• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
Muhammad Ali revealed verses when he was 6 years old, under the shadow of Baha'u'llah. Here is more info on this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/FreeSpeechBahai/comments/132aiz4

I agree with this, and it would also apply to Abdul Baha.


Baha'u'llah places no such condition on the succession. One could also say Abdul Baha joined partners with God by creating the UHJ and attributing infallibility to it, thus invalidating his claim to successorship.
Baha'u'llah mandated that the UHJ would come into existence He also said:

It is incumbent upon the Trustees of the House of Justice to take counsel together regarding those things which have not outwardly been revealed in the Book, and to enforce that which is agreeable to them. God will verily inspire them with whatsoever He willeth, and He, verily, is the Provider, the Omniscient.
(Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 68)

As to the verses revealed by Muhammad Ali see what Adib Taherzadeh said above about a Tablet Baha'u'llah revealed. Did you not read this? it was addressed to you.
In another Tablet[^177] revealed at this time when a few believers had been influenced by Mírzá Muḥammad-‘Alí's claim, Bahá’u’lláh asserts that when Muḥammad-‘Alí was a child of tender years He conferred upon him the power of utterance, so that people might witness His might and glory.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I agree with this, and it would also apply to Abdul Baha.
Why would the "Most Great Infallibility which is the prerogative of every Manifestation of God" apply to Abdu'l-Baha? He was not a Manifestation of God.

I do not believe that Abdu'l-Baha is infallible. What Baha'is have done is turn him into Jesus Christ and they follow him as Christians follow Jesus.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
There are different degrees of infallibility:

Abdu'l-Baha's infallibility may not be the Most Great Infallibility, but certainly, as a successor of Baha'u'llah, He must have been given a lesser degree of infallibility, in the same way that I am not given the most great falibility, but lesser falibility.
Infallible means incapable of making mistakes or being wrong.
I cannot understand how there can be degrees of infallibility. One is either infallible or not.

Sadly, I am starting to feel like a Christian, arguing over what the Bible means.:( The Baha'is are clinging to their doctrines and trying to stay unified but it is not going to work because some people think for themselves.

I now understand what some atheists were getting at some time ago when they said that Baha'is are dogmatic. I denied it then but I see it now. The dogma is more important to Baha'is than the teachings of Baha'u'llah, just like the Christian dogma became more important than the teachings of Jesus. Count me out.
 

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
I can agree that these practices are getting Baha'is nowhere, but the reason is not because they are not doing what you think they should be doing.
The reason Baha'is are getting nowhere is because they are not doing what Baha'u'llah has enjoined them to do, teach the Faith.
Instead, they are doing community building.
They are doing more than community building. They are involving people other than Baha'is in their activities. They are also teaching as they are able as these people are involved in Baha'i activities. It is hard going though in America. I quote this from the 2021 Ridvan letter from the UHJ:

Viewed from the perspective of the last two and a half decades, the capacity for undertaking social action has risen markedly, leading to an extraordinary efflorescence of activity. Compared with 1996, when some 250 social and economic development projects were being sustained from year to year, there are now 1,500, and the number of Bahá’í-inspired organizations has quadrupled to surpass 160. More than 70,000 grassroots social action initiatives of short duration are being undertaken each year, a fifty-fold increase.

So the Baha'is are more active, doing more good actions in the world. I don't have any numbers on growth of Baha'is in the world at this time. That is not the UHJ's way. They don't report the number of Baha'is in the world.
 

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
nfallible means incapable of making mistakes or being wrong.
I cannot understand how there can be degrees of infallibility. One is either infallible or not.
He was empowered to infallibly interpret Baha'u'llah's Writings. That's a lesser degree of infallibility. We also don't know when Abdu'l-Baha was interpreting Baha'u'llah since we only have a fraction of His Writings translated. So when Abdu'l-Baha says something we don't see in the translated Writings, we should give him the benefit of the doubt. Another aspect is that we don't know what inspiration He could derive from Writings we know. I go further than that and say that from the other worlds of God that Baha'u'llah is in, Baha'u'llah inspired Him infallibly from there. But that is my understanding.

No one is going to throw you out of the Faith for your stance for this, and I will put the question of whether we are dogmatic aside. That is not for me to know.
 

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
What Baha'is have done is turn him into Jesus Christ and they follow him as Christians follow Jesus.
We follow Baha'u'llah, and Abdu'l-Baha was the servant of Baha'u'llah. We know more about Abdu'l-Baha's actions than Baha'u'llah's generally speaking, so the Baha'is look to Abdu'l-Baha often on how they should act. Baha'u'llah said of Abdu'l-Baha that all the names of God revolved around Abdu'l-Baha. Logically what does that tell you? Do you logically have dissonance on this, that is see a logical conflict between the implication of what Baha'u'llah said about Him, and how you see some of Abdu'l-Baha's actions? Or do you have a different opinion on what all the names of God revolving around Abdu'l-Baha means? Shoghi Effendi also said this:

He is, and should for all time be regarded, first and foremost, as the Center and Pivot of Bahá'u'lláh's peerless and all-enfolding Covenant, His most exalted handiwork, the stainless Mirror of His light, the perfect Exemplar of His teachings, the unerring Interpreter of His Word, the embodiment of every Bahá'í ideal, the incarnation of every Bahá'í virtue, the Most Mighty Branch sprung from the Ancient Root, the Limb of the Law of God, the Being "round Whom all names revolve," the Mainspring of the Oneness of Humanity, the Ensign of the Most Great Peace, the Moon of the Central Orb of this most holy Dispensation -- styles and titles that are implicit and find their truest, their highest and fairest expression in the magic name 'Abdu'l-Bahá. He is, above and beyond these appellations, the "Mystery of God" -- an expression by which Bahá'u'lláh Himself has chosen to designate Him, and which, while it does not by any means justify us to assign to Him the station of Prophethood, indicates how in the person of 'Abdu'l-Bahá the incompatible characteristics of a human nature and superhuman knowledge and perfection have been blended and are completely harmonized.
(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 133)
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
He was empowered to infallibly interpret Baha'u'llah's Writings. That's a lesser degree of infallibility. We also don't know when Abdu'l-Baha was interpreting Baha'u'llah since we only have a fraction of His Writings translated. So when Abdu'l-Baha says something we don't see in the translated Writings, we should give him the benefit of the doubt. Another aspect is that we don't know what inspiration He could derive from Writings we know. I go further than that and say that from the other worlds of God that Baha'u'llah is in, Baha'u'llah inspired Him infallibly from there. But that is my understanding.

No one is going to throw you out of the Faith for your stance for this, and I will put the question of whether we are dogmatic aside. That is not for me to know.
Abdu'l-Baha also produced independent tablets. The Tablet of the Universe I see would fit that category. Abdu'l-Baha also wrote replies for questions given for Baha'u'llah.

No one knew the Message of the Bab and Baha'u'llah better than Abdul'baha.

Every Baha'i I know sees Abdu'l-Baha as the "Servant of Baha".

Regards Tony
 

danieldemol

Veteran Member
Premium Member
2. The infallibility? Would that be the same as Christians see Jesus? Did Abdul go to a crucifixion for death?
For those Christians who see Jesus as infallible it would be the same as the way Baha'i based in Haifa see Abdul-Baha.

Abdul-Baha was not crucified although he was imprisoned by the Ottomans for some time according to my understanding.
 
Baha'u'llah mandated that the UHJ would come into existence He also said:

It is incumbent upon the Trustees of the House of Justice to take counsel together regarding those things which have not outwardly been revealed in the Book, and to enforce that which is agreeable to them. God will verily inspire them with whatsoever He willeth, and He, verily, is the Provider, the Omniscient.
(Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 68)

No, Baha'u'llah did not mandate that the UHJ would come into existence. Baha'u'llah never even mentions the UHJ in his writings, nor does he ever describe a concept like it.

The quote you posted is not about the UHJ and contains nothing that would make one think it is about a global institution. Baha'u'llah says in the Kitab i Aqdas that the House of Justice is a local institution, to be built "in every city".

As to the verses revealed by Muhammad Ali see what Adib Taherzadeh said above about a Tablet Baha'u'llah revealed. Did you not read this? it was addressed to you.

I don't really care very much about what the hagiographer Adib Taherzadeh says, because I am a follower of Baha'u'llah, not Adib Taherzadeh.

As described by Baha'u'llah in the link I provided, Mirza Muhammad Ali was 6 years old when he revealed the verses, and he did so with the approval of Baha'u'llah. What exactly is the issue?
 
Why would the "Most Great Infallibility which is the prerogative of every Manifestation of God" apply to Abdu'l-Baha? He was not a Manifestation of God.

I do not believe that Abdu'l-Baha is infallible. What Baha'is have done is turn him into Jesus Christ and they follow him as Christians follow Jesus.
I meant I agree that the Most Great Infallibility does not apply to Abdul Baha. The comment I was quoting applies to Abdul Baha, not the Most Great Infallibility.
 
That is not correct. Abdu'l-Baha is not seen as a Messenger of God.

Regards Tony
Haifan Bahais say they believe Abdul Baha has a lesser status than Baha'u'llah, but in practice Abdul Baha's status is greater. First he is the one whose picture Bahais hang up in their houses, not Baha'u'llah. And whenever Abdul Baha and Baha'u'llah conflict, Bahais side with Abdul Baha. For example, Haifan Bahais consider bigamy to be forbidden because Abdul Baha said it was forbidden in communications with Western believers, even though Baha'u'llah permitted bigamy. So it seems that whatever infallibility Abdul Baha has is even greater than the Most Great Infallibility, in the view of Haifan Bahais.
 
No, according to my understanding they are more like a study group
Well I think at this point you might as well call it a Bible. I mean, if a Ruhi book contradicts something written in the Kitab i Aqdas, which one do you think Haifan Bahais would follow? Most Bahais I have encountered are far more preoccupied with "institutional guidance" than with the actual Bahai scripture.
 

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
No, Baha'u'llah did not mandate that the UHJ would come into existence. Baha'u'llah never even mentions the UHJ in his writings, nor does he ever describe a concept like it.
Baha'u'llah only uses the term House of Justice in His Writings it is true, but it clear from the context when He is referring to the UHJ or local Houses of Justice. Besides, He designated Abdu'l-Baha as His infallible interpreter so Abdu'l-Baha knew the difference.
I don't really care very much about what the hagiographer Adib Taherzadeh says, because I am a follower of Baha'u'llah, not Adib Taherzadeh.
Adib Taherzadeh is translating a Tablet by Baha'u'llah here. I believe him to be honest. it is also besides the point whether Muhammad Ali wrote "verses". Muhammad Ali broke the Covenant, and here's what Abdu'l-Baha said in His Will and Testament about that:

They that have been in His (Bahá'u'lláh's) Presence and beheld His Countenance, have nevertheless noised abroad such idle talk, until, exalted be His explicit words, He said: -- "Should he for a moment pass out from under the shadow of the Cause, he surely shall be brought to naught." Reflect! What stress He layeth upon one moment's deviation: that is, were he to incline a hair's breadth to the right or to the left, his deviation would be clearly established and his utter nothingness made manifest. And now ye are witnessing how the wrath of God hath from all sides afflicted him and how day by day he is speeding towards destruction. Ere long will ye behold him and his associates, outwardly and inwardly, condemned to utter ruin.

What deviation can be greater than breaking the Covenant of God! What deviation can be greater than interpolating and falsifying the words and verses of the Sacred Text, even as testified and declared by Mirza Badi'u'llah! What deviation can be greater than calumniating the Center of the Covenant himself! What deviation can be more glaring than spreading broadcast false and foolish reports touching the Temple of God's Testament! What deviation can be more grievous than decreeing the death of the Center of the Covenant, supported by the holy verse: -- "He that layeth a claim ere the passing of a thousand years...," whilst he (Muhammad Ali) without shame in the days of the Blessed Beauty had advanced such a claim as this and been confuted by Him in the aforementioned manner, the text of his claim being still extant in his own handwriting and bearing his own seal. What deviation can be more complete than falsely accusing the loved ones of God! What deviation can be more evil than causing their imprisonment and incarceration! What deviation can be more severe than delivering into the hands of the government the Holy Writings and Epistles, that haply they (the government) might arise intent upon the death of this wronged one! What deviation can be more violent than threatening the ruin of the Cause of God, forging and slanderously falsifying letters and documents so that this might perturb and alarm the government and lead to the shedding of the blood of this wronged one, -- such letters and documents being now in the possession of the government! What deviation can be more odious than his iniquity and rebellion! What deviation can be more shameful than dispersing the gathering of the people of salvation! What deviation can be more infamous than the vain and feeble interpretations of the people of doubt! What deviation can be more wicked than joining hands with strangers and with the enemies of God!
(Abdu'l-Baha, The Will and Testament, p. 6)

His actions made Muhammad Ali unfit to be the successor of Abdu'l-Baha according to recorded history outside of what Abdu'l-Baha says here. His deviation as Baha'u'llah says made him brought to naught. What else can we do but trust Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha? To do otherwise is to split the Baha'i Faith into numerous pieces and unable to perform it's central mission to help mankind achieve unity and peace. By trying to sow division you are fighting against God. You can't win. All you can do is damage yourself spiritually and break off a few people into a worse spiritual state.
 
Baha'u'llah only uses the term House of Justice in His Writings it is true, but it clear from the context when He is referring to the UHJ or local Houses of Justice.

What exactly makes it clear?

Besides, He designated Abdu'l-Baha as His infallible interpreter so Abdu'l-Baha knew the difference.

Baha'u'llah neither calls Abdul Baha "infallible" nor an "interpreter" in any of his writings.

Adib Taherzadeh is translating a Tablet by Baha'u'llah here. I believe him to be honest. it is also besides the point whether Muhammad Ali wrote "verses". Muhammad Ali broke the Covenant, and here's what Abdu'l-Baha said in His Will and Testament about that:

They that have been in His (Bahá'u'lláh's) Presence and beheld His Countenance, have nevertheless noised abroad such idle talk, until, exalted be His explicit words, He said: -- "Should he for a moment pass out from under the shadow of the Cause, he surely shall be brought to naught." Reflect! What stress He layeth upon one moment's deviation: that is, were he to incline a hair's breadth to the right or to the left, his deviation would be clearly established and his utter nothingness made manifest. And now ye are witnessing how the wrath of God hath from all sides afflicted him and how day by day he is speeding towards destruction. Ere long will ye behold him and his associates, outwardly and inwardly, condemned to utter ruin.

What deviation can be greater than breaking the Covenant of God! What deviation can be greater than interpolating and falsifying the words and verses of the Sacred Text, even as testified and declared by Mirza Badi'u'llah! What deviation can be greater than calumniating the Center of the Covenant himself! What deviation can be more glaring than spreading broadcast false and foolish reports touching the Temple of God's Testament! What deviation can be more grievous than decreeing the death of the Center of the Covenant, supported by the holy verse: -- "He that layeth a claim ere the passing of a thousand years...," whilst he (Muhammad Ali) without shame in the days of the Blessed Beauty had advanced such a claim as this and been confuted by Him in the aforementioned manner, the text of his claim being still extant in his own handwriting and bearing his own seal. What deviation can be more complete than falsely accusing the loved ones of God! What deviation can be more evil than causing their imprisonment and incarceration! What deviation can be more severe than delivering into the hands of the government the Holy Writings and Epistles, that haply they (the government) might arise intent upon the death of this wronged one! What deviation can be more violent than threatening the ruin of the Cause of God, forging and slanderously falsifying letters and documents so that this might perturb and alarm the government and lead to the shedding of the blood of this wronged one, -- such letters and documents being now in the possession of the government! What deviation can be more odious than his iniquity and rebellion! What deviation can be more shameful than dispersing the gathering of the people of salvation! What deviation can be more infamous than the vain and feeble interpretations of the people of doubt! What deviation can be more wicked than joining hands with strangers and with the enemies of God!
(Abdu'l-Baha, The Will and Testament, p. 6)

Of course Abdul Baha was against Mirza Muhammad Ali, this is no surprise.

His actions made Muhammad Ali unfit to be the successor of Abdu'l-Baha according to recorded history outside of what Abdu'l-Baha says here. His deviation as Baha'u'llah says made him brought to naught. What else can we do but trust Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha? To do otherwise is to split the Baha'i Faith into numerous pieces and unable to perform it's central mission to help mankind achieve unity and peace. By trying to sow division you are fighting against God. You can't win. All you can do is damage yourself spiritually and break off a few people into a worse spiritual state.
Would you mind quoting the "brought to naught" quote in its full context, and citing which tablet of Baha'u'llah it is from? If there is no English translation then we can look at the Arabic.
 

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
Haifan Bahais say they believe Abdul Baha has a lesser status than Baha'u'llah, but in practice Abdul Baha's status is greater. First he is the one whose picture Bahais hang up in their houses, not Baha'u'llah. And whenever Abdul Baha and Baha'u'llah conflict, Bahais side with Abdul Baha. For example, Haifan Bahais consider bigamy to be forbidden because Abdul Baha said it was forbidden in communications with Western believers, even though Baha'u'llah permitted bigamy. So it seems that whatever infallibility Abdul Baha has is even greater than the Most Great Infallibility, in the view of Haifan Bahais.
We don't hang a picture of Baha'u'llah in our houses because Baha'u'llah is too exalted to be put into public view. The monogamy decision of Abdu'l-Baha is based on His interpretation of Baha'u'llah. This note in the translation of the Aqdas is best in explaining Abdu'l-Baha's interpretation and also why Baha'u'llah appeared to be permitting two wives:

89. Beware that ye take not unto yourselves more
wives than two. Whoso contenteth himself with
a single partner from among the maidservants
of God, both he and she shall live in tranquillity. # 63

While the text of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas appears to permit
bigamy, Bahá'u'lláh counsels that tranquillity and contentment
derive from monogamy. In another Tablet, He
underlines the importance of the individual's acting in such
a way as to "bring comfort to himself and to his partner".
Abdu'l-Bahá, the authorized Interpreter of the Bahá'í
Writings, states that in the text of the Aqdas monogamy is
in effect enjoined. He elaborates this theme in a number of
Tablets, including the following:

Know thou that polygamy is not permitted under the law of
God, for contentment with one wife hath been clearly stipulated.
Taking a second wife is made dependent upon equity and justice
being upheld between the two wives, under all conditions.
However, observance of justice and equity towards two wives is
utterly impossible. The fact that bigamy has been made
dependent upon an impossible condition is clear proof of its
absolute prohibition. Therefore it is not permissible for a man to
have more than one wife.

Polygamy is a very ancient practice among the
majority of humanity. The introduction of monogamy has
been only gradually accomplished by the Manifestations of
God. Jesus, for example, did not prohibit polygamy, but
abolished divorce except in the case of fornication;
Muhammad limited the number of wives to four, but
making plurality of wives contingent on justice, and
reintroducing permission for divorce; Bahá'u'lláh, Who was
revealing His Teachings in the milieu of a Muslim society,
introduced the question of monogamy gradually in accordance
with the principles of wisdom and the progressive
unfoldment of His purpose. The fact that He left His
followers with an infallible Interpreter of His Writings
enabled Him to outwardly permit two wives in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas
but uphold a condition that enabled 'Abdu'l-Bahá to
elucidate later that the intention of the law was to enforce
monogamy.
 

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
Baha'u'llah neither calls Abdul Baha "infallible" nor an "interpreter" in any of his writings.
Here's where Baha'u'llah does this:

O people of the world! When the Mystic Dove
will have winged its flight from its Sanctuary of Praise
and sought its far-off goal, its hidden habitation, refer
ye whatsoever ye understand not in the Book to Him
Who hath branched from this mighty Stock.
(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 82)

No Baha'u'llah doesn't use specifically the words "interpreter" or "infallible" but in effect this is what He is saying. Besides, as Baha'u'llah saw Abdu'l-Baha as the person to turn to when we want to understand Baha'u'llah's Writings, Abdu'l-Baha Himself as the person we should trust to interpret this to mean that Abdu'l-Baha was authorized as the infallible interpreter of Baha'u'llah's Writings.

Baha'u'llah also said this about about Abdu'l-Baha:

PRAISE be to Him Who hath honoured the Land of Ba [1] through the presence of Him round whom all names revolve. All the atoms of the earth have announced unto all created things that from behind the gate of the Prison-city there hath appeared and above its horizon there hath shone forth the Orb of the beauty of the great, the Most Mighty Branch of God -- His ancient and immutable Mystery -- proceeding on its way to another land. Sorrow, thereby, hath enveloped this Prison-city, whilst another land rejoiceth. Exalted, immeasurably exalted is our Lord, the Fashioner of the heavens and the Creator of all things, He through Whose sovereignty the doors of the prison were opened, thereby causing what was promised aforetime in the Tablets to be fulfilled. He is verily potent over what He willeth, and in His grasp is the dominion of the entire creation. He is the All-Powerful, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise.
(Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 225)

We can trust Abdu'l-Baha therefore to not lie about this for His own gain.
Of course Abdul Baha was against Mirza Muhammad Ali, this is no surprise.

We can trust Abdu'l-Baha not to lie about Muhammad Ali for His own gain for the same reason we can trust Him not to interpret the verses above for His own gain. You can try to advance "alternative facts" if you want but it will have no effect on Baha'is here.
Would you mind quoting the "brought to naught" quote in its full context, and citing which tablet of Baha'u'llah it is from? If there is no English translation then we can look at the Arabic.
For reasons I quoted above about all the names of God revolving around Abdu'l-Baha you are not going to sway any Baha'is here. We trust Abdu'l-Baha for that reason to not inappropriately quote that passage. You have no understanding at present of the station of Abdu'l-Baha. Naturally I won't trust you as someone with an axe to grind to interpret from the Arabic the Tablet in question. The Tablet in question has not been translated in full, just the outline of what it said by a couple of Baha'is that I trust definitely before I would trust you.
 
Top