Baha'i groups discuss the Covenant of Baha'u'llah

[bahamut19]

To reject the Covernant is to reject Baha'u'llah and Baha'u'llah said when this happens

"...Shun them whose hearts are turned away from thee, and place not thy confidence in them, and entrust them not with thine affairs and the affairs of such as profess thy faith. Beware that thou allow not the wolf to become the shepherd of God's flock, and surrender not the fate of His loved ones to the mercy of the malicious. Expect not that they who violate the ordinances of God will be trustworthy or sincere in the faith they profess. Avoid them, and preserve strict guard over thyself, lest their devices and mischief hurt thee. Turn away from them, and fix thy gaze upon God, thy Lord, the All-Glorious, the Most Bountiful..." Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 233

Regards Tony

I used ChatGPT4 to translate the Suriy-i-Muluk. Here is the portion in question.

" Whoever betrays Allah will also betray the ruler and will not refrain from anything, nor will they act piously in matters concerning the people, for they are not among the righteous. Ensure that you do not relinquish control of your affairs to others and do not become complacent; be not among the heedless.

56 Those whose hearts are inclined towards others besides you should be treated with caution; do not trust them with your affairs or the affairs of the Muslims. Do not appoint the wolf as the shepherd of Allah’s sheep and do not leave His lovers under the control of His haters. Those who betray Allah in His command cannot be trusted with honesty or piety. Avoid them and be vigilant, lest their plots and harm affect you. Turn away from them and then turn to Allah, your Lord, the Mighty and Noble. Those who are for Allah, He is for them; those who rely on Him, He indeed protects them from all harm and from the deceit of contemptible schemers."

Instead of shunning, the translation says to use caution towards. A similar translation occurs in the Hidden Words. This is actually an important difference. Shunning is a psychological and potentially abusive act. Being cautious towards someone is not. It merely means still treat them as a human being but just use caution. Also, in the GPT4 version, Baha'u'llah tells the Sultan to not allow dishonest people to be in charge of the affairs of other Muslims. The version by the UHJ Bahais say "thy faith." The difference here is that Baha'u'llah was defending the people of a faith that is not exactly Baha'is, whereas the UHJ version is commonly interpreted to mean the Bahai Faith. Baha'u'llah was defending non-Bahais.

 

[Trailblazer]

the more humanity embraces the god, the more conflicts will be there. because either you will be worshiping a different god or following a different messenger or book.

That all depends upon which religion they ascribe to.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The difference here is that Baha'u'llah was defending the people of a faith that is not exactly Baha'is, whereas the UHJ version is commonly interpreted to mean the Bahai Faith. Baha'u'llah was defending non-Bahais.

It was my personal opinion I shared, not an official view, and I would suggest no other Baha'i has ever offered what I offered in that reply, so any attempt to use my reply against the entire Body of the Baha'i Faith is, well ludicrous. Also you have added more thoughts, one's I did not offer and also used those to discredit, they were your thoughts, not mine or any other Baha'i.

The key to all these warnings, be it to the kings, rulers, humanity, or covenant-breakers is unity. Anyone that has personal goals above the common good, is not to be trusted.

Self is our destruction, God is our salvation.

"....The well-being of mankind, its peace and security are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established. …
Ye are the fruits of one tree, and the leaves of one branch. Deal ye one with another with the utmost love and harmony, with friendliness and fellowship. He Who is the Day Star of Truth beareth Me witness! So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." – Baha’u’llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, pp. 286-287.

"It behoveth man to adhere tenaciously unto that which will promote fellowship, kindliness and unity." Bahá’u’lláh, Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 89

The theme of Baha’u’llah's Message is Oneness and unity, yet some choose to follow their own goals and created disunity.

Breaking the Covernant is disunity. There is on One Name and One Baha'i Faith. To attempt to make another, because one or two souls do not agree on what the vast majority have decided, is disunity.

Regards Tony

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I used ChatGPT4 to translate the Suriy-i-Muluk. Here is the portion in question.

" Whoever betrays Allah will also betray the ruler and will not refrain from anything, nor will they act piously in matters concerning the people, for they are not among the righteous. Ensure that you do not relinquish control of your affairs to others and do not become complacent; be not among the heedless.

56 Those whose hearts are inclined towards others besides you should be treated with caution; do not trust them with your affairs or the affairs of the Muslims. Do not appoint the wolf as the shepherd of Allah’s sheep and do not leave His lovers under the control of His haters. Those who betray Allah in His command cannot be trusted with honesty or piety. Avoid them and be vigilant, lest their plots and harm affect you. Turn away from them and then turn to Allah, your Lord, the Mighty and Noble. Those who are for Allah, He is for them; those who rely on Him, He indeed protects them from all harm and from the deceit of contemptible schemers."

Instead of shunning, the translation says to use caution towards. A similar translation occurs in the Hidden Words. This is actually an important difference. Shunning is a psychological and potentially abusive act. Being cautious towards someone is not. It merely means still treat them as a human being but just use caution. Also, in the GPT4 version, Baha'u'llah tells the Sultan to not allow dishonest people to be in charge of the affairs of other Muslims. The version by the UHJ Bahais say "thy faith." The difference here is that Baha'u'llah was defending the people of a faith that is not exactly Baha'is, whereas the UHJ version is commonly interpreted to mean the Bahai Faith. Baha'u'llah was defending non-Bahais.

Baha'u'llah has told us that the UHJ will be under His protection.
If we believe Baha'u'llah is Manifestation of God, how can we say, UHJ is making wrong decisions?

 

[trident765]

Baha'u'llah has told us that the UHJ will be under His protection.

No he did not, because the UHJ is not mentioned in Baha'u'llah's writings.

If we believe Baha'u'llah is Manifestation of God, how can we say, UHJ is making wrong decisions?

Because the UHJ is not endorsed by Baha'u'llah or mentioned in his writings.

 

[bahamut19]

Baha'u'llah has told us that the UHJ will be under His protection.
If we believe Baha'u'llah is Manifestation of God, how can we say, UHJ is making wrong decisions?

Baha'u'llah didn't designate interpretation or translation as a duty of any House of Justice. He also didn't make Abdul-Baha an infallible interpretor, although the believers were advised to turn to Abdul-Baha for anything they did not understand in the Book. That's about it.

It's disappointing to see the view of Covenant UHJ Baha'is saying the act of individual interpretation is bad or unnecessary, when Baha'u'llah throughout His writings wanted us to read and understand the writings. For things where the meaning is apparent, he said not to twist it or make it into something it isn't. For things where there could be several meanings, he wanted us to dig into these mysteries and see what truths we can discover for ourselves.

Now shunning versus exercising caution.... One is clearly a negative act which harms people, and the other just means to take great care to avoid danger.

Here is a link about shunning: The practice of shunning and its consequences – SEDAA – Our Voices

Some bullet points from the article..

• shunning or ostracising is a form of abuse.
• often used by communities, their leaders to be more specific, to ensure that everyone is obeying the same collective views. Failure to do so is often punished, by the person being banished from the community.
• ostracism being used within communities and institutions to enforce conformity, punishment or control, or all the above, in order to ensure their identity as a collective group. This means that there is no room for individual thinking or beliefs that go against the collective beliefs or rules.
• The phenomenon of shunning and ostracising has often been linked to cults.
• Shunning is often implemented by community leaders. They encourage families to also shun their family members, including their children.
• reinforces the ‘us versus them’ mentality
• shunning is a powerful tool for social influence
• The person then starts to attack their sense of self, which is also why shunning is often perceived as the death of personhood. This leads to feelings of helplessness, hopelessness and worthlessness, depression, low self-esteem, suicidal ideations and self-harming behaviours.
• high prevalence of PTSD amongst people who have been shunned.

With Abdul-Baha, Shoghi Effendi, and the UHJ trying to convince Baha'is that Baha'u'llah, and thus God, taught shunning is an act of evil and goes against the very thing God was trying to teach us. The use of shunning is immoral and harmful.

Using caution in certain situations is not abuse, it merely means to be careful. In the Surih-i-Muluk, the caution is for a King to be careful in who they appoint in leadership positions, so that citizens are not oppressed or harmed. This is clearly not shunning. Any leader who encourages shunning is not a leader guided by God. Any person who believes a leader who promotes shunning is infallible and perfect has betrayed God. It is as simple as that. Baha'u'llah never said to shun any person with only one exception, and that is only when the threat of murder existed. Saying Baha'u'llah said something He did not say should be considered blasphemy.

One final thought... if these "infallible leaders" which created the current UHJ lied about shunning, isn't it a reasonable question to wonder what else they lied about? My answer is they lied about a lot.

 

[CG Didymus]

there is no evidence of existence of god and none that bahollah was dispatched by such god. there is none about jesus and muhammad too.
a promise that the kingdom of god is arriving soon or a promise of 72 houries if some one dies in the cause of their god are just promises with no guarantee.
sdid the ancient prayers bring that about whatever be the reason? ha the human behavior changed in any way since the ancient times?

This thing about " "thy Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven", a promise that humanity will finally be one people under one God." Has nothing to do with what the NT teaches as true. The promise is more like all evil doers will be killed and sent to hell. All those that believe in Jesus will be saved and go to heaven. After all the evil people are killed off, then Jesus is supposed to come down and reign forever will those good people that love him and his father.

But that doesn't fit the Baha'i plan. So, a little tweak here and a little cherry-picking there and the Baha'is make all the past religions fit into their grand plan of a peaceful and united world under the laws of the Baha'i version of God. But it's not like they are the only ones that did that. Christianity did it to Judaism, Islam did it to Christianity. And now the Baha'i Faith has done it to all the Abrahamic religions, and for good measure, has thrown in Hinduism and Buddhism.

It's all kind of believable. I kind of believed it 50 years ago. God sent his messengers with a true message, and people messed it up. But now, God got smart and had his messenger write it all down so there wouldn't be any confusion. Oops, there still is confusion. Haifan Baha'is? Unitarian Baha'is? They almost believe in the same things. But disagree on just a few things. And there goes unity. Oh well, God tried. What else can he do?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

No he did not, because the UHJ is not mentioned in Baha'u'llah's writings.


Because the UHJ is not endorsed by Baha'u'llah or mentioned in his writings.

So, the House of Justice or Houses of Justice that Baha'u'llah spoke of, and said it will be under His protection, where is it? Or where are they?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Baha'u'llah didn't designate interpretation or translation as a duty of any House of Justice. He also didn't make Abdul-Baha an infallible interpretor, although the believers were advised to turn to Abdul-Baha for anything they did not understand in the Book. That's about it.

It's disappointing to see the view of Covenant UHJ Baha'is saying the act of individual interpretation is bad or unnecessary, when Baha'u'llah throughout His writings wanted us to read and understand the writings. For things where the meaning is apparent, he said not to twist it or make it into something it isn't. For things where there could be several meanings, he wanted us to dig into these mysteries and see what truths we can discover for ourselves.

Now shunning versus exercising caution.... One is clearly a negative act which harms people, and the other just means to take great care to avoid danger.

Here is a link about shunning: The practice of shunning and its consequences – SEDAA – Our Voices

Some bullet points from the article..

• shunning or ostracising is a form of abuse.
• often used by communities, their leaders to be more specific, to ensure that everyone is obeying the same collective views. Failure to do so is often punished, by the person being banished from the community.
• ostracism being used within communities and institutions to enforce conformity, punishment or control, or all the above, in order to ensure their identity as a collective group. This means that there is no room for individual thinking or beliefs that go against the collective beliefs or rules.
• The phenomenon of shunning and ostracising has often been linked to cults.
• Shunning is often implemented by community leaders. They encourage families to also shun their family members, including their children.
• reinforces the ‘us versus them’ mentality
• shunning is a powerful tool for social influence
• The person then starts to attack their sense of self, which is also why shunning is often perceived as the death of personhood. This leads to feelings of helplessness, hopelessness and worthlessness, depression, low self-esteem, suicidal ideations and self-harming behaviours.
• high prevalence of PTSD amongst people who have been shunned.

With Abdul-Baha, Shoghi Effendi, and the UHJ trying to convince Baha'is that Baha'u'llah, and thus God, taught shunning is an act of evil and goes against the very thing God was trying to teach us. The use of shunning is immoral and harmful.

Using caution in certain situations is not abuse, it merely means to be careful. In the Surih-i-Muluk, the caution is for a King to be careful in who they appoint in leadership positions, so that citizens are not oppressed or harmed. This is clearly not shunning. Any leader who encourages shunning is not a leader guided by God. Any person who believes a leader who promotes shunning is infallible and perfect has betrayed God. It is as simple as that. Baha'u'llah never said to shun any person with only one exception, and that is only when the threat of murder existed. Saying Baha'u'llah said something He did not say should be considered blasphemy.

One final thought... if these "infallible leaders" which created the current UHJ lied about shunning, isn't it a reasonable question to wonder what else they lied about? My answer is they lied about a lot.

Baha'u'llah wrote that God can make chosen ones infallible. I already quoted that. If Abdu'l-Baha is not infallible, but is appointed by Baha'u'llah as Leader after Himself, then that means God appointed someone who can take the Faith in the wrong direction. Then how can we know the right way of practicing Faith? How do we as Bahai community know what is the Right Path? Moreover, when God can make His chosen one, infallible, why wouldnt He appoint an infallible Leader after Baha'u'llah?

 

[Truthseeker]

It's disappointing to see the view of Covenant UHJ Baha'is saying the act of individual interpretation is bad or unnecessary, when Baha'u'llah throughout His writings wanted us to read and understand the writings. For things where the meaning is apparent, he said not to twist it or make it into something it isn't. For things where there could be several meanings, he wanted us to dig into these mysteries and see what truths we can discover for ourselves.

This is not taken away from Baha'is by Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi, or the UHJ. We can all have our individual interpretations so long as a Baha'i doesn't try to impose it on other Baha'is.

 

[trident765]

So, the House of Justice or Houses of Justice that Baha'u'llah spoke of, and said it will be under His protection, where is it? Or where are they?

I don't think a legitimate House of Justice exists in the world right now, because Baha'u'llah instructed the Houses of Justice to act as shepherds of God's flock, and take care of their community. But today no LSA makes an effort to look after the interests of their community, because the only thing they make an effort to do is the institute process, which is poison for Bahai communities. Baha'u'llah would not protect such LSAs since an LSA that does not look after the interests of its community is not a real House of Justice.

 

[Truthseeker]

Instead of shunning, the translation says to use caution towards.

You can't trust ChatGPT4. It is not human.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I don't think a legitimate House of Justice exists in the world right now, because Baha'u'llah instructed the Houses of Justice to act as shepherds of God's flock, and take care of their community. But today no LSA makes an effort to look after the interests of their community, because the only thing they make an effort to do is the institute process, which is poison for Bahai communities. Baha'u'llah would not protect such LSAs since an LSA that does not look after the interests of its community is not a real House of Justice.

So, Baha'u'llah wanted House of Justice to appear, but the plan failed and it did not appear?

 

[trident765]

So, Baha'u'llah wanted House of Justice to appear, but the plan failed and it did not appear?

Yes the Bahai Faith is failing because Bahais are not practicing their religion correctly.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Yes the Bahai Faith is failing because Bahais are not practicing their religion correctly.

Who has the authority to say that?

 

[Trailblazer]

If Abdu'l-Baha is not infallible, but is appointed by Baha'u'llah as Leader after Himself, then that means God appointed someone who can take the Faith in the wrong direction.

That is correct, and since Abdu'l-Baha was not infallible, the potential for the Faith to go in the wrong direction does exist.

Then how can we know the right way of practicing Faith? How do we as Bahai community know what is the Right Path?

By reading the Writings of Baha'u'llah. God knows there are certainly enough of them.

Moreover, when God can make His chosen one, infallible, why wouldnt He appoint an infallible Leader after Baha'u'llah?

Why would God do that? Why do we need to follow anyone else besides Baha'u'llah? Christians follow Jesus and that is enough for them.

 

[Trailblazer]

Who has the authority to say that?

Nobody needs authority to say that since it is only a personal opinion.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That is correct, and since Abdu'l-Baha was not infallible, the potential for the Faith to go in the wrong direction does exist.

I see that is incorrect. The potential for the faith to go in the wrong direction has naught to do with Abdul'baha who was appointed by Baha'u'llah as the centre of the Covernant, and naught to do with Shoghi Effendi as the one appointed by Abdul'baha as the Guardian of the Faith.

It is the Baha'i themselves that would have to reflect deeply as to why they did not follow the advice given by Baha'u'llah, and subsequently follow the advice that was given under the Covernant by Abdul'baha, Shoghi Effendi and the Universal House of Justice.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Nobody needs authority to say that since it is only a personal opinion.

Based on?

 

[Trailblazer]

This is not taken away from Baha'is by Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi, or the UHJ. We can all have our individual interpretations so long as a Baha'i doesn't try to impose it on other Baha'is.

There is some truth to that but it is not fully true. If Abdu'l-Baha has interpreted something we have to believe it is 'the very truth' so we aren't supposed to disagree with his interpretation.

For example, we are supposed to believe what Abdu'l-Baha wrote about the resurrection of Jesus being symbolic. I do not believe it was symbolic, I believe it was a fictional story that was intended to be understood as a real event. Hear that @CG Didymus?

What Abdu'l-Baha said about the resurrection of Jesus is not an 'interpretation' of the Writings of Baha'u'llah since Baha'u'llah did not write about the resurrection of Jesus. It is an 'addition' to the Writings of Baha'u'llah, and it is not the only addition. Did Baha'u'llah give Abdu'l-Baha the authority to add to what He wrote? I thought Abdu'l-Baha was only given the authority to interpret the Writings of Baha'u'llah. I hope you can see how this can get out of hand.