Unfortunately, a weird Baha’i sub-cult has arisen.  It structurally resembles al-Qaida, and differs from al-Qaida only with regard to methods, not ideals.  It does not usually employ violence or terrorism (though persons with this mindset have beaten up friends of mind).

And, most frighteningly of all, it has taken over and subverted the main institutions of the Baha’i faith.

1) Al-Qaida believes in the destruction of secular, civil governments and replacing them with a fascist theocracy.

Baha’i theocrats believe in the destruction of secular, civil governments and replacing them with a fascist theocracy.  Ian Semple, a member of the Baha’i Universal House of Justice, has for decades cast scorn on civil governments and spoken of his dream of a future when Baha’i Institutions will rule in their stead.

One pilgrim wrote,

“I recall being in Haifa in the ’70s (’72 and ’78) and hearing long talks about this from Ian Semple, on how the world was destined to be ruled by houses of justice and there will eventually be no distinction between church and state, with rather snide and smug comments about how at last the world will finally get it right and have God and Government fused through the power of the Baha’i covenant.”

Note that this is the opposite of what `Abdu’l-Baha says in the Treatise on Leadership:

http://www2.h-net.msu.edu/~bahai/trans/vol2/absiyasi.htm

Ian Semple also put out a letter from the Secretariat of the UHJ:

“As for the statement made by Shoghi Effendi in his letter of 21 March 1932, the well-established principles of the Faith concerning the relationship of the Baha’i institutions to those of the country in which the Baha’is reside make it unthinkable that they would ever purpose to violate a country’s constitution or so to meddle in its political machinery as to attempt to take over the powers of government. This is an integral element of the Baha’i principle of abstention from involvement in politics. However, this does not by any means imply that the country itself may not, by constitutional means, decide to adopt Baha’i laws and practices and modify its constitution or method of government accordingly.”

In this passage he basically argues for a Nazi-like tactic of getting elected democratically and then abolishing democracy.  By the way, the Islamists (with al-Qaida links) tried this in Algeria, and the democrats and secularists fought back, embroiling the country in a civil war that has cost 100,000 lives.  This is the sort of conflict between theocratic Baha’is and the rest of society that Semple is urging on the world.  At that point would the Baha’i theocrats refrain from violence?

2)  Al-Qaida wishes to reestablish the Islamic Caliphate as the One World Government.
Baha’i theocrats substitute the House of Justice for the Caliphate and envision it ruling the world.

3) Al-Qaida despises parliamentary democracy as corrupt, money-driven and unrepresentative.  It wishes to overthrow parliaments and institute authoritarian religious rule instead.
Baha’i theocrats despise parliamentary democracy and wish to substitute their religious institutions, which are not freely elected, for civil government.  Long-time Baha’i leader Firuz Kazemzadeh said in 1988:

“If somebody is dissatisfied with a local assembly, he is not prevented from appealing to the NSA . . .  It is something else when whispering campaigns or petitions are sent around for signatures objecting to the activities of the institutions.  That also may be something which is countenanced by American democracy but has nothing to do with the Bahaullah and Baha’i Faith.  We must always remember that our institutions are an unusual and unique combination of theocracy in the best sense of the term with democracy.  The institutions of the Baha’i Faith have not been created by us, the institutions have
been created by God.

Actually, Kazemzadeh’s version of the Baha’i institutions has been created by Kazemzadeh.

4) Al-Qaida establishes cells throughout the world to work for theocracy, and recruits innocent Muslims at mosques.
Baha’i theocrats have secret cells within the Baha’i community, and recruit Baha’is at deepenings and other events into their twisted world-view.  Many “Auxiliary Board Members” and Assistants are secret theocrats who play dirty tricks on ordinary Baha’is to force them out of the Faith.

The Ian Semple / Kazemzadeh theocratic ideology aims at destroying American democracy.  It aims at gutting the Constitution and abolishing Congress in favor of Kazemzadeh’s weird, secretive, authoritarian way of ruling.

5)  Al-Qaida demands absolute obedience from its recruits, and no dissent is permitted.

Baha’i theocrats demand absolute obedience to “the Institutions” and tolerate no dissent.  Kazemzadeh told a group of Baha’i intellectuals, “the word dissent implies separating oneself from the activities of the group and putting oneself outside the mainstream of the community, and that is contrary to Baha’i practice.

You can’t disagree with the NSA.

The dangers to the pristine Baha’i faith, with its values of tolerance, allowing the expression of diverse points of view, and firm commitment to the separation of religion and state, of this theocratic cult that has taken control of the community cannot be overstated. Moreover, it is a threat to the whole world.

Now that we have seen where such authoritarian theocracy leads, on September 11, I call upon all Baha’is to step back, reread the scriptures, and adhere to the real values of our religion.

Juan Cole

The Kitáb-i-Aqdas
Long Obligatory Prayer

TO BE RECITED ONCE IN TWENTY-FOUR HOURS

Whoso wisheth to recite this prayer, let him stand up and turn unto God, and, as he standeth in his place, let him gaze to the right and to the left, as if awaiting the mercy of his Lord, the Most Merciful, the Compassionate. Then let him say:

O Thou Who art the Lord of all names and the Maker of the heavens! I beseech Thee by them Who are the Daysprings of Thine invisible Essence, the Most Exalted, the All-Glorious, to make of my prayer a fire that will burn away the veils which have shut me out from Thy beauty, and a light that will lead me unto the ocean of Thy Presence.

Let him then raise his hands in supplication toward God – blessed and exalted be He – and say:

O Thou the Desire of the world and the Beloved of the nations! Thou seest me turning toward Thee, and clinging to Thy cord, through whose movement the whole creation hath been stirred up. I am Thy servant, O my Lord, and the son of Thy servant. Behold me standing ready to do Thy will and Thy desire, and wishing naught else except Thy good pleasure. I implore Thee by the Ocean of Thy mercy and the Daystar of Thy grace to do with Thy servant as Thou willest and pleasest. By Thy might which is far above all mention and praise! Whatsoever is revealed by Thee is the desire of my heart and the beloved of my soul. O God, my God! Look not upon my hope and my doings, nay rather look upon Thy will that hath encompassed the heavens and the earth. By Thy Most Great Name, O Thou Lord of all nations! I have desired only what Thou didst desire, and love only what Thou dost love.

Let him then kneel, and bowing his forehead to the ground, let him say:

Exalted art Thou above the description of anyone save Thyself, and the comprehension of aught else except Thee.

Let him then stand and say:

Make my prayer, O my Lord, a fountain of living waters whereby I may live as long as Thy sovereignty endureth, and may make mention of Thee in every world of Thy worlds.

Let him again raise his hands in supplication, and say:

O Thou in separation from Whom hearts and souls have melted, and by the fire of Whose love the whole world hath been set aflame! I implore Thee by Thy Name through which Thou hast subdued the whole creation, not to withhold from me that which is with Thee, O Thou Who rulest over all men! Thou seest, O my Lord, this stranger hastening to his most exalted home beneath the canopy of Thy majesty and within the precincts of Thy mercy; and this transgressor seeking the ocean of Thy forgiveness; and this lowly one the court of Thy glory; and this poor creature the orient of Thy wealth. Thine is the authority to command whatsoever Thou willest. I bear witness that Thou art to be praised in Thy doings, and to be obeyed in Thy behests, and to remain unconstrained in Thy bidding.

Let him then raise his hands, and repeat three time the Greatest Name. [Alláh-u-Abhá]

Let him then bend down with hands resting on the knees before God – blessed and exalted be He – and say:

Thou seest, O my God, how my spirit hath been stirred up within my limbs and members, in its longing to worship Thee, and in its yearning to remember Thee and extol Thee; how it testifieth to that whereunto the Tongue of Thy Commandment hath testified in the kingdom of Thine utterance and the heaven of Thy knowledge. I love, in this state, O my Lord, to beg to Thee all that is with Thee, that I may demonstrate my poverty, and magnify Thy bounty and Thy riches, and may declare my powerlessness, and manifest Thy power and Thy might.

Let him then stand and raise his hands twice in supplication, and say:

There is no God but Thee, the Almighty, the All-Bountiful. There is no God but Thee, the Ordainer, both in the beginning and in the end. O God, my God! Thy forgiveness hath emboldened me, and Thy mercy hath strengthened me, and Thy call hath awakened me, and Thy grace hath raised me up and led me unto Thee. Who, otherwise, am I that I should dare to stand at the gate of the city of Thy nearness, or set my face toward the lights that are shining from the heaven of Thy will? Thou seest, O my Lord, this wretched creature knocking at the door of Thy grace, and this evanescent soul seeking the river of everlasting life from the hands of Thy bounty. Thine is the command at all times, O Thou Who art the Lord of all names; and mine is resignation and willing submission to Thy will, O Creator of the heavens!

Let him then raise his hands thrice, and say:

Greater is God than every great one!

Let him then kneel and, bowing his forehead to the ground, say:

Too high art Thou for the praise of those who are nigh unto Thee to ascend unto the heaven of Thy nearness, or for the birds of the hearts of them who are devoted to Thee to attain to the door of Thy gate. I testify that Thou hast been sanctified above all attributes and holy above all names. No God is there but Thee, the Most Exalted, the All-Glorious.

Let him then seat himself and say:

I testify unto that whereunto have testified all created things, and the Concourse on high, and the inmates of the all-highest Paradise, and beyond them the Tongue of Grandeur itself from the all-glorious Horizon, that Thou art God, that there is no God but Thee, and that He who hath been manifested is the Hidden Mystery, the Treasured Symbol, through Whom the letters B and E (Be) have been joined and knit together. I testify that it is He Whose name hath been set down by the Pen of the Most High, and Who hath been mentioned in the Books of God, the Lord of the Throne on high and of earth below.

Let him then stand erect and say:

O Lord of all being and Possessor of all things visible and invisible! Thou dost perceive my tears and the sighs I utter, and hearest my groaning, and my wailing, and the lamentation of my heart. By Thy might! My trespasses have kept me back from drawing nigh unto Thee; and my sins have held me far from the court of Thy holiness. Thy love, O my Lord, hath enriched me, and separation from Thee hath destroyed me, and remoteness from Thee hath consumed me. I entreat Thee by Thy footsteps in this wilderness, and by the words “Hear am I. Here am I” which Thy chosen Ones have uttered in this immensity, and by the breaths of Thy Revelation, and the gentle winds of the Dawn of Thy Manifestation, to ordain that I may gaze on Thy beauty and observe whatsoever is in Thy Book.

Let him then repeat the Greatest Name thrice,
and bend down with hands resting on the knees, and say:

Praise be to Thee, O my God, that Thou hast aided me to remember Thee and to praise Thee, and hast made known unto me Him Who is the Dayspring of Thy signs, and hast caused me to bow down before Thy Lordship, and humble myself before Thy Godhead, and to acknowledge that which hath been uttered by the Tongue of Thy grandeur.

Let him then rise and say:

O God, my God! My back is bowed by the burden of my sins, and my heedlessness hath destroyed me. Whenever I ponder my evil doings and Thy benevolence, my heart melteth within me, and my blood boileth in my veins. By Thy Beauty, O Thou the Desire of the world! I blush to life up my face to Thee, and my longing hands are ashamed to stretch forth toward the heaven of Thy bounty. Thou seest, O my God, how my tears prevent me from remembering Thee and from extolling Thy virtues, O Thou the Lord of the Throne on high and of earth below! I implore Thee by the signs of Thy Kingdom and the mysteries of Thy Dominion to do with Thy loved ones as becometh Thy bounty, O Lord of all being, and is worthy of Thy grace, O KIng of the seen and the unseen!

Let him then repeat the Greatest Name thrice, and kneel with his forehead to the ground, and say:

Praise be unto Thee, O our God, that Thou hast sent down unto us that which draweth us nigh unto Thee, and supplieth us with every good thing sent down by Thee in Thy Books and Thy Scriptures. Protect us, we beseech Thee, O my Lord, from the hosts of idle fancies and vain imaginations. Thou, in truth, art the Mighty, the All-Knowing.

Let him then raise his head, and seat himself, and say:

I testify, O my God, to that whereunto thy chosen Ones have testified, and acknowledge that which the inmates of the all-highest Paradise and those who have circled round Thy mighty Throne have acknowledged. The kingdoms of earth and heaven are Thine, O Lord of the worlds!

And Abdul Baha was awarded the title ‘SIR’ by the Britishers for his valuable services.

Reference :
The handbook of Palestine
EDITED BY : HARRY CHARLES LUKE, B.Lr1r., M.A.
ASSISTANT GOVERNOR OF JERUSALEM AND EDWARD KEITH-ROACH ASSISTANT CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PALESTINE

WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY
The Right Hon. SIR HERBERT SAMUEL, P.C., G.B.E.
HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR PALESTINE

Issued under the Authority of the Government of Palestine

MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED
ST. MARTIN’S STREET, LONDON
1922

Quote
“…Sir ‘Abbas Effendi ‘Abdu’l Baha had travelled extensively in Europe and America to expound his doctrines, and on the 4th December, 1919, was created by King George V. a K.B.E. for valuable services rendered to the British Government in the early days of the Occupation…..”

It (Bahaism) has not enough assurance of personal immortality to satisfy such Western minds as are repelled by the barren and jejune ethical systems of agnostics, positivists, and humanitarians who would give us rules to regulate a life which they have rendered meaningless.—Professor Browne in Phelps’ “Life of Abbas Effendi,” p. xviii.

 The essence of being a Bahai is a boundless devotion to the person of the Manifestation and a profound belief that he is divine and of a different order from all other beings.—Professor Browne, Art. “Bab” in Ency. of Religion and Ethics.

 THE claims of Bahaism are many and varied. They cover a wide range. I will first consider its general claims and of these the most significant.

 I. First of all, Bahais claim that a new religion is needed. All the great religions, they say, were true in their day; not only Moses, Christ, and Mohammed, but Zoroaster, Confucius, and Buddha were Divine Manifestations, and revealed God’s truth. But now the old religions are dead. Abdul Baha says: “The Spirit has passed away from the bodies of the old religions. While the forms of their doctrines remain, the Spirit has fled.” “The principles of the religion of Christ have been forgotten. It is then clear and evident that in the passage of time religions become entirely changed. Therefore they are renewed.” “There is to-day nothing more than traditions to feed upon…. The world of humanity is in the dark.” One chapter in Thornton Chase’s “The Bahai Revelation” is headed “The Bahai Revelation is needed.” This he argues, stating  that Christianity is condemned because after 1900 years it has not been accepted by all people;  because it refuses to reject miracles and the blood atonement and will not confine itself to the “principles of Jesus,” as the Brahma Samaj;  because it tends to separate peoples, holding itself to be the only religion authorized by God;  because people are dwelling in bondage and are no longer satisfied. Tares are many and Baha Ullah must come and uproot them. “The old order of things is passing away,” says Sprague; “people are being tossed about with every wind of doctrine.” “True religion is forgotten,” says Phelps, “or has become a hollow name; faith has waned, men are wandering in the dark.” This decay, they teach, is inevitable and in accord with divine arrangement. They deny the belief of Christians that Christianity is the permanent religion of humanity; and that of Moslems, that Mohammed was the “seal of the prophets,” and hold that Christianity was succeeded by Islam, Islam by Babism, and Babism by Bahaism. Abdul Baha says: “Time changes all things. Transmutation and change are requirements of life. All religions of God are subject to the same law. They are founded in order to blossom out and develop and fulfill their mission. They reach their zenith and then decline and come to an end.” “A new cycle must begin, for the world needs a new luminary.”

It is not necessary to refute the fundamental fallacy of this first claim, for it is patent that Christianity is alive and growing. Its manifold spiritual activities, its varied and progressive efforts for righteousness and peace among men, for social and moral reforms, its zeal for Missions and their marvellous success, show that Christianity is neither stagnant nor dead. It has a forward triumphant movement. The Church renews its strength from its divine Head; He, alive forevermore, is its Light and its Life.

II. Bahaism claims to be the divine Revelation in this new cycle—a new Dispensation or Covenant. It disclaims being a new religion, affirming rather that it is a renewal of religion or religion renewed. One writes: “The Revelation is not a new religion, but the very essence of God’s word as taught by Christ (and Moses and Mohammed), but not perceived by Christians at large” (nor by Jews nor Mohammedans). Baha ullah says: “Of the utterances of the prophets of the past we have taken the essence, and in the garment of brevity clothed it.” Abdul Baha says: “The same basis, which was laid by Christ and later on forgotten, has been renewed by Baha Ullah.” “All that is true in all religions will stand; by the new Dispensation, new spirit is infused into these teachings.” Phelps says: “The body of doctrine which Bahaism teaches is not put forward in any sense or particular as new, but as a unification and synthesis of all other religions.” Of its system of morals the same is true. It is a restatement in unsystematic form of common ethics. It reiterates the second table of the Mosaic Law, and the New Testament principles of brotherly love and unity. Yet in some of his addresses Abdul Baha names certain principles as new in the Bahai faith, such as universal peace, the unity of humanity, arbitration, compulsory education of both sexes, the harmony of science and religion, the evil of prejudice and fanaticism, need of investigating the truth, etc. Not one of these is new; not one owes its position in the world of thought or activity to the Bahai propaganda. But whether Bahaism claims to be new in its principles or disclaims it, in fact it is a new religion. The disavowals are, no doubt, made for the sake of obtaining easier access to the followers of the old religions, and are only a temporary expediency. In this they are simply following the example of Mohammed, who proclaimed his message to the people of Arabia as the religion of Abraham, and as the same as that of the Law and the Gospels. But it is evident that Bahaism is inconsistent with Christianity, as indeed with Islam. Bahais’ claims, if admitted, would lead to the superseding of Christianity. This will appear when I state its doctrines.

The present attitude of Bahais in maintaining connection with Christian Churches and at the same time worshipping Baha and propagating Bahaism is one of intellectual stultification or of moral blindness. In the same way, in Moslem lands, Bahais conform to the externals of Islam. In the case of the latter the cause of this is often moral obliquity or fear; with deceived Christian brethren it is probably ignorance; by the Bahai propagandist it is allowed from astute policy. It is an intellectual impossibility for one to accept the teachings of Baha Ullah and to be his disciple and at the same time to be an intelligent disciple of our Lord Jesus Christ. The one excludes the other.

Bahaism is a distinct religion. It is not even a sect of Islam. It abrogates and annuls it. Professor Browne says: “As Christianity is a different religion from Judaism, and as Islam is distinct from Christianity, so Bahaism is a separate religion, distinct from Christianity or Islam.” It even superseded and abrogated Babism. The Bab has been relegated to the background, and put into the position of a John the Baptist. His book, the “Bayan,” is long ago neglected to such an extent that Professor Browne had difficulty in obtaining a copy in Persia. Remey says: “Babism fulfilled its purpose, and when this was accomplished in the appearance of Bahaullah, it, as such, ceased to exist.” Mirza Abul Fazl says: Babism “is not the same religion or creed as Bahaism.”

As to other races and countries, let us see. Abul Fazl claims13 that “Jews, Zoroastrians, and Nusaireyah by thousands” are Bahais. M. Haidar Ali says: “The majority of Zoroastrians are recognized as Bahais in all sincerity.” On the contrary Professor Browne writes: “I had been informed that Zoroastrians were accepting Bahaism. However after much intercourse with the Zoroastrians of Yezd and Kerman for the space of three and a half months, I came to the conclusion that few, if any, had adopted the Bahai creed.” In India the proportion of Parsee-Bahais is very small.
As to Jews:—Remey says: “In Hamadan there is a large Israelitish following of Baha.” A census made by a European Jew showed exactly 59 parents and with their children 194 persons out of a population of 6,000 Jews. As to the United States, I give some particulars in the closing chapter. The census of 1906 reported 1,280 Bahais, which may have increased to two or three thousand.

 In the Turkish empire they are few, for Sunni Moslems are utterly indifferent to Bahaism. The Egyptian Gazette says of Egypt where Abdul Baha resided for two years, “The new religion has made little perceptible progress; Islam remained indifferent, and the Christian community was ignorant of his presence.” Of Syria, Mr. Phelps wrote: “All the Bahais in Acca are Persians. No other nationalities are among them.” The inference is plain that no native of Acca had become Bahai through forty years of contact with Baha and his seventy followers. Bahais outside of Persia are probably all told not more than 15,000 and one-third of these are Persians in Russia. Abdul Baha gave the impression that many of the Christians of Persia are converts to Baha. Dr. J. H. Shedd wrote, 1894, “I have heard of no case of a Christian conversion to Bahaism.” Dr. G. W. Holmes wrote, 1903, “I do not know of a single Christian in Persia, who has been converted to Bahaism. Some Bahais who made a profession of Christianity turned back to Baha.” Rev. J. W. Hawkes declares that in his observation none of the members of the Syrian (Nestorian) or Armenian churches in Persia have become Bahais. I have known of one Armenian family in Resht and two men in Maraga, one of whom was a notorious ne’er-do-well, who kept up his opium using as before.

I again quote from Professor Browne’s translation.356 It will be noticed that the conditions of the law are set forth from the standpoint of the man. “If quarrels arise between a man and his wife, he may put her away. He may not give her absolute divorce at once, but must wait a year that perhaps he may become reconciled to her. At the end of this period, if he still wishes to put her away, he is at liberty to do so. Even after this he[166] may take her back at the end of any month so long as she has not become the wife of another man.” “The practice of requiring a divorced woman to cohabit with another man before her former husband can take her back is prohibited.” (This abolishes one of the vile laws of Mohammedanism.)

 ”If a man is travelling with his wife and they quarrel, he must give her a sufficient sum of money to take her back to the place they started from and send her with a trustworthy escort.” From these quotations it is evident that the wife is dependent on the good pleasure and whim357 of the man. He may put away; he may take back. The law says nothing of her right to divorce him. It does not appear that she has the right to divorce her husband even in case he is guilty of adultery.

 The penalty for adultery is slight. A fine of nineteen miscals of gold, equal to fifty to sixty dollars, is imposed for the first offense and this is doubled for the second offense. The fines are to be paid to the “House of Justice.”

According to the “Bayan” of the Bab the husband must pay the divorced wife a dowry of ninety-five miscals of gold ($300) if they are city folks, and ninety-five miscals of silver ($10) if they are villagers. These are paltry sums even on the basis of Persian poverty. I may say, in passing, that the Laws of Inheritance give to the father a greater portion than to a mother, to a brother greater[167] than to a sister, and gives the family residence to a male heir.

Freedom from the marriage bond is made easy by desertion. “Married men who travel must fix a definite time for their return and endeavour to return at that time. If their wives have no news from them for nine months, after the fixed period, they can go to another husband. But if they are patient it is better, since God loves those who are patient.”

How the husband who is away from his wife can act, we may judge by the example of a celebrated Bahai,358 Maskin Kalam, who was agent for Baha to watch over and spy upon Azal and the Azalis in Cyprus. His wife was in Persia; he simply took another in Cyprus.

The ease with which desertion may be practiced under Bahai law is seen in the conduct of Doctor Kheiralla, one of the first apostles of Bahaism to America, and founder of the Chicago Assembly. Dr. H. H. Jessup wrote: “A cousin of Doctor Kheiralla, who is clerk in the American Press in Beirut, gave me the following statement: ‘Doctor Kheiralla, after the death of his first wife in Egypt, in 1882, married first a Coptic widow in El Fayum, whom he abandoned, and then married a Greek girl, whom he also abandoned, and who was still living in 1897 in Cairo. He then married an English wife, who abandoned him when his matrimonial relations became known to her.’” 359

 According to the claims of Bahais these loose and imperfect divorce and marriage laws are to be accepted and administered universally under the future kingdom of Baha in its world-wide triumph!

It may be remarked in passing that Bahaism encourages the mixture of races by marriage. Already several American Bahais have married Persian women, and Persian men American women. One American Bahai woman has married a Japanese.

Abdul Baha illustrates the relation of the races by a reference to animals. “Consider the kingdom of the animals. A pigeon of white plumage would not shun one of black or brown.” In a tablet sent to America, he directs: “Gather together these two races, black and white, into one assembly and put such love into their hearts that they shall even intermarry.”360

 Again he says:361 “The coloured people must attend all the unity meetings. There must be no distinctions. All are equal. If you have any influence to get the races to intermarry, it will be very valuable. Such unions will beget very strong and beautiful children.” Mr. Gregory, an American negro, followed this advice by marrying an English woman, Miss L. A. M. Mathew

References:

356 Jour. Roy. As. Soc., 1892.

357 “The wife is still in a helpless state; her fate remains entirely in the power of her husband’s caprice “(Vatralsky in Amer. Jour. of Theology, 1902, p. 72).

358 “Trav.’s Narr.,” pp. 378-379.

359 Outlook, of New York, quoted in The Missionary Review, October, 1901, p. 773.

360 “A Heavenly Vista,” by L. G. Gregory, p. 31.

361 Page 15

 The occasion was the succession to the leadership. The cause, no doubt, lay partly in that jealousy which results from a polygamous household. This polygamy was the occasion of misfortune even at the time, for the Persian consul at Bagdad, named Mirza Buzurk Khan Kasvini, had desired to wed one of the women and vented his disappointment on the Bahai community by making accusation against them before the Persian and Turkish Governments. Baha Ullah had twelve children.

The four sons who grew to manhood received “great swelling” titles. Abbas was entitled “The Greatest (Azam) Branch of God” and regarded as the “return” of Jesus; Mohammed Ali, “The Mightiest (Akbar) Branch of God” and the “return” of Mohammed; Ziah Ullah, “The Purest Branch and as Abraham” (died 1898); Badi Ullah, “The Most Luminous Branch and as Moses.”

 Abbas Effendi was the son of Aseyeh.

 The other three were sons of Ayesha or Madh Ulya. Abbas Effendi claimed the succession, basing his right and title on the Will of Baha, called the Kitab-il-Ahd and on previous declarations. His right was disputed by the other brothers.

 I have a manuscript by a lifelong Bahai which gives the following account: “Nine days after the ‘ascension’ of Baha, Abbas Effendi desired nine of the chief men to come to the house of Mohammed Ali Effendi. He opened the will. It was in Baha’s own handwriting and two pages long. The nine men saw it. On the second page, over a part of the writing, Abbas had put a blue paper that it might not be read, and he refused to have it read. On the same day, the whole congregation (men) gathered to the palace of Baha. Mirza Majd-i-Din (Abbas’ sister’s son) rose and read the will up to the blue paper. Later the women were called to the Kasr Bahja and the will was again read, but the concealed portion was not made known.

 It was evident that it was for his own selfish purposes that Abbas concealed it, because the future authority did not pertain to him.

From Persia and India many wrote, saying: ‘Show the last portion; it is the writing of His Holiness.’ He refused. To this day it is concealed.”

Abbas assumed authority as the Supreme Ruler of the new dispensation, the Centre of the Covenant, and the Infallible Interpreter of its teachings.

 His claim is clearly set forth in a Tablet wherein, speaking in the third person, he declares: “All Bahais must obey the Centre of the Covenant and must not deviate one hair’s breadth from obedience to Him.” “He should be looked upon as authority by all.” “Obedience and submission must be shown Him and the face turned to Him completely.” He was given such titles as “His Holiness the Master,” “Our Lord,” “The Centre of the Cause of God,” “Dawning Place of the Divine Light,” “Dayspring of the Light of the Covenant.” Indeed his first Apostles to Persia bore the message, “I am the Manifestation of God. My paps are full of the milk of Godhead. Whosoever will, let him come and suck freely.” His claims to headship were strenuously opposed by his brothers and some of the nearest disciples.

 A bitter quarrel began as a consequence and has raged to the present time. Letters were sent by each party to the Persian Bahais, involving them in the quarrel.

Mohammed Ali composed a book, called the “Ityan-i-Dallil,” presenting proofs of the invalidity of Abbas’ claims, from the writings of Baha.

They charge Abbas with concealing and annulling Baha’s will, perverting his teachings, changing the writings of Baha, publishing expurgated and interpolated editions of them, and attempting to suppress the authorized Bombay editions. Specifically they accuse him of publishing a Lawh-i-Beirut, a Tablet in which Abbas is greatly exalted, and attributing it to Baha, though it is spurious; that he has inserted verses into letters written in the hand of Baha’s amanuensis and published them as genuine; has omitted verses from the “Tablet of Command”; made up the “Treasure Tablet” from parts of several others; appropriated to himself Tablets pertaining to Mirza Mohammed Ali; and commanded to destroy all Tablets of Baha which have not his (Abbas’) seal upon them. Per contra the party of Abbas accused his brothers of intemperance and profligacy and of heresy, covenant-breaking and fraud. Mr. Hadad reported M Mohammed Ali and Badi Ullah as “being profligate and wanton, frequenting wine shops and being spendthrifts.”

Mr. Getsinger said he had seen Badi Ullah in the street intoxicated and being helped home by two servants, that he and his brother had taken and pawned the effects of Baha, rugs, hand-bags, etc., and a pearl rosary belonging to Baha which was valued at $10,000 (!) and had squandered the money.”

Abbas said to Mrs. Grundy, “Mohammed Ali has appropriated many papers and tablets written by the Blessed Perfection (Baha). It is possible for these writings to be altered, as the meanings in Persian are greatly changed by a single dot here and there. Before His Ascension, the Blessed Perfection said to me, ‘I have given you all the papers.’ He put them in two satchels and sent them to me. After His Ascension, Mohammed Ali said, ‘You had better give me the two satchels to take care of.’ He took them away and never returned them.”

 He said that Mohammed Ali deceives, “for the Will was also written by Mohammed Ali’s own hand from dictation of the Blessed Perfection. By violating the Covenant (Will) he has become a fallen branch. All the beautiful blossoms upon the Tree of Life were destroyed by Mohammed Ali.”

Abbas proceeded to the use of boycott and anathema. He ordered that no one of the Acca community should send any letters anywhere without first showing them to him, and commanded the Bahais in Persia not to receive any letters that were not sealed by him, but to send them back to him, and that in writing to Acca they should send their letters open.

 These restrictions on freedom gave great offense. Abbas also prohibited his followers from associating with his brothers and their followers, strictly ordering them “not to sit, meet, speak or correspond with them, not even to trade or associate with them in any profession.”

 Khadim reports that “once in his own house, Abbas rose up and furiously attacked” his stepmother, who, in return, reviled him and fled from the house, wailing. “At the sacred tomb he used cruelly to treat the brothers and sisters.”

 ”On one occasion he repeatedly struck his youngest (half) sister in the presence of her little ones and many believers,” scolding her “with a loud voice, uttering many harsh words.” On another occasion he “insulted and beat Khadim (Mirza Aga Jan, Baha’s amanuensis) at the sacred place” and afterwards “ordered his followers to imprison and cruelly beat him, which they did.”

 He sent adrift Abdul Gaffar Ispahani, called Abdullah, one of the first believers on Baha, in such destitute condition that he died of hunger and was buried in a potter’s field at Damascus. “Alas! Alas!” exclaims Mirza Aga Jan, “Abbas Effendi has caused his followers to display such vehemence of hatred and rancour, the like of which has never been shown by barbarous nations, and even by the most ignorant tribes.” Of Abbas, Mrs. Templeton writes: “His pride, alas, is great…. He seems to be blinded…. With regard to business matters Abbas Effendi has not been just to his brothers, who have suffered a good deal in consequence.”

Abbas Effendi cut off the living of his stepmothers, brothers and their dependents.

Baha Ullah and his household had a stipend from the Turkish Government, as Azal and the Babis in Cyprus had, and it was not an ungenerous allowance. “The family had an income from the Government, as well as a revenue from three villages.”

“These funds Abbas Effendi appropriated and with these made his charitable gifts (?) leaving the forty dependents of the younger brothers to live as best they could.” This excluding the protesters from their share of the income and offerings embittered the strife, at the same time weakening their ability to propagate their contention. Bitterness and enmity increased; recriminations and accusations inflamed the passions of both sides. Mirza Abul Fazl, the philosopher of the movement, gives, as a partisan of Abbas Effendi, an account of these times in his “Bahai Proofs.”

 He describes the “ruinous discords and divisions,” “the world-consuming flame of jealousy and hatred of the people of error,” “the hard hearts of the men of hostility,” “the animosity and groundless pride,” “the senseless hatred, degradation and shame of the violators of the covenant.” He gives the opprobrious title of Nakhazeen to Mohammed Ali’s party.

 He continues, “The evil intrigues, calumnies, false pamphlets and accusations, evil tongues and cursings of the Nakhazeen divided the community and filled it with foul odours.” Several outside parties tried to act as mediators and bring about a reconciliation. Among these were the British Consul at Haifa and Mrs. Templeton. The younger brothers agreed to the terms. Abbas Effendi was formally requested to show the Will before impartial witnesses and all were to abide by its word. “This he resolutely refused to do and he must stand condemned for this before all impartial men.”

 After the failure of these efforts at reconciliation, the anger and bitterness waxed hotter. To quote Abul Fazl again: “The Nakhazeen cursed and insulted the visitors to the tomb of the Blessed Perfection,” so that there was danger of its desecration. “Consequently Abbas Effendi asked the local (Turkish) Government to supply a guard to accompany and protect” his party. Abbas also went to Tiberias and made complaint to the Government there.

 As a result of all these conditions, “The people of hostility and violation,” says Abul Fazl, “availed themselves of political machinations,” in other words, Mohammed Ali’s party, “those dwellers in hellfire,” appealed to the “fanatical men of those lands,” i.e., those same Turkish Authorities. Mohammed Ali formally complained to the Governor of Damascus, Nazim Pasha, sending Mirza Majd-ud-Din as his special messenger.

They accused Abbas of retaining their stipends, of confiscating their patrimony, including the father’s gold watch which had been donated to Mohammed Ali. Above all, according to the interesting narrative of Abbas’ sister, Bahiah Khanum, they made accusation that the shrine which was being erected on Mount Carmel “was intended as a fort, in which Abbas and his followers would intrench themselves, defy the Government, and endeavour to gain possession of this part of Syria.”

 To use the words of Abbas, they said that “he had hoisted the banner of independence; upon that he had inscribed ‘Ya Baha-ul Abha’: that he had summoned all to assemble that he might found a new monarchy.” Therefore “an inquisitorial body (a Commission) was appointed by the Government.

To them the copartners of my brothers confirmed them (the reports) and added to them.” After the report of the Commission and in consequence of these charges and counter-charges of the “Greatest Branch of God” and the “Mightiest Branch of God,” a telegram was received from the Sultan to the Governor “issuing a firman, decreeing the original order, by which Baha’s family were confined within the walls of Acca.”

 After nine years of quarrelling (nine being the sacred number of Bahais) this order was put in force, 1901 A.D. They were still confined to Acca in 1906 when I visited Haifa. I saw the shrine and the fine residence of Baha at Haifa, just beside the English Mission. It deserves to be emphasized that the cause of the Bahai leaders being restricted to Acca was not religious persecution by Moslems but their own quarrellings.

Samuel Graham Wilson

For more detail refer: Bahaism and its Claim by Samuel Wilson

|By Manya A. Brachear, Tribune reporter

Every religion has been riven by struggles over authority and authenticity.

Buddhism began when a maverick Hindu prince inspired disciples to embrace asceticism. Judaism has sprouted branches from ultra-orthodox to ultra-liberal, even Jews for Jesus. Christianity went through numerous profound splits, including the Protestant Reformation sparked in the 16th Century by Martin Luther in Germany and the 19th Century Mormon movement led by Joseph Smith in the U.S.

Now the Baha’i Faith, the organization representing the most recent sect to spring from Islam, is struggling to defend its identity in federal court in Chicago, where North American Baha’is have been based ever since believers came to the U.S. about 90 years ago. They contend that a tiny band of believers known as the Orthodox Baha’i Faith can’t call themselves Baha’i or use one of its key symbols without violating trademark law or a previous court ruling more than 40 years ago.

In the hands of the federal 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, the case could set a precedent for settling religious schisms, doctrinal disputes and claims to truth.

“The word Baha’i carries with it implications for a certain sets of beliefs — and we have to protect that,” said Robert Stockman, a practicing Baha’i and religious studies instructor at DePaul University.

Adherents of the Orthodox Baha’i Faith believe the international community has strayed from the religion’s original teachings. That deviation, they say, threatens to interfere with God’s plan for the world.

Baha’u'llah, who founded the faith in Iran in the mid-19th Century, is regarded by Baha’is as the most recent messenger of God in a long line including Abraham, Buddha, Krishna, Jesus and Muhammad. Baha’is believe Baha’u'llah revealed God’s plan by which humanity one day would unite to become a single race.

On a Web site called www.truebahai.com, the orthodox group faults the mainstream denomination for corrupting that plan.

The mainstream Baha’is have responded with a lawsuit that tries to bar the orthodox from calling themselves Baha’i and sharing the “The Greatest Name,” a sacred and trademarked symbol. Baha’is believe they are not only safeguarding their identity. They are defending the truth with a capital T.

The Orthodox say that is not a matter for the courts to decide.

“We’re the true faith. That’s what we would say,” said Jeffrey Goldberg, a member of the Orthodox Baha’i Faith who left Chicago to be closer to an Orthodox community in New Mexico. “That has to be decided in the hearts and minds of the Baha’i, not by a secular court order.”

The Baha’is first took breakaway believers to court in 1966 after a tumultuous time for their community. Nine years earlier, Shoghi Effendi, guardian of the faith and direct descendant of the founding prophet, had died unexpectedly and allegedly without naming a successor.

Leaders decided a Universal House of Justice envisioned by Effendi would oversee the faith. But shortly after the leaders announced their solution, one of them declared that Effendi actually had intended for him to serve as the next guardian.

Charles Mason Remey, then in his 90s, said Effendi had addressed him in letters as his son or spiritual descendant.

The National Assembly of France and about 100 others followed Remey. But the rest of the Baha’i community declared Remey a covenant breaker, expelled him from the faith and successfully sued his followers, barring them from calling themselves Baha’i and using the sacred symbol. Remey’s group disbanded, but orthodox believers reorganized and continued to maintain the guardianship.

Thirty years later, Goldberg, an active Baha’i in Barrington, came upon the splinter group while surfing the Internet. He became convinced that he had been duped.

With no explanation, Goldberg quietly resigned from the community because he knew the consequences. When Bahai’s are declared covenant breakers, they are shunned or ostracized with the exception of business relations.

But Janice Franco wouldn’t let Goldberg go that easily. She insisted on knowing why he left and, when he told her, went on a quest to prove him wrong. After plunging herself into Baha’i literature, Franco discovered Goldberg might have a point.

Indeed, both Goldberg and Franco were declared covenant breakers and shunned. Goldberg’s wife was encouraged to divorce her husband. Franco’s home-schooled children lost a number of friends. To this day, they are wary of organized religion.

“It was devastating news to find out the larger group had strayed,” Franco said. “I want to follow the truth. I don’t want to support a mistake. The consequence is I don’t have a community.”

Then in 2006, the mainstream Baha’is filed a lawsuit, accusing the orthodox believers of violating the court order issued 40 years earlier.

The Orthodox Baha’is insist they aren’t the same group. They also say a religious denomination can’t trademark truth. The term Baha’i refers to a follower of Baha’u'llah. That applies to him and other Orthodox Baha’i, he said.

“From our point of view, if you believe in Christ you can use the word Christ in your name,” Goldberg said. “It’s a little bit like asking you to recant your faith. It’s unacceptable to us.”

But Stockman said it is the religion’s responsibility to protect the Baha’i name.

“Baha’is are told again and again to try to exercise discipline on what they say about their faith and don’t confuse the public. … We have our own community to build,” he said.

There are 5 million Baha’is in the world — 150,000 in the U.S., including 2,000 in the Chicago area. Why the mainstream denomination waited four decades to enforce the court ruling is a mystery. Baha’i leaders declined interview requests.

Barring the Orthodox believers from using the name “Baha’i” prevents them from popping up in Google when users type in that term.

Stockman said the Web is a tricky place to have conversations about spiritual truth.

“It’s not our desire to convert people. It’s our desire to put our material out there for people to know what the truth is and decide themselves.”

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-05-18/news/0905170216_1_ortho…

For one, the concept of Guardianship was not a minor point in the  Baha’i religion prior to the death of Shoghi Effendi. Indeed, it was  no less important to Baha’is than the patriarchies of the Orthodox Christian and Roman Catholic religions.

I would go so far as to say that it is more important, since the Guardianship was far more emphasized in Baha’i writings than was the  papacy or patriarchies.

…. the administration of the church was far less— far less  emphasized in the Bible than was the case of the Guardianship among  Baha’is. Given this critical emphasis upon the Guardianship, its  abandonment clearly undermines the claims of the Baha’i religion to  divine inspiration.

This is especially true since the transmission of Guardian authority  would have been such an easy matter to arrange. At the least, Shoghi  could have put in writing (in multiple copies for security) the name  of his successor, and if he wished to keep the matter a secret until  the right moment, could have sealed the appointment and deposited it  for safekeeping in any of a number of secure repositories.

He didn’t.

Why? That’s a huge inconsistency, just absolutely huge.

In order for majority-faction Baha’is to explain this, they have to  abandon large chunks of the basic foundations of their religion. For example, they could no longer claim superiority of writings. Their writings (scripture) could no longer be regarded as definitive compared to translated copies of the Bible, for example. Everything suddenly had to be “interpreted.”

Publications had to be subject to censorship. The Guardianship had to  be de-emphasized, indeed,scuttled, as if it had never really been important (when in fact it had been crucial). Suddenly, with the passing of Shoghi Effendi, the claims of divine revelation had been revealed to be the works not of God, but of man.

The point I made was to contrast the stated crucial importance of the guardianship during Shoghi’s life, and afterward.  While he was alive, there was enormous emphasis on a continuing, inherited or appointed, guardianship.  But upon Shoghi’s death, with no heir apparent, all that crucial importance became discarded as if it had never been written about.  This is an enormous discrepancy, and I have never seen a reasonable reconciliation of the two teachings on the guardianship.

                                                                                                                                          Bob

The problem with this is that prophecy foretells two consecutive world  governments.  The second one will be ruled by Jesus.  But the first  one will be ruled by Satan, and its consequence will be, for a time, a  hell-on-earth torment.

However, at first it will not seem that way.  At first, it will seem  that a utopian society has been established.  Peace will reign,  prosperity will abound, and all the major problems that beset the  world today will seem to have been resolved.

Only a very few will warn that this is a disguise, an outwardly mighty  oak, but full of inner rot.  After a brief period, that inner rot will  cause the entire house of cards to collapse.  And then the wrath of  Satan will descend on all the world.

The trap into which Baha’is are falling is a deadly one.  The trend  toward a world government is already very clear, and many Baha’is see  this trend as a fulfillment of their religious beliefs.  They  celebrate the coming to fruition of all the foretellings and guidance of their prophet.

Worse yet, Baha’is may be instrumental in bringing about this one- world government.  Even though Baha’is are supposed to remain aloof  from secular politics, they are not.  They are actively promoting,  under various guises, the authority of the United Nations, which  itself has no real authority to command any nation, but is only a  gathering place where nations can sort out problems among themselves.

In this way, Baha’is are themselves becoming part of the problem.

In the United States, government is not predicated on the divine right  to rule, which underlay the tradition of European monarchies.  The US  model is that the rulers are the people.

The Euro model is that if the people obey the government, the king  will take care of the needs of the people.

The American model is that if the government obeys the people, the  people will take care of their own needs, and will restrain the  government to the confines of its limited and enumerated duties.

Sadly, the Euro model has infiltrated North America, and has savagely  undermined the practice of the Constitution, until legislators feel  free to pass into law, bills which they have not so much as even read.

So yes, the socialist model is in full ascendancy, and will eventually  place everyone under its heel.  For a time, this will seem to have  been the best course— at least according to people who trade freedom  for free things.

But eventually, the velvet glove will come off, and the iron fist will  prevail until Jesus Himself defeats it.