Portraits of Baha'u'llah : Fraud and Murder

Conspirators
Mirza Husayn 'Ali (Baha'u'llah) [then] devised a new stratagem. A number of letters were written in different handwritings by Aka Mirza Aka Jan, Mushkin Qalam, Abbas Effendi, and other partisans of Mirza Husayn 'Ali to sundry Turkish statesmen and officials to the following effect:- "About thirty thousand of us Babis are concealed in disguise in and around Constantinople, and in a short while we shall arise. We shall first capture Constantinople, and, if Sultan Abdu'l-Aziz and his ministers do not believe [in our religion], we shall depose and dismiss them from their rule and administration. And our King is Mirza Yahya Subh-i-Ezel." These letters were left by night at the Sultan's palace and the houses of different ministers by Mushkin Qalam and other partisans of Mirza Husayn 'Ali resident in Constantinople. When next day these letters were discovered, the Turkish Government, which had treated the Babis with kindness, and afforded them shelter and hospitality, was naturally greatly incensed. The letters were forthwith laid before the Persian Ambassador, and, at a joint assembly of Turkish and Persian officials, it was decided to exile the Babi chiefs to some remote island or fortress on the coast.

-- E.G. Browne, A Travellers Narrative Written to Illustrate the Episode of the Bab, vol. 2, note. W, pp. 356-71

Living in the lap of luxury, born with a golden spoon in his mouth, Baha'u'llah calls himself "The Most Wronged One of the worlds" !

By Renowned Azali (Bayani) Scholar
Dr. Wahid Azal

An Ex-Baha'i writes : Mirza Husayn Ali Nuri's birth into a very privileged and very wealthy family has certainly colored what the Baha'i Faith has become today. His concept of suffering was contrasted against his high state of privilege and ease in his early life. For the greater of the majority of Iranians such suffering was a daily experience which was thought of not so much as an indignity but a challenge
Baha'u'llah traveling to Baghdad with his supporters.
Dr. Azal's comment : This is a very, very, very crucial matter, and it goes to the very claim and heart of Husayn 'Ali. Lower class Iranians, and not just Iranians but also Arabs and Turks throughout the Mid East, where struggling with the vicissitudes of life in a far more tough manner than at any time by Husayn 'Ali, his kinsman or followers. Therefore, this refrain of being "The Most Wronged One of the worlds" is pure hyperbole and hogwash. Husayn 'Ali Nuri had it good, very good. In fact he had it far better than anyone else especially after Musa Jawaheri bequeethed his entire life's fortune to him in Baghdad before he died, ergo precisely why Husayn 'Ali succeeded in stamping his claim where Asad'ullah Dayyan, Husayn Milani and others failed. Musa Jawaheri apparently was a very, very wealthy man! This initial wealth coupled with the Afnan's gratuitous and self-serving betrayal of Azal and defecting over to Husayn 'Ali - and the subsequent fund raising filling the coffers of Husayn 'Ali's bayt'ul-mal afterwards as well as the active British colonialist support for Husayn 'Ali and his family (why the Ottomans never really touched the Baha'is) - was responsible for where Baha'ism is today. In Acre it was responsible for the purchase of Bahji, Mazra'ih, the House of Abud, the initial properties on Carmel, etc. It is also the reason why Abbas Effendi and Muhammad 'Ali went to war with each other after their father croacked and bit the dust in 1892.

Compare and contrast this with both the Bab and Azal. Nowhere do you find the kind of constant wussy like lamentation and sissy like bemoaning in the works of the Point or the Morning of Praeternity that Husayn 'Ali Nuri engaged in on and on and on and on as a patented style in all his writings. The Point only laments in the Persian Bayan, and He laments for very good reason. They had exiled Him to Maku at the time, a remote and perilous part of northern Iran, cut off from everything, everyone and everywhere (and even still he wrote 9 and a half Unities of the Persian Bayan and 11 of the Arabic Bayan and countless other epistles). Other than that there is nothing else. Only in the Sata'at does Azal - and on one paragraph at that - bemoan how His brother betrayed Him. That is all. A guy who is sissy and wuss like that, wailing and bemoaning, calling himself the wronged one of the worlds, when people can see for themselves how he is living in the lap of luxury, born with a golden spoon in his mouth, I am sorry, is no real man, let alone the supreme manifestation of the Age. The Bab was a MAN and a LION. Azal was a MAN and LION. Quddus was a MAN and a LION. Mulla Husayn was a MAN and a LION. Tahirih was a Lion-WOMAN (shir-zan) and a TIGER as well. Husayn 'Ali Nuri was a girl and a mouse, and his own writings condemn him as one.

Baha'u'llah's senile ramblings: The tablet of O Creator of all creation

O Breaker of All Idols - Mirza Husayn 'Ali Nuri Baha'u'llah's Tablet of “O Creator of all creation” (Lawh Ya Mubdi' Kull-i-Badi') Or The Second Tablet of Creation (Lawh-i-Badi' II)

Translated with critical introduction and notes by Wahíd Azal ©

The following work was first identified in print by the late William McElwee Miller in his Baha'i Faith: It's History and Teachings (Pasadena: 1974) and entitled the Tablet of O Creator of all creation (Lawh ya mubdi` kull-i-badi`) . A copy of it was made available to Miller by the late Jalal Azal and is currently amongst his collection of papers deposited at the Princeton University Library special collections . Photo-scans of two original exemplars - one in the hand of Mirza Husayn 'Ali Nuri Baha'u'llah (d. 1892) himself and the other in the hand of his son and second-named successor, Mirza Muhammad 'Ali (d. 1930) - was recently acquired by the Iranian Bayani community from descendents of the latter, who have titled it "Lawh-i-Badi'." This is not, however, the Lawh-i-Badi' of the 1866-68 period, which Mirza Husayn 'Ali Nuri had specifically addressed to one of the loyalist Bayanis in Edirne. It is, rather, a different work altogether, so I have taken the liberty of qualifying it as the Second Tablet of Creation (Lawh-i-Badi' II). As of February 2005 originals of this document have been for the first time made publicly available on the internet, together with an accompanying Persian and partial English translation. All are on the website bayanic.com . See the three appendices to this translation below for the two exemplar copies which originate from that site. This present translation is therefore the first full translation.

The two manuscript exemplars contain no colophon or date, but concurring with Miller and the Iranian Bayani community, it appears to be one of Husayn 'Ali Nuri's epistles in his later years and possibly of the period shortly before his death. While there is no internal evidence specifically dating it -- and consensus does not necessarily prove its lateness -- barring the work being transcribed again at a later time (which is probable), that its second exemplar is in the hand of Mirza Muhammad 'Ali would place it in, at least, the 1880s, if not shortly after, since it appears he was functioning as his father's amanuensis and secretary in that period, not before. Note also that this second exemplar is in a version of the Khatt-i-Badi' (new script) which Mirza Muhammad 'Ali is said to have invented (or, rather, modified, as it is merely an amended version of the traditional shikastih style). However there is no doubt that the first exemplar is in the hand of Mirza Husayn 'Ali Nuri himself, as the handwriting clearly attests that it is.

Like much of the corpus of Mirza Husayn 'Ali Nuri's post-Edirne period tablets, the Tablet of O Creator of All Creation is a short work. Consisting of a single page, its style is rather obtuse, repeating a typically recondite and arrogant sounding self-devotional doxology and refrain to his own theophanic claims that is a trademark of virtually all his work in that period. The shortness and paucity of content in Husayn 'Ali Nuri's later tablets is to be compared with the final works of the Bab, such as, for example, the Book of the Five Grades (Kitab Panj Sh'an) or the Book of Recompense (Kitab al-Jaza'), or even those of his rival younger half brother and legitimate successor to the Bab, Subh-i-Azal (d. 1912), which sometimes often run into several hundred pages, discussing multiple topics, while also providing uniquely interesting and far more powerful doxological refrains than his. This is a major difference between the Bab and Azal with Husayn 'Ali Baha'. Whereas the corpus of both the Bab and his successor's writings clearly demonstrate a qualitative difference between correspondences and a major doctrinal piece, the majority of Husayn 'Ali's tablets are actually correspondences couched in terms of a doctrinal work, and with meager content at that.

The need for translating and further examining this epistle is necessitated by the fact that it, along with other documents, helps place the Bayani response to Mirza Husayn 'Ali Nuri's claims in a far more complex (and, dare I say, credible) light. While he doesn't quite step-down from his pedestal of being the embodiment of a unique revelatory theophany (or Manifestation of God), surprisingly in it he explicitly stops short in stating that he is not in fact the Babi messianic figure, "He whom God shall make Manifest" (manyuzhiruhu'Llah). This is especially demonstrated in the second and third sentences where he identifies the Promised One (ma`ud) with the mustaghath (the one invoked) of the Bayan.

The admission is quite startling as well as historically significant. Husayn 'Ali Nuri had made his prophetic career in Edirne precisely on this very claim, viz. of being the mustaghath, which is one of the two most well-known titles (and ciphers) in the Persian Bayan specifically designating "He whom God shall make Manifest" and the date of his possible advent . It seems that while he stops short in explicitly stating he is not the Babi messiah (and with such brazen, yet nevertheless implied, admission on his part the doors are swung wide open for speculation), he attempts then to have his cake and eat too in that, while he insists on his own divine status, he then maintains the contradictory position that the true Babi messiah will also be appearing in the prescribed time validating him! In light of the relevant passages of the Persian Bayan as well as the Will and Testament of the Bab , and other documents addressed by the Bab to Subh-i-Azal (d. 1912), Mirza Husayn 'Ali Nuri's claim begins to appear weaker than usual, highlighting power politics on his part rather than veridical truth or a divine mandate as such. Moreover, one is at a loss to understand exactly how such a scheme as suggested by him would work, given the straightforward eschatology and prophetology the Bayan offers on the question; if indeed, that is, he is saying he is not the "He whom God shall make Manifest" of the Bayan as his wording strongly indicates?

It seems that Mirza Husayn 'Ali Baha' had not thoroughly considered the full implications of the logical and theological conundrum that making such an argument as his would create in the future for his overall theophanic claims, magnifying by several factors the holes already pointed out by his Bayani detractors from Mulla Ja'afar Niraqi to Badieh Mirati Nuri , making the very raison d'etre of his claims in both the late Baghdad and Edirne periods sound completely disingenuous in light of the below. Baha'i apologists might offer explanations to the effect that the one spoken of in this tablet refers to the theophany to occur in the one-thousand year period after Husayn 'Ali Nuri's own, as mentioned in his Kitab-i-Aqdas. Unfortunately, given what Husayn 'Ali does state here (especially how he clearly waffles in contradictory fashion between his own model of a future parousia and that of the Bayan's), and given the very specific Bayanic terminology he uses and the even more specific original intentionality behind the meaning of those terms, the question remains far more problematical than citing his provisions in his Most Holy Book. It is therefore not surprising that the Haifan Baha'i authorities have sought to suppress this document, not circulating it for public consumption, since along with his Kitab-i-Badi' (Book of Innovation) it is a rather embarrassing work vis-à-vis the Baha'i hagiographical tradition.

A further, but unrelated, point in this tablet is the inordinate importance that Husayn 'Ali Nuri places upon his family (aghsan). Without naming his two successors - Abbas Effendi (d. 1921) and Mirza Muhammad 'Ali - it seems that he imbues a tout court sanctity upon his whole family very reminiscent of the kind of super-sanctity the greater Ahl al-Bayt (Muhammad, Fatima, the Imams and all related kinsmen) enjoy in popular Shi'ite piety. He says things like those who have turned away from them are accounted as infidels and as those who have associated partners with God, while also exhorting his followers to give his kinsmen the highest respect. Noteworthy is that for all its own deeply ingrained Twelver Shi'ite resonances, the religion the Bab founded never did such a thing. Rather he passed the mantle of succession to an individual totally unrelated by kin and neither did he insist in his Will and Testament that Azal must then continue any future succession from his own lineal heritage; or, for that matter, that either his own or that of Azal's kinsman should be held in highest respect above others, or that anyone turning away from them is an infidel and associater.

Overall, the descendents of Mirza Muhammad 'Ali are to be thanked profusely for making this available for historical posterity; for, indeed, it will greatly assist in the kind of future research needed to examine the trajectory of Husayn 'Ali Nuri's claims (from Baghdad to Edirne and the Acre period up to this tablet) beyond the tendentious propaganda and myth-making churned out by Baha'i hagiographers throughout the 20th century. One of the attributes of the Godhead often invoked in Islamic theological works devoted to the science of the Godhead's attributes is the Breaker of Idols. I have dubbed this paper "O Breaker of Idols," both as a pun on Husayn 'Ali Nuri's own opening and also because it appears to me that by bringing this work into the general consciousness, the diffusion of it will go a long way in eventually breaking the idol (i.e. sanam as well as taghut) by which Baha'i apologists and hagiographers have spent a century and a half contriving the myth of Mirza Husayn 'Ali Nuri's "Baha'u'lah ." It is to be hoped that this translation will contribute to that process.

Translation

O Creator of all that hath been created!
This is that which hath been sent down from the primeval heaven and in it is established the station of excellence wherein is made apparent the beauty of God on the throne of the name of might. And verily he is the Promised One mentioned by every name in all the tablets, if ye be of those who know. In the Bayan he was named He who shall appear and he shall [indeed] be manifested in mustaghath with sovereign distinction. Say, by God, this is the day the like of which hath not been witnessed by the eyes of the unseen, let alone those who are of the veiled. So praised be to the one who is present on that day between my divine hands with an invulnerable submissiveness and recites this tablet in front of that throne so that God may hear his melodies which were revealed from before between the heavens and the earths; and, by this, the name hath been mentioned in the place wherein God hath made holy in all that is mentioned in the worlds. Verily in this tablet we have not desired to mention this but that it is my own self, the protector of the worlds. [And] whosoever anticipates another revelation after me, verily he is of those who have gone astray, for verily he who shall appear after one-thousand [years], indeed he will speak in my name; and he shall come in mustaghath, testifying in my name in that I am God, the lord of the heavens and the earths. None hath understood this revelation other than a few, for he is cognizant of all things. Hold fast after me, O people, to the branches which have branched from the ancient root. By them the fragrant scents of my garment are wafted among the worlds, and [none] shall find it except [those who] turn to the straight [path]. It behoveth thee, O people of Baha', to hold steadfast in the cause of God in your days in every state and [thereby safeguard yourselves] from following every ignorant sinner. And after the branches, for the pious servant present in front of this throne, [we have made] an elevated station. It behoveth thee to account the family from amongst who the beloved of the worlds appeared with the highest respect: Of those who have believed in God, the dearly precious, the praised. Likewise was it revealed in the Bayan and in this luminous tablet. Whoever turns away from them, verily he is among the infidels and those who associated partners with God and among those who have lost, unless he turn and repent, for verily he is the forgiver, the merciful.

Imprisoned in Dubai

Iranian Born - Baha'i Billionaire - Soheil Abedian
This is an extract, please read complete story at the links given below.

Rush accuses two Sunland executives of dobbing in Joyce and Lee in order to save their own skins in Dubai. “There were two people involved, I suggest, in your deliberate untruths, inaccuracies and incomplete answers,” he said, “and that was you and the other one was your boss, Soheil Abedian, two people that you had to protect, yourself and your boss, by giving incomplete, inaccurate and untruthful evidence.”

“That’s not correct,” Brown maintained.

Iranian-born Abedian, chairman and founder of Sunland Group, has also been put under the blowtorch in the witness box during the course of the Melbourne court case.

“By you co-operating, by maintaining the inaccuracies and the lies of the Sunland position, you avoided for Sunland proper scrutiny in Dubai,” Rush said to Abedian.

“You are so wrong, Mr Rush, it is laughable almost,” Abedian responded.

“It was essential for the Sunland investment in Dubai to ensure that Sunland came out of this squeaky clean,” Rush insisted.

Abedian admitted to the court that former Sunland Group director James Packer demanded the immediate liquidation of the company when the full extent of the bribery investigation in Dubai came to light.

Read complete articles :
Imprisoned in Dubai
Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Answer to Justice St. Rain's bemoaning of Baha'i stagnation

"I received my American Baha'i today and was disheartened to note that in the US there were 111 enrollments of both youth (15+) and adults for December and January, and the "In Memoriam" section listed 98 deaths. That's a net increase of 13 believers in two months.
We also appear to be on track for having the smallest number of enrollments in my Baha'i life - 638 between the first of May and the end of January, which would give us about 850 for the year. I know this has been hashed out here multiple times, but it still breaks my heart." ~ Justice St. Rain ~
Dirty Stagnant Water
-------

Right on! People are increasingly seeing though the facade. Seeing that the Baha'i World Faith, the product, isn't what it's purported to be. That it's a religion with additives which are spiritually unhealthy. Such as outdated, anachronistic, and inappropriate labelling of one's fellow human beings such as Shoghi Effendi himself engaged in: "Diabolical, malevolent, deluded, shameless apostate, infamous, insidious, vile whisperer, Antichrist, the living embodiment of wickedness, cupidity and deceit, blasphemous, unspeakably repugnant, perfidious, treacherous, despicable, blind, the most shameless, vicious relentless apostate, the incarnation of Satan, fiendish ingenuity and guile, infernal, nefarious, defectors, betrayers." Shoghi used such lovely adjectives to describe his own family members, his own parents included! Until Baha'is leave behind such backward thinking, as well as those antiquated religious ideologies with seek to justify such backward thinking, humanity would be better off without Baha'i. Until Baha'is actually begin to understand what the oneness of humanity truly signifies and begin to treat their fellow human beings in a manner which shows they truly see this oneness as reality, see that there is no one to convert, they will continue to bemoan the fact that entry by troops seems ever further away. In reality entry by troops was only ever a warped pie in the sky Utopian delusion.

Larry Rowe

Source : TRB

Deprogramming from the Baha'i World Faith

My personal experience of deprogramming from the Baha'i World Faith taught me more about myself, and humanity than I'd learned in my 45 years of being a Baha'i. Why? Because when I was a Baha'i I was right, my religion was right, there was no need for me to question anything. My independent search for the truth had ended and I had found my pie in the sky; well actually I had been indoctrinated into that way of seeing the world, of seeing myself. Seeing myself and my religion as the answer to all the worlds problems, if only they'd believe. It took several years of seeing the many clear contradictions in the Baha'i Faith, the many clear contradictions in the Baha'i writings, before I finally began to wake up from my indoctrinated slumber, before I stopped blaming myself for seeing all those clear contractions. When I now contemplate such things as the Baha'i World Faith's National Spiritual Assembly of the USA taking the Orthodox Baha'i Faith to court in an attempt to prevent Orthodox Baha'is from calling themselves Baha'is, from using Baha'i terminology in their religion, I can clearly see that the judge in the case didn't error in ruling against the Baha'i World Faith, as well that he was right on to reprimand the National Spiritual Assembly of the USA for their attempt to quash the religious rights and freedoms of others. I also realized that this sort of religious thinking is the Most Great Divisiveness and is unworthy of a religion which supposedly has as it's pivot the teaching of the oneness of humanity. I've come to see that the actual pivot of the Baha'i World Faith is not an inclusive and true oneness of humanity but an exclusive oneness of Baha'iness, a false oneness based on the belief that all of humanity needs to believe as we Baha'is believe.

Cheers

Larry Rowe

Source : TRB

Shoghi Effendi, First Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, was Likely a Tormented Closeted Homosexual

By Michael Zargarov

Greetings all.

About 20 years ago I was introduced to Mildred Mottahedeh at a conference in Arizona. Hand of the Cause Bill Sears introduced us because he knew I yearned to teach the faith in Eastern Europe, and he knew that Mildred had a particular interest there too. Later in 1990, at her suggestion, I pioneered to Prague, Czechoslovakia. I was there 18 months, and traveled from Prague to Russia, and to Alma Ata, Kazakhstan in order to visit with and help teach among long-out-of-contact believers. Still later, at various times, I was hosted for dinner at Mildred's sumptuous apartment overlooking the United Nations complex in NYC. Once in late 1992 I took Mildred to a concert of Beethoven's 9th Symphony at the Lincoln Center. On the way we stopped at a drugstore. When she came back to the car, Mildred showed me a gold locket which held hair from Baha'u'llah. She told me that Shoghi had given it to her when she WITNESSED his marriage to Ruhiyyih. Mildred and her husband bought a limousine for Shoghi to use, which he later loaned to Ben Gurion when "Israel" was established.

Mildred Mottahedeh had known May Maxwell [Shoghi Effendi's wife, known as Ruhiyyih Khanum] since the 1920s. They were close confidants and best friends. Before Violette Nakhjavani took over as "companion" to Ruhiyyih, Mildred held that honor.

Mildred and I were very close. She ASKED me if I "struggled with being gay". When I admitted that I did, she revealed to me that Ruhiyyih had intimated to her that Shoghi was homosexual himself, and hated himself because he "fell so short of what was expected of him as a member of Baha'u'llah' s family". Ruhiyyih told Mildred that their marriage had been arranged to "help" Shoghi "straighten himself out". (It is purely MY conjecture that Ruhiyyih was Lesbian. I just saw such a Bull-Dyke everytime I saw her, and her relationship with Violette seemed obvious.) Mildred told me that she had revealed that long-held secret because she hoped it would one day help other gay baha'is to realize that they were not struggling alone; indeed that the "Center of the faith" had struggled against the same "affliction". Mildred made me swear NEVER to reveal what I knew until AFTER her death. I kept the promise.

Source :

http://blog.lotusopening.com/2010/01/shoghi-effendi-first-guardian-of-bahai.html

The holey Baha'i Covenant

"Yeah I never understood the splinter groups obsession with continuing the guardianship." Just finished reading William Garlington's The Baha'i Faith in America, it explains a lot about this obsession. For Mason Remey, and many other Baha'is, it was inconceivable, unimaginable, that there not be a living hereditary guardian because a living hereditary guardian had been specifically mentioned by Abdu'l-Baha' in his W&T as an integral part of the future Baha'i administrative order as permanent head of the UHJ. And Abdu'l-Baha' being infallible couldn't have erred in this, couldn't have been wrong, could he? For some it became obvious that for the Guardianship to end would mean that they would as well have to admit to, accept, Abdu'l-Baha's humanity, Abdu'l-Baha's fallibility, some Baha'is couldn't go there, most are still in denial. As well in several places in Shoghi Effendi's writings the existence of a future Guardian is clearly stated, Shoghi Effendi couldn't have been wrong, couldn't have been fallible, could he? Thus Mason who was a pillar of the Baha'i community, a Hand of the Cause, a favourite of Abdu'l-Baha's, appointed by Shoghi Effendi to head The International Baha'i Council, could not fathom that god had changed his mind (bada) in regards to an ongoing Guardianship, couldn't accept that Abdu'l-Baha's W&T was flawed. Mason was intellectually honest enough to understand what the implications were of the W&T of Abdu'l-Baha' being shown to be imperfect, shown to be a merely human document in no way perfectly, 'infallibly', divine. Thus the Hands decided to take control over the affairs of the Baha'i Faith even though they had no authority to proceed in that manner. What these Baha'i elites did was behave as religious elites usually do, ignore the masses of believers and do what they personally choose to do without consulting with those masses. A more democratic, dare I say more spiritual way to proceed would have been to go to the greater Baha'i community itself and see what Baha'is themselves thought, what Baha'is themselves believed. Obviously these religious elites didn't trust the masses of Baha'i believers, didn't feel that they were capable or worthy of collectively deciding for themselves the direction their religion should take.

By Larry Rowe
Source : TRB

Baha'u'llah - A Confused Soul !

Today I was reading a document titled "The Azali Bahai Crisis of September 1867" written by Mr. Juan Cole, the document is very interesting and worth reading.

Until now we knew that Baha'u'llah claimed himself to be a Manifestation of God, Sender of Prophets, Imam Mahdi, Imam Husayn, Christ, Sender of Prophets, the one who spoke to the Moses on Mount Sinai, the Avatar of Lord Krishna, Buddha, Lord of the Lords, the list continues....

In this document he claims himself to be the return of Bab and Mohammed. Here is the extract :


BAHA'U'LLAH - A CONFUSED SOUL
The crisis produced three contemporary texts or discourses by the two leaders. The first was Azal’s challenge, which unfortunately is not reprinted in any of the sources available to me. The second is Bahā’u’llāh’s oral discourse, delivered to Sayyid Muhammad Mukārī in the streets of Edirne after they had departed the mosque at sundown. The third is the Tablet of the Divine Test, penned late Friday evening after Bahā’u’llāh had returned home from the chanting and dancing session of the Mevlevī Sufis. Although the oral discourse on the way back from the mosque was delivered only that evening, and probably memorized on the spot by Khādimu’llāh, Bahā’u’llāh most likely composed elements of it earlier in the day, beginning with his swift march to the mosque at midday, when he was said to have amazed bystanders by reciting verses as he went. One important theme is the comparison of this divine test to the contest between Moses and Pharaoh’s magicians. This theme emerges as early as Friday afternoon when Bahā’u’llāh sent Mukārī for the second time to fetch Azal, telling him, “O Muhammad, go to them and say, come, with your ropes and your staff.” This language is repeated in the body of the subsequent evening discourse. It evokes Qur’ān 20:59–72, which speaks of the Egyptian magicians menacing Moses with their rope snares and their staffs:
So we showed Pharaoh all Our signs, but he cried lies, and refused. ‘Hast thou come, Moses,’ he said, to expel us out of our land by thy sorcery?  We shall assuredly bring thee sorcery the like of it; therefore appoint a tryst between us and thee, a place mutually agreeable, and we shall not fail it, neither thou.’
              ‘Your tryst shall be upon the Feast Day.’ said Moses.
‘Let the people be mustered at the high noon.’
              Pharaoh then withdrew, and gathered his guile. Thereafter he came again, and Moses said to them, ‘O beware! Forge not a lie against God, lest He destroy you with a chastisement. Whoso forges has ever failed.’ 
              And they disputed upon their plan between them, and communed secretly, saying, ‘These two men are sorcerers and their purpose is to expel you out of your land by their sorcery, and to extirpate your justest way. So gather your guile; then come in battle-line. Whoever today gains the upper hand shall surely prosper.’
              They said, ‘Moses, either thou wilt cast, or we shall be the first to cast.’
              ‘No,’ said Moses. ‘Do you cast!’
              And lo, it seemed to him, by their sorcery, their ropes and their staffs were sliding; and Moses conceived a fear within him. We said unto him, ‘Fear not; surely thou art the uppermost. Cast down what is in they right hand, and it shall swallow what they have fashioned; for they have fashioned only the guile of a sorcerer, and the sorcerer prospers not, wherever he goes’ (Qur’ān  in Arberry 1973: 1:343–342).
This theme of Bahā’u’llāh as a new Moses is also evoked when he says in the discourse that the palm of his hand was rendered white (the miracle of the suddenly whitened palm was attributed to Moses in Muslim tradition), and he refers to his “staff,” saying, “were we to cast it down, it would swallow to the entire creation,” just as Moses’ staff swallowed the magicians’ serpents. 
Bahā’u’llāh begins the discourse by saying that he had departed from his house with “manifest sovereignty,” presumably meaning that he went of his own sovereign will to confront Azal. He tells Mīr Muhammad Mukārī that the spirit has thereby vacated its seat, and that thereby the spirits of the pure ones went forth, along with the souls of the past messengers. “Spirit,” of course, is an Islamic sobriquet for Jesus, but it is unclear if that is the referent here.  I think Bahā’u’llāh is referring more to the Holy Spirit. Bahā’u’llāh then says he is the return of the Bāb, and also the return of the Prophet Muhammad. (It is thus particularly appropriate that he wins his victory in a mosque). Bahā’u’llāh is here appealing to the Bābī doctrine of the “return” or raj‘at, wherein the personality-attributes of past historical persons recur in contemporary human beings. Although the messianic figure sought by the Bābīs was called by the Bāb “He whom God shall make manifest,” Bahā’u’llāh in this period seems instead to have said he was the “return” of the Bāb, establishing a continuity between the Bāb’s writings and persona and his own. Bahā’u’llāh announces his defiance of all the clergy, mystics, and monarchs on earth, insisting that he would recite God’s verses to them without any fear. These assertions also echo the Moses theme, insofar as he defied Pharaoh (civil authority) and his priests (religious authority). Bahā’u’llāh notes that he is, technically speaking, acting contrary to religious counsels in agreeing to meet with a hypocrite and an idolater like Azal. And despite this one exception, he does insist that the bonds with any loved ones (such as a brother) who rejected Bahā’u’llāh’s cause in favor of Azal had from that moment been severed. He defines Azal as having previously been the embodiment of only one of God’s names, and to prefer one of the divine names over God himself would be a form of idolatry. He redefines religious authority (prophets, messengers, imams and vicars) as being legitimate only if it upholds Bahā’u’llāh’s Cause. (This assertion undermines Azal’s authority as the supposed vicar of the Bāb.)  Finally, Bahā’u’llāh complains that Azal had once been just one of the Bābīs, like any other man, but that his passions and selfishness had led him to begin having grandiose ideas about himself. Bahā’u’llāh explains that he had himself helped build Azal up, to his current regret, for a “secret reason” (hikmat).  (The traditional Bahā’ī explanation is that Azal was put forward as the exoteric leader in order to protect the real leader, Bahā’u’llāh, though this story no doubt presents an overly rationalized picture of the complex relationship between Bahā’u’llāh and Azal, 1850–1865).

Read the full document on my scribd page :

Baha'i Idolatry

I've read all the available Baha'i texts, many times: "The door of the knowledge of the Ancient of Days being thus closed in the face of all beings,"

Mmmmmm. Don't know if Baha'u'llah could be much clearer about the way he saw the human relationship with the divine, or I should say the lack of a possible relationship, except vicariously through him. To place oneself between humanity and god in this manner is one thing, my opinion of it is not very high, it is a delusional attempt to place a human limit on the divine when the divine can never be so limited. Baha'u'llah even went so far as to identify himself with god him/herself:

Such a man hath attained the knowledge of the station of Him Who is "at the distance of two bows," Who standeth BEYOND the Sadratu'l-Muntaha. Whoso hath failed to recognize Him will have condemned himself to the misery of remoteness, a remoteness which is naught but utter nothingness and the essence of the nethermost fire. Such will be his fate, though to outward seeming he may occupy the earth's loftiest seats and be established upon its most exalted throne. (Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 70)

**** which delusion is made quite evident from the fact that there was a major Baha'i school of thought which from such words of Baha'u'llah's believed him to be god incarnate. Not only did Baha'u'llah put this idolatrous concept forward, when Baha'is debated this concept and questioned this idolatry Baha'u'llah went so far as to say that it was OK for Baha'is to believe he was god incarnate.

* This fact as well his statement that if a person fails to recognize his personal spiritual station they will automatically be remote from god is to me is the height of human hubris, human vanity. -------- *

It was perhaps owing to this inadequacy that, at one stage during the ministry of Bahá'u'lláh, there were two major schools of thought among the believers concerning His station. Some believed Him to be the Supreme Manifestation of God, while others went further than this. When Bahá'u'lláh was asked about His station, He confirmed that as long as individuals were sincere in their beliefs, both views were right, but if they argued among themselves or tried to convert each other, both were wrong. This indicates that man because of his finite mind will never be able to understand the true station of the Manifestation of God. The criteria are sincerity and faith. Knowing man's limitations, God accepts from him what he is able to achieve.

(Adib Taherzadeh, The Revelation of Baha'u'llah v 1, p. 303)

By Larry Rowe
Source : TRB

Abdu'l-Baha's dim view of Buddhists and Buddhism

Abdu'l Baha Said : 
Placing Buddha amongst theist prophets would probably not sit well with him seeing that he was agnostic at best and perhaps even an atheist. One of Buddhas three primary teachings is anatman, no permanent soul, jiva. The Baha'i Faiths co-opting of Buddhism is quite shallow considering Abdu'l-Baha's dim view of Buddhists and Buddhism as lapsed theism: "'Abdu'l-Bahá said: The real teaching of Buddha is the same as the teaching of Jesus Christ. The teachings of all the Prophets are the same in character. Now men have changed the teaching. If you look at the present practice of the Buddhist religion, you will see that there is little of the Reality left. Many worship idols although their teaching forbids it. ... The teaching of Buddha was like a young and beautiful child, and now it has become as an old and decrepit man. Like the aged man it cannot see, it cannot hear, it cannot remember anything. Why go so far back? Consider the laws of the Old Testament: the Jews do not follow Moses as their example nor keep his commands. So it is with many other religions." (Abdu'l-Baha, Abdu'l-Baha in London, p. 63)***

Anyone who has a true understanding of Buddhism knows just how untrue what Abdu'l-Baha' said about Buddhism is. Abdu'l-Baha's knowledge of Buddhism was obviously quite limited and based on the Shiah Islamic education he received. Buddhism was never a theistic religion, Buddhists have never worshiped statues any more than Baha'is worship the Greatest Name or pictures of Abdu'l-Baha'. My thought is that all of human spiritual experience, the entire human spiritual enterprise, is legitimate: pagan, polytheistic, theistic, non-theistic; and that this spiritual enterprise transcends belief in, or disbelief in, this god or that god. For me it is not a person's professed beliefs, or disbelief's, that defines them, it is their character and the manner they treat their fellow human beings. This is the true indicator of their spirituality.

Cheers

Larry Rowe

Source : TRB

انشعاب در بهائيت پس از مرگ شوقي رباني Split in Baha'ism after the death (Murder) of Shoghi Effendi

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Baha'i Texts

Popular Posts

Total Pageviews

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me

http://www.scribd.com/people/documents/12206251-naser-emtesali