This post has nothing to do with economics, governance, business, finance, etc. So if you arrived at this site hoping for some discussion about that sort of thing, don’t feel bad if you end up closing this window and going here.
Instead, I wanted to break the routine and share some personal reflections on what I think the Baha’i Faith truly is and its purpose. I don’t plan to provide a discussion of its teachings, a supremely useful exercise but one that has been done impeccably well already by many others. (If you’re looking for that, a great website that does this simply and eloquently is here.) Rather, I thought I’d share a song that on its surface might seem completely unrelated to the Faith, but in my opinion captures its essence better than anything I’ve encountered.
A few years ago some Baha’is I knew were hosting a fireside discussion with friends about the Faith in their home on Cape Cod, and invited me to come along. I can’t remember much about that evening, including what was said or even the general topic of discussion. All I can really remember is the warmth and friendliness of the atmosphere, and the song they played on the CD player to kick off the evening and set the mood. That song turned out to be Another Day by James Taylor, which is now easily one of my favorite songs ever. To this day, I own no James Taylor albums and have little interest in listening to his other music. But I remain obsessed with Another Day.
My poor wife has endured hours of my gushing about this song, and has handled it (mostly) with class. That’s what they don’t tell you about marriage before you tie the knot: get ready to hear the same stories over and over for the next half century until you die. So thank you, wife whose name will not be mentioned for personal privacy reasons.
A Comment by Julian on a YouTube thread:
Indian people should not give up their natural and ancient religions for the Baha’i faith. The Baha’i faith is very different from Indian religion. And it lacks a great deal by comparison.
Response by an Indian who is adopting and promoting the Baha’i Faith:
“Hi friend, thank you for sharing your views. My background is Hindu and I consider myself to uphold the Hindu religion where ever I go.”
Julian: This is clearly because you are unfamiliar with your own religion.
The Indian: “Allow me to give you some insight, perhaps you have been misguided or miss understood the Baha’i Faith.”
Julian: I was a very involved Baha’i for 12 years. I know full well about the shallow, religion-reductive Baha’i Faith.
“Baha’i Faith is a beautiful religion you just need to investigate what it truly means. Being a Baha’i”
It means ignoring and being clueless about the contents of other religions but acting like you know. It also means world-obsession and a fetish for mixing bodies of different types together; getting thrills from that. That is, verily, an embarrassment to religion.
“Baha’u’llah says “you are upholding all the divine religions of the past.” This means i am Muslim, a Jew, a Christian, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Sikh, a Babi, and so on. How can a Baha’i stay away from Indian people when Indian people like myself are Baha’is. Peace, light and love :-)”
Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh even. That’s a typical Baha’i mouthful. The Sikhs are centered on listening to the enrapturing inner divine sound of God that they call Shabd. Do Baha’is have a take on that? Not last time I checked.
In brief: Do you even know what’s in these religions? Baha’is have no concept of the contents of the Bhagavad-Gita, Upanishads, Yoga-Sutras, etc. That content is far beyond Baha’i conceptions of religion. Most basic concepts of Hinduism — such as meditation and meditation techniques, analysis of the mind, analysis of the problem of samsara/duality, or the divine efficacy of austerities (tapas) — do not exist in the Baha’i Faith. And yet these are fundamental conceptions — and religious realities — that bear on mankind’s fundamental problem as beings trapped in dualistic external existence. That last profound concept of man’s problem — a central starting point in Hinduism and Buddhism — has no conceptual development in the Baha’i Faith; it cannot even be found on their mental radar.
“My Friend, change is the only constant thing in life, as civilization progresses then so does mankind progress and evolve, it is inevitable. We must embrace change and embrace new religions as one. It does not mean you should through away your culture or heritage.”
Whether the simplistic and primitive Baha’i Faith represents cultural progress or evolution is a question I’ll leave for later. But you are throwing away your magnificent religious heritage by embracing the Baha’i Faith. I know both religions, and of this there can be no doubt. Baha’is alternately clueless or phobic towards most your profound religious heritage. If they don’t ignore it and trivialize it with ersatz posturing toward meditation (a subject beyond them) they outright reject it. For example they discredit the spiritual value of austerities/tapas. (Though none have tried it, I am sure.) Baha’u’llah calls your saints and ascetics deluded “creatures.” Baha’u’llah had a clueless disdain for all your yogis, rishis, and saints who sought and found God within. In fact, the very idea of a God that is personally realizable within — the central and choicest aspect of Hinduism — is utterly undeveloped in the Baha’i Faith! They even consider discussion of such subjects taboo and shun whatever content speaks to it in their own writings. Baha’u’llah’s simplistic Islamic, exterior-focused religious viewpoint in no way encompasses the vast spiritual understanding of the Hindu religious heritage. May as well try to invite and elephant into a mouse’s hole.
So Hindus worship “change” now, do they? An educated Hindu would say that Brahman — the immutable Pure Consciousness — is the only constant in life, and that it must be found. Clearly you don’t understand that the purpose of religion, in Hinduism and other great religions, is to get beyond the tyranny of change and find the Changeless God. the Immutable. You were sadly not educated in your own religion, thus how can you know that the Baha’i Faith fulfills it or improves it?
Read the rest of this entry »
This is not an attack on the Baha’i Faith as some might be prone to suggest. This is an exposition of the experiences that initiated, conflagrated, and concluded my crisis of faith with the conviction that the Baha’i Writings are a testament to the profoundly beautiful, albeit imperfect creativity and wisdom of human beings; but that no more credit is due God for these writings than for any other penned expression of love.
Some Core Beliefs in Review
My closest and dearest friend has been a part of my spiritual journey for many years now, leading me back in my darkest hours to my core belief that God is love and reinforcing the ideal to which I hold that judgement is not of God. She has been my inspiration to explore the questions of spirituality and is the sole reason I have any belief in God at all.
My spiritual journey began with the question, “How would you like it if someone did that to you?”. Not even the words of the most holy manifestation of God could match the power and directness of a question uttered by one of many somewhat frustrated fathers albeit the one in question being my own. This was reinforced with the beautiful Christian concept that God is love, but not before I was taught the Old Testament doctrine that all should “fear God”. What is there to fear of one who loves you? Indeed, what is there to fear of love? You see, the evident disparity in religious dialogue always made me keenly aware of the gulf between spirituality and pseudo-spirituality, between practical reciprocation and the devaluation of the human being before such idols as are used to justify the unconscionable. This speaks to the great question I believe divides the “armies of Armageddon”, as to whether religion was given Creation by the Creator to benefit the Creator even at the expense of Creation or religion was given unto Creation by the Creator to benefit Creation even at the expense of the Creator (Who by definition has infinite capacity to endure expense!). One ideology makes God in man’s image to be the ultimate idol, whereas the other sets God beyond human frailties as would befit the Mother of Creation. One ideology is extensively materialistic, manipulative, judgemental, and exoteric; whereas the other ideology is profoundly spiritual, reciprocal, understanding, and prone to be esoteric – even if unnecessarily so.
I believe that any theology that alludes to the Creation being the plaything of the Creator as opposed to something more serious and sophisticated makes a mockery of everything that is purported to be “holy” by reducing the Creator to little more than a neurotic monster of great power. In the absence of any measurable evidence of explicitly divine temper tantrums, such allusions impose redundant and therefore unnecessary complexity on theological models and belief systems. Such impositions are excessively unreasonable in the absence of supporting evidence.
One of the realities to which both sides of “Armageddon” are prone is that interpretation is necessarily fluid in the formation of any consistent theology having philosophical integrity (IE internal congruency). This essentially gives the appearance of “shifting the goalposts”. However, fluidity of interpretation is necessitated by the metaphorical nature of primitive languages that engage the use of allegories when communicating the numerous concepts beyond the native vocabulary. This also leads to the shifting of interpretation when demonstrating divine “infallibility” or prophetic fulfilment. As such, neither are valid proofs of divinity because such shifts whether necessary or not, still “shift the goalposts” without allowing falsifiability. This forces the seeker to dig deeper – in search of that ever elusive philosophical integrity.
Philosophical integrity describes the state in which an induced maxim is the source of deduced axioms and major or first principles from which are derived laws with similarly derived scope. Most often, you need to connect the dots for yourself – and if you can, this provides a good reason to join the troop. However, continued involvement requires continued rationality making the “independent search for truth” a never ending investigation. This becomes problematic if the emphasis of consensus with ever shifting group interpretations and priorities increases.
Why become a Baha’i?
I became a member of the Baha’i Faith on ISO:1993-March-27 when I reached the realisation that God is big enough to embrace all peoples in infinite mercy and understanding and likewise, that God is intelligent enough to know, understand, and accept the reality of individual belief based in uniquely individual experience. I had come to the realisation that the “Divine Judge” was the “Great Deception” in that God is love whereas judgement is original sin and not love, and therefore not of God. This is because judgement can be the only fruit of the tree of knowledge of “good” and “evil”; the forbidden fruit that ruined “Adam” as surely as it ruins any other community (cf. Genesis 5:1). Thus, I joined the Baha’i Faith embracing the beautiful axioms which made so much sense in terms of many modern problems:
- Unity of humanity
- Independent investigation of truth
- The foundation of all religions is one
- Religion by definition is the cause of love and unity
- The essential harmony of science and religion
- The equal rights of men and women
- Abolition of all forms of prejudice and bigotry
- The obligation to universal peace
- The necessity of universal education
- A spiritual solution to economic problems
- The necessity of a universal auxiliary language
- The necessity of an international tribunal and government
These twelve principles or objectives can find origin with the empathic principle included vaguely in the maxim enshrined in the Covenant of Baha’u’llah as “The religion of God is for love and unity; make it not the cause of enmity and dissension.” I didn’t join the Baha’i Faith to have these primary expectations rationalised away for “more important” concepts like “obedience” and “faith”. I certainly didn’t join the Baha’i Faith to shun covenant-breakers or apologise for the numerous logical and contextual errors of key figures such as Shoghi Effendi, `Abdu’l-Baha, and even Baha’u’llah – especially in regard to the defamation of temperament groups simply because they were unanticipated by Baha’u’llah! I joined the Baha’i Faith to take a stand against submission rituals in the guise of irrational faith, which rituals are used to justify practices such as demonisation of inconvenient minorities and attempts to gain financial advantage by deception. I joined to show that social spirituality can and does exist without resort to fallacy and fraud.
Ninth Year Misgivings & Six Years of Spiritual Angst
My ninth year as a Baha’i proved to be one hell of a crisis of religion for me. Firstly it was pointed out that according to the Kitab-i-Aqdas (“The Most Holy Book”), accepting Baha’u’llah and obeying him were more important than any “good” including love and/or unity. This was a disappointing experience as I’d entered the Baha’i Faith on the understanding that “The religion of God is for love and unity” and not for purely solipsistic agendas such as recognition and obedience to the messenger of God for this day. The statement in the opening paragraph of the Kitab-i-Aqdas is quite clear, but I had a lot of trouble accepting this because “Most Holy” or not, the Aqdas is trumped by the Covenant in the scriptural hierarchy, is it not? Furthermore, it constitutes a clear example of the kind of “all or nothing” thinking that typifies cults (Tobias & Lalich, 1994):
The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition of Him Who is the Dayspring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause and the world of creation. Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof hath gone astray, though he be the author of every righteous deed.
(Baha’u’llah: The Kitab-i-Aqdas, P. 19)
This new cult is an offshoot of Baha’ism. Now its missionaries (also Iranian) denounce the Baha’i faith. They say that they don’t have any direct relationship with Baha’ism but they have written letters to the Baha’i Organizations to join them. They consider Baha’u’llah as one of the true prophet. The founder of Maitreya Cult was also born in Iran in 1944 (1844 is a significant year for Baha’is) and claims to be the one promised by Baha’u’llah. They have their reasoning, more powerful then what the Baha’is have. They also speak the language of Baha’is (Unity, Equality, Peace and stuff like that). Many Baha’is have accepted this new cult that originated in Iran but flourished in the West.
At first some Zoroastrians of Iran and later Iranian Zoroastrians settled in India accepted Bahaism. The secret movement of this new religion had misled us in the past. We have been misguided by their deceptions up to this day. The Bahais have no churches, they have no priests, they are free to marry non-Bahais. The President or Secretary of an association takes the place of a priest in their marriage ceremonies. Some such prominent person recites a short prayer. Thereafter the couple, their guardians and leading men of the assembly sign the document. At the time of the wedding an ‘Alvaha’ chosen from the Alvaha composed in Arabic by Bahaullah is recited. Under the canopy of their faith it is permissible to retain the ‘sudre’ and ‘kusti’ when necessary, to pass as Zoroastrians when need arises, to derive benefit from communal funds and its institutions. The corpse of the deceased they bury in their own separate cemetery.
After the death of Baha’u’llah and the inauguration of the ministry of Abdu’l-Baha, the Baha’i community in Bombay was split as a consequence of the activities of the followers of Mirza Muhammad Ali who had challenged his half-brother’s right to legitimate leadership. As a result, Abdu’l-Baha directed a number of prominent emissaries to India, both Persian and Western, to guide the community and encourage teaching. Among these were Mirza Mahmud Zarqani, Aqa Mirza Mahram, Mirza Hasan Adib, Ibin-i-Asdaq, Lua
Getsinger, Mrs. H. Stanndard, Sidney Sprague, Hooper Harris and Harlan Ober. By 1908 the work of these individuals along with a small group of local converts had produced functioning communities in Bombay, Calcutta, Aligarh and Lahore. Of these, the Bombay community took the forefront in both teaching and translation work. Its advancements in the area of translation marked the first time any of Baha’u’llah’s writings had been translated into one of the native languages of India. Bombay also managed to acquire the first Baha’i cemetery in India, and Abdu’l-Baha designed the layout of the sight. The activities of the Bombay community were commented upon by Sydney Sprague who in 1908 reported: “There are three meetings a week held in Bombay and there are as a rule eighty to a hundred men present He also noted that it was not easy to become a Baha’i: “It often means a great sacrifice on the part of a believer, a loss of friends, money and position.”
During this period, a number of Indian Zoroastrians (“Parsis”) were converted to the Baha’i Faith, thereby forming a nucleus of future Baha’i leadership in India. The conversions came about as a result of the work of agents who had originally been sent abroad by the Indian Zoroastrian community to help their coreligionists in Iran. There they came into contact with the Baha’i Faith and supported its activities. Later, several Iranian Zoroastrian converts to the Faith traveled to Bombay (notably Mulla Bahram Akhtar-Khavari) and actively promulgated their new religion among local Zoroastrians. Although they were met with opposition by some of the conservative dasturs, these missionary converts were quite successful in opening the Zoroastrian community to Baha’I concepts and teachings.
In following this tack the Baha’is were in many ways mirroring the attitudes of the reform movements with which they came into contact. Reform was primarily the prerogative of the upper classes who often looked to English liberal ideas and institutions for inspiration. There was little thought of speaking to the masses. Even in the secular Indian political arena it was English educated Indians in the professions who came to form, in effect, a new class, which prior to the arrival of Gandhi on the national scene was virtually cut off from the mass of the population. Moreover, the fact that for the most part the Baha’i message was presented in Persian, Arabic, Urdu, or English added to the sense of exclusivity, as these languages were generally associated with cultural elites.
Also of considerable importance was the establishment of the Afnan’s printing press in Bombay which not only resulted in greater contact with other Baha’i communities in the Middle East but also gave to that city a unique Baha’i cultural identity. Extensive telegraph, rail and steamship networks, initially established by European entrepreneurs and colonial governments for their own purposes, now linked the Middle East and British India and were key technological prerequisites for this greater integration of the community, as well.
For more details refer : http://bahaicult.blogspot.com
Extracted from : http://bahaideceit.blogspot.com/2012/07/lies-of-bahai-cult.html
The Bahais present the personality of Bahaullah in a uniquely flexible manner. Depending upon the faith of the person who is addressed, Bahaullah could be either a prophet, or the promised messiah, or even God Almighty.
One can understand this logic if it came from the followers of Bahaullah and put it down to their enthusiasm for the Faith or rather their desperation to ensure the growth in their ranks. However, we see that the person in question, Bahaullah, himself appears confused as to his role in this world. At different points in time, Bahaullah made each of these claims.
The objective of this article is to primarily highlight this factual element of history. To be honest, the claims of Bahaullah just cannot be put down to something as simple as confusion.
The seemingly logical graduation in the intensity of his claims and his self-induced ascension points to the fact that as he grew in power, and as the number of his followers increased, so did his claims.
He was a mentally disturbed individual who simply lusted for power and stopped at nothing to achieve it.
This thirst for power was not limited to Bahaullah only. In fact a large number of Babis, including the brother of Bahaullah also made various claims for themselves.
It is unfortunate that in today’s world the common Bahai is unaware of these facts. This article is a sincere attempt to bring out the true personality of Bahaullah. I have brought here irrefutable references to support my article at every stage and I invite reader feedback on the same.
The Fraudulent claims of Bab and his followers
Prior to reading the claims made by Bahaullah, let me remind you that, in his lifetime, the Bab too made numerous claims for himself. I have enumerated these in my article on The Babi Faith: Its Origin and History
- Initially he claimed to be the ‘Bab’ (Gate) of Mahdi
- He claimed to be Mahdi himself
- He also claimed to be the incarnation of the Prophet Mohammed
- Finally he claimed to be God Almighty.
The followers of the Bab accepted each of these claims as they were issued. Not only this, after witnessing their leader making tall claims for himself without reasonable or sufficient proofs, they began making tall claims for themselves also. Thus a series of claimants rose, among the Babis on a first-come-first-serve basis. Those who made claims earlier than the others could stake their claims to better and lucrative positions whereas the late comers had to be satisfied with what was left. Unfortunately, no two persons staked the same claim.
Here we present some of the claimants and their respective claims.
- Mulla Husain Bushrui, the first person to accept the Bab called himself ‘Bab-ul-Bab’ (Gate of the Gate).
- Haji Mohammed Ali claimed to be the incarnation of Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h).
- Qurratul Ayn, Tahera Qazvini claimed to be the incarnation of Fatemah, the daughter of the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h).
(Ref: Nuqtatul Qaaf by Mirza Jani, Page 14)
- Bab had predicted the advent of ‘Man Yozherohullah’ (The One whom God will manifest) in Bayan (Persian), chapter 17. Originally this title was conferred upon Mirza Yahya Nuri ‘Subh-e-Azal’, the younger brother of Mirza Husain Ali ‘Bahaullah. However the first person who staked his claim for this very title was Mirza Asadullah, a staunch Babi. Those who supported Mirza Asadullah in his claims were known as ‘Al-Hamdis’. However Mirza could not defend his claim for long. The servants of Bahaullah, and on his very orders ruthlessly murdered him. According to Count Gobisnow, the Babis tied a rope around the neck of Mirza Asadullah’s legs, and drowned him in the river Tigris in Iraq. However a more specific version can be found in Episode of the Bab on page 362 which says, “On the orders of Bahaullah, his servant Mirza Mohammed Mazandarani murdered Mirza Asadullah.”
It is pertinent to note that later Mirza Yahya staked his claim to this title and ultimately Bahaullah usurped it from him. Today the Bahais address Bahaullah with the title of “Man Yozherohullah”, ‘The One whom Allah will Manifest’. Our article on this matter will make it clear that Bahaullah was not the one whom Allah will manifest.
Similarly many such claims were propounded.
The crux of all what we said can be attributed to one simple observation made by Professor E. G. Browne in the foreword to Nuqtatul Qaaf of Mirza Jani. He writes, “Matters had reached to such an extent that any Babi, as soon as he would get up from his sleep, would have a claim for himself to announce to the world.”
The Fraudulent claims of Bahaullah
Bahaullah during the course of his lifetime made several claims for himself. Here is a selection of his claims. I have restricted this selection to those on divinity since this is one facet which the Bahais do not reveal for their followers.
- It is mentioned in the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics under the title ‘Bab’, that the Bahais called Mirza Ali Mohammed Bab as “Rabbi-ul-Ala” (The Most Elevated Lord).
- Bahaullah mentions in Aqdas, page 43, “There is no God but I the Honored, the Wise.”
- He again writes in Aqdas, page 144 “Accept whatever is commanded by Baha (himself) the Lord of Eternity.”
- In Aqdas, page 8, Bahaullah says, “We have sent down all the Messengers and we have revealed all the Books.”
- In Istaqaaraat, page 34, Bahaullah writes, “The Master of Eternity lies in prison” (referring to his imprisonment and confinement).
- In his Tablets, Page 217, Bahaullah writes, “All, save me are created from my command.”
- In his Al-Mubeen, page 34, Bahaullah writes, “All praise is for you O Bahaullah, the Creator of existence.”
- In the same book, page 190, he says, “Obey the commands of your Elevated, Splendorous God, Bahaullah.
- Again in Al-Mubeen, page 297, Bahaullah again refers to himself as, “You Most Beneficent Lord, Bahaullah”,
- In his Tajalliyaat (Tajalli number 4), page 5, Bahaullah decrees, “Most surely I am Allah. There is no God save me. I am the Lord of everything. The O my creatures, you worship me alone.”
- Abdul Baha writes in Badaaé-ul-Asaar, page 139, “Bahaullah is unique, incomparable. It is necessary for everyone to turn towards Bahaullah in his prayers.”
- In Maftoon, page 15, Bahaullah writes to his son Abdul Baha, “This is a letter from Allah, the Honored and the Wise (Bahaullah) to Allah the Gracious, the Aware (Abdul Baha).” Thus not only did the father, but even the son claimed divinity for himself.
Now here is an important point to note. Bahais do not present the belief of Divinity of Bahaullah before everyone. It is only revealed to those who are firmly entrenched in their traps. Most Bahais till date remain ignorant of these claims. Even the Bahai preachers refuse to openly acknowledge that Bahaullah made claims of divinity.
According to them Bahaullah is indeed alterable and they do alter him to suit their whims and fancies.
To a Muslim, Bahaullah is Imam Mahdi, to a Christian, he is Jesus Christ, to a Jew he is Yehuda, to a Parsi, he is Behram, and to a Hindu, he is Kilankari Avtaar.
To a non-Bahai, Bahaullah is portrayed as a God-fearing man of Allah and a guide sent by Allah to lead mankind to the straight path.
But obviously Bahaullah had bigger plans for himself.
After reading the above article, one can easily conclude that Bahaullah was neither any divine Prophet, nor did he follow any true religion.
He was merely a mortal with dangerous intentions and lust for power.
With his claims of divinity, Bahaullah not only attacked the foundations of Islam, but of all religions and beliefs. Surely, when Bahais mean that they seek a universal religion, they mean that we all must accept Bahaullah as God. Or at least that is what Bahaullah wants us to believe.
If you are a Bahai, I must ask you one question – Did your superiors disclose these declarations from Bahaullah when you accepted the Faith? More importantly, do you believe that Bahaullah was God? Go ahead, speak to your superiors about these declarations and whether he believes that Bahaullah was a God. As always, I look forward to your honest and objective feedback