The account of Baha'u'llah's close confident, Jarullah


Mirza Hussain Jarullah was a neighbor and a close, devoted associate of Baha'u'llah during his time in Baghdad. According to Kashful Hiyal of Avarih, he was a trusted individual who held the keys to Baha'u'llah’s house and was responsible for daily tasks such as opening the home every morning to prepare tea and coffee.

Origin of His Name

It was a habit of Baha'u'llah to give his close followers titles that incorporated the word "Allah". Because Mirza Hussain lived in the immediate vicinity of Baha'u'llah’s home, he was given the title "Jarullah" which means "Neighbor of God".

The Incident in Baghdad

The most significant account regarding Jarullah involves an event that led to his eventual departure from the Baha'i faith:

  • The Discovery: One night, Jarullah accidentally left a door locked with Baha'u'llah inside. Upon returning the next morning and opening the door, he encountered a foul odor.
  • State of Intoxication: Jarullah found Baha'u'llah in a state of extreme intoxication, rendered unconscious by "pure wine" to the point where he could not be woken.
  • Physical Illness: Because Baha'u'llah was too drunk to leave his spot, he had used an expensive crystal drinking glass as a temporary toilet (chamber pot). Jarullah was shocked and disgusted by the scene. He felt that someone claiming to be the "Supreme God" should have more self-control and dignity. He couldn't understand how a divine being could be so overpowered by his own physical needs and the effects of alcohol.

Defection and Criticism

Following this incident, Jarullah renounced his faith in Baha'u'llah. He began to publicly criticize and curse him, questioning how an individual who could not maintain his own physical dignity or control his intake of intoxicants could be considered a "Supreme God" or a reformer of the human race.

Official Baha'i Perspective vs. Avarih's View

  • Baha'i Explanation: Baha'is who are aware of this story often claim that Jarullah was a "good man" who simply chose to withdraw quietly into seclusion to protect the reputation of the faith rather than because he had actually lost his faith.
  • Avarih's Critique: Avarih views Jarullah as a key witness to the leaders' human fallibility. He claims that if individuals like Jarullah had been more vocal about what they saw behind closed doors rather than remaining silent out of a sense of "wisdom" or social preservation, thousands of people might have been saved from what he describes as a "web of deception".

A First-Hand Account of Baha'u'llah's True Beliefs


I [Avarih] myself heard directly that the late Sepahsālār, four years before his death, on a day when the writer together with Sayyid Naṣrallāh Bāqerāf had gone to his house—and Bāqerāf was inclined to proselytize him to the Bahāʾī faith—that late man listened to his words, smiled, and said: My father used to say: I was in the house of Mīrzā Āqā Khān, the Ṣadr-i Aʿẓam, when they brought Mīrzā Ḥusayn-ʿAlī Nūrī to me under guard, on the very day that Nāṣir al-Dīn Shāh had been shot. When they brought Mīrzā in, the Ṣadr-i Aʿẓam became angry with him and said: ‘Out of shared homeland ties I was a friend of your father, and he was not a bad man. It was possible that you might have taken his place and attained a position of chancery and courtly administration. But you are so wretched that you attach yourself to Sayyid-i- Bāb—about whom it is not even known what madness possessed him—and now you are also inciting the killing of the Shāh!’

Mīrzā immediately replied that he did not believe in Sayyid-i-Bāb, nor even in his ancestors … —but he immediately restrained his tongue. The Ṣadr-i Aʿẓam also rebuked him sharply and said, ‘Do not be impertinent,’ and gestured that they should take him away; so they took him. After his departure from the assembly and his entry into confinement, the Ṣadr-i Aʿẓam said: This statement which Mīrzā Ḥusayn-ʿAlī uttered involuntarily was in fact true—that he does not even believe in the Bāb’s ancestors [i.e. the Fourteen Infallibles]—because he is absolutely not upon the path of religion and has no aim other than misuse and exploitation.

[Kashf-al-Ḥīl, Vol. 1: 26 by Abd al-Husayn Ayati (Avarih)]

The Baha’i faith does not have clergy but instead maintains a rebranded, centralized, and authoritarian clerical system operating under a different name.

The Baha’i Faith’s public claim of having “no clergy” is misleading when examined in terms of function rather than terminology. Although it rejects ordained priests, the Baha’i Administrative Order, led by the Universal House of Justice (UHJ), performs all the core roles traditionally associated with a clergy. The UHJ is an infallible authority demanding absolute obedience, controlling doctrine through centralized interpretation and strict literature review, and suppressing dissent via censorship and punishment. Those who challenge the administrative authority risk expulsion (disenrollment) creating a powerful system of social and spiritual control.

The Baha’i leadership directs organized missionary activity, oversees standardized teaching programs, and manages mandatory financial contributions such as Huquq'ullah and national funds, reinforcing its clerical character. Despite its rhetoric of democracy and egalitarianism, Baha'ism is governed by a rigid, hierarchical structure with indirect elections that insulate top leadership from ordinary members. Cronyism, intolerance toward dissent, and ridicule of critics deepen the contradiction between the Baha'i faith’s public image and internal reality. 

The Baha’i faith does not have clergy but instead maintains a rebranded, centralized, and authoritarian clerical system operating under a different name.