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)]

Source : https://www.reddit.com/r/BAYAN/comments/1q4a62e/account_in_vol_1_of_avarih_regarding_haba/

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.

Baha'u'llah calls Mirza Yahya a "son of adultery"

The Appointment of Mirza Yahya

Following the martyrdom of the Bab in 1850, the nascent Babi community was left leaderless and scattered. To comprehend the schism that would soon irrevocably tear the movement apart, one must first examine the initial, ostensibly cooperative relationship between the two most prominent figures to emerge from the chaos: the half-brothers Mirza Husayn-'Ali (later Baha'u'llah) and Mirza Yahya. In the immediate aftermath, it was to the younger Mirza Yahya that many Babis looked for guidance. He was installed as the nominal head of the community, bearing the august title Subh-i-Azal, or “Morn of Eternity.” Crucially, the historical record indicates that this very title was conferred upon him by the Bab not independently, but specifically at Baha'u'llah's suggestion—a fact that makes his subsequent campaign to systematically dismantle Yahya's authority all the more striking. This calculated act of deference by the elder, more influential Baha'u'llah positioned him as a magnanimous supporter while placing his younger, less capable half-brother in a role he was seemingly destined to fail. This initial arrangement, however, was less a gesture of fraternal loyalty than a strategic maneuver, establishing a façade of continuity that would soon crumble under the weight of Baha'u'llah's own burgeoning ambition and his rival's perceived inadequacies.

Baha'u'llah's Grief and Yahya's Jealousy

During their shared exile in Baghdad, this fragile fraternity began to fracture under the weight of personal rivalry and competing claims to authority. The writings from this period reveal that Baha'u'llah was consumed by a profound sadness, a state he attributed to two primary causes: the deteriorating moral condition of the Babi community and, more pointedly, "the clandestine but increasing opposition of His half-brother Mirza Yahya, 'Subh-i-Azal'."

A pivotal event that crystallized this animosity involved a Babi seeker named Haji Mirza Kamal al-Din Naraqi. Dissatisfied with a commentary provided by Mirza Yahya, Naraqi approached Baha'u'llah with the same query. In response, Baha'u'llah seized the opportunity to reveal the "Tablet of All Food," a work of such spiritual potency that Naraqi was instantly won over to his faction. This public display of intellectual and spiritual superiority served not only to impress the seeker but to "further inflame the jealousy of Mirza Yahya." The incident starkly contrasted the two half-brothers: while Mirza Yahya "hid from everyone in fear," producing "words and writings...devoid of any light," Baha'u'llah was actively demonstrating the spiritual authority necessary to command a following and undermine his brother's standing. The seeds of discord, sown in jealousy and perceived inadequacy, were beginning to bear the bitter fruit of outright condemnation.

Accusation and Rejection

The culmination of this animosity is laid bare in the visceral text of the "Tablet of All Food" itself. The finality of this break is rendered all the more severe when recalling that the target of this visceral condemnation was the very man Baha'u'llah himself had first proposed as the community's leader. In the tablet, Baha'u'llah moves from veiled allusions to a direct and shocking denunciation of his rival. The most severe accusation is a startling one:

"And You know that a son of adultery willfully desired to shed My blood."

This accusation, attacking not only his rival's actions but his very parentage, is followed by an unequivocal rejection of any allegiance to the man Baha'u'llah had once promoted. He declares with absolute finality:

"Nay, by the presence of Thy Might! I do not pledge allegiance unto him, either in secret or publicly."

With these words, the unraveling was complete. The relationship had devolved from a strategic, if disingenuous, alliance to open warfare. Mirza Yahya, once the installed "Morn of Eternity," was recast as a would-be murderer of illegitimate birth, a condemned enemy whose authority was utterly and publicly repudiated.

Questions for Reflection

This historical record of internecine conflict, culminating in accusations of attempted murder and illegitimate birth, sits uneasily with the hagiographic accounts of Baha'u'llah's divine station. The evidence demands a critical interrogation of the man's character and the nature of his claims:

• On Divine Character: How can the use of an insult like "son of adultery", a term attacking another's parentage, be reconciled with the station of a Divine Manifestation meant to embody perfect character and elevate humanity?
• On Leadership and Ambition: Given that Baha'u'llah himself suggested the title for Mirza Yahya, does his later campaign against him suggest a change of divine will, or does it point to a more human struggle for power and leadership within the Babi community?
• On Prophetic Fulfillment: If Baha'u'llah's claim as "Him Whom God shall make manifest" was self-evident, as he suggests in the Tablet, why was it necessary to engage in such personal and severe condemnation of a rival rather than allowing the power of his own revelation to suffice?

Video : A former Baha'i and survivor of a uniquely and intensely abusive father in Alaska.

What happened to Shoghi Effendi’s vast properties in Iran after his death?

Shoghi Effendi's Death and a Looming Crisis

The death of Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, in London in 1957 plunged his community into a crisis of unprecedented scale. His passing created two critical and intertwined problems that threatened the very structure of the faith. The first was a leadership vacuum; Effendi died without a will and, being childless, had appointed no successor as Guardian. The second was a financial emergency of immense proportions, centered on his vast personal property holdings in Iran, which were valued at an estimated $287 million USD at the time. This confluence of a succession crisis and a colossal fortune set the stage for a dramatic and ethically fraught chapter in Baha'i history. This essay will critically examine the controversial and legally dubious methods employed by the post-Shoghi Baha'i leadership to secure this fortune, a campaign of deception that culminated in the creation of the Umana Company.

The Heirs' Dilemma: Doctrinal Purity vs. Financial Reality

To understand the extraordinary measures taken by the Baha'i leadership, one must first grasp the strategic conflict between their religious doctrine and the unyielding realities of Iranian civil law. This clash presented a central dilemma that forced the leadership into a series of decisions that compromised their publicly stated principles and set a precedent for future clandestine actions.

The fundamental conflict arose immediately after Shoghi’s death. According to Baha'i belief, as established by his predecessor Abdu'l-Bahá, the property of the Guardian should pass directly to the next Guardian to be used in service of the faith. However, the legal reality in Iran was starkly different. Without a will or children, Shoghi’s legal heirs were his wife, Ruhiyyih Maxwell, and his surviving brothers and sisters.

This situation was steeped in a deep and well-documented hypocrisy. Years earlier, Shoghi Effendi had excommunicated all of his siblings for various reasons, including their demand for a share of Abdu'l-Bahá's inheritance, an act he condemned as a profound betrayal of the faith! Now, facing the total loss of the assets to these same relatives, the Baha'i leadership was forced into a humiliating reversal. They entered into negotiations with the very individuals they had long branded as heretics and outcasts. In a move that flagrantly contradicted Shoghi's own decrees, the leadership paid a "significant percentage" of his vast fortune to his siblings. This payment was a necessary bribe to secure their cooperation in obtaining the certificate of inheritance required by Iranian law.

This expedient betrayal of principle, however, did not go unnoticed within the community. For many "free-thinking Baha'is", the deal was an unacceptable moral compromise. It raised troubling questions: if the siblings were truly heretics, why was the leadership now enriching them in direct violation of the Guardian’s wishes? This act of realpolitik created a tangible crisis of faith, revealing that the leadership's hypocrisy was not just a theoretical contradiction but a tangible problem causing dissent among its followers in Iran. This short-term, compromising deal, however, merely secured the assets from immediate dispersal; it necessitated a more permanent and surreptitious solution to consolidate complete control.

The Umana Company: A Corporate Veil for an Illicit Takeover

The Umana Company (Shirkat-i Umana) was not a legitimate business enterprise; it was a deliberately crafted legal instrument designed to execute a fraudulent takeover of Shoghi Effendi's assets, circumvent Iranian tax authorities, and permanently disinherit the legal heirs. It was the centerpiece of a sophisticated conspiracy orchestrated by the most senior figures in the Iranian Baha'i community, the details of which were laid bare in a formal complaint filed on May 17, 1969 (27/2/1348), with the Prosecutor General of Iran's Supreme Court.

The complaint's author was Colonel Yadu'llah Thabet Rasekh, a figure whose background gave his accusations immense credibility. Rasekh was a retired military officer with a legal education, born into a Baha'i family and a devout follower for decades. Crucially, he was also an investor whose own personal funds were later seized by the Umana Company after he left the Baha'i faith. His detailed grievance was thus not an external attack, but an insider's meticulously documented exposé of a crime. According to Rasekh, the key individuals who masterminded this plan included:

• Dr. Ali-Muhammad Varqa
• Dhikru'llah Khadem
• Shua'ullah 'Ala'i
• 'Ali-Akbar Furutan
• Habib Thabet (Pasal)
• Hadi Rahmani Shirazi

The mechanics of their scheme, as outlined in Rasekh's legal filings, unfolded in a clear, step-by-step sequence of fraud:

1. Illegal Initial Transfer: Before any legal inheritance process was completed, the conspirators used fraudulent deeds of settlement, specifically numbers 47308, 47434, and 47948, all registered at the Tehran Notary Office 25, to illegally transfer all of Shoghi's assets to one of their own, Dr. Ali-Muhammad Varqa.
2. Creation of Shirkat-i Umana: The key individuals then formally established the Umana Company as a joint-stock corporation.
3. Second Fraudulent Transfer: Dr. Varqa, now the illicit holder of the entire estate, promptly transferred all the properties to the newly created Umana Company.
4. Massive Tax Evasion: The core of the financial fraud lay in a brazen act of misrepresentation. To obscure the true value of the assets being transferred and evade taxes, the company's capital was declared at a laughably minuscule fraction of its real worth.

The Umana Company was, in essence, a holding company. Its primary function was to manage, subdivide, and sell off the vast portfolio of real estate it now illegally controlled. This corporate structure was meticulously designed to systematically evade a staggering amount of taxes—including inheritance taxes, transfer taxes, income taxes, and registration fees—estimated to be as high as thirteen million USD. This operation was not merely a circumvention of religious protocol; it was a calculated, large-scale criminal enterprise, a fact that exposes the profound ethical and religious betrayals it represented.

A Betrayal of Faith and Public Trust

The actions of the Baha'i leadership in the Umana Company affair represent a direct and staggering violation of the principles of honesty, trustworthiness, and obedience to spiritual authority that they publicly espoused. The entire operation was a betrayal not only of Iranian law but, more significantly, of Shoghi Effendi's own stated intentions for the properties.

In his historical work Kitab-i-Qarn-i-Badi', v. 4, page 49, Shoghi Effendi had explicitly declared that these properties were "public endowments" belonging to the entire global Baha'i community. They were not the personal property of a select few leaders to be manipulated for financial or administrative convenience. The creation of the Umana Company privatized these communal assets, placing them under the absolute control of a small, self-appointed cabal.

This affair powerfully illustrates how the pursuit of financial control led the leadership to disregard the explicit instructions of both Abdu'l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi. They negotiated with and enriched individuals they themselves had branded as covenant-breakers, and they engaged in a criminal conspiracy that shattered the faith's public image of integrity, according to Rasekh. The illegality of their actions was clear and multifaceted. As Colonel Rasekh’s complaint underscores, the property transfers were executed in direct violation of multiple laws, statutes and legal opinions.

By knowingly breaking these laws, the leadership demonstrated a profound contempt for the civic duty they preached to their followers. This affair shattered any pretense of moral or legal integrity among the Baha'i leadership of that era, exposing a deep chasm between their spiritual claims and their worldly actions.

The Báb's True Successor: An Analysis Based on the Research of A.-L.-M. Nicolas

Introduction: The Succession Crisis After the Báb

In the turbulent religious landscape of mid-19th century Persia, the execution of Sayyid ‘Ali Muhammad Shirazi, known to his followers as the Báb, in 1850 created a profound leadership vacuum. His nascent movement, was thrown into a crisis over the critical question of his legitimate successor. This essay explores that contentious succession crisis by analyzing the evidence presented by A.-L.-M. Nicolas, a French diplomat whose long posting in Tehran afforded him over twenty-five years of deep, immersive, and, as his writing reveals, deeply personal study of the Babi faith.

According to Nicolas's historical analysis and the pre-Baháʼí sources he champions, Mirza Yahya, known as Subh-i-Azal, was the Báb's explicitly designated successor. His analysis builds a compelling case that his elder half-brother, Mirza Husayn-'Ali, who would later adopt the title Baha'u'llah, systematically usurped this leadership, an act which required fundamentally altering the Babi faith to establish his own authority.

To substantiate this thesis, this analysis will examine the key lines of evidence presented by Nicolas: the official and widely recognized nomination of Subh-i-Azal; Baha'u'llah's own professed ignorance of the Báb's foundational texts; the strategic re-characterization of the Báb's mission by the Baháʼí movement; and a stark comparison of the two claimants' actions in the years following the Báb's death.

The Explicit and Notorious Nomination of Subh-i-Azal

For any nascent religious movement, particularly one facing existential threats from state and clerical authorities, the clear designation of a successor is paramount for survival and continuity. In the case of Babism, the evidence for Subh-i-Azal's legitimate claim is founded on just such a clear appointment by the Báb himself.

Nicolas's research heavily relies on the work of the renowned British orientalist E.G. Browne, whose findings he presents as decisive. According to Browne, the Báb officially nominated Mirza Yahya (Subh-i-Azal) as his successor in 1849, a full year before his martyrdom. This was not a subtle or ambiguous act. Browne, as cited by Nicolas, describes the nomination in the strongest possible terms, calling it:

"explicite et notoire" (explicit and notorious)

The significance of this appointment was immediately clear. It was accepted by the vast majority of the Báb's followers, who, upon the founder's death, looked to the young Subh-i-Azal for guidance. As Browne notes, he received the recognition and homage of almost the entire Babi community.

This historical record establishes a clear and unbroken line of succession. According to the evidence compiled by Browne and presented by Nicolas, Subh-i-Azal's initial leadership was an "indisputable and absolute power over the Babi Church." This fact solidifies his position as the Báb's intended heir and provides the essential context for understanding the subsequent challenge to his authority.

Baha'u'llah's Disavowal of the Báb's Core Teachings

A successor's legitimacy is intrinsically tied to their mastery of the founder's teachings and scriptures. To claim to fulfill a divine mission while being ignorant of its foundational text would be a profound contradiction. Yet, according to Nicolas, this is precisely the position Baha'u'llah adopted regarding the Báb's central work, the Bayán.

In his analysis, Nicolas quotes directly from Baha'u'llah's own "Epistle to the Son of the Wolf," where Baha'u'llah makes a startling admission:

"God is witness and knows that I have never read the Bayân and have not seen its propositions"

(Shoghi translates thus - "God testifieth and beareth Me witness that this Wronged One hath not perused the Bayán, nor been acquainted with its contents.")

For Nicolas, this was an irreconcilable contradiction. He questions how Baha'u'llah could, in the same breath, claim total ignorance of the Bayán while proceeding to cite the very work he claims to have never read. This contradiction is compounded by a significant factual error that reveals a fundamental lack of familiarity with the text's structure. In the epistle, Baha'u'llah refers to the the sixteenth Wahid of the Bayán. However, as Nicolas points out, this is an impossibility; the Persian Bayán contains only eight Wahid.

The implications of these statements are critical. By his own account, Baha'u'llah was unfamiliar with the scripture that formed the bedrock of the Babi faith. This professed ignorance critically undermines his claim to be the Báb's spiritual heir and designated fulfillment. For Nicolas, this disavowal is not an incidental detail but the very key to understanding how Baha'u'llah could so completely alter the course of the Babi religion—one cannot be bound by a revelation one claims not to know, making its transformation not only possible, but strategically necessary.

The Hijacking of a Prophetic Mission: Demoting the Báb to Herald

To supplant a religious founder, a strategic and compelling narrative shift is required. Nicolas views this doctrinal revision not as a clarification but as a dethronement. He argues with palpable frustration that Seyyd Ali Mohammed, whom he venerates as a complete prophet, was being deliberately demoted to make room for a usurper. The Báb was no longer presented as a prophet in his own right but was recast as a mere forerunner whose sole purpose was to prepare the way for a greater manifestation.

Nicolas points to the writings of Baha'i authors like Gabriel Sacy and Isabella Brittingham, who consistently characterized the Báb as an "announcer" and a "herald". Brittingham, for instance, writes that the Báb's entire purpose was "to prove to the people that he was only the messenger of a great one who was to come."

This portrayal stands in stark contrast to the Báb's own self-conception and the station he claimed. As Nicolas forcefully argues, the Báb was a "a complete prophet, a Lawgiver, like Jesus or Muhammad". His holy book, the Bayán, was not a temporary prelude but his own complete and independent revelation, intended to stand for centuries until the distant arrival of "He Whom God Shall Make Manifest."

By reducing the Báb's station from that of an independent Manifestation of God to that of a herald, Baha'u'llah effectively dethroned him. This radical transformation created the necessary theological space for Baha'u'llah's own claim to supreme authority. In Nicolas's view, this narrative transformation was the essential mechanism for hijacking the original Babi movement and legitimizing a new leadership.

A Tale of Two Brothers: Obedience versus Ambition

For Nicolas, the final proof lies in the character and conduct of the two men. By contrasting their documented actions after the Báb's martyrdom, he presents a stark dichotomy: one of fidelity to the Master's will, the other of an ambition that required weakening that same Master's prestige.

Nicolas constructs a clear, two-part analysis based on historical accounts and his own personal observations:

• Subh-i-Azal: The Faithful Successor His actions were characterized by what Nicolas calls obedience and respect for his [the Báb's] will. Rather than seeking public acclaim, he lived in quiet exile in Famagusta, Cyprus. Crucially, he dedicated himself to fulfilling the Báb's unfinished work by completing the Persian Bayán. Nicolas, who spent two years with him, adds a personal testimony: "I affirm that I never heard him speak ill of anyone," including his half-brother.
• Baha'u'llah: The Ambitious Usurper His actions, in contrast, contributed to the weakening of the prestige of the Báb. He leveled severe accusations against Subh-i-Azal, claiming his brother had ordered the martyrdom of followers. Furthermore, in the "Epistle to the Son of the Wolf," Baha'u'llah recounts how the Báb's collected writings were abandoned in Baghdad after he had tasked Subh-i-Azal with transporting them to Persia—an incident that reflects poorly on both, yet which Baha'u'llah uses to incriminate his brother.

This stark contrast in conduct—one man preserving the founder's text, the other denigrating the founder's chosen successor—leads Nicolas to pose a simple but powerful rhetorical question that encapsulates his entire analysis:

"Lequel des deux est dans la vérité ?" ("Which of the two is in the truth?")

Source book: https://archive.org/details/nicolas-qui-est-le-successeur-du-bab-1933

Why can’t we trust Baha'i texts in English? by Payam Aryan

Hi everyone, I'm Payam Aryan and this is 10 minutes with Payam Aryan. I intend to present a series of audio clips in English to you on various topics about the Bahá'í Faith so that we can get a more accurate understanding of Bahá'í Faith by explaining and getting to know about its study sources and the texts of this religion. Before I go any further, I should explain something.

We cannot trust so-called official translations when it comes to Bahá'í texts. English Bahá'í texts have been translated from Arabic or Persian. However, the Bahá'í-approved translators haven't been quite honest in their job, including Shoghi Effendi, the guardian of the Faith himself.

They haven't translated Bahá'í Text word by word nor by the literal meaning of the word wherever the whole subject or specific word is controversial. For instance, when the text is about the punishment for the crime of intentionally setting someone's house on fire, instead of translating the words burning the offender alive, the translators have used the word execute without explaining the method of execution. Of course, the execution method is very important.

No one can even imagine that today we execute someone by burning. And because these translators know that this is very brutal and inhumane, they translate differently and use another word. Bahá'í friends may offer different justifications such as Shoghi Effendi's authority to interpretation.

In response to these friends, it should be said that, first of all, interpretation is Shoghi Effendi's authority only, so other translators are not allowed to change anything. Secondly, it should be mentioned that even Shoghi Effendi is not allowed to abrogate the rules of the Bahá'í religion according to its text. He only has the right to explain Bahá'í texts, not to abrogate Bahá'u'lláh's words, the founder of the faith whose forbidden abrogation of his words by anyone.

Then no one in process of translating a text is allowed to express something completely different. So if an explanation is to be given, the translation should be done correctly and then the entire of the text should be explained. Another problem that exists is Shoghi Effendi's translation method, who's chosen to use Old English, a form of English that is not being used anymore.

It seems that Shoghi Effendi has used Old English so that English speakers would feel that these words are from God when they hear pronouns and words that are similar to the pronouns and sentences of Bible. Why was it necessary to use an Old English in the 20th century and not to use the everyday English that everyone understands? And the most important of all is that many Bahá'í texts have been kept in International Teaching Center at Bahá'í World Center in Haifa, Israel, till today and have never been published. This is very unusual and we don't know what these texts are really about.

Think about it. You believe in a religion but a series of texts were placed somewhere and you haven't seen them yet. And many of those that are available haven't been translated into English.

Forget about accepting an opinion or ideology based on evidence and reasoning. Even if you want to just believe, have faith, you still must have all the texts of a religion fully available. How can you accept an ideology even though a series of its study sources are not available and are hidden somewhere? Therefore, in my audio clips, whenever I want to use a code or read a text, I refer to the original text either Arabic or Farsi and translate it word by word into English with the exception of a small number of originally English texts written by Shoghi Effendi himself.

I must emphasize once again that my goal is only to clarify the truth about teachings and principles of Bahá'í Faith. I love and respect Bahá'ís around the world and I just criticize the Bahá'í religion. I ask simple and honest questions and if there are rational and convincing answers, we should not be deprived of such answers.

And if my criticism is valid and there is no answer to such questions, this issue should not upset anyone. Since all believers consider their own religions to be the absolute truth, my question may not be pleasant to them, but I assure you that my goal is only to educate myself, inform everyone and reach the truth. So instead of making false assumptions and slandering me of nonsense like spreading hatred, let's work together to reach decent conclusions so that our audience can find the truth.

I really don't mind what people believe as long as their beliefs do not harm other people. I just feel responsible that if I have any knowledge or information about an ideology, I should share it with people because I believe we should strive for public welfare and well-being of humankind. And of course, you as listeners must investigate independently that if I am telling the truth by checking the references.

Thanks for listening and have a wonderful time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHYHSgd2pyI

Baha'is converting Hindus in India, also pressurizing them to donate in the name of "test of faith"

Zia Mody is a third generation Baha'i, she gives all her money to the Baha'i faith. But not everyone in India is as rich as her.

I joined the Bahá'í Faith because I believed it was about truth, unity, and justice. But today, it feels more like a system built around endless fundraising. Every few months, new appeals arrive - for the National Fund, the Local Fund, the International Fund, and now again for the Shrine of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and the Bihar Sharif Temple. There are always pledge forms, emotional speeches, and reminders that giving to the Fund is a “test of faith.” What was once a spiritual gathering now feels more like a financial drive.

As an ordinary middle-class Indian, I find this very suffocating. Life is already expensive - with rent, education, food, and family responsibilities. Yet, Baha’i institutions keep pushing for more and more contributions. They tell us that money is a sign of devotion, but how much more can ordinary people give? Many of us are silently uncomfortable, but no one dares to say it aloud. The pressure is real, and the guilt for not contributing enough makes the whole experience unpleasant. It has reached a point where some of us hesitate to attend Feasts or gatherings just to avoid another fund appeal.

What makes it worse is that there are already wealthy Bahá'ís in India and abroad who give huge amounts of money. Zia Mody, one of the most powerful women in India, is a billionaire and a devoted Bahá'í. She donates crores of rupees to the Bahá’í Faith. With such massive contributions already coming in, it’s natural to ask: Where is all this money going? Why does the community still keep asking middle-class believers for more? Surely the funds given by just one or two wealthy individuals could sustain all Bahá’í activities in India for years.

The Bahá’í administration never gives a clear public account of how the money is spent. The Universal House of Justice receives Huququ’llah - 19% of people’s surplus wealth - but there’s no transparent report on where it goes. We are told not to question, only to trust. But this blind trust is difficult when we see continuous fundraising drives, increasing project costs, and no visible accountability. It begins to look less like a spiritual test and more like financial exploitation - using faith and guilt as tools to collect money.

Faith should lift people up, not weigh them down with pressure and financial burden. The Bahá'í administration must stop demanding constant contributions from ordinary Indians who are already struggling. Let the wealthy and the institutions handle the grand projects. Stop turning every Feast into a money-collection session. Spirituality cannot grow in an atmosphere of guilt and financial exhaustion. If this continues, many sincere believers will drift away - not because they lost faith in Bahá’u’lláh, but because the system made them feel like their worth depended on their wallet.

About Zia Mody, please check - https://www.livemint.com/Specials/ncVyyo9guGGrQX5qy2YLoO/My-giving-is-determined-by-my-religion--Zia-Mody.html

Shared via email by Mr. Rohit (surname removed for obvious reasons), Lucknow, India.

The impact of Ruhiyyih Khanum's marriage to Shoghi Effendi's on his family and the Baha'i Faith.