Singapore Baha'i community witnesses a downfall in funds.

Say it but never do it

Abdu'l Baha : "Woodrow Wilson is indeed serving the Kingdom of God !"

With the recent news of Woodrow Wilson's name being removed from Princeton's School of Public Policy, it is worth reflecting on Bahá'ís' admiration for Wilson, an avowed foreign interventionist, imperialist, and Social Darwinist who spread racial segregation in the federal government.

With the recent news of Woodrow Wilson's name being removed from Princeton's School of Public Policy, it is worth reflecting on Bahá'ís' admiration for Wilson, an avowed foreign interventionist, imperialist, and Social Darwinist who spread racial segregation in the federal government, Wilson's legacy is still defended by the Bahá'í Administrative Order.
On September 22, 1912, during his tour of North America, 'Abdu’l-Bahá visited the home of William Jennings Bryan in Lincoln, Nebraska. William Jennings Bryan was not home at the time, however, as he was busy campaigning for Woodrow Wilson in whose administration he would serve as Secretary of State. 'Abdu’l-Bahá met his wife and daughter instead. Reports of a Wilson-Bahá'í connection began to circulate among American Bahá'ís during Wilson's term as President from 1913 to 1921.
On May 5, 1916, President Woodrow Wilson sent a telegram to the US National Bahá'í Convention expressing his "gratitude to all concerned." Wilsonian principles were lauded by 'Abdu'l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi.
The White House, Washington, May 5, 1916. My dear Mr Hall, the telegram you sent me on behalf of Bahá'ís of America, assembled in annual convention, has given me the deepest gratification and I hope you will have an opportunity to express my gratitude to all concerned. Cordially and sincerely yours, /s/ Woodrow Wilson.
'Abdu’l-Bahá would later praise President Woodrow Wilson...
The President of the Republic, Dr. Wilson, is indeed serving the Kingdom of God for he is restless and strives day and night that the rights of all men may be preserved safe and secure, that even small nations, like greater ones, may dwell in peace and comfort, under the protection of Righteousness and Justice. This purpose is indeed a lofty one. I trust that the incomparable Providence will assist and confirm such souls under all conditions.
On December 25, 1938 Shoghi Effendi wrote a letter, later published as The Advent of Divine Justice addressed "to the beloved of God and the handmaids of the Merciful throughout the United States and Canada," describing the role of America in establishing the Most Great Peace. The work is divided into five parts. The fifth section provides some concluding remarks. Shoghi Effendi states that American Bahá’í's faithfulness to the Bahá’í Faith has potentiated the United States to establish the Most Great Peace. Shoghi Effendi comments on contemporary events, lamenting America's move away from Wilsonianism, "The ideals that fired the imagination of America’s tragically unappreciated President, whose high endeavors, however much nullified by a visionless generation, 'Abdu’l-Bahá, through His own pen, acclaimed as signalizing the dawn of the Most Great Peace, though now lying in the dust, bitterly reproach a heedless generation for having so cruelly abandoned them."

A note to the all male Universal House of Justice

Source :

American Presbyterian missionary interviews Abdul Baha in 1901

On a recent visit to Haifa I (Henry Harris Jessup) called on Abbas Effendi and had a half-hour's conversation with him. My companion was Chaplain Wells, of Tennessee, recently from the Philippines, who had met at Port Said an American lady on her way to Haifa to visit Abbas Effendi. We met her at the hotel and had a four hours' conversation with her. She seemed fascinated or hypnotized by the Effendi. She had been converted four years ago under Mr. Moody's preaching in New York, attended the Brick Church for a time, and in some way heard of Abbas Effendi as being an eminently holy man.

I sent word by this good lady to Abbas Effendi, and he appointed nine o’clock the next morning for an interview. Chaplain Wells went with me. The Effendi has two houses in Haifa, one for his family, in which the American lady pilgrims are entertained, and one down town, where he receives only men. Here his Persian followers meet him. They bow in worship when they meet him on the street or when they hear his voice. On Friday he prays with the Muslims in the mosque, as he is still reputed a good Mohammedan of the Shi'ite sect.

We entered a large reception-room, at one end of which was a long divan covered, as usual in Syria, with a white cloth. In a moment he came in and saluted us cordially with the usual Arabic compliments, and then sat down on the end of the divan next to the wall and invited us to sit next to him.

Baha'u'llah, the father of Abbas, used to wear a veil in the street and live secluded from the gaze of men, living in an atmosphere of mystery which greatly impressed his devout Persian followers. But Abbas Effendi, on succeeding his father, threw off this reserve, and is a man among men. He has been in Beirut often, and has a reputation of being a great scholar in Persian, Turkish, and Arabic, writing with equal ease’and eloquence in all. He visits his friends in Haifa, and is a man of great affability and courtesy— traits which characterize many of the Mohammedan and Druze Sheikhs and Effendis whom I know in Beirut, Sidon, Damascus, and Mount Lebanon. After another round of salutations, I introduced myself and Chaplain Wells, and told him that, although a resident of Syria for forty-five years, I had never visited Haifa before, and, having heard and read much of his father and himself, I was glad to meet him.

He asked my profession, I told him I was an American missionary, and was connected with the American Press and Publishing House in Beirut.

“Yes,” said he, “I know your Press and your books. I have been in Beirut, and knew Dr. Van Dyke, who was a most genial, learned, and eloquent man, and I highly esteemed him.”

I said his greatest work was the translation of the Bible into Arabic.

He at once rejoined: “Very true. It is the best translation from the original made into any Eastern language. It is far superior to the Turkish and the Persian versions. The Persian especially is very defective. Nothing is more difficult than to translate the Bible from its original tongues. The translator must fully understand the genius of both languages and grasp the inner spiritual meaning. For instance, Jesus the Christ said, ‘I am the bread which came down from heaven.’ Now, he did not mean that he was literally bread, but bread signifies grace and blessing; I came down from heaven as grace and blessing to men’s souls. But if you translate that into Persian literally, as bread, it would not be understood. The same difficulty exists,” he continued, “in translating the Quran into another language.”

I said that I quite agreed with him, as the English translations of the Quran are in a great part dry and vapid, but that there is a difference between translating a text and explaining it. A translator must be faithful to the text itself.

He then said that hundreds had tried to translate the Quran from Arabic into Persian, including the great Zamakhshari, and all had utterly failed.

I remarked that it was a great comfort that the Bible was so well translated into Arabic, and had been so widely distributed, and that since 1865, when Dr. Van Dyke completed the translation of the whole Bible, our Press had issued more than six hundred thousand copies, and this year would issue from thirty thousand to fifty thousand copies.

I then remarked that the Mohammedans object to our use of the term “Son of God” and asked him if he regarded Christ as the Son of God.

He said : “Yes, I do; I believe in the Trinity. But the Trinity is a doctrine above human comprehension, and yet it can be understood.”

He then asked me: “Did Christ understand the Trine personality of the Deity, i.e., the Trinity?.”

I said, “Most certainly.”

“Then,” said he, “it is understandable, yet we cannot understand it.”

I replied, “There are many things in nature which we believe and yet cannot understand.” I told him the story of the old man who overheard a young man exclaim to a crowd of his companions, “I will never believe what I cannot understand.” The old man said to him, “Do you see those animals in the field—the cattle eating grassl and it turns into hair on their backs; sheep eating the same grass, and it turns into wool; and swine eating it, and it becomes bristles on their backs; do you believe this?” The youth said, “Yes.” “Do you understand it?” “No.” “Then,” said the old man, “never say you will not believe what you do not understand.”

The Effendi remarked: “Yes, that is like a similar remark made once by a Persian to the famous Zamakhshari, ‘I cannot understand this doctrine of God’s Unity and Eternity, and I will not believe it.’ Zamakhshari replied, ‘Do you understand the watery secretions of your own body?’ ‘No.’ ‘But you believe they exist? Then say no more you will not believe what you do not understand.’”

I then explained to the Effendi our view of salvation by faith in Christ; that whosoever beiieveth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life, and that, being justified by faith, we have peace with God; that Christ has paid the ransom, and now God can be just, and yet the justifier of them who believe. “And does your excellency believe this?” He replied promptly, “Yes.” “And do you accept the Christ as your Saviour?” He said, “Yes.” “And do you believe that Jesus the Christ will come again and judge the world?” He said, “Yes.”

I then drew a little nearer to him and said: “My dear friend, I am more than sixty-eight years of age, and you are almost as old, and soon we shall stand together before the judgment seat of Christ. Now I want to ask you a very plain question, I have seen in an American paper [the “Literary Digest”] a statement that an American woman, evidently of sincere character, had stated that she came to Haifa and visited you, and that when she entered your room she felt that she was in the very presence of the Son of God, the Christ, and that she held out her arms, crying, ‘My Lord, my Lord’ and rushed to you, kneeling at your blessed feet, sobbing like a child. Now, I could not believe this, and thought it a newspaper invention. I wish to ask you whether this is true. Can it be right for the creature to accept the worship due only to the Creator?”

He smiled and seemed somewhat disturbed, and said, “What is this sudden change of subject? Where were we? - discoursing on the high themes of the Trinity and redemption and divine mysteries, and now you suddenly open an entirely different subject. This is entirely different; let us keep to theological themes.”

I replied: “It is a change of subject, but I am seriously anxious to know whether that statement is true.”

He then said very calmly, “I am only the poorest and humblest of servants”

I saw that he was not disposed to answer such a point-blank question and seemed much embarrassed, and glanced towards an attendant or disciple, a young Persian, who sat in a chair facing us.

So I took up another question. I said : “The Christ promised to send the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete. Now, the Mohammedans claim that Mohammed is the Paraclete. We claim and believe that He is the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity.”

“Yes,” said he, “I know that you believe that. That is your doctrine; but that is a very profound subject and very important.”

I saw from his manner that he was getting weary of talking, and told him who my companion was — the Rev. Captain Wells, a United States chaplain from the Philippines, who was a strong temperance advocate, and had made a report to President McKinley urging the prohibition of the use of liquor in the United States army. He expressed his approval of the total abstinence principle and his gratification that there is a temperance reading-room in Beirut.

I then alluded to the “Episode of the Bab,” written by Professor E. G. Browne, of Cambridge, and asked him if he knew Professor Browne and his book? He replied: “Professor Browne has not comprehended our views. He heard us and then heard our enemies [the Azalis], and wrote down the views of all. How can he get the truth? Now, supposing that a man wanted to learn about the Jews, and you are, we will suppose, an anti-Semite. He asks you about the Jews and writes down your views. Then he asks a Rabbi and takes down his views, and prints both. How can he get at the real truth? So with Professor Browne. He sees us through the eyes of our enemies.”

I then invited the Effendi to let me know when he came to Beirut, that I might call on him. He replied : “When I come to Beirut, I shall do myself the honor of calling upon you.”

And then we took our leave, with the usual profuse Arabic salutations.

Now, what can one say in brief of such a man? Whether intentionally on his part or not, he is now acting what seems to be a double part — a Muslim in the mosque, a Christ, or at least a Christian mystic, at his own house. He prays with the Muslims, “There is no God but God,” and expounds the Gospels as an incarnation of the Son of God. His dislike of Professor Browne comes from the fact that Professor Browne visited Subh i Azal in Cyprus and obtained from him documents which reflect seriously upon Baha'u'llah, and charge him with assassination and other crimes.

His declarations of belief in the Trinity and redemption through the Christ must be interpreted in the light of Sufist pantheism and of his belief in a succession of incarnations, of which his followers regard him as the last and greatest.

It is difficult to regard without indignation the Babi proselytism now being carried on in the United States. One American woman who passed through Beirut recently, en route for the Abbas Effendi shrine, stated that she was at first an agnostic and found that a failure; then she tried Theosophy, and found that too thin; then she tried Christian Science and obtained a diploma authorizing her to heal the sick and raise the dead, and found that a sham, and now was on her way to see what Abbas Effendi had to offer!

Surely that woman has found out what it is to feed on ashes.

At the military barracks in Beirut is a tower clock with an eastern face keeping eastern time, in which it is always twelve o’clock at sunset, and a western face keeping European time. Abbas Effendi seems to the people of Syria to have these two faces — the eastern for the Muslims and the Turkish Government by which he is kept in exile from Persia; and the western for the pilgrims who come from New York and Chicago.

On Mount Carmel are certain round stones, geodes of flint, hollow and lined with crystals of quartz. The people call them Elijah’s watermelons. They look smooth and round and melon-like on the outside, but inside are nothing but crystals, which would tax the digestion of a tougher man than even the stalwart Tishbite. These pilgrims are attracted by the rumor of spiritual fruits in Haifa just under the Carmel of Elijah, but they may find to their sorrow that there is no more true nourishment in them than in Elijah’s watermelons.

Why is the Persian Bayan not translated into English or other languages for all Baha'is to read?

By Nima Wahid Azal

Because were it ever to be translated in full by them, it would immediately reveal the illegitimacy of Bahāism in every aspect, not to mention the degree to which Bahāism - rather than novelizing and innovating a doctrine beyond those Revealed in the Bayān (as the Bayān clearly expects its true Promised One will do) - merely whitewashed, dumbed down and thereby thoroughly disfigured countless Bayānī teachings. Additionally a complete translation of the Persian Bayān would reveal the depth to which the Bayān inhabits an explicitly Iranian Shiʿi Islamic cultural space as opposed to Bahāism who long ago shed its Shiʿi Islamic Iranianness replacing it instead with a sanitizing liberal Anglo-European modernism with its universalizing Western imperialist motivations; this, because Bahāism (while speaking from two sides of its mouth) is often openly Islamophobic, Iranophobic and particularly Shiʿiphobic in its entire thrust and worldview which is why the bulk of the non-Iranian converts it attracts are themselves usually Islamophobic, Iranophobic and Shiʿiphobic individuals. A translation of the Persian Bayān would also show the extent to which the Bahāʾī founders lied and misrepresented the Bayān and its teachings, which would immediately reveal them (i.e. the Bahāʾī founders) as complete frauds and charlatans.
Moreover, such a translation would clearly demonstrate the extent to which the Bahāʾī founders not only failed but outright skirted and ignored in properly addressing these texts and their teachings as compared to the Primal Point with His countless commentaries on the scripture and traditions of Islam. Therefore the continued suppression of the Persian Bayān and the other writings of the Primal Point is at the core function of Bahāism’s self-perpetuation. If it were to ever come clean and offer all these writings in translation, it would simply cease to exist by invalidating its own ideological raison d’etre. In other words, a complete and unadulterated translation of all the writings of the Point of the Bayān would constitute an act of suicide for Bahāism, hence why it would never be in its interests to do so since Haifan Bahāism is, after all, a corporate business acting as a ‘soft power’ front in the service of Anglo-Zionist global neoliberal capitalist supremacy and its agendas, and not a real religion.
One quote that gets circulated a lot is one that supposedly Abdul-Baha himself said in a book called Makatib. To paraphrase, the quote says the teachings of the Báb included "beheading and destroying of anything non-Babi.”
The assertion regarding beheadings by ʿAbbās Effendī found in his Makātib clearly establishes him as a liar since both the wilful killing and mutilation of the human body with the cutting off of human limbs (esp. beheadings and the like) - even in time of war and even of the enemies of the Bayān - is explicitly forbidden per the sixteenth gate of the eleventh Unity of the Bayān. To wit,
Do not murder any soul nor under any circumstance sever anything [i.e. limbs] from any person, if ye be believers in God and Its versical-signs. And whosoever commands this, undertakes it, or determines to prevent but doesn’t prevent it, or is content [with the action]; it is necessary for him in the Book of God to pay eleven thousand mithqāls of gold [in penalty]…(my trans.)
That stated, even though here it is clearly demonstrated that the assertions of both ʿAbbās Effendī and his father regarding what they claimed to be the violent nature of the Bayān to be completely false; assertions made in a variety of places by the two of them; the fact that the Bahāʾī founders made such false statements was designed solely as a self-justification mechanism, not to mention designed to unfairly slur the Bayānīs and Ṣubḥi-Azal particularly. However, the reactionary Twelver Shiʿi ʿulamā then opportunistically latched on to such statements by the Bahāʾī founders and used them for their own purposes: statements being used to this very day in order to discredit the Primal Point, the People of the Bayān, and the Bahāʾī founders together with their followers alike.
Now, indeed the Point of the Bayān advises – rather than outright commands – that shrines of former religions to be destroyed. There is a reason he says this in that the Point holds that the animating spirit that inhabited such places and spaces ceases to be present with every superseding Manifestation. A good example of one of the controversial issues that the Point expresses over this matter is when He advises that the Kaʿba in Mecca be demolished since the divine spirit that once inhabited it is no longer present there since the primal essence thereof is now embodied in His Manifestation such that the physical situs of the qibla is now Shirāz rather than Mecca. Given what the Wahhabīs and Najdī Saʿūdīs have turned Mecca into in recent times - i.e. an Islamic Disneyland displaying the worst excesses of Gulf Arab opulence, corruption, hypocrisy, unchecked wealth and the disparities between the haves and have nots – whether taken literally or not, I believe that the Primal Point certainly had a valid point here, proving His prescience in the matter thereby.
“Others say that the Báb said the next Messenger would come in the year 1511 or 2001 of the Babi calendar, thus Baha’u’llah could not possibly be HWGSMM.”

Baha'is exploit the BLM movement in Minneapolis

Denis MacEoin on Baha'u'llah's Claims to Divinity

The precise nature of Bahāʾ Allāh's claims is difficult to establish. The official modern Bahāʾī doctrine rejects any notion of incarnationism and stresses instead his status as a locus of divine manifestation (maẓhar ilāhī), comparable to a mirror with respect to the sun (see Shoghi Effendi The World Order of Bahāʾuʾllāh, rev. ed. [Wilmette, 1969], pp. 112–114). Nevertheless, it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that he himself made much more radical claims than this in parts of his later writings. The following statements are, I think, explicit enough to serve as examples: 'he who speaks in the most great prison (i.e. Acre) is the Creator of all things and the one who brought all names into being' (letter in Bahāʾ Allāh Āthār-i qalam-i aʿlā, vol. 2 [Tehran, n.d., being a repaginated reprint of a collection of writings originally preceded by the Kitāb al-aqdas, first printed Bombay, 1314/1896], p. 177); 'verily, I am God' (letter in Ishrāq Khāvarī Māʾida, vol. 7, p. 208); 'the essence of the pre-existent (dhāt al-qidām) has appeared' (letter to Ḥājī Muḥammad Ibrāhīm Khalīl Qazvīnī in ibid., vol. 8, p. 113); 'he has been born who begets not nor is begotten' ('Lawḥ-i mīlād-i ism-i aʿẓam' in ibid., vol. 4, p. 344, referring to Qurʾān sūra 112); 'the educator of all beings and their creator has appeared in the garment of humanity, but you were not pleased with that until he was imprisoned in this prison' ('Sūrat al-ḥajj' in Bahāʾ Allāh Āthār-i qalam-i aʿlā, vol. 4 [Tehran, 133 badīʿ/1976–77], p. 203).
  • The Messiah of Shiraz, Brill, 2009, p. 500, note 16.

Shoghi Effendi, Covenant Breaker

Posted on May 14, 2020 by Dale Husband

In a blog entry from over a decade ago, I directly assaulted the credibility of the Guardianship of Shoghi Effendi, who led the Baha’i Faith from 1921 until his death in 1957. To this day, I consider The Fatal Flaw of Baha’i Authority to be my one of my greatest works and the ultimate refutation of the Baha’i Faith as led by the leadership based in Haifa, Israel.

I have also debunked the credibility of Abdu’l-Baha’s Will and Testament, the very document that Shoghi Effendi based his authority on.

It is shocking enough that the so-called Guardian did not uphold the Covenant at the time of his death. But what if I told you that he also broke it while he was alive?

When he was Guardian, Shoghi Effendi would often expel dissident Baha’is from the community, including nearly ALL his closest relatives. But a reading of the Will and Testament of Abdu’l-Baha reveals that he should NOT have had that power and he was abusing his position as Guardian!

After declaring the absolute authority of the Guardian, Abdu’l-Baha says this:

My object is to show that the Hands of the Cause of God must be ever watchful and so soon as they find anyone beginning to oppose and protest against the Guardian of the Cause of God, cast him out from the congregation of the people of Bahá and in no wise accept any excuse from him.

So the Hands of the Cause of God are expected to expel those disloyal to the Guardian, not the Guardian himself. Meanwhile….

Should any of the members [of the Universal House of Justice] commit a sin, injurious to the common weal, the Guardian of the Cause of God hath at his own discretion the right to expel him, whereupon the people must elect another one in his stead.

So the only expulsion the Guardian is empowered to do is to remove members of the UHJ from that body, and not necessarily from the Baha’i community completely. So how did Shoghi Effendi gain the same power to expel Baha’is completely as the Hands of the Cause of God? By merely asserting he had that power already! But if he did, then the Will and Testament of Abdu’l-Baha really should have read:

My object is to show that the Guardian of the Cause of God must be ever watchful and so soon as he finds anyone beginning to oppose and protest against him, cast the Covenant breaker out from the congregation of the people of Bahá and in no wise accept any excuse from him.

The Constitution of the United States of America grants Congress, not the President, the power to declare war, but it also grants the President the rank of Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. But the last time Congress did declare war was in December 1941, right after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Yet the USA has fought wars in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq without a Congressional declaration of war, because of the President taking advantage of his position of Commander-in-Chief. This is straight up TYRANNY the American people should NEVER have tolerated!

Likewise, Baha’is the world over blindly assumed that Shoghi Effendi had the right to expel people from the Baha’i community. He didn’t even start to appoint living Hands of the Cause of God until 1951, thirty years after he began his Guardianship and he NEVER served as a member of the UHJ! Why not? Was his megalomania so problematic that he was never willing to share power with anyone in his early days as Guardian?

Then he never should have been Guardian to begin with.

Elliott Hulse is NO MORE a Baha'i.

/r/bahai exposed

I got banned from r/bahai for posting this...

The Forbidden Prophecies: The Deceit of Bahá’u’lláh and Abdul-Bahá
The Bahá’í religion was established in Iran in 1863. It is the youngest of the world religions, and today there are over 5 million adherents, known as Bahá’ís, all over the world. The founder of the Bahá’í religion, a man by the name of Bahá’u’lláh, claimed to be divinely inspired:
I was but a man like others, asleep upon My couch, when lo, the breezes of the All-Glorious were wafted over Me, and taught Me the knowledge of all that hath been. This thing is not from Me, but from One Who is Almighty and All-Knowing.
[Bahá’u’lláh, Epistle, p. 11]
He proceeded to send letters of warning to the rulers and leaders of the world. In these letters, Bahá’u’lláh openly proclaimed his station as a Messenger of God. Followers of Bahá’u’lláh cite these letters as evidence of his prophetic ability, they claim that they contain clear predictions which came true. One such letter addressed the people of Constantinople, the capital of the Ottoman Empire. Bahá’u’lláh wrote that the sultans, the leaders of Constantinople, had been a source of tyranny and told them that their rule would soon come to an end:
O people of Constantinople! Lo, from your midst We hear the baleful hooting of the owl. Hath the drunkenness of passion laid hold upon you, or is it that ye are sunk in heedlessness? O Spot that art situates on the shores of the two seas! The throne of tyranny hath, verily, been established upon thee, and the flame of hatred hath been kindled within thy bosom... We behold in thee the foolish ruling over the wise, and darkness vaunting itself against the light. Thou art indeed filled with manifest pride. Hath thine outward splendour made thee vainglorious? By Him Who is the Lord of mankind! It shall soon perish, and thy daughters and thy widows and all the kindreds that dwell within thee shall lament. Thus informeth thee the All-Knowing, the All-Wise.
[Bahá’u’lláh, Kitáb-i-Aqdas, verse 89]
This warning can be found in the book Kitáb-i-Aqdas, which was completed in 1873 and is the central religious text of the Bahá’í faith. The collapse of the Ottoman empire in 1918 brought an end to the rule of the sultans. On March 3rd, 1924, the sultans lost their powers and they were replaced by parliamentary rule in the newly formed Turkish Republic. Is this really a remarkable prophecy? When Bahá’u’lláh penned the warning, the once-mighty Ottoman empire was already in terminal decline. In fact, rival nations were referring to it as “the sick man of Europe” as early as 1853, over twenty years before Bahá’u’lláh made his prediction.
[Candan Badem, The Ottoman Crimean War (1853 – 1856), p. 68]
In the prophecy itself, Bahá’u’lláh even highlighted the fact that the rule of the sultans had become “filled with manifest pride” and was a “throne of tyranny”. He also mentioned that “the flames of hatred” had been kindled in the people of Constantinople. If you think about it, the most likely fate of any leadership in such circumstances is that it comes to an end. When those who are ruled are dissatisfied with their rulers, then there is always the chance of an uprising or revolution. This has been the pattern through history; examples include the fall of the French monarchy during the French Revolution and the rebellion of American colonies against British rule during the American Revolution. Another issue is that there are no details of how it would come to an end.
Bahá’u’lláh just stated in very general terms that “it shall soon perish”. In fact, the end of sultan rule took place nearly half a century later in 1924, long after he made the prediction.
In another letter, he wrote to the French emperor Napoleon III in 1869. He was warned that he would soon lose his empire unless he embraced Bahá’u’lláh as a Messenger of God:
For what thou hast done, thy kingdom shall be thrown into confusion, and thine empire shall pass from thine hands, as a punishment for that which thou hast wrought. Then wilt thou know how thou hast plainly erred. Commotions shall seize all the people in that land, unless thou arises to help this Cause, and followest Him Who is the Spirit of God in this, the Straight Path. Hath thy pomp made thee proud? By My Life! It shall not endure; nay, it shall soon pass away...
[Bahá’u’lláh, Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 20 – 21]
In July 1870, within a year of writing this letter, Napoleon III lost a battle against Prussia and was captured. This was followed by his exile to England and a bloody revolution in Paris known as the Paris Commune in May 1871. Did this prediction require a special insight into the future?
If one analyses the political events that occurred in the decade leading up to Napoleon’s downfall, then a France-Prussia conflict and civil strife in France were inevitable. Napoleon III was a warmonger who actively sought to expand French influence in Europe and around the world. He had fought wars against Russia in the Crimea and in Italy against the Austria-Hungarian empire. Napoleon III was also acquiring colonies throughout Asia and Africa. In the 1860s, Prussia emerged as a new rival to French power in Europe. In 1862, Prussia’s chancellor, Otto von Bismarck, famously declared: “The great questions of the day will not be settled by resolutions and majority votes — that was the mistake of the men of 1848 and 1849 — but by blood and iron”.
[Joachim von Kürenberg, The Kaiser: a life of Wilhelm II, last Emperor of Germany, p. 437]
Prussia was the most powerful German state and under Bismarck’s leadership, it sought to unify Germany. Bismarck engineered wars with Denmark and Austria-Hungary, which resulted in Prussia coming to dominate the Northern German States. The historian David Wetzel wrote: “it seemed that it was only a matter of time before they brought all the German states under the control of Berlin”.
[David Wetzel, A Duel of Giants: Bismarck, Napoleon III, and the Origins of the Franco-Prussian War, p. 123]
Prussia’s ambition and victories made it a direct threat to France who did not want a strong and unified Germany on its borders.
[A.J.P. Taylor, The Struggle for Mastery in Europe 1848–1918, p. 347]
Napoleon III recognised the threat that a unified Germany would pose to France, and he looked for allies to challenge Prussia. But this was without success, as Britain, Russia, Austria, and Italy all refused to form an alliance with France. Napoleon III was isolated and would be helpless in the event of a conflict with Prussia. In 1866, Prussia, with a population of 22 million, had been able to mobilise an army of 700,000 men, while France, with a population of 26 million, had an army of only 385,000 men, of whom 100,000 were in Algeria, Mexico, and Rome.
[Philippe Séguin, Louis Napoléon le Grand, p. 387]
The Prussian army, combined with the armies of other German states, would be a formidable enemy. Napoleon III ordered a rapid expansion of his armed forces and this greatly added to tensions with Prussia. We can see that years before Bahá’u’lláh made his prediction, France was on a collision course for war, with a very real prospect of defeat at the hands of its enemy. Finally, his prediction that “commotions shall seize all the people in that land”, which implies that there would be civil unrest in France, is by no means remarkable as civil unrest goes hand in hand with political instability. When dictators like Napoleon III are deposed, it results in a vacuum and it’s not uncommon for power struggles to take place. These are often violent affairs, this is especially the case throughout France’s turbulent history.
In summary, we have seen that even the most accurate predictions of Bahá’u’lláh did not require any supernatural ability, just an astute awareness of world history and politics. Bahá’u’lláh died in 1892. His eldest son, Abdul-Bahá, was appointed by his father to be his successor and head of the Bahá’í Faith, a position he served until 1921. AbdulBahá’s writings and talks are also regarded as a source of Bahá’i sacred literature.
[Peter Smith, A Concise Encyclopedia of the Bahái Faith, p. 20]
Like his father before him, Abdul-Bahá made predictions about political events that he claimed would occur in the near future, some of which turned out to be accurate. However, a true test of one’s prophetic ability is not to analyse political trends in the present and then estimate outcomes.
Rather, a true test is to make accurate predictions for events in multiple fields, not just politics, and also for events that will occur far into the future. Let’s look at examples of such predictions that have been made by Abdul-Bahá. He decreed that his grandson, Shoghi Effendi, would lead the religion after his death, and he predicted that Shoghi would father a line of descendants who would also lead the religion:
O my loving friends! After the passing away of this wronged one, it is incumbent upon the Aghsán (Branches), the Afnán (Twigs) of the Sacred Lote-Tree, the Hands (pillars) of the Cause of God and the loved ones of the Abhá Beauty to turn unto Shoghi Effendi… as he is the sign of God, the chosen branch, the Guardian of the Cause of God, he unto whom all the Aghsán, the Afnán, the Hands of the Cause of God and His loved ones must turn. He is the expounder of the words of God and after him will succeed the firstborn of his lineal descendants.
[Abdul-Bahá, The Will and Testament, part one]
Shoghi Effendi did go on to lead the religion in 1921, just as Abdul-Bahá decreed. However, the situation changed dramatically in 1957, when Shoghi suddenly died at the age of sixty. Shoghi died childless, and so he had no descendants who could lead the religion.
[Peter B. Clarke, Peter Beyer, The World’s Religions: Continuities and Transformations, see section “Succession and routinisation of Bahá’i leadership”]
This was a situation which went directly against Abdul-Bahá’s prediction that Shoghi would be “the expounder of the words of God and after him will succeed the firstborn of his lineal descendants”. Shoghi died without having appointed his successor, and as a result the Bahá’i religion underwent a significant restructure. No longer would the faithful be led by a single individual, instead a governing council made up of nine elected members, the Universal House of Justice, assumed full authority over the affairs of the Bahá’í religion.
In another prophecy, when Abdul-Bahá was questioned about what would happen by the year 1957, he stated that there would be a worldwide transformation of humanity:
Universal Peace will be firmly established, a Universal language promoted. Misunderstandings will pass away. The Baha’i Cause will be promulgated in all parts and the oneness of mankind established. It will be most glorious!
[J. E. Esslemont, Baha’u’llah and the New Era, 1923 edition, Chapter XIV – Prophecies of Bahá’u’lláh and Abdul-Bahá]
These predictions by Abdul-Bahá were first published in 1923. He foretold that by the year 1957, the Bahá’í religion would spread everywhere and that there would be worldwide peace and unity among mankind. In actual fact, the decades leading up to the year 1957 and the decades since then have been among the most bloody in history. Social ills like poverty, racism, and crime still plague mankind and are only getting worse, nearly a century after Abdul-Bahá’s prediction.
We can conclude that the leaders of the Bahá’í religion, its founder Bahá’u’lláh and his son Abdul-Bahá, did not have any special insight into the future. While they may have been skilled in analysing political trends, when they ventured into fields other than politics and attempted to make predictions that were far into the future, they made false prophecies and therefore were not genuine prophets.

One counter-argument for one of the above claims from one Bahá’i:
‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s Will and Testament was just that, his will and testament. He wasn’t prophesying. He was saying what he wanted to occur after his death. Obviously it wasn’t the Will of God to occur
When I posted how the quote itself does not come across as simply 'just a will' as there is no ifs nor buts, just straight-up predictions. And that the words in the will should they be acted out on would foretell "good things to come" as it reads in the full document you can find on their Bahá’i website which reads "The phrase is only foretelling good tidings to come, namely that regarding this all requisite arrangements have been made." he responded:
Please do not take 'Abdu'l-Baha's words out of context and portray them to be something that they're not. "the phrase" is referring to the phrase, "I cannot any more explain," used by his enemies against him.
I was going to respond with, "in the context, the phrase “I cannot any more explain” is simply claiming that the enemies of this man Abdu’l-Bahá can not explain his religion and want his death because of such. The person who wrote the document then says the phrase is (not which you claim you can not understand but that it is actually) to tell of good things to come if this will is carried out (which the enemies portrayed in the will are somehow afraid of getting into the wrong hands and about it getting carried out) I got banned.
I was not even rude or anything... Just wanted to see how they handled apologetics and to see if the above was anyway a good argument.

New academic research on Baha'i splinter groups (Baha'i Sects)

Preface and Introduction can be read here:

Baha'i: How they are linked to Jehovahs Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists

"O Baha'u'llah, do you not remember your sodomies?"

In Baghdad, says Bahiyyih Khanum, "disharmony and misunderstanding arose among the believers--discord--strife--contention." Therefore Baha'u'llah went, off to Kurdistan.

He refers in the "Iqan" to the dissensions, "Such an odour of jealousy was diffused, banners of discord hoisted, enemies endeavoured to destroy this servant,--hardships, calamities and sufferings inflicted by Moslems were as nothing compared with what hath been inflicted by the believers." His opponents say that he wished to introduce innovations, relax the law and put forward on his own account a claim to be a Manifestation and being resisted in this, he" got angry." After they were removed to Adrianople the quarrel waxed hotter. Abul Fadl describes it as one of "interior fires of dissension and jealousy between the rival leaders, far exceeding the jealousy of outsiders. Mohammed Jawad Qazvini says there were "all manner of intrigues, falsehoods and untruths." I have received from a Muslim convert to Christianity an interesting account of conditions then and there. He was at that time a peesh-khidmat to the Persian Minister at Constantinople. He was at Samsun when Subh-i-Azal and Baha'u'llah and their parties embarked and was introduced to them by Haji Rajab Ali Khan, brother-in-law of my informant. He saw them day by day and became a serious inquirer. Afterwards he went to Adrianople bearing presents to Baha'u'llah. He found Baha'u'llah and Subh-i-Azal living in separate rooms of the same house under guards. The two brothers were in dispute over the supremacy, and the mureeds had been won over by Baha'u'llah. He narrates "I entered one day. I heard words of angry disputation and revilings. Yahya said, "Ay! Husayn Ali, you are vile! Do you not remember your sodomies? You are defiled. Your wife is a bad one!" Husayn Ali (Baha'u'llah) answered, "Ay, cursed one! Your son Nur'u'llah is not your son but son of Sayyid --. You yourself are a sodomite, an adulterer." Such like revilings they hurled at each other. I called Mishkin Qalam and said to him, "What are these words and doings? If Baha'u'llah is true why does he talk so? Why do these brothers revile each other? What a fool I am to come so many miles to hear such revilings from a divinity!" We then went to the room of Ishan. My companion said to Ishan, "Why do they curse so?" I said, "I wish to ask a question." He said, "What is it?" I said, "You say they do not work miracles, but must there not be personal power and influence in words?" [1]

The condition at Adrianople culminated in a series of crimes, which now come before us for examination. Charges have been made, in detail, against the companions of Baha'u'llah of assassinating the Azalis, the followers of his rival Subh-i-Azal. Most of the information regarding the matter is to be found in the books and translations of Professor Browne, the great authority on Baha'i Faith in the Anglo-Saxon world.

[1] Professor Browne, afterwards in Persia, found the attitude of the Bahais towards the Azalis "unjust and intolerant" and reprimanded them, for "their violence and unfairness." They cursed and reviled in the presence of Professor Browne ("A Year Among the Persians," pp. 525-530).

Friendship OR a Recruitment Ploy!?

hi everyone! i am not an ex-bahai or a bahai at all but i would just like some advice or to hear your thoughts on my friend who IS a bahai.

so to start, i went to junior high with this girl, let’s call her elaine. elaine and i had never talked all throughout junior high but we went on to attend high school together. i didn’t know much of her except that she was apart of this newer religion that i had never heard abt. we had many classes together and progressively got closer and closer. at our closest, i was at a very low point in my life and i would share my insecurities with her. she has always presented herself as an intellectual and spiritually superior individual, so i decided to confide in her. we started having “deep talks abt universal issues” which ALWAYS lead to her telling me, “hey we talk about these issues all the time in the youth group that i host for my community, you should consider coming.” i told her that i’m not really a religious person and she then told me, “it’s not really a religious thing. it’s more about spirituality and discussing universal issues.”

eventually, she had got me to go to this “event” after she reassured me that it would be a spiritual experience, not religion. but when i got there, we were singing prayers, discussing bahai quotes and talking about bahauallah which made me uncomfortable because it was clear to me that this was a religious activity and that my trusted friend dragged me into something that i told her i wasn’t comfortable in. later on in the day, we studied this book which taught bahai principles and values. i felt trapped because i had no idea what was going on, i thought i was supposed to be learning abt spirituality, but really i was participating in a religion that i never agreed to participate in. everyone was talking about getting contact information in order to meet up next week and i was so confused. i thought that this was just a special event but it was a book study that they expected me to attend every week. i avoided her after that experience and i’m pretty sure she got the memo so she did not invite me to the weekly book studies.

shortly after this event, we graduated high school and therefore did not have to see each other on a daily basis. of course i wanted to maintain our friendship so i would respond to her efforts to hang out. however, EVERY single time we hung out, it was always at her house with a bunch of people that i was NEVER informed abt and we would have to sing prayers and discuss bahai. these people were people that i knew from school but would never talk to. these people were people that she recruited in the same way that she tried to recruit me. i was so shocked because i never would have even thought that she would be friends with these people, but she has told me that she rounds ppl up from her community, including a student with disabilities from our high school. which made me wonder, does she disclose full details with these people or does she tell them its not a religion either? is she taking advantage of people with disabilities in order to indoctrinate them with bahai views? i don’t really know. it was so conflicting for me because i wanted to keep our friendship but i did not want to fall into this trap every single time so i would flop on her every time she asked to hang out.

when the pandemic got really bad, she did NOT stop trying to reach out to me. she asked to zoom call with me and another friend. i genuinely thought that she wanted to catch up and didn’t think that she could pull anything over the phone, so i agreed. we called and she would bring up “deep, universal issues” so that we would talk about them and she would ALWAYS try to tie it back to the teachings of bahai no matter how many times me and my friend would not engage. after that call, i felt extremely disrespected and completely ignored all of her efforts to call (and trust me, she kept trying and trying).

before the blm movement took over social media, we had no contact at all due to me ignoring her. however, when george floyd died and the blm movement started popping off, i posted about it (and still do) CONSTANTLY. i am extremely passionate about this issue. using whatever platforms i had, i encouraged everyone to not be silent on the issue and i think she saw that because she started posting bahai quotes abt racism and nothing else. she all of the sudden showed interest in what i was posting and i think she is trying to use my passion to her advantage because her very very very close friend messaged me the other day, lets call her lily. little back story on lily, she was not a bahai until recently. me and elaine have both known lily since junior high and similarly, they did not get close until high school but me and lily had always been friends. they got close because lily was attending elaine’s youth groups and took interest. she eventually became super invested and everyone in school took note of this. whenever people asked them if lily was converting, they would get super defensive and especially elaine. they would be like “i dont know why everyone is asking me this! lily is just exploring and she is not a member right now!” after we graduated, lily moved in with elaine to be completely invested in their “community efforts” and i guess she is now a member of the bahai faith. they’re very close and i cannot talk to one without talking to the other. anyways, lily messages me and talks about how i have inspired her to not be complicit during this important era. she starts ranting to me about how racism is so enshrined in our institutions and then she sent a bahai quote which basically says that political action alone won’t help and that “racism will be eliminated only when peoples of the world are convinced of the oneness of mankind.” she asked me for my thoughts on that and i just ignored it because i felt like she was trying to take advantage of the blm movement to push her own religious agenda so i just continued the rant on racism. she takes a week to respond and then she asks if i want to have “an online space over Zoom to engage even more people into this conversation and to talk more about how to take an active role in all this” with people from high school and junior high. i immediately ignored it because it seems like another trap and as if shes going to try to propose bahai teachings as solutions to racism.

none of this sits well with me. i find everything super immoral (ESPECIALLY taking advantage of blm). i feel like they have consistently tried to manipulate and deceive me into recruitment, but sometimes i feel like i am crazy. anyways i would just like to know your guys’ thoughts! are my feelings valid?? is this how ppl of the bahai faith recruit people?? are these common tactics? do you think she became friends with me solely to be able to recruit me later on? are all bahais super devoted like this where their whole entire identity is consumed by their faith and they are nothing outside of it?anything you guys have to say is appreciated! AND SUPERRR sorry for the incredibly long post.

Abdu'l Baha's "lovely" speeches on Racism

Given the recent emphasis on racial justice issues around the world, I am reminded of two talks 'Abdu'l-Bahá gave in 1912, during his tour of North America.

On April 23, 1912, 'Abdu'l-Bahá gave a speech at Howard University, telling the audience "Praise be to God! You are like the whites; there are no great distinctions left...How they fought and sacrificed until they freed the blacks!...It was for your sake that the whites of America made such an effort. Were it not for this effort, universal emancipation would not have been proclaimed... In short, you must be very thankful to the whites who were the cause of your freedom in America....Now — praise be to God! — everyone is free and lives in tranquillity."

But I wish to say one thing in order that the blacks may become grateful to the whites and the whites become loving toward the blacks. If you go to Africa and see the blacks of Africa, you will realize how much progress you have made. Praise be to God! You are like the whites; there are no great distinctions left. But the blacks of Africa are treated as servants. The first proclamation of emancipation for the blacks was made by the whites of America. How they fought and sacrificed until they freed the blacks! Then it spread to other places. The blacks of Africa were in complete bondage, but your emancipation led to their freedom also — that is, the European states emulated the Americans, and the emancipation proclamation became universal. It was for your sake that the whites of America made such an effort. Were it not for this effort, universal emancipation would not have been proclaimed.

Therefore, you must be very grateful to the whites of America, and the whites must become very loving toward you so that you may progress in all human grades. Strive jointly to make extraordinary progress and mix together completely. In short, you must be very thankful to the whites who were the cause of your freedom in America. Had you not been freed, other blacks would not have been freed either. Now — praise be to God! — everyone is free and lives in tranquillity. I pray that you attain to such a degree of good character and behavior that the names of black and white shall vanish. All shall be called human, just as the name for a flight of doves is dove. They are not called black and white. Likewise with other birds.

Later in 1912, on September 2, 'Abdu'l-Bahá gave a talk elaborating his views on Africans, indigenous North Americans, native peoples, and pre-Columbian America at the Montreal home of William Sutherland Maxwell (later named a Hand of the Cause by Shoghi Effendi in 1951) and May Maxwell, the parents of Mary Maxwell, the future Amatu'l-Bahá Rúhíyyih Khánum, wife of Shoghi Effendi.

Because 'Abdu'l-Bahá stayed at the Maxwell's home during his stay in Montreal in 1912, the home was later designated a Bahá’í Shrine. Amatu'l-Bahá Rúhíyyih Khánum described the importance of this Shrine with the following words:

Things arise in historic perspective as time goes by. This is the only private home in Canada where ‘Abdu’l-Bahá stayed. After His visit, it was always considered blessed by having been used by Him. For future generations, it will eventually grow in importance and sacredness, because He, the Centre of the Covenant, the Greatest Mystery of God, stayed here.

'Abdu'l-Bahá's talk on September 2, 1912 is as follows...

Nature is the material world. When we look upon it, we see that it is dark and imperfect. For instance, if we allow a piece of land to remain in its natural condition, we will find it covered with thorns and thistles; useless weeds and wild vegetation will flourish upon it, and it will become like a jungle. The trees will be fruitless, lacking beauty and symmetry; wild animals, noxious insects and reptiles will abound in its dark recesses. This is the incompleteness and imperfection of the world of nature. To change these conditions, we must clear the ground and cultivate it so that flowers may grow instead of thorns and weeds—that is to say, we must illumine the dark world of nature. In their primal natural state, the forests are dim, gloomy, impenetrable. Man opens them to the light, clears away the tangled underbrush and plants fruitful trees. Soon the wild woodlands and jungle are changed into productive orchards and beautiful gardens; order has replaced chaos; the dark realm of nature has become illumined and brightened by cultivation.

If man himself is left in his natural state, he will become lower than the animal and continue to grow more ignorant and imperfect. The savage tribes of central Africa are evidences of this. Left in their natural condition, they have sunk to the lowest depths and degrees of barbarism, dimly groping in a world of mental and moral obscurity. If we wish to illumine this dark plane of human existence, we must bring man forth from the hopeless captivity of nature, educate him and show him the pathway of light and knowledge, until, uplifted from his condition of ignorance, he becomes wise and knowing; no longer savage and revengeful, he becomes civilized and kind; once evil and sinister, he is endowed with the attributes of heaven. But left in his natural condition without education and training, it is certain that he will become more depraved and vicious than the animal, even to the extreme degree witnessed among African tribes who practice cannibalism. It is evident, therefore, that the world of nature is incomplete, imperfect until awakened and illumined by the light and stimulus of education.

In these days there are new schools of philosophy blindly claiming that the world of nature is perfect. If this is true, why are children trained and educated in schools, and what is the need of extended courses in sciences, arts and letters in colleges and universities? What would be the result if humanity were left in its natural condition without education or training? All scientific discoveries and attainments are the outcomes of knowledge and education. The telegraph, phonograph, telephone were latent and potential in the world of nature but would never have come forth into the realm of visibility unless man through education had penetrated and discovered the laws which control them. All the marvelous developments and miracles of what we call civilization would have remained hidden, unknown and, so to speak, nonexistent, if man had remained in his natural condition, deprived of the bounties, blessings and benefits of education and mental culture. The intrinsic difference between the ignorant man and the astute philosopher is that the former has not been lifted out of his natural condition, while the latter has undergone systematic training and education in schools and colleges until his mind has awakened and unfolded to higher realms of thought and perception; otherwise, both are human and natural.

God has sent forth the Prophets for the purpose of quickening the soul of man into higher and divine recognitions. He has revealed the heavenly Books for this great purpose. For this the breaths of the Holy Spirit have been wafted through the gardens of human hearts, the doors of the divine Kingdom opened to mankind and the invisible inspirations sent forth from on high. This divine and ideal power has been bestowed upon man in order that he may purify himself from the imperfections of nature and uplift his soul to the realm of might and power. God has purposed that the darkness of the world of nature shall be dispelled and the imperfect attributes of the natal self be effaced in the effulgent reflection of the Sun of Truth. The mission of the Prophets of God has been to train the souls of humanity and free them from the thralldom of natural instincts and physical tendencies. They are like unto Gardeners, and the world of humanity is the field of Their cultivation, the wilderness and untrained jungle growth wherein They proceed to labor. They cause the crooked branches to become straightened, the fruitless trees to become fruitful, and gradually transform this great wild, uncultivated field into a beautiful orchard producing wonderful abundance and outcome.

If the world of nature were perfect and complete in itself, there would be no need of such training and cultivation in the human world—no need of teachers, schools and universities, arts and crafts. The revelations of the Prophets of God would not have been necessary, and the heavenly Books would have been superfluous. If the world of nature were perfect and sufficient for mankind, we would have no need of God and our belief in Him. Therefore, the bestowal of all these great helps and accessories to the attainment of divine life is because the world of nature is incomplete and imperfect. Consider this Canadian country during the early history of Montreal when the land was in its wild, uncultivated and natural condition. The soil was unproductive, rocky and almost uninhabitable—vast forests stretching in every direction. What invisible power caused this great metropolis to spring up amid such savage and forbidding conditions? It was the human mind. Therefore, nature and the effect of nature’s laws were imperfect. The mind of man remedied and removed this imperfect condition, until now we behold a great city instead of a savage unbroken wilderness. Before the coming of Columbus America itself was a wild, uncultivated expanse of primeval forest, mountains and rivers—a very world of nature. Now it has become the world of man. It was dark, forbidding and savage; now it has become illumined with a great civilization and prosperity. Instead of forests, we behold productive farms, beautiful gardens and prolific orchards. Instead of thorns and useless vegetation, we find flowers, domestic animals and fields awaiting harvest. If the world of nature were perfect, the condition of this great country would have been left unchanged.

If a child is left in its natural state and deprived of education, there is no doubt that it will grow up in ignorance and illiteracy, its mental faculties dulled and dimmed; in fact, it will become like an animal. This is evident among the savages of central Africa, who are scarcely higher than the beast in mental development.

The conclusion is irresistible that the splendors of the Sun of Truth, the Word of God, have been the source and cause of human upbuilding and civilization. The world of nature is the kingdom of the animal. In its natural condition and plane of limitation the animal is perfect. The ferocious beasts of prey have been completely subject to the laws of nature in their development. They are without education or training; they have no power of abstract reasoning and intellectual ideals; they have no touch with the spiritual world and are without conception of God or the Holy Spirit. The animal can neither recognize nor apprehend the spiritual power of man and makes no distinction between man and itself, for the reason that its susceptibilities are limited to the plane of the senses. It lives under the bondage of nature and nature’s laws. All the animals are materialists. They are deniers of God and without realization of a transcendent power in the universe. They have no knowledge of the divine Prophets and Holy Books—mere captives of nature and the sense world. In reality they are like the great philosophers of this day who are not in touch with God and the Holy Spirit—deniers of the Prophets, ignorant of spiritual susceptibilities, deprived of the heavenly bounties and without belief in the supernatural power. The animal lives this kind of life blissfully and untroubled, whereas the material philosophers labor and study for ten or twenty years in schools and colleges, denying God, the Holy Spirit and divine inspirations. The animal is even a greater philosopher, for it attains the ability to do this without labor and study. For instance, the cow denies God and the Holy Spirit, knows nothing of divine inspirations, heavenly bounties or spiritual emotions and is a stranger to the world of hearts. Like the philosophers, the cow is a captive of nature and knows nothing beyond the range of the senses. The philosophers, however, glory in this, saying, “We are not captives of superstitions; we have implicit faith in the impressions of the senses and know nothing beyond the realm of nature, which contains and covers everything.” But the cow, without study or proficiency in the sciences, modestly and quietly views life from the same standpoint, living in harmony with nature’s laws in the utmost dignity and nobility.

This is not the glory of man. The glory of man is in the knowledge of God, spiritual susceptibilities, attainment to transcendent powers and the bounties of the Holy Spirit. The glory of man is in being informed of the teachings of God. This is the glory of humanity. Ignorance is not glory but darkness. Can these souls who are steeped in the lower strata of ignorance become informed of the mysteries of God and the realities of existence while Jesus Christ was without knowledge of them? Is the intellect of these people greater than the intellect of Christ? Christ was heavenly, divine and belonged to the world of the Kingdom. He was the embodiment of spiritual knowledge. His intellect was superior to these philosophers, His comprehension deeper, His perception keener, His knowledge more perfect. How is it that He overlooked and denied Himself everything in this world? He attached little importance to this material life, denying Himself rest and composure, accepting trials and voluntarily suffering vicissitudes because He was endowed with spiritual susceptibilities and the power of the Holy Spirit. He beheld the splendors of the divine Kingdom, embodied the bounties of God and possessed ideal powers. He was illumined with love and mercy, and so, likewise, were all the Prophets of God.

Thanks to :
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Popular Posts

Total Pageviews


Blog Archive