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

[bahamut19]

This is "An Epistle to the Bahá'í World" by Mirza Badi'u'llah. It is the sworn statement from the half-brother of `Abdu'l-Bahá. It is about Badi'u'llah's exit from, return to, and then exit again from the Bahá'í Faith. Translated from the Persian in 1907

It is important as Abdul'baha quotes this document in His Will and Testament.

An Epistle to the Bahá'í World

Letter from the half-brother of `Abdu'l-Bahá about Badi'u'llah's exit from, return to, and then exit again from the Bahá'í Faith.

bahai-library.com

"This epistle was written by him to set forth the reasons for his "return" and to inform the sincere seekers after the Truth concerning the attitude, the conduct and the actions of Mirza Mohammed Ali. The original Persian manuscript of the author, with his seal upon it, is preserved in Egypt, where the booklet has been printed and published throughout the Orient.

Ameen Ullah Fareed, M.D. Chicago, Illinois, August 27, 1907".

I will not put in any quotes, if people are interested they can read the document themsleves, one place in the document that Abdul-Baha quotes starts on page 12.

".......Now this servant (Mirza Badi'u'llah)
will forget all he has heard from other souls concerning the matter and will only write that which he has seen with his own eyes and heard [page 12] from their own tongues (i.e. of Mohammed Ali and his followers). thus may the truth of the matter be clear to all......"

That is the truth that Abdul-Baha faced.

Regards Tony

Mírzá Badíʻu’lláh - Bahaipedia, an encyclopedia about the Bahá’í Faith

bahaipedia.org

This page from Bahaipedia says Mirza Badi'u'llah had violated the Covenant for the majority of 58 years, from 1892 until 1950 when he passed away. For approximately 3 months in 1902 and 1903, he supported Abdul-Baha whereupon he wrote the the epistle you share.

As you and other members of the Baha'i Faith would consider Badi'u'llah to be a Covenant Breaker, why would you consider his epistle to be a trustworthy source about the actions and dynamics of his 2 brothers, Abbas Effendi (Abdul-Baha) and Mirza Muhammad Ali?

Why would this trustworthy source have supported Mirza Muhammad Ali for all but 3 months of 58 years? This might be for 0.4% of the time.

Have you read or shared any links about anything he said or wrote for that other 99.6% of the time he lived after the ascension of Baha'u'llah?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Mírzá Badíʻu’lláh - Bahaipedia, an encyclopedia about the Bahá’í Faith

bahaipedia.org

This page from Bahaipedia says Mirza Badi'u'llah had violated the Covenant for the majority of 58 years, from 1892 until 1950 when he passed away. For approximately 3 months in 1902 and 1903, he supported Abdul-Baha whereupon he wrote the the epistle you share.

As you and other members of the Baha'i Faith would consider Badi'u'llah to be a Covenant Breaker, why would you consider his epistle to be a trustworthy source about the actions and dynamics of his 2 brothers, Abbas Effendi (Abdul-Baha) and Mirza Muhammad Ali?

Why would this trustworthy source have supported Mirza Muhammad Ali for all but 3 months of 58 years? This might be for 0.4% of the time.

Have you read or shared any links about anything he said or wrote for that other 99.6% of the time he lived after the ascension of Baha'u'llah?

Abdu'l-Baha quoted sections in His will and Testament. Abdu'l-Baha tried constantly to bring all the relatives back to the Covenant.

They envied Abdu'l-Baha, as Abdu'l-Baha was loved by the vast majority of the inhabitants of Akka and Hafia, many enemies became friends.

So, there is a lot of history behind this epistle. It is trustworthy as this was an attempt to follow the Covenant of Baha'u'llah, a gift to show the power of the Covenant. God works in mysterious ways.

The years of deceitful accusations to the Ottomon authorities against Abdul'baha by Mirza Muhammad-Ali are well documented by eye witness.

Why would anyone even consider this person as a worthy successor? I really shake my head that people would even try. No worries,it will all fade away and be no more.

Regards Tony

 

[bahamut19]

Abdu'l-Baha quoted sections in His will and Testament. Abdu'l-Baha tried constantly to bring all the relatives back to the Covenant.

They envied Abdu'l-Baha, as Abdu'l-Baha was loved by the vast majority of the inhabitants of Akka and Hafia, many enemies became friends.

So, there is a lot of history behind this epistle. It is trustworthy as this was an attempt to follow the Covenant of Baha'u'llah, a gift to show the power of the Covenant. God works in mysterious ways.

The years of deceitful accusations to the Ottomon authorities against Abdul'baha by Mirza Muhammad-Ali are well documented by eye witness.

Why would anyone even consider this person as a worthy successor? I really shake my head that people would even try. No worries,it will all fade away and be no more.

Regards Tony

I'll restate your response within the original questions you asked.

I asked: As you and other members of the Baha'i Faith would consider Badi'u'llah to be a Covenant Breaker, why would you consider his epistle to be a trustworthy source about the actions and dynamics of his 2 brothers, Abbas Effendi (Abdul-Baha) and Mirza Muhammad Ali?

Your answer: Yes. The Covenant automatically makes any person trustworthy. To be outside of the Covenant makes a person untrustworthy.

I asked: Why would this trustworthy source have supported Mirza Muhammad Ali for all but 3 months of 58 years? This might be for 0.4% of the time.

Your answer: Because he was only trustworthy for the 3 months he professed belief in the Covenant as taught by the Administrative Order of the Baha'i Faith. The Covenant is the only force which can make a person trustworthy, even if only for a short time.

I asked: Have you read or shared any links about anything he said or wrote for that other 99.6% of the time he lived after the ascension of Baha'u'llah?

Your answer: No, but I am too uninterested in anything else Badi'u'llah has written to even consider it. I follow anything Abdul-Baha told me blindly.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I asked: As you and other members of the Baha'i Faith would consider Badi'u'llah to be a Covenant Breaker, why would you consider his epistle to be a trustworthy source about the actions and dynamics of his 2 brothers, Abbas Effendi (Abdul-Baha) and Mirza Muhammad Ali?

Your answer: Yes. The Covenant automatically makes any person trustworthy. To be outside of the Covenant makes a person untrustworthy.

Anything that Abdul-Baha quoted, from any writings, is trustworthy in the context given.

There are many things that Covenant Breakers dod and wrote that are valid while they were within the Covenant, it is sure protection. Mason Reamy an example, but I have no desire to talk about them, such is the Covenant, once removed the twigs and leaves are only fit for the fire, or compost.

Once a person removes themselves from that Covenant, the veil of self becomes very apparent, there becomes an aim to show people they possess the right interpretations of the Writings of the Bab and Baha'u'llah, they do not, no one has anymore since the passing of Abdul-Baha and then of Shoghi Effendi.

The great thing about the Universal House of Justice is that they guide by the explanations given by Abdul'baha and Shoghi Effendi, the line of the Covenant is the only sure guide.

You have removed yourself from the Baha'i Faith, you have said the whole body of Baha'is got it wrong and a few individuals knew better, so obviously you must also think you can do it better! I ask in all sincerity, is that the case.

I really do not have much else to offer, unity is the Message of Baha’u’llah, the Faith of Baha’u’llah is the Baha'i Faith, there is none other, there is no future for the peace and security of humanity in any other path, for any individual.

The contrast of the lives of Abdul-Baha, a true servant of the poor and needy, to the life of Mirza Muhammad Ali, who was always looking at what could be gained to feed a comfortable life, desiring money and the Baha'i properties, speaks for its own self.

The choice is always yours.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

You have removed yourself from the Baha'i Faith, you have said the whole body of Baha'is got it wrong and a few individuals knew better, so obviously you must also think you can do it better! I ask in all sincerity, is that the case.

What I wonder is how they could do much at all, even if they do know better. It makes more sense to me that all the Baha'is who profess a belief in Baha'u'llah come together in unity, instead of arguing about the Covenant. Then of course I am more of a pragmatist than an idealist.

 

[Link]

There are those who believe there is a current Imam, I think the last time I checked, he was living in Australia. Can you give fill me on information on that.

 

[trident765]

What I wonder is how they could do much at all, even if they do know better. It makes more sense to me that all the Baha'is who profess a belief in Baha'u'llah come together in unity, instead of arguing about the Covenant. Then of course I am more of a pragmatist than an idealist.

The reason the (Haifan) Covenant must be rejected is that belief in it results in Bahai communities unitedly doing the Institute Process, and the Institute Process destroys Bahai communities. The Institute Process is the reason there are no young people at Bahai activities today, and the reason the Institute Process ended up taking over the Bahai Faith was because of the Covenant.

 

[Link]

There are those who believe there is a current Imam, I think the last time I checked, he was living in Australia. Can you give fill me on information on that.

Or was it New Zealand? It think New Zealand.

 

[Link]

The reason the (Haifan) Covenant must be rejected is that belief in it results in Bahai communities unitedly doing the Institute Process, and the Institute Process destroys Bahai communities. The Institute Process is the reason there are no young people at Bahai activities today, and the reason the Institute Process ended up taking over the Bahai Faith was becaus

I think the reason why it does not fly is because of how obviously false it is. The Ahmadi religion is more vibrant, because the Mahdi is a chosen person whether Sunni Islam accepts it or not. Their interpretation of Quran although problematic, is more down to earth.

The Bahai interpretation of day of judgment is way out of place. Maybe a life time of sins can get a heart to be that playful to Quran and twist it. But young people even if sinful, are not that reckless with the Quran.

 

[Trailblazer]

The reason the (Haifan) Covenant must be rejected is that belief in it results in Bahai communities unitedly doing the Institute Process, and the Institute Process destroys Bahai communities. The Institute Process is the reason there are no young people at Bahai activities today, and the reason the Institute Process ended up taking over the Bahai Faith was because of the Covenant.

Can you explain exactly what you mean by the Institute Process and why you think that the Institute Process destroys Baha'i communities?

Are you saying that young people who belong to the Baha'i Faith don't attend Baha'i activities because of the Institute Process? How do you know that?
I am an older Baha'i and I never took part in Ruhi, if that is what you mean by the Institute Process, but that is not a reason to not take part in other Baha'i activities such as Feasts.

What if the Baha'i Faith was not doing the Institute Process, then would you have no objections to what they are doing?

 

[Trailblazer]

I think the reason why it does not fly is because of how obviously false it is. The Ahmadi religion is more vibrant, because the Mahdi is a chosen person whether Sunni Islam accepts it or not. Their interpretation of Quran although problematic, is more down to earth.

The Bahai interpretation of day of judgment is way out of place. Maybe a life time of sins can get a heart to be that playful to Quran and twist it. But young people even if sinful, are not that reckless with the Quran.

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is a branch of Islam founded in the Punjab region of India by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in 1889. Ahmad claimed to be another prophet, specifically the messiah expected to bring about the end times and the peaceful conversion of the world to the true lost form of Islam. There are 10-20 million Ahmadis worldwide and approximately 15,000-20,000 in the United States.

https://interfaithalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Ahmadi-5Facts.pdf

Anyone can make a claim. What kind of evidence does Mirza Ghulam Ahmad have to support his claim to be the long awaited messiah?
Did he fulfill any of he prophecies in the Bible?

 

[Link]

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is a branch of Islam founded in the Punjab region of India by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in 1889. Ahmad claimed to be another prophet, specifically the messiah expected to bring about the end times and the peaceful conversion of the world to the true lost form of Islam. There are 10-20 million Ahmadis worldwide and approximately 15,000-20,000 in the United States.

https://interfaithalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Ahmadi-5Facts.pdf

What kind of evidence does Mirza Ghulam Ahmad have to support his claim to be the long awaited messiah? Did he fulfill any of he prophecies in the Bible?

Neither of you have evidence. But his interpretation of Quran is a lot more down to earth which is why he has more followers.

 

[Trailblazer]

Neither of you have evidence. But his interpretation of Quran is a lot more down to earth which is why he has more followers.

Baha'u'llah does have evidence that supports His claims.

 

[Link]

Baha'u'llah does have evidence that supports His claims.

Ambiguous circumstantial evidence, is not a proof.

 

[Trailblazer]

Ambiguous circumstantial evidence, is not a proof.

Evidence is not proof. There is no proof that any of the Messengers were sent by God.

 

[Link]

Evidence is not proof. There is no proof that any of the Messengers were sent by God.

Evidence that proves something is a proof. Evidence that is circumstantial is not proof.

 

[Trailblazer]

Evidence that proves something is a proof. Evidence that is circumstantial is not proof.

There is no evidence that proves that any Messengers were sent by God.

I don't know what you mean by circumstantial evidence or why you think that is all that Baha'u'llah had.

 

[Link]

There is no evidence that proves that any Messengers were sent by God.

I don't know what you mean by circumstantial evidence or why you think that is all that Baha'u'llah had.

It's what I concluded after studying it.

Evidence that proves something is a proof. If Baha'allah does not have that, he is not a Messenger from God.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's what I concluded after studying it.

What did you conclude, that the evidence was circumstantial, and what do you mean by circumstantial?

Evidence that proves something is a proof. If Baha'allah does not have that, he is not a Messenger from God.

The evidence will be proof to some people but it will not be proof to everyone, so we can prove it to ourselves, but not to everyone.
Think about this: Since we can never prove that God exists, how could we ever prove that a Messenger got messages from God?

 

[Link]

What did you conclude, that the evidence was circumstantial, and what do you mean by circumstantial?

It means "If I was a Messenger of God, this would support the idea possibly (even though it's not necessarily so)".

A proof from evidence: this is evidence that this and that is impossible except if so and so is sent by God.