great many of us might crack
under the pressure of being so close to greatness while we ourselves
remain all too petty, selfish and, dare I say it ... human.
>
> > 5)Related to the above is that people extremely close to abdul baha and
> > shoghi effendi (like his parents I think) have been declared covenant
> > breakers. This is so odd coming from a religion which teaches a new level
> > of tolerance and unity etc (which is all extremely good, of course but it
> > needs to get practiced at home!)
> > I mean these were family members who had been thorugh all sorts of
> > miserable times with abdul baha etc, and if these people can be
> > 'excommunicated' how fragile is the relationship of others going to be?
> > One of the really nice things about the Faith seemed to be that it
> > considers what are felt to be 'human essentials' (such as a person's
> > nature.love etc) much more important than the DETAILS of the person's
> > beliefs. But in this case, it is because of the details that the closest
> > people are effectively excommunicated.
If protecting family meant hurting believers, I think it's obvious what
the honorable decision was, and from all I've read this caused more pain
and suffering to the Baha'i Central Figures than we'll ever fully
appreciate.
> > 6) This trend of intolerance continues to this day with some very active
> > bahais (including one,I believe,who had written one of the first
> > translations of bahai texts) getting declared covenant breakers for one
> > reason or another.
>
IIRC, it's because he sided with 'Abdu'l-Baha'is half brother after the
passing of Baha'u'llah. Patience and tolerance are enjoined on all
believers, but at the point where an individual can no longer be
reached, and his/her actions threaten to destroy countless others,
strict measures need to be taken. Nobody enjoys this, I'm sure, and the
door is always open for the wayward to return.
Comparitively speaking, such treatment is pretty mild when you look at
what schisms brought about in the way of intrigue and bloodshed during
the formative years of the previous world's religions.
> > I think Bahais really need to be honest to themselves and to confront such
> > issues head on. Would love to get responses!
>
Not a year goes by that I'm not compelled by my own sense of justice to
dig deeper into these and other challenges/questions. Right now, I'm
drilling down into the Islamic refusal to acknowledge any successor to
Muhammad or the Qur'an.
It deepens my faith in the Faith. So it's all good...
--
--
Craig Koller <cwko...@earthlink.net>
Sizwe Cawe
Rick Boatright asks:
:::1)How is it that the Bab not only never recognized the station of
:::Bahaullah but instead had nominated Subh-i-Azal,Bahaullah's half-brother
:::as his successor.
Dear Rick
Why does your name sound very familiar?
[Rick is the moderator that posted the message, not the
author. The author's name is Al. -Mod]
Anyway, concerning your question above, I would like to know why you assert
that the Bab 'never recognised the station of Baha'u'llah'? The Writings of
the Bab make numerous allusions to Baha'u'llah as One Whom God shall make
manifest. These are readily available - have you not read them? If you are
asking, why the Bab did not openly say that Mirza Husayn Ali was Him Whom
God shall make manifest, I think the answer to that one is that it pleased
His Holiness the Bab not to do so. Perusal of the Kitab-i-Iqan may give you
all the insight you need. One of the primary reasons for the apparent
ambiguity is that it should be possible that:
"the blessed be distinguished from the miserable, and the transgressor from
the God-fearing."
(Baha'u'llah: The Kitab-i-Iqan, Page: 80).
More prosaically, we know that the Bab considered Himself subordinate to Him
Whom God shall make manifest and would it therefore have been rather amiss
for the Lesser to appoint the Greater to any position whatsoever. Besides,
we need not confuse the station of "successor to the Bab" with the more
exalted station of "Him Whom God shall make manifest". These two stations
are not the same - even Subh-i-Azal recognised this, hence he made his claim
to the latter station after Baha'u'llah Himself had made this claim. You
know, I think that the successor to Moses was not of the same rank as Moses
and the successor to Christ (Peter) was certainly not of the same rank as
Christ and the successors to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) were not of the
same rank as the Prophet Himself. (In our cycle, Abdu'l-Baha ranks far lower
than His Father Whom He succeeded). On this basis we can reasonably infer
that Azal was at best equal in rank to the Bab but more probably of lesser
rank. Since, as pointed out above, the Bab considered Himself subordinate to
Him Whom God will make manifest, then it follows that mere appointment to
'successor' does not even begin to imply that the 'successor to the Bab' is
Him Whom God shall make manifest.
:::2)Worse, Subh-i-Azal claimed for himself the station which Bahaullah had
:::claimed or would claim later
:::I mean if the Bab himself fails to recognize the Truth what chance do
:::others have?
:::It is bizarre that subh-i-azal,who was presumably understood by the Bab
to
:::be at least someone extraordinary ,went 'bad' and made a false claim !***
It is true that Subh-i-Azal made the same claim as Baha'u'llah. Indeed Azal
was not the only other claimant - according to Balyuzi (Baha'u'llah: The
King of Glory) there were at least 20 such claimants. Nabil, the historian,
was one of them! Some of these claimants (including Nabil) had the spiritual
insight and purity of heart to recognise their error and went penitent to
Baha'u'llah and were forgiven.
If it is true that the Bab failed to recognise the Truth then the Bab
Himself was a lying impostor and we need not bother about anything He said
about His own Revelation and even less about what He had to say about Him
Whom God shall make manifest. We cannot have it both ways. If we make the
above assumption then we certainly have to reject any claims by Subh-i-Azal
based on anything said by the Bab.
I have no reason to presume that the Bab understood Subh-i-Azal to be "at
least someone extraordinary". Have you any grounds for making that
presumption? Suppose the "someone extraordinary" presumption holds water,
then there are two possibilities: Azal was extraordinary in his spiritual
acumen or extraordinary in his opacity. take your choice!
Azal was not the only person to 'go bad' as you put it. The Faith is
littered with such persons - Baha'u'llah's amanuensis of forty years (Aqa
Jan) 'went bad' soon after the Ascension of Baha'u'llah. Baha'u'llah refers
to such happenings in the Iqan:
"How often hath a sinner, at the hour of death, attained to the essence of
faith, and, quaffing the immortal draught, hath taken his flight unto the
celestial Concourse. And how often hath a devout believer, at the hour of
his soul's ascension, been so changed as to fall into the nethermost fire.
(Baha'u'llah: The Kitab-i-Iqan, Pages: 194-195)"
:::3)History repeats itself in asimilar way with Abdul Baha and his
:::half-brother. Again,this half-brother was also given some lofty titles by
:::Bahaullah himself. Great bitterness all around
The Baha'i Writings make many references to the Kingdom of Names and the
dangers inherent in attachment to it. It is a great pity that the lofty
titles give to various individuals became veils between them and their best
beloved, and indeed continues to do so. Exalted titles were given to all the
Letters of the Living (the first eighteen disciples of the Bab)which in
reality referred only to Mullah Husayn - the first disciple (Taherzadeh,
1992, The Revelation of Baha'u'llah Vol. 2. pages 145-146. The titles
conferred on the sons of Baha'u'llah may well have all been given in the
same sense. The titles in themselves mean nothing. It is the spiritual
fruits of the individual that matter.
Besides, in one of His Tablets, Baha'u'llah unequivocally spells out the
different ranks of His sons:
"Verily God hath ordained the station of the Greater Branch [Muhammad Ali]
to be beneath that of the Most Great Branch [Abdu'l-Baha]. He is in truth
the Ordainer, the All-Wise. We have chosen `the Greater' after `the Most
Great', as decreed by Him Who is the All-Knowing, the All-Informed.
(Baha'u'llah: Tablets of Baha'u'llah, Page: 222"
We need not trouble ourselves further on this issue.
It probably baffles you why a son of Baha'u'llah can 'go bad'. This poses no
problem to me. After all in my language we have the saying, "a sneezewood
gives rise to ash". A sneezewood is a certain species of tree known for the
hardness of its wood and resistance to rot.
:::4)History kind of repeats itself yet once again, with the succession
:::problems of Shoghi Effendi. This is particularly weird because Abdul Baha
:::had made a lot of how Baha Faith was different because there would always
:::be a clear chain of succession. IMHO, it is impossible to consider the
:::succession as being anywhere near clear. It would definitely seem that
all
:::bahais are effectively covenant breakers.
:::5)Related to the above is that people extremely close to abdul baha and
:::shoghi effendi (like his parents I think) have been declared covenant
:::breakers. This is so odd coming from a religion which teaches a new level
:::of tolerance and unity etc (which is all extremely good, of course but it
:::needs to get practiced at home!)
:::I mean these were family members who had been thorugh all sorts of
:::miserable times with abdul baha etc, and if these people can be
:::'excommunicated' how fragile is the relationship of others going to be?
:::One of the really nice things about the Faith seemed to be that it
:::considers what are felt to be 'human essentials' (such as a person's
:::nature.love etc) much more important than the DETAILS of the person's
:::beliefs. But in this case, it is because of the details that the closest
:::people are effectively excommunicated.
Concerning the duration of service and level of commitment I repeat the
following quotation:
"How often hath a sinner, at the hour of death, attained to the essence of
faith, and, quaffing the immortal draught, hath taken his flight unto the
celestial Concourse. And how often hath a devout believer, at the hour of
his soul's ascension, been so changed as to fall into the nethermost fire.
(Baha'u'llah: The Kitab-i-Iqan, Pages: 194-195)".
The Baha'i Faith does indeed teach tolerance etc, but it has limits!! Too
much of anything is no good for you! Baha'u'llah states:
"How often hath a sinner, at the hour of death, attained to the essence of
faith, and, quaffing the immortal draught, hath taken his flight unto the
celestial Concourse. And how often hath a devout believer, at the hour of
his soul's ascension, been so changed as to fall into the nethermost fire.
(Baha'u'llah: The Kitab-i-Iqan, Pages: 194-195)"
"Whatsoever passeth beyond the limits of moderation will cease to exert a
beneficial influence. Consider for instance such things as liberty,
civilization and the like. However much men of understanding may favourably
regard them, they will, if carried to excess, exercise a pernicious
influence upon men....
(Baha'u'llah: Proclamation of Baha'u'llah, Page: 113)".
The Universal House of Justice has the right to make the judgement when
moderation has been exceeded and then do what they have to do.
:::6) This trend of intolerance continues to this day with some very active
:::bahais (including one,I believe,who had written one of the first
:::translations of bahai texts) getting declared covenant breakers for one
:::reason or another.
:::I think Bahais really need to be honest to themselves and to confront
such
:::issues head on. Would love to get responses!
:::best regards,
:::al.
The bit about someone who wrote one of the first translations of Baha'i
texts does not faze me. Mirza Aqa Jan had the bounty of being the first
Baha'i and being present when the Word was revealed and personally reduced
it to writing for forty years, but he ended up a covenant breaker! Thus and
other such unfortunate events serve to illustrate how important it is to
tread the path of humility - vigilantly!
Since you have been rooting for Azal - have you his response to the
following challenge by Baha'u'llah:
"Say: O Yahya (Azal), produce a single verse, if thou dost possess
divinely-inspired knowledge. These words were formerly spoken by My Herald
Who at this hour proclaimeth: `Verily, verily, I am the first to adore Him.'
Be fair, O My brother. Art thou able to express thyself when brought face
to face with the billowing ocean of Mine utterance? Canst thou unloose thy
tongue when confronted with the shrill voice of My Pen? Hast thou any power
before the revelations of Mine omnipotence? Judge thou fairly, I adjure
thee by God, and call to mind when thou didst stand in the presence of this
Wronged One and We dictated to thee the verses of God, the Help in Peril,
the Self-Subsisting. Beware lest the source of falsehood withhold thee from
the manifest Truth.
(Baha'u'llah: Tablets of Baha'u'llah, Pages: 75-76)".
Do you suppose the following words of Azal to be the voice of God,
"O thou Aziz, we come to you in destitution, grant us some corn."?
Best regards
Sizwe Cawe.
dmcadam
Dear friends-
I am posting below a very interesting letter fro God unto God, (The Bab
unto Baha'u'llah)
warmly,
doug
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A Second Tablet Addressed to 'Him Who Will Be Made Manifest'
May the glances of Him Whom God shall make manifest illumine this letter
at the primary school.
He is the Most Glorious.
He is God, no God is there but Him, the Almighty, the Best Beloved. All
that are in the heavens and on the earth and whatever lieth between them
are His. Verily He is the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting.
This is a letter from God, the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting, unto
God, the Almighty, the Best Beloved, to affirm that the Bayan and such as
bear allegiance to it are but a present from me unto Thee and to express
my undoubting faith that there is no God but Thee, that the Kingdoms of
Creation and Revelation are Thine, that no one can attain anything save
by Thy power and that He Whom Thou has raised up is but Thy servant and
Thy Testimony, begging to address Thee by Thy leave in these words:
'Shouldst Thou dismiss the entire company of the followers of the Bayan
in the Day of the Latter Resurrection by a mere sign of They finger even
while a suckling babe, Thou wouldst indeed be praised in They indication.
And though no doubt is there about it, do Thou grant a respite of
nineteen years as a token of Thy favour so that those who have embraced
this Cause may be graciously rewarded by Thee......" (page6, Selections
from the Writings of the Bab)
bahai-fai...@bcca.org
Thank you for your response. I have read this letter 'from God to God'
before. Again, the Kitab-i-Iqan sheds light on this:
Furthermore, it is evident to thee that the Bearers of the trust of God are
made manifest unto the peoples of the earth as the Exponents of a new Cause
and the Bearers of a new Message. Inasmuch as these Birds of the Celestial
Throne are all sent down from the heaven of the Will of God, and as they all
arise to proclaim His irresistible Faith, they therefore are regarded as one
soul and the same person. For they all drink from the one Cup of the love
of God, and all partake of the fruit of the same Tree of Oneness. These
Manifestations of God have each a twofold station. One is the station of
pure abstraction and essential unity. In this respect, if thou callest them
all by one name, and dost ascribe to them the same attribute, thou hast not
erred from the truth.
(Baha'u'llah: The Kitab-i-Iqan, Page: 152)
We have already in the foregoing pages assigned two stations unto each of
the Luminaries arising from the Daysprings of eternal holiness. One of
these stations, the station of essential unity, We have already explained.
"No distinction do We make between any of them."(1) The other is the
station of distinction, and pertaineth to the world of creation and to the
limitations thereof. In this respect, each Manifestation of God hath a
distinct individuality, a definitely prescribed mission, a predestined
Revelation, and specially designated limitations. Each one of them is known
by a different name, is characterized by a special attribute, fulfils a
definite Mission, and is entrusted with a particular Revelation. Even as He
saith: "Some of the Apostles We have caused to excel the others. To some
God hath spoken, some He hath raised and exalted. And to Jesus, Son of
Mary, We gave manifest signs, and We strengthened Him with the Holy
Spirit."(1)
(Baha'u'llah: The Kitab-i-Iqan, Pages: 176-177)
I understand that each of them can be regarded as God in the sense that
they represent all that is humanly possible to know about God.
Regards
Sizwe Cawe.
dmcadam
>Each one of them is known
>by a different name, is characterized by a special attribute, fulfils a
>definite Mission, and is entrusted with a particular Revelation. Even as He
>saith: "Some of the Apostles We have caused to excel the others. To some
>God hath spoken, some He hath raised and exalted. And to Jesus, Son of
>Mary, We gave manifest signs, and We strengthened Him with the Holy
>Spirit."(1)
> (Baha'u'llah: The Kitab-i-Iqan, Pages: 176-177)
Dear Sizwe-
I just noticed something that might need some further discussion.
What is meant by "we". I know that the first person pronoun in those
days was never "I" in the East but in Taherzadeh's book on Revelation of
Baha'u'llah he said the coming Manifestation that was prophecied would
utter one word that would cause all the religious divines to turn against
him and it was that He would say "I am God" instead of "We are God".
The second thing I noticed was that it said "is characterized by a
special attribute, fulfils a
definite Mission,". What was the speical attribute and definite mission
of each Manifestation?
regards,
doug
Sizwe Cawe
Thank you for your response. I have read this letter 'from God to God'
before. Again, the Kitab-i-Iqan sheds light on this:
Furthermore, it is evident to thee that the Bearers of the trust of God are
made manifest unto the peoples of the earth as the Exponents of a new Cause
and the Bearers of a new Message. Inasmuch as these Birds of the Celestial
Throne are all sent down from the heaven of the Will of God, and as they all
arise to proclaim His irresistible Faith, they therefore are regarded as one
soul and the same person. For they all drink from the one Cup of the love
of God, and all partake of the fruit of the same Tree of Oneness. These
Manifestations of God have each a twofold station. One is the station of
pure abstraction and essential unity. In this respect, if thou callest them
all by one name, and dost ascribe to them the same attribute, thou hast not
erred from the truth.
(Baha'u'llah: The Kitab-i-Iqan, Page: 152)
We have already in the foregoing pages assigned two stations unto each of
the Luminaries arising from the Daysprings of eternal holiness. One of
these stations, the station of essential unity, We have already explained.
"No distinction do We make between any of them."(1) The other is the
station of distinction, and pertaineth to the world of creation and to the
limitations thereof. In this respect, each Manifestation of God hath a
distinct individuality, a definitely prescribed mission, a predestined
Revelation, and specially designated limitations. Each one of them is known
by a different name, is characterized by a special attribute, fulfils a
definite Mission, and is entrusted with a particular Revelation. Even as He
saith: "Some of the Apostles We have caused to excel the others. To some
God hath spoken, some He hath raised and exalted. And to Jesus, Son of
Mary, We gave manifest signs, and We strengthened Him with the Holy
Spirit."(1)
(Baha'u'llah: The Kitab-i-Iqan, Pages: 176-177)
I understand that each of them can be regarded as God in the sense that
they represent all that is humanly possible to know about God.
Regards
Sizwe Cawe.
-----Original Message-----
Matt Menge
>
> I am deeply moved by Bahai beliefs and writings. But no matter how much I
> feel there is real wisdom and depth here,or how uplifting much of the
> material is I find myself always faced by the same set of questions.
> My intention is not to call into question the beliefs of the Bahai Faith.
> I know too well that every religion has its own set of
> hard-to-explain-or-swallow material.
> IMHO, the more the followers try to ignore such questions the more
> strained the religion that is passed on to the next generation (an obvious
> example is the state that Islam is in these days , with centuries of
> forced belief)
> We may not ask certain questions but our children's children will. It
> is better to question independently rather than have the everything
> 'brought into question'.
I agree, and I certainly have never heard of any Baha'i material that
wasn't brought into question by someone or other.
> In this spirit, and in the spirit of Independent Investigation of Truth,
> and also in the hope that reasonable answers may be offerred by someone
> who has thought along these lines, I am respectfully bringing up the
> points below.
>
> 1)How is it that the Bab not only never recognized the station of
> Bahaullah but instead had nominated Subh-i-Azal,Bahaullah's half-brother
> as his successor.
The Bab saw the appearance of Baha'u'llah as the 'Day of Judgement'.
Men are essentially judged by their recognition of Baha'u'llah. This
is one reason why the Bab did not explicitly nominate Baha'u'llah.
The other is that all of the prominent Babis would soon be killed.
The only reason Azal wasn't killed was because he was a coward and did
not show his face in public. Baha'u'llah was spared because of his
noble birth and because the Bab had not appointed him as succesor.
>
> 2)Worse, Subh-i-Azal claimed for himself the station which Bahaullah had
> claimed or would claim later
> I mean if the Bab himself fails to recognize the Truth what chance do
> others have?
> It is bizarre that subh-i-azal,who was presumably understood by the Bab to
> be at least someone extraordinary ,went 'bad' and made a false claim !
I don't think the Bab necessarily thought of Azal as extraordinary.
Remember that most of the prominent Babi's were getting killed. A
wise Babi leader would probably have gotten killed. A bad leader
would cause problems for the community and highlight their need for a
savior like Baha'u'llah.
>
> 3)History repeats itself in asimilar way with Abdul Baha and his
> half-brother. Again,this half-brother was also given some lofty titles by
> Bahaullah himself. Great bitterness all around.
Baha'u'llah explains in the Kitab-i-Badi (see Saiedi's _Logos and
Civilization_) that titles do not necessarily indicate someone's
station. They were generally given out to all the Babi's and Baha'is
who received letters from the Bab and Baha'u'llah. If anything they
denote what is unique about the individual, not necessarily their
stations.
'Abdu'l-Baha was not particularly bitter with his brother.
>
> 4)History kind of repeats itself yet once again, with the succession
> problems of Shoghi Effendi. This is particularly weird because Abdul Baha
> had made a lot of how Baha Faith was different because there would always
> be a clear chain of succession. IMHO, it is impossible to consider the
> succession as being anywhere near clear. It would definitely seem that all
> bahais are effectively covenant breakers.
The succession was clear. That is one of the reasons these
individuals are called Covenant-breakers and not Christians and
Muslims (who technically should have recognized Baha'u'llah). Shoghi
Effendi left no succesors but described in detail how the House of
Justice would be elected and function.
>
> 5)Related to the above is that people extremely close to abdul baha and
> shoghi effendi (like his parents I think) have been declared covenant
> breakers. This is so odd coming from a religion which teaches a new level
> of tolerance and unity etc (which is all extremely good, of course but it
> needs to get practiced at home!)
> I mean these were family members who had been thorugh all sorts of
> miserable times with abdul baha etc, and if these people can be
> 'excommunicated' how fragile is the relationship of others going to be?
> One of the really nice things about the Faith seemed to be that it
> considers what are felt to be 'human essentials' (such as a person's
> nature.love etc) much more important than the DETAILS of the person's
> beliefs. But in this case, it is because of the details that the closest
> people are effectively excommunicated.
These activities were not harmless as you suggest. What these family
members were in fact doing was contending over the leadership of the
Faith. They were saying that they should lead the Faith. They were
much worse than modern Covenant-breakers and resorted to any number of
demonic activities, especially in 'Abdu'l-Baha's case. If you are
seriously interested in these issues I recommend you read _The
Covenant of Baha'u'llah_ by Adib Taherzadeh and also _Selections from
the Writings of the Bab_.
>
> 6) This trend of intolerance continues to this day with some very active
> bahais (including one,I believe,who had written one of the first
> translations of bahai texts) getting declared covenant breakers for one
> reason or another.
>
> I think Bahais really need to be honest to themselves and to confront such
> issues head on. Would love to get responses!
Well I can tell you that the vast majority of Covenant-breakers are
not sincere. They know that they are actively deceiving people and
are only doing it so that they can have power and influence. Hence I
don't think it is just their 'beliefs' that is at issue. There are a
few exceptions like Charles Mason Remey. But his views were so out of
touch with reality that honesty really comes into question here as
well. It wasn't really power he wanted (as far as I know). He
desperately wanted a Guardian and kind of conjured one into existence.
Nice talking to you,
Matt
Matt Menge
Dear Adam,
This is taken from one of the short passages that appears at the end
of the Tablets of Baha'u'llah. You know, the one's that aren't
designated as specific Tablets. Anyways, it is that "He" takes the
form of "I". And this certainly causes a stir among the religious,
even Christians.
Best Regards,
Matt
Romane
behind the postings, there is not much that hasn't already been covered in
one way or another. This is my own small attempt to speak to some of the
questions posed by Al.
> I know too well that every religion has its own set of
> hard-to-explain-or-swallow material.
An evident truth, if one tries to study at high school level before one has
completed primary school. In some instances, a knowledge of the history and
other background is needed to understand the purport of some material. And
even then, for every person that comes to some glimmer of an understanding
(and a glimmer only is all that we yet have) another will see something
different. To me, that is the joy of the sharing of concepts, views and
ideas, referring always back to the Holy Texts and the guidance of Shoghi
Efendi and the Universal House of Justice to ensure that we do not go "off
the rails", so to speak.
> It is bizarre that subh-i-azal,who was presumably understood by the Bab to
> be at least someone extraordinary ,went 'bad' and made a false claim !
It is sad that one who had such potential allowed himself to be brought to
nothing. We could, in the same sense, refer to Judas Iscariot, who was,
among the disciples, peerless and knowledgable. To what sad end he came, for
so many reasons. In the same way, we have the words of Baha'u'llah in the
Kitab-i-Aqdas to his brother. I quote only part of it here:
"Beware lest the fire of thy presumptuousness debar thee from attaining to
God's Holy Court. Turn unto Him, and fear not because of thy deeds. He, in
truth, forgiveth whomsoever He desireth as a bounty on His part; no God is
there but Him, the Ever-Forgiving, the All-Bounteous. We admonish thee
solely for the sake of God. Shouldst thou accept this counsel, thou wilt
have acted to thine own behoof; and shouldst thou reject it, thy Lord,
verily, can well dispense with thee, and with all those who, in manifest
delusion, have followed thee. Behold! God hath laid hold on him who led thee
astray. Return unto God, humble, submissive and lowly; verily, He will put
away from thee thy sins, for thy Lord, of a certainty, is the Forgiving, the
Mighty, the All-Merciful." (-- Bahá'u'lláh, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, page 86-87)
I am not in a position to adjudge what Azal has done - I have sufficient
difficulty adjudging my own sins. But Baha'u'llah shows here that,
regardless, should one who has turned from God turn back to Him, God is a
forgiving God. Abdu'l-Baha, in His Will and Testament, also seeks for the
forgiveness of those who have broken the Covenant. We read:
"I call upon Thee, O Lord my God! with my tongue and with all my heart, not
to requite them for their cruelty and their wrong-doings, their craft and
their mischief, for they are foolish and ignoble and know not what they do.
They discern not good from evil, neither do they distinguish right from
wrong, nor justice from injustice. They follow their own desires and walk in
the footsteps of the most imperfect and foolish amongst them. O my Lord!
Have mercy upon them, shield them from all afflictions in these troubled
times and grant that all trials and hardships may be the lot of this Thy
servant that hath fallen into this darksome pit. Single me out for every woe
and make me a sacrifice for all Thy loved ones. O Lord, Most High! May my
soul, my life, my being, my spirit, my all be offered up for them. O God, my
God! Lowly, suppliant and fallen upon my face, I beseech Thee with all the
ardor of my invocation to pardon whosoever hath hurt me, forgive him that
hath conspired against me and offended me, and wash away the misdeeds of
them that have wrought injustice upon me. Vouchsafe unto them Thy goodly
gifts, give them joy, relieve them from sorrow, grant them peace and
prosperity, give them Thy bliss and pour upon them Thy bounty. (-- Will and
Testament of `Abdu'l-Bahá, page 18)
If, as it appears, you have drawn some of your information from those who
are the enemies of the Faith, then compare this attitude with that which is
found in their literature. Compare it with the admonishment of Baha'u'llah,
as follows:
"In one of the Tablets these words have been revealed: O people of God! Do
not busy yourselves in your own concerns; let your thoughts be fixed upon
that which will rehabilitate the fortunes of mankind and sanctify the hearts
and souls of men. This can best be achieved through pure and holy deeds,
through a virtuous life and a goodly behavior. Valiant acts will ensure the
triumph of this Cause, and a saintly character will reinforce its power.
Cleave unto righteousness, O people of Bahá! This, verily, is the
commandment which this wronged One hath given unto you, and the first choice
of His unrestrained Will for every one of you. (-- Gleanings from the
Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, page 93)
Why have people broken the Covenant when its contents and object have been
so clearly stated? There will be a number of reasons. Again, we find it
interesting that Baha'u'llah made the following statement, this at a time
when Mirza Yahya had already broken the Covenant:
"In this day, this Wronged One requesteth thee and the other divines who
have drunk of the cup of the knowledge of God, and are illumined by the
shining words of the Daystar of Justice, to appoint some person, without
informing any one, and despatch him to these regions, and enable him to
remain a while in the island of Cyprus, and associate with Mírzá Yahyá,
perchance he may become aware of the fundamentals of this Faith and of the
source of the Divine laws and commandments." (-- Bahá'u'lláh, Epistle to the
Son of the Wolf, page 120)
Again, who are we to judge the betrayals of the relatives of the Holy
Family, in succession from the Revelation of the Bab to the departure of
Shoghi Effendi? Every person is tested, and some come through the test more
successfully than others. But there test is not our test, and our focus
should be on learning from the examples before us, so that we may be enabled
to not make the same mistakes.
> 6) This trend of intolerance continues to this day with some very active
> bahais (including one,I believe,who had written one of the first
The term "intolerance" has been used. Perhaps not intolerance - the examples
of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha in how we should consider these is the
behaviour we aim to emulate. As any disease, if one does not treat the
disease and, where necessary, remove that disease, then eventually the whole
body becomes diseased. My colon became diseased (not cancer). Over 10 years,
we treated that disease, always hoping for permanent remission. Finally,
after 10 years, the decision was taken to totally remove my colon - it was
that, or a slow death over the next 6 to 12 months. Prior to its removal, my
body was being slowly poisened, and the removal of my colon helped my body
to recover to full health. The Baha'i treatment of the spiritual disease of
Covenant breaking is no different. Over time, with love and with constant
care, the attempt is made to cure the disease. Only when the disease
threatens the life of the body is the surgical removal of the offending
organ considered. Could it be considered that I had an "intolerance" for my
colon? No, only for what my colon was doing to my body. Abdu'l-Baha, in His
Will and Testament, says:
"And now, one of the greatest and most fundamental principles of the Cause
of God is to shun and avoid entirely the Covenant-breakers, for they will
utterly destroy the Cause of God, exterminate His Law and render of no
account all efforts exerted in the past." (-- Will and Testament of
`Abdu'l-Bahá, page 20)
The Covenant is a very powerful thing - all that have consciously gone
against it have been brought to naught. Their plans have been laid to waste.
Their lives have been broken. Their end has been lonely. Examine the history
of these people, and this will become self-evident. What one sows, one
reaps. And not one of us can, until we have winged our flight to the
heavenly realms, can say that we are immune - which is why every Baha'i I
know prays constantly for steadfastness.
"Praised and glorified art Thou, O God! Grant that the day of attaining Thy
holy presence may be fast approaching. Cheer our hearts through the potency
of Thy love and good-pleasure, and bestow upon us steadfastness that we may
willingly submit to Thy Will and Thy Decree. Verily, Thy knowledge embraceth
all the things Thou hast created or wilt create, and Thy celestial might
transcendeth whatsoever Thou hast called or wilt call into being. There is
none to be worshiped but Thee, there is none to be desired except Thee,
there is none to be adored besides Thee and there is naught to be loved save
Thy good-pleasure.
"Verily, Thou art the supreme Ruler, the Sovereign Truth, the Help in Peril,
the Self-Subsisting." (-- The Báb, Bahá'í Prayers, page 164).
I could speak at length in response to many of the issues, but sufficient
for now.
Warmest regards
Romane