Agha Musa Naghiyev: Muslim Philanthropist or Bahá’í Follower? A Closer Look at the Evidence

Agha Musa Naghiyev (1849–1919)

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, Baku became one of the most important oil cities in the world. Among the wealthy people who shaped this city, Agha Musa Naghiyev (1849–1919) stands out. He was born into a poor family and started life as a cargo carrier, but through hard work and smart business moves, he became one of the richest men in Baku—second only to the Nobel brothers. He owned more than 200 buildings and became the city’s largest landlord.

But Naghiyev is remembered not just for his wealth. He became famous for his charitable work, especially toward the Muslim community of Baku.

A Life of Muslim Philanthropy

Naghiyev funded the building of the Ismailiyya Palace, modeled after Venice’s Doge’s Palace, and gave it to the Baku Muslim Charity Society. He also financed Baku’s largest hospital, which opened in 1912 and still serves patients today. He supported education, including the Real College (now Azerbaijan State Economic University).

Naghiyev’s attachment to Islam was strong. He funded the construction of a mosque, donated to Muslim charities, and clearly expressed his wish to be buried in Karbala, one of the holiest cities in Islam. When he died, his funeral followed Muslim customs: his body was washed, prayers were recited, and he was buried as a Muslim.

Wikipedia and the Bahá’í Claims

However, the story of his religious identity is made more complicated when looking at Wikipedia and other modern sources.

  • The Wikipedia page on Musa Naghiyev states that he “was an adherent of the Bahá’í Faith and served on the Spiritual Assembly of the Baháʼís of Baku.”

  • The Wikipedia page on Baháʼí Faith in Azerbaijan also mentions him. But it notes that some sources say he was Muslim while others call him Baháʼí.

When the Talk Page of Baháʼí Faith in Azerbaijan article was checked, it showed that Bahá’í editors are relying mostly on self-published sources to claim that he was a Bahá’í. Self-published sources are not considered strong evidence in historical or academic research.

Soli Shahvar’s Role

A major academic source often cited by Bahá’ís is a research paper by Dr. Soli Shahvar, a professor at the Department of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies at the University of Haifa, Israel. Dr. Shahvar is known to be a close friend of the Bahá’ís in Israel.

In his paper, he tries very strongly to prove that Musa Naghiyev was Bahá’í. He argues that Naghiyev not only supported Muslim institutions but also helped the Bahá’ís financially. Shahvar claims that Naghiyev chaired a committee for a Bahá’í building called “Ruhanie” in Baku.

Historical Context: Early Bahá’í Identity Was Not Clear

It’s important to remember the historical context. During the time of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá (early 20th century), the definition of a Bahá’í was not clearly fixed. Many people in Muslim countries, including Palestine and Azerbaijan, did not see Bahá’í as a separate religion. Instead, they saw it as a movement (Tariqat) inside Islam that promoted unity, love, and peace.

Because of this, some Muslims were in contact with Bahá’ís, supported their projects, or even attended their gatherings—without actually accepting Bahá’u’lláh as a “Manifestation of God” or leaving Islam. This historical fact is crucial when interpreting claims about Naghiyev’s religious identity.

Weighing the Evidence

After reading both Muslim and Bahá’í sources, including academic articles, Wikipedia pages, and historical records, here is what seems most reasonable:

  1. Musa Naghiyev was born Muslim.

  2. His charitable work, funeral, and will clearly reflect a Muslim identity.

  3. He was in contact with Bahá’ís and may have supported their activities.

  4. Bahá’í authors and editors rely on self-published or friendly sources to claim he was Bahá’í.

  5. In the early 1900s, being “connected” to Bahá’ís did not always mean being a committed believer.

More information here:

Update :

In a recent paper published by Soli Shahvar, I found this:

It seems that in Southern Caucasus the practice of regarding the Baha’is as an Islamic sect, seems to have been continued even up to the first decade of the twentieth century. For example, even as late as 1909, when the Baha’is of Baku city wanted to establish the ‘Ruhanie’—the local Baha’i Spiritual Assembly in that city—they asked the Baku authorities to approve its statute, as the regulations demanded. To deal with that request, in October 1909 the Baku authorities opened a special file titled “About the request … to approve the statute of ‘Ruhanie’—the Baha’i Muslim organization of Baku”. This is a clear indication that the Baha’is, even as late as 1909, were still regarded by the highest Russian local authorities in Southern Caucasus as Muslims.


The Baha’i Silence: A Betrayal of Justice


The Baha’i community has proven its loyalty, but not to justice or human rights. By remaining silent in the face of brutal oppression, especially during the recent anti-war protests in Israel, they have shown where their true allegiance lies—with the oppressors. As activists, both Israeli Jews and Palestinian Israelis, gathered in front of their sacred shrines in Haifa to protest the violence of the war, they were met with savage repression. Protesters were beaten and arrested, their cries for peace drowned out by the heavy hand of Israeli authorities. Yet, the Baha’is—who claim to champion freedom and justice—stood in complete silence.

It is an unforgivable shame that those speaking out against oppression were violently silenced right at the doorstep of the Baha’i holy places. The very same places the Baha’is use to demand the world’s sympathy for their own suffering. When it’s their own community being persecuted, they scream and shout for help, but when others are massacred and beaten before their shrines, they remain passive, even complicit. This silence speaks volumes about the Baha’is’ true priorities—aligning themselves with the powers that oppress, rather than standing with the oppressed. It’s a betrayal of the very values they purport to uphold.

5 Shocking Revelations from Ruhi Afnan's Letter to the NSA of Iran

Shoghi Effendi & Ruhi Afnan

Introduction: The Story History Tried to Forget

Official histories, like polished monuments, tend to commemorate victories while sanding away the rough edges of human complexity. Within every major religious movement, alongside the celebrated narrative, lie silenced voices and forgotten stories. It is a rare and startling occasion when one of those voices finds its way back from the quiet archives of the past, demanding to be heard.

This is the story of one such voice, captured in a long-lost, unsent letter from 1970. The author was Ruhi Afnan—a man uniquely positioned at the very heart of the Baha'i Faith's leadership. He was the grandson of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, the son of one of its most revered figures, and, most critically, the first cousin and former secretary to Shoghi Effendi, the man appointed Guardian of the Baha'i Faith.

After decades of silent exile from the community, Afnan was moved to write after reading The Priceless Pearl, the official biography of Shoghi Effendi penned by his widow, Ruhiyyih Rabbani. Afnan’s letter is a direct, passionate, and often painful rebuttal. It breaks his silence not to attack the faith he loved, but to defend it from what he saw as a devastating distortion. It presents a profoundly different perspective on the faith's history, its leaders, and its core principles—one that replaces myth with tragic humanity. What follows are five shocking revelations from a man who was there, challenging the very foundations of the official record.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revelation 1: The 'Great Betrayal' Was a Tragic Family Feud

In The Priceless Pearl, Ruhiyyih Rabbani portrays the expulsion of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s family members as a continuation of a historic pattern of theological betrayal known as "Covenant-breaking." It’s a narrative of spiritual warfare, where disloyalty to the Guardian is equated with disloyalty to God.

Writing as an insider, Ruhi Afnan dismantles this grand spiritual narrative, revealing that the reasons for these excommunications were often shockingly personal and rooted in complex family dynamics rather than theological rebellion. He outlines the true causes behind the expulsions of his mother and aunts—the daughters of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá:

  • Touba Khanum (Afnan's mother): Her supposed sin was not faithlessness but maternal love. Expelled for refusing to shun her own son, Ruhi, after he was cast out, her enduring loyalty to the Cause was proven by her constant advice to him: "since I could not be of any service inside the Cause, I should not be the source of any harm or discord out of it."
  • Rouha Khanum (Afnan's aunt): She was cast out for attempting to uphold the explicit wish of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá that Shoghi Effendi marry her daughter. Shoghi Effendi, however, preferred Mary Maxwell (the future Ruhiyyih Rabbani), and Rouha Khanum's adherence to her father’s will was reframed as opposition.
  • Zia Khanum (Shoghi Effendi's own mother): She was never formally cast out by her son. Instead, she felt compelled to leave his house because she could not tolerate being "insulted and demeaned" by his wife, Ruhiyyih Rabbani. When she later sought to return, Rabbani issued an ultimatum to Shoghi Effendi: "if your mother returns I leave." He chose his wife.
  • Monawar Khanum (Afnan's aunt): Her transgression was simple compassion. She was expelled merely for receiving her sister, Zia Khanum, with warmth and affection during her failed attempt at reconciliation.

These intimate accounts of family friction stand in stark contrast to the official portrayal of a spiritual rot spreading through the family tree. Rabbani wrote:

"The Covenant-breaking inside the family of Baha’u’llah was like a vine, it en-twined the tree and strangled it. Wherever its tendrils reached out it plucked up what it wound itself about and destroyed that too." (p. 122)

Afnan's testimony replaces this image of a sinister, strangling vine with a portrait of deeply human pain. The tragedy is amplified by his revelation that Shoghi Effendi kept a special suitcase filled with the unanswered letters and petitions from these same expelled family members—a private archive of their anguish and his own, a potent symbol of voices silenced by decree.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revelation 2: The Guardian Was a Fallible 'Mirror,' Not an Infallible God

At the core of Ruhi Afnan’s letter is a powerful theological argument that directly refutes the concept of the Guardian’s "bestowed infallibility," a central theme in The Priceless Pearl. For Afnan, this was not just theological hair-splitting; it was a fundamental corruption of Baha'u'llah's core message.

He presents a clear, guiding analogy derived directly from the Baha'i founder's writings:

  • The Prophets, specifically the Báb and Baháʼu'lláh, are the "Suns of Reality." They are the original, divine sources of revelation—the light itself.
  • The appointed leaders who follow, such as the Guardians and administrative bodies, are "moons" or "mirrors." Their sole function is to reflect the light of the Sun. They are not the source of that light.
  • As "mirrors," these leaders are part of the created world. They are therefore fallible and capable of error. Their authority, Afnan insists, is entirely conditional on their ability to faithfully and purely reflect the teachings of the "Sun."

This perspective is a direct challenge to the "sovereign" and "infallible" leader Rabbani describes:

"The Master’s grandson had been sublimed by the forces released in His Tes-tament into the Guardian of the Faith; belonging to the sovereign caste of his divine Forefathers, he was himself a sovereign. To the primacy conferred by ties of consanguinity had been added the powers of infallible guidance with which the operation of God’s Covenant had invested him." (p. 436)

Afnan argues this claim is profoundly dangerous. By elevating the human "mirror" to the station of the divine "Sun," it creates what he calls a "third reality" between the Creator and the created. This, he states, is antithetical to Baha'i theology and dangerously similar to the clergy-based structures in other religions—an institution Baháʼu'lláh himself rejected.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revelation 3: True Faith Demands Questioning, Not Blind Obedience

This distinction between a divine 'Sun' and a fallible 'mirror' isn't just an abstract concept; Afnan argues it is the very foundation of a Baha'i's relationship with God—a foundation he believed Rabbani was actively dismantling with her demands for absolute obedience.

He contends that the single most important duty for a Baha'i is the recognition of, and faith in, the "Sun of Reality"—the Prophet. To make membership conditional on anything else, especially unquestioning obedience to human institutions or individual "mirrors," is to reduce the universal, divine message of Baháʼu'lláh to a mere "party or a community," subject to human error. He directly confronts Ruhiyyih Rabbani's position on this matter, quoting her from The Priceless Pearl:

"Faith and obedience are the most important factors in one’s relations to God, to his Manifestation and to the Head of the Faith. One must believe even if one does not see, and even if one does not believe, one must obey." (p. 122)

Afnan’s refutation is absolute. He asserts that obedience is only required when the "mirrors"—the Guardian and the institutions—act in perfect conformity with the words of the "Sun." To demand obedience over personal belief and conscience is a perversion of the divine order. To follow such a command, he concludes, is to "follow sin and sinners," not "the source of all good." For Afnan, true devotion is a conscious act of faith, not blind submission.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Revelation 4: The Guardian's Line Was Intentionally Severed

Perhaps the most explosive claim in Ruhi Afnan’s letter is his assertion that Ruhiyyih Rabbani was personally and knowingly responsible for the termination of the line of Guardians—a central institution of the Baha'i Faith. In her book, Rabbani suggests this outcome was part of a divine plan, writing:

"...They wanted a second Abdul Baha... But God seems to have had another idea."

Afnan counters this with a devastating, firsthand account, framing the end of the Guardianship not as God's will, but as the result of human ambition. He lays out the chain of events:

  • The will of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá explicitly stated that the Guardianship should pass from Shoghi Effendi to his progeny. Securing an heir was therefore a primary duty.
  • Afnan states that several people, including a family friend and nurse named Mrs. Edma Balloura Belmont, knew before the marriage that Mary Maxwell (the future Ruhiyyih Rabbani) was medically unable to have children.
  • He claims Rabbani was aware of this fact but concealed it to secure her marriage to the Guardian.

This is a critical point where Afnan's testimony moves from interpretation to direct accusation. He does not paraphrase or soften the blow, stating plainly:

"...for the sake of position and power she said nothing about it and proceeded with the marriage and succeeded in bringing the line to an end. A sin greater that this was inconceivable."

In Afnan’s telling, the end of the hereditary Guardianship was not a mysterious act of God, but a preventable human tragedy rooted in a devastating choice.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revelation 5: The 'Flawless Sovereign' Was a Man Tormented by Regret

While The Priceless Pearl portrays Shoghi Effendi as a sovereign leader vested with infallible authority, Ruhi Afnan’s letter reveals a far more complex and human figure. Drawing on his intimate perspective as cousin and secretary, he paints a picture of a man crushed by the weight of his responsibilities and haunted by a pivotal mistake.

Afnan points to the immense pressure Shoghi Effendi felt after being unexpectedly named Guardian, quoting his own words from a 1924 letter to illustrate this inner torment:

"my prolonged absence, my utter inaction, should not, however, be solely attributed to certain external manifestations of inharmony (sic), of discontent and disloyalty – however paralysing their effect has been upon the continuance of my work – but also to my own unworthiness and to my imperfections and frailties."

The source includes a crucial note that the Persian text is even stronger: "[In the Persian text it reads ‘I do not see myself as worthy of this position and do not consider myself as capable of carrying out these duties.’]"

Afnan locates the source of this anguish in Shoghi Effendi's fateful decision to study at Oxford. He reveals the full, tragic context:

  1. The trip was undertaken against the explicit wishes of his aging grandfather, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, who wanted to "personally familiarise and train him" for the succession. The decision caused ‘Abdu’l-Bahá "heartbreak."
  2. When ‘Abdu’l-Bahá died unexpectedly, Shoghi Effendi was abroad. This absence, Afnan asserts, was the very source of the "paralysis" in the Cause that he later lamented. It was a decision that became a source of his own profound and lasting regret, causing him to "shed tears of regret and remorse over it."

This portrait of a young man struggling with "unworthiness" and grappling with a lifelong wound offers a far more tragic and relatable figure than the one of "infallible guidance" presented in the official biography.

Source : Ruhi Afnan’s 1970 letter to the Spiritual Assembly of Iran

https://abdulbahasfamily.org/touba-khanum/ruhi-afnan/

How Baha'i Leaders Became a Tool in Britain’s Grand Strategy for Israel?


The Baha'i history is often told as a story of persecution, with its leaders exiled from Persia and moved across the Ottoman Empire for their beliefs.

But how did the path of this "peaceful" faith become strategically intertwined with the British Empire's geopolitical ambitions and the complex origins of the state of Israel? This article peels back the layers of official history, exploring surprising connections revealed in archival documents that link the Baha'i leadership's final exile in Palestine to a grander story of empire, land, and control of the Suez Canal.

Not Just Persecution: The Babi Exiles Were Triggered by a Decree for Holy Murder

The story of the Baha'i exiles began not with external oppression, but with a structural violence embedded in the faith’s own scripture. While persecution was a factor, the initial chain of events that drove the Babi community (the precursor to the Baha'is) out of Persia was triggered by violent internal conflict in Ottoman Iraq. The root of this chaos was a specific command from the Bab, the faith's founder, in his book the Bayán-i-Farsi:

"for the execution of whoever distresses him [the Promised One] from the face of the earth, in whatever way possible"

و الحکم علی اعدام من یحزننه من فوق الارض بما یمکن.​

After the Bab's death, this decree had a devastating effect. At least 25 different individuals claimed to be the "Promised One," plunging the Babi community into a period of assassinations and turmoil as rival factions sought to eliminate their competition. The situation became so dangerous that Baha'u'llah, the future founder of the Baha'i Faith, disappeared for two years into the mountains of Sulaymaniyah. Crucially, he was not fleeing the Ottoman or Persian governments; he was fleeing the threat of assassination by his fellow Babis.

This internal violence reframes the narrative: the Baha'i leadership became a complex political problem for Ottoman authorities to manage, creating an opportunity that British intelligence would soon exploit.

A British Gambit: Why the Empire Moved Baha'u'llah to the Doorstep of the Suez Canal

The ultimate decision to send Baha'u'llah to Akka, Palestine, was not a random act by the Ottomans; it was a strategic move proposed by the British. The key to understanding this geopolitical shift lies in the testimony of Asadullah Mamqani, the Iranian embassy's legal officer in Istanbul at the time. According to his records, the British ambassador was the one who suggested the final locations for the rival Babi leaders.

The British motive was purely strategic. First, to move the rival factions away from the Russian border, where their presence in Edirne was a security concern. Second, and more importantly, to relocate them to Palestine, a region squarely within Britain's sphere of influence and of critical importance. The timing was no coincidence: Baha'u'llah’s exile to Akka in 1868 occurred in perfect simultaneity with the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869, the Empire's new imperial artery. The British ambassador specifically noted that Baha'u'llah was "more political" than his rival brother, making his placement in this vital region a potentially valuable asset.

Baha'u'llah himself was a conscious political actor, fully aware of the imperial games at play. In a letter written to the Ottoman Sultan, he complained about his situation, explicitly acknowledging the forces shaping his fate: "You exiled me for the satisfaction of the Iranian government..." This British-engineered placement created the perfect conditions for the next phase of a much longer operation.

The Perfect Cover: 'Abdu'l-Baha's 50-Year Persona as a Muslim Imam

To operate effectively in Palestine, 'Abdu'l-Baha (Baha'u'llah's son and successor) adopted a dual identity—a strategy contrary to Baha'i teachings but essential for the mission. Upon arriving in Palestine, and for the next five decades until his death in 1921, 'Abdu'l-Baha regularly served as the Imam for the local Muslim community. He led public prayers in the grand mosques of Akka and Haifa, meticulously establishing himself as a pious and trusted religious figure.

This public persona was a strategic masterstroke. It provided him with the social standing and, most importantly, the legal credibility needed to navigate Ottoman law. This trusted identity as a high-standing member of the Muslim community was the essential prerequisite for his role in the complex and legally questionable land transactions that would define his time in Palestine. Furthermore, this "perfect cover" created a stable, pro-Western social anchor in a region Britain viewed as the primary buffer zone for its most critical imperial artery—the Suez Canal.

The Smoking Gun: An 1893 Ottoman Report Exposes a Secret Land-Selling Network

The paper trail leads directly to an explosive 1893 report from the Ottoman Prime Ministry Archives, which lays bare the mechanics of a sophisticated land transfer operation. This document, dated 1309 AH, serves as a "smoking gun," detailing the structure of a network designed to circumvent Ottoman laws that strictly forbade the sale of land to foreign settlers. The report’s damning findings reveal:

  • It explicitly names 'Abbas Effendi ('Abdu'l-Baha) as the leader of this network.
  • The report details the network's method: acquiring land from indebted Muslim villagers at bargain prices.
  • It then resold these properties to foreign Jewish settlers, including clients of Baron Hirsch, for exorbitant profits.
  • The entire operation was engineered to bypass Ottoman laws prohibiting such sales to foreign nationals.

The report’s conclusion is unambiguous:

"...'Abbas Effendi the Iranian, who has considerable wealth in Akka and is capable of doing anything with his influence, along with his like-minded associates, buys the lands of powerless individuals at very cheap prices each time and, after preparing them, sells them to Jews and foreigners at exorbitant prices and makes a fortune."

This official document provides clear, contemporary evidence of the system that facilitated the transfer of land ownership from the local population to foreign settlers. The scale of this operation would not go unrecognized.

Imperial Acknowledgment and Modern Confirmation: From a British Knighthood to an Israeli Academic

'Abdu'l-Baha's value to the British Empire became undeniable during World War I, when he actively collaborated with the British army by helping to supply their troops during the Palestine campaign. For these services, the British government awarded 'Abdu'l-Baha a knighthood in 1919—an honor reserved for those who provided a special and universal advantage for the Empire.

This long-standing operation has also been confirmed in modern times, declassifying the final piece of the puzzle. Dr. Soli Shahvar, head of the Center for Iran and Persian Gulf Studies at the University of Haifa, has stated the connection plainly:

"The early Jews were among the Baha'is in the Haifa area and in the transactions they had here. Before the establishment of the state of Israel, during the British Mandate, Jews bought land from the Baha'is and built buildings there."

This acknowledgment from an Israeli academic completes the historical chain of evidence, connecting the dots from the 1893 Ottoman report through the British Mandate period and up to the eve of Israel's founding.

A Geopolitical Masterstroke

The historical record reveals a remarkable story. A journey that began with violent internal religious conflict was expertly steered by the British Empire to serve its strategic interests. The engineered exile of the Baha'i leadership to Palestine created the perfect conditions for a decades-long operation that aligned perfectly with Britain's long-term goals for the region.

Under the cover of a respected religious persona, 'Abdu'l-Baha's network became an effective and clandestine tool for engineering the transfer of land ownership from the local population to foreign settlers. The evidence is unequivocal: without that Baha'i leadership network in Akka and Haifa, the path for the secret transfer of ownership and the groundwork for Israel would not have been possible in this way. This hidden history suggests that the foundation of a nation was built not only on grand political movements, but also on a subtle, fifty-year campaign of real estate acquisition.

The early history of the Bahá'í Faith is marked by a profound internal conflict over succession and authority

The early history of the Bahá'í Faith is marked by a profound internal conflict over succession and authority, particularly following the death of its founder, Bahá'u'lláh, in 1892. At the heart of this dispute were Bahá'u'lláh’s two sons, Abbas (Abdul-Bahá) and Muhammad Ali, whose differing interpretations of their father’s teachings led to a bitter rivalry. This conflict not only shaped the future of the movement but also sparked a series of theological and leadership disputes that continue to echo within the Bahá'í community today.

I. Disputes over Authority and Doctrine

Mohammed Ali Behai, through his proponents, asserts that the cause of the misunderstanding between him and Abdul Baha was based on the principles of their religion, not on "earthly possessions".

The primary points of contention raised by the Society of Behaists (followers of Mohammed Ali) against Abdul Baha include the following:

  • Interpretation and Infallibility: Abdul Baha claimed to be the Interpreter of the Utterances of Beha 'U'llah, even though Beha 'U'llah declared in the Book of Wisdom that there is no interpreter save Himself. The sources confirm that Beha 'U'llah strictly prohibited the interpretation of revelations that deviated from the "apparent meaning".
  • Succession and Station: Abdul Baha claimed Ghusni Akbar "was cut off and fell" from the position Beha 'U'llah appointed for him in the Book of My Covenant (Kitabi Ahdi), even though he had not yet had a chance to occupy it.
  • The Center of the Covenant: Abdul Baha claimed to be the "Centre of the Covenant," a claim rejected by his opponents who argued that only God is the Center of the Covenant.
  • Manifestation Status: Abdul Baha claimed to be a manifestation of servitude, and claimed that the Greatest Manifestation had three chiefs: The Bab, Beha 'U'llah, and himself. His opponents countered that Beha 'U'llah taught that there are no manifestations after Him until one thousand years passed from His appearance.
  • Claiming Revelation: Abdul Baha claimed great infallibility, calling his letters sacred tablets and revelations, despite Beha 'U'llah having stated that anyone claiming a mission before the completion of one thousand years from His manifestation is a "lying imposter".
  • Spreading Personal Teachings: Abdul Baha was accused of teaching and spreading his own doctrines instead of the teachings of Beha 'U'llah, as he was commanded to do.
  • Concealment of the Will: Abdul Baha was questioned regarding why he concealed a part of the Book of My Covenant, the last will of Beha 'U'llah.

II. Reciprocal Accusations and Covenant-breaking

Both sides leveled strong accusations against the other:

  • Against Mohammed Ali (Ghusni Akbar): Abdul Baha's will accuses him and others of "unpardonable crimes," "hostilities," and "interpolating and falsifying the Words and Verses of the Text".
  • Against Abdul Baha's Opponents (Covenant-breakers): Abdul Baha's will refers to those who opposed him as "Covenant-breakers". He writes that they "afflicted me with the arrows of hate", stirred up "grievous sedition," and attempted to "ruin the edifice of the Covenant". He warned that if they were "suffered to continue they would, in but a few days' time, exterminate the Cause of God".

III. Resulting Behai Sects

The internal conflicts led to a division into three major groups in America:

  1. The Society of Behaists (or Behaists): This is characterized as the oldest assembly. They believe Beha 'U'llah is the sole Manifestation and the beginner and the end of the religious dispensation. They accept His teachings literally and consider them final, opposing the necessity of an explainer or interpreter.
  2. The National Spiritual Assembly of the Behais of the United States and Canada (followers of Abdul Baha and Shoghi Effendi): They recognize Beha 'U'llah as the Author, but consider Abdul Baha the Interpreter and true Exemplar of the Cause. They accept the Will of Abdul Baha as final, incorporating it into their organization, thereby establishing a system of "infallible guardians and little popes" for the next thousand years.
  3. The New History Society: This group believes in both Beha 'U'llah and Abdul Baha, but does not accept the leadership of Shoghi Effendi, who was appointed as the Guardian in Abdul Baha's will.

IV. Fundamental Dispute over Clergy and Interpretation

A foundational dispute underlying the sectarian division is the adherence to Beha 'U'llah's principle of "Religion Without Clergy".

  • Beha 'U'llah commanded that His teachings are the leaders and guides for followers.
  • Shua'u'llah Behai suggests that historically, religious dissension and strife arose because religious leaders corrupted inspired teachings by misinterpretation to fulfill their selfish desires and rule the masses.
  • The Society of Behaists views the establishment of an infallible guardianship (following Abdul Baha's will) as "reproducing the supremacy of the Papacy" and argues that this violates the command to free oneself from the "clutches of religious leaders".

Note: We have kept the spellings as they appear in the sources.