Want to know how Baha’is exaggerate their numbers in India?

Read this…..

A-Once a Baha’i is registered in their record (By whatever means) he becomes immortal and he never dies. So the Indian Baha’i census has all those Bahais who registered themselves since the time of Abdul Baha and Shoghi effendi.

B-It is a universal phenomenon, every where that Bahais usually signed the card not knowing that it is an independent religion. After his realization he leaves the Faith and he is no more a Bahai. But the Baha’i administration believes that “Once a Baha’i Always a Baha’i”. The process is irreversible.

C-Bahais usually multiply their number many folds thinking that every Baha’i must be married and therefore must be having a wife and few children.

D-Those paid workers in the Baha’i Faith, to justify their salaries and their effectiveness have collected a number of non existing addresses

Reality of Bahai faith is assessed after ,

1-removing the name of Bahais once they die.
2-removing the Cards of the Bahais once they leave the Faith.
3-checking all the addresses collected by the National Office, whether those people exist or not.

It is only then that the number 11,000 is the most appropriate figure as given by Official census of Government of India.

At the end I would like to quote your sentence, “For a religion to progress and propagate, sincere service is required to attract the masses and not lip service to attract the masses and then believing that they have abandoned the religion of their ancestors”.

Comment by S.Khare Bhopal M.P.

bahaicensusindia.blogspot.com


Cracks in the Covenant

Bahais present their “Covenant” as something unique to their religion. They present it as an undisputable documented contract of inheritance, a will and testament, if you will, that is protected by God so that any violaters against it will be rendered impotent by it.

The Bahai Faith’s history is full of fragmentation, and the course the Bahai Faith has taken has taken quick surprise turns on a number of occasions.

Bahai Faith is itself a product of Covenant Breaking

First Covenant Breaking

The act that brought the Bahai Faith itself into existence was in defiance of such a covenant. The Bab’s successor, was actually Mirza Yahya and Not Bahaullah.  Bahais produced evidence that Bahaullah was the Bab’s intended successor, but did not deny that the Báb appointed Mirza Yahya.

Second Covenant Breaking

Mirza Muhammad Ali

Bahaullah appointed his eldest son Abdul Baha as his successor and after him his younger son Mohammed Ali. After the death of Abdul Baha although Mohammed Ali was alive still many followed , Shoghi effendi the grandson of Abdul Baha. Not following Mohammed Ali was Covenant Breaking of Bahaullah’s writing.

Third Covenant Breaking

Later, the third Bahai leader, Shoghi Effendi, died childless. Having failed to produce a will, and having failed to leave any clear indication of a successor, Shoghi left the Bahai world in a precarious situation. What he did was in apparent violation of the Bahai Covenant.

The Bahais whose allegiance lies with the heterodox organisation, those loyal to the Universal House of Justice currently seated in Haifa, Israel, maintain that those who are true to the Covenant will be empowered by the Covenant.

Bahai history shows us a different picture. At many times, the Bahais who eventually prevailed were nearly vanquished. Only recently has there been such a dominant sect in the Bahai Faith, but even that denomination seems impotent and obscure, lacking the influence to even familiarize the world with the word Bahai in this information age.

Bahai history is mottled with inheritance disputes. In defense of their Covenant, Bahais regard the darker periods as divine tests, arguing that egos are often tested by opportunities for power.


Copper converted to gold

In Kitab-i-Iqan or the Book of Certitude, Bahaullah claims that copper, in a span of 70 years would be converted to gold.
“For instance, consider the substance of copper. Were it to be protected in its own mine from becoming solidified, it would, within the space of seventy years, attain to the state of gold. There are some, however, who maintain that copper itself is gold, which by becoming solidified is in a diseased condition, and hath not therefore reached its own state.

Be that as it may, the real elixir will, in one instant, cause the substance of copper to attain the state of gold, and will traverse the seventy-year stages in a single moment. Could this gold be called copper? Could it be claimed that it hath not attained the state of gold, whilst the touch-stone is at hand to assay it and distinguish it from copper?” [12]

Certainly interesting for Alchemists who have turned into Biochemists!
Regarding Bahaullah’s scientific wisdom, I can only add that such ignorant and incorrect statements, presented by Bahaullah as solid and clear facts, naturally questions his credibility and mental sanity.
Now let’s look into some of Bahaullah’s and Baha’ism’s universal and superior directives.
The punishment of theft

In the Kitab-i-Aqdas, Bahaullah instructs his followers to punish thieves [13].
On the first offence the thief is exiled, on the second, imprisonment is prescribed and on the third offence a mark is placed on the thief’s forehead. This means that if a thief is caught for the first time, he is to be exiled. In the new city he continues to steal and when caught people will not know of his past, so he will be exiled to another city and will keep on stealing.
Let’s though assume that a thief is recognized and caught on the third offence, will the mark on his forehead now prevent him from stealing if exile and imprisonment did not? Is the mark on the thief’s forehead a license to continue his crimes? What about those caught for the fourth time? How will they be punished?
The punishment for adultery
Adultery and fornication according to Bahaullah is punishable by a fine paid to the Universal House of Justice, (UHJ). On page 15 of Kitab-i-Aqdas (The Most Holy Book), he writes, “It is a must for every adulterer and adulteress that they must pay to the Universal House of Justice and give 9 mithqals of gold. And should they repeat the act, the atonement will be doubled.”[14] However if the adulterer/adulteress cannot afford it, then “the poor are the trust of God in your midst”[15] This means that the rich will easily commit adultery and the poor who can’t afford the adultery penalty, will still very easily commit adultery as they are “in the protection of God”!
Further, I am very curious to know why adultery and fornication have the same punishment- are both crimes considered equally destructive and injurious to the society and the individuals involved?

Also what an honorable way for the men of Universal House of Justice to fill their coffers and ‘fulfill their responsibilities’! (The UHJ consists only of Baha’i men since Bahai women are not allowed to participate in the law making process in their faith’s supreme governing institution…Now, that’s called gender equality!)
Although Baha’i proponents seem to preach ‘unity, peace and equality among mankind’ their history, marred by violence, and their teachings, which are in fact twisted and changed Islamic laws, contradict their averred concept of world peace and gender equality.

[13] Kitab-i-Aqdas, text nr. 45
http://www.ishwar.com/bahai/holy_kitab_i_aqdas/texts03.html
[14] Kitab-i-Aqdas, text nr 49
http://www.ishwar.com/bahai/holy_kitab_i_aqdas/texts03.html
[15] Kitab-i-Aqdas: its place in Baha’i literature
Published in The Baha’i World 1992-93 pages 105-117 Baha’i World Centre, 1993, ISBN 0-85398-996-6, Original written in English. Haifa: 1993
http://bahai-library.com/file.php5?file=aqdas_bahai_literature&language=
See the part on ‘Government’


Infallibility of UHJ

As a historian of religion, I would argue that the disenrollment of Sen McGlinn is another in a series of signs that the Baha’i Faith is becoming a churchin the Weberian sense, bound together by doctrinal considerations rather than informal enthusiasm (as was often the case in the 1960s and 1970s).The two doctrines, departing from which has resulted in sanctions, are the absolute infallibility of the Universal House of Justice and its future role atthe head of a global theocracy wherein Baha’i administrative institutions will also form the civil government. I know that Baha’i readers will object thatShoghi Effendi expressed reservations about the phrase “theocracy,” but I would argue that the doctrine of theocracy now being imposed from Haifa isanyway incompatible with the plain texts of the holy figures. So I am using the word as a social science term, since social scientists would typicallyconsider the assertion that religious institutions will exercise temporal rule a form of theocracy.

The doctrine of the infallibility of the Universal House of Justice has evolved radically in recent decades. Abdul-Baha called the institution ma`sum or”guarded from sin by God,” but said its `ismat was derivative, which certainly makes it sound not very strong, and far from absolute. And, of course,he had also expressed the hope in The Secret of Divine Civilization that the Iranian cabinet would prove “ma`sum,” or protected by God from makingbig errors. Orally, he denied his own infallibility. So he did not mean by the term anything approaching “absolute infallibility.” Once a body calling itselfthe Universal House of Justice was actually elected, at a time when the original plans for the structure of the religion, found in the writings of the holyfigures, had clearly fallen through, there was a natural tendency for that body and its appointees and clients to put very strong emphasis on infallibility.It is a way of asserting leadership of a disparate community. They developed the doctrine into one of absolute infallibility. This process is a form of theiron law of bureaucracy, wherein entrenched elites inevitably have far more power over time to shape things than rank and file “citizens.” The absoluteinfallibility of the Universal House of Justice is an implicit, assumed belief, and for those who uphold it, it is one of the things that define being a Baha’i.The doctrine of theocracy is mysterious in its origins, though Sen McGlinn has given many clues as to its development in the Western communities. Itcertainly directly contradicts the position of the Baha’i holy figures. Precisely because it is contrary to the scriptural texts, policing this doctrine is allthe more crucial for those who believe in it (and who have somehow managed to make believing in it a criterion for rising high in the religion).Otherwise, as a doctrine it is volatile and unstable, constantly in danger of deconstructing itself. Actually, insofar as the most great infallibility wasreserved by Baha’u’llah for the Manifestations of God, the absolute infallibility of the Universal House of Justice is likewise not scriptural. (And sinceBaha’is have to live every day with numerous errors made by that body, it is also contrary to common sense). It, too, is an unstable doctrine and somust be imposed zealously if it is to survive.

The adherents of absolute infallibility and of theocracy are reluctant to promulgate these ideas as a formal orthodoxy to be affirmed, e.g., in acatechism. They certainly would like to do so. But they tend to treat the New Orthodoxy (they would deny it is new) as a goal toward which they wantto take the community, gradually and over time. In many ways, this Orthodoxy is often a secret from the rank and file, and many Baha’is onlyencounter it if they move high up in the administration. When the doctrine of theocracy was first discussed on the old This e-mail address is beingprotected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it in the mid-1990s, many posters remarked that they had never encountered it andcertainly did not believe in it.

All of the Baha’i scholars and intellectuals who have been threatened, harassed or sanctioned by the Baha’i administration since the late 1970s havebeen guilty of publicly disputing one of these two doctrines. Since the high administrators believe that these two doctrines define Baha’i orthodoxy andlegitimate membership in the community, an open, public, and vocal challenge to them is almost always met with sanctions. The Baha’i administration iswell aware that most Baha’is probably have not yet accepted these two doctrines, but is willing to chalk this phenomenon up to the immaturity of thebelievers. They are not sanctioned because they are not writers, and have no particular influence, and are not so much opposed to the New Orthodoxyas they are just not convinced of it.

The sociological mechanisms whereby Baha’i administrators and intellectuals throughout the world are inducted behind the scenes into this two-foldNew Orthodoxy are unclear and need investigation. Many of the signals given by high administrators lack explicitness.

So, it is clear that the Universal House of Justice has called upon members of the National Spiritual Assemblies throughout the world (is that 1100persons or so?) to refute Sen McGlinn’s book, a powerful signal that they must uphold the doctrine of theocracy. It is also clear that removal of McGlinnfrom membership in the community is a form of excommunication or takfir (takfir is simply saying that someone who considers himself or herself abeliever is not actually a believer, because of some essential deficit). And the basis for the takfir is his public refutation of the key doctrine ofTheocracy.

Doctrinally-based churches, such as Roman Catholicism, always impose sanctions on believers who publicly reject key doctrines. This move isnecessary in part to protect the doctrines themselves, since sanctioning an author brands his or her work with a sort of taboo, making the work lesslikely to prove able to challenge the Orthodox doctrine within a community eager to stay on the right side of orthodoxy. The Baha’i faith has simplybecome such a doctrinally-based church. Since so many rank and file believers came in via the old “sect-like” route of popular enthusiasm, theadministrative Church above presides unevenly over the remnants of the Sect (in the technical sense) below.

That is why the New Orthodoxy must remain a secret orthodoxy, but must nevertheless be policed, putting the “heretics” in the Kafkaesque positionof not knowing exactly why they have been sanctioned. The “doctrine” may not be named as such, the “heresy” may also not be named, and even thesanction, of excommunication of various sorts, may not be called that, either. Naming these things would signal to the rank and file that theiradministration had become a doctrinal church, of a sort many of them joined the Baha’i faith to get away from.

cheers

Juan Cole
History, U of Michigan


Was Abdul Baha’s “Will and Testament”. produced to the general public after His death? Or, was it known to have existed before His death?

I don’t think Abdul Baha’s “Will and Testament” was known to have existed before his death. If it was, then at least the part appointing Shoghi Effendi as “Guardian” was unknown, because even Shoghi himself wrote that he had no idea before Abdul-Baha died that he would be given any position in the faith except possibly the ceremonial convener of the Universal House of Justice.

Bahiyyih Khanum played a big role in persuading Bahais to accept the will and its appointment of Shoghi Effendi to Guardianship. In fact, for a couple of years after Abdul-Baha died, Bahiyyih was running the faith and seen as its temporary head (at least among those who had rejected Mirza Muhammad Ali). She was the biggest champion of the appointment of Shoghi, and remained highly influential even after he returned to the Holy Land to assume the mantle of Guardianship following his years of vacationing in Switzerland after his nervous breakdown.

If the will was forged, I suppose one would have to consider Bahiyyih Khanum as one of the logical suspects for who might have done the forging — as shocking as that thought may be — since she actually was leading the (non-Unitarian) Bahais at the time of Abdul-Baha’s death and continued to do so for a long time. She had the power and thus the opportunity.

Eric S.